[streetfighter64]

If they just wrote the owners of the weapons companies a check directly, the public wouldn't like that as much as the "patriotic" "war on terror". But of course there's also other reasons such as religious fundamentalism (christian zionism) that influence it.

[Fizz43]

They do write weapons companies direct checks through research and procurement contracts. No one cares because the amount is tiny. Its not this huge market being pumped like slopulists pretend it is. Politicians dont need to invest in defense companies to get rich they can invest in anything with their insider knowledge. Defense companies dont need a war to get government money.

[streetfighter64]

> research and procurement contracts. No one cares because the amount is tiny.

> In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, DOD obligated more money on defense contracts ($445 billion) than all other government agencies combined ($310 billion).

https://www.gao.gov/blog/snapshot-government-wide-contractin...

> Defense companies dont need a war to get government money.

> military operations in support of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). DOD's reported annual obligations for GWOT have shown a steady increase from about $0.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to about $162.4 billion in fiscal year 2008

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-09-233r

[Fizz43]

445 billion is tiny on the budget of the US government. your stat showing the increase in spending from 2001 to 2008 does nothing to support your narrative. Defense spending goes up after you're attacked wow shocking.

Money is spent on defense contracts regardless of an active war. There is no evidence that wars are being started to get an extra few hundred million in budget each year spread out across the entire industry.

[streetfighter64]

> 445 billion is tiny on the budget of the US government.

I don't know if you're just not very good with money or straight up denying reality, but 6.6% of the total government expenditure or 9% of total revenue for 2024, is not at all tiny. To give you an example so you might comprehend it, that's like a yearly expenditure of $5900 for a person with the mean salary of $66000 yearly. How is that tiny?

For comparison the annual spending on ALL education K-12 costs 850-950 annually. So what's 2x tiny, is that also tiny?

> Defense spending goes up after you're attacked wow shocking.

Let me help you out with the math a bit here: 162.4 / 0.2 = 812. This is an increase of 81100% in 7 years. If you compare 1940 ($17.5B) to 1945 ($89.5B) that's an increase of 411% in 5 years.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-resources/budget/...

Anyway, I will stop replying to you now since your statements have already became highly nonsensical.

[Fizz43]

6.6% of total government expenditure is significantly smaller than you tried to make it out to be. What are you trying to show with a per captia comparison its not paid as a % of the persons salary the person make 66k is probably paying less than $100 towards the military. It doesnt even make sense towards your original point as it gets paid out in times of peace.

You're trying to cherry pick this time in history before the US was a global superpower and compare it as if it supports your point. You have nothing to show that wars are being started for profit.

All the wars are clearly geopolitical in nature. In 2001 the defense budget didnt increase because politicians said we need to make more money in the defense industry and isreal needs more land. They said holy shit we just got attacked in New York we need to retaliate.

[streetfighter64]

It's not a "per capita comparison". I'm asking you, if you spend 6.6% of your own salary on something, would you call that "tiny"? Are you actually genuinely misunderstanding this or are you being obtuse on purpose?

> It doesnt even make sense towards your original point as it gets paid out in times of peace.

Right, so the USA is spending a huge amount on its military (remember, $445B is only the external contracts, not salaries etc.) and also simultaneously just happens to get involved in a bunch of conflicts without any clear goal or purpose. But the two are entirely unrelated, of course.

> You're trying to cherry pick

No. In case you don't know about it, there was a world war happening during the period '40-45. Why did the USA only need to increase it's spending by 400% in order to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, while needing a 81100% increase in spending in order to lose against Afghanistan etc.?

> All the wars are clearly geopolitical in nature.

Mind explaining the geopolitical goals achieved by the current war in Iran? Or the previous in Afghanistan? Or just pick any war in the middle east from the last 30 years.

> They said holy shit we just got attacked in New York we need to retaliate.

Retaliate against who exactly?