· 129 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 20, 2026 at 9:11 PM

US spending on ‘reckless’ Iran war could have saved 87m lives, says UN

Posted by No_Idea_Guy

US spending on ‘reckless’ Iran war could have saved 87m lives, says UN
the Guardian
US spending on ‘reckless’ Iran war could have saved 87m lives, says UN
Head of UN’s humanitarian agency frustrated that $2bn weekly cost of conflict comes amid big cuts to aid budgets
🚩 Report this post

129 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
celix24 Apr 20, 2026 +467
Saving lives?? What is this?! Socialist communism??!
467
All_Hail_Hynotoad Apr 20, 2026 +48
Yeah! Where are everyone’s bootstraps??? /s
48
Actual__Wizard Apr 20, 2026 +34
Yeah the government is just suppose to kill people according to conservatives. The people are just suppose to be rugged individuals and figure it out on their own. Never mind that there's a giant society of people with complex functions that should be regulated, apparently it all works on it's own, contrary to what every economist has observed through out history.
34
machopsychologist Apr 21, 2026 +5
American exceptionalism is so hot right now.
5
Hyperversum Apr 21, 2026 -1
You being downvoted is wild lmao
-1
juicadone Apr 21, 2026 +3
Forreal I legitimately think a couple people didn't understand, then others didn't read and jumped on the negative rating bandwagon. It is an Idiocracy though so checks out!
3
Actual__Wizard Apr 21, 2026 +1
I'm legitimately just reading the party platform basically. According to them, the government is just suppose to be a military. I mean they voted for people who live their life by criminal logic... So the way society is suppose to work is we all rob each other? WTF? So, no regulations, no safety net, we're all just on our own huh? So, America is suppose to be a non functional society? I mean they did it, everything is falling apart. Why did they want that exactly? Their weird idealistic views clearly do not work in reality.
1
BS2H Apr 21, 2026 +2
Very reminiscent of spartan history. Invest only in the military, tight citizenship rules, Population decline, uprisings and revolts, and military depletion.
2
Actual__Wizard Apr 21, 2026
I just hope that we don't end up invading Cuba or something.
0
CatcatchesMoth Apr 21, 2026
I'm going to hope, (for my faith in humanity) that it's bots
0
Marsupialmania Apr 21, 2026 -5
They have more Christian or Judeo Christian things to do
-5
sharies Apr 21, 2026 -12
It's not about saving lives it's about forcing people to have more babies.
-12
IntelArtiGen Apr 20, 2026 +162
If the UN's job is to promote peace and prevent wars, I'm not sure these messages are effective. The US invested in missiles rather than in healthcare, Iran did the same, Russia did the same, almost all countries do the same thing actually, the world is paying hundreds if not thousands of billions in weapons. We could all invest this money for climate change, healthcare, to fight against poverty. We don't, and we all know that. Will this message help prevent future wars, and create peace, and convince all nations to stop wars forever? I doubt so. Other approaches, on the other hand, may be more effective. Countries involved have allies, they can be pressured into a fair and lasting peace. We pay diplomats to do this job, hopefully they can do it well.
162
Moral-Relativity Apr 21, 2026 +21
All the permanent Security Council members only see UN as useful public opinion basically.
21
rogue_ir Apr 20, 2026 +47
The UN has a management problem, it's essentially designed to fail because the only countries the board nations can agree to do peacekeeping in is Africa, and yet most of the funds towards those peacekeeping nations end up wasted.
47
IntelArtiGen Apr 20, 2026 +6
In this case I'm not sure peacekeeping forces are a solution. The problem is that the UN is too weak and no country will give it a real army. I think the US is mostly here to create a dialog between countries. And with a dialog, countries around the world can exert political pressure on other countries. The EU / Japan / South Korea / GCC can talk with the US; China / India can talk with Iran. And they can also all talk together. Many influential countries can be impacted by this war (and are already impacted), and they all have a job to do to prevent an escalation. Europe doesn't want it, China doesn't want it, it's possible to talk to solve the issues and prevent it. I think they've all been too lazy about these issues over the last 2 years. I don't think the UN can be managed in a better way when conflicts involve countries like that.
6
Upset_Albatross_9179 Apr 20, 2026 -3
I suspect this specific comparison is motivated by the Trump administration * drastically cutting programs like USAID supposedly with the purpose of saving money. * joining a war that seems to have been largely elective with unclear results, which many people seem to believe will have terrible humanitarian ripple effects The primary point I take from it isn't that governments should divert substantial chunks of defense spending to humanitarian aid. Rather that the US should think about why they thought it was so important to stop that life-saving aid.
-3
SomeCrazyBastard Apr 21, 2026 -4
I appluad you for this very naunced comment. Just wanted to say that.
-4
Better_Cauliflower63 Apr 20, 2026 +267
Ok I'm against the war but that is hypocritical. Throughout the years the US has been about the largest contributor to various UN humanitarian programs. If the rest of the countries were to contribute more, hundreds of million lives could have been saved. 
267
chewbaccawastrainedb Apr 21, 2026 +89
The U.S has been the number one contributor to the World Food Programme for 27 straight years.
89
green_flash Apr 21, 2026 -20
Not per capita
-20
[deleted] Apr 21, 2026 +22
[removed]
22
green_flash Apr 21, 2026 +5
Looking at all contributions for UN humanitarian causes, here's the comparison on a per-country basis: https://fts.unocha.org/global-funding/donors/2025?order=total_funding&sort=desc 1 US $3.3B 2 EU $2.9B 3 Saudi Arabia $2.1B 4 UK $1.9B 5 UAE $1.7B 6 Qatar $1.7B 7 Germany $1.3B 8 Japan $1.2B 9 Switzerland $948M 10 Norway $921M Per capita, the US is far from the biggest contributor.
5
imminatural Apr 21, 2026 +13
I'm *sure* that distinction matters to the people receiving USAid.
13
UnoriginalStanger Apr 21, 2026 +3
But it does matter when judging the act itself.
3
Killerfisk Apr 21, 2026
>I'm sure that distinction matters to the people receiving USAid. It matters in the context of "If the rest of the countries were to contribute more", as they may already be contributing more as a % of what they have/take in annually.
0
twitterfluechtling Apr 21, 2026 -2
Right. So, let's compare EU to Florida, EU to Texas, EU to ... Suddenly the EU would be biggest contributor? Really, absolute numbers aren't helping much in this discussion. Percentage of GDP might be relevant, or amount per capita.
-2
imminatural Apr 21, 2026 +3
The EU can't even function without every member agreeing, so lumping them together gives more weight than they should be given, given their inability to unite. The EU still has not created a Russia-Ukraine peace proposal with an enforcement mechanism *because they don't see themselves as the same people*. Per capita measures only matter when the problem scales with the people affected, and the number of people in need of aid is a fixed number. The US functions as a unit, and the EU doesn't; united the US stands, divided the EU falls.
3
AustinDarko Apr 20, 2026 -72
Also the richest country. Per capita is an important statistic to consider here.
-72
ResortClear730 Apr 20, 2026 +105
Yeah but the US pays 22% of the regular budget and 26% for the peacekeeping budget. Thats way more than any other country.
105
mallcopbeater Apr 20, 2026 +89
Hey now, this is Listnook. America = bad
89
green_flash Apr 21, 2026 -9
The US GDP is also 26% of the world GDP, so that's a fair contribution. Unfortunately it's gone down under Trump.
-9
imissher4ever Apr 21, 2026 +3
How much is China’s? Why aren’t they contributing?
3
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 -41
[deleted]
-41
Better_Cauliflower63 Apr 21, 2026 +45
This is simply an office of one agency within the UN, specifically **United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs**, but it is not total funding for humanitarian budget. In reality, United States contributes BILLIONS to the UN for humanitarian budgets, for example for such programs as WFP, UNHCR, UNICEF. On its own, (current administration is... a bit lacking but still) contributes directly via USAID and direct funding of multiple NGOs. OCHA is a very small part of this, hence small contribution. Humanitarian operations don’t run on per-capita, they run on total dollars, and by that measure the U.S. carries a disproportionate share. This particular administration is lacking, however they still contributed 3.38 billion in 2025 for humanitarian causes to the UN: [https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1489845/us-pledges-2-billion-in-humanitarian-support-to-un-state-department-says.html](https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1489845/us-pledges-2-billion-in-humanitarian-support-to-un-state-department-says.html) , that's down from 17 billion in 2022. Again, look at historical numbers too.
45
OHoSPARTACUS Apr 20, 2026 +19
What about the year before that? last year was year one of the trumpageddon
19
green_flash Apr 20, 2026 +22
According to the annual report, the US was ranked 1st in 2024, contributing $63M, ahead of the UK with $32M, Sweden with $30M, Germany with $25M, the EU with $19M and Norway with $15M: https://www.unocha.org/attachments/d55f1839-c172-4580-95ef-4e35c16dd6a7/OCHA_Annual_Report_2024.pdf
22
AbstractSyntax Apr 20, 2026 -40
Ok I’m against hypocrisy, but the US since 1/20/25 has actively been opposed to humanitarian programs, leading to the death of millions. Two things can be true. The UN could do more and also, the insane amount of spending on a war of choice over pedophilic egos could have saved millions of lives.
-40
Quiet_Assumption_326 Apr 21, 2026 +35
The world's fascination of slapping the US with one hand while demanding money from it with the other is an interesting take.
35
dafll Apr 20, 2026 -25
Not from the article but everything is going to get more expensive because of the oil shortages. So even if they out up the money it would do less. We wasted money AND made it more expensive to save lives(and buy food)
-25
joelfarris Apr 20, 2026 +9
Once again, there are no oil shortages. There's only a shortage of the c**** stuff that you can get by cruising down to the corner...
9
SendStoreMeloner Apr 20, 2026 +195
That doesn't make any sense.
195
lepreqon_ Apr 21, 2026 +32
UN rarely makes sense.
32
AngleParticular2914 Apr 21, 2026 +27
Stop it. You’re supposed to only post kneejerk outrage comments.
27
SY0123 Apr 20, 2026 +58
Money that was used to blow shit up could be used to build things up or feed people or cure people etc etc.
58
breakwater Apr 20, 2026 +65
Of course the UN will be setting aside money and saving those 89 million people right? ... right?
65
AngleParticular2914 Apr 21, 2026 +42
Too busy nominating Iran to the human rights council
42
green_flash Apr 20, 2026 -10
That's their goal, yes: https://www.unocha.org/87-million-lives-one-life-time But they need funding for that.
-10
CLGToady Apr 21, 2026 +37
Maybe more people would still be in favor of funding UN projects if they weren't extremely sympathetic to terrorists
37
UnoriginalStanger Apr 21, 2026 -1
The people that think the UN is extremely sympathetic to terrorists probably aren't the ones that would be most in favour regardless.
-1
tagillaslover Apr 20, 2026 +74
So basically the UN expecting America to be the world's piggy bank again?
74
imminatural Apr 21, 2026 +2
What other superpower would be? China? *Hahahaha*.
2
Lezerald Apr 20, 2026 -15
There are countless US citizens suffering from poverty that could use that money too, you know. If the thought of spending a fraction of a penny of your taxes to save human lives is too much to bear for you, you could always start with your veterans. It's not exactly hard to find better uses for your tax dollars than your presidents insider trading schemes.
-15
Devie222 Apr 20, 2026 +15
...except it is never just a fraction of a penny to fund these types of programs on our taxes. It is always far far more. And yes you could say you are just using a figure of speech but it is simply not the reality.
15
Lezerald Apr 20, 2026 -17
Not entire programs, but broken down costs for saving individual lives. Universal healthcare would reduce the average spending on healthcare in the US more than it costs now. If you doubt me, look at the stats related to this comparing healthcare costs between nations. So, feel free to start with yourselves than with others. After that, helping stablizing the world benefits all long term in many respects but I know we're not ready to have that conversation, yet, if ever.
-17
Devie222 Apr 21, 2026 +6
No, I support universal healthcare too in the United States. It is one of the most glaring flaws of our country. There is no excuse why we are practically the only industrialized first world country to not have it yet besides simple corporate greed from the healthcare and (moreso) private insurance industry in our country. I may have misinterpreted your post in my response, as I have read U.S. citizens pay more for private health insurance than the average European citizen pays in taxes for their country's universal healthcare program, and the U.S. still has worse health outcomes. I think my point was just that saying it would only be a fraction of a penny in everyone's taxes is grossly simplifying the cost of such a program to a population as large and unhealthy as the U.S. But there is much I agree with you on this topic. I am thankful the U.S. at least has Medicare and Medicaid, but Medicare and Social Security will go insolvent in a matter of years if Congress doesn't fix the funding of those programs soon. I am currently on Medicaid as I am in between jobs after graduating college. I am grateful for what it saves for my family but when I start working again soon and make over a certain (low) threshold it is back to private health insurance ☹️. I had private health insurance last year but the company providing it shut down their private health insurance branch. I only had it for a year after having to leave my parents' insurance plan before they shuttered it.
6
dmk_aus Apr 20, 2026 -14
Better spend it on blowing up a country then and trashing the global economy!
-14
Devie222 Apr 21, 2026 +5
I have responded to the parent comment so you can read that for a full reply but the TL:DR is I also support universal healthcare and think it is one of the biggest flaws that the U.S. does not provide it to its citizens, instead allowing the private health insurance corporations to get rich and deny peoples' claims. My response was more just a disagreement that it would be as simple as taxing fractions of a penny off of peoples' taxes (regardless if it was literal or a figure of speech) to fund, say, Medicare for all for a population as large and unhealthy as the United States. Believe me, I think it is a shame that Trump got duped/blackmailed/whatever reason by Israel and Netanyahu to attack Iran because they were two weeks away from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the last three decades instead of spending those billions on our own population's healthcare, housing the homeless, helping veterans in need, and countless other more useful actions we could be taking for our own population.
5
Rumpullpus Apr 20, 2026 +2
Money was spent years ago buying the bombs. Can't feed and cure people with bombs, unless you're trying to cure them of life. But yeah. Probably should stop buying more.
2
Gibsorz Apr 20, 2026 +36
Yes the money was already spent - but they will now spend the money to buy them back - something that wouldn't have been necessary if they didn't drop them the first time around. They aren't just going to say "ok we are out, let's leave it at that".
36
CreepinCreepy Apr 21, 2026 +10
Weapons expire. Regardless of whether they used them against a target or not, they will have to get replaced. It's the same reason why Ukraine has been such a good thing for the US, not only do they save money on recycling expired rockets and missiles, but they give them to Ukraine to fire them at an ideological enemy.
10
lerjj Apr 20, 2026 +9
US has used up a substantial amount of its patriot missiles etc. Those are kind of important, so they have to buy more of them to replenish stocks.
9
National-Charity-435 Apr 20, 2026 +12
Trump says US can't fund Medicare, Medicaid and day care because 'we're fighting wars' [https://www.livenowfox.com/news/trump-says-us-cant-fund-day-medicare-day-care-because-were-fighting-wars](https://www.livenowfox.com/news/trump-says-us-cant-fund-day-medicare-day-care-because-were-fighting-wars)
12
ctyldsley Apr 20, 2026 -8
Wealth, power & religion (arguably all directly linked) unfortunately prevent that from being a thing.
-8
Siegelski Apr 21, 2026 +1
Are we pretending the Trump administration would have used that money to do those things if we hadn't gone to war? Trump's a piece of shit and the war is a waste of money and lives, but the UN's assertion only makes sense if we didn't already know what we already know: that Trump's a piece of shit and nobody in his administration will do anything to curtail his acting like a piece of shit.
1
Wankstain8 Apr 20, 2026 +1
Money best spent elsewhere.
1
LangyMD Apr 20, 2026 -23
It's about the opportunity cost. If the US spent it on things that actually help life instead of war, like what US AID used to do, then they could have saved 90 million or so lives.
-23
Mixander Apr 20, 2026 -14
but they used that money to end their misery so they should be grateful. /s They don't care about that bro. when you look at how they conduct in this war and also how ICE kidnapped people in the US you should notice that people's live means little to them (the government in Trump administration).
-14
Hapten Apr 20, 2026 +60
Let me get this right, this money was already in the existing DoD budget, just not earmarked for Iran. That is why it never went through congress because they didn't need additional funding. In short, it was never going to save lives and was always going towards weapons in one way or another. So another nothing statement from the UN.
60
Ok_Task_7711 Apr 20, 2026 +11
Trump is asking for an addition 200 billion from congress to pay for Iran war, that’s a lot of money
11
aNuggetsUncle Apr 20, 2026 +42
The weapons used were procured and paid for years ago. The UN is just bitching because they want more money.
42
Araminal Apr 20, 2026 -11
The weapons have to be replaced.
-11
DogBarf00 Apr 21, 2026 +14
They have to replaced rather they are used or not.
14
Araminal Apr 21, 2026 +2
That's true, but they would get rotated out and gradually replaced over time rather than in multi-billion dollar strikes over a period of weeks.
2
Gustavoconte Apr 21, 2026 +20
They're just salty the US is no longer funding their idiotic and wasteful agendas
20
AttentionOpening8984 Apr 21, 2026 +22
Why would the USA pay to save non-American lives ? There is enough poverty in the USA. Fix th issues at home first before helping people outside the USA
22
IdeallyIdeally Apr 21, 2026 +10
I think it's highlighting the opportunity cost of the war. The 23 billion could have also been used to improve millions of American lives. The US won't do either.
10
SensationalSavior Apr 21, 2026 -3
I've heard enough! Another 10 billion to Israel
-3
Silverleaf_86 Apr 21, 2026 +5
Alright! Since this is a post about spending the USAID budget, Let’s say Israel gets 10 billion. So 10b to Israel that approximately 90% of the budget goes to R&D of Iron Dome interceptors, a defensive ability solely protecting lives. Is Israel the only USAID benefactor in the area? when Israel gets annually 3.8b, Egypt gets 1.6b to keep Suez Canal open, kinda paying off so Hormuz 2.0 won’t happen. So if Israel gets 10 Egypt gets about 5 in the new setting. Also what about the Palestinian Authority? they get 1.4b annually, with some of 30% of it goes to the “Martyrs Fund” a literal ‘Pay-for-Slay’ for Palestinian terrorists who succeeded in attacking Jews, the rest of the money? Arafat died a billionaire, Abbas is now worth hundreds of millions, his sons as well. I don’t think the money is spent well. Jordan gets 1.5b annually usually, they use it for hosting Syrian refugees, water sanitation and border security, I have no criticism. So Israel 10b to defend itself, Egypt 5b to open Suez Canal, PA 4b with about 1.5b of it goes to the Martyrs Fund, Jordan 4b.
5
BrokenManOfSamarkand Apr 21, 2026 +17
The UN should tell Iran to give up their nukes and stop funding terrorism and then we wouldn't have to bomb them. They can put that money into saving lives too!
17
CooCooClocksClan Apr 20, 2026 +22
Remind us when the UNs bills are due
22
HP844182 Apr 21, 2026 +16
Damn, sucks there are countries like Iran in the world that need to be taken care of 
16
imminatural Apr 21, 2026 +4
If you took all the money spent on Iran's terrorist proxies, added it to the money saved fighting the terrorist proxies, you could make up a good shortfall of the UNs aid budget.
4
omaregb Apr 20, 2026 +16
If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
16
Somatica Apr 21, 2026 +3
The goal of the trump-epstein strikes is to potentially save the lives of at least dozens of pedophiles and their republican enablers in Congress.
3
-Nok Apr 20, 2026 +20
Yeah let terrorists develop nukes, that'll save lives
20
Jafariz Apr 21, 2026 +11
UN is the biggest f****** joke, what a load of horseshit
11
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +26
[removed]
26
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 -7
[removed]
-7
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +6
[removed]
6
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +11
[removed]
11
nuketro0p3r Apr 20, 2026 +8
What a load of c***
8
pongomanswe Apr 21, 2026 +2
A proper headline would have been “US spending on “reckless Iran war could have been used to save 87m lives, says UN”, preferably if space allowed with an additional “instead” for clarity. This headline can be misunderstood by smooth brains
2
ThE_LAN_B4_TimE Apr 21, 2026 +2
Yeah well I'm pretty sure it could have funded a lot of things especially here in the US but here we are again pissing away billions for a pointless war.
2
Hackwork89 Apr 21, 2026 +2
Who gives a f*** anymore? Clearly nothing is ever going to change, unless it's for the worse. I can't wait for it all to just end. I see no future for humanity.
2
ScoobyD00BIEdoo Apr 21, 2026 +7
Oh the UN is still going? Aren't there like 4 wars happening right now with the UN doing shit all?
7
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +10
[removed]
10
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 -6
[removed]
-6
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +4
[removed]
4
[deleted] Apr 20, 2026 +4
[removed]
4
btb0002 Apr 20, 2026 +5
Yall gonna link anything at this point? 😂
5
johnnyringo1985 Apr 21, 2026 +2
Wait until they run the numbers on how many lives could be saved if everyone in a western country kept working another 5 years instead of retiring!
2
K0TEM Apr 21, 2026 +4
Yeah. The same UN that failed to sanction Russia for their aggression against Ukraine, ignored its own reports about Hamas SA against Israeli women, Appointed Iran and Saudi Arabia as chairs of the Human rights and Women's rights committees, condemns Israel for a "famine" they had to change the criteria for it to fit the description, ignores actual genocides to put all focus on the only one on which the population keeps growing and fails to dismantle Hezbollah despite the UNSC 1701 resolution?
4
Iron_Disciple Apr 21, 2026 +5
All we’re doing is murdering Islamic extremist terrorists. Worth the money and their “lives saved potentially” numbers are complete bull.
5
V-Right_In_2-V Apr 21, 2026 +2
Ironically that’s almost exactly the population of Iran
2
xythrowawayy Apr 21, 2026 +1
I wonder how many lives could be saved if many countries stop their reckless spending on the UN itself?
1
arthor Apr 21, 2026 +3
how the hell can you do insider trading on that tho
3
Substantial_Milk8170 Apr 20, 2026 +3
We somehow always have infinite blank checks for the military-industrial complex, but citizens still have to set up a GoFundMe just to afford an ambulance ride. Sounds about right.
3
yosisoy Apr 21, 2026 +1
But think of the environment though
1
Rinbox Apr 21, 2026 +1
The chick making that looks par for the course of who would make something like that
1
NegevThunderstorm Apr 21, 2026 +1
Then why has the UN done nothing against the iranian regime?
1
captain_decaption Apr 21, 2026
this is the funniest thing I've ever read. That's the entire number of people that die in a year.
0
yksvaan Apr 21, 2026 +1
Yeah PR tricks crying for nore funding, what an useless organisation. 
1
Disastrous_War_3498 Apr 21, 2026 +1
Ah yes, UN.
1
KGB_cutony Apr 21, 2026 +1
Lol let's be real here. Even if the money is not thrown into war, it would still not be used to save lives. Antideficiency Act is a thing of beauty
1
TacoBellStain Apr 21, 2026
UN are the real war mongers, never do shit and just take money.
0
iritchie001 Apr 21, 2026
Eek. Someone find a window!
0
Potential_Salt_5780 Apr 21, 2026 -1
But why save lives when you can make money?
-1
just_a_guy_named1681 Apr 21, 2026 -1
Ah! but it would not have made money for share holders you see
-1
blueishblackbird Apr 21, 2026 -1
No no, you see, maga wants to END 87 million lives. They do not care about what is ethical. Nor do they know the term. To them Christian values are pulp fiction.
-1
madboy3296 Apr 21, 2026 -3
Why America has to save any life? lol
-3
LetterNo7829 Apr 20, 2026 -21
When it comes to USA cruelty is the whole point. 
-21
Pjtm7 Apr 20, 2026 +20
You people just blindly hate the US and swallow all the propaganda thrown at you. America is by far the biggest contributor to the UN, NATO, so many different peacekeeping missions and charitable contributions. I wouldn’t blame them for 1 second if they just decided to stop funding all that shit (for barely any benefit to themselves) and just worry about their own country.
20
AppearanceDizzy7006 Apr 21, 2026 -1
I'm sorry, the USA threatening to invade their NATO ally Denmark -is that fake news? I'm sorry, the USA threatening to invade Canada their NATO ally - is that fake news? I'm sorry, is the AIPAC organisation actually registered as a lobbyist group in the USA, and it is actually fake news that they're not? I'm sorry, is Israel the leveling of whole villages in Palestine and Lebanon fake news?
-1
AppearanceDizzy7006 Apr 20, 2026 -12
*Israel is the whole point
-12
Brief_Hospital_1766 Apr 20, 2026 -16
Unless he means 'White lives' it doesn't matter to America.
-16
rogue_ir Apr 20, 2026 +16
The war with Iran is sparked by the desire to protect Middle Eastern allies from proxy wars, "white lives" aren't the priority in that regard
16
jjax2003 Apr 20, 2026 -9
But then how would Trump and family get rich off manipulating the stock market? And what about the Epstein files?
-9
LiteratureMindless71 Apr 20, 2026 -6
Oh the spending the US did, has only increased the account size of the politicians themselves.
-6
← Back to Board