NationStates

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
It's a shame, but Trump isn't entirely wrong with his criticisms of American media. At heart, I mean.

The way he goes about it and what he criticizes are completely inappropriate and flat-out wrong, but there I do think there are a lot of issues with America's sensationalist news networks, particularly when a handful of companies own those networks. And half of them pay tithe to the Mouse. Most of these issues are fairly solvable, though, and Trump is actively making finding those solutions for the benefit of the Republic much harder.

It's a bit like saying the guy smashing the car with a sledgehammer has a point because one of the tires is flat.

Absolutely, but it feels wrong to give the media a free pass because it just so happens that Trump is an asshole and only brings them up to inflate his ego.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Accounting for other factors, it's merely 30% increase in military spending. What a tragedy indeed he merely used the raw numbers.

And none of the context, like how it was on par with overall government spending increases. This is lying without lying, the statesmen's version of "I'm not touuuuuching you..." The raw numbers tell a specific but not entirely truthful story, it's manipulative. Putting shit in actual context and pointing to when a narrative is being formed by selective information is one of the chief duties of a free and fair press, which the Donald now refers to as 'fake news.'

I was agreeing with you. 30% is an alarming enough number on its own. He cheapened his own argument and left people debating meaning rather than a rising Iranian threat. A tragedy.

Valrifell wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:It's a bit like saying the guy smashing the car with a sledgehammer has a point because one of the tires is flat.

Absolutely, but it feels wrong to give the media a free pass because it just so happens that Trump is an asshole and only brings them up to inflate his ego.

That's an unnecessary bit of contortionist shit to have to go through. If, in this example (and note, the story isn't at the moment the press reporting on this issue), the president is giving a misleading number and the press is putting that number in context that contradicts the president's narrative, I don't have to also give an aside where I mention an unrelated issue of sensationalism. That's not 'giving the press a free pass', that's being able to focus on the topic at hand. We certainly can have a discussion about how the press selects and reports stories but I don't need to have that one first or try and find a way to have it side by side every time the president shits the bed and says that's actually great.

The East Marches II wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:And none of the context, like how it was on par with overall government spending increases. This is lying without lying, the statesmen's version of "I'm not touuuuuching you..." The raw numbers tell a specific but not entirely truthful story, it's manipulative. Putting shit in actual context and pointing to when a narrative is being formed by selective information is one of the chief duties of a free and fair press, which the Donald now refers to as 'fake news.'

I was agreeing with you. 30% is an alarming enough number on its own. He cheapened his own argument and left people debating meaning rather than a rising Iranian threat. A tragedy.

Except it's not alarming in context. In context it makes sense. The president and his supporters want it to be alarming. That's why they're using misleading numbers (40%) and stripping away context-

The Post's analysis notes that "just looking at the raw increase or decrease in any country's military budget misses important context." Iranian military spending "increased alongside overall government spending — not in a silo on its own," the newspaper goes on to say, adding that "the nuclear accord has contributed to the overall increase in spending -- including the increase in military spending -- since it lifted sanctions and allowed for a rise in oil production and exports."

A country moving out from under sanctions increases government spending shocker. But that doesn't scare people...but if we focus on the military spending...

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Absolutely, but it feels wrong to give the media a free pass because it just so happens that Trump is an asshole and only brings them up to inflate his ego.

That's an unnecessary bit of contortionist shit to have to go through. If, in this example (and note, the story isn't at the moment the press reporting on this issue), the president is giving a misleading number and the press is putting that number in context that contradicts the president's narrative, I don't have to also give an aside where I mention an unrelated issue of sensationalism. That's not 'giving the press a free pass', that's being able to focus on the topic at hand. We certainly can have a discussion about how the press selects and reports stories but I don't need to have that one first or try and find a way to have it side by side every time the president shits the bed and says that's actually great.

The East Marches II wrote:
I was agreeing with you. 30% is an alarming enough number on its own. He cheapened his own argument and left people debating meaning rather than a rising Iranian threat. A tragedy.

Except it's not alarming in context. In context it makes sense. The president and his supporters want it to be alarming. That's why they're using misleading numbers (40%) and stripping away context-

The Post's analysis notes that "just looking at the raw increase or decrease in any country's military budget misses important context." Iranian military spending "increased alongside overall government spending — not in a silo on its own," the newspaper goes on to say, adding that "the nuclear accord has contributed to the overall increase in spending -- including the increase in military spending -- since it lifted sanctions and allowed for a rise in oil production and exports."

A country moving out from under sanctions increases government spending shocker. But that doesn't scare people...but if we focus on the military spending...

A boost of that percentage by a country trying to subvert and forment revolution in it's neighbors is absolutely something to be alarmed about. Trying blend it in with a larger trend and excuse away it's implications is nonsense. 30% boost by a country with ideological rabies is a big deal, especially given it's habit of funding the Taliban, Hezbollah and anybody really who will proclaim hostility to the States.

Though I will admit, it was a good attempt to sweep away that number, well done.

The East Marches II wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:That's an unnecessary bit of contortionist shit to have to go through. If, in this example (and note, the story isn't at the moment the press reporting on this issue), the president is giving a misleading number and the press is putting that number in context that contradicts the president's narrative, I don't have to also give an aside where I mention an unrelated issue of sensationalism. That's not 'giving the press a free pass', that's being able to focus on the topic at hand. We certainly can have a discussion about how the press selects and reports stories but I don't need to have that one first or try and find a way to have it side by side every time the president shits the bed and says that's actually great.
Except it's not alarming in context. In context it makes sense. The president and his supporters want it to be alarming. That's why they're using misleading numbers (40%) and stripping away context-

A country moving out from under sanctions increases government spending shocker. But that doesn't scare people...but if we focus on the military spending...

A boost of that percentage by a country trying to subvert and forment revolution in it's neighbors is absolutely something to be alarmed about. Trying blend it in with a larger trend and excuse away it's implications is nonsense. 30% boost by a country with ideological rabies is a big deal, especially given it's habit of funding the Taliban, Hezbollah and anybody really who will proclaim hostility to the States.

Though I will admit, it was a good attempt to sweep away that number, well done.

Has the percentage of government spending in Iran on the military increased more than the increase in government spending in general?

Fartsniffage wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
A boost of that percentage by a country trying to subvert and forment revolution in it's neighbors is absolutely something to be alarmed about. Trying blend it in with a larger trend and excuse away it's implications is nonsense. 30% boost by a country with ideological rabies is a big deal, especially given it's habit of funding the Taliban, Hezbollah and anybody really who will proclaim hostility to the States.

Though I will admit, it was a good attempt to sweep away that number, well done.

Has the percentage of government spending in Iran on the military increased more than the increase in government spending in general?

Is that relevant? It is a conscious choice to increase a military budget. They could have just easily put that into their people or some other category. Peace isn't on the mind of the Ayatollah.

The East Marches II wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Has the percentage of government spending in Iran on the military increased more than the increase in government spending in general?

Is that relevant? It is a conscious choice to increase a military budget. They could have just easily put that into their people or some other category. Peace isn't on the mind of the Ayatollah.

It's very relevant. The general measure of military spending is as % of all government spending. It's telling that this isn't the measure being used by Trump.

So, has it?

Fartsniffage wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Is that relevant? It is a conscious choice to increase a military budget. They could have just easily put that into their people or some other category. Peace isn't on the mind of the Ayatollah.

It's very relevant. The general measure of military spending is as % of all government spending. It's telling that this isn't the measure being used by Trump.

So, has it?

No, the Iranian military budget, when accounted for inflation and other factors, has increased by 30% on the terms of the numbers in 2015. Trump used the raw numbers like a fool, and tragically devolved the matter into whether not which numbers are real. The articles mentioned something like 15.4% to 15.8% in terms of percentage of government spending They have made a conscious decision to increase the numbers like this and we are feeling the effects with their tentacles spreading through the ME. As for the general measure of military spending is as % of government spending, that is also wrong. The pundits prefer percentage of GDP, the analysts account for inflation and prefer money totals at the end of the day.

The East Marches II wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
It's very relevant. The general measure of military spending is as % of all government spending. It's telling that this isn't the measure being used by Trump.

So, has it?

No, the Iranian military budget, when accounted for inflation and other factors, has increased by 30% on the terms of the numbers in 2015. Trump used the raw numbers like a fool, and tragically devolved the matter into whether not which numbers are real. The articles mentioned something like 15.4% to 15.8% in terms of percentage of government spending They have made a conscious decision to increase the numbers like this and we are feeling the effects with their tentacles spreading through the ME. As for the general measure of military spending is as % of government spending, that is also wrong. The pundits prefer percentage of GDP, the analysts account for inflation and prefer money totals at the end of the day.

...are you feeling okay?

Fartsniffage wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
No, the Iranian military budget, when accounted for inflation and other factors, has increased by 30% on the terms of the numbers in 2015. Trump used the raw numbers like a fool, and tragically devolved the matter into whether not which numbers are real. The articles mentioned something like 15.4% to 15.8% in terms of percentage of government spending They have made a conscious decision to increase the numbers like this and we are feeling the effects with their tentacles spreading through the ME. As for the general measure of military spending is as % of government spending, that is also wrong. The pundits prefer percentage of GDP, the analysts account for inflation and prefer money totals at the end of the day.

...are you feeling okay?

I am fine, I just had to go into breakdown to explain why your mention of % of government spending was wrong. This now being picked up by the media and others as an excuse to explain away the 30% number.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Absolutely, but it feels wrong to give the media a free pass because it just so happens that Trump is an asshole and only brings them up to inflate his ego.

That's an unnecessary bit of contortionist shit to have to go through. If, in this example (and note, the story isn't at the moment the press reporting on this issue), the president is giving a misleading number and the press is putting that number in context that contradicts the president's narrative, I don't have to also give an aside where I mention an unrelated issue of sensationalism. That's not 'giving the press a free pass', that's being able to focus on the topic at hand. We certainly can have a discussion about how the press selects and reports stories but I don't need to have that one first or try and find a way to have it side by side every time the president shits the bed and says that's actually great.

This is a good point

The East Marches II wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
...are you feeling okay?

I am fine, I just had to go into breakdown to explain why your mention of % of government spending was wrong. This now being picked up by the media and others as an excuse to explain away the 30% number.

Is there a source for the 30% increase other than Trump?

Thermodolia wrote:

Liriena wrote:America, what the fuck?

Between October 2016 and December 2017, he said, the agency was unable to locate almost 1,500 out of the 7,635 minors that it attempted to reach — or about 19 percent. Over two dozen had run away, according to Wagner, who said the agency did not have the capacity to track them down.

Sponsors are meant to ensure that minors show up at their immigration hearings. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) pressed Wagner on why more than half of unaccompanied minors in 2017 did not show up to their immigration hearings. When asked how HHS tracks the missing children, Wagner said that finding out whether children have attended their immigration hearing is not part of its protocol.

“We do not know who is showing up and who isn’t,” he said. “We don’t know those kids … We don’t follow up to ensure they go to the hearing.”

Wagner told the committee that since February 2016, HHS has gone to greater lengths to verify the identity of potential sponsors of unaccompanied minors, and worked to crack down on the ability of sponsors to use fraudulent documents during the placement process. A new agreement reached this month between HHS and the Department of Homeland Security establishes policies for the agencies to better share information to help screen potential sponsors.

Senators also expressed concern that state and local officials are not usually notified when unaccompanied minors are placed in their jurisdiction. Wagner said that it was an “issue of practicality” that would require contacting a substantial list of local agencies.

“If a child is being, for instance, kept at home and abused by a sponsor, and a local school doesn’t even know the child is supposed to be going there, then some of the usual triggers that we have for protecting children can’t be triggered,” Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said.

CPS is shit, water is wet, sky is blue, news at 11

That's nice, but what does that have to do with HHS?

Liriena wrote:America, what the fuck?

Between October 2016 and December 2017, he said, the agency was unable to locate almost 1,500 out of the 7,635 minors that it attempted to reach — or about 19 percent. Over two dozen had run away, according to Wagner, who said the agency did not have the capacity to track them down.

Sponsors are meant to ensure that minors show up at their immigration hearings. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) pressed Wagner on why more than half of unaccompanied minors in 2017 did not show up to their immigration hearings. When asked how HHS tracks the missing children, Wagner said that finding out whether children have attended their immigration hearing is not part of its protocol.

“We do not know who is showing up and who isn’t,” he said. “We don’t know those kids … We don’t follow up to ensure they go to the hearing.”

Wagner told the committee that since February 2016, HHS has gone to greater lengths to verify the identity of potential sponsors of unaccompanied minors, and worked to crack down on the ability of sponsors to use fraudulent documents during the placement process. A new agreement reached this month between HHS and the Department of Homeland Security establishes policies for the agencies to better share information to help screen potential sponsors.

Senators also expressed concern that state and local officials are not usually notified when unaccompanied minors are placed in their jurisdiction. Wagner said that it was an “issue of practicality” that would require contacting a substantial list of local agencies.

“If a child is being, for instance, kept at home and abused by a sponsor, and a local school doesn’t even know the child is supposed to be going there, then some of the usual triggers that we have for protecting children can’t be triggered,” Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said.

That's awful!

Fartsniffage wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
I am fine, I just had to go into breakdown to explain why your mention of % of government spending was wrong. This now being picked up by the media and others as an excuse to explain away the 30% number.

Is there a source for the 30% increase other than Trump?

Trump said 40% which was wrong. The 30% number comes from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Its in the CNN article but NYT makes it easy to find.

The East Marches II wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
...are you feeling okay?

I am fine, I just had to go into breakdown to explain why your mention of % of government spending was wrong. This now being picked up by the media and others as an excuse to explain away the 30% number.

Iran's entire military budget would be enough to buy them about one Ford-class carrier, hon. I think we're still gonna be okay.

The East Marches II wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:That's an unnecessary bit of contortionist shit to have to go through. If, in this example (and note, the story isn't at the moment the press reporting on this issue), the president is giving a misleading number and the press is putting that number in context that contradicts the president's narrative, I don't have to also give an aside where I mention an unrelated issue of sensationalism. That's not 'giving the press a free pass', that's being able to focus on the topic at hand. We certainly can have a discussion about how the press selects and reports stories but I don't need to have that one first or try and find a way to have it side by side every time the president shits the bed and says that's actually great.
Except it's not alarming in context. In context it makes sense. The president and his supporters want it to be alarming. That's why they're using misleading numbers (40%) and stripping away context-

A country moving out from under sanctions increases government spending shocker. But that doesn't scare people...but if we focus on the military spending...

A boost of that percentage by a country trying to subvert and forment revolution in it's neighbors is absolutely something to be alarmed about. Trying blend it in with a larger trend and excuse away it's implications is nonsense. 30% boost by a country with ideological rabies is a big deal, especially given it's habit of funding the Taliban, Hezbollah and anybody really who will proclaim hostility to the States.

Though I will admit, it was a good attempt to sweep away that number, well done.

That’s not really how it works, you don’t just get to declare a counter narrative to anyone not buying into your narrative. The fact that it’s on par with other government spending after receiving relief in the form of laxed sanctions doesn’t say anything other then they are paying bills they weren’t able to before. There’s no context for anything else. While Iran’s agenda in the Middle East is problematic find a country whose isn’t. The goal at the moment isn’t to turn them into America loving blue jeans customers, it’s to prevent them from being a nuclear power. If you have evidence that this thirty percent isn’t structural but aimed at a specific action or goal that is as bad or worse than a power with all the bad qualities you listed but with a nuke, great. But that’s not evident. With all the information that number gives us they finally replaced their 386 computers with modern ones and got better chairs. Are they better at pursuing goals contrary to US goals because of it? Marginally. But they had to give up their nuclear program to have it and we have other mechanisms to deal with other issues. But if we’re in a moral grey area when it comes to telling other countries they can’t have nukes, we’re certainly in the grey wagging the finger at a marginal across the board spending increase that happens to include military. To a country, right or wrong (mostly wrong) with hostile neighbors (whether they’re responsible for the hostilities or not).

Senkaku wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
I am fine, I just had to go into breakdown to explain why your mention of % of government spending was wrong. This now being picked up by the media and others as an excuse to explain away the 30% number.

Iran's entire military budget would be enough to buy them about one Ford-class carrier, hon. I think we're still gonna be okay.

As long as they don't find any Cobalt Thorium G.

Senkaku wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
I am fine, I just had to go into breakdown to explain why your mention of % of government spending was wrong. This now being picked up by the media and others as an excuse to explain away the 30% number.

Iran's entire military budget would be enough to buy them about one Ford-class carrier, hon. I think we're still gonna be okay.

Actually they’d be able to buy a lot more then that
Their budget is 14085.76 million

Fartsniffage wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
No, the Iranian military budget, when accounted for inflation and other factors, has increased by 30% on the terms of the numbers in 2015. Trump used the raw numbers like a fool, and tragically devolved the matter into whether not which numbers are real. The articles mentioned something like 15.4% to 15.8% in terms of percentage of government spending They have made a conscious decision to increase the numbers like this and we are feeling the effects with their tentacles spreading through the ME. As for the general measure of military spending is as % of government spending, that is also wrong. The pundits prefer percentage of GDP, the analysts account for inflation and prefer money totals at the end of the day.

...are you feeling okay?

He doesn't feel so good

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Iran's entire military budget would be enough to buy them about one Ford-class carrier, hon. I think we're still gonna be okay.

Actually they’d be able to buy a lot more then that
Their budget is 14085.76 million

That translates to about 14 billion. They might be able to buy a couple of F-18s to put on the carrier. But that puts em at maybe a Ford-Class carrier.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
A boost of that percentage by a country trying to subvert and forment revolution in it's neighbors is absolutely something to be alarmed about. Trying blend it in with a larger trend and excuse away it's implications is nonsense. 30% boost by a country with ideological rabies is a big deal, especially given it's habit of funding the Taliban, Hezbollah and anybody really who will proclaim hostility to the States.

Though I will admit, it was a good attempt to sweep away that number, well done.

That’s not really how it works, you don’t just get to declare a counter narrative to anyone not buying into your narrative. The fact that it’s on par with other government spending after receiving relief in the form of laxed sanctions doesn’t say anything other then they are paying bills they weren’t able to before. There’s no context for anything else. While Iran’s agenda in the Middle East is problematic find a country whose isn’t. The goal at the moment isn’t to turn them into America loving blue jeans customers, it’s to prevent them from being a nuclear power. If you have evidence that this thirty percent isn’t structural but aimed at a specific action or goal that is as bad or worse than a power with all the bad qualities you listed but with a nuke, great. But that’s not evident. With all the information that number gives us they finally replaced their 386 computers with modern ones and got better chairs. Are they better at pursuing goals contrary to US goals because of it? Marginally. But they had to give up their nuclear program to have it and we have other mechanisms to deal with other issues. But if we’re in a moral grey area when it comes to telling other countries they can’t have nukes, we’re certainly in the grey wagging the finger at a marginal across the board spending increase that happens to include military. To a country, right or wrong (mostly wrong) with hostile neighbors (whether they’re responsible for the hostilities or not).

The goal at the moment is containment. This isn't even relevant to the Iran deal as they were doing this build up even while we had it going on. If the deal still existed today, we would still be confronted with this matter. When somebody gets a thirty percent budget increase, then begins to put troops in Syria, Lebanon and starts throwing cash again at anybody opposed to the US, we can make an educated guess as to where it went. Playing the "We don't know where it got spent" card is again disingenuous. Need I list new weapons programs? New discoveries where they've been funding people? And even if I did, would you been honest enough to look past "Trump said therefore bad" to see the threat. No, it would be a very great waste of time. You're entrenched into a particular position because Blue Team. At any rate, an increase of 30% is not marginal no matter how hard you try to spin doctor.

The East Marches II wrote:

Cannot think of a name wrote:That’s not really how it works, you don’t just get to declare a counter narrative to anyone not buying into your narrative. The fact that it’s on par with other government spending after receiving relief in the form of laxed sanctions doesn’t say anything other then they are paying bills they weren’t able to before. There’s no context for anything else. While Iran’s agenda in the Middle East is problematic find a country whose isn’t. The goal at the moment isn’t to turn them into America loving blue jeans customers, it’s to prevent them from being a nuclear power. If you have evidence that this thirty percent isn’t structural but aimed at a specific action or goal that is as bad or worse than a power with all the bad qualities you listed but with a nuke, great. But that’s not evident. With all the information that number gives us they finally replaced their 386 computers with modern ones and got better chairs. Are they better at pursuing goals contrary to US goals because of it? Marginally. But they had to give up their nuclear program to have it and we have other mechanisms to deal with other issues. But if we’re in a moral grey area when it comes to telling other countries they can’t have nukes, we’re certainly in the grey wagging the finger at a marginal across the board spending increase that happens to include military. To a country, right or wrong (mostly wrong) with hostile neighbors (whether they’re responsible for the hostilities or not).

I
The goal at the moment is containment. This isn't even relevant to the Iran deal as they were doing this build up even while we had it going on. If the deal still existed today, we would still be confronted with this matter. When somebody gets a thirty percent budget increase, then begins to put troops in Syria, Lebanon and starts throwing cash again at anybody opposed to the US, we can make an educated guess as to where it went. Playing the "We don't know where it got spent" card is again disingenuous. Need I list new weapons programs? New discoveries where they've been funding people? And even if I did, would you been honest enough to look past "Trump said therefore bad" to see the threat. No, it would be a very great waste of time. You're entrenched into a particular position because Blue Team. At any rate, an increase of 30% is not marginal no matter how hard you try to spin doctor.

I don’t have to spin doctor anything. You’re the one trying to sell something, not me. You’re adrift in your premise and you want me to look only where you want. First of all, this increase is brought up in relation to the Iran deal and in fact was part of Trump’s reasoning for backing out. To now pretend it’s about containment is trying to shift the argument. That Iran is contrary to US interests in the area is redundant. This point is not in contention. My motivations behind why I will not be buying your falling sky insurance are not the subject. You can believe that I have some sort of knee jerk reaction to dislike anything trump says out of tribalism if you’d like, the fact remains you have made an incomplete argument to defend his disingenuous argument to pull out of the Iran deal. Never mind that even if his premise is true his actions do nothing but remove what oversight we had in order to satisfy a Howard Hawks white hat black hat fantasy.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:I
The goal at the moment is containment. This isn't even relevant to the Iran deal as they were doing this build up even while we had it going on. If the deal still existed today, we would still be confronted with this matter. When somebody gets a thirty percent budget increase, then begins to put troops in Syria, Lebanon and starts throwing cash again at anybody opposed to the US, we can make an educated guess as to where it went. Playing the "We don't know where it got spent" card is again disingenuous. Need I list new weapons programs? New discoveries where they've been funding people? And even if I did, would you been honest enough to look past "Trump said therefore bad" to see the threat. No, it would be a very great waste of time. You're entrenched into a particular position because Blue Team. At any rate, an increase of 30% is not marginal no matter how hard you try to spin doctor.

I don’t have to spin doctor anything. You’re the one trying to sell something, not me. You’re adrift in your premise and you want me to look only where you want. First of all, this increase is brought up in relation to the Iran deal and in fact was part of Trump’s reasoning for backing out. To now pretend it’s about containment is trying to shift the argument. That Iran is contrary to US interests in the area is redundant. This point is not in contention. My motivations behind why I will not be buying your falling sky insurance are not the subject. You can believe that I have some sort of knee jerk reaction to dislike anything trump says out of tribalism if you’d like, the fact remains you have made an incomplete argument to defend his disingenuous argument to pull out of the Iran deal. Never mind that even if his premise is true his actions do nothing but remove what oversight we had in order to satisfy a Howard Hawks white hat black hat fantasy.

No, I never brought up Trump's Iran deal into. Only that his butchering of the statistic was a tragedy that detracts for an important that the public should be aware of and that Iran's continued games in the region are a threat. That was a smooth attempt at trying to strawman me, well played.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Iran's entire military budget would be enough to buy them about one Ford-class carrier, hon. I think we're still gonna be okay.

Actually they’d be able to buy a lot more then that
Their budget is 14085.76 million

Yes, $14BN, and Fords have a unit cost of about $13BN.

Putting millions in thousands makes them sound more impressive, but it doesn't actually change anything.