4 ms·
Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatev
by badsock 11y ago
Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatever sovereignty they please, bust in through the window, and what, just shoot people that they're pretty sure are up to no good?
The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country is too disorganized to deserve the right to not have other countries airdropping their soldiers into it.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoSome of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. They do not have anything close to a Westphalian state, they are a regional coalition of tribes and alliances that call themselves a country for a UN vote and IMF funding. Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them. It's not just America either. Ethiopia and Kenya would be much better off paying mercenaries that keep somalia's disfunction and terrorism at bay. You can fly in, bomb, invade, whatever, but eventually it becomes a politically unsustainable war. Mercenaries are just an expense, and they know it.
- jessaustin 11y agoLibya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. Afghanistan has had problems for some time, but Libya and Iraq both functioned as nations before ill-advised adventurism on the part of Western powers. This "list goes on" shit is particularly chilling to those who value peace, life, and national solvency. What other functioning nations must be broken to feed the military-industrial complex?
- the-dude 11y ago> ill-advised adventurism on the part of Western powers Let keep the picture clear: ill-advised by the USA. It was the USA who wanted the conflicts and did everything in their power to 'persuade' their allies to bomb along. It was all lies and just see what we got in return.
- Kristine1975 11y agoNot only the US, I'm afraid. The German government wants to wage more wars, too. For "humanitarian reasons" and also bananas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86ELBWLNdmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86ELBWLNdmg (this is an official propaganda video of the German military, not satire)
- jessaustin 11y agoYou are correct about Iraq. With respect to Libya, memories seem suspiciously short. For a long time Obama was uninterested in Libyan regime change. (I suspect because the generals were so sure it would be easy, which set off alarm bells, but none of that was ever made public.) For personal reasons that no one could discern, "French celebrity philosopher" Bernard-Henri Lévy was rabidly pro-war, and lobbied constantly for it. For reasons that probably make sense if one is French, both the French public and Nicolas Sarkozy found his case convincing enough to take the lead and let the USA "follow". (That lasted about a week, because France, but whatever.)
- the-dude 11y agoI stand corrected, my memory about Libya was hazy.
- badsock 11y agoI understand that you don't consider them countries. What I'm saying is "they're a mess" is not a bright line over which you can revoke the people living there's rights of sovereignty.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- usrusr 11y ago> Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. Even if that might be seen by some as a valid argument for violating the sovereignty of those (non-)states, it remains entirely orthogonal to the question of wether the intervening forces should be private sector or public. The only connection is that an (alleged) anarchy zone is the only place where the extralegal nature of private sector violence can be glossed over. The author is literally a solution looking for a problem and abusing the most troubled places on earth as an excuse to turn military grade violence into a business.