4 ms·

> the reluctance of the European militaries to ensure stability with force. You say that like it's a bad thing.

by markdown 6y ago

shard972 6y ago
Well it seems to preventing the the project from being completed?
waheoo 6y ago
Because it is a bad thing for the project. You're reading into this too much.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Re-occupying North Africa for its natural resources also guarantees the doom of the project in short order, as well as a huge cost of money, lives, CO2, and everything else. "Ensuring stability with force" does not work. Stability can only be ensured with prosperity.
  - GlennS 6y ago
    This seems incorrect, and maybe wishful thinking?. There have been many brutal societies (and colonies, empires and so on) that lasted for centuries. Certainly a lot of military "interventions" in the past couple of decades have been pretty disastrous though. I propose a "you break it you buy it" model. Until such time as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have peace and good governance, no more military adventures to spread liberal democracy.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Ensuring stability with force certainly works at the small scale the project needs. Nobody is talking about re-occupying North Africa. Again, you're reading too much into this. Maybe go back to Portland with that rhetoric?
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Got any sources? You sound like you're poorly educated on the topic.
pizza234 6y ago
Well, it can't say it's bad, but it may not be realistic. Don't forget the famous war that was supposed to "ensure stability with force", and that's been lasting for almost 20 year. Things are certainly more complicated there, but it's fair to be skeptical that force can bring stability.
- ryder9 6y ago
  also the whole neo colonialism aspect, tech bros here think it's so easy, just invade a country for their natural resources, who cares about the people
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Reminds me of the Vietnam era "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

> the reluctance of the European militaries to ensure stability with force. You say that like it's a bad thing.

shard972 6y ago

Well it seems to preventing the the project from being completed?

waheoo 6y ago

Because it is a bad thing for the project. You're reading into this too much.

pjc50 6y ago
Re-occupying North Africa for its natural resources also guarantees the doom of the project in short order, as well as a huge cost of money, lives, CO2, and everything else. "Ensuring stability with force" does not work. Stability can only be ensured with prosperity.
- GlennS 6y ago
  This seems incorrect, and maybe wishful thinking?. There have been many brutal societies (and colonies, empires and so on) that lasted for centuries. Certainly a lot of military "interventions" in the past couple of decades have been pretty disastrous though. I propose a "you break it you buy it" model. Until such time as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have peace and good governance, no more military adventures to spread liberal democracy.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Ensuring stability with force certainly works at the small scale the project needs. Nobody is talking about re-occupying North Africa. Again, you're reading too much into this. Maybe go back to Portland with that rhetoric?
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Got any sources? You sound like you're poorly educated on the topic.

pizza234 6y ago

Well, it can't say it's bad, but it may not be realistic. Don't forget the famous war that was supposed to "ensure stability with force", and that's been lasting for almost 20 year. Things are certainly more complicated there, but it's fair to be skeptical that force can bring stability.

ryder9 6y ago
also the whole neo colonialism aspect, tech bros here think it's so easy, just invade a country for their natural resources, who cares about the people
EdwardDiego 6y ago
Reminds me of the Vietnam era "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"