4 ms·
Doesn't that line of reasoning presuppose you need to be firing missiles into crowded areas? Rather than develop those missiles, what could be achieved by inve
by Pfhreak 6y ago
Doesn't that line of reasoning presuppose you need to be firing missiles into crowded areas?
Rather than develop those missiles, what could be achieved by investing those millions into developing economies and relationships abroad?
- plazmatic 6y agoYou're asking this while trump is president? Lol. Americans expecting a change in the middle-east then voting for republicans. Lol.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoI think it's more along the lines of you can hit a car or a meeting without decimating everything nearby. It's the difference between sending an assassin and a suicide bomber.
- wongarsu 6y agoBut usually we despise both suicide bombers and assassins, not congratulate the assassin on killing so few bystanders. The question by GP is more along the line of "what if instead of spending lots of money to kill fewer bystanders we spent that money to reduce the number of people that are so dangerous to us that we kill them". Of course we know that won't happen because building weapons helps US companies and building hospitals and helping local people in foreign countries doesn't.
- SubiculumCode 6y agoUsually because it costs more to do so. Many times the local governments are corrupt, and U.S. money gets funneled to terrorist organizations or just pocketed, never actually helping the populace have better lives..
- pas 6y agoGo ahead, build a hospital in Assad's backyard, no biggie. Or just build a hospital somewhere and watch as it gets captured/used by the regional dictator. Yes, wars are bad. Yes, if it were that easy to export peace and prosperity we wouldn't be talking about it, but the reality is that there are power structures that consider their selfish short term goals more important than the lives of many-many of their fellow humans. (Eg. Putin, Xi, Assad, etc.)
- non-entity 6y agoMany of the countries were arguably better under the regional dictator. I'm sure the people of Iraq, Libya, etc. Are so glad that "peace" and "prosperity" were exported to them.
- pas 6y agoHuh? My point is that it wasn't. They got military support, that's all. The region is still a mess, a new warlord is gaining power.
- adamsea 6y agoI agree. Or to take it further, if the US had even made a serious effort to help the country / people of Afghanistan live a better life, and build up some sort of institution, instead of invading Iraq. Or, after even the terrible decision of invading Iraq, if the US had been halfway competent / invested in post-invasion administration...
- Pfhreak 6y agoI understand that. I'm saying it's a false dichotomy. Like, would you rather drink a shoe leather smoothie or a shoe polish smoothie? Neither! Why are we drinking shoe related smoothies at all?! Why do we need to assassinate anyone at all?
- gamblor956 6y agoCapitalism doesn't promote that kind of change. See, e.g, China...
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoThe thing the USA has been doing for almost 20 years?
- nine_k 6y agoYou can pour in millions into an economy, but they will only make a difference if there is peace (not even the rule of law yet). To achieve peace, you first have to win the war — if you care about peace on your terms. In a war you unfortunately have to fight — it's quite unpleasant and bloody, but else your foes will kill you and those who you are trying to protect.
- rayiner 6y agoWe already invest billions abroad. But economic development cannot happen in the absence of security. Recall that in Syria, we got involved because our allies around Syria got freaked out about that the civil war would mean for their own countries’ security.