4 ms·

> Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a mil

> Western countries definitely won't do that in Belarus, a boots-on-the-ground invasion like that seems totally implausible and would risk escalation into a military conflict with Russia, it's just not going to happen I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them. Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict. Is everyone just waiting for Lukashenko and Putin to die and hoping that their successors won't be as maniacal?

beebeepka 5y ago
I don't know what to make of your post. You have "seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions" and yet keep asking these naive questions.
- sellyme 5y ago
  A plane was travelling between two countries. The head of state of a third country gave the direct order to hijack said plane in order to murder someone onboard. I can't see how you'd interpret that as anything except an act of war. That doesn't seem like an offensively transparent excuse to me. Certainly in comparison to "My fortune cookie said they might have WMDs" or whatever the line was two decades ago that was apparently good enough for the US. I'd say "what does it take, a literal invasion?" but that already happened in Crimea.
jek0 5y ago
> I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them. We make wars to control energy sources, trade routes, etc. The west as happily puts a dictator in place of a democratic government when it's in their interest (or the best interest of the men in power and their supports).
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  You also need to have an opposition figure who you can tell is likely to succeed with your assistance ahead of time, and who can make credible promises to pay you back (ie. with contracts for the rebuilding, contracts on oil extraction, etc.) It's very clear how this played out in Libya, for instance, if you read the leaked Hillary Clinton emails. [0] [0]: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900
whimsicalism 5y ago
> Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict If you were around during that time, you should know that for most people, the justifications being bandied around were much less "offensively transparent" at the time. Just look at public opinion, headlines, etc. - opposition to intervention was a massive minority opinion. Most people believed about the WMDs, etc. Now, opinion has shifted quite substantially - so why is it surprising that people are skeptical of intervention? Personally, as a citizen of the US, I would fight tooth & nail against any deployment of troops over this. In no way am I confident fewer people would die or be harmed with intervention.

beebeepka 5y ago

I don't know what to make of your post. You have "seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions" and yet keep asking these naive questions.

sellyme 5y ago
A plane was travelling between two countries. The head of state of a third country gave the direct order to hijack said plane in order to murder someone onboard. I can't see how you'd interpret that as anything except an act of war. That doesn't seem like an offensively transparent excuse to me. Certainly in comparison to "My fortune cookie said they might have WMDs" or whatever the line was two decades ago that was apparently good enough for the US. I'd say "what does it take, a literal invasion?" but that already happened in Crimea.

jek0 5y ago

> I just don't understand why so many trillions of dollars around the world are being spent on military power that just sits by and watches dictatorships kidnap protestors from other countries and execute them. We make wars to control energy sources, trade routes, etc. The west as happily puts a dictator in place of a democratic government when it's in their interest (or the best interest of the men in power and their supports).

whimsicalism 5y ago
You also need to have an opposition figure who you can tell is likely to succeed with your assistance ahead of time, and who can make credible promises to pay you back (ie. with contracts for the rebuilding, contracts on oil extraction, etc.) It's very clear how this played out in Libya, for instance, if you read the leaked Hillary Clinton emails. [0] [0]: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900

whimsicalism 5y ago

> Having grown up in the early 2000s and seen some offensively transparent excuses to start military invasions, surely this is a far more justifiable reason for conflict If you were around during that time, you should know that for most people, the justifications being bandied around were much less "offensively transparent" at the time. Just look at public opinion, headlines, etc. - opposition to intervention was a massive minority opinion. Most people believed about the WMDs, etc. Now, opinion has shifted quite substantially - so why is it surprising that people are skeptical of intervention? Personally, as a citizen of the US, I would fight tooth & nail against any deployment of troops over this. In no way am I confident fewer people would die or be harmed with intervention.