3 ms·
Seems ironic, as this is a situation where I'd deem the US military a force for good. The non-explodey solution is most likely going to require *both* sending
by yodelshady 5y ago
Seems ironic, as this is a situation where I'd deem the US military a force for good.
The non-explodey solution is most likely going to require *both* sending enough money to Houthi leadership to save face, plus turning up with enough muscle to ensure an agreement to remove the oil is honoured.
- 1_player 5y ago> US military a force for good The US military has never been a force for good, nor a force for evil either. The US military, like all other militaries, is a force for its own country's purposes and goals only. The rest is propaganda. History has put the US in such a position this propaganda, and the area of control of its military, is extremely widespread.
- yodelshady 5y ago> The US military, like all other militaries, is a force for its own country's purposes and goals only. Of course, and for everyone but contrarians, sometimes the US has goals that are a net good. Sometimes the US doesn't, and sometimes the US uses the military inappropriately for commendable but open-ended goals. This isn't open-ended, and not having the tanker is a net good, and you'll notice I emphatically did not suggest using only the US military. I suggested the US military provide security for whatever deal is struck. Assuming we're living in reality, what non-force-backed solution do you propose that doesn't end with "Thankyou for $ASSET. There has been problem. Send more $ASSET."... Forever?