4 ms·

Your Terms of Service do not superscede your host country's foreign policy goals. This may come as a surprise to some who apparently never took, or slept throu

Your Terms of Service do not superscede your host country's foreign policy goals. This may come as a surprise to some who apparently never took, or slept through civics, but as it so happens, the U.S. Federal Government has absolute, uncontested, and final say in terms of things like foreign policy. You do not get to be selective on that front. State level anti-BDS laws are worth as much as toilet paper, but if the President has negotiated our support behind an ally, I am not aware of anything that allows you to independently pull back that support as a private citizen. If this is going to turn into the landmark case, that's cool; but there it is very cut and dry who gets final on things like this. And again, these are very perilous waters to test, as a finding of aiding and abetting a foreign adversary of the United States is literally the only circumstance where the label treason is applicable. Mr. Musk, you are not the diplomatic arm of the United States. Usurp at your own peril.

rlt 3y ago
> Your Terms of Service do not superscede your host country's foreign policy goals. I must have missed the part where the United States government requested Starlink be activated in Crimea. Elon has explicitly stated if the request came from the US government he would have complied. It did not. It came from the Ukrainian government, which is not his host country. The US government knows how to contact Elon and could have done so if they wanted him to do it. https://youtu.be/tKqJ5-kkUGk?t=332 https://youtu.be/tKqJ5-kkUGk?t=332 If Ukraine had asked SpaceX for a Falcon 9 they wanted to crash into the Kremlin should they have given it to them?
ImJamal 3y ago
I'm quite confused as to your post. Are you suggesting that Musk is obligated to promote the US' foreign policy goals? If he never decided to provide Starlinks dishes to the Ukrainians would you think he is obligated to provide them or is it once he provided them he has to do everything the current administration wants? Do you hold this position with other wars? If Musk provided Starlinks in Afghanistan (pre pullout) would he be obligated to allow the Afghan government use them to attack the Taliban? What if he gave it to the Israeli government. Should he be forced to allow the use in attacking the Palestinians?
- justinclift 3y ago
  It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader. And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical personally though. ;)
  - stephenr 3y ago
    > A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I think that's probably just medium level cynicism. There's a whole bunch of other angles to consider here: - Ukraine was previously a supplier of rocket parts to his competitors; if Russia succeeds that's unlikely to resume; if Ukraine succeeds they're likely to resume and be more closely aligned with the US (than previously) - he has a habit of supporting whatever the dictator says, to further his business interests (see: comments on Taiwan, and his car business in mainland China) - he has become increasingly cozy with Republicans, a number of whom apparently think Ukraine should be left to fend for itself.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians? If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing. >And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). Agreed. >The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. Perhaps, but we can't really know that. >A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture. The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.
omscs99 3y ago
Starlink isn’t a charity. If the DoD wants to use their resources, then they should negotiate with them as they would with any other business

rlt 3y ago

> Your Terms of Service do not superscede your host country's foreign policy goals. I must have missed the part where the United States government requested Starlink be activated in Crimea. Elon has explicitly stated if the request came from the US government he would have complied. It did not. It came from the Ukrainian government, which is not his host country. The US government knows how to contact Elon and could have done so if they wanted him to do it. https://youtu.be/tKqJ5-kkUGk?t=332 https://youtu.be/tKqJ5-kkUGk?t=332 If Ukraine had asked SpaceX for a Falcon 9 they wanted to crash into the Kremlin should they have given it to them?

ImJamal 3y ago

I'm quite confused as to your post. Are you suggesting that Musk is obligated to promote the US' foreign policy goals? If he never decided to provide Starlinks dishes to the Ukrainians would you think he is obligated to provide them or is it once he provided them he has to do everything the current administration wants? Do you hold this position with other wars? If Musk provided Starlinks in Afghanistan (pre pullout) would he be obligated to allow the Afghan government use them to attack the Taliban? What if he gave it to the Israeli government. Should he be forced to allow the use in attacking the Palestinians?

justinclift 3y ago
It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader. And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I'm not sure I'm quite that cynical personally though. ;)
- stephenr 3y ago
  > A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. I think that's probably just medium level cynicism. There's a whole bunch of other angles to consider here: - Ukraine was previously a supplier of rocket parts to his competitors; if Russia succeeds that's unlikely to resume; if Ukraine succeeds they're likely to resume and be more closely aligned with the US (than previously) - he has a habit of supporting whatever the dictator says, to further his business interests (see: comments on Taiwan, and his car business in mainland China) - he has become increasingly cozy with Republicans, a number of whom apparently think Ukraine should be left to fend for itself.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >It's a bit simpler than that. Musk used his power to block a US ally from achieving a critical objective in their war to drive out the invader You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Do you hold this view with Israel? Israel is a US ally. Israel retaking the Palestinian land would be considered driving out an invader by both the US and Israel. Should Musk be forced in using Starlink in those attacks against the Palestinians? If not, then you aren't being consistent. You only support forcing Musk to help Ukraine because you support Ukraine, not because of some greater principle that you seem to be espousing. >And he was unwise enough to publicly confirm it was because he doesn't want Ukraine to win "too much" (my paraphrasing). Agreed. >The failure of that particular mission is going to needlessly extend the war, cost thousands more soldiers to die or be injured, and so on. Perhaps, but we can't really know that. >A very cynical person might think it was more because Musk wants the war to drag on. Starlink can continue getting paid inflated amounts by the US military that way. That could explain it, but frankly, we don't have any proof. It is just conjecture. The simplest explanation, in my mind, is that Musk just doesn't want his stuff used to kill people in offensive actions. That is why he and the president of SpaceX have said. Trying to read too much into what Musk says won't make things clearer. Musk doesn't have the most consistent or coherent world view.

omscs99 3y ago

Starlink isn’t a charity. If the DoD wants to use their resources, then they should negotiate with them as they would with any other business