this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
354 points (95.9% liked)

Ukraine

8235 readers
809 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

U.S. billionaire Elon Musk has agreed to sell a portion of Starlink assets to the U.S. Department of Defense, removing himself from decision-making regarding geofencing Ukraine’s access to the satellite internet service

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why are they paying him?

Just take "his" stuff and kick him in the dick.
Fuck him.

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Maybe because it's easier. There are probably quite a few steps before the US government can just take your shit. Don't think the Americans are very huge fans of nationalisation and the government just taking from the rich.

[–] keeb420@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

and fucking around with national security, or showing you can and would, is a good way to cut through a lot of it.

[–] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

And yet, empirically, they bought, not seized it, which was the distinct point of the question. Even with all he did, pressuring him to sell was the thing they did.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Takes a long time though. This was quicker.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I know something even quicker. About 3165 feet per second.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I don't think it should be seized and he kicked in the dick because he fucked with national security.

I want those things to happen because I hate him.
Fuck that guy.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Don't think the Americans are very huge fans of nationalisation

They prefer nationalization

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because, mad as it may seem, the rule of law still pertains

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Then explain Casey.

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What makes you think I have any respect for a rag drawn up by slavers?

[–] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most of the drafters owned no slaves. Regardless of the source of the document, generally discussion of government focus around the law. I guess if we're ignoring the law, sure a populist totalitarian government can do whatever you want. There's not much to discuss then.

Personally, I'm a fan of the rule of law. I guess even if there wasn't a specific law, I would still want to respect unalienable human rights anyway though.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Personally, I’m a fan of the rule of law. I guess even if there wasn’t a specific law, I would still want to respect unalienable human rights anyway though.

We're probably closer in opinion than you think, but I don't think billionaires have an "inalienable right" to the stolen efforts of workers.

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Simply seizing his shit would trigger a hostile response from the world's most powerful people, realising that the government could easily do the same to them.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Don't underestimate what they can do. We've already seen one particularly moronic specimen try to seize power in the Capitol Riots and almost succeed. Imagine if it was led by someone competent who could put armed mercenaries in the crowd

[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like it's time to "set condition 1SQ" on some civilians who think they can get away with that. Literally and unironically, I welcome the order to fucking launch. Or do it smaller scale and send a few flying razors through windows like with the Iranian general, except through penthouse windows and estates. Then keep going with all their relations and relatives and acquaintences. Hooyah. That's one battle stations missile I wouldn't mind rigging ship for.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we should ...appease them?

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You do realise there are a million different approaches in between 'total appeasement' and 'total seizure', yes?

We do with them what they do with the rest of the population; give them just about enough that it doesn't look like a raw deal to people outside this deal, in exchange for taking away their power to destabilise countries. Meanwhile, set up an execution plan for if they step out of line.

Individually, they can still be a danger (see Donald Trump) but you do not want to see these people coordinate.

[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

But I like 'total seizure'. I don't like these people and I want their stuff taken. Why should I compromise by giving them anything?