Remix.run Logo
philipallstar 3 hours ago

> Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity.

What do you mean? As in invading other countries?

defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just on the facts,

* assisting US offensive actions,

* weapons sales for offensive usage (eg: The UK government admits that Saudi Arabia has used UK weapons, made by companies around the UK, in its attacks on Yemen.)

philipallstar an hour ago | parent [-]

How is that "almost all"?

defrost an hour ago | parent [-]

Did I say that?

Perhaps direct your Socratic Simplicio more accurately.

philipallstar an hour ago | parent [-]

You were answering this:

> > Almost all of that sector's activity involves offensive activity.

> What do you mean? As in invading other countries?

defrost 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

shevy-java an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

He is quite correct though. By calling it "defence" industry, it is insinuated that this is always a moral right use of arms. In reality one would have to look on a case by case basis to see which use really qualifies as defence. In many cases I would not call it defence, for instance, if money is used to overthrow other governments and so forth. Or the Falklands War as an example - technically one could claim the UK had to "defence" its territory, but at the same time one has to question the use of colonies in the first place.

philipallstar an hour ago | parent [-]

The Falklands weren't colonised by the British in the way you probably mean. They were settled by them - the people of the Falklands are the descendents of British settlers.

Why wouldn't you call a military action to stop Argentina invading them "defence"?