politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Any system capable of manipulating the outcomes of international conflict needs to become property of the government via eminent domain...especially if that system is used...especially if used by an entrepreneur operating without oversight.
Deactivating US military hardware in the middle of a conflict sounds a lot like an act of treason...
From what I understand he didn't deactivate it.. it was already deactivated and he refused to turn it on.
He had disabled starlink systems over Russian territories - in order to help Ukraine. This included Crimea. Ukraine last year wanted to do a drone-strike on Crimea, so they asked Musk to turn them on. He refused, claiming he was scared of war escalation and that he didn't want to be involved in offensive war operations.
The way you put it is at the very least a rationale. Obviously it can be debated one way or the other, but it makes more sense than him being overtly pro-Russia. I don't think he's so dumb as to make it obvious.
Yeah don't trust headlines. They create the best possible headline to make as many people as interested as possible.. forget about the truth or nuance. During this same period, remember that the US didn't want to give fighter jets or tanks to Ukraine out of fear of escalation. Musk was essentially following official US military policy.
Don't trust billionaires to do the right thing.
I agree. No one man should have all that power.
But we're not really talking about "what ifs" or "ideal worlds"
This is the world we have and this is what happened.
No, I'm saying billionaires should not have that power.
again.. i agree but this is the world we live and we are discussing reality not what ifs. i also think people shouldn't go hungry but here we are with hundreds of millions living in malnutrition
all i'm trying to do is give context so people can actually try and understand what is happening instead of having the wool pulled over their eyes by some other group of rich men
So you know what really happened?
i doubt anybody knows what really happened besides musk, the US government, and some important people who work with the starlink system. so no, I don't know with any certainty what really happened.
but i can be reasonably sure that the headline used in this title is sensationalist and misleading
That's from the CNN article over this. The drones were in the middle of their approach when they got deactivated.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/politics/elon-musk-biography-walter-isaacson-ukraine-starlink/index.html
There's a reason there's weird wording in all of these articles. The reason the drones would have gotten "deactivated" as they got close to Crimea is because before they were near Crimea, they were connected to the system. Once they got close, they got disconnected since the satellites over Crimea were disabled. This is because Musk disabled Starlink over Russian territory very early on. Ukrainian officials would have been well aware before any operation. There are even sanctions in place since 2014 that Obama put in that restricts any company from doing business in Crimea.
The articles are wording it in a way that's meant to imply that he turned something off mid-operation in an attempt to stop a specific attack. This simply isn't the case.
I'm honestly impressed at the level of blatant twisting of the truth that's going around on the news. Are journalists lazy? Is this just click-seeking behavior? Or is it deliberate misinformation and misdirection?
Here's a quote from the article you linked
Here are some articles from 2022
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/musk-denies-blocking-starlink-crimea
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-blocks-starlink-in-crimea-amid-nuclear-fears-report-2022-10
https://news.yahoo.com/elon-musk-blocks-ukraine-using-174508012.html?guccounter=1
That quote is clear and to the point. He didn't turn anything off. He refused to turn something on.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/no-starlink-for-ukraine-elon-musk-makes-a-u-turn-turns-down/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/31/elon-musk-starlink-ukraine-drone-attack-crimea/
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/01/05/how-elon-musks-satellites-have-saved-ukraine-and-changed-warfare
I think Musk is scummy, but I appreciate your response here clearing things up. It makes sense why he wouldn't re-activate it, but at least it's not like he shut it off mid-flight. They just went out of the known range.
I still think Musk is scummy, but for other reasons.
Yeah I understand why he wouldn't wanna get involved. Start facilitating aggressive operations and you're all of a sudden a legitimate military target. I have doubts Russia would shoot down a SpaceX satellite.. but you never know.
We generally don't expect US companies to actively participate in wars, especially a war that the US isn't officially involved in.
I think Musk's decision to offer Starlink access for free to Ukraine is an interesting one. On one hand, they get a bunch of good PR for helping out a country during an aggressive invasion - we're talking hundreds of millions they essentially donated to Ukraine. On the other hand, any good PR they got has probably been canceled out by now. Which I think is ironic - no good deed goes unpunished.
However, I don't think Musk helped just for good PR. I think he felt it was a good opportunity to show off the capacities of his system during a globally publicized war. And it seems like it has definitely met expectations - the Ukrainians have come to rely on the system. So other countries are taking notice. China and Russia are both developing similar systems.
So yeah, I'd probably do the same thing if I were him. He's probably just following the advice of his advisors. I think Musk is scummy too. I don't like him for a number of reasons, the prime being that it seems he's putting all his eggs on fascists coming to power in the US.
But this specific news cycle I think is a psyop meant to discredit Musk. Which fuck it, I don't care really. But I like to know the truth, not propaganda. If I dislike someone, I want to dislike them for actual reasons not lies told to me by a news headline.
Honestly, it's just that journalists want to make Elon Musk look like the bad guy. And thank you so much for taking the time to write this out so that it is far more obvious what's happening because it's just so confusing what they're saying
except Musk said none of these things did he? His response seemed to be in the other direction.
You mean Ukrainian military hardware?
A lot of the Ukrainian dishes were purchased by the US military and given to Ukraine, so they are ostensibly both
Its not military hardware
Whose government though? That's the issue with this thinking. As a person who does not live in the US, I'm not sure I want the US to own everything that can be used in war.
It would obviously be the government of the country of origin.
Starlink was designed, built, and deployed from the United States, by SpaceX (a US company) which is owned by Elon Musk (a US citizen), and launched from US soil. Obviously all that junk and and people are subject to US governance, so when I say this specific stuff should be seized by eminent domain, I mean seized by the US Government.
Other junk in other countries built by other people of similar magnitude and ability to interfere with global conflicts would be subjected to those other governments. I wouldn't expect the US Government to seize, under eminent domain, foreign owned stuff in other countries.