Collision Resistance@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前Erik Prince Calls for U.S. to Colonize Africa and Latin Americatheintercept.comexternal-linkmessage-square40fedilinkarrow-up1210arrow-down110cross-posted to: politics@hexbear.netchapotraphouse@hexbear.net
arrow-up1200arrow-down1external-linkErik Prince Calls for U.S. to Colonize Africa and Latin Americatheintercept.comCollision Resistance@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 年前message-square40fedilinkcross-posted to: politics@hexbear.netchapotraphouse@hexbear.net
minus-squareneidu2@feddit.nllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up85·edit-21 年前To give you a hint: He suggested that an international coalition should take over Afghanistan permanently for its natural resources, and install him as an overseer, preferably with the title Viceroy.
minus-squareRealFknNito@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·1 年前Depends on who is making the laws that day.
minus-squareDragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 年前The thing about sovereign nations is that “legality” just doesn’t apply. “Banned by treaty” is a better term, but points to the obvious flaw that a nation can just withdraw from them even if just ignoring it stops working.
minus-squarebeansbeansbeans@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·1 年前Sounds like he watched War Inc.
To give you a hint: He suggested that an international coalition should take over Afghanistan permanently for its natural resources, and install him as an overseer, preferably with the title Viceroy.
“Is that… legal?”
“I will MAKE it legal.”
Very much no
Depends on who is making the laws that day.
The thing about sovereign nations is that “legality” just doesn’t apply.
“Banned by treaty” is a better term, but points to the obvious flaw that a nation can just withdraw from them even if just ignoring it stops working.
Sounds like he watched War Inc.