51–60 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s military equipment. It’s easy as heck to repair and the manuals are all online.
That doesn't hold [1]. > Manufacturers can prevent the Department of Defense from repairing certain equipment, which puts members of the military at risk. [1] https://perma.cc/HS7U-2A9H
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the Taliban now represent the official .gov of Afghanistan it is not a crime for any company to provide supply and services. Edit: I am not talking about US-American companies only.
It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
They would have become abandonware.
Perhaps getting the advertisers hands on the military will solve all global conflicts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without supply chains most of it will be useless in a year or two.
I'm sure people said Cuba would run out of cars in the 60s. They might be able to use all that gear per the manual and best practices, but they'll make use of it however they can. Humans do that. I hope history will look back at that and see it as a "plowshares" dump, where native ingenuity took tons of scrap iron and reformed into the infrastructure of a better society. I figure it's about as likely as being canrall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably, if the customer doesn't have the right to repair then the manufacturer would be able to make parts that are exceptionally difficult to repair without specialized knowledge and tools. Or worse, enforce cryptographic locks on any software/firmware to prevent unauthorized changes. I think right to repair is about ensuring that the customer can make reasonable repairs to the product, and the manufacturer not…
It’s military equipment. It’s easy as heck to repair and the manuals are all online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That equipment can be decommissioned from the air with low risk to allied forces.
Most of the Afghan civilian population do not have the benefit of an air force but many of them will die from US-built (and now Taliban-operated) equipment all the same. Sure, the civilians are not "allied forces" but it's still a shit move to give their opponents more weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
Afghanistan is not yet on the list[1]. If the new government doesn’t uphold its obligations under Doha, there is a good chance it will be added to it in the future. 1. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think "hate the West" is even the right way to put it. They're much more concerned with the islamic world, and turning "bad" (secular) muslims into "good" (shariah) muslims. It's not like they love the west either, but they fully expect non-muslims nations to be evil and don't care nearly as much. The west is more of a useful propaganda tool to achieve the real goal of establishing the islamic caliphate (like…
That's a pretty naive and reductive way to describe the situation. The relationship between early al qaeda days and various US agencies who armed and trained them is very well established.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty naive and reductive way to describe the situation. The relationship between early al qaeda days and various US agencies who armed and trained them is very well established.
Both what you and GP said can be true simultaneously, and in my opinion is.