search
top

Quote of the Day: Larry Correia

About the kidnappings that have been happening in Nigeria, and the celebrity left’s response:

I did a lot of research on human trafficking and modern slavery before Mike Kupari and I wrote Swords of Exodus. It is a horrible, evil, and surprisingly gigantic thing. One thing I’m fairly sure of about the kind of people who do that sort of thing for a living, is that they really don’t give a shit about a bunch of American movie stars taking pouty selfies of themselves holding up signs with hash tag give our girls back. The disapproval of fat, soft, Americans on Facebook really doesn’t move them. They care about getting paid or getting killed, that’s about it. The self-righteous pouting is useless …

Iraq and Afghanistan have made me skeptical of nation building, but I’m still generally in favor of going in to kill people who need killing (like slave traders).

16 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Larry Correia”

  1. mike says:

    “Iraq and Afghanistan have made me skeptical of nation building, but I’m still generally in favor of going in to kill people who need killing (like slave traders).”

    I’m going to call you out here. First of all, “Team America, World Police.” Second, are you in favor of going in to kill people who need killing (like slave traders) everywhere, or just the ones in the news right now? Hell, there exist real, live, human slaves in this country right now. Every now and then they pop up on the news – enslaved servants and sex slaves, usually. There are more slaves today than in any time in human history. Is it really Team America’s job to go and free them, sovereign borders be damned?

    Aside from slavery, there’s a lot of injustice in the world. We can barely keep our shit together at home without making everyone else’s problems our problems. And the cynic in me says that any slaves we free in Nigeria would just start sending us emails asking for bank account information. Africa as a whole needs to find its own solutions. Our “help” just winds up causing more trouble there.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Start with the ones here in the US. Move on to the ones in the neighboring countries. Repeat.

      • Jake says:

        Wrong.

        Start with the ones here in the US. The ones in the neighboring countries are the neighboring countries’ problem, until and unless they cross our border or take an American citizen.

        In those cases we burn their entire organization to the ground to teach the other slavers that if they accidentally grab an American they need to immediately drop that person off in front of our closest embassy with sincere apologies and full airfare home. Or else.

        Oh, and if that means sending forces into another sovereign nation against that nation’s wishes, well, that nation obviously needs to learn to keep its problems under control so they don’t become our problems. If they won’t keep their slavers from taking our citizens, then we will.

        Like Mike said, “We can barely keep our shit together at home without making everyone else’s problems our problems.” We have a responsibility to deal with our problems first. Other nations can look out for themselves. That’s their responsibility.

        • SJ says:

          One of the potential problems in dealing with slavery in the U.S. is that it is probably strongly linked to the gray-and-black-market that employs illegal immigrants.

          U.S. law enforcement has a hard time dealing with this area, and the political problems of focusing on the area are immense. (Though why politicians think it is good to ignore any part of the illegal-immigration employment market is a mystery to me…)

          However, a concerted effort between Fed/State/Local authorities could probably do a lot to reduce the sex/slavery trade inside the U.S.

          Which makes me wonder…how many politicians have a private interest (financial, political connections with underworld enforcers, or personal) in the sex-slave trade?

          Or is there a stronger interest in looking into more-politically-popular or more-financially-positive areas of law enforcement, like the War on (some) Drugs?

  2. Andy B. says:

    I was about to express a lot of what Mike just did, though hoping to stop short of seeming to “call you out.”

    I will echo that it is not “our” job as a nation to be the world’s policeman. I reflect that of all the tough guys I’ve known, itching to go out and shoot something, I’ve never heard of a self-funded volunteer force of pro bono mercenaries forming to go to Africa or Asia to kill people who need killing — though it apparently wasn’t too hard to muster a few to go play soldier near the border, where a few hungry peasants might be attempting to cross. Most tough guys would prefer having the might of a superpower underwriting and backing up their excellent adventure, and to be paid better than they are down at the plant.

    • mike says:

      I was about to express a lot of what Mike just did, though hoping to stop short of seeming to “call you out.”

      Hmm. Was that bad form? I just think that sometimes people lose perspective. Sure, there’s bad in the world that needs to be stopped. Or not. There are lots of problems in the world, but I’m mostly concerned about the ones right here. Helping backwards folks in Africa so they can get back on track to living a terrible life, and not a very terrible life? Call me heartless, but I don’t see the point. Africa in particular has lots of problems, and its inhabitants seem determined to do everything they can to avoid solving them. So Team America swoops in and kills some folks? And then what? It’s pointless.

  3. Clay says:

    Haven’t you heard the news, we can’t even execute convicted murderers in Oklahoma because they might feel pain while we’re doing it.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I would not suggest that we ought to go in without cooperation from the Nigerian government. But if they wanted US military assistance I wouldn’t be opposed to giving it to them.

    • mike says:

      How many times has the Nigerian government (or any government for that matter) offered to help us? We have hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, terror attacks, etc. The way I see it, most countries are happy to ask for US assistance. They’re happy to have us fight their wars for them too. Maybe I missed it, but where is the European push to defend the poor defenseless Ukranians? Or are they all waiting around for America to do something? Can’t let Europe use their own forces to avoid having to pay more for natural gas, now can we?

      This reminds me of that Kony nonsense a few years back. Ok, got it. There are problems in Africa. What else is new?

  5. Rob Crawford says:

    As far as I’m concerned, if the idea of putting a few rounds through a slaver doesn’t bring a smile to your face, you’re not really all that interested in liberty for all.

    • Patrick H says:

      Nobody saying it doesn’t. But should we be risking America lives and tax dollars to do it? And would it really be productive in the end? I’m all for people volunteering to go with their own guns and money, but don’t take my money to do it.

      The Founders rightly feared a standing army- because it would lead to the warfare state, decreasing liberty at home. And guess what- that’s what happened.

    • Echo says:

      Who’s giving us our human intel? Are we gonna walk our informants through the village with bags over their heads, SOG-in-vietnam style?

      What’s going to stop rival political/militia/business groups playing us to call in drone strikes on their rivals?

      The best way to make sure slavers get shot is to make sure potential enslavees can shoot them if necessary.

  6. Asdf says:

    My grandfather went off to fight with the International brigades in the Spanish civil war – with no US government involved in his decision. If you feel as strongly about killing slavers overseas as he did about killing fascists, why not go there yourself just like he did?

  7. Jay says:

    I know this has probably been brought up before, but a Letter of Marque or equivalent bounty system on named individuals of Boko Haram might do the trick, but unlikely the Nigerian government would pony up.

  8. “Not my problem” has a bad habit of becoming your problem, or your children’s problem. Jefferson’s decision to not pay tribute to the jihadists of North Africa (as they called themselves) turned out to be a benefit not only for the U.S., but for other nations in the Mediterranean as well.

    There are a lot of shameful aspects to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. One of the items that citizens of the U.K. and U.S.A. can take pride in is how both countries devoted considerable effort to stopping that slave trade after the Napoleonic Wars.

    • asdf says:

      Jefferson’s decision to send Marines to N. Africa was in response to piracy, which most certainly WAS our problem as it was our ships which were getting attacked. But even so, if my memory is correct he waited for Congress to take a break because they wouldn’t authorize an attack. And I read somewhere that while negotiating a treaty with the Muslim pirates, James Madison actually wined and dined their ambassador (or maybe even their king or whatever) and provided women for them here in DC while our Marines were still fighting over there.

      I feel terrible for these girls, but I still wouldn’t risk American lives to save them. At the very least, it should require a formal declaration of war before any armed forces are sent there. This is not an “exigiency that will admit of no delay”.

top