Ignorance doesn’t mean this didn’t happen

Yemen Libya Sahel

Rule number 4: get better at implementing rules (1) and (2)

I do concede the point that they’ve improved. Though there do remain other examples such as Lybia, Saudi campaign support against Yemen, and how the French have conducted themselves in the Sahel

Article 5 is NATO not UN. And multiple European countries partook in operations there against the Taliban (the Afghani government at the time) not just Al Qaeda before the UN mission became a thing.

You can also look at Iraq in 2003 which was neither in response to an attack or UN sanctioned.

As for foreign policy each country does maintain its own foreign policy to a certain extent. And yet the largest countries in the EU are staunch allies of Israel.

The invasion of Afghanistan only later became a UN operation, after the invasion began. And Iraq was the aggressor in the 80s not 2003.

I’m not encouraging, defending, or supporting the Taliban in any way. It was just the first example that came to mind. Hell the Iraq invasion would’ve made a better example as that had nothing to do with the UN.

And I’m not saying there isn’t a divide in Europe on Israel either.

But the countries in Europe for the most part have taken a stance to support Israel (examples being UK, FRANCE, and Germany) while also leading a military operation on a sovereign country.

There are many other examples and more the further back in time you’re willing to go. The French campaign in Algeria for instance.

Europe like other powers respects international law when convenient.

Look at western Europe when it comes to the Taliban vs Israel. They assisted a US invasion of Afghanistan and they support Israel.

Probably by US support to pressure Canada

Despots against democracy

Wait so is achieving the same result with bloodshed preferable?

It’s not the only ship to pass either

Yeah my thought was that you can do that anywhere if you had a ton of money

Lesser evil

Idk man once the US stops fucking with other countries economies they tend to start doing well.

As for one party states, try and defy the two headed snake we call democracy here. The a totalitarian state dressed up as a sham republic. Think of all the things everyone agrees on but the federal government vehemently opposes or vice versa

I agree with you on the use of public funds. But a ban goes beyond that.

And it’s not that the religion enables evil deeds. Evil deeds exist independent of religion. Because some people use it as a thin veil over their actions doesn’t mean it’s the root cause

Antisemitism without religion is called racism. And because a corrupt caste of people use religion as a pretext to control and funnel wealth. Doesn’t mean the underlying religion itself calls for that.

As for having a population supporting conquest independent from religion look at the east India company, both world wars, and many others.

I’m not saying religious organizations are a benefit or arguing for or against that.

But how is the world a better place because the banned prayer rooms in universities?

Whether some of those people follow a good religious leader or not. Their religion generally calls for overall good.

Religions do call for a lot of violence don’t get me wrong. I’d even make the claim that most evil acts that we attribute to religion tend to have it as a pretense. The crusades for instance each had a main goal that was there independent of religion.

But then you have the good that religions mandate. Sikhism with IRS community meals for instance. Zakat in Islam is another good example.

Peer pressure will exist regardless though. This provides as space for people to pray in private.

Why not make the prayer rooms individual rooms? Would that not solve the edge case you describe?

Great harm had been done in the name it religion but you’re overlooking the good that’s been done.

It would be sensible. But what’s the benefit?

Sounds like zelensky has the upper hand. I blow up Russian oil and gas or you give me more weapons to blow up Russian positions and tanks