On a positive note:
It’s fairly probable that someone inside those companys doesn’t pay enough attention due to being overly confindent in the product… and we’ll see leaks of classified data decades before they would have been available to the piblic.
,Let them eat cake."
New living space for master race/ God’s people in the east…uh, north.
Both can be true:
The US tried to arm protesters via the Kurds to provoke a civil war paving the way for destabilization of Iran in the long run and possible intervention (with the Kurds not being willing to pass on the weapons as they got betrayed by Trump not that long ago).
And at the same time the peaceful protesters in Iran were murdered by the theocracy fearing for its power… possibly enhanced should the regime have gained knowledge of the planned US weapon deliveries.
He’s a clown that’s what makes it probable he said the quiet part out loud which no other POTUS was dumb enough to admit in the open.
You got a point though, with all that bullshit coming from him we can’t decide what might be true between all those lies and shouldn’t chose based on our world view.
This was / would have been the case during Trump I … since he scraped anyone with at least a bit of reason from his admin in favor of yes-man following his ideology… I’m disturbingly unsure if you’re right under for Trump II.
Based comment, have an upvote good Sir and a splendid easter!
You didn’t say that.
I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.
If I mistook you I’m sorry.
You’re right of course.
But two things I’d like to point out:
Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.
You’re first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
Also this isn’t a new law but a remain of the cold war era.
What exactly is the point of hoping for the US to stay when their contribution currently seems to boil down to blackmailing and threats of abandonment should shit really hit the fan? This sounds more like an abusive relationship than a defence treaty…
It’s astonishing watching a billion dollar military that dominated the globe for decades being blown into bits over night just because of some narcisstic leaders.
It’s never been a good idea to fire experienced commanders due to idology.
Trump seized oil in Venezuela (I’m pretty sure he and his entourage have their hands in that.) and now he’s driving up the oil prices with what seems like a completely idiotic declaration of war… stupid for Americans and the rest of the world, but for him and his corrupt bunch, things are going just great, I’d wager
I know that for land mines this is true.
However it’d be interesting to know if its also possible for naval mines… which are a few magnitudes bigger and also usually rely on an anker (ofter heavy) to stay in position.
Given the high weight I’m sceptical if a naval minefield can be achieved by missle transport.
Having the same thought.
If capitalism eats its own children it might force the world to use FOSS and non-proprietary company structures.
Maybe some fellow Slovenian can explain.
As someone without any knwoledge about the countries inner politics: The US officially announced it’s going to boost right-wing movements across Europe to influence the continent in its favor. Investing loads of money into election campaigning can influence public opinion.
Doesn’t this boil down to self-censorship in public? Better not critizise the government in public becaus you never know whos waring smart glasses…
Good. Push the oil price so more people are willing to convert to solar & EV faster.
I think both can be true at the same time. While Irans target as part of the China-Russia-Iran coalition obviosuly cant’t be bombing of Iran I wouldn’t be suprised if there are at least thoughts about letting the US bleed in a war of attrition, especially from the Chinese side. Ot honestly would be rational to make the best use of the situation.
How unexpected…
Moving large naval targets into the range of enemy defenses despite having the technological advantage necessary to keep out of it must be another 5D chess move from the orange master mind.
/edit: If it’s really true and not another pump and dump scheme for Oligarchy Brows Ltd.