Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B
Posts
0
Comments
23
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • it is not irrational, to observe (or experience) something and not being able to explain it.

    I agree, and that's where I would stop, I can't explain it, I don't know what this is.

    I think in general it matters what we believe to be true or not, you might think that in a certain situation believing a false thing can result the same (or better) way than not believing but beliefs are not restricted to certain situations and will inform our decisions elsewhere, maybe with more dire consequences. A quick example would be mediums who pray and scam grieving people out of time and money.

  • Isn't it irrational to believe in things that cannot be proven or disproven?

  • I assumed from the letter that by issuing a new licence they mean they give you a new one for free but according to news articles they will not.

  • How?

  • Maybe it sucks holding the country or building new relations but it excels at invading it and did it successfully in Afghanistan as well.

  • You're right, let me rephrase that. The US is the only NATO country with living experience in invading non-neighboring countries with current methods, doctrines and technologies. That's not a simple thing to do and that know-how is extremely valuable if you want to invade someone else.

  • US arms are still flowing to Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia still stand. I'm not saying things haven't gotten worse under Trump but it's clear that the US still has an anti-Russia policy.

  • Russia has an army that is capable of invading another country. The only country in NATO that have done that is the US. I don't think Russia invading the whole of the EU is a realistic possibility but grabbing a few ex Soviet countries off the border...

  • Why do you think that? How would losing half the military assets and technology would benefit NATO?

  • Is it a copyright strike if your photograph contains a copyrighted logo?

  • What were the targets?

  • What do you mean?

  • It's the airbase where if I remember correctly US pilots train German and Ukrainian pilots. US pilots that unlike any other pilots in the world have actually used planes in combat situations.

    Don't be too hasty to dissolve NATO. There's a difference between trying to decrease European reliance on the US military and just destroying NATO with no replacement in sight

  • I haven't read the original comment and don't know anything about how conversations work but would it not be easier to Google chatgpt?

  • Because there's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost from the US leaving NATO.

    Yes, there are good reasons to develop an EU army with the same capabilities as the US but realistically speaking that's decades away if we could start today but we're not even discussing it seriously. In the meantime making any decision furthering the US from NATO gives no advantage to Europe.

  • The US is not just a member of NATO, they are a member that surpass the remaining members (taken collectively) in every regard. Its not just the equipment or manpower lost but the ability to launch a military intervention around most of the globe, something the US, and only the US can do with combined arms. We also lose most of our effective and experienced leadership, technical capabilities like spy satellites and GPS.

    If the US want to invade Europe, they can do so while mostly being sure that we (EU) can't effectively shoot back, with or without the bases on our soil, like it's not even close.

  • Christianity and Christianity are two entirely different religions. It differs between the time period, geography and even between 2 neighbours. Christianity is not a moral code but something you can interpret based on your already existing moral code.

  • Not sure where you got the 2 numbers from but without knowing their methods of gathering and interpreting data you can't just compare the two numbers as is.

  • If you're a woman keep your drinks covered around men. Responding not all men is pointless even tho I'm a man and I don't think women should be afraid of me but I get it that they could be and the person that could help change this the most is me and men not women.

    And again this is a pointless tangent to the original statement.