azuth

Being the largest denomination does not mean they shaped all Christianity. In fact Christianity was shaped before the Catholics split, in the middle east and Asia Minor with Rome being a fringe player.

Their later innovations were mostly left unadopted by the other half of the church and also caused a new split resulting in major intra-Christian religious wars. In fact since Catholics are merely a plurality and not a majority most Christians reject, frankly an understatement, the defining characteristic of Catholicism, papal infallibility.

No they haven’t, not even all chalcedonian Christianity.

Because they are slave states with no regards for human rights?

You have an insanely distorted view of the world.

It is only fair you get something back for all those decades of support to Israel.

You seem to forget that the A-10 is only about 50 years old. The armor, redundant controls, and flight capabilities (such as being designed to fly while missing half a wing, half the entire tail, and an engine) are there to keep the pilot safe. They have landed after being hit more than once, and entirely due to it’s design.

Yeah, it was also designed to kill tanks with the gun which it doesn’t do. As for flying with missing half a wing, it hasn’t happened with an A-10. An F-15, an unarmored plane, has landed missing a whole wing in real life. Many planes, all unarmored, have taken hits and survived.

The A-10 isn’t an air superiority fighter; it’s an attack craft and does that job well enough than any grunt on the ground is disappointed when a request for air support is answered by anything BUT an A-10.

Grunts have no clue. Literally, they listed the A-10 having a copilot as a reason why they prefer it.As in they misidentify aircraft as the A-10.

The A-10 also only did that during low-intensity, counterinsurgency operations. Against infantry with technical. The M-61 is perfectly capable of destroying technicals. Go lookup a video of it in action and tell me it’s not capable and you need the GAU-8.

Yes it can do the job, it doesn’t do it better than multirole fighters that you are going to have anyways. It actually does it worse. It was restricted to 20nmi from the border in Desert Storm during day time. It was assigned to destroy enemy vehicles with standoff munitions from medium altitude, to keep it safe from AAA. Meanwhile F-16 did low level attacks with unguided bombs on SAM units that had organic AAA defenses.

In any case the US has a huge military budget so wasting money on the A-10 is not an issue.

That’s not the F-35’s role, that’s the F-16’s role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it’s not hampered by armor.

It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.

Which is the issue, the A-10’s core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.

The Army wants to keep them. F-35s can’t do the A-10’s job properly, and the A-10 has a reputation. However, they are old with no replacement even in the works because the Air Force only wants bombers or fighters.

Which job is that? Killing hiluxes and insurgents with no air defense capabilities? Because against everybody else the A-10 throws stand-off munitions from medium altitude, when it’s not banned from entering hostile airspace.

It’s no coincidence nobody wants to operate it. Not any foreign air force, not USAF that is stuck with it and not the US army that was offered it(they are fine with USAF paying for it).

F-16s can do anything useful the A-10 can and much more.

Look a non-Trumpist American. Every bit as rabid as the Magats.

Or simply dementia.

Iran has a population of 90 million. How many people do you think have died to make a significant difference?

They would be shot to death by Hungary’s military. Or any other member state’s where applicable. The EU is not a (federal) state and there is no popular support for becoming one.

Orban might be a piece of shit but that does not justify making the EU a state and forcibly taking sovereignty away from members.

OK, let’s prosecute her as well then.

He is a glorified clerk not a boss. NATO exists at the pleasure of it’s members.

So what? He will invade Greenland, get voted out and everything will turn back to normal? Because you disapproved of said actions?

Except, as I have quoted, the USA did this to enforce a decision made by it’s domestic court.

The operation was undertaken to enforce a warrant from a U.S. federal court

Today our UK Armed Forces showed skill and professionalism in support of a successful U.S. interception of the vessel Bella 1 while on its way to Russia. This action formed part of global efforts to crack down on sanctions busting.

Well, certainly don’t count on the UK to support international law.

Leader of the free world has quite a history, full of violations of other countries sovereignty.

Saying the quiet part aloud, just like Donald.

Why are you quoting the definition of meat? Your previous comment was about sausage.

If the qualifier is only meat, nothing can be called a sausage with all the filler and other ingredients they’re adding these days.

Which the proposal defines as:

But to the legislators of the EU, a sausage can now have only one meaning: a cylindrical object containing meat.

Nowhere does it say only meat.

That’s a dishonest representation of the qualifier. It’s must have meat not must have only meat.