xor

I mean the Marshall plan more or less rebuilt the entirety of Europe…

Technically, Greenland is a Danish autonomous territory

The state of Israel is behaving like Nazis, not “Jews”.

And nothing - especially not other people acting like fascists - legitimates supporting a man who systematically executed millions on the basis of religion and ethnicity.

They gained seats, yes, but 4 seats isn’t exactly a landslide. They’re a force in local politics, but at the national level, they’re just really not a major player - at least not yet

I don’t think there’s a valid moral argument for burning anybody alive

The VAST majority of Muslims are just regular, kind people who don’t murder their families.

There may have been a small uptick overall, but that one is disproportionately insane, I think

It makes it difficult to use the pavement, especially for elderly people and people with disabilities, costs the council a bunch of time and money to repair, and doing the repairs often require killing off the tree

Technically, Gilead is a breakaway state from the US ☝️🤓

Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse to clamp down on political dissidence and consolidate his power. It’s still not clear whether it was intentionally caused by the Nazis or just a convenient opportunity for them.

They’re both the respective heads of state, and they’re both not members of the legislative branches.

So yeah, in this context they are effectively the same.

I wasn’t claiming that he hasn’t been the president of France; I did, in fact, notice.

I said that’s not what the president of France does.

It’s like getting mad at the King of England for Canadian laws, that’s just not his responsibility, even if he is head of state.

There’s loads of issues with Macron, but I don’t see how he’s responsible for any of the above

The president doesn’t legislate, and he doesn’t command the police, he’s the executive head of state.

Actually, the Finns already spend 2.4% of their GDP on defense, making them one of the highest defense spenders in Europe (relative to GDP). And they’re famously very well prepared for wartime scenarios.

Turns out sharing a border with Russia makes military spending look very appealing.

No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that a strategy is ideal for the people executing it isn’t the same as agreeing with that strategy.

In fact, the idiom “a perfect storm” refers to a disastrous situation caused by a combination of multiple problems. You wouldn’t argue that using that phrase means you support the disaster.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by web tech? I don’t know much about how matrix works

Well yeah, there was a deal on nuclear disarmament until Trump tore it up. Not surprising they’re not interested in going through all that again just so he can back out of it for a second time as soon as he wants to look tough.

Jesus Christ man. All I said was “it’s possible there will be some form of peace treaty someday” and you’re acting like I shat in your cereal.

Stop being an arse.

Edit: and don’t call people mate before ranting at them. I’m not your friend.

66% of wars end in some form of compromise (source), and it’s highly unlikely there’s a scenario where Ukraine causes the total collapse of the Russian government, or that the fighting just naturally dies down.

It’s all well and good to say “no peace with the bad guys” but that’s a position you’re taking because you don’t want to negotiate with Russia, not because doing so necessarily achieves the best outcome for Ukraine. “They’re mean so I won’t do any form of diplomacy” is, frankly, dogshit statecraft.

If you want to actually understand how wars do, and specifically the Ukraine war could actually end, I strongly recommend reading that CSIS report I referenced.

Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn’t viable now.

All I’m arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with, really