I think it's an argument for the inability of one nation within the EU to attack another one. Similarly to the euro zone.
Imagine a French, German and Italian army with barracks all over Europe. Imagine then one of the three tried to coordinate an attack on another one. It would immediately deadlock. Operation would require unity, which in a defensive case, is easier to organize.
There are probably arguments for both, integration and independence. I dunno...
I'm amazed at how level headed and straight forward the arguments are presented across a rather large variety of instances!
Also, against.
Renewable + Battery + grid is the way to go. Connect every power source and distribute the energy. Include redundancy because energy is important.
Du wurdest wegen einer Flasche abgemahnt, oder wurdest du vorher noch mal drauf hingewiesen, dass es verboten ist?
Hast du vorher diverse Büromaterialien mitgehen lassen oder nerven die dich um dich los zu werden?
Ne Abmahnung ist ja schon ne sache.
Yes, absolutely. Without the ability to fight for your independence you are in a situation where one can dictate the rules and the other has to follow. Hence building up strength, in this particular scenario military strength, gives the ability to become and stay independent.
The fact that the EU has to build up military on their own is a sign of distrust towards the US. The reason why a military is necessary however is not that the EU sees the US as a threat, but Russia. Who the threat is in reality is not that important to the argument though. It's a generic signal towards the world that the EU is willing and able to defends itself (land, economy, values) from any aggressor.
Again, I'm not pro war, or pro army. But in a world where one can push you either let yourself being pushed, or push back. The question how much of a concession either of the two options is. Which bringt me back to morally scenario which is more black and white: Should a POC arm themself to defend? I'd say yes because the line for the aggressor will move with every push and aggression. And the same thing happens on a global, national level with China, Russia, the us...
Dependence comes at a cost, when the EU relies on American military or economic benefits, it's harder to criticize the decisions. Same goes for Russia and the dependence on gas and China and the dependence on cheap labor, goods and resources. Co dependence can be good to keep peace, one sided dependence, not so much.
They often enough blamed to not wanting invading a lot of nations which were later (checks notes) invaded by (checks notes again) Russia. How and why should anybody trust Russia in that case?
Though there was some cooperation between the EU and Russia. Why is Europe considered an enemy when they where highly reliant on Russian gas? Everyone, except for the climate, could've had a good time but a change in the Ukrainian government was enough to annex parts of and later invade Ukraine? Where was the threat exactly? Where were the "enemies"? Does anyone think that Ukraine or the entire EU hat the resources or support to actually threat Russia being dependent on them?
And even if these threats are real, where does the right to invade Ukraine end? And should we not arm against known aggressors saying they won't invade us because they just don't do that, eventhough they do? Should we are victim just lay on their back and "try to enjoy it"?
Yeah, the arms enable the size of the conflict, but it it was just tribes, sticks and stones, the conflict would've started. The keg not just the weapons, it was a collective mindset. The lack of cooperation in a very densely populated area and the spark were enough for a conflict. Kids wanted to join the war before they finished school. How fucked up is that?!
You see this kind of conflicts whereever you look in the animal kingdom. Humans are an exception because their conflicts are often much more violent in comparison to other mamals. Should we strive for something better? Absolutely. But rolling on the back because we're peasefull doesn't help distributing more cooperative and peacefull mindset. I know this is a bit of bender talk. "They must learn of our peacefull ways. By force!". Yet, I encourage everyone to be able to defend according to a realistic threat.
Trans people and POC in the US should get their AR15s, the EU should get air defense, artillery, drones.
That doesn't mean I want anybody to shoot someone.
Well, yeah, one lunatic may be a bit short here, but the principal stands, that it doesn't need rearmment for someone to want what the others have. I think the argument for starting a war is often "the others are a thread to our way of living" which results in violence. This thread m
ay or may not be objectively true, depending on the conflict. But was Iran a thread for the US? Or a family in Lebanon a thread to Israel? Some jews to Germany? Some dude liking other dudes a threat to my sexual preference? Someone else identity, religion a threat to mine? Kid slayed in Bucha a threat to a Russian soldier?
Objectively, I would say, no. But yet, these subjective threads result in violence and the question stands, would I recommend someone who would otherwise become a victim recommend to prepare? And to that, I'd answer yes.
Is the current war on Ukrainian territory just, and Russia in the right?
And if so, where does their right to invade Ukraine end exactly? Because often enough the goal post in violent conflicts is moved when the "loosing party" makes concessions. The world wars both ended, not because Germany said "well this is enough for us" but because they where defeated in the battlefield.
Do nations generally use their military just for defense? Unfortunately, no.
I kind of disagree. Imagine what would happen in WW 2 if the allied forces didn't have the combined strength to fight a war? The appeasement of Germanys demands didn't yield peace nor did it protect jews or other minorities. It takes at least two to start a war, but only one to start an invasion, mass murders, genocide.
While yes, if all militaries where abandoned and no one would be willing to fight, we could have peace. But look at the world today or any other time in history and tell me about a time when there wasn't a single aggressor in the world.
War is inevitable when there is one lunatic in the world which enough followers.
Ah yes. In Germany we call this "Technologieoffenheit" and do not consider internet speeds, but car's.
I think it's an argument for the inability of one nation within the EU to attack another one. Similarly to the euro zone.
Imagine a French, German and Italian army with barracks all over Europe. Imagine then one of the three tried to coordinate an attack on another one. It would immediately deadlock. Operation would require unity, which in a defensive case, is easier to organize.
There are probably arguments for both, integration and independence. I dunno...
I'm amazed at how level headed and straight forward the arguments are presented across a rather large variety of instances!
Also, against. Renewable + Battery + grid is the way to go. Connect every power source and distribute the energy. Include redundancy because energy is important.
I was thinking about the slightly smaller *cide bingo Genocide Ecocide Suicide (by soldiers committing war crimes)
I like war crime Pokémon
moreless though.Sounds like a bootstraping issue to me. Power through!
Hello yeah. Just build a bunch and place them in public places over night as art installations.
And it frees up space in the relationship for another second wife.
Next up: steel blades are classified as weapons of mass destruction and owning them privately a federal offense.
I give this photo a 9/10 rating.
Du wurdest wegen einer Flasche abgemahnt, oder wurdest du vorher noch mal drauf hingewiesen, dass es verboten ist? Hast du vorher diverse Büromaterialien mitgehen lassen oder nerven die dich um dich los zu werden? Ne Abmahnung ist ja schon ne sache.
Yes, absolutely. Without the ability to fight for your independence you are in a situation where one can dictate the rules and the other has to follow. Hence building up strength, in this particular scenario military strength, gives the ability to become and stay independent. The fact that the EU has to build up military on their own is a sign of distrust towards the US. The reason why a military is necessary however is not that the EU sees the US as a threat, but Russia. Who the threat is in reality is not that important to the argument though. It's a generic signal towards the world that the EU is willing and able to defends itself (land, economy, values) from any aggressor. Again, I'm not pro war, or pro army. But in a world where one can push you either let yourself being pushed, or push back. The question how much of a concession either of the two options is. Which bringt me back to morally scenario which is more black and white: Should a POC arm themself to defend? I'd say yes because the line for the aggressor will move with every push and aggression. And the same thing happens on a global, national level with China, Russia, the us...
Dependence comes at a cost, when the EU relies on American military or economic benefits, it's harder to criticize the decisions. Same goes for Russia and the dependence on gas and China and the dependence on cheap labor, goods and resources. Co dependence can be good to keep peace, one sided dependence, not so much.
They often enough blamed to not wanting invading a lot of nations which were later (checks notes) invaded by (checks notes again) Russia. How and why should anybody trust Russia in that case?
Though there was some cooperation between the EU and Russia. Why is Europe considered an enemy when they where highly reliant on Russian gas? Everyone, except for the climate, could've had a good time but a change in the Ukrainian government was enough to annex parts of and later invade Ukraine? Where was the threat exactly? Where were the "enemies"? Does anyone think that Ukraine or the entire EU hat the resources or support to actually threat Russia being dependent on them?
And even if these threats are real, where does the right to invade Ukraine end? And should we not arm against known aggressors saying they won't invade us because they just don't do that, eventhough they do? Should we are victim just lay on their back and "try to enjoy it"?
Yeah, the arms enable the size of the conflict, but it it was just tribes, sticks and stones, the conflict would've started. The keg not just the weapons, it was a collective mindset. The lack of cooperation in a very densely populated area and the spark were enough for a conflict. Kids wanted to join the war before they finished school. How fucked up is that?! You see this kind of conflicts whereever you look in the animal kingdom. Humans are an exception because their conflicts are often much more violent in comparison to other mamals. Should we strive for something better? Absolutely. But rolling on the back because we're peasefull doesn't help distributing more cooperative and peacefull mindset. I know this is a bit of bender talk. "They must learn of our peacefull ways. By force!". Yet, I encourage everyone to be able to defend according to a realistic threat. Trans people and POC in the US should get their AR15s, the EU should get air defense, artillery, drones. That doesn't mean I want anybody to shoot someone.
Well, yeah, one lunatic may be a bit short here, but the principal stands, that it doesn't need rearmment for someone to want what the others have. I think the argument for starting a war is often "the others are a thread to our way of living" which results in violence. This thread m ay or may not be objectively true, depending on the conflict. But was Iran a thread for the US? Or a family in Lebanon a thread to Israel? Some jews to Germany? Some dude liking other dudes a threat to my sexual preference? Someone else identity, religion a threat to mine? Kid slayed in Bucha a threat to a Russian soldier? Objectively, I would say, no. But yet, these subjective threads result in violence and the question stands, would I recommend someone who would otherwise become a victim recommend to prepare? And to that, I'd answer yes. Is the current war on Ukrainian territory just, and Russia in the right? And if so, where does their right to invade Ukraine end exactly? Because often enough the goal post in violent conflicts is moved when the "loosing party" makes concessions. The world wars both ended, not because Germany said "well this is enough for us" but because they where defeated in the battlefield. Do nations generally use their military just for defense? Unfortunately, no.
I kind of disagree. Imagine what would happen in WW 2 if the allied forces didn't have the combined strength to fight a war? The appeasement of Germanys demands didn't yield peace nor did it protect jews or other minorities. It takes at least two to start a war, but only one to start an invasion, mass murders, genocide.
While yes, if all militaries where abandoned and no one would be willing to fight, we could have peace. But look at the world today or any other time in history and tell me about a time when there wasn't a single aggressor in the world.
War is inevitable when there is one lunatic in the world which enough followers.
Go Bears
As a German, I can offer "Ein Schluck Wasser in der Kurve".
You redeemed yourself...