7 ms·

I'll bite. > For example, can you tell me if EU is about saving the environment and stopping climate change? If so why they are blocking the Chinese electric c

I'll bite. > For example, can you tell me if EU is about saving the environment and stopping climate change? If so why they are blocking the Chinese electric cars? Can't stand others making the world better place better than they do? Because the EU is a bunch of democracies, and a few of the biggest ones do not want to accelerate electrification bad enough to threaten parts of their industry/economy right now. This tracks with the electorate; support for green policies is rather low across the board, almost every nation has different primary issues. > Can you tell me if US is about freedom and respect of the international law, borders and trande? If so why they support Ukraine against Russian invasion and then support Israel who occupies Palestinian territories since many years? The Ukraine war is the most clear-cut aggressor/victim situation in a long time, even compared to setups like the Vietnam war: There is not even a puppet government with any legitimacy that the Russians could be claiming to act in support of, and there is no credible casus belli either. It's just blatant expansionism at the cost of a sovereign nation. Israel/palestine is a complicated mess-- it is basically a civil war of sorts, and the Americans DO support people in Gaza/Westbank a ton (humanitarian aid). > Can you tell me why people should drink from paper straws when the rich fly private jets? Note: The non-private jets are a much bigger problem actually, but since there's not enough popular support to curtail air travel significantly, the easy pro-environmental actions happen first. > Can you tell me why the capital can go anywhere but people should be stopped at the borders? Because the people inside those borders don't want other people with no capital wandering in. The capital alone (or its owners) they don't really mind as much. > Can you tell me how the economy is s great when so many people suffer? Can you be more specific on this? I'd say the economy is not great, not terrible, and its about the same for the people (talking about central Europe here).

mrtksn 2y ago
> few of the biggest ones do not want to accelerate electrification bad enough to threaten parts of their industry/economy right now Do you see the problem? Those in control screw up and they expect to get bailed out by forcing people to buy their inferior and expensive products. > The Ukraine war is the most clear-cut aggressor/victim situation It's actually not that clear cut and if you apply the same filters for both of the countries you will see it. Try testing for internationally recognized borders and the situation is same for the Israeli invasion and Russian invasion. Test for separatist movements and you will find very similar things, test for minorities getting attacked and you will see that its quite similar. Not the same but when you pick something like "Russia must respect the internationally recognized borders" and you don't apply the same for Israel then you are a hypocrite, you are not doing it from standpoint of a principle but due to your own interest and if you are doing it out of your own interest people start asking why I'm paying for it? Where's my cut if this thing pans out? > The non-private jets are a much bigger problem actually I don't know if that's true or not but you ask people to sacrifice their comfort for a common cause, then everyone should do it. > Because the people inside those borders don't want other people with no capital wandering But then people start noticing that it's not the poor immigrants who want to work who buys al the properties. Some people want the poor stopped at the border and the rich welcomed. Others want different things, a lot of people don't want oligarchs buying all that property and leave it empty. > I'd say the economy is not great, not terrible In the case of the US elections, there were many opinion polls showing that people are not satisfied with the economy. They are also not satisfied with many other things related to the economy. Just yesterday someone killed an insurance CEO at a filthy rich location and so many people were cheering for the killer.
- ponector 2y ago
  > It's actually not that clear cut and if you apply the same filters for both of the countries you will see it. Pretty much clear. Unless you watch Russia Today everyday. If you throw away tons of Russian lies it is clear expansion invasion. Russians did this many times. Annexation of Poland, Finland, Baltic states and more recent annexation of Ichkeria and occupation of Georgia.
  - mrtksn 2y ago
    >Pretty much clear. Unless you watch Russia Today everyday. If you throw away tons of Russian lies it is clear expansion invasion. You are misrepresenting my argument. I don't say that Russian are innocent, I say that Israel is just as guilty.
  - nopurpose 2y ago
    How is it "expansion invasion" if peace terms offered by Russia, which are now public knowledge with recent documents leak, shortly after invastion didn't include any new territories for Russia? Ukraine walked away from that offer.
    - ponector 2y ago
      It was a bluff to make a weaker Ukraine. Just a reminder to that moment: 1.Russia sponsored separatist movement in Donbass with money, weapons and agents. 2. Russia directly occupied Crimea while lying they do not. 3. Russia signed a Budapest memorandum to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders and restrain to use force against it. 4. Russia signed a series of Minsk peace treaties. Why you think that they really offered a peace in a good faith? History of modern Russia, USSR and empire show any peace treaty or other international documents with nothing, just a waste of the paper. Russians always lie. That's putty western world are blind because Russian bribes are too good to miss.
    - flerchin 2y ago
      What is this?
    - 2y ago
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
[flagged]
- Symbiote 2y ago
  There were huge protests for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
  - rdm_blackhole 2y ago
    Did any of the governments protesting the war decide to arm the Irakis while they tried and failed to defend their homeland? No. SH was a dictator for sure but these wars were illegal just the same and I did not see the EU kicking the US out of the swift payment system of impose sanctions on them. The moral posturing of the west is a show. The west is happy to go to war when it pleases it but should anyone else do it, then that is a problem.
- empiricus 2y ago
  "had 10 years to get ready decided that it was better to keep building diesel engines than invest in EVs". I actually think EU has no chance to compete with China on manufacturing. The energy is too expensive and taxes are too big. Maybe if they had built 100 nuclear plants (with the money they paid Putin in a year) they would have had a chance.
  - theendisney4 2y ago
    Believe it ir not, we've had superior electric vehicles for decades. They are called electric velomobiles and they are amazingly hard to google. You can buy them but they are made in such small quantities that they cost as much as a car. Here is some random example. https://www.sinnerbikes.com/en/modellen/comfort/comfort-e/ https://www.sinnerbikes.com/en/modellen/comfort/comfort-e/ 1990 The electric versions are somewhat lagging behind the human powered velo https://en.velomobiel.nl/snoek-l/ https://en.velomobiel.nl/snoek-l/ They are not cars but for transporting yourself from a to b they should do more than fine. Almost no power consumption very little danger als they are to light to do the infamous car crash. They use almost no space on the road and the road lasts much longer. You also get physical activity which extends life span. Travel normally consumes life span. Under 30 minutes per day you get to the destination in 0 minutes.
rbanffy 2y ago
> and the Americans DO support people in Gaza/Westbank a ton (humanitarian aid). Humanitarian aid doesn’t help preventing bombs kindly donated by the US from falling. The large difference in casualties (what is it? 40 Palestinians for every Israeli?) tells me it’s not a civil war, but an extermination. Israel settling occupied territories doesn’t earn them much sympathy either. If you want a buffer to feel safe, annex and protect the people who live there while fully demilitarising the land.
- Aunche 2y ago
  The only country that has ever granted Palestinians concessions without deaths is the US (e.g. the desettlement of Gaza), and that is only possible because we have leverage over military aid.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    It's also the country that consistently blocks any sanctions against what the rest of the UN perceive as countless war crimes committed against Palestinian civilians by the IDF.
- YZF 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    > Difference in casualties is not a measure of who is right It is a certain indication one side uses disproportionate force and that it’s not a “war”. > You kill one of mine I kill one of yours. It’s more like “You kill one of ours, we kill 40 of yours. Or their neighbours. Or someone who looks like them”
    - YZF 2y ago
      That's so wrong it doesn't stand the simplest smell test. Soldier: Captain they're firing on us, what should we do? Capatain: Wait till they kill one of us, we can't fire back until then. It is most certainly a war. It will stop being a war when one of the sides stops fighting. Since Hamas is still attacking the IDF and still attacking civilians in Israel with rockets and still holding hostages we still have a war. In Lenbanon the ratio of casualties was also skewed. Again it is some magical fairy thinking that Israel would allow Hezbollah to keep firing rockets at its civilian population centers in order to meet some casualty ratio metric. Again it doesn't pass the simplest smell test. I think you need to look a bit deeper at why you're saying this and think a bit more critically. Once Hezbollah effectively surrendered, and we have an agreement, there is no more war. They could have not started that war, they could have surrendered earlier, the outcome is on them. Just like the outcome in Gaza is on Hamas. The ratio of casualties means absolutely nothing. It pretty much means Hamas fighters are ok to keep fighting even if a lot of them get killed. No country will stop fighting when its enemy is still fighting just to meet some casualty count ratio. In terms of "someone who looks like them" Hamas' choice of having its combatant pretend to be civilians and embed amongst civilians is the root cause of a higher number of uninvolved getting killed. EDIT: Basically the statement that we can make value/moral judgements strictly based at looking at post-event casualty counts is just very obviously false. This is true on the micro when e.g. police kills some criminals and the ratio may be infinity. It's true in self defense situations where you kill any number of attackers trying to kill you. and it's true in the macro, there are many wars when one parts manages to have an overwhelming victory and certainly many examples of battles in history that are like that. In modern times there is no such requirement on a military according to "international law". The only requirement is that a specific action serves a military purpose, the number of combatant killed is unlimited and collateral damage is also acceptable. There are protections for soldiers that surrender but in this specific situation because Hamas combatants do not wear uniforms they don't even get those protections. Early in the war when Hamas was launching massive barrages of rockets into Israel and has killed many civilians Israel was totally justified to use deadly force to stop those launchers. If they're buried in shafts then using heavier bombs is also justified. Hamas is the responsible party since its actions are those that created the need to stop this. Israel's warning to civilians to evacuate was above and beyond what other western armies have typically done in these situations. Hamas' using force to make civilians stay is again on Hamas. If you want to call this an asymmetric war then by all means. It still doesn't change anything. And just a by the way, in the war US led against the Islamic State there were: 6 US serviceman killed, 16 US serviceman wounded. France who also fought the war had 2 serviceman killed. 83,000 ISIS militants killed (at least 13k civilians killed by coalition strikes). Take that for a casualty ratio.
Dah00n 2y ago
>Americans DO support people in Gaza/Westbank Americans !== America.

mrtksn 2y ago

> few of the biggest ones do not want to accelerate electrification bad enough to threaten parts of their industry/economy right now Do you see the problem? Those in control screw up and they expect to get bailed out by forcing people to buy their inferior and expensive products. > The Ukraine war is the most clear-cut aggressor/victim situation It's actually not that clear cut and if you apply the same filters for both of the countries you will see it. Try testing for internationally recognized borders and the situation is same for the Israeli invasion and Russian invasion. Test for separatist movements and you will find very similar things, test for minorities getting attacked and you will see that its quite similar. Not the same but when you pick something like "Russia must respect the internationally recognized borders" and you don't apply the same for Israel then you are a hypocrite, you are not doing it from standpoint of a principle but due to your own interest and if you are doing it out of your own interest people start asking why I'm paying for it? Where's my cut if this thing pans out? > The non-private jets are a much bigger problem actually I don't know if that's true or not but you ask people to sacrifice their comfort for a common cause, then everyone should do it. > Because the people inside those borders don't want other people with no capital wandering But then people start noticing that it's not the poor immigrants who want to work who buys al the properties. Some people want the poor stopped at the border and the rich welcomed. Others want different things, a lot of people don't want oligarchs buying all that property and leave it empty. > I'd say the economy is not great, not terrible In the case of the US elections, there were many opinion polls showing that people are not satisfied with the economy. They are also not satisfied with many other things related to the economy. Just yesterday someone killed an insurance CEO at a filthy rich location and so many people were cheering for the killer.

ponector 2y ago
> It's actually not that clear cut and if you apply the same filters for both of the countries you will see it. Pretty much clear. Unless you watch Russia Today everyday. If you throw away tons of Russian lies it is clear expansion invasion. Russians did this many times. Annexation of Poland, Finland, Baltic states and more recent annexation of Ichkeria and occupation of Georgia.
- mrtksn 2y ago
  >Pretty much clear. Unless you watch Russia Today everyday. If you throw away tons of Russian lies it is clear expansion invasion. You are misrepresenting my argument. I don't say that Russian are innocent, I say that Israel is just as guilty.
- nopurpose 2y ago
  How is it "expansion invasion" if peace terms offered by Russia, which are now public knowledge with recent documents leak, shortly after invastion didn't include any new territories for Russia? Ukraine walked away from that offer.
  - ponector 2y ago
    It was a bluff to make a weaker Ukraine. Just a reminder to that moment: 1.Russia sponsored separatist movement in Donbass with money, weapons and agents. 2. Russia directly occupied Crimea while lying they do not. 3. Russia signed a Budapest memorandum to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders and restrain to use force against it. 4. Russia signed a series of Minsk peace treaties. Why you think that they really offered a peace in a good faith? History of modern Russia, USSR and empire show any peace treaty or other international documents with nothing, just a waste of the paper. Russians always lie. That's putty western world are blind because Russian bribes are too good to miss.
  - flerchin 2y ago
    What is this?
  - 2y ago

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

[flagged]

Symbiote 2y ago
There were huge protests for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
- rdm_blackhole 2y ago
  Did any of the governments protesting the war decide to arm the Irakis while they tried and failed to defend their homeland? No. SH was a dictator for sure but these wars were illegal just the same and I did not see the EU kicking the US out of the swift payment system of impose sanctions on them. The moral posturing of the west is a show. The west is happy to go to war when it pleases it but should anyone else do it, then that is a problem.
empiricus 2y ago
"had 10 years to get ready decided that it was better to keep building diesel engines than invest in EVs". I actually think EU has no chance to compete with China on manufacturing. The energy is too expensive and taxes are too big. Maybe if they had built 100 nuclear plants (with the money they paid Putin in a year) they would have had a chance.
- theendisney4 2y ago
  Believe it ir not, we've had superior electric vehicles for decades. They are called electric velomobiles and they are amazingly hard to google. You can buy them but they are made in such small quantities that they cost as much as a car. Here is some random example. https://www.sinnerbikes.com/en/modellen/comfort/comfort-e/ https://www.sinnerbikes.com/en/modellen/comfort/comfort-e/ 1990 The electric versions are somewhat lagging behind the human powered velo https://en.velomobiel.nl/snoek-l/ https://en.velomobiel.nl/snoek-l/ They are not cars but for transporting yourself from a to b they should do more than fine. Almost no power consumption very little danger als they are to light to do the infamous car crash. They use almost no space on the road and the road lasts much longer. You also get physical activity which extends life span. Travel normally consumes life span. Under 30 minutes per day you get to the destination in 0 minutes.

rbanffy 2y ago

> and the Americans DO support people in Gaza/Westbank a ton (humanitarian aid). Humanitarian aid doesn’t help preventing bombs kindly donated by the US from falling. The large difference in casualties (what is it? 40 Palestinians for every Israeli?) tells me it’s not a civil war, but an extermination. Israel settling occupied territories doesn’t earn them much sympathy either. If you want a buffer to feel safe, annex and protect the people who live there while fully demilitarising the land.

Aunche 2y ago
The only country that has ever granted Palestinians concessions without deaths is the US (e.g. the desettlement of Gaza), and that is only possible because we have leverage over military aid.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  It's also the country that consistently blocks any sanctions against what the rest of the UN perceive as countless war crimes committed against Palestinian civilians by the IDF.
YZF 2y ago
[flagged]
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > Difference in casualties is not a measure of who is right It is a certain indication one side uses disproportionate force and that it’s not a “war”. > You kill one of mine I kill one of yours. It’s more like “You kill one of ours, we kill 40 of yours. Or their neighbours. Or someone who looks like them”
  - YZF 2y ago
    That's so wrong it doesn't stand the simplest smell test. Soldier: Captain they're firing on us, what should we do? Capatain: Wait till they kill one of us, we can't fire back until then. It is most certainly a war. It will stop being a war when one of the sides stops fighting. Since Hamas is still attacking the IDF and still attacking civilians in Israel with rockets and still holding hostages we still have a war. In Lenbanon the ratio of casualties was also skewed. Again it is some magical fairy thinking that Israel would allow Hezbollah to keep firing rockets at its civilian population centers in order to meet some casualty ratio metric. Again it doesn't pass the simplest smell test. I think you need to look a bit deeper at why you're saying this and think a bit more critically. Once Hezbollah effectively surrendered, and we have an agreement, there is no more war. They could have not started that war, they could have surrendered earlier, the outcome is on them. Just like the outcome in Gaza is on Hamas. The ratio of casualties means absolutely nothing. It pretty much means Hamas fighters are ok to keep fighting even if a lot of them get killed. No country will stop fighting when its enemy is still fighting just to meet some casualty count ratio. In terms of "someone who looks like them" Hamas' choice of having its combatant pretend to be civilians and embed amongst civilians is the root cause of a higher number of uninvolved getting killed. EDIT: Basically the statement that we can make value/moral judgements strictly based at looking at post-event casualty counts is just very obviously false. This is true on the micro when e.g. police kills some criminals and the ratio may be infinity. It's true in self defense situations where you kill any number of attackers trying to kill you. and it's true in the macro, there are many wars when one parts manages to have an overwhelming victory and certainly many examples of battles in history that are like that. In modern times there is no such requirement on a military according to "international law". The only requirement is that a specific action serves a military purpose, the number of combatant killed is unlimited and collateral damage is also acceptable. There are protections for soldiers that surrender but in this specific situation because Hamas combatants do not wear uniforms they don't even get those protections. Early in the war when Hamas was launching massive barrages of rockets into Israel and has killed many civilians Israel was totally justified to use deadly force to stop those launchers. If they're buried in shafts then using heavier bombs is also justified. Hamas is the responsible party since its actions are those that created the need to stop this. Israel's warning to civilians to evacuate was above and beyond what other western armies have typically done in these situations. Hamas' using force to make civilians stay is again on Hamas. If you want to call this an asymmetric war then by all means. It still doesn't change anything. And just a by the way, in the war US led against the Islamic State there were: 6 US serviceman killed, 16 US serviceman wounded. France who also fought the war had 2 serviceman killed. 83,000 ISIS militants killed (at least 13k civilians killed by coalition strikes). Take that for a casualty ratio.

Dah00n 2y ago

>Americans DO support people in Gaza/Westbank Americans !== America.