Is anyone else too busy just trying to get through the day to care about shit like this? Politics, war, weather, gender arguments- who gives a fuck? I can’t afford a place to live.
That’s the idea, you’re so busy dealing with the water coming into the boat you can’t fix the leak.
Yep, and there’s only a tiny spec of land left and it’s full of wealthy people that don’t want us to reach it
Yep, this is a feature of the system, not a bug
Yeah I’m trying
I’ve been practicing drinking vodka if that helps
From what we’ve seen of Russia’s army. I think the US is ready. The only question remains, which branch of the military will achieve tactical superiority first. One could argue the Air Force because air superiority is usually one of the first things the US does, but the Navy might achieve that faster. Not to mention they could achieve water superiority even sooner by sinking the entire Russian navy.
People thought this about the US invasion of Afghanistan, and Vietnam, and… You get the point.
We have to realize it’s not a given that we are in peace. And that’s why we [NATO forces] are preparing for a conflict with Russia," Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, the NATO military committee chief, said in Brussels ahead of the start of the alliance’s largest exercise since the end of the Cold War.
Keen students of logic maybe observe the flaw in the Admirals argument : A vulnerable peace is not strengthened by preparing for war.
Carry on, Sailor.
Edit :
Oh my , what have we here :
Q. How is RFE/RL funded and managed? A. RFE/RL is funded by the U.S. Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM). USAGM is independent federal government agency that oversees all U.S. civilian international media. In addition to RFE/RL, this includes Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa. In addition to providing oversight, USAGM works with RFE/RL to ensure the professional independence and integrity of its journalists.
How very odd
Keen students of logic will notice you’ve refuted the argument using a dubious naked assertion.
Even you must see the irony in what you’ve written
The burden is on you to support your own assertions, there is no irony whatsoever in me pointing this out. Any keen student of logic would be familiar with this principle.
You will understand that you are not the arbiter of what is or is not “dubious” surely ? And that what you deem “dubious” is, to less contrary people, self evident ?
Dubious means “suspect”, and what makes it “suspect” is the lack of any supporting argument. As a keen student of logic, I’m sure you must be familiar with this word and concept.
Keen students of logic may observe the flaw in the poster’s argument: militaries don’t exist to keep the peace, they exist for the contingency in which it fails. Being prepared for war is literally their job.
Uh that’s a bit rich.
Many militaries have been used for aggressive action, they are not purely defensive.
