81–90 of 200 posts
Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other things.
A sane commander that starts useless wars in the Middle East to transfer billions of tax payer money to his donators?
Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other things.
A sane commander that starts useless wars in the Middle East to transfer billions of tax payer money to his donators?
why is the BBC calling NATO Nato? I had to internet search to figure out what they were talking about
Spelling acronyms in title case instead of all uppercase is a British thing generally.
The BBC blog about their decision to use Nato (instead of NATO)[0] is from 2013, a month after their decision to make that change, and starts with:
> Barely a week goes by without at least one BBC News website reader asking why acronyms are in lower case: ‘it should be NASA, not Nasa.’
I disagree that this is a British thing generally, and rather it's a conscious stylistic choice made by the BBC. If it was a British thing generally, it holds that there wouldn't have been a need for the blog post at all.
I also don't think 7 years is enough time to bastardise a language (unless you're talking about a dialect, at which point it doesn't always take very long to literally destroy the meaning of words)
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/8f7c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sane commander that starts useless wars in the Middle East to transfer billions of tax payer money to his donators?
It's been like 17 years since the US started a war in the Middle East. Your talking points are a little dusty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this concern is overblown. It certainly hasn't stopped Canada and Mexico from negotiating the USMCA trade agreement, for example. The JCPOA (more commonly known as the Iran deal) constrained Iran's nuclear program, and it was with great disappointment that I watched the administration withdraw. But there were anecdotal reports of transgressions on Iran's part, and the JCPOA was never submitted to the US Senat…
Do you have a source I could read on the Paris Agreement and its signatories' emissions increase? That is interesting.
EU emissions overall are down, but with large differences between countries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9779945/8-08...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Israel and everyone in NATO from Poland on west. Yes, we're going through a rough patch because the US is (rightfully) sick of playing world police at the same time as China/Russia are on the up but to t…
What does Taiwan have to do with Syria? If we're going to discuss this, let's not play "Goalposts? What are those?"
>Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4
I deem Taiwan to be a "relevant country" due to their relevance to the technology industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Periodically you will find a "harumph!" post challenged instead of blindly upvoted, please do your homework
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will you react if the trained people don’t think an overhaul is needed?
I'll trust their judgment. I don't trust the judgment of the current administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is inaccurate or misleading? You are making an outlandish claim, that the BBC is lying in conjunction with FireEye. Back it up with evidence, or abstain from gaslighting please.
Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is accurate and not misleading? they are the ones that claimed it in the first place. Also what do you think is more plausible for a western cybersecurity company's bottomline? make Russia innocent or make it guilty? especially when you got the backing of all western governments and media.
Can you substantiate your claim? If not, it’s fair to classify your comments as obvious attempts to gaslight HN’s readers.
1: https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Gh... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accurac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
