Youtube comments of Sedna063 (@Sedna063).
-
1600
-
731
-
327
-
288
-
277
-
202
-
181
-
147
-
142
-
139
-
128
-
119
-
92
-
89
-
87
-
82
-
72
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
54
-
53
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
46
-
45
-
43
-
43
-
40
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The thing with the tax cuts is that they benefit the top 1% mostly, at the same time are cancelled by the mid 20s (but not for corporations) and that they blew the deficit without a need.
And I must disagree with your trade agreement assessment.
Unilateral trade agreements allow unlimited trade with many nations, allowing the countries to grow together. But there is the thing, in your example, you say that Germany can't really walk away because it looses France. That is wrong. Trade agreements between nations remain even if another signature nation breaks it but that doesn't mean there cannot be a way of punishment. One just have to write a termination clause into it and immediately after someone becomes dishonest, they are out and the rest is in.
And in regards to the Trump bilateral agreements, he wants to be able to use the full might of the US economy to the advantage of the negotiation, which in itself is understandable. It is not so much for him to be able to punish others but to shape it into the US favours. Look at what the US Ambassador to the UK suggested for a trade deal! He wants to open up the NHS for private industry and open the agricultural market, including lower food safety standards. The UK would not be able to deny all of this. Unlike in a multilateral agreement or if they were an equally large economy.
However, many members of the world economy are much more in the range of Germany and the UK. Hence those smaller nations tend to form their own FTAs to be able to negotiate on a level basis with the US or China so that they are not taken advantage of. It is quite interesting to see how ineffective this bilateral approach is for the US.
-They have few trade agreements in place, mostly with smaller nations. The only major nations in a trade agreement are Canada and Mexico.
They have agreements with such economic giants like Peru, El Salvador, Jordan, Nicaragua and Singapore.
-The EU has trade agreements with Japan and Canada, is about to sign Mercosur off and then Mexico is quite willing to do one too. The multilateral approach clearly is favoured by most nations.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
You guy have clearly no idea about anything. Doesn't seem as if you ever paid a tuition fee for college.
At first, European nations are much, much smaller than the USA, both in landsize and population. Naturally, we therefore have a lower GDP. However, divide GDP's by population and you will not see a big difference. Maybe a few thousand bucks but that is not much.
Secondly, you have a very limited understanding of European "socialism". We pay higher taxes but compared to the average American, the average German will usually be much better covered medically, will be provided a pension and if he gets unemployed, will generally not loose everything. Not even health care. Oh, and before I forget, taxes are similar, only the social founding is different, check Bismark system for this.
And where is Venasala? Close to Covfefe?
Talking about budget, Germany manages a healthy positive budget even with refugees and other unwanted expenses. You just waist yours for your military. You got nukes but do you need 6k of them? 1000 should be enough. I also do not understand why 10,000 tanks make your life safer. It is about choices you make. Should we pay more for defense, hell yes but you should quit some spending for other stuff.
And social security is of course reducing crime. Who needs crime if you get help?
And it is clever to let the rest pay for your education. You will benefit later, though not individually but society. Not just rich kids going to uni but instead the brightest and smartest.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You pretty much list some events that have happened.
1. Authorized a strike but this has done what exactly? Assad still won. Just a waste of Tomahaks. However, I don't put blame on him for Syria. Obama's greatest mistake.
2. Raising the budget for what exactly? The US outspends everyone, in the top 10, only 2 adversaries are found, the rest are allies.
3. Obamacare wasn't repealed. Obamacare is still in place, there is no sign on work for healthcare.
4. Declines a salary but travels frequently to Mar-a-Lago where he charges secret service and probably makes a lot more profit.
5. North Korea did not even start anything yet. Clinton arrived at the same spot as Trump is right now. They won't give up their nukes.
6. He did so and the only thing this achieved was more tension and a less likely peace treaty. The US lost lots of standing in the middle east for this move that practically
has no real benefits but only cons.
7. Obama was Pro-Israel too but that doesn't mean one has to follow blindly. Obama gave Israel a lot of money for defense.
8. Is he though? Good relations are good for all but did relations improve? I hardly think so.
9. That deal was closed in 2014.
10. Did so against advise of his intelligence, allies and the UN.
11. Can't tell.
12 & 13: Immigration has declined steadily since the 2000s.
14: Most of the tax cuts benefit the rich. You get bread crums for an increased governmental debt (which he doubled in a financial year compared to Obama).
15: How did he do it?
16: Arguably, democrats want the same.
17: He did donate. He also declared a national emergency but didn't increase funding, nor did he do something to treat the underlying cause of the problem.
18: Death penalty is just wrong. It does not discourage anyone from killing.
19: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20: His speeches are simple words, read from a teleprompter. None of them will be remembered in history. No Gettysburg address, no Ich bin ein Berliner.
21: A much better candidate, prepared and served the country years before.
22: Got it all started with.
23: When was the last time after 9/11 that a terrorist made it to the US by plane? Just talk but hardly anything to increase safety.
24: Starting from a low 4.8%, got it down to 3.6 % or so. So, he didn't have a big impact.
25: GDP was growing before too at a good rate.
26: There won't be a wall.
27: Meanwhile damaging the environment even more.
28: Stock market was already at an all-time high.
29: You already mentioned donations like twice.
30: Basically he renamed NAFTA. There was hardly any change. By the way, Mexico has given the EU some very nice concessions to act as a counterbalance to the US.
31: Like any other president did in areas like this before.
32: In one sentence, you say that he improved US-Russia relations, yet you mention sanctions and deployed troops at the boarder. What now?
33: There was never a lack of funding for NATO. NATO bills were all paid.
34: Conservative judges, many of them are not good for the common middle class man.
35: You support him because he threw one big bomb on terrorists? Just because the bomb was MOAB? Seriously?
36: Did school shootings cease to exist? Did gun violence drop?
37: Ius Solis is written in the constitution. There is no way he can get them out.
38: Drops in food stamps because requirements have been changed so less people are eledgible.
39: He *lies to you on social media and has made more than 8000 lies over the past 2 years.
40: These regulations are necessary. They protect the environment, consumers and patients. How will you benefit if a bank can now overcharge you?
41: Fun fact. The quota set before was never met. Nobody buys US cars.
42: One of the guys who wasn't useful like von Braun.
43: Other presidents did so too.
44: He could have had a united front with Japan, Europe and SK, Australia and NZ, Canada against China if he wanted. Instead, he declared war on everyone.
45: That is not your decision to make but ours.
46: *He made it more unhealthy to further increase rampant obesity.
47: 200 companies report bonuses. Wow. How many millions are there?
48: As already mentioned: He has had low levels of unemployment when he took office, including blacks and latinos.
49: On a contrary, the labour participation rate has remained constant.
50: ISIS was already in shambles in 2016.
I realised while writing this that you have a lot of recurrent "facts". Most of them are misleading as well or not put into context, standing isolated. Most of them are minor things. One supports a president for his efforts in health care, criminal justice reform et cetera. Not for supporting the Brasilian president. Did you write so much just to make it look like a long list of accomplishments?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ennykraft Erstens, das ist ein Arbeitsplatz, kein Leichenschauhaus. Hier arbeiten Profis daran die Organe freizulegen und zu entnehmen. Es muss koordiniert werden, im OP herrscht ein gewisser Lärmpegel (Lüftung, Kauter, Beatmungsgerät und oftmals Telefone). Ich bin mir sehr sicher dass die Ärzte allesamt höchsten Respekt vor dem Spender haben aber die müssen arbeiten, sich koordinieren mit den Transportteams....
Nur weil nicht mit gedämpfter Stimme gesprochen wird die Entnahme abzulehnen ist schon ein echt dummer Grund, das kann ich nicht schönreden.
Ja, ich habe schon viele Menschen sterben sehen aber auch bei einer (nicht erfolgreichen) Reanimation wird man auch nicht automatisch leiser, im Gegenteil, eher lauter auch wenn der Patient gerade stirbt.
Und es ist nun einmal von absoluter Wichtigkeit die Qualität der Organe festzustellen, sorry aber das lässt sich einfach nicht vermeiden. Das ist nicht respektlos, respektlos ist eher Ihre Einstellung dass sie den Ärzten eine Würdelosigkeit unterstellen. Abgesehen davon kann man ein Blasorchester neben den Patienten stellen, das kriegt er nicht mit.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Ad___Astra 1. AoA is only relevant for snap shot attcks, as delta wings neither Rafale or Eurofighter have a good AoA. Rafale is better, true, but given that it is only marginal, neither can claim to be better.
2. turn radius is just one part. It depends on speed and elevation too, though as I said Rafale has a better instantaneous turn and Eurofighter a better sustained turn.
3. You did not understand my point! My point was that the carrier version of the Rafale is not relevant for most nations because they lack the carrier to carry them. I am well aware who is an export costumer.
EF: UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait. Potentially Switzerland. Potentially Finland.
Eurofighter is combat proven too. The Eurofighter does not need US agreements and in fact it is advantageous that EF can carry US arms, they are much cheaper than the French ones although EF carries a number of European missiles.
The Eurofighter is currently in Tranche 3 and will soon enter Tranche 4. Neither you or I can make a claim over who has the best sensor or defense suit because those are obviously highly classified.
No need to be condescending, given your atrocious lack of knowledge you cannot allow yourself to be condescending to others.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Zurn, it would have been so much easier to go against China:
1. He could have formed an alliance with Europe and other key trading partners. We Europeans have our struggles with China too, stealing intellectual properties ( by the way, the US does too, Germany is listed as economic espionage target for the NSA). He attacked us instead, weakening us, himself and releaving the push on China.
2. By starting a trade war, he has pushed China in a corner. Chinese people are proud, with a good faith negotiation, he might have achieved more. Now, they will push against you because they can't afford to look as if they cave.
3. Against intellectual property theft, you will not really stop them with a trade deal. You need to release the NSA to counterhack them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Not true. But, however, NATO countries are better in warfare. Russia is still fighting a war based on attrition and mass mobilisation. NATO fights their wars intelligently, taking lessons learned from WW2 from both victors and loosers. NATO armies realised that the Wehrmacht had a lot of strong points and took those while addressing weaknesses and using some of their own war strenghts, such as logistics and information gathering.
This lead to an amalgation of fighting styles that have made NATO armies hard to beat. The technological superiority only adds to that. NATO countries enjoy a better doctrine. They spend far more on training specialists, they incorporate decision making at lower levels for local purposes. They fight smarter, not harder. Way more intelligence gathering capabilities, way, way more intelligence sharing between units, much more interconnectivity between different units --> much faster type of warfare that overwhelms the enemy and forces the enemy to constantly react instead of taking the initiative.
Coupled with the logistics, the economies etc. this makes western armies so tough to beat. Countries like Russia largely continue to wage napoleonesque warfare styles. With masses but with little to no communication, attrition based warfare etc... Resulting in much slower advances and missing opportunities.
China is already moving at breakneck speed away from the Russian warfare system to incorporate lessons learned over the past decades to create a chinese style of smart leadership with mass production. I bet that in the future the armies of the second and third world will not send their officers to Russia anymore.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Nobody doubts that Germany started WW2 but it was not the sole responsible country of WW1.
It was Germans that did the Holocaust, everybody committed war crimes.
Polish soldiers, how many, 1000? The main bulk of polish armed forces surrendered in 1939, you were amongst some minor helping units but not a full fighting armed force. Ah and we beat the S*** out of americans in Monte Cassino.
There is the Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge that does take care of rebedding fallen germans to other tombs. They located my great grandfather for instance.
Facts are, Germans lost.
Facts are, Germany is the richest country in Europe even if it lost a lot of territory and human power.
We are the leader of the EU, amongst the G7, G20 and countless other organisations. We are top in quality of life, social security, education etc.
Facts are, German contribution to science is outstanding.
Facts are, so many Polish or eastern europeans in general come to work in my country.
Facts are, the Nazis are dead, I am 20, I am not responsible for any actions, I will not apologize because I did nothing wrong.
Facts: Germany won in Scandinavia, France, Poland, Balcan, Greece.
Germany only got beaten by the combined forces of the USSR, Great Britain and the USA and it took them 4 years to bring us down, a country with less inhabitants than the empire, USA or USSR.
3
-
The fate of Europe? Mate, Sweden and Russia are European, the Ottomans, well, without the austrians you would not have had a chance too and khanate, I don't know much about it.
Napoleon captured Moscow too, didn't help him too much in the end. Hitler did also fight a much bigger war, not just one city but the biggest country on earth, a front from Leningrad to Stalingrad, 3000km long.
USA and Russia were strong, France amry was just tactically shit and Britain had it's empire.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@royhuang9715 You see migration as very simplistic and only materialistically motivated. And you ignore reality.
For starters, your argument is that there are many millions with chinese ancestry that would be motivated to move to China in the future. Allow me to pop that bubble.
Birth rates in South East Asia have been falling for quite a while now and by the time China will want to drastically import labour from elsewhere, you won't have a young population in SE Asia you can recruit.
In Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia, births are below replacement already. In Indonesia, just barely replacement. In Laos 2.7 children per women. But Laos is a small nation. Cambodia is at 2.3. My point, there are just not all that many Asian youths born anymore.
And if China wants immigration, it would need a massive number. Several millions at least. There just simply isn't the pool available to recruit those numbers in Asia. In Africa perhaps but then migration isn't just materialistically motivated.
By the way, China actually isn't all that rich on a per capita basis. GDP / capita PPP is about 18,000$. Malaysia 29,000, Thailand 19,000; Indonesia, Cambodia about 11-12,000 $.
Plus; China isn't all that accomodating to foreigners. It is notoriously difficult to integrate into Chinese society, nobody outside China speaks the language, the Chinese societal model isn't all that revered in that part of the world...
Suffice to say; when China needs immigrants, they will need a lot of them but there isn't a local pool large enough available and the barriers are significant to discourage many people from trying.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I didn't. I perfectly understood what you meant. But to be fair, Poland hosted the largest community of jews before the war and b) all jews from western countries were deported to Poland because the death camps were located there. Anybody caught saving jews was shot or send to concentration camp and got killed in the last months.
It is the most effective way but a cowardice way.
I am not gloryfying the Nazis. They let to the destruction of Germany. I am however belittling the polish achievements you state because you do overstate them, for example in your comments, you try to create an illusion that Poland was a key member to allied success. Heico and I showed you that this was not true. You were a minor player.
Antisemitic tendencies were prevailant in all countries in Europe, don't argue that. In Germany, lawyers, doctors and so were also dominantly jewish or at least show much higher % than their part of the population. Parliamentary seats, number of Poets and so do not correlate to an open society.
Because there were much more jews to be saved than in Germany, persecution started very early in Germany and therefore almost all got caught, with some exempts.
You did collaborate with Nazis, don't deny it.
If you watch Hollywood, take it with a grain of salt.
The closest you can get with an accurate description of soldiers of Germany are the german films. Mostly were normal men, farmers, workers or others. 10% were strict Nazis. By the way, there are films about German heroism and bravery.
We gased but we apologised, paid huge sums to the families of the victims (still paying) and put of commemorating statues and so and it is in political debate.
We did this 70 years ago, politicians from today are not responsible for this. I guess, if the generation of the murders is dead, we can be a moral leader again. And we are leading, now we showed christian ideals in 2015. Did you? No.
2
-
You did.
I never made Nazis heroes, are you blind or can't you read. And why do you tell me history I am very aware of? As already mentioned twice, you saved ost jews because all jews were in Poland.
Some Polish did collaborate, just because there was a resistance doesn't mean there wasn't collaboration.
Israel doesn't like us, especially since Netanjahu came to power.
You executed german soldiers when they gave up and were officially POW. Just to mention one crime.
Heroism. How about heroic fighting in the Autobahnschlachten or so many other battles. Ardennes 1940 and 1944-45? That was fighting.
I do not doubt that you were important for the breaking of Enigma Code. However, the polish mathematicians did "hack" a design from 1918 and in 1938/39, the Wehrmacht introduced a new version, rendering polish "hacking" (I do not have a better word) nearly useless. In Bletchley Park, there were only brits. Regarding the more important version of the Kriegsmarine, this was only solved when they got the codes from U110.
Again, I didn't say that the german jews survived, man, can you actually comprehend what I am writing?
I was saying that persecution started already 1933 and intensified 1938 to unprecedented levels.
In the country of the GESTAPO, saving jews was much more difficult than in Poland with the woods.
Some did but most got caught.
As for sentences, germans were usually sent to either prison or concentration camp, sometimes shot. Still pretty life threatening, given that they tried to execute all prisoners (for example, in my hometown Dortmund, they executed 300 prisoners and concentration camp inmates hours before the americans came).
One hero? Oskar Schindler.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmmw125 1. Europe does punch above it's weight compared to the world... We are a small continent with less than 10% of the worlds population. Anyway, the idea of very large multinationals is decidedly an American thing from a time when America was the largest economy in the world by a long mile and Europe disunited. And while we are a single market now, companies take time to grow. And since then market leaders in each country have formed and they now compete. That also questions whether having those super big companies dominating the economy is a good thing or not.
2. Europe is not completely without resources but has comparatively little if you compare to the US. And those companies typically have their HQ here but their ops are mainly abroad in other regions of the world. Total Energies is not making their money at home in France.
3. The tech giants benefited from the massive US expansion in the 1950s and 60s which laid the foundation for the silicon valley and the unique risk capital, entepreneurial minds and technology research done there. However, many of those tech companies are massively overvalued. Just look at Meta, their entire business model could be unravelled if Apple or the EU introduce privacy measures. Nonetheless, we do have tech companies, typically not in consumer markets though. SAP comes to mind for example. And with regards to tech, without ASML no chips would be produced nowadays - and they are Dutch with German optics. Tech is all good and dandy but their business models can quickly be unravelled. Yahoo lost their domineering position, did Snap ever make a profit? Zuckerberg spend weeks in front of congress testifying. Apple at least has a business that actually produces things.
4. I would not say Europe is no longer innovative, willing to take risk and dynamic. We certainly are more risk-averse than the average American and that is ok. However, just look at the diverse set of "innovation rankings" and you will find European nations regularly beating out the US.
5. America keeping politicians out of business? Oh please, just look at corporate donations and you see corruption legalised. And regulations aren't bad per se. I quite like not having cancerous additives in my food or standardised electronic equipment. Or having an actual air regulatory body that actually performs their duty (737 MAX scandal). Can't really fault the EU here.
6. We have kept close pace. Just look at the data. You base this on the list of the largest companies. Fortune 500 sees 128 in Europe and 138 in North America. Not that big of a difference. In regards to GDP, GINI, HDI, Innovation, GDP / Capita (PPP) etc we kept pace and don't have to hide.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Rajath_2001 Whatever the Russians call it, it is still a war. Obviously they don't wanna say this but I picked two definitions.
"Armed fighting between two or more countries or groups"
"the desired territorial, economic, military or other benefits expected following successful conclusion of a war"
This conflict is a war no matter whether you like it or not.
Yes, it is a way to crush morale.
1. Ukraine is not in NATO nor is Minsk treaty a treaty where Ukraine agreed to forego the possibility to join NATO. Neither did Ukraine formally started negotiations to join NATO.
Make sure you know what you talk about! Anyway, shouldn't countries be sovereign in their decisions to join alliances anyway?
2. Why should NATO have dissolved? It was and is a useful way of defence for many European countries. Having the US and an entire continent in your back is surely nice.
3. Dude, just check out the trade volume between Russia and the EU (most of which are also NATO member states). In 2021, the trade volume was 257 billion Euros, with an additional 29 billion Euros in services. Europe had 311 billion in investments in Russia. This is hardly isolationist. Germany was about to start the Northstream II pipeline with them.
4. Russia was not isolated. They have lost former countries and parts of the USSR to the west though but that was through those countries own decisions. Love it or hate it, Eastern Europe is very much not pro-Russia and they remember what they did during the 20th century with them. However, Russia was not disqualified from trade, investments, other security alliances with partners everywhere...
5. NATO did not launch those wars. At least not all of those. Afghanistan was UN legitimised and NATO was tasked to give protection to the new Afghani government. And the other war would be Libya, again with UN legitimisation.
I don't care who you support or not. But please, get your facts straight. That much should be expected from anyone.
Oh, and the irony when you support Russia which is doing exactly that on Ukraine - terror. But then Indians like Russia so they make excuses. So, excuse away.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Commander_Chief Oh I agree that Israel can do better with their treatment of Arabs and other non-Jewish denominations. But given the persecutions of minorities in the Arab world I'd rather be in Israel. KSA discriminates against Shia, likewise does Bahrain. In Iraq there was a genocide on Yazidis, which killed many more thousands than Israel in the past decades! For 3000 years, Jews have lived in Gaza. Not anymore. Alexandria used to have a large and accepted Jewish community. Now Egypt is down to 10 Jews in the entire country. Hundreds of thousands of Jews left to go to Israel because of persecution, discrimination. 100ks Iraqi Jews... Afghanistan had a Jewish community. It is gone now, after a millennia of presence.
And sorry, there was definitely no peaceful utopia before the creation of Israel. Part of the reason for a creation of Israel was so that the Arabs and the Jews would no longer kill each other in mass riots like during the 1920s.
Anyway, I wish for peace but it can't be a solution to advocate for the destruction of Israel. Not realistic, not feasible, not wanted, not even by a large part of Arab Israelis, who despite discrimination, enter politics, have careers at the highest court...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You make a common misconception about the German gas.
First, the Russians always supplied us during the cold war as well. At a time of mortal danger. Business is business, that is true in Russia too. One can actually say that the money from Germany actually stabilises Russian income and economy and Russia will hardly risk a major economic downturn for some areas in the baltics. Right now, Germany placed sanctions on Russia but the oil and gas situation is not affected.
Second, there are other sellers. Norway can supply us too (they do already) and Rotterdam already has an LNG terminal and one is built in Germany too. Poland is constructing one too, because there is a connected gas net in Europe, different countries can support each other.
The motivation of the US is twofold: 1. The money aspect, Trump wants to close the trade deficit and figures gas could help a great deal. Secondly, they want to weaken Russia, cut off their foreign cash income. For the US, they would be safe from the backfire but an unstable Russia is not what Germany wants and needs. Neither does Poland. Their motivation is also primarily monetarian as they make a great deal with transfer money, several billion a year. Of course they do not trust the Russians as easily as the Germans do and would also like Russia to have a lower GDP.
But for Germany, there isn't really a good argument not to buy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dexlab7539 Sorry but you are thinking on wrong assumptions.
1. Ukraine is loosing territory at a very slow rate right now. A few dozen square kilometers at max per week. That is extremely little for all the effort. You can look at the maps and see that the frontline is virtually static right now.
2. Russia does not use 1/6 of their army. Their entire active personnel numbers 1,000,000 troops. That includes Ground Forces, Air Force, Navy, Missiles Troops and Airborne.
Airborne and missile troops have 50,000 soldiers each; the Navy some 150,000 and the Air Force 150,000 troops.
The Russian ground forces number around 300,000 active duty soldiers. Support units (logistics, medical etc) make up the rest. That means not 1/6th of Russian soldiers are in Ukraine but rather about half.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Really, no.
1. China will largely invest at home. There will be some lines going elsewhere but mostly they will remain at home.
2. To the North, there is Siberia and distances become too great to make HSR feasible. Plus, population density rapidly declines.
3. West, same story. All those -stans.
4. South: India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan. Interesting for freight but for a traveller from Bejing, not interesting. Too large distances. People forget how massive China is.
5. East: North Korea remains isolated. WIthout North Korea, no access to South Korea. Japan, too far and a strategic rival. Taiwan, far but not completely inaccessible. Probably not worth the cost. Unclear political support, leaning no in Taiwan.
I could literally only see Vietnam and Cambodia gaining access.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, you must be a troll.
Search for combat History. It was in Afghanistan and nothing happened there that wouldn't have happened with a Challenger II. It was in Kosovo. Same for Turkey. Secondly, the variant the turks got was built in 1992, whereas challenger II was built in 1994. So you can't compare them as roughly ten years of development time are between them.
There are many that want to buy new tanks. The dutch, the arabs, the Quataris, all bought or wanted to buy the latest variants.
Just accept it, the reason why the turkish lost the tanks was the wrong tactic, not the wrong tank.
The tank is great, has superior gun and superior maneuvrability. It is also cheaper to make and many military experts and magazines put it into the top two of the tanks, whereas Challenger II rarely makes an appearance in the top 3.
http://www.awesomeengineering.net/top-10-best-military-tanks-world/
https://www.sofmag.com/the-best-5-main-battle-tanks-in-the-world/
Find me two top ten listst that put Challenger 2 first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You cannot employ Dorchester!!!!!! all around the rank, that thing would never be able to move an inch then with a reasonable velocity or fuel consumption.
You can say that 2 parted ammo is good for safety, it probably is but it got a whole other set of disadvantages as well, for example a slow RoF.
Iraq, come one, you didn't roll out everyday with your tanks fighting shit in the streets, you had some patrols in peaceful quarters. That was no offensive like the turks do now, instead, you just settled down after a few weeks.
I admit that Challengers Armour may be superior, nobody knows, but you are absolutely wrong when you reduce the Leopards advantage only to the price. By the way, that advantage does not really exist, especially for the military, that does not really matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We have had an empire, bigger than yours. We had one called hoy roman empire (though it was more a loose nation), then we have had Austria Hungary (who have been germans for centuries), we have had Prussia and after 1871, we got some empires aborad, whilst you were part of Russia and we were independent.
We lost but it took the entire globe 6 years to bring us down. And without the USA abd Russia combined, we would have won, we conquered almost all of Europe 1939-1941 (before German-Russian war).
Historians do agree nowadays that it was not Germany alone for the cause of WW1. That lie was introduced to justify the reparations to the winners of Versailles.
We committed war crimes. No doubt. But war crimes were committed by all sides. Shooting of POW's, civilian bombings. Rape, forced migration. Partisan warfare (war crime, yes, it is forbidden by international laws).
Poland did not have a full force to liberate the netherlands. It was a handful of people. And do not forget the polish who fought for the Wehrmacht, helped to run the death camps (the german death camps). Not all polish were heros, most were not.
I don't mind a teutonic empire, I am one. As for the mongols, you got beaten but luckily, the Khan died. You did not win a single battle against them. by the way, it was a joint polish-german force, according to Wikipedia. You helped Austria win the war, but not alone. You were great but shortly after, you collapsed. Now the Germans are the great nation of Europe.
The USSR was in no condition to win a war against Poland in 1920. Germany would have beaten them up, we did in 1917. You saved yourself, not Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ziyadzerh1953 This is quite false.
Banks are in the business to make money, like everyone else. Interest rates are a way to achieve this. The thing is, the Turkish economy is already heavily indebted in foreign credit (a lot of the boom was consumption driven on credit) - so people do not want the additional loans, they need to serve the existing ones first.
The currency crisis began when the main thing; economic stability, eroded. The Turkish government sponsored the consumption boom and now that it was over, people didn't provide these loans anymore. Demand for Lira began to drop but orthodox economics would tell you to limit supply of the Lira, raising interest rates. But this wasn't done, instead, even more Lira was thrown on the market and the value continued to drop.
People however don't buy Lira, since it is rapidly loosing value. This isn't the banks but common sense in people. Had they sold their dollars into Lira now, they would have made giant losses so far.
Turkey can't break economics.
You don't gain economic independence this way. You just impoverish your voters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Rafale is a French version of the Eurofighter project if we look at the timeline to be honest.
The Rafale, while having a higher weapons capacity, does not typically use this. A pure air-air combat loadout does not exceed 4,000 kilos (air air missiles are light, Meteor is not even 200 Kg) and heavy air - ground combat is not limiting Eurofighter either. There will be very few instances indeed when combat loadout maximum capacity will really matter. 99% of the time, it does not matter that Rafale can carry 9t and EF only 8t. By the way, the limiting factor is hardpoint certification, certainly not thrust.
I highly doubt your statement that it is more agile in dogfight. This might be true at lower altitudes but nothing beats Eurofighter at altitudes above 30,000 feet in a dogfight. The excessive thrust and the forward canards give it unrivalled energy retention and turn rates.
Omnirole is a pure marketing term by Dassault.
Rafale cannot load all NATO bombs. This is what severely limited it in the past. Ammo costs tend to be a lot higher. Just check out the AASM series with prices apiece above 300,000€.
To my knowlegde, it cannot carry AIM-120, AIM-9, many versions of the GBU and Paveway series.
And Eurofighter would principally be able to carry all sorts of ammo. Just needs someone paying for it because Germany, UK, Spain, Italy won't pay for integration of Russian weapons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veezaiy The thing is that the CCP does not have the best historic record when it comes to preserving the Chinese cultural heritage and most people of Chinese origin are acutely aware of that.
I am European. Our people with Chinese ancestry are largely happy. My mates parents come from Nanjing. He does think that the development China took was good in the past decades but he does not want the system and he does not want to live in one. He enjoys the civil liberties, probably more than many other Europeans because he knows other relatives of his don't have them.
The thing is, who knows what the people that really count think. Nobody can claim to know. The majority currently seems to back the CCP which is fine with me if this is their choice. But one day, they won't.
Ceaucescu was once largely popular in Romania and they shot him 20 years later. Who knows what will happen in 20 years time. I just hope Chinese leaders realise that people will not always be quiet and relinquish government without a say.
I really think China could be a successful democracy, a successful model for freedom. Development and wealth aren't going away because you democratise.
What I really don't like is when people say that "China tried democracy"; well yeah, they did. Once during a civil war at a state of total collapse. Not the best situation then. And the rather defeatist attitude that China needs to be ruled top-bottom. Or that the party is a meritocracy. It isn't really. Parties never are. It is all about alliances and finding support for their own persons.
In the end, China needs to sort their own problems out. Unfortunately, they are so big that their problems affect the world, that is why I take a large interest.
And if you missed it, I admire them for their steadfast development although that does not remove just cause for criticisms.
Ultimatively, I think they can improve on their country a lot. But that would mean that a sizeable part of the political class relinquishes their absolute hold on power.
As a European, I would feel better about a China which agrees to value the UN charta of human rights (and I regularly criticise the US and my country if they fail to hold up the standards).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zwergenkörnchen Wach mal auf und schau mal die tatsächlichen Zahlen an.
Der Bundestag kostet nicht mal 1 Milliarde Euro im Jahr! Es bleiben mehr als 330 Milliarden im Bundeshaushalt alleine.
Ein BGE von 1500 x 12 x 83,000,000 =
1,420,000,000,000€. Das ist ein gesamtes Drittel des BIP beziehungsweise die kompletten Steuereinnahmen.
Ein BGE ist völlig unrealistisch und ganz ehrlich, ich will keine Steuern zahlen damit du einfach Geld kriegst weil du einfach existierst.
Ja, ich gönn denen nicht mal die Butter...... Bin ganz böse.
Die Alten hätten selber vorsorgen können. Die Abgaben sind in Deutschland eh zu hoch, soll ich etwa für noch weniger Netto vom Brutto sein?
Übrigens sind Managergehälter für die Privatwirtschaft, da kann der Staat nicht mal eben was festsetzen. Wir sind ja nicht im Kommunismus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mlepa Your timings are a bit wrong. If the entire tunnel is built which includes the connections between the tunnel and Hamburg or Copenhagen respectively (it is already in place, there is some need for some electrification and some few improvements), travel times are projected to be 2:30 minutes according to Wikipedia, compared to the current 4:36. That is -2 hours and such timings mean that rail would be the better solution for travel between South Sweden, Copenhagen and northern Germany.
The traffic through this route will no longer use the longer and therefore more emissive route. With comprehensive regulation, trucks may become only the second option and cargo by rail might become the first.
Ok, you can try to make your folks spend billions of their taxes in Africa. Good luck, nobody would vote for this and I certainly vote. I pay taxes so that my infrastructure is good otherwise I wouldn't pay them; why would I pay for a something that I won't ever have a benefit from. We can give out loans and such but 8 billion Euro is a lot of money and should be spend here.
Sure, a solar plant in Africa will help. Problem is, there are no engineers in Africa that would be able to pull such thing off, Northern Africa is unsafe for large investments and what when the sun does not shine?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thetreader
1. Your example is faulty. That isn't freedom of speech, this is slander and punishable depending on the nations laws. By the way, what is "much cleaner"? If I advocate for a different government policy I can be arrested in Saudi Arabia. I am also very much doubting your claim that you won't find liars in your community.
I find this paragraph of you highly amusing and saddening at the same time.
2. Oil production. As I said above, nations with oil wells will continue to produce oil if only for strategic reasons. And if Venezuela would get their act together, they would have a strong chance to take a lot of Saudi Business.
3. True, oil consumption will possibly rise for a while. But oil as a factor of the economy will decline in the future. With the world going electric and replacing oil energy that is a drastic cut. There are innovative works on plastics replacements done which would possibly reduce oil consumption even further. Africa might even skip oil entirely.
The Japanese example isn't the best I would say. Japan has extensively modernised their society over the past decades and immensely invested into education and technology. Something that has yet to be done by Saudi Arabia. Detailed spending plans on education and R&D are hard to come by but they aren't nearly anywhere to Japanese spending on R&D. And for a nation with a youth bulge, 5.8% GDP spending on education (2018) isn't all that impressive. Plus, the results of the education in SA are reportedly a mixed bag with inadequate skills and rote learning. Plus inbalances in the curriculum. There are reasons why so many foreigners work in Saudi Arabia.
The leadership has done steps in the right way but whether this is enough to succeed I doubt it. For that matter, I think the current vision is way too much of a copy of the UAE which does not adequately reflect strengths and weaknesses of Saudi Arabia; namely a large proportion of youthful citizens but without a big history as a touristy destination especially for non-muslim cultures.
4. Why do you claim this battery nonsense? Lithium is the third most abundant material in the universe and on earth it is highly abundant. We have proven reserves of 21 million and resources are estimated to be at over 80 million tons (we only used 80,000 tons last year). Plus, battery technology is always evolving and soon Lithium may not be the most sought-after material. And obviously, there is recycling. Lastly, oceanic reserves are virtually unlimited. It could be a byproduct of desalination.
Anyway, Saudi Arabia definitely has a future. Not oil though, that will fade. But with the infrastructure in place, they can export hydrogen and even lithium if desalination is increasing. But to become an investment hub, Saudi Arabia needs to change a lot. Change isn't always bad.
(In respect to #1, this is freedom of speech).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyhawk94 I would like to remind you that Germany was dubbed the sick man of Europe from 1991 - 2005 onwards. Only the emerging markets in the east and reforms made it possible to grow again.
We don't need cheap labour (in fact, we have a lot of jobless citizens), we need specialised labour and young people because Germans get too few children.
Germany may not be a role model for you but then, Germany is not overloaded with debt, has a budget surplus and grows with good rates.
AI and robotisation, how many jobs did they cost so far? Hardly any as I recall? The good thing with capitalism is that somehow, there will always be jobs in other occupations. Essentially since the industrial revolution, skills demanded changed but there were always more jobs available. I am not too pessimistic with AI and so, I am not convinced that they lead to millions in job losses, more likely that jobs will transform.
In the end, the macroeconomics dictate France to change something. Debt reaches 97% of the GDP. Plus, what is poverty to you? Those Germans living in poverty will have enough food, healthcare, a living arrangement (if they apply for help of course) and access to schools and universities. Sure, a lot harder than for rich but they don't die on the streets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was US + SK + allies vs NK + China + USSR. NK effectively lost, only the chinese counter-offensive saved them. China used people because they had a near endless supply.
1. The US has much more experience fighting wars. The US is known to be able to fight large scale operations in modern wars.
2. If the US follows and gets attacked in response on their homeland or is declared war upon by China or Russia, NATO would join. Russia then has to defend the
homeland and cannot send forces into the east. The US Navy will cripple China's supply with oil, which will cause massive damage to China's war effort.
3. No but you can check costs and what they can pay.
-A sub costs millions, a SSBN costs billions. Given that the north has only so little amount of money and lack technology and means to do expensive testing, it
is highly unlikely that they can develop a nuclear sub able to reach the US coast and deploy missiles. They cannot use a conventional boat because of range
limits, they have no harbour or allies where they can refuel and resupply.
-They have loud submarines which would be easily detectable and sunk. They will most likely operate close to their shores and launch from there, like Russia does.
-It is highly likely that they have chemical weapons and biological weapons. They have used gas before (see the murder of that half-brother).
-To know where something is doesn't mean to be able to destroy it. Guam and Co are wellknown but heavily defended. Not easy to take out. Definitely not possible for
korea with conventional forces and if nukes are used, the US will annihilate Korea into dust.
4. Because a US Carrier strike group probably outguns their Air force and their navy. They will literally have control over the sky within hours and get those SAMs down, allowing for total air superiority and ground support, whereas shooting civilians in a city will not be a tactical advantage and only cost lives, not severely damage the
South korean forces. By the way, people tend to overestimate the potential destruction in Seoul. Probably within minutes, south korea would launch 100 Cruise Missiles and all of their ground capable fighters and bomb the shit out of the artillery. Seoul can only be reached in the northern outskirts and it takes ages to reload a gun with this range. They would most likely fire 2 - 3 rounds each before they will be taken out (the intelligence services know where the guns are located).
The South Korean troops are much better equipped, with better health and superior reconaissance. South Korea can also field many more reservists and therefore outgun and run the north over alone. The US is there to keep China out of the game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knightoyin6500 Merkels approval rating right now stands at about 50%, Trump currently averages a 44%. Regarding Obama, he was way more popular in the beginning of term than Trump but has fallen to the same level Trump has. Trump has been remarkebly steady at around 40-45% approval rating.
Regarding media attacks, I would recommend you take off your Fox News glasses and look at something else than "Opionion Journalists". There is a great video about the hypocrisy of Fox News when talking about the Obamas. As to media attacks on Obama, I distinctly remember Trump sitting with Fox News and claiming Obama wasn't American.
And the media reports the news. Not their fault that Trump is a moral hazard and is in violation of norms, conventions, behaviour and so scandal ridden.
Trump isn't the most powerful person in the world. Forbes will publish the next list rather soon but on the 2018 edition, Trump only managed 3rd because of several reasons.
1. He isn't governing alone in the US - he has to share power with congress and now with a party that won't let him do as he likes. His opponents such as Xi Jinping and Putin are much more free in their decision making than Donald Trump is because of no aloud opposition at home.
2. Trump has a tough standing with traditional allies like Europe. Individual nations may not be as powerful as Russia, China or the US but together, Europe is one of the worlds most prosperous regions with a whole lot of wealth and connections. His unprecedented attacks on NATO and the EU weakened support from here. The US stand alone on many subjects and must realise that they aren't omnipotent.
3. The increase in economic power of Asia and the growing military of China give Asian leaders additional international leverage, a relative loss for Donald Trump.
4. Trump himself is rather unstable. His foreign policy record is nothing to be proud of. The impovered nation of North Korea continues to resist him and the US, even when Trump gave in to Kim Jong Un's need for international recognition and met 3x over the past years. Talks have stalled and the only thing coming out of it are some nice photo ops.
By the way, Fox News heavily critisised Obama for even thinking of meeting with Kim Jong Il when he was a presidential candidate. 10 years later, Sean Hannity calls a meeting without a result a great foreign policy achievement.
At home, he failed a lot of his projects. Infrastructure not started, health care failed. The only big step he did was the Tax Reform, which blasted the deficit again to more than a trillion dollars this year. Here enters Fox News again, they so loved to cover Obama and the deficit but now a no-show.
Trump is a weak president and in 50 years the US will regret they ever elected him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahkadabra9501 Yes, they invested a lot of money and got a striker that is riddled with problems. The F-35 comes with a lot of baggage that makes it unsuitable to Germany.
1) We did not invest anything. We would bet a product directly from the factory. No value-added to the German economy. Tax Euros spend abroad without input in the local
economy. We would cede our position as a main aircraft manufacturer for military aircraft. We won't get technological know-how.
2) Many failures of the F-35: The code is riddled with bugs. The avionics come with a hell a lot of problems. EOTS for example is surpassed by almost all targeting pods on the
market that we can strap onto Typhoon easily.
3) F-35 has a very low internal storage. If it wants to fly stealthy, it can only carry 6 air-air missiles (4 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders). Germany operates superior missiles (Meteor
and IRIS-T, none of them implemented into F-35). Should F-35 be really used with max weapons loadout, kiss stealth goodbye. You remain with an aircraft robbed of stealth
and inferior flight stats. At the same time it comes with less hardpoints than Typhoon.
4) We would get a hell a lot of black boxes. So we pay for a product and the US keep certain aspects of it secret even though we pay a lot of money. Additionally, a lot of dubious
software is in it. ALIS for example is required for every jet and it reports everything to the US. I mean, this is just espionage. Not a fan of it.
5) Why would we gift Trump with a major purchase? He attacks us frequently? I say we continue development of our indigenous 6th gen fighter with our French friends and keep
technological knowledge and all information in our hands.
6) What enemies do we have? Germany is surrounded by friends. We have 9 neighbours, 7 of those are members of NATO. To our south we have neutral Switzerland to whom we
have very favourable relations with, likewise is Austria a close friend. Our nearest enemy is Russia and the Eurofighter is an exceptional design that is able to beat the SU-35, the
most potent Russian jet into submission. In the unlikely event of war, the Eurofighter would be able to operate with the Raptor at an altitude of 65,000 feet and clear the skies of
everything. There are very few jets who can take on the Eurofighter in an Air-Air engagement and I don't believe the F-35 can do so reliably.
7) Didn't you say stealth is obsolete when quantum radars are developed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@comsubpac I don't think the Russians can do that. They certainly cannot in Syria.
Detection of stealth is possible by changing the frequency or the power. If you change the frequency, you can find them but you don't know exactly where they are. Frequency changes are also hardware dependent, you need a larger antenna for UFH than X-Band. A ground radar can most certainly find a jet but there are physical constraints on the enemy fighter jet to mount larger antennas.
Plus, ground based fixed radars which emit
UHF will be the first destroyed by cruise missiles.
Another solution is energy. Increase the energy and the detection sensitivity. But in order to do that, you need improvements in GaN technology. Additionally, cooling becomes a bitch. Lastly, if you use a lot of energy in your radar, you literally show a flash light with your position. Hence why a Su-35 is not that fearful for it will have to give it's position away to find the F22 and F35 at a longer range.
LPI modes won't be too helpful because they take a huge amount of calculating power and screw your otherwise optimised radar frequency.
So, Russia might increase radar frequency or power and has advancements in calculating power and GaN technology. So do we.
Then there is physics. Even the most sophisticated radar can't find you flying low because of the radar horizon.
Anyway, unless Russia had a technological breakthrough with some sort of black magic stealth detection, I see no way. I am by no means an expert on this kind of stuff, self-taught myself this stuff to a level that I can talk about it. But currently this is my opinion on that. Stealth will remain relevant for the future and we see that in procurement and development of stealth fighters all over the world. Russia for all their blusters develop the SU-57. Maybe stealth will become less important and electronic warfare providing digital stealth will gain importance, allowing more ordnance (currently the biggest problem).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Why not? Do you think people in the world would tolerate Muslims if they would only accept an Islamic state? Get real, most people aren't Muslims and have no desire to become so. We gotta get along and find solutions that allow everyone to live their faith without hindering others.
2. It is profoundly influenced by an Arab religion, Arab laws and costums... While ostentatively for everyone, it does not meet the reality of life for everyone. Indeed, not for most.
3. Try running a modern government without any sort of taxes. Have fun paying for roads, hospitals... There is a reason why even Saudi Arabia introduced VAT now because modern governments are much more complicated entities than any 7th century desert society.
4. Jizyah doesn't have a set rate - it is at the transgression of the ruler and can be arbitrarily set.
5. Why do we need defending? We can defend ourselves if you would allow non-muslims to serve in the military and own weapons.
6. Apparently many islamist groups and many, many more Muslims did not get this memo. Plus, there are many Surahs that call for a different treatment of infidels...
7. What do you mean with "enjoy"? Typically, you pay, convert, or face death if you are polytheistic...
8. If you don't have a tax system, how will you make a rich pay more and a poor pay less? Will the prices be different for each and everyone according to his income? That would be really confusing for everyone and require an unprecedented amount of financial disclosure to everyone. Most people aren't willing to do this.
9. Capitalist economy gave the world the most advanced living standard, pulled billions out of poverty in recent decades (check where China is today and where it was; generally, check Asia as a case study on how to become wealthy...). Sure, there are many that are very rich but many capitalist nations boost very developed aid systems for those poor enough. Europeans don't starve of hunger, they have free education right until university, they also have comprehensive health insurance. Just check the Scandinavian countries, they get the job done and they are capitalist.
10. Not everyone follows the same understanding of justice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordtemplar9274 So, may I say that it is quite tiring to hear the same stuff again and again.
Spectra is not an iron man suite. We don't even know the extend of the capabilities because they are all classified. You say active cancellation, I say radiowave frequency chances - something most radars do. And if you don't hit the G-spot for the frequency and the phase, you are pretty much just a giant menu card blinking "here I am". As I read a lot of claims on that and nothing definitive, I am not regarding that.
As for EW suite in general, Rafale is superior in that regard but a Tranche 4 would definitely be able to make a hell a lot of ground. They talk about a pure ECR version for Germany, something that will surpass Spectra as well.
So, an exercise from 2009 is quite irrelevant nowadays. Bear in mind you beat a Typhoon of Tranche 1 standard, hardly any substantial capabilities.
The amount of updates does not mean it is better! Typhoon got a completely new spectrum of missions added to it's list, that is not "just some ground capabilities". You will find that the Typhoon is quite capable. As to why the RAF waits to send pilots in, doctrine. Why would you send your 70 million pound machine and risk a pilot against a fixed site you know is there and can use a 1 million pound cruise missile you have in stock. Not a claim for superiority. Rather shows a different attitude to life lost.
As for the RCS, nope, you are dead wrong about the intakes. The blades are not exposed because the inlets are curved in an S-shape upwards, obscuring the view on the blades. I already told you to look it up, a pity I can't add a picture. As for Spectra, I already talked about that.
I don't know what planet you live on but on mine, the government of Germany and Spain have agreed to buy Captor E Mark I for all their jets to be implemented by 2022.
Rafale has had AESA since 2014 (when the first squadron had it) and up to date, they produce 2 radars each month, meaning that not all French jet use the radar jet.
As for the GaN - I highly doubt you get a new radar because they cost billions to develop. I have not heard anything in that direction and doubt you do. I have heard rumour though that the Captor E will use GaN, although I cannot confrm that. As it is larger than the Rafale's, it can use more T/R modules. Additionally, it is mechanically coupled to give a much wider search arch than pure AESA radars which remain fixed. I would definitely put any radar advantage to the Typhoon in the future. Given that the Rafale and the EF compete for the future Swiss fighter, one should take this into account and not the current radar status.
As for Meteor, I think the Typhoon can enjoy a double-datalink whereas the Rafale can only have one link. And as for other capabilities, note that the Rafale has lacked a helmet mounted display since the F4 batch whereas Typhoon can use one.
I can only recommend to read this article: https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/
The website is quite good, only thing is they don'T have a search module.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing is that having immediate procedures ready for everyone would be much more expensive.
The Hausarzt is designed to supervise medical treatment and has gatekeeper function, he should make the decision because he is a medical expert. So often people just skip the Hausarzt and go to the wrong doctor for their problem because they didn't ask. Similarly, it reduces the need for specialists because half of all medical treatments can be performed by a Hausarzt. All about cost saving.
If your Hausarzt says you are an emergency, you will get a quick appointment, they all have those ready for emergencies.
Yes, as a medical student I can say that letting nature do it's way is the most effective way of healing. A doctor is supposed to support and correct nature, not force it to something if possible. There is nothing in the arsenal of medicine that will heal a common cold, rest is the best. And sorry, if you want to get some drugs so that you don't miss school or work, then you are irresponsible and may infect other people. Additionally, you would weaken yourself, increasing the recovery period length. There is a reason why we do things like that, because it works best.
Cancer screenings are existing but I must warn you, below a certain age, false positives are far more likely than not. And if a doctor suspects cancer, you are at the radiologist's office the next morning. Anyway, for 180€ a month you will be able to get every procedure you can imagine if you need it, just think about that. A small price to pay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@revyrock7181 Schöne lange Antwort, sie beantwortet meine Frage nicht.
Wenn ich Asylbewerber wäre würde ich nicht kriminell werden und beispielsweise Diebstähle begehen. In einigen Fällen gab es sogar Tote durch einen Terroranschlag. Anis Amri, sagt der Name Ihnen was? Was ist mit Menschen die aufgrund einer Straftat in Haft sitzen und nicht abgeschoben werden können weil die Regierung die Abschiebung nicht durchgesetzt kriegt aufgrund übertrieben humanistischer Gesinnungsethik die unbedingt auch Gefährder einschließen muss.
Ich bin "Biodeutscher" und habe das Recht dass ich in meinem Heimatland sicher sein darf. Und wenn einige (nicht alle, genauer gesagt die meisten nicht) Flüchtlinge dieses Recht auf Sicherheit gefährden ist mir deren Psyche und deren Erlebnis ziemlich egal. Ich muss auch niemanden willkommen heißen und alle Träume erfüllen.
Was ist mit Menschen die hier kein Anrecht auf Asyl haben weil sie im Heimatland nicht verfolgt werden? Was ist mit Menschen die nur hierhin kommen in der Hoffnung auf ein besseres Leben; die aber niemals in der Lage sind die Kosten die sie verursachen irgendwie auch nur ansatzweise auszugleichen? Ich bin nicht bereit das Sozialamt der Welt zu spielen, nicht bei den Steuern und Abgaben...
Ich habe hier eine gute Reportage von Spiegel TV, ein Marokkaner der hier Asyl bekam als Minderjähriger, Ausbildungsplatz zum Metallarbeiter mit einer großartigen Perspektive. Dann bricht er die Ausbildung ab, verkauft Drogen und wird kriminell. 2 Jahre Haft wegen Körperverletzung. Soll ich beispielsweise dafür Verständnis haben wenn dysfunktionale Menschen ihre Chancen selber zerstören? Nein, da hilf ich lieber dem anderen Beispiel aus dem Senegal, der hätte meinetwegen gerne bleiben dürfen auch wenn sein Asylgrund fragwürdig ist.
Klar, die Flucht war anstrengend und psychisch hart. Meine Oma musste auch im 2. Weltkrieg fliehen und benehmen musste sie sich aber hinterher auch noch. Sie hat auch Leichen von toten Soldaten gesehen und gehungert im Winter 1946 / 1947. Damals war die Justiz auch nicht so tolerant wie heute. Und die Russen waren nicht zimperlich was deutsche Zivilisten anging. Gottseidank war sie zu jung um von Interesse zu sein.
Was machen wir mit denjenigen die sich nicht integrieren. Ich bin Mediziner und wissen Sie wie sehr es mich aufregt wenn ich eigentlich einen Sprachkurs Türkisch / Arabisch machen müsste weil Menschen die seit Dekaden hier leben kein Wort Deutsch sprechen und ich nicht mal erfragen kann warum der Patient jetzt hier vor mir steht? Wenn selbst das Deutsch der Kinder nicht einmal B1 Niveau erreicht und diese hier geboren wurden? Wenn man einen wütenden Mann im Gesicht hat weil man die Frau bittet zur Untersuchung die Brust freizumachen (nein, wir können nicht jedes Mal eine Kollegin holen...) und dann widerwillig die Einwilligung erhalten muss nur um absolut misstrauisch die ganze Zeit während der Untersuchung angeguckt zu werden?
Damit Sie mich nicht falsch verstehen. Ich wohne zusammen mit meinem besten Kumpel (Deutsch-Türke), mein Oberarzt ist geboren im Libanon und damals nach Deutschland gekommen und hat hier die Staatsbürgerschaft sich hart erworben. Aber eben wie Sie mir vorwerfen zu pauschalisieren würde ich mir wünschen dass Sie praktischer denken. Es ist eben nicht einfach alles nur mit Liebe zu lösen.
Ich bin absolut pro Einwanderung; aber eben bitte zu unseren Bedingungen. Asylrecht, kein Problem, wenn diejenigen die kein Asyl hier bekommen auch zügig abgeschoben werden können und nicht wie diverse Clans sich hier breit machen und die Unterwelt kontrollieren. Damit hätte auch die allgemeine Mehrheit der Deutschen kein Problem.
Bitte also die Sache differenzierter sehen. Es läuft nämlich im Asylsystem bei weitem nicht alles rosig. Die AfD wähle ich übrigens trotzdem nicht, das wäre eine Verschwendung meiner Stimme da eh keine Partei mit denen zusammenarbeiten wird.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nesnayka 1. Wie kommst du auf die Idee dass alleine das Verbot der russischen Sprache Völkermord ist? Eine sehr eigenwillige Interpretation. Im übrigen wurde Russisch nicht verboten; es wurde allerdings Ukrainisch als die alleinige Amtssprache festgelegt. Und das ist nun definitiv nicht Völkermord.
2. Es ist ein Angriffskrieg.
3. Nazis. Du wirfst mit diesem Begriff um dich wie ein verletztes Tier. Es tut mir sehr leid aber in der Ukraine sind keine Nazis an der Macht, das stimmt einfach nicht. Schau dir bitte die Wahlergebnisse an, schau dir bitte mal die Politiker an. Das sind keine Nazis...
4. Ich bin kein Nazi, aber natürlich musst du mir das vorwerfen; du kannst schließlich nicht anders.
5. Selenskij ist Jude, spricht Russisch... Also er dürfte wohl eher kein Nazi sein...
6. Ich hetze nicht, ich korrigiere deine faktenfreie Kommentare. Schau bitte mal nach was das Wort "Hetze" bedeutet. Ironischerweise hetzt du gegen die Ukraine indem du pauschal ein ganzes Land als Nazis verunglimpfst.
7. Darf ich dran erinnern das ihr Russen bis 1941 mit Hitler quasi verbündet wart? 1939 Aufteilung Polens und Osteuropas, Invasion Polens, 1940 Annexion der baltischen Staaten im Einvernehmen mit Deutschland. Woher hat Deutschland sein Öl gekriegt, woher seine Metalle, seinen Weizen? Tut mal nicht so unschuldig.
8. Was kann der Enkel für die Sünden des Großvaters? Im Übrigen ist jener Fritz Scholz nicht verwandt mit unserem Kanzler. Schau dir bitte vorher mal die Fakten an.
9. Niemand auf der Welt? Die meisten Länder haben diesen Krieg verurteilt in der UN Vollversammlung.
10. Witzig, ich hab ukrainische Kumpels die aus dem Donbass stammen. Einer ist jetzt freiwillig in die Armee (und zwar die ukrainische) eingetreten. Und nein, er ist kein Nazi.
11. Alina Lipp wurde meines Wissens nach noch nie verurteilt. Aber schau mal nach wie viele russische Journalisten im Knast sitzen. Oder wie viele Oppositionelle und Journalisten umkommen.
12. Wer Mariupol zerstört hat? Russische Artillerie. Wer beschießt denn zurzeit Kharkiv und Kiew und Lwiw? Das sind nicht die Ukrainer. Und es gab selbstverständlich zivile Opfer in Kharkiv. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/ukraine-hundreds-killed-in-relentless-russian-shelling-of-kharkiv-new-investigation/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@НаталияЛеонова-ш4ж The coup wasn't armed though. However, yes, the revolution happened. Blame Yanukovich for it as there was general dissatisfaction with the status quo - the corruption, the weak growth etc.
That erupted when he used excessive force to quell protests.
He wasn't about to be chased out, he fled btw.
Yeah, Russia actually sanctioned Ukraine in 2013 over the negotiations with the EU...
The civil war was engineered by Russia though. The military goods, the money, even some of the soldiers, all of this is from Russian stocks, bank accounts etc...
I will not say that Ukraine was perfect afterwards and yes, a part of the blame lays on them as well but it is pretty clear the main organisor of the bad situation today is Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tearborn Taiwan was recognised by most countries on earth for decades. It even held the UN security seat in the name of the republic of China until the 70s.
Today, some small south American nations have official diplomatic relations with Taiwan but the big ones, USA, Germany, Britain, Canada, France, those have unofficial channels and representatives in Taipeh. It is high time the Chinese Government realises that Taiwan or the republic of China has functioned 70 years as an independent country and will remain so. Obviously it can change if the PRC changes to a democratic, free nation.
The Korean war had nothing to do with Taiwan. By the way, China threw some 100,000 men into battle, not caring if they live or die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abhijit1509ibskol 1. If you want to mention imperialists, don't forget the Russians and their "Russian empire". Or do you not know how Russia became the largest country in the world. Our history books are full of Russian wars of conquest.
The idea that speed is only for marauders as you say is moronic! Speed has been a defining element of warfare since basically ever. And no country will pick attrition as basic fighting mode if it can be helped as it is costly in men and material. Raw materials don't help you if you can't afford them.
In Ukraine, Russia is fighting a war of aggression against Ukraine. The Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not persecuted and very much NOT genocided. This is a false premise to give justification. As for the Neonazis, yes, there are Nazis in Ukraine but also in Russia (Do you know Wagner group, the mercenary company? Guess why they are named Wagner). As for Nazism in numbers, in the last parliamentary election in 2019 did not give significantly large results to the Nazi supporters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election
Results table included. The only party that could be called a Nazi party would be Svodoba. 2.15% of the votes. 1 Seat in parliament. This is not a large party. This is a small party without government influence.
And Selenski is jewish. Jews don't survive long in Nazi states....
The idea that Ukraine is full of Neonazis is very much propaganda and not grounded in reality. It is a phantasy to give legitimacy to the invasion.
2. If you mention Napoleon and Hitler, well, you oughta realise that Russia didn't do it alone. Against Hitler, millions of Ukrainians perished and the USSR survived with the help of the allies (which supplied it with food and weaponry and explosives and also threatened the German concquered regions to the point that 1 million German troops were in France, 400,000 in Norway and several fronts in Italy and Northern Africa... And as I said, Russia could only fight a war of attrition because it had nothing else. The German army was a superior force but could only be outnumbered and outgunned. And we see how much it cost Russia. Their losses were beyond imagination.
3. Gold standard is a bad idea. Russia doesn't nearly have enough gold to cover all the rubles printed (and not printed but virtual). There is a reason why countries around the world deviated from the gold standard.
Yes, we should do everything to get rid of foreign energy suppliers. Then otherwise we could have supported Ukraine much better now.
4. If you want to look at the ruble exchange rate and then at backfiring sanctions - well, I wanna know where you studied economics. Anyway, while inflation has been seriously on the rise here with some 9%, in Russia it's some 17%, the base interest is 14%. Their growth pace drastically fell and that has been hindered by the rise in fossil fuel commodities which form a major base of their economy and most of their exports. Their non-commodity growth has accordingly been hit drastically.
Furthermore, with strong sanctions on technology Russia will begin to exhaust stocks on vital goods in the near future without being able to resupply. They have already announced that their oil / gas production will suffer (they need western extraction technology) and data centers consume electronics like crazy, which won't be resupplied anytime soon. Their aircraft fleet is basically pirated against the Capetown convention which they signed but no more spare parts are coming in.
5. NATO has bombed Serbia because there was a civil war and ethnic cleansing. Actual ethnic cleansing with evidence!
Depleted Uranium bombs don't exist! Uranium is used in projectiles, not bombs. You use Uranium for armour piercing rounds - using it as a bomb casing or in a missile defeats the purpose of Uranium. It is heavy and not very hard. Steel is cheaper and more suitable for bomb casings. Anyway, countries around the world, including Russia right now in Ukraine use depleted Uranium rounds.
As for cancer, check out the demographics of Serbia. It is an old country, the median age is 41.6 years. Cancer is a disease of the old. I don't think Uranium is the main cause for Serbian cancer rates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheZame Dieser sehr humanistische Ansatz kann aber nicht auf Dauer funktionieren. Der Sozialstaat benötigt eine ausreichend große Basis um die Lebensschicksale abzusichern.
Generell denke ich das jemand, der auswandert auch so konsequent sein muss, die Vorteile und Nachteile mitzunehmen. Wander ich in die USA aus sollte man auch dort mit allen Konsequenzen leben, die das Land so mit sich bringt. Ich habe gestern auf Spiegel Online über das Leben einer Deutschen auf den Cook-Inseln (?) oder so gelesen, die dort als Tauchlehrerin arbeitet. In etwa 20 Jahren wird sie da nicht mehr wohnen können da dann die Aufenthaltsgenehmigung pünktlich zum Rentenbeginn ausläuft. Dann wird sie als Deutsche, die nie zum System beigetragen hat, nach Deutschland kommen und Sozialhilfe beantragen (mit ihren 850€ die sie da im Monat verdiente kann man wahrscheinlich keine Altersvorsorge betreiben), Wohngeld bekommen und natürlich eine KV - die da älter auch teurer sein wird.
Das ist höchst unfair gegenüber den Beitragszahlern. Wer mitgezahlt hat, der hat meine Solidarität. Wer aber die Risiken nur auf andere abwälzt und seinen Teil nicht beisteuert kann aber auch nichts erwarten. Solche Fälle wie den den ich beschrieben habe, diesen sollte man einen Riegel vorschieben denn es ist im höchsten Maß ungerecht. Ich urteile jetzt nicht über die Familie im Video, die Situation kenn ich nicht genau. Fazit, ich bin in höchsten Maß skeptisch gegenüber allzu bereitwilliger Hilfestellung. Jeder Cent der ausgegeben wird musste von jemanden erarbeitet werden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Middle East does have some of the largest oil reserves. Unfortunately they aren't evenly spread. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Libya, Algeria; those nations have oil reserves.
But nations like Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan; those nations don't have or only have marginal oil reserves.
Still, they aren't all that poor. Sure, they couldn't become so super rich but with good governance they still have a decent enough quality of life if properly managed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saeedahmedhassan1906 Du würdest meine Beweise eh ignorieren.
Ungeachtet des Schöpfungsberichtes begründet der Koran jedoch an anderer Stelle ebenso wie die Überlieferung eine deutliche Überordnung des Mannes über die Frau. Als Koranvers von großer rechtlicher wie gesellschaftlicher Tragweite ist Sure 4,34: "Die Männer stehen über den Frauen, weil Gott sie vor diesen ausgezeichnet hat und wegen der Ausgaben, die sie von ihrem Vermögen gemacht haben. Und die rechtschaffenen Frauen sind demütig ergeben (oder: gehorsam)...". Und ähnlich Sure 2,228: "Die Männer stehen eine Stufe über ihnen." Muslimische Theologen kommentieren diese Verse nicht selten so: "Männer und Frauen haben als Menschen nicht denselben Wert"[5] oder: "Männer sind Frauen überlegen, und ein Mann ist besser als eine Frau."[6]
Insofern herrscht keine Gelichberechtigung.
Das Zeugenrecht: Nach Sure 2,282 kann die Zeugenaussage eines Mannes nur von zwei Frauen aufgewogen werden, denn "eine Frau allein kann sich irren" (2,282). Viele muslimische Theologen bescheinigen Frauen eine größere emotionale Labilität, Irrationalität und beschränkte Einsicht in intellektuelle Angelegenheiten. "Frauen stehen unter der Herrschaft ihrer Gefühle, wohingegen Männer ihrem Verstand folgen."[8] Eine Unterdrückung der Frau sei dies nicht - so die muslimische Apologetik; der Islam fordere lediglich nicht mehr von der Frau, als sie aufgrund ihrer biologischen Gegebenheiten zu leisten imstande sei. "Die geistige Überlegenheit des Mannes über die Frau ... ist einfach von der Natur so vorgegeben."[9]
Insofern zählt die Aussage einer Frau weniger als die eines Mannes. Das Männer geistig überlegen sind ist übrigens schon lange wissenschaftlich widerlegt. Im übrigen kenne ich eine promovierte Biologin (Muslima); ist ihr Wort weniger wert als das vom Typen der Döner verkauft?
Der "Züchtigungsvers": Er gesteht dem Ehemann ein Erziehungsrecht an seiner Frau zu: "Und wenn ihr fürchtet, dass (irgendwelche) Frauen sich auflehnen, dann vermahnt sie, meidet sie im Ehebett und schlagt sie!" (Sure 4,34) Zwar ruft die Überlieferung Männer gleichzeitig dazu auf, ihre Frauen gut zu behandeln, und zahlreiche Theologen betonen, dass eine Frau niemals heftig oder ins Gesicht geschlagen werden dürfe, zumindest nicht so, dass sie eine Verletzung davontrüge. Die islamische Apologetik betont, Schläge seien nur ein letztes Erziehungsmittel. Da der Mann rationaler sei und das Oberhaupt der Familie, obliege es ihm, die Ordnung zu wahren und Rebellion und Unfrieden - notfalls mit Druck - zu beenden. Von Muhammad ist überliefert: "Der Prophet sagte: Schlagt nicht die Mägde Gottes. Da kam Umar der [zweite Kalif, regierte 634 - 644 n. Chr., C. S.] und sagte: 'O Gesandter Gottes, die Frauen rebellieren gegen ihre Gatten.' So erlaubt er, sie zu schlagen."[10]
Hier wird explizit die Körperstrafe erlaubt und dass Frauen ihrem Mann untertan sein müssen.
Die Scheidung ist für den Mann deutlich einfacher als andersherum.
Polygamie für die Männer, für Frauen selbstverständlich nicht zulässig.
Das Erbrecht: Das überaus komplizierte muslimische Erbrecht billigt der Frau immer nur die Hälfte dessen zu, was ein männliches Familienmitglied an ihrer Stelle erhalten hätte.
Ehebruch und Unzucht (arab. zina'), außerehelicher Geschlechtsverkehr von mündigen, geistig gesunden Verheirateten oder Unverheirateten: Der Koran bedroht den unzüchtigen Unverheirateten nach Sure 24,2 - 3 mit 100 Peitschenhieben, die Überlieferung fordert die Todesstrafe für Verheiratete. War die Frau unverheiratet, der Mann aber verheiratet, soll die Frau im Haus eingesperrt werden, "bis der Tod sie abberuft oder Gott ihr einen Ausweg schafft" (4,15). Ist der Mann unverheiratet, die Frau aber verheiratet, soll er für ein Jahr verbannt werden; die Frau erhält 100 Peitschenhiebe.
- Die Verleumdung wegen Unzucht (arab. qadhf) erfordert nach Sure 24,2 - 3 80 Peitschenhiebe. Diese wohl zum Schutz vor ungerechtfertigter Anzeige gedachte Regelung kann sich auch gegen das Opfer einer Vergewaltigung wenden, wenn eine Frau weder vier männliche Zeugen noch ein Geständnis erbringen kann. Dann droht ihr eine Gegenklage wegen Verleumdung und damit 80 Peitschenhiebe.
Eine Frau wird vergewaltigt und dann noch 80x ausgepeitscht. Was ist das für eine Rechtsprechung?
Also wirklich. Das sind jetzt Beweise, mit Suren zum nachlesen. Jetzt lese ich immer wieder gerne die Entschuldigungen für diese Regeln, dass diese gottgewollt sind und überhaupt super sind. Wenn diese Regeln das wahre sind, dann muss Afghanistan ein Paradies sein.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@damianm-nordhorn116 Erst einmal Danke für den Dienst.
Es mag platt sein, aber ganz ehrlich, man muss doch nur mal den Nachwuchs in der Grünen Jugend anschauen um zu sehen wie die ticken.
Momentan ist unser Militär quasi nicht einsatzbereit um einen größeren Konflikt innerhalb weniger Tage entgegentreten zu können. Die halbe Eurofighter Flotte steht am Boden rum mit Problemen, wir haben 324 Kampfpanzer die trotz aller Bedrohungen der Neuzeit immer noch zu den stärksten Waffensystemen auf dem Schlachtfeld gehören. Eine vernünftige Luftabwehr ist quasi nicht mehr vorhanden und ob MEADS allen Bedrohungen gerecht wird ist fraglich da der Flugkörper doch limitiert erscheint.
Im Wahlprogramm der Grünen ist die Ablehnung des 2% Zieles festgeschrieben. Dabei ist klar dass die Bundeswehr eine bessere Organisation braucht sowie auch als zweitgrößte Volkswirtschaft in der NATO dementsprechende Kapazitäten besitzen muss, die für die Bündnisverteidigung unerlässlich sind. Das erfordert halt eine Finanzierung, bei 2% bleiben immer noch 98% für alle anderen Aufgaben übrig. Man mag im internationalen Vergleich dann sehr hoch liegen, man muss aber schauen dass die Russen / Chinesen ein ganz anderes Preisniveau haben und dementsprechend sind die Etats nicht vergleichbar. Im Kalten Krieg waren wir mit 3% gut dabei als einer der stärksten Armeen im Verteidigungsfall.
Auch würden wir uns mit den UN nur selber hindern, manchmal muss man eben Macht / Realpolitik betreiben statt Idealismus. Zum Beispiel wäre meiner Meinung nach ein Einsatz auch mit Luft-Boden Angriffen gegen den IS im Interesse Deutschlands gewesen, der ganze Einsatz wurde aber von B90/Die Grünen im Bundestag 2014 abgelehnt. Generell würde ich meine Optionen nicht nur anhand der UN abhandeln wie es die Grünen und leider auch andere Parteien fordern. Zumal die UN ja selbst undemokratisch und machtpolitisch von anderen Akteuren gesteuert werden. Man hat Assad nichts tun können mithilfe der UN, weil Russland ihn schützt. Daher sollte man sich nicht an die UN fesseln.
Außerdem sehe ich in der Bundeswehr das Problem dass die Wehrpflicht abgeschafft wurde. Ich selber bin ein weißer Jahrgang aber wäre wohl eingezogen worden. Das in der Bundeswehr Rechte sind ist ja unbestritten. Aber das Feld kann man denen doch nicht kampflos überlassen. Es ist wichtig dass die gesamte Gesellschaft in der Bundeswehr Dienst tut, aber wie will man das erreichen? Quoten? Ein 6-Monatiger Wehrdienst würde vielen Menschen guttun, wäre auch gut für die soziale Vermischung. Beispielsweise hat das Deutsche Heer im Kaiserreich eine integrative Funktion gehabt, in dem die Katholiken wie Protestanten während des Dienstes alle gleich behandelt wurden. Ich bin mir sicher, der Wehrdienst kann das auch heutzutage schaffen. Man schaue sich Israel und deren Armee mal an. Hier dient jeder obgleich der politischen Position.
Zum Thema innere Sicherheit, hier hab ich am wenigsten Vertrauen. Immer mehr Asylbewerber (2 Millionen seit 2012) und ein uneingeschränktes Recht auf Familiennachzug würde erstens die AfD weiter verstärken (und das ist in niemandes Interesse) und zweitens wohl auch die innere Sicherheit gefährden sowie die Akzeptanz der Bevölkerung auf die Probe stellen. Wie es um die Sicherheit in Berlin steht sieht man jeden Tag.
Außerdem war mein Kommentar am meisten gegen die Linke gemünzt, die ja aus der NATO austreten will, ein völlig abstruses europäisches Sicherheitssystem unter Einbeziehung Russlands will (wie genau die die Osteuropäer zur Kooperation bewegen wollen ist fraglich) sowie die Bundeswehr abrüsten und abschaffen wollen.
Zu den genannten Politikern; diese kenn ich zwar, stehen in der Öffentlichkeit hinter doch eher "interessanteren" Charakteren wie Roth (schön dass sie im Irak / Syrien war, macht sie aber für mich trotzdem nicht zu einer besseren Politikerin, auch nicht in Sicherheitsfragen, wo ich kompromisslos für Eigene Interessenverteidigung bin bis hin für aktive Eingriffe in unserem Interesse bin), Trittin und Habeck, die ich beide nicht so recht einschätzen kann.
Eine Grüne Regierung wäre nicht in meinem Interesse, hab lange genug die Freuden Grüner Politik im Land erfahren können auch ohne Themen wie äußere und innere Sicherheit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ПавелПетрович-з5ы First of all, the US have stealth fighters mainly in the X-Band region, hence the new Su-57 X-Band AESA will not be that efficient. We also do not have a TRM count and lets not forget that the US has now fielded a 3rd generation AESA whereas the Russians are now working to implement their first AESA on a yet. F-22 had one since the early 2000s. Currently the most advanced Russian radar in service is the Irbis-E, a PESA with technology from the 80s and comparable to the F-15 C from that time. I very much doubt that they can skip 2 decades and match parity with the US.
A common misconception about stealth is that it only works in one frequency band. Fun fact, it doesn't.
Those L-Band thingies aren't radars but so called passive radar warning receiver. They do not emit, they only detect. However, any adversary would be very smart not to emit frequencies, especially in L-Band if the enemy would use it. They cannot see something that does not emit.
Quantum radar is currently a thing of the future, not of the present. There is no nation on the world close to develop a system like that, not for the next 20 years. Whether it would work is still a question.
The Stealth Technology wasn't designed by a Russian :D. The earliest stealth programs originated in the 60s.
Khibiny: Literally any other Defense suit does this. Be it EuroDASS, SPECTRA, The American defense suites. It is literally nothing out of the ordinary.
Please read those answers from Quora:
https://www.quora.com/Why-Su-57-uses-L-band-radar-only-for-FF-identification-given-its-effectiveness-against-stealth-fighters-as-a-search-radar/answer/Abhirup-Sengupta-5?ch=10&share=e05effaa&srid=m6SN
https://www.quora.com/q/militaryaviation/State-of-Low-Frequency-Radars-against-Stealth-aircraft
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-flaws-with-Russias-Stealth-Su-57
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F-35-fans-start-seething-when-there-is-praise-about-the-Su-57-while-Su-57-fans-dont-seem-to-care-or-pay-attention-to-the-F-35
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1