I assume the bomber has to slow down to subsonic speeds to drop it’s payload. Don’t want to think about the forces acting on the payload if it were to drop at supersonic speeds.

Egypt bout to make a comeback!

It’s always “To big to fail”, until it fails.

That’s a bad comparison. Yelling “fire” in a crowd to induce a panic is illegal and can lead to arrest. But that happens after you actually yell “fire” not before you might yell “fire”. In your example you say ban yelling “fire” when inducing a panic is already banned. Do you want people banned because of pre-crime?

If what these accounts said was so dangerous then why didn’t the government go after the operators of the accounts and arrest them? Instead they tried to silence them by banning them from Twitter. That would only bring more validity to what these accounts were saying if the government has to tell foreign companies to silence them instead of challenging their speech.

All those downvotes you’re getting shows me that Lemmy is exactly like Reddit. Hivemind

They’re already doing that here in Ohio

Some of these users need to learn to separate a government from it’s people. The Russian people don’t really have a choice.

They never use that argument for men.

“He’s a father of 3”

They’re always coming up with an excuse.

I was originally pointing out that if NATO can supply Ukraine than North Korea can supply Russia. Nothing anyone can do about it but complain to deaf ears.

No. I’m equating Russia ignoring the UN Security Counsel with NATO ignoring the UN Security Counsel. And resorting to name calling just means you have nothing to use in this conversation.

I find it funny that you’re using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.

NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.

– From Wikipedia.

So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.

I didn’t say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn’t change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.

So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.

Well they are using NATO weapons against Russia so alls fair.

Trying to get us into another war eh

I’ve read that GitLab is experimenting with the concept.

They’re still fishing

No it wasn’t inclusive.

The west should step their game up instead of trying to contain the inevitable.

Make your own weapons then!