whvholst

Wanting to change the world includes having to come up with alternatives. Just complaining does little. If I (purely hypothetical) were to add a moderation rule it would be that if one is on principle opposed to a certain media outlet, regardless of the quality of its coverage, then every complaint about it should be accompanied by coverage from a more acceptable outlet providing similar coverage.

Because I could not find any initially. I replaced the Politico link with the TNW one before even noticing the tedious preaching about Politico. Not a fan of Springer myself. Just not to the point I will be an annoying twat spamming every thread about it.

Even better would be for them to go and find coverage in non-Springer outlets and post it instead in case a Politico link is posted. Now it is just all noise and no signal.

9/11 was an attack on the USA, which still is a NATO member. You could argue the attack was not by Afghanistan, but then Afghanistan was harboring the group that did.

The UN-supervised demilitarized zone on Cyprus is between Cyprus, which is not a NATO member, and North Cyprus, which is neither a NATO member, nor recognized by any NATO member except Turkey.

So you made three factual claims that are all three false. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether they carry the conclusion in any way.

Given that the US military is part of the US federal government, yes, that is a difference without a distinction. If it is for general use, per your own source, and not earmarked for the US federal government, then it is by extension not earmarked for the US military either.

You could do worse than to actually watch the whole video and not dragging your dislike of having a military into a conversation that is not about that to begin with. Or as others have put it in a more pejorative way, stop it with the leftist bean soup.

Come again? I am saying "isn't earmarked for the federal government" and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.

Also, you are comparing the share of the military in the federal government's energy usage. The government's energy usage is largely electricity, not oil-based, while for the military it is the inverse. Also, the military consumes oil outside of the US economy: the oil consumption of an US Air Force base in say Spain is part of the Spanish economy, not of the US economy. Or at least, the overseas bases consumption will not be pulled from the US strategic oil reserves.

So it is all orthogonal to the US strategic oil reserves what the US military's share in energy consumption of the US Federal Government is.

Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn't earmarked for the federal government and the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy.

Heh, as a European, that is pretty spot on.