Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Phmcw]

We did, long ago in fact. Just in a rather peculiar manner. WWII and the Holocaust have become our national mythos - it's our claim to fame, so to say, it's what sets us apart from other nations. Those five floors of guilt and shame are to Germany what the Star-Spangled Banner and the War of Independence are to the US.

You guys should save the Euro then have a new national myth about how you did something good instead of that crappy old national myth.  It's not like the holocaust is unimportant but most countries are able to get the idea that racism is bad and genocide a no-no without needing to have a national myth about it.  I dont think you guys are going to suddenly backslide if you dont teach it early enough.

They can have a national myth about how their governement is a terrible banker, Imho.

There is a joke that goes like this :

It's a wife and a husband that go to bed (let's call them dupond). The wife see her husband worried.

"Darling, what's happening? It's been three day that I see you struggle to sleep?"

"Well honey, I'm really worried, I've looked at our budget and there is no way we can pay back our debt to our neightboor, the village banker"

"Ok darling, don't worry".

She get up, goes open the windows and scream "Raffael? Ms Dupond here. We can't possibly pay back our debt".

She then come back to bed and say "see, now that's him that cannot sleep"

A banker that lend at a good rate to a reliable party is a good banker, but a banker that lend to an unsolvable one is an idiot no matter what. The fact that Germany let countries take so many loan it was tied to is a terrible lack of oversight.

It's also very important that peoples and entities can default, it avoid bankers being careless. In this case, the poeples that lended enough money to Italy to let them rack up a debt equal to Germany are idiots and should lose their money. Especially since it got funelled into "bunga bunga" Berlusconi's pockets

[martinuzz]

The problem is - those Tu-95 bombers which trigger plenty of gung-ho reactions in Western Europe and America fly close to NATO airspace borders (but not in it). Shooting them down can create a very dangerous precedent.

Perhaps that is true for the recent 4 planes (newspaper didn't say exactly if they were inside nato airspace or not this time around), but sadly, a lot of the earlier transgressions, Russian bombers were not flying near, but inside NATO airspace. A few months ago, Russian bombers were escorted out of Dutch and UK airspace for example. I remember our news reader saying that in 2014, there had been over 70 separate incidents of Rusasian aircraft entering NATO airspace unannounced.

[Jopax]

In that case announce that any planes that try to sneak into NATO airspace are going to get shot down. They can't throw a shit-fit if you warned them beforehand of the consequences.

It's like companies putting disclaimers on their products that they are not responsible for any damage if you use them like an idiot, so you just put up giant flying signs around NATO airspace that doing stupid shit might get you killed and that you're in full awareness of this if you proceed any further.

[Antsan]

I don't think a disclaimer of that nature is going to accomplish anything.

[10ebbor10]

The manufacturer's disclaimers are not there to prevent people from doing stupid stuff with the product, they're to protect the compagny when it does eventually happen.

Somehow I doubt that a disclaimer is not going to help dealing with the fallout of shooting a Russian bomber.

[Jopax]

That's the thing isn't it. It's not going to prevent them doing stupid shit but they have nobody but themselves to blame when it goes south for them.

Unless rational logic doesn't apply for states for some reason, tho I wouldn't be at all suprised if it didn't.

[Zangi]

They'll escalate, use it as fuel for more propaganda.  They may be wanting that.

[Antsan]

The manufacturer's disclaimers are not there to prevent people from doing stupid stuff with the product, they're to protect the compagny when it does eventually happen.

That works because it can be brought up in front of a court that can enforce stuff. It doesn't really help with governments.
Complaining that "they started it and we told them we'd bite back" is not really an option.
It's not like the Russian government would then suddenly say "Oh, right, we ourselves are to blame," but it's the Russian who'll decide whether to go to war or not. In my eyes the objective is to avoid war.

They'll escalate, use it as fuel for more propaganda.  They may be wanting that.

Exactly. It's only escalation.

[Grim Portent]

Hmm, I'd probably try to force any unauthorised military aircraft to land at a nearby airbase and confiscate the plane, charge the pilot with whatever laws apply to improper use of aircraft under the circumstances and leave it at that.

It would still piss people off, but no one dies, which is a big help for public relations.

[Sergarr]

I'm pretty sure that confiscating a plane is not going to be taken lightly by Russian government. Especially if it has equipped nuclear weapons.

[martinuzz]

Hmm, I'd probably try to force any unauthorised military aircraft to land at a nearby airbase and confiscate the plane, charge the pilot with whatever laws apply to improper use of aircraft under the circumstances and leave it at that.

It would still piss people off, but no one dies, which is a big help for public relations.

I'm sure that would work..

NATO squadron: "You are in violation of international aviation laws, you are now obliged to let yourself be escorted by us to our nearby airfield, where your plane will be confiscated and you will be charged."
Russian Pilot: "I no speak english, you have good day, bye"

[smjjames]

Hmm, I'd probably try to force any unauthorised military aircraft to land at a nearby airbase and confiscate the plane, charge the pilot with whatever laws apply to improper use of aircraft under the circumstances and leave it at that.

It would still piss people off, but no one dies, which is a big help for public relations.

I'm sure that would work..

NATO squadron: "You are in violation of international airforce laws, you are now obliged to let yourself be escorted by us to our nearby airfield, where your plane will be confiscated and you will be charged."
Russian Pilot: "I no speak english, you have good day, bye"

The NATO squadron should say it in Russian, then they'll have no excuse

[Sergarr]

Hmm, I'd probably try to force any unauthorised military aircraft to land at a nearby airbase and confiscate the plane, charge the pilot with whatever laws apply to improper use of aircraft under the circumstances and leave it at that.

It would still piss people off, but no one dies, which is a big help for public relations.

I'm sure that would work..

NATO squadron: "You are in violation of international airforce laws, you are now obliged to let yourself be escorted by us to our nearby airfield, where your plane will be confiscated and you will be charged."
Russian Pilot: "I no speak english, you have good day, bye"

The NATO squadron should say it in Russian, then they'll have no excuse

Russian Pilot: "Sorry my radio equipment seems to be malfunctioning, can you repeat what you've said?"

[Darvi]

Or, you know, he could just not reply and then what do.

[martinuzz]

I'm pretty sure that confiscating a plane is not going to be taken lightly by Russian government. Especially if it has equipped nuclear weapons.

It would make for a very exciting new season of discovery channel's Airplane Repo, I'm sure.