That 19 trillion isn’t spendable money at all though. Learn the difference between GDP and a budget.

You learn being a nice person. Your arrogance and condescension is uncalled for.

Comparing state expenditures as a percentage of GDP is widespread: contributions of EU member states to the EU budget is defined as a percentage of their GDP, as is the NATO defence spending target.

We’re already at high inflation, high interest rates and little to no growth - the situation is extremely precarious in Europe. We could easily end up like Argentina or Turkey.

Nah, not really.

Europe isn’t broke, the rich countries are stingy. 150 billion is not much for an economy of 19 trillion - in fact it’s not even 1%

Money is nice, it enables Ukraine to keep paying its public servants, but what they really need is modern military hardware, and lots of it. Europe alone has enough if they just delivered it. The USA with their absolutely massive military not helping at the moment is a prolem too, obviously, but we Europeans can no longer rely on them, as they’re apparently insane enough to elect someone like Trump, who said many times he doesn’t give a shit.

If only there were some way we could make sure Ukraine is able to make the invaders fuck off.

Oh well. Best continue delivering tiny amounts of outdated hardware with great delay.

You don’t want chlorine in your food? Why do you hate freedom? Are you a communist?

• Brexiteers, probably

Perhaps one of the two being a massive cunt is an indication

If the bus were* true

When using be in an if clause for an unreal conditional sentence, always conjugate it as were, no matter what the subject is. Even if the subject is first-person singular (I) or third-person singular (he, she, or it), still use were with an if clause in unreal conditional sentences.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/conditional-sentences-was-instead-of-were/

The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.

but even then one of the 5 imperialist powers can veto a state’s recognizance proposal on their whims

The full assembly votes on such a matter, not the security council

Oh man, you’re confused. Let’s take it step by step.

The existence of a state is recognised theough the UN. UN rrcognises your state? It exists. Like France. It’s not recognised? It doesn’t exist, like Northern Cyprus, or South Ossetia. This is how international law works. We don’t have to argue whether it is a good system - but we can certwinly agree that it is better than the previous one, where militarily strong states imposed their will upon their neighbours. Like Putin is trying and failing now, or like the British and Spanish empires did centuries ago. If it is “right of the strongest”, we shall have wars.

If you reject the UN, you are arguing for war, because that is the only other option we have.

Get it now?

By calling every war crime genocide you are removing the meaning from the word. What Israel is doing with mass civilian bombardment is terrible, but not genocide. Read about what happened to the Armenians, the Hutu, and the Jews for comparison. Another point to consider: the USA killed 20% of the Korean population through bombardment in the Korean war, and even that isn’t considered a genocide.

Please don’t put words into my mouth. I have never made any qualitative claims about the UN and international law.

Also, to put the word infallible and any political organisation into the same sentence is absurd, hardly warranting a response.

Yeah, only some of the Landesverbände, not the federal party - which is what really matters.

So would you say, there is as of yet insufficient evidence for a factual conclusion?

if the government argues them to believe “extremist”

Considering not even the openly neonazi AfD are classified as extremist they can feel quite safe from that. Also, well done moving the goalposts.

The fact remains that expressing statements furthering their political interests carries zero consequences. Which is a good thing, without this democracy wouldn’t work. It also means that your sources are closer to opinions than to facts. Got any peer-reviewed studies perhaps?

Pictures and videos are evidence of a single event each, not evidence of systematic opression

Any organisation can make statements which can be argued to be statements of principle, of opinion, or similar, and not face any consequences. Tax-exempt status is removed if they start working for profit, not if they work in the direction of their political beliefs.

They’re protecting Israel by persecuting hate crimes committed inside of Germany?

You are putting words into my mouth in order to be able to disagree. Also, I’m not German. You might want try to keep the racist stereotyping in check.

If we reject the UN and international law, as you appear to be doing by denying Israel’s right to exist as defined in the two state solution, we basically go back to the right of the strongest. Putin would agree with you.

Crime against jewish people is on the rise in Germany, as are neonazis. Hate crimes against jews were also rising before the Gaza war, by the way.

If Germany didn’t try to protect jewish people it would mean they learnt nothing from the past.

The chancellor has said the safety and security of Israel is Germany’s raison d’êtat.

Before I get downvoted to hell by Gaza sympathisers, let me add that Israel is currently committing massive war crimes against the Palestinian people and those responsible must be tried and punished in an international court of law.

All of these things can be true at the same time:

a) Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity

b) Hamas has committed crimes against humanity

c) Israel has a right to existence and to security

d) Palestine has a right to existence and to security

I don’t get how some people feel they have to pick only two out of these four.

Because a hate crime is different offence from a “normal” crime, duh

Blogs, letters, and articles about letters are very weak sources. They’re on the level of opinions. Do you have anything better?