Oh, okay. AWS is actually a good analogy. It’s a huge pillar of the existing infrastructure, and if it was gone it would be a pretty huge, unprecedented crisis. The internet would still come back, though. (Since I’m on all alt platforms already, I actually didn’t notice it was down until I saw it on the news!)

Similarly, NATO would be in a bind, but I have every reason to think the considerable power and common interests of the remaining parties would see it through. One big question I’ve seen mentioned is the American officers that staff parts of it. Either they could keep working there even if the US is not a member, which is possible, or there would be just be a period of interruption to it’s coordination functions while the ranks are refilled. Since Britain and France are nuclear powers, just article 5 is a strong protection already, though.

Oh, so there is more than the US’s say-so at play.

It’s almost like it’s a voluntary agreement to coordinate and defend each other. One which doesn’t intrinsically depend on the US in any way, but just happens to have the US as by far the largest member.

If NATO is just the US, why wasn’t it in Iraq? Because the US didn’t want help? I was there, that was not the message they were putting out.

Yeah. I would trust NATO without America a lot more. That’s a kind of credible alternative organisation of it’s own, which their membership precludes.

That’s not really what I meant.

To do this properly, OP would have to start with the relevant timestamp and a brief transcript. The context would then be, like, why this is being mentioned in that video and at that place in the video, even if it’s as simple as “this is a prominent Linux YouTuber talking about the drama a bit in passing”. Just so that it’s not quote mining from irrelevant people and places.

(It’s worth noting that a guy I’ve never heard of being fashy isn’t really a crazy claim, anyway. I’m not going to make final judgements based on it, but then I wouldn’t ask for a source, either)

So if the US genuinely invade that would be considered triggering Article V as the article doesn’t have an exemption clause of said invader being a different NATO Member.

Sort of? Turkey actually tested this once. Since it was Turkey and Greece it all kind of just got smoothed over. If it was the US the entire thing becomes a farce, and the treaty is just a piece of paper.

Furthermore the way NATO is structured is it can’t function unless the US is at the steering wheel.

Are you just thinking about all the US officers involved in running it? It’s not like the US actually, officially calls the shots.

TIL! Oh well.

Hopefully NATO is one of them and we can just rip the bandaid off now.

Edit: Huh, downvotes. Does Lemmy think NATO is in great shape and will definitely hold for the foreseeable future?

As it is, it’s in the way of other, more credible alliances forming, because nobody wants to weaken NATO. But, the moment the US does something in Greenland, all that delay will be for naught.

So, it doesn’t change your point, but “legal property” isn’t really the right word for an entity that makes up it’s own laws and can ignore the laws of everywhere else. I’d stick with “territory”, because it’s about their local monopoly on the use of force, and mutual recognition by other sovereign powers.

So he invaded Venezuala for oil money, but is planning to take a loss so that other people can sell that oil for him.

A genius businessman, everybody.

Well, that’s a little too far the other way. It was still a single comment.

TBH I feel the same way when someone sends me a source that would take a good fraction of my day to check.

Why don’t you put in a little bit of your own time to extract the relevant parts, and explain the surrounding context?

Africa is not known for being well plugged in. Especially not in the 1960’s.

Yeah, but this was colonial/early postcolonial Africa, and Hitler was in Europe. How well can you tell fine African leaders from atrocity committing ones? And, the average Lemming has an actual solid education.

This is the dudes explanation as well, when the media bothers him. Dad just picked a random major European leader.

Given that the headline doesn’t even mention which country, no.

Hmm. Yup, looks like I’m remembering changes to make it possible to authorise gay marriages, and laws passed around the same time against anti-gay hate. Pretty close but not exactly the same.

To clarify, I meant SE Asia as the region, and I was mentally comparing against Africa or the rest of Asia. It’s not the West, but Thailand and Singapore have legal gay marriage now.

Do I dare ask about which part?

Has any place in the world ever been actively “flooded” with migrants of a vastly different culture in recent history?

Any place that borders a very culturally different country that has a massive crisis. They usually get banned from working and shoved in refugee camps, though.

But anyway,

Why are humans like this?

Probably stuff that happened in prehistory, some quirk of evolution. It’s definitely not rational.

The really successful religions and eventually empires just happened to be homophobic, so anyone conservative globally is likely to be homophobic.

It’s actually a pretty LGBT friendly region anyway, it’s legal in most of Indonesia, even, but they border Malaysia where gay stuff gets hard prison time.

Edit: As in, SE Asia is a relatively gay-friendly region, for whatever reason. It’s not because social conservatism is out of style.

Indonesia itself is meh. Better than Malaysia, worse than Thailand. And the Muslim part will cane you for it, per the article.