It scares me that anyone could come to this conclusion. Are you so clueless about the unimaginable, unprecedented suffering and death that such a conflict would bring, or does your emotional attachment prevent any rational assessment? There is no reality where WW3 and "not necessarily a bad thing" belong in the same sentence.
It's a good thing to punish territorial aggression, but there can be no doubt that WW3 is the worst outcome for everyone.
This doesn't advocate for any substantial improvement of data protections. It's merely a convenience argument to legitimize banning Chinese cars for economic reasons. American car manufacturers will continue to harvest and sell all your data, just with less competition.
Of course, this isn't a surprise coming from the CFR, the lobbying organization for US imperialism.
Not my idea of a good date, but to each their own
Then maybe you should defer judgment unless you know the facts. Polar bears are incredibly strong and will hunt and eat prey much larger than humans.
Is that the nutty putty guy?
The directors of the matrix are both trans, and confirmed that it was an allegory. Trans people are usually faced with the dilemma of repressing their identity (blue pill) or transitioning (red pill).
Slow down. I merely clarified the matter being discussed. You might have a clear opinion on that matter, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a dilemma without a simple answer.
Also note that the US was attacked and got directly involved in the war mere months after the lend-lease act was signed. That is what NATO is trying to avoid. The difference is that the Nazis did not have nukes and were already fighting a two-front war, so they had little power or incentive to escalate.
That analogy is faulty. It's undisputed that Ukraine can use its own arms. The question is about whether they can use the other arms given to them by NATO countries for there purposes.
Ich möchte diesen Teppich nicht kaufen, bitte.
Is this a threat?