The Apache could also possibly have been downed by Israel to sabotage the ‘peace talks’.

Did it?

Or was there some help by BN’s Israel who doesn’t want this conflict to end until it reached its territorial goals?

No worries, the current admin is busy working on reducing the US military capabilities in this moment.

Iran might have been on a path to a more civil society when moderates were at power. However this was against Israels plan to picture the local rival as force of evil… so Trump singlehandedly ended the nuclear deal Iran was kept word in and proved to the Iraninan leaders that ‘the West’ can’t be trusted. Next election saw a switch to more conservativism and repression, just as intended.

I’d say you’re right.

And massive subsidies China gives its industries to dump global markets and take control afterwards

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/global-subsidies-rebound-especially-china-oecd-says-2026-06-01/

Making people “disappear” is a method of intimidation that was already used during the Nazi era in Germany (and in many other right-wing and left-wing dictatorships) to spread fear and terror among the civilian population (see Hitler’s “Night and Fog” decree).

Someone knocks on your door at night, you are taken away, and neither friends, family, nor anyone else knows where you have disappeared to. The uncertainty is more agonizing than any punishment (which you will still face, just not publicly) because your loved ones don’t know if they might actively worsen your situation by taking action.

“Enforced disappearance” has also constituted a crime against humanity since 2002… but who’s surprised there’s no outcry?

Absolutely!

My two cents:

It’s unlikely Cuba is able to fend off an American bombing campaign / possible invasion, given the US wasn’t ruled by a maniac surrounded by yes-men lacking competence. However it is also unlikely that a) this US admin is able to pull off a well planned and organized intervention/invasion, Mango Mussolini is first of all to impatient b) the US would be able to win anything in this conflict as the sure as hell won’t be able to install a pro-US regime let alone govern the island themselves… this is also the reason nobody since Kennedy tried it.

Most probable outcome would be Israelian playbook the US is trying to experiment with in Iran: Bomb necessary infrastructure to ruins and let civilians suffer in order to weaken the nation you’re attacking and claim victory even though you achieved nothing besides willingly breaking international law.

The hound Sound of Volumekill?

A french buisnessman wouldn’t be allowed to buy a Chinese state company. Why this one-sided policy is deemed a good idea is beyond me. The short term market access leads to a long term loss of know-how and technology.

This is known for quite some time.

It’s estimated that the sanctions against Saddams Iraq, including medical products such as antibiotics, subsequently caused the death of ~ 200 k children due to treatable diseases.

I can’t really blame any parents who hate the sanctioning nations afterwards.

Is this the same army that just got their budget DOUBLED when the orange took office? Or am I missing something here?

Chinas solar industry most probably…

Finally some good fucking news!

Yes and no. The original Fanta was what you describe (a substitute for Coke in Nazi Germany) yet it was created from scraps and its taste most probably had little to do with the modern Fanta brand which was created in Italy and inherited the name after war.

I don’t think so.

In my opinion, egoists represent a clear minority and would not be able to suppress everyone else by force. The series of revolutions and democratizations that have occurred throughout history is, in my view, proof of this.

The majority holds the power, and the rule of egoists is only possible as long as the vast majority accepts it (because the disadvantages of being ruled by egoists are offset by sufficiently large benefits of cooperation).

To some extent, therefore, we must also take a good look at ourselves for accepting the status quo as it is and not wanting to change it because it would be too inconvenient.

Yet we chose candidates… even though the pre-selection is biased towards egoists.

Looking at the current rise of populism ''we" actually seem to deliberately chose the most egoistic ones available.

But nonetheless: Imho representation automatically leads to corruption by egoists so we should get rid of representatives all together (or at least try to rein them in by making it possible to remove them from office at any time )

Two things that come to my mind:

1. In our current society money equals power over others. If you’re not the richest your not the most powerful and if you are you need to fight to proetct your power from other who are getting richer. It’s not about money but about determining the fate of others and rulership over society.
2. You don’t become obsecely rich by being a good person. Once you reach a billion dollars you most paobably already aquired a mindeset that leaves you no other choice than to look for another billion. Much like a hamster in a wheel which spins to fast to let it go off.

In the eyes of average humans (which I believe to be decent people, at least 80 % of the total population) this is insane… however the 10 - 20 % egoists are the ones we chose as our rulers.

I’d argue the windows are way to big for a plane as well…

There is a difference between “having enough money prevents people from turning to crime to survive and meet their basic needs” and “having more money allows you to buy more happiness, even if your basic needs have long since been met.”