Big O O F
Oneser
joined 2 years ago
I mean this was always the case, right? Just the headline is making people think the alliance is falling apart.
Article 5 only says all parties will take "...such actions as deemed necessary...to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Looks good, but charges a standard 10% booking fee which seems very steep imo. But I'm a cheap ass...
It's additionally funny because the title on the webpage doesn't pick up the 2nd "the".
While the fuck cars sentiment is as important as always, planning rules like this have a few goals which aren't all so malicious, including stopping projects decoupling their parking space and selling it for extra, or avoiding 30+ cars all over the sidewalks once everyone is moved in.
Planning codes tend to try and anticipate a community's immediate vicinity needs. The best approach though would be "$x000 per unit to provide and maintain local public transport facilities and routes"
Is this really an ADHD thing?
Can you explain?
Because the Republicans played the populist game better. This is not the first or last time people will willingly vote their own downfall into power.
I have little to contribute, but could you please share your date sources for the numbers started?
I would be interested to see how salary data could be aggregated reliably in countries with significant differences in population.
The same reason you like eating caramelised onions, but not onion skins.
view more: next ›
I think you're missing a lot of the context here.
The collective agreement means that 3.5% of GDP will be spent on defense and 1.5% on defense related measures (cybersecurity, infrastructure security etc.). It applies to all countries in the alliance, including the US.
The US already spends around 3.5% on defense according to Reuters and there is no requirement to use US manufacturers over others.
I am not saying increasing defence spending is a good thing, just that you or the headlines have misinterpreted the agreement.
link to Reuters article.