Whenever I listen to these types of recordings, there's so much static and it's hard to hear the words. Is this how it actually sounds to pilots/ATC operators or is their feed actually much clearer?
I had a more charitable reading of GP's comment: supposing, hypothetically, the US wanted a proxy war against Russia, it didn't have to "trick" Russia. This is a perfectly valid rebuttal to GP's parent imo, especially because GP's GP never suggested US "tricked" anything.
> If China downs one in South China sea, the US might keep it quiet because neither country wants a violent escalation into war just yet.
>> just yet
No, sorry. Neither country wants a war. Full stop. I despise this tendentious reading of normal tension between two major world powers as a claim that war's going to break out. It's dangerous fear-mongering.
Sibling commenters saying US did not want to provoke a war with Russia are being biased imo. US drew a line in the sand, or kept pushing on the issue for Ukraine to NOT promise it would never join NATO. These are facts. Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part.
Hint, when you hear the mainstream media constantly repeating a slogan or phrase nearly unanimously, there's probably something that language is hiding. I'm thinking about how all media called the war "unprovoked". Well, that isn't entirely true, and is some US propaganda/face-saving measure.
That might be a necessary condition, but definitely not a sufficient one to be considered a superpower. Simple thought experiment, "completely erasing" the US as you suggest would render the Earth unpleasant to live on, for a while, for all inhabitants.
Ok, so you want to make a system that does not include some otherwise very popular criteria to the citizens of the host nation? Because... it benefits you?
Today if you're an illegal migrant and claim asylum, you get +inf points.
If you're born in certain countries with long wait time, you get -inf points.
Clearly the system today is working within your definition.
> I suppose the counterargument is that the US educational system is generally so poor that it's not generating enough people with the necessary technical capabilities
But what if it's not a policy/ed system issue but a culture/society/values choice? As a teen today, why go to college when I can try my hand at drop-shipping/digital marketing/content creation/ChatGPT startup/whatever guru du jour's shilling today
Thank you for clarifying, I get what you mean now.
That study is over a decade old though. And I would think that there's too many confounding variables at play there. IMO the biggest confounder is "society issues" that make women feel less safe in general in public spaces. In my local neck of the US, I pretty much never see solo women eating outside at night, vs solo men and mixed groups.