Its best to use a protocol that doesn’t allow unencrypted messages

This is an implementation thing and not a protocol thing. What protocol doesn’t allow unencrypted messages? I am sure signal’s protocol would still allow it, it’s just that the implementation doesn’t.

And same for XMPP. Just go with the implementation that doesn’t.

Unless you pay from the exchange’s wallet

Sounds like clickbait

deleted by creator

So what is the benefit for the common person, now?

I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn’t check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there’s no threat. Then you said well there’s a threat, because Ukraine.

The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.

In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.

When was that?

Ukraine has wanted NATO membership for many years. It has been literally part of their Constitution since 2019.

Here is one early example:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_46249.htm?mode=pressrelease

For more info:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

I guess we felt differently.

Maybe so. However I am not attached to my feelings and definitely open to changing my mind. I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.

I want to see evidence of a real threat, with evidence that it was going to happen, but was only avoided due to said deterrence. I believe that would be the textbook definition of deterrence. Anything else is not. But I am open minded if you have an alternate definition that is reasonable.

They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them. There was a real threat and they chose not to deter it.

Finland wasn’t under any threat and was allowed to join, around the same time. The country that actually had a known threat wasn’t allowed to join. So they clearly haven’t deterred anything.

The threat of Russian involvement in Ukraine was known wayyyy ahead of the invasion actually occurring. Ukraine tried hard to join NATO to “deter” it but they never allowed it. So yeah, they don’t deter shit.

If Russia had plans to invade Finland like they did Ukraine, we don’t know if that would have gotten them into NATO.

or are you being intentionally dense?

Is your argument not good enough on its own, that you have to engage in personal attacks? No I am not dense. Please keep these comments to yourself. If you can’t engage in a civil discussion, I will report you to moderators.

Do you not understand the concept of deterrence

I do understand it. Now I’d love to see a proof of the presence of a threat that was deterred due to US military budget.

Do you believe for one second that Putin stops with Ukraine if NATO and the US weren’t standing in his way?

I need to see proof to believe that Russia is a threat to the parts of Europe you speak of, and said threat was deterred by US military budget. Otherwise I will continue not believing it.

If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine, instead of fueling the profits of the military industrial complex? Why do they keep letting hostilities and murder happen? Sounds like they aren’t deterring threats very well.

Ukraine war proves you wrong. When the threat is real, they do not deter it.

This isn’t to mention that Finland has not faced the same circumstances of Ukraine that led up to the war there, which goes back to my feafmongering claim.

But again, if you think Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine (it’s not), the US has failed to protect it. But they have successfully made a lot of profit for military corporations.

So can you answer the question? Has there been a threat or Russian aggression into Western Europe that was averted due to US involvement? I am yet to see that.

Finland joined NATO because of fearmongering. I am yet to see a real threat. Now can you answer my question? If not, then it says enough.

This is true but we should keep in mind:

When we say military spending, what it really means is: how much is the US government granting the military industrial complex for them to accept powering its military

When we say Medicaid (and others) spending, it is: how much is the US gov giving to medical insurance companies to allow a sunset of poor people to have some healthcare?

Those companies are intentionally setting outrageous prices and the US is happy to pay them.

our military protects European countries

Please give me a list of enough threats the US protected Europe from to back your statement. I doubt there are enough to justify those differences, and hence your statement must be doubted until you prove otherwise.

Nothing against people who prefer meat substitutes. But I do think they should be brave and just abandon meat altogether. If you keep relying on meat substitutes, you haven’t let go of meat entirely, I found it easy to get back to meat eating.

I am sorry to restate this again, but the expulsion, genocide on the scale (both in size and horror) is historically unprecedented. You’re going to have to prove this to me if you think it’s a common occurrence instead of continuing to repeat it.

And for the record, no one here is talking about small scale expulsion. I am talking about expulsion AND genocide on the same scale and horror committed here. Show me that it is a common occurrence and I will concede.

You’re correcting me saying that expelling native populations time and time again from every land they go to, then genociding their entire population to the point of near extinction, using the most horrific methods and over centuries, is more akin to dying of old age than dying by a bomb?

Please read that again and confirm to me that’s what you’re saying, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous. This scale and this horror are not common historical occurrence.

Other examples existing does not change that it is historically unprecedented and far from the norm. And its just a really strange and pointless thing to point.

Person A: “my dad died in a car bomb” Person B: “ehh, average family death” A: “uhh what?” B: "well, there are other examples of people dying in car bombs, dude! "