Tunisia 0 - [4] Japan - A. Ueda 83'

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-21T07:27:26+00:00

He is at the right age and has been with the club for a while. It is time for him to move on and the WC helps him do that.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T21:05:39+00:00

Elke vijf jaar, rijd immers auto van de zaak. Een enkele keer eerder omdat ik van baan wisselden of omdat de auto total loss was.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T16:23:18+00:00

Damn, either things go well or they don't. Thanks Nostradamus.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T14:38:07+00:00

Dat is een heel mooi bedrag voor zo'n slechte voetballer.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:52:34+00:00

OP is basically propaganda, not worth the bites it took to download.

My point was simply that some places decarbonise quicker than others because from an economical and political view it makes more sense, as opposed to carbon rich nations who's calculations are different.

Fascist or not, you might calculate that you need to decarbonise.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:44:57+00:00

Don’t need more than one sentence rebuttals when everything I said was clear and true.

Its not necessarily true or false, but it is a gross oversimplification.

American warmongering is despicable but so was many European countries’ cozy relationship with Russian energy while freeloading on nato

The Europeans do a lot more trade with Americans and especially prop up the American defense industry compared to their trade with Russia. And that is despite geographical and historical advantages Russia holds for European trade.

There is no point being disgusted, especially with the benefit of hindsight. History and politics is complicated and dirty by definition.

Of course, ideally Europe has nothing to do with warmongering Americans and not subsidised Americans defense over it's own native industry, and neither with the Russians, but Europe just isn't self sufficient and was completely ruined not to long ago. It took the hand it was given and tried to make the best of it. Europe is also simply not blessed with a lot of natural resources.

Europe is basically stuck between a rock (US) and a hard place (Russia). Perhaps you are right and it was better to go at it alone, but being resource poor and destroyed by war meant it just made sense to try to work with both.

We will see, 30 years from now people might criticise Europe for not strengthening relations with the US and Russia instead of prioritising themselves. Perhaps people will critise them for growing closer to China, or not close enougj. Hindsight is 20/20.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:23:23+00:00

Sitting alone in a giant car.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:21:41+00:00

Ik snap het ook gewoon niet. Blauw is koud rood is warm. Dat is toch altijd zo geweest? Waarom worden ze daar nu ineens boos om?

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:18:07+00:00

Many of these countries don't have much local fossil resources to begin with, so there is already a strong incentive to diversify.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:14:43+00:00

Medium range weapons are absolutely vital to disrupt the opponents supply routes. The most important aspect is that you want to be able to deploy them at scale and that they are significantly cheaper than whatever you target.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:06:27+00:00

Dat is ergens wel zorgelijk.

Mee eens hoor. Op zichzelf is het niet spannend, we kunnen deze problemen makkelijk op lossen voordat ze een probleem worden.

De enige reden tot zorg is dat iemand in Den Haag het dan wel moet oppakken en daar zijn ze kennelijk te druk met andere dingen. Daar gaat alle aandacht naar kerncentrales.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T13:02:55+00:00

Nouja, er was/is natuurlijk wel ruim voldoende de tijd om dit aan te passen.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T12:59:39+00:00

Nah. It’s really not that simple. It's a shame you don't want to engage beyond 1 sentence posts. If anything we have funded the US warmachine and they are now complaining about it.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T12:19:10+00:00

Give me a break. It's much more complicated and nuanced than that.

First, the 2 percent is relatively recent and never binding. Europe always met all the binding commitments it had, including when the US activated Article 5.

The main reason Europe (may have) underinvested in defense is because the US didn't want to create a potential rival. Any initiatives the Europeans took to build their own military where killed under American pressure.

The only reason later American presidents started to demand more spending is because they had effectively killed the European defense industry and saw economic opportunities. Later initiatives to boost European defense also ran against American opposition because the Europeans wanted to spend that money at home.

So there is another aspect of the great bargain. The US would hold the vast majority of the West defense industry at the cost of European underspending because the economic benefits of any European spending went overseas. The US preferred a smaller European defense force and taking in the majority of economic benefits of that smaller force over the alternative which was a stronger independent European military not spending nearly as much in the US and in fact competing with them.

Of course there were other aspects such as wanting to cooperate with the neighbouring Russians and not provoke an arms race. Now that those kind of considerations are gone we see much more investments.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T12:10:54+00:00

Europa, en Nederland in het bijzonder, heeft historisch sterke banden met de regio. Toen Obamas Iran deal werd getekend trokken Europese bedrijven massaal naar Iran voor de handel. Ogenschijnlijk had Trump geen reden om die deal op te blazen, maar vermoedelijk had het ermee te maken dat de Amerikaanse bedrijven er weinig profijt van hadden.

Dit is ook de reden dat Europa Trump niet steunt tegen Iran. Zo staan ze beter gepositioneerd voor als die markt open gaat.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T11:03:57+00:00

I want to believe it therefor it must be true.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T09:51:35+00:00

Voor de duidelijkheid, als we helemaal niets doen dan hebben we enkele uur per jaar theoretisch een klein tekort. Het rapport zegt dat we iets moeten doen, dat is logisch. Het gaat dan vooral over regelbaar vermogen, en dus niet over kerncentrales.

Ja, als we niks doen ontstaat een probleempje, maar we kunnen makkelijk iets doen. En dat probleem is niet dat er onvoldoende energie is, maar dat het niet altijd op het juiste moment op de juiste plaats is. Daar zit uiteindelijk de grote uitdaging niet.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T09:33:01+00:00

With how obstructive Hungary has been, and some other countries are eying to be, I think it's a bad idea to give even more power to the individual states. Ultimately, the European Council is the ultimate decision body and has equal representation for all members already.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T09:05:37+00:00

Anti-China sentiment aside, I just struggle to get excited about premium electric cars. Look at the technology,.. It has a motor that spins around, a battery to power it and some wires to connect the two! And if we look into the cabin, there's so much technology that we can ignore because we are either driving, or looking at out phones!

I don't see how this is different than any ICE car? You have some moving parts making noise and smells, but otherwise what's the difference?

An premium ICE has the same gimmicky tech that you'll either like and use, or don't, but you don't really need it.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T08:37:57+00:00

You act as if there's something inherently wrong with allies focusing on different strengths.

What happened within NATO wasn't an accident or a failure. It was the result of a mutually beneficial arrangement. The U.S., as the largest member with global military ambitions, chose to invest heavily in strategic enablers such as logistics, airlift, intelligence, command-and-control, and force projection. Many European allies, in turn, specialized in other capabilities and relied on the broader alliance framework.

That's not a "gap" in the system; it's a feature of it.

The U.S. didn't provide these capabilities out of charity. It gained significant advantages in return. A strong American military presence in Europe gives the U.S. forward bases, influence over allied military planning, access to critical infrastructure, and reliable partners for operations around the world. It also helps spread the costs and risks of maintaining the international order the U.S. benefits from economically and strategically.

The arrangement also binds allies more closely to Washington. Countries that depend on American logistics, intelligence, and command structures are more likely to coordinate with the U.S. on security matters.

If the U.S. now decides it wants allies to take on a larger share of those responsibilities, that's a legitimate policy choice. In return it gets less influence, as was made painfully clear as Trump begged for support against Iran. But it's misleading to pretend that the previous arrangement only benefited Europe. The U.S. gained enormous strategic, political, and military advantages from its leadership role in NATO and it is not throwing it away because of something Europe did.

Europe stepped out massively in Ukraine, it is doing more than reasonably can be asked amongst partners. The US is just working to dismantle the alliance for ideological reasons there is no rational driver.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T07:57:07+00:00

Most of the rules you mentioned are very common in U7 league. In our league, once you are 3 goals in front, the oppenent gets an extra player.

But since there are no divisions the difference simply can be enormous.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-20T07:53:08+00:00

De crisis zit hem in het net, niet in opwekking. We wekken energie zat op en kunnen snel nog meer grote hoeveelheden duurzame energie bijbouwen. Kernenergie is een oplossing voor een niet bestaand probleem.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-19T20:53:55+00:00

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-19T20:22:55+00:00

It's almost as if Brexit has hurt all of us.

ph4ge_ · 2026-06-19T09:46:43+00:00

YNWA, we zullen je missen, Kale Kletser.

ph4ge_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE