







Okay so if the friendly fire is a from an ally, you can throw that ally under the bus.
Would the same apply if it were American friendly fire? Does it still save face then?


This needs to be higher. It’s the first comment I came to that:


I hope the article begins with a few reasons I should care.


I think this is a good point. While you are “protected” behind those parking spaces and shrubbery, you are also less visible. But you are still very much a part of that road system when you come to the end of the block and have to get through the intersection. People crater the same problem by riding on the sidewalk instead of using the bike lanes. They feel safer but I’m not always sure they are safer.
Where I live there are water canals carrying runoff from the nearby foothills into the county water system. These canals do not follow the roads at all and criss cross through our entire city. Some smart person decided to add multi-use trails all along them, so we have a bike lane network that’s off the roads entirely. There are even a couple of elevated bridges built entirely to get the bike trails over major thoroughfares. That’s protected.
And yes, this is in the US 😀


Can you help men understand it? A friendly fire incident sounds a lot like incompetence. How does that play better than an actual combat death from fighting the enemy we went to fight?


So for example, last night I went to see a play with my wife in the big city we live outside. 8pm show. Our location has better options than most in the US for public transit, but still not enough to fully rely upon and it’s hard to envision that changing.
We have a regional transit rail system we could have taken. It would drop us off close enough to the theater, perhaps 2 city blocks.
But the station is 6km from our house so the problem is on this end. We live in an area that’s not quite rural, more suburban, but it is out on the open countryside a bit and this natural beauty is what we love about living here.
We do have excellent bike lanes and even a network of bike trails that are separated from the roads. Our local station is about a 20 minute ride. We can do it but we’re in our 50s and it’s not our first choice when getting dressed up for a date night to begin with 20 minutes of vigorous exercise. And we would have had to repeat that ride at 11pm on the way home, tired, with a glass of wine in our bellies.
So the problem I guess is our home location. We live in a medium-to-small sized town that’s nestled up against a state park. The only public transit I can really imagine would be a bus system and it would have to cover a very wide area with many vehicles to serve this region. And even then I can’t imagine it would be quick.
I would still prefer a world without cars. I guess I’m just telling you why cars still fit into our needs and why our options are.
In the future I’m pretty optimistic that we can change the math on busses. Autonomous vehicles would allow us to move away from large busses piloted by a human driver to many smaller ones with more comprehensive coverage and better approximation of point-to-point transit.
The appeal of this path is that it’s something car-centric areas can transition to smoothly. We can get mass autonomous bus service going without banning cars and building rail lines or other large projects.
A small country that was laid out centuries ago, before cars, has a different layout and distribution of people that makes things like rail work better. The problem is that the US is huge and was built on cars, which are excellent for spreading individuals out with no regard for central planning.
Today’s generation of Americans are stuck with cars and not always in love with them. The way our population is distributed, it’s hard for mass transit to replace them, so it really doesn’t matter how great civic rail works in Lisbon.
We might address the topic of whether it’s responsible for people to be so spread out. I would certainly have a hard time saying goodbye to my beautiful natural surroundings.


I think you addressed who is better equipped to actually shoot down American planes - do you also have an opinion on whether the administration would prefer to credit friendly fire over enemy fire in order to save face? I’m really not sure it saves any face. And wouldn’t command want us to be outraged by the enemy killing our pilots?


I didn’t say it above but I completely agree. He sounds about half an inch from using the word “females” at some point.


Do y’all not write differently when you’re trying to be discreet on Blind?


I think you’re confused. Neither OP nor the commenter immediately above are limiting their remarks to friends only.


I was responding to OP asking about friends and relationships, so not just “young single women.” But I did also say try a dating app. Singles is pretty much all those are for.
Obviously no one can give you town-specific suggestions but are bars and restaurants the only things women do you where you live? I’d be very surprised if that’s true.


OP did say “get into relationships.”


Volunteer. Audition for community theater. Get a job. Join a hiking group. Take an adult learning class. Download a dating app. Get yourself out there.


I don’t think the US killing civilians drives Iranian rebels back into philosophical alignment with their government, but certainly it’s hard to get a protest together when the US is bombing.


Yes but it’s dumb as hell for a president to try to look cool as hell for the cameras before making a speech about a damn war he started.


It doesn’t even have to be per person. It can just be by time of day.


Let’s call it what it is: price discrimination.
I was surprised to see this stat: homeownership in the US is in the mid to high 60%s range. Meaning we have twice as many owner-occupied homes as rented homes.
Now everyone please proceed to downvote this sourced fact, offered without even any commentary.
Their farcical claim has been pretty visible for a while now: they need not only the land they consider sacred and theirs but also a security buffer around it. If pressed, they will explain how a security buffer is not just an arbitrary distance of land but possession of key surrounding geographic positions. And that requires them to go all the way to THIS map.
Their acquisition of the Golan Heights set the template for this. Israel used to enjoy saying that they never started any of the conflicts, but even then they would admit that they annexed the Golan proactively because of its strategic positioning and key water sources in the area.
Clearly they won’t be talking about how they never started any of the conflicts anymore. They think they have more to gain than lose by letting that claim go.