IrateAnteater

Libya had the highest HDI of Africa before NATO's "peace keeping"

Dude, at least visit Wikipedia before you argue. Lybia was an example of NATO enforcing a no-fly zone, not peacekeeping. And Lybia's HDI was back to pre-civil war levels three years ago (ie the 2021 data matches the 2013 data).

Are you going to pretend that Muammer Gaddafi was a benevolent and beloved dictator, and that there's no way Lybians would want him to fuck off all of their own?

it's hard to separate the blame of NATO and just America

No it fucking isn't. NATO lists all actions they've taken part of on their website. If the action is there, it was NATO, if it isn't, it was not a NATO action.

"every single war it's faught"

So that would be Afghanistan.

The Balkans were just generally on fire in the 90s and NATO enforced a no fly zone and sent peacekeeper forces after the fact.

There's a few more peacekeeping missions and no-fly zones (Lybia for example), then some training missions, some humanitarian missions (Pakistan for example), a few air campaigns against non-state entities ("terrorists" but realistically that's often just a matter of perspective), and a bunch of anti-piracy actions.

So it's "every single war" with heavy emphasis on single.

Kuwait isn't really the same situation as other countries the US has/had a presence in. The relationship is fundamentally different. The US is still in Kuwait in the same sense that they are still in Germany. Kuwait wasn't invaded by the US like Iraq and Afghanistan were. Kuwait was already a US ally before the war, and remained one afterwards. They allow the US to have bases in Kuwait, but the US isn't in control of the country, again, same as in Germany. Hell, after some quick Googling, I came across a statistic that said that in 2003, public opinion regarding the US was more favourable in Kuwait than in the US's western allies (something like 64% favourable in Kuwait vs <50% in Europe).

Russia can end this war tomorrow. Any and all deaths are on them. Hell, if Russia would just stay out of their neighbours business, there would have been no civil war in the first place.

If Russia would quit invading their neighbours, their neighbours wouldn't have had the motivation to join NATO in the first place (see Sweden and Finland as the most current examples).

Honestly, even that wouldn't work. The genie's out of the bottle so to speak. You could destroy all weapons today and they'd be rebuilt tomorrow.

The exploding spaceships isn't really a problem. That's kind of the intention of the testing process. The way NASA does things, where everything is meticulously tested and nothing can fail ever, works, but it's slower and more expensive. Destructive testing is faster, and has the benefit of possibly revealing failure modes you didn't forsee.

Yes and no. The reason companies are hiring them is for the image of impartiality they bring. If your firm gets a reputation for just always siding with the company, regardless of what actually happened, that image gets destroyed.

Plus, I'm willing to bet that there's not a whole lot of recurring business from individual companies for this type of service. That would kind of defeat the purpose of being the "neutral third party".

The fuck is BIFL?

It wasn't so much "not mind" as it was "put up with" since there was no real alternative for the average person. Also, there's the remarkable ability of the human brain to filter out inputs it deems unnecessary. Bad smells that are a constant presence end up being filtered out.

Believe it or not, straight to jail.

And that's the moment where your real friends will let you know that it's time to take a break.

Considering that publicly funded (or royalty funded, which amounts to basically the same thing in feudal systems) sports has been a thing across all civilizations for all of history, I doubt the future people will blink an eye.