>I mean, you talked about MY house, so yeah I felt personnally attacked.

It was an example to show you being a hypocrite by supporting destruction of property while these protests don't affect you. If you felt "personally attacked" then you need to grow up and grow some thicker skin.

Since you can't have a discussion without feeling 'personally attacked' when there was CLEARLY no intention of that, then this thread is not worth continuing. I don't want you in tears because you decided to hop onto discussing a subject that triggers PTSD.

That sounds like a you-problem that you should deal with in your own time with a therapist, instead of taking it out on people on the internet.

I said something, and you tried to make it sound like I personally attacked you - like I know anything about your life...

Grow up. When you try to make it sound like you're being victimised because someone wrote a counter argument to your post, then you've already lost the argument.

And you're wrong. People's property are being destroyed.

Christ, they even set a town hall on fire, while there were people STILL INSIDE.

If you can't handle a discussion about these protests because it's triggering some form of PTSD, then perhaps you shouldn't be getting involved in the discussion.

And if it was your house that got set on fire? What would you say then?

"Oh I already put time into developing my house and a safe place for my family... I don't need it anymore"?

Be real.

Destroying other people's property because you're angry at the government is NOT the way to go about it.

I mean, I support the protests. But I don't support setting buildings, cars on fire... attacking people and the general violence. It solves nothing.

What good does setting your neighbours car on fire do? How does that help the message that you're trying to send?

At the end of the day, there are the actual people protesting... and then there are people who are taking advantage of the situation by damaging property and being incredibly violent.

Yes, the government is trying to take 2 years away from the people (while still being one of the lowest retirement ages in Europe...). But these people are taking away - in some cases - more than 2 years of savings from others by destroying their property that they spent years on acquiring.

Why are you supporting violence against people and people's property?

Would you still be happy if a protester set your house on fire? Would you still be making such a nonsensical comment?

No you wouldn't. And I wouldn't believe you if you said otherwise.

This is a classic "I'm not affected by this, so I support it". Yeah... just wait till there's a violent protest in your neighbourhood and your shit gets set on fire.

There should be no violence from EITHER side. Violence never solves anything.

My concern isn't the charging of the batteries, as with nuclear, wind and solar energy becoming more widely adopted - by 2035, most of the EU's power grid will be powered by sustainable green energy.

The batteries don't have a short life span either. Averaging around 10-20 years of usage. That's longer than most people have their combustion cars for before looking to change.

But even with that said, the lack of recycling of the batteries is a core problem. This is e-waste to the extreme. So we can only hope that by the time 2035 comes around, there will be more recyclable parts used in the batteries which will reduce that e-waste.

Biofuels are not sustainable. It would require tearing down massive amounts of land, which damages the ecosystem of the planet. Also, it's still burning. Burning anything causes damage to our o-zone layer.

You mention seaweed. Seaweed provides an important part to our marine ecosystem, providing homes and safe areas for young fish.

The future is nuclear. Nuclear energy needs more funding, more research and more study. Fusion is so close, and once that happens, we're a step in the right direction with proper sustainable energy and no e-waste.

Well hopefully this will bring the price of EV's down. Because right now you can buy a combustion car for a fraction of the price of an EV.

Plus, in some places in the EU, we need more infrastructure to support EVs. Every petrol station should have a charging station - which is not the case in many EU member states.

> maybe but I really doubt that the usa would go to bat for poland

They certainly will as they are both members of NATO.

Poland has had a long and strong relationship with the US.

> I really doubt that the usa would involve troops there

We already have numerous American military bases here. Some of which are permanent. We already have hundreds of American troops here.

I've met some of them myself, I've driven past American convoys that have fallen off the side of the roads. It wasn't that long ago when an American convoy fell off the side of the road and dropped a fuck ton of grenades, which took them hours to find and clean up.

This is honestly great news for PL.

PL used to be HEAVILY reliant on coal and gas, especially coal.

Some years ago, a minister declared the burning of coal was a "patriotic duty".

So, it's about time that this country is moving forward with energy.

Nuclear can be the future. While it's an expensive initial investment, it's still green energy, that's sustainable and with more study can be applied to much smaller technologies - like cars for example.

Here's how the kremlin works with public "information".

1. They don't intend to attack anything: They threaten with attacking something.
2. They intend to attack something: They don't talk about it
3. They are about to attack something: "It's a training exercise"

Just keep that in mind with all these headlines trying to get you worried. If the kremlin says that they may do something provoking, they won't.

It's the silence that you should be worried about. When they're not talking about something that is within their possibilities to attack.

Why give away your game plan? It makes no sense.