Ben Gurion airport LITERALLY has an Airforce Base attached to it. The US LITERALLY evacuated their bases and had personnel staying in local hotels. Arguing against this is like saying the Iranian frigate in Indonesia wasn’t a valid target because it wasn’t in the theater of war
Embassies often hold intelligence offices. They’re absolutely a valid target. Airports are infrastructure that supports military operations. (Flying in food and other supplies) Hotels that have been hit were where military personnel were staying. (When other countries do this it’s called ‘using human shields’)
Are hospitals and school girls valid targets? One side is acting defensively. If you’ve been following this conflict for a while, you’d know that Iran has done as much as possible to avoid this conflict. Their back is against the wall and they’re swinging.
Embassies, yes. Check out what the US embassy was doing in Tehran during the 70s. Gas terminals, yes. But also Iran has been claiming the strike in SA wasn’t them. Hospitals, no. I haven’t seen anything about Iran striking hospitals. US and Israel regularly strike hospitals. Schools, no. Once again, Iran isn’t, but you can’t say the same about the agressors
Iran has been hitting military targets and other infrastructure that’s supporting military targets. What exactly would they be defending? France is out of range.
It’s been a slow start, but it started in Ukraine. So far it’s been Ukraine then Iran. Next is likely Cuba or Mexico. Cuba for regime change. Mexico for ‘the cartels’. Once the final straw hits, then things will escalate faster
This doesn’t feel like an actual serious question. Try looking up wild cows and jungle fowl. Yes the domestic cow and chicken would probably go extinct if no one was continuing to domesticate them. That’s kinda how evolution works
(I want to be clear that I’m not advocating for accelerationism, I’m just seeing holes in the argument) Pushing people in a vulnerable position now to make change for the future is a great example of the needs of the many ethical arguments. Advocating against change because it hurts me in the short term is inherently selfish. I know people that are accelerationists, and The ones I know don’t assume that they’ll come out ahead or even the same. They recognize that the system is inherently broken and they think they need more people uncomfortable to make meaningful change.
https://sourcenews.scot/analysis-5-of-the-worst-crimes-of-winston-churchill/
Churchill is probably viewed as worse than Hitler in parts of the world for good reason.
I think a lot of the argument against voting for lesser evil is the acceleration aspect. It’s advocating for a quicker fall of the American empire
The drones used in the Russia Ukraine war aren’t stealth. They’re very loud. It’s rare you see combat footage where the victim isn’t aware of the drone. They’ve been effectively used as anti personnel and anti equipment devices. A swarm could be used effectively to overwhelm positions. I have suspicion that this is to counter the upcoming anti drone technology that shoots them with lazers. It could also allow one person to push groups into kill zones.
There’s a lot of unsaid assumptions going on here. If you’re talking about turning our society completely without any preparation, I’d agree. If you’re talking about having similar levels of healthcare or I strongly disagree
The math still doesn’t add up. Typically there’s a 3x difference between casualties and fatalities, but this is saying that there’s a 6x difference.
First bullet and last bullet contradict each other. Last bullet implies that 96 000 people died in the year for those territorial gains. First bullet says that all new recruits are just replacement for the dead. But the 96 000 dead can be replaced in 3 months.
Some players don’t know how to jam. It’s fairly easy, and almost entirely rhythm based. If it’s the type of player that thinks playing a song is the same, I can see your point
As a very mediocre bassist who took lessons a long time ago, this is really good advice. Whoever down voted probably can’t read
From your source: ‘Beginning in January 2019, during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the U.S. applied additional economic sanctions to individuals or companies in the petroleum, gold, mining, and banking industries’
If you check the GDP per capita of Venezuela it was increasing at positive rate immediately after Chavez took power.
Life expectancy was also increasing after Chavez had taken over. https://data.who.int/countries/862
Most Venezuelan refugees cite crime, access to food and healthcare as reasons for leaving. Guess what US sanctions were causing. If you guessed lack of food and supplies for healthcare which caused an increase in crime, you’d be correct.
If socialism doesn’t work, why do they spend so many resources making sure it fails?
The majority of Venezuelan refugees cite crime, inflation and lack of food/health security. Those problems are a direct result of US sanctions. The US implemented those sanctions to destabilize the government. It looks like it worked
Could you imagine the trauma from your teddy that speaks to you like a person and at some point your parents throw it out because it’s just a teddy and the kid needs to get over their ‘imaginary friend’.
Adults are having trouble with this. It’s horrifying that they’re forcing it on children