They’re actually fairly prolific publishers, though I haven’t personally played much of their catalogue besides the excellent Golf With Your Friends
They’re actually fairly prolific publishers, though I haven’t personally played much of their catalogue besides the excellent Golf With Your Friends
The guy that got “installed” was the leader of the opposition in the parliament, had the backing of a clear majority of the parliament, and had been supportive of the protests. It would be weirder for the Americans to support anyone else
Hamstrung or not, the delivery in that article is 70,000 tonnes of fuel. That’s almost as much as the Russian delivery in the article.
If you have fact-checked it, why not just say that wherever you did that is where you got the answer from? People are right to be skeptical of “ChatGPT says so”, and if you’ve used it as the start of your research rather than as your entire research then just saying “I asked ChatGPT” is no different to “I googled it”, and nobody would much like you saying that either. How you found the information is less important than where you found it.
It’s possible it’s for other reasons, though. Black Americans are generally poorer than other Americans, and success in sports is a ticket out of poverty that is accessible to people in that position. It could also be a cultural thing; I doubt Finns are genetically predisposed to be exceptional drivers, but they are still wildly over-represented at the top level of motorsports for such a small population
I’d probably also develop a short temper about spanners too if they were being shoved in my face by tech companies as hard as chat bots are
Russia did author this one, and it was in November 2021
Hell even on the issue of Cuba specifically, during his presidency Trump chose to undo the progress Obama had made. He has already made it worse
The EU has absolutely done similar things against American companies before. The Boeing-Airbus saga is a good example
And your solution is to give it to the guy who did the exact same thing more actively and who is promising to do it harder? Right. Sure.
Alright, look, I appreciate the back and forth but I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere here. We do both, at the very least, agree that minimising Palestinian deaths is the goal. I’m not persuaded by your analysis of much of this, and you’re not persuaded by mine. Hopefully things go the way that whichever one of us is right wants
I bake a lot of bread, including for my coeliac stepmother, so I’ve taken to labelling the loaves gluten-free and gluten-expensive
You don’t think a Trump administration would ditch America’s position in Europe if that was what was needed to do what he wanted to do? In light of how he acted throughout 2016-2020?
We’ve already seen in the Red Sea that America is quite capable of using its naval and aerial assets without shifting the budget. They aren’t magically crushing the Houthis because yeah, of course bombarding people from offshore doesn’t make them want to fight you less, but I sure as fuck don’t want to see what America is doing to Yemen also done to Palestine on top of what’s already being done to it. Especially since Palestine is far denser with civilians.
And, of course, they absolutely could just spend more. That would not be even slightly unprecedented. The budget is currently close to the smallest as a percentage of GDP that it has been since before 2001.
I’m quite comfortable saying that the ~$4 billion a month that the US sent to Ukraine in this summer would be enough to be meaningfully harmful if redirected towards Israel
If your theory that America is currently bombing Palestine in secret is wrong, then it can actually start. The navy parked offshore can start doing bombardments, they’re not doing a lot right now. America can decide to substantially increase military spending to increase production for Israel; as a proportion of GDP, spending hasn’t changed significantly despite the war in Ukraine and what Israel is doing. Fuck it, maybe it’s boots on the ground. Wouldn’t exactly be the first American adventure in western Asia. I do not for a second think that America’s ability to blow people up is currently stretched to breaking point.
Apart from the ability to increase production, I did literally just answer this in our other chat
It changes, yes, because it would be America and Israel doing it. I don’t think “more bombs falling on Gaza than before is worse” should be a complicated stance
It only results in 100% of the Palestinians dying on the assumption that there is enough time to do that. The longer it takes them, the more Palestinians are still alive if and when it is stopped.
So materially they are already approaching their limit to how many Palestinians they can kill in a given time frame
Trump wants to stop supporting Ukraine. That frees up a huge amount of resources that could be sent to Israel without changing the total balance compared to today at all.
Trump would be a lot less effective at international diplomacy in general and a big part of what America is doing for Israel is stopping other nations from intervening.
America doesn’t stop other countries from intervening by deft diplomacy, it does it by military power. Trump is perfectly capable (and fond) of threatening countries with the American military.
If Kamala isn’t stopping the genocide or even holding Israel back, how will Trump be worse? What could Trump possibly do that’s worse than genocide?
America absolutely has the capacity to supply far more equipment than it already is, and it has a track record of engaging in bombing campaigns in its own right in similar situations. Like in Yemen, under Trump. I do not want America to start bombing Palestine directly as well
“Finish the job” vs “finish the job faster”, either way the same result, genocide.
If they get to finish the job. The less quickly they can finish it, the more of a chance there is of Israeli and/or international public support turning against it enough to actually change it. The American election is not going to do that by itself because both realistic candidates are pro-Israel, so there is no point in making decisions that only work if they completely stop the genocide by voting or not voting.
You clearly also think that there is a chance of it being stopped since that’s your foundation for saying faster genocide is preferable. I don’t think your logic holds there, because I don’t see why a faster one would be likely to fail faster. On that basis, slower means fewer dead Palestinians.
It comes off as someone who doesn’t actually care about the issue and just wants to get their talking points out about why genocidal Trump is bad and genocidal Democrats are good.
Literally every point I made was explicitly rooted in what I believe will result in the fewest Palestinian deaths.
They most likely insulted you because they read what you wrote, the same reason I didn’t respond initially.
I accused them of not reading because they started off by trying to nitpick me by restating the exact same thing I pointed out literally in the same sentence.
As a physically large man who used to work a job that meant he was walking home late at night in the city, just cross the road to overtake. If you’re walking that much faster than the other person, you will overtake pretty soon.