That is absolutely a legal target for Russia too. It would also be suicidal and trigger article 5 of NATO.

Just because something is not a war crime to do doesn’t make it a smart thing to do.

That stance makes absolutely no sense. If a nation is invading you the military bases belonging to that nation are valid legal targets.

“Oh but don’t worry these bases aren’t being used to attack you, they just hold a bunch of personnel and equipment that we can easily move to use against you, but you’re definently not allowed to attack those”

Of course to get to those they must also trespass in Saudi Arabia’s airspace which then justifies Saudi Arabia retaliating against Iran. War is messy like that

Similar story, but the way our vet explained it is they removed the penis entirely and rerouted the urethra and widened the opening. He pees like a girl cat now basically.

Maybe we’re explaining the same surgery, but our vets explained it differently to us

I’ve made a simple historically verifiable statement

You did the opposite. You insisted that your version was true and that re-tooling an entire supply chain is easy.

Your entire arguement is hypotheticals with no source.

We had the vet remove our cat’s penis. Problem solved.

And to be fair it was the vet’s idea

Love digging in sand too, clay soils can bite me. Absolute hell

Nope I did not take it nor was I involved in anything like ROTC either.

Calls started being sent to our landline and my parents cellphones which were listed with the high school. After going to university is when they began coming to my cell phone.

Oh no I understand your statements, it’s just they are inherently wrong.

Honestly if you said in the last 200 years (maybe even 300) we wouldn’t be arguing. I think you’re severally over-estimating the surplus created by pre-industrial farmers and the amount of the economy engaged in luxury or profiteering. Most people then produced what they needed and little more. Yes there were portions of the economy tooled to serve the needs of the elite, but I’m not convinced that is enough labor to completely eliminate hunger even if redistributed to production and logistical networks.

We’re not even getting into how common slavery was for agricultural production. If we are creating a new system to ensure everyone is fed how do we deal with that?

Right so how are we increasing salt production? You’ll need more workers, which leaves less people available for farming. Could salt production even be scaled to match that demand given the technology? You’ll now need an increased network capacity to move the extra salt. More horses, more pots, more baskets, more drivers.

What about places without access by water?

Artificial fertilizer does however allow for a reliable surplus. Something necessary for a redistribution network. You need some kind of fertilizer and natural sources for scalable farming are rare.

You’ve created a fictional understanding of logistics that sums up to “just move the stuff” without considering the consequences.

I hated the recruitment texts and calls. The high school and university apparently just give your information to recruiters.

That’s just historically untrue. 500 years ago we didn’t have much of the technology needed for reliable harvest. Many farms were still highly dependant on rain. No rain, no crops. A late freeze, no crops. Locusts, no crops. You starve.That simple.

This doesn’t include the absolute necessity of artificial fertizlier in maintaining the modern population.

Maybe your statement could be true if we had the ability to move crops from areas not expirencing a disaster that could have fixed it, but would have been very difficult and required a global effort. So technically humanity may have produced enough food, but there was not a real way to move it. Even ignoring profit incentives that control logistics and assuming a altruistic system of redistribution, it could take weeks for messages to arrive in areas that did have food. Then it would take weeks to move it. No refrigeration, the fastest you could move is horse.

Seems very unlikely

Funding a proxy war and sending the American military to war are two different things.

I like neither, but I like one a lot less

DeepL does a fairly good job translating academic articles. It has been extremely helpful in that regard. Of course I’ve seen some issues, but they’ve been minor and if you know the subject easy to figure out

I always figured the math was if you don’t have the cheaper option and someone really needs the item that moment they will buy the expensive one.

The cheaper option became less viable for the big box store since people usually opted for the cheaper Amazon version. So now they either carry very little of the cheaper item or only the more expensive item.

I really notice this when it comes to electronics or items like phone chargers

The world works way worse now with Amazon. You can’t even go into a big box store and buy the affordable option anymore.

And this is how you argue with tankies

Hahaha this guy thinks cold weather causes colds

The only way to 100% prevent colds is to be around other people as little as possible. If you chose to be around people you choose to get colds.

Sounds ridiculous, but that’s the logic you’ve used

Consequences is just a wild thing to say.

When I get a cold no one jumps on my shit for having to live with the consequences of going outside. They say sorry to hear you’re sick feel better

I love a dollar coin. They last longer and are superior to paper. Love the Euro system. 1 and 2 euro coins, bills start at 5 euro

It’s worthwhile to discuss the potential impacts of covid long term, but it will probably take a decade before full studies start being published.

Early evidence still looks bad