Candelestine @ Candelestine @lemmy.world

Hello.

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

1,928

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not quite.

When we do Foreign Military Financing programs, we give a set amount of money that the other government then pays us back from, buying what they wish. So, Israel pays us for our weapons. Just, with money we gave them. They also buy weapons from us with their own money, we only cover a fairly small percentage of their total defense budget.

The Arms Export Control Act covers the situation regardless.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act

Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.

I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader "cops are always whatever".

Yes, and there was a point of nuance I missed as well. I was not attempting to disparage the modern military though, as much as point out the us-vs-them mentality and pursuit of destruction of the enemy as a high priority.

Ah, I see. Thank you.

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:

A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

I would link to a primary source, but they're all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule3

edit for formatting

Every state has uneven distribution. Gerrymandering uses that to give an outsized number of reps to one side and not the other.

Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a militaristic mindset, in disagreement with the previous commenter that wanted to say it was not.

tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.

Everyone needs training for their job. If they do not follow their training, they are probably not doing a good job.

We actually did use it with Ukraine:

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/ukraine-non-standard-ammunition

I'm assuming they just don't want to use it with very large sums, as its supposed to be a measure for emergency situations. Using it with tens of billions worth would be very bad politically here in the US.

Yeah, the new maps are still gerrymandered, just to a more "traditional" degree.

Assuming those officers are following their training, we need to change officer training. That behavior is more military than police.

Different fuels do release different amounts of heat when burned, this is true. But, the amount of heat in a fuel, and "temperature" are two different things. Did you not understand my explanation of how that worked?

Memory can get foggy after even a few years, much less 20. Brains are not as pure as we like to think. This is why witness testimony is such weak evidence in a courtroom, where physical evidence like fingerprints are considered much better. People's memories suck.

edit: So how about this one. If wood fires "burn at a low temperature", how does the inside of a forest fire get over 1000 C? If wood just burns at a set temp, wouldn't that be the temp they can reach?

Oh, you're right, thank you. Let me edit.

Pick up litter when I come across small amounts of it.

According to the US constitution, you have to be at least 45 years of age to run for the presidency. An amendment would be required to change this. So, some of that list doesn't quite qualify.

At any rate, someone decent would have to actually run against him. It seems to me they'd rather wait for 2028 though.

edit: Actual requirement is 35 years of age, not 45. So, nevermind.

... they can't even design the boob-plate properly anymore. smh...

There was a fair bit of pushback against NAFTA. Additionally, I would point towards things like blocking petroleum exploration and generally pursuing greater business regulation as not very neo-liberal positions.

We can reduce our emissions, and we will. We just can't make everyone else reduce theirs too. Which is why we will need multiple approaches, not just one or two.

That I can agree with. I've been very pleased with the inroads unions have been making in just the past few years.