Difference in usage. Tear gas, in a policing context, is meant to be an alternative to lethal force. Tear gas, in a military context, is meant as an enabler of lethal force - ie one makes you suffer so they don't have to kill you, the other makes you suffer because suffering makes it easier to kill you.
Also why the Russians have so much of it - it's legal for usage in civilian contexts.
I find it exceedingly strange that you made this edit 30 minutes after posting a response to a 6-hour old comment. Not sure what you think it proves.
Sanders, AOC, nearly any progressive in Congress; fuck, even Pelosi, who is certainly not a progressive, has gotten in on it. Opinions have changed rapidly. Sorry you haven't been paying attention, I guess.
Campbell’s assessment seems to contradict those of the Pentagon and America’s allies in Europe.
At a meeting of countries that support Ukraine late last month, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said that Russia had suffered more than 315,000 casualties during the war. With a drop in American aid, leading to ammunition shortages on Ukraine’s front lines, Russian forces have advanced. But those too have been costly, the Pentagon has said.
In an interview earlier this year, the chair of Lithuania’s national security committee estimated it would take Russia between five and seven years to reconstitute its forces for a full-scale war.
Responding to the publication of the testimonies in +972 and Local Call, the IDF said in a statement that its operations were carried out in accordance with the rules of proportionality under international law. It said dumb bombs are “standard weaponry” that are used by IDF pilots in a manner that ensures “a high level of precision”.
When I pressed further, asking if Torres planned to call for a vote to censure, I received no reply.
... did the author of the article forget that a censure isn't just a handful of Congresscritters deciding to express their displeasure, and is instead an actual vote that requires majority support to pass?
Sometimes I wonder if some of these people would be more comfortable with the Tea Party. The pointless loyalty signaling at the expense of actual attempts at governance would suit them.
Every sane country on earth: "We use modern tools to reduce civilian casualties (because civilian casualties are bad PR)."
Old-school countries: "We use modern tools without regard for civilian casualties (because what are they going to do about it? fight back? lmao)"
Israel and Russia: "We use modern tools to INCREASE civilian casualties!"