galloog1 @ galloog1 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

474

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yep, by the definitions of food security capitalist countries have always done better than communist ones. In the USSR, only Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan produced a surplus. Famines resulted when food was forcibly taken from them to feed the rest. By the above definition, the 70% of the USSR was food insecure.

China didn't look much better and the less centralized they were, the worse it got. (before folks come out of the woodwork to claim that it wasn't true socialism or anarchism) All non capitalist systems we have ever seen including feudalism and socialism have required violence to force production. That's just slavery with extra steps.

Just because it originated in the aristocracy does not mean that we cannot have nice things now.

His video on it should be required viewing for everyone. https://youtu.be/N9XMTdRwWVg?si=pBP3D3lAgUmeN1ln

I found it to be exactly the opposite. Everyone in DC is doing interesting things. There is a lot of passion and hard work as well. They mostly shy away from direct politics in a town that is incredibly political by its very nature. I've been helped on the street more by average people than I ever was around Atlanta, New Orleans, or the spaces between.

The single most historically aware yet still funny to the unaware joke that the Simpsons ever put out.

I replied twice to one comment but I did not delete the other one. Look for yourself. You make a lot of claims without actually fact checking. Keep going, I haven't had a climax this big since the last baby I ate. I'm close.

I have not modified or deleted any of my comments. Are you okay?

Personal insults assuming that I'm not extremely educated on this topic and have made decisions based on these that were routed through a legal review. I actually find this a little entertaining. By all means, continue.

Got it, so you can't. I don't expect you to change your mind in the middle of an argument but do please consider this in future reading.

I will simply finish with the fact that you do not understand why the laws of war exist. If we could outlaw war, we would. War is disgusting. The laws of war are agreements that minimize suffering with little tactical or strategic benefit. They are not intended to save civilians regardless of context or benefit.

I have not changed the argument. It started in the context of drone warfare. My own link does not say what you are claiming and you are yet to provide an actual line that supports your argument.

You are dancing around your claims. I will not respond further unless you cite and quote from an international agreement that the relevant parties are signatory to. This is a very basic thing you should be able to do. When you cannot, please walk away knowing you are slightly more knowledgeable on international law and the rules that govern military conflict.

My intent here wasn't to be a gotcha or convince you that war is good. It's simply to educate. I have had related discussions with Harvard legal professors and their frustrations with students not understanding them intent behind this legal framework. It's certainly less understood now on both sides of the Ukraine conflict than it was during the GWOT bit even then it felt like an uphill battle.

What would you when you get in this undefined yet not capitalist utopia and are forced to work long hours at a job you didn't choose to help further the cause of the revolution?

He absolutely is getting torn to shreds over this, at least everywhere that cares about military budgeting.

Hint: You cannot actually back any of this up with any text and you are talking out of your ass. It's impossible to find that which does not exist.

The text definitely covers how to handle uniformed combatant, ununiformed combatant, and mercenary POWs. It also places special importance on identification.

It does not provide protections in the conduct of indirect fires. In fact, as long as there is a military purpose, it's not illegal to intentionally hit targets that will kill civilians. That's defined as collateral damage.

You are welcome to provide some actual text to back up what you are attempting to convey. No more hints implying something you think is convincing. Here's the link.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and

Chipmunks and Avett Brothers, a playlist only rose colored glasses can help with.

Mostly because they broke said norms and used that to kill my friends. The second you break those norms, you are not beholden to them. If you want protections of international law, you have to wear a uniform.

The government of Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956 as a monarchy. The governmental system has changed seven times since then with insurgent forced under a system that is simultaneously not recognized by the international order and has not recognized the laws of war.

Your assertion is a massive jump and I have to wonder about your agenda here.

I thought my significant other was one of these to a certain extent. It does weird things to me as a DJ. Turns out that she just likes the limited music that she likes and cannot stand most everything else.

When possible.

The laws of war go both ways in many cases. (Not all). Often, that is exactly what it means. If the enemy is not signatory to the treaty, the protections do not apply to them. I wish we could outlaw war. War crimes are a completely different thing.

Every single bomb was accused of being against a civilian. That's not hyperbole. Not one. It's easy to claim your enemy bombs civilians when you don't wear a uniform. That's why it's considered a war crime, not the other way around.