To be fair, wells and aquaducts are fairly clean ways to get water (read: animals haven't shit or died in it yet). Rivers and other surface water were as bad as today, if not worse because it was a de facto village sewage system. Water quality issues were also mitigated by a diet very heavy in stews and soups, so less extra hydration was needed.
You don't nose dive your country and lock up/deport dissenters over chump change, you're losing more in stability and face (and the more lucrative bribes that come with those) than its worth. Trump's irrational instability has dropped the dollar value more than any of these donations could cover. The math doesn't add up.
The payment you're describing is a tithe; a show of gratitude and servitude. You wouldn't say a feudal vassal has power over his lord just because the material exchange only goes one way.
I really don't understand where this idea comes from of a country with the 40th rank GDP having the pull to mastermind politics worldwide. For reference: their revenue is about the same as Apple, whose lobbying sees less success despite being more politically neutral.
The reason they have international support is because it's convenient and their location + antagonism align with the geopolitics of a large group of states. Isreal is a dog on a leash, what we're seeing Trump do is give them unprecedented lead to genocide at will.
Letting them go this far and long without tugging their collar back to peace talks is not the historical norm, no matter how hard you point at Biden. Did Biden take direct military action to support them? Has any US president?
This Isreali lobbying is a boogeyman; Isreal could dissolve tomorrow and you would see another antagonist spring up in the region with international backing. People are just uncomfortable with their country being aligned with the bad guys of their own free will.
Depends on if you have a healthy wild source that can seed itself in. My woodline is almost entirely invasives so it took more legwork to balance it out. I ended up mostly planting small trees/shrubs to shade out the weeds and letting Virginia Creeper spread (love that stuff).
Barring that it probably depends on yard size and local climate. Might be more economical to clear with a sod cutter or spot weed + replace.
Check for local native plant orgs, they can get you plants in bulk. They might also have specific advice, for example if you need to avoid seeding certain plants to protect a vulnerable local species.
While it's better than keeping a barren monoculture lawn, keep in mind that letting things grow with no intervention will get you a lot of invasive species. If you want healthier habitat for your critters try to keep an eye on what's growing and replace the bad stuff with native options.
Don't really care about the competition. I care about having cheap access to [X]. If the competition can't compete, then fuck em. That's not my problem.
This comment is the American consumer for the last 50 years, next step is complaining about outsourcing jobs and lower quality products with no competition.
I understand from your comment that you've read too many sci-fi books to understand what a massive resource sink that would be with negligible benefit. It's pretty basic physics.
We've already got cheap transportation, look how that's turning out for the planet. But I'm sure burning God knows how much energy to launch more junk into space will save the world.
We're already approaching a critical mass of private equity space trash in orbit, what's a few more lowest-bidder megastructures? At least the ultra rich will get their life rafts while we burn.
Because the world has actual things in it like people, wildlife, culture and history. Space has none of those things. Unless you're there working as a scientist to study things that can't be studied on earth, it's pointless.
As of now it's a glorified roller coaster. At its best private space travel could be Disneyland in space. At worst it's just rich people paying to be carried up mount everest for clout but with exponentially more resources wasted.
Someone please make a Bluetooth equivalent for smart devices. My thermostat doesn't need internet access but standardized wireless control is still a good feature
When did I say that? All I want is for all belligerents to be held to the same standard. Show me the evidence that these missiles are falling on targets with strategic importance; show me that they're making efforts to not waste human lives. It's clear that Israel's attacks are not and they're rightly called out for it. Why is Iran above the same scrutiny?
US was the invader during the Vietnam War so that's a bad example all around
Why is it a bad example? Does being the defender in a war make you immune to war crimes? It's indiscriminate killing of non combatants either way.
since you were the one talking about nations’ flags
A nation is not a nation state, and a population doesn't have to be a sovereign state to have a flag.
No, they did it in order to hit their targets, which were often cities.
Exactly, to limit collateral damage. Germany (and the RAF's night bombing, to be fair) also targeted cities with strategic war industries, they just cared more about their pilots' safety than civilian lives.
You’re putting words in my mouth.
I'm not at all, I'm pointing out the lack of criticism for clips like the one above. There's not even reserved judgment until we know what got hit and who died, just full throated support based only on the name of the city being bombed. I'm the only one here wanting evidence that these attacks are targeting anything of value and limiting non combatant deaths.
Remember when Israel was criticized for half-hearted pamphlet dropping to warn of barrages? All the scorn at Israel's reports of the use of human shields? The outrage over bombing population centers and refugee camps allegedly hiding rockets? Zionists saying Palestinians deserved bombing because they elected Hamas and had parties celebrating Oct 7 and X% of Palestines supported Y?
I'm seeing the exact same comments in reverse. Just read the comments on this post. But this time nobody bats an eye because the "right" people are dying.
I don't see how that makes a difference? Israel bombing civilians with precision doesn't make imprecise bombing of civilians more acceptable. Everyone ends up just as dead. It just makes it more palatable for people who value retribution above civilian lives.
To put it another way: if you want to hit a military target but can't do so without outsized collateral damage, you don't have ethical grounds to make the attack. You don't see people defending the USA's use of Agent Orange in Vietnam just because it was the only feasible way to clear foliage.
Holy fuck you don't even know what a nation is lmfao
If there’s anything to be learned from WWII, it’s that no one is more antifascist than communists.
If you knew anything about WW2, you'd know that strategic bombing of population centers was a futile effort that wasted lives. Allies and Axis both admitted it, and the Allies even stuck to day bombing to limit collateral damage.
I've been asking up and down this thread for any context on what these bombs hit, any evidence at all, and all I get is equivocation like yours.
Your "critical support" isn't very critical at all, it's pretty one dimensional. Isreal bombs a population center: bad. Iran bombs an Isreal population center: good. I've seen no depth beyond that.
To be fair, wells and aquaducts are fairly clean ways to get water (read: animals haven't shit or died in it yet). Rivers and other surface water were as bad as today, if not worse because it was a de facto village sewage system. Water quality issues were also mitigated by a diet very heavy in stews and soups, so less extra hydration was needed.