raimius

If someone says "United States" do you think "POTUS, SCOTUS, and Congress" IS the United States of America? I hope we can define it a little bit larger than just that, otherwise "we the people" have literally become irrelevant.

Very much disagree. The government represents the country, more or less. (More when democratically elected, less when a dictatorship/oligarchy.)

The will to fight is both social and political. For Russia, it is mostly Putin's will. Judging by the reported nationalism and popularity of the war, I'd say the Russian society is supportive of the war (or at least going along with it). As far as mobilisation, as long as someone else gets to fight and die... Ukraine seems supportive as well, as it is an existential fight for the nation and culture. That said, the opponents of continuing are being silenced in reporting (unlike western reporting on Russian dissidents).

You could do either, while the injunction is in place. Might get screwed if the case doesn't go our way, although I'm cautiously optimistic (both on APA and 2A grounds). That said, as a stock, a real stock is better. If you don't plan on moving/traveling with it, I'd go SBR.

Ukraine has also been taking unsustainable casualties and has been "on the verge of collapse" for at least a year, depending on which news source you read. They might be close to failing, or maybe not. I don't trust the avg news reporter to get that correct.

🍺

I recommend a bit more research, because that is not how that works. If you wash out, you don't get any aircraft. The AF doesn't hand over C-17s, etc, to people who aren't pilots.

Weak attempt at trolling. Ten yard penalty, repeat first down.

Shia militias in Iraq don't like the US government? Who would have guessed.

...but what happens when no one tells them they are being stupid? (They become lawyers and politicians...)

It would make for a pretty good office comedy, if people didn't die because of DoS's incompetence.

I was reading that an Israeli gun license allows one to own 1 pistol and 50 rounds of ammo (total!)... Not great odds against a squad of Hamas fighters with AKs!

Pretty tough to have a conventional total war in the nuclear age... Unless the losing side is non-nuclear. (i.e. why Kim made sure NK got nukes)

It seems as though people vote for whichever side says nice things to them, whether or not any positive results occur. Republicans say things conservative Christians agree with, while the DNC tends to call them heartless bigots. Democrats claim to be helping African Americans, while Republicans don't really voice support (and the DNC casts anyone with an R after their name as a racist). Neither party seems to actually do much work for either group, but they say sympathetic things...

The side willing to fight for a longer duration usually wins. Which side that is, what duration, and how many casualties is not yet clear.

The NM AG also sent a letter saying the AG's office will not defend her in these cases! https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/new-mexico-ag-to-governor-grisham-on-second-amendment-suspension-defense-drop-dead/ That's quite the legal mic drop. Hopefully she is held personally liable (but I'm not familiar enough with NM law).

Double turn 5 days a week (maybe with another sim/rsu thrown in there) plus the occasional xc on the weekend, also whatever office job you have.

Already in progress. (Could get worse, but then you are looking at 6-12mo before burning out the entire IP corps.). The former AFSOC min-turn deployment types are already complaining about the ops tempo...

No, dude. You asked a bunch of strawman/loaded questions based off of one of the most clearly biased pro-russia American commentators and Russian aligned sources. THAT is why so many called you out. It's not zealotry when people criticize clearly biased and VERY often wrong sources. Ukraine is fighting an existential war vs. Russia pursuing an entirely optional one. That does mean something. Additionally, UKR is getting a LOT of external support. That doesn't mean they will win, but it does mean they do have a chance.

-explain how NATO is destabilizing? -Russia is trying to destroy a sovereign nation, not us. -China has been fairly quiet throughout all this. They seem to have mixed feelings.

Some epic idiocy/trolling here. But I'll bite, because this is the Internet! --You claim "we" should negotiate to give up some of Ukraine. Do you think maybe the Ukrainians should decide whether or not they want THEIR country? They seem pretty willing to fight for it. --You seem to think the nation that took massive casualties, is resorting to Iranian and North Korean weapons, has a ton of sanctions, had their most effective PMC mutiny, and is at a defensive stalemate on the battlefield is stronger now? 😂 You can debate how much money/arms the US should provide. That's valid. What you are doing is a mockery of intelligent questioning.

Neither side will fix it. Neither wants to take responsibility or give up anything when they can scream about how bad the other party is.

I'd say that it's less the tech baseline and more production/distribution issues. Russia has good tech, but they usually don't make a ton of it, and corruption takes a huge cut.

AI finance would probably start quoting you some reg (that doesn't actually exist, and it made up because it sounds bureaucratic) for why it denied your travel voucher/PCs expense/pay.

A Russia that is incapable/unwilling to invade their neighbors and a China that is deterred from making similar attempts would be good outcomes, from a NATO/US/"west" perspective. A sovereign, western aligned Ukraine (hopefully with a little less corruption) would be good too, I suppose. They are both a main actor and a pawn, at the same time, it seems. Ukraine isn't a particularly vital US partner, but stopping Russia from "flipping the table" of European security is rather important to the US, since that group has a huge chunk of the global economy, influence, and US allies.