VoxelVexillologist
πΊπΈ Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
The US has been blockading Venezuela and Cuba international shipping without any sort of war.
Are either of these strictly a "blockade"? The Cuba embargo is strictly rules on US businesses in (most, but not all) industries doing business with Cuba. Other countries' ships and planes can and do go in and out there. The closest to a blockade proper was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that's quite a long time ago now.
There were some seized ships going to Venezuela recently, but those were nominally illegally-flagged vessels ("shadow fleet") in international waters. I don't think correctly-flagged vessels saw any disruption.
Blockades aren't unheard of in hot warfare, though.
Azerbaijan is the cleanest example. They hit Lebanon just recently, too.
Oman has also been hit, and is more neutral than the others listed, but has hosted US forces on occasion.
Theoretically, this might pressure those countries to abandon the US, but that's a high stakes choice.
It could, but it could also see the Gulf countries that depend on commerce through the strait deciding that Iran is now an existential threat for them. Rumors of demands for post-war traffic control (payments) in the strait probably aren't endearing Iran with its neighbors.
The anti-Iran "alliance" here is presumably capable of blockading Iran's ports just as well. This is probably bad for oil-importing countries in terms of gas prices, but allowing defecting in the prisoners dilemma of blocking oil exports is a losers game. A blockade is contra a lot of things the US Navy claims to stand for (free flow of commerce), but if UAE or the Saudis decide to mine Iran's ports by air, would they stop them?
On the gripping hand, it feels bad that the US/Israel seem to have started this, but the incentives are such that a bunch of usual allies are going to get dragged in: no matter what they say about "Trump's war", the EU and East Asia need the ships to flow at least as badly as the US does.
You buy the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index to keep your 250 million alive.
The Real Communism is when the workers collectively own the means of production... In their 401K or pension plans. Wait, it already looks like that, even if the asset distribution isn't exactly equal (ask not why Party Members get nicer apartments and Ladas, comrade!).
parallel institution in America
Nothing is stopping leftists from establishing some American equivalent of a kibbutz. Attempts at communes have been made, most failing for the standard reasons communism fails at scales larger than Dunbar's number: everyone wants to make lattes and write poetry, nobody wants to wake up at 0400 to milk cows, plow fields, and fix septic systems.
January 6th but the protestors bring guns and launch a real coup.
The protesters on January 6th only made it as far as they did because they were "unarmed" (I'm not going to say they didn't engage in violence, but I still have yet to hear of a single gun charge for the incident). There was a lot of room for escalation by local and federal authorities earlier that wasn't taken because of some combination of rules about unarmed protesters (yours are not) and confusion of executive/legislative authority (which you don't have). The National Guard could well have shown up with bullhorns and 50 cals ordering everyone to leave or be fired upon, but for the optics of the situation, which I think are much clearer in your situation. And even beyond that, I bet the same folks who showed up unarmed for "stop the steal" (arguably self-described counter-coup) protests would be easily persuaded to show up as an armed countercoup to a real regime change.
I don't think communism is popular enough in the US for this to work at the present. I'd suggest trying to swing local elections, but Soros' DAs seem to be pushing centrist voters towards "at least self-described fascists don't immediately let murderers out on cashless bail" faster than convincing them of the merits of progressivism.
"Plans are worthless, but planning is everything" is usually attributed to Eisenhower, and is a statement I generally find most reasonable.
I have long wondered whether Israel's Iron Dome, which openly tracks expected impact points and only intercepts high-value rockets, is setup to include Al-Aqsa. I can see arguments for either (maybe even changing over time), but no reason to actually disclose this policy choice.
I think it would be interesting to allow a lower level of effort (a paragraph or so) for links relating to events older than a specified interval --- tentatively a week, maybe even a month. If necessary, those could be confined to a single thread.
Wasn't there an article going around recently about German police knocking on doors at 5AM for online meme posts that fell a bit short of the letter of German criminal law?
Apparently that didn't stop Illinois residents from trying to rename "Hassert Boulevard", which was not named after him.
That was a moment in which I realized that people destined for that level of achievement are often different from the rest of us. Like, I didn't do badly at a good high school, but I wasn't logging my social calendar purely out of principle; I was playing video games and hanging out with friends when I wasn't doing homework.
Of course Kavanaugh seems to have gotten in plenty of partying too. Like I said, different.
If someone's in a position of power and supporting the left, the #MeToo accusations will be delayed until they're no longer in power or it can be guaranteed that they will be replaced by someone just as supportive to the left.
As one prominent politician put it: "And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Notably, the Left still seems to hold Bill Clinton in high regard, despite a physical relationship with a much younger subordinate --- contra the TA and student elsewhere in this thread: intern and Most Powerful Man in the World. But somehow still allowed to be considered "consensual". And one direct accusation of rape. Also his wife who has long defended him against these accusations remains in good standing, as opposed to people who merely emailed Epstein a couple times.
Although the Chavez case could also be seen as an example of being willing to hold their own leaders to account: I generally have more respect for organizations that clearly abide by their stated principles. Uncharitably, I might not be surprised if we start hearing about how Chavez (famous union leader) was always a dirty right-winger because agriculture or quotes about immigration or that choice of flag.
There are plenty of examples of war between sides arguing over the definition of "your own country" (Ukraine, for a current one), many of which include the unfortunately standard set of war crimes.
Being a member of the WPK is relatively prestigious socially and hard to do
I've never deeply understood how this works (I respect that it does) because in my jurisdiction, my party membership for the purposes of attending the local convention is entirely decided by which primary ballot I select at election time. I guess I could separately join and pay dues, but in the US I've never even heard of the idea that a party would reject someone from membership.
Very different worlds.
I feel like there is a very broad strokes claim that "the Right thinks that systems exist to work around the failings of individual humans, while the Left thinks that humans have to to work around the failings of systems" here. The deviance in individuals would seem likely manifest differently. But I suppose "power corrupts" is as true as it always has been on all sides here.
This isn't really a fully coherent hypothesis, I'll admit.
I find it hard to believe that the role of the US in the Arab Spring was non-central,
I see why it could look that way: at the time, it looked like a plausible hypothesis. But I'll also note that the deposed governments were a mix of traditional US/West enemies (Libya) and at least soft allies (Egypt, Yemen). Egypt, in particular, became much less Western-aligned during the tenure of the Muslim Brotherhood. Western relations with Syria had been improving prior to the kickoff of its civil war in 2011, then got worse quickly.
I think this is a reasonable tactical concern, but at some point in practice, yielding to Iran (and its funding of terror groups across the Middle East) lest it start attacking other states in the region (even relatively uninvolved ones like Oman and Azerbaijan) and disrupt the global economy, starts to look like paying the Danegeld.
Although I'm not personally going to endorse this position, I think it sounds reasonable on principle.
no one had a more destabilizing effect on the world in general, and the Middle East in particular than the United States.
I think there's a decent case to be made that Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi had an effect at least comparable to the United States in the Middle East since 2011, being the spark that ultimately deposed 4 governments in the region (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen), and indirectly kicked off regional wars (ISIS) in Iraq, Syria (ultimately deposing that regime as well), and Yemen. Longer term, several other countries have also seen major changes. Yeah, the US was involved in some of those peripherally (Libya, Yemen, likely political pressure on Egypt), but I hardly consider it central to those events.
Although I'm not an expert on the region and would be interested in hearing other opinions.
I was thinking things like size, envelope, and things like that. IIRC norovirus is physically robust as viruses go: is that a trade off against airborne transmission? But it's been a long time since I took a biology class.
Aren't some of the known Spanish Flu gene sequences from exhumed victims in polar regions? I don't think we have any other source for that data.
Out of curiosity, are airborne and droplet borne viruses that structurally similar to contact or food/water borne viruses? Is airborne Ebola like worrying about cars suddenly flying like planes, or are we talking a few base pairs for smaller adaptations?
I feel like it's worth noting that there have been 4 prominent apparent terrorism incidents in just the last few weeks with ties to the Iran war. I'm not sure whether to also read this as "I told them it'd potentially cause incidents" or "I'm unable to actually stop terrorism".
ETA: some of those might be "domestic" legally, but probably not under the eye of public scrutiny.
most Government Forms of ID require paying a small amount of money to discourage people from losing theirs and to help offset the costs of printing the card and maintaining the ID system
IIRC states with existing voter ID requirements have been required to provide no-cost IDs. Those free IDs may say "not valid except for elections", though.
- Prev
- Next

American authorities have done this regularly since at least the 1983 Beirut bombing, through the attack on the Cole, and the Kabul bombing just a few years back. Maybe their definition is slightly more consistent if you expected uniforms while doing combat actions, but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" isn't completely wrong either.
More options
Context Copy link