xor

Well, the HTS leader explicitly told them not to do so, but there’s not much that can be done to enforce that

No, public companies and cooperatives are completely different things

The investors is not who they’re talking about sharing profits with

Worst. Coup d’etat. Ever.

That’s not what they said at all

Specifically, it’s when it’s sanctioned through the legal system (as opposed to murders, including state-sanctioned but extra-judicial killings)

So I think executions are not murder by definition

It turned me into a newt!

It’s also worth adding, though, that the convention of only running for at most two terms had existed pretty much since the establishment of the republic (until FDR broke it), when Washington and Jefferson each chose not to run for third terms

It’s nice that this exists these days, but my god is it horrendously unreadable at a glance

There’s only really one big building society in the UK, which is Nationwide, but they’re awesome

I’m sure they’ll try to do the same thing as Hungary and try to milk as much from the situation as possible

I’m such a dunce, I didn’t spot your username 🤦

Thought I was asking a db0 random, not the NaN himself

Slightly off topic, is db0 one of the anarchist instances you’re referring to? I know it’s a generally leftist instance, but don’t know much more detail than that

Yet☝️🤓

Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil

Let’s go look at your comment history and check, shall we?

Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things

It’s not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍

it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what’s the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions

Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this “having an army” nonsense, smart!

I’m not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.

If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah

That’s not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of “twisting” what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.

The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.

There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.

• This invasion was not a choice between war or no war. It was simply a decision between locations that battles take place. It is entirely legitimate for Ukraine to pursue a counteroffensive strategy into russian territory if it believes it to be a more effective military strategy than defensive attritional warfare within their own borders.
• The fact that combat is taking place in Russian territory doesn’t change the fact that the war itself is a defensive war against an aggressor with overtly territorial/imperialist goals.
• As far as I am aware, the units involved in the counteroffensive are exclusively non-drafted volunteer units.
• Cessation of funding to Ukraine would lead to their imminent loss. The fact that they have been able to innovate cheaper strategies like domestic drone usage doesn’t change the fact that war is extremely expensive and technology dependent, and their economy is dwarfed by that of Russia’s.

The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.

From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”

Especially since their one example is Caesar, who lived in a time when basically everyone was gay!

Edit: and about 1.5 thousand years before capitalism was invented

The Churchill example I think demonstrates the OP’s misunderstanding, in that all of them did terrible things/were horrible people, but excelled at being effective leaders in the context they were in.

Churchill was a terrible human being, racist, abrasive, homophobic, a drunk etc etc. But he was an outstanding wartime prime minister, because he was a talented war strategist, a compelling speaker and, frankly, had enormous balls.

We can go back and try and just classify every human into the good/bad boxes, but that reduces away all the details that make them so interesting.

It wasn’t for him, but for those who were named after him it was used to symbolise that they - like Caesar - were one of “the greats”

I disagree - Mexico is a Rome statute signatory, meaning that (theoretically) they’re legally obligated to arrest Putin on arrival as the ICC has issued a warrant for him

Afaik their diplomatic neutrality wouldn’t override their legal obligations