Some 125 Indian and Pakistani fighter jets battled for over an hour in one of the biggest dogfights in recent history, according to a Pakistani security source quoted by CNN.
A total of 125 fighter jets engaged in an hour-long aerial battle, with both sides confined to their own airspace as long-range missiles were exchanged at distances surpassing 100 miles, CNN said.
So no dogfight at all. Thanks, Newsweek.
I believe Bakhmut saw Russian death of over 50,000.
I just want to know if those excess deaths are part of the Marxist ideology or not. You say the USSR was a country following Marxist theory. At least 7 million people died either because they were killed by the state or died through negligence. Are all those deaths explained away by “The war caused their deaths” and “They deserved it anyways”? Were a significant number of them killed despite the USSR being marxist or because of it?
The very next paragraph read as follows:
Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher.[5][6][7] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[8][9][10][11][12] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[13][14][15] some 390,000[16] deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[17] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[18] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were “purposive” while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.
You can’t blame all the deaths on Nazis.
I just opened Wikipedia. There is a whole article about the excess mortality under Stalin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
In reality, states like the USSR absolutely followed Marxist analysis when deciding what to do and when.
How do millions of deaths under Stalin factor into that?
The former decides on an outcome and looks at what needs to happen to achieve that outcome. If you define the latter as realism, then it looks at what is reality now and what that will lead to if nothing changes or what is realistically possible with the hurdles that you will likely encounter.
In my mind, this is ironically why every time communism “has been tried”, those countries have slipped into authotarianism that had little to no similarity with the ideal of communism. Because the reality is, that if you focus too much power on one position that decides how resources are distributed fairly, those positions attract those that care for achieving and holding power above all.
Then they’ll have to share their definition of power. It can’t include soft power, as they keep squandering the soft power the US had.
he still supports the Trump administration’s national security policies
One of these guys needs to walk me through what they hope Trump will achieve. Because I don’t see it.
I share the sentiment that Ukraine has inflicted grave wounds upon Russia. But Trump is the latest in a long line of (wanna-be-)dictators that have shown how far you can push things, if you just don’t care about the wounds your country is receiving. And Putin seems particularly uncaring.
This is exactly the reason why I won’t play gacha games. First everyone complains about loot boxes and microtransactions and then a game-genre where that’s the core of the game takes off.
Just goes to show that the people that (rightly) complain about microtransactions cheapening gaming experiences were always in the minority and most will just keep spending like headless chickens.
Most people I know aren’t or don’t see themselves as gambling addicts. They’re “proud” about how much they spent.
Conservative critics have long accused the department of helping to censor the American right.
How very very odd.
Lutnick’s description of American beef as superior is a common perception and has some evidentiary basis.
“EU consumption of beef has been in decline for 20 years. This may be, at least in part, due to inconsistencies in eating quality, meaning that the customers cannot be sure of the quality they are purchasing,” says a 2022 academic article in Animal: The International Journal of Animal Biosciences.
So according to the NY Post, the apparent absence of complaints in the US is an argument why US beef is better?
The man thinks like a toddler.
I think it’s really important to make the point that he thinks like he thought as a business man. With his thinking, he at least managed to stay rich. Which is a strong indication of how much bluster and how little intelligence it takes to make it when you’re already rich.
Get fucked, Rubio.
What a good bootlicker he is.
But what if the entirety of people making themselves obstacles to a kinder world actually start to push the world away from kindness? What if they force the world towards hate until that hate breaks the world, wars are started and thousands die? Are those obstacles still to be respected?
In other words, how does the statement in the OP stack up to the paradoxon of tolerance? “If you are tolerant towards the intolerant, you will find the intolerant break your tolerant world.”
Here’s a lil’ secret for ya: Affecting change requires you to apply continued pressure. Only when single voices become a chorus will the powerful listen. So yes, Greta is saying what we all you already knew. But that’s a good thing. The more say it, the bigger the pressure.
So they aren’t blatantly evil. Confessions remaining private is the foundation of how they work. Either way, the church loses on this one.