acrashb

Oh even better, let’s double down shall we - now it is all the “West’s fault”.  The US did not “force” anyone to disarm.  Ukraine took the money happily and got rid of mountains of old USSR stocks that would not have shortened you current war at all. Or worse held onto strategic nukes that would have accelerated one.
Regardless, what is unfolding in Israel has nothing to do with their stance on Russia. Or the West not carpet bombing Moscow every time a suicide bomber goes off in Tel Aviv.  In fact beyond some pretty tenuous money trails from Russia buying stuff from Tehran to support their war, that in turn likely funded some Hamas, the link is non-existent.  We could have pounded Russia into sand and Hamas would still be doing this sort of stuff, or do you honestly think deterrence extends that far.
For the record it is in extremely bad taste to post video of slaughtered Israeli civilians and follow up with “I told you so”, especially when the “told” is so far off the mark it borders on John Kettler-level.  It suggests that in your opinion that Israel deserves whatever this is because they have not sent Ukraine enough whatever - statements like that make one wonder just who the hell we are supporting in this war.
Globally, basically the only way you appear to be satisfied is if the US and West essentially start behaving like Russia - that will somehow make the world a better place?  We tried a lot of hard power flexing in the 2000s, we invaded two countries and a whole lot of westerners are left wondering what the freakin point was.  Now we got new messes to deal with and do not need partners we are trying to keep above water telling us “you are doing it wrong” anymore than Ukraine wants us to tell you how to win your war.

Dude, stick to Ukraine.  You are making enormously unfounded leaps of logic here.  No one can reasonably describe Israeli foreign policy with respect to Iran (where they launched numerous HVT strikes over the years) or Gaza/Hamas (where they have conducted regular airstrikes and military action/war back to 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza–Israel_conflict) as “two chair sitting”.  Drawing a leap between Israeli perceived restraint with respect to the war in your country and what just happened in and around Gaza is drifting into conspiracy theory and disinformation.  As I read it you are basically on the road to blaming every misery and long standing conflict in the west sphere on our escalation restraint. This is 1) wrong and 2) disingenuous.

I try to not post much Russian propaganda anymore, but this was too much. British PMCs are now apparently involved in selling children to the Coca-Cola company. This garbage coming from someone who's president is wanted by the ICC for kidnapping Ukrainian children. 
Q-Anon level drivel.

Dude, please...

My dad told me for Russians lying is as naturally as breathing. It sounds like we both had a wise father.

Neither Sinema, Adams or Bloomberg is ever likely to win another Democratic primary in their lives. Middle of the caucus Democrats are also far to the left of Bush/Reagan era conservatives...and most Bush/Reagan era Democrats on trade, unions, gay marriage, abortion, etc. You are correct that The Left is not the Democratic base but by pretty much every measure Democrats have become more liberal over the last decades.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/246806/understanding-shifts-democratic-party-ideology.aspx
 

There are lots of moderates on both sides who want to negotiate and find common ground. Once a week on Fox News one Democrat and one Republican come on Bret Baier's show and discuss bi-partisan legislation (or some issue) they are working on together.  In fact I think the time block is called Common Ground. You should check it out sometime.
So if these politicians can go on the news and talk about their bi-partisan efforts (on satanic Fox News of all places ) there is hope.  These are moderates attempting to do the right thing.  This is a good sign and should be encouraged.  I think it is really up to the moderates to put this House back in order. See what I did there??      
Then weapons can continue to flow to Ukraine and Putin will be sad.   

That guy who pulled the alarm is an idiot and pretty much the single Dem to buck leadership on the CR. No quibble with that one.

I'll look into it some more in case he was not accurate. However, I would have expected the interviewer to call him out on any inaccuracies. She was not giving him an easy softball interview. I don't think she was a fan. 
I'm pretty sure a House Democrat pulled a fire alarm just before the CR vote.  I've seen video of this. 
So, can we agree that at least this one characterization is correct? 

McCarthy did a lot worse than that.  He actually attacked Dems on Sunday on Face the Nation claiming they tried to shut down the government when it is only open bc Democrats provided 2/3rds of the votes. 
This wasn’t a murder, it was a suicide.

I am not sure that is true, the speaker pro tempor takes over immediately upon the speaker vacating the position to ensure that normal operations of the house continue.

You may be thinking of what happens when there is a change in power and the new house cannot conduct business until a speaker is elected.  For the last few decades a vacancy during a term is handled through the speaker pro tempor.

Well, with CANDU reactors, the nuclear material is not an issue, other than the NPT of course, and all the safeguards agreements and monitoring that have been agreed to. 😀 
Dave

I find a lot of this sort of analysis wrt escalation as "easy to say, very hard to do."  I do not think people fully understand what is at risk in widening this conflict.  The standard justifications are:
- Russia will never go nuclear.
- Russia will back down - they are full of BS.
- We got all the guns, what are they going to do?
Ok, I will buy the first one for arguments sake.  A functioning Russia will very likely not use the nuclear option unless we are talking foreign troops invading Russia itself. (a broken Russia is another story)  Russia may even back down.  They definitely talk a good game but so far those red lines have been pretty mobile.  And we do have a lot of military power within NATO...but herein lies the rub.  It only works if it is unified.
Professionally speaking, the single largest risk of escalation with Russia is a Russian response - controlled or otherwise - that triggers a NATO Ch 5.  We have already had errant missiles in Poland that became Ukrainian ones pretty damned quick.  If Russia starts lobbing them at a NATO nation in response to significant escalation within Russia...what happens?
Well, we essentially move to a NATO Ch 5 escalation, which will get out of hand pretty quick.  Or more likely, NATO falls apart.  An Article 5 could actually break NATO.  It could nations deciding that maybe Poland, or Estonia, or Latvia are not worth dying for.  We have had a single Article 5 declaration in the history of the alliance - 9/11.
 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=NATO invoked Article 5 for,the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
And most of this was intelligence sharing and overflights/port usage permissions.  NATO stayed out of Iraq in '03 completely, GWOT as a concept was not sold in its entirety in the least - even given 9/11.  ISAF in Afghanistan did not come into play until much later in that war, and a lot of NATO nations kept their forces out of combat...and that was the Taliban FFS.
I am betting that those in power have already done this calculus and know exactly how vulnerable the alliance is right now.  A lot of people on this board have been asking "well why don' they just do X?"  "It about ATACMS stupid!"  Well it is likely because they know what is actually at risk and a lot of these capabilities are just not worth those risks...at this time.  In fact a lot of those capabilities value right now is as a threat to Russia as opposed to actual use.
This war is not simple, and there are no simple solutions.  If anyone starts believing that there are you are likely missing something.

Not how it really works.  Mainly because “the law”.  The international community has never passed laws on the use of nuclear weapons.  Restrictions and limitations on their use are all managed by treaties.  The employment of nuclear weapons is essentially off the legal map.
As JonS pointed out, striking a large dam that would lead to massive civilian casualties is against the law.
Fellas can we not drift into “let’s do warcrimes because XYZ?”  C’mon, we are supposed to be the adults in an internet of children.  No, we can not condone warcrimes because Russia did them (and oh we made a lot of noise when they blew that dam down by Kherson).  We cannot condone them because “back in WW2 everyone did it” - doesn’t freakin matter, take a look at your calendar…what year does it say.  Most international law on warcrimes were written after WW2 because everyone was doing them.  WW2 was an example of what a total war looked like when everyone sat around after WW1 and did nothing.  So we decided that was a bad thing and passed a whole bunch of laws to prevent it from happening again.
We do not do war crimes for some very good reasons:
Unity.  If Ukraine (or anyone else) starts playing fast and loose with unrighteous targeting, we risk splitting the coalition of support for Ukraine.  Canada for instance would lose its mind and likely start turning off the taps.
Escalation.  Ok, we take out a dam, kill a bunch of civilians.  Russia potato-in-the-exhaust-pipes a nuclear power plant.  You see where this goes.
Post-war justice.  You want criminal prosecution for Bucha?  Might want to skip committing warcrimes of your own.
Utility.  It won’t work.  A mass killing of Russian civilians anywhere will very likely drive enormous active support into Putin’s arms.  We will wind up with a stronger Russian Will, not a weaker one.
So can we please skip warcrimes week…again?

On the other other hand, IF Taiwan were able to do that, Taiwan would lose 100% of it's population. End of the two China problem. I think Xi would consider that a win.

Heh... Is just a participation in World War "on wrong side" is equal to crime?
I think, then, these two US pilots have to check their German friend before meet with him - maybe he shot out columns of refugees? Or covered bombers, striking UK cities? Or killed Allied pilots in combat?
And maybe these US pilots bombed German cities and killed hundreds of civilians? 
About good times in Russia. I very doubt Socratos told about usual people prosperity to the last shepherd. Under strong people and good times he mostly meant ruling elites, who capable to respond adequately on inner and outer challenges, to keep own realm in strenghts - economical, political, military growth. 
Do you really think ruling of Putin didn't make Russia "better place" before 2014? So, judge yourself:
- After two lost Chechen Wars by Yeltsyn, they could supress uprising in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan and turned their enemy on ally (this is costly for budget, but...). And this ally now whatchdog of Cauacasus loyalty to Kremlin
- Russian authorities, using high prices oт oil and gas got super-incomes, what contributed to rising of economy and population incomes, especially in big cities. Despite povtery of small towns and villages beyond Ural and to the north many Russian cities in European part got enough respectable look. Russia was in leader of luxury goods import. Not only Russian oligarchs, but many of Russian middle class were capable to buy real estate in Turkey, Bulgaria, Montenegro and even in Emirates. Russia achieved enough in "comfort life" and IT technologies, involving many educated youth, giving them opportunity to grow up to teh same middle class. Ten years before even in Moscow people stood in lines for "Bush thigs", how they called US humanitarian chicken thigs. 
- catching mood of most Russians "make Russia great again", they formed new ideology of expansionsm and revachism, mixed with radical orthodoxia and militarism. They created effective propaganda machine. And population liked it. Weak leader couldn't do this. 
- Russian received own place in Big 8 and Big 20 and became influent political force after pathetic conditions of 90th. 
- Russia successfully waged war in Georgia and their propaganda/diplomacy convinced many in the world that their action wasn't aggression, but "forcing to peace of agressor". And West swallowed it.
- "Reboot" policy of Obama gave Russia access to many western technologies, i.e. military. So, Russia rapidly became to grow up quality of own military manufacturing and weapon. Success of diplomacy. 
- Russia could strengthen own influence on post Soviet space. Even in Baltic States. 
- Russia bought many politics and political movements on the West from different political spectres. Before 2014 Russia started consultations about visa-free trips to EU for own citizens. 
- All this became possible, because, it's almost coinceded - start of Western democracies strenghth declining and ramping up of Russian authocraty, masking in democracy clothes. 
So. this is answer why Russians either support Putin ot at least indifferent to his regime. They got comfort life and don't want change anything ("I'm out of policy, I'm just coding and get good money"). For those, who exists in dirt, povetry and semi-criminal of deep provinces, life also good in own manner, because they proud how "Putin raised Russa from knees and forced world to respect and fear our country". Strong leader  and good times indeed.

In the US our political choices are basically like a bundled cable deal (American cable channels would at least in the past come as big bundled set and you couldn’t just pick and choose individual channels).
So in my case, you might agree that supporting Ukraine is absolute highest priority but you might feel that the open-border policy of non-border states is problematic, and you might feel that the restorative-justice approach and just house all the homeless approach might not be the best things (especially in a major west coast city, where things are pretty dire honestly), and you might be pro-choice. And then you might be annoyed by inflation, where a number of people on one side of aisle basically said “inflation is good for everybody” and more or less laughed it off. And there’s obviously tons of other stuff.
On the middle half of the political spectrum, there are a lot of people who support Ukraine and are socially liberal but are extremely upset at the state of their cities and the economy, and who will definitely flirt with voting in the most conservative possible candidate as a show of their dissatisfaction.

Well, this kind of talk works because it is, in fact, largely true.
People have bills to pay, kids to take care of, all sorts of small or large personal tragedies, you name it. The fact that other people elsewhere have a far worse lot doesn't solve any of their problems and doesn't improve their perceived situation. Problems are always on a scale that is relative to one's own experience - for a child that loses its favorite toy this is the worst tragedy imaginable although it sounds trivial to us.
Not meant as an excuse for Fico but that is the space politicians have to navigate and IMHO failure to acknowledge this (that's not the same as act on it) paves the way for the populists of this world.

This post and the preceding one it was in response to by @paxromana got me thinking of one of the best World War II documentaries I have ever seen: the 1993 PBS series A Fighter Pilot's Story, featuring Captain Quentin Aanenson, a P-47 pilot who served in the ETO. I was 13 when I saw that documentary and I think it did more to give me a grown-up understanding of war than anything else.
One thing that really stuck in my mind was Aanenson talking about how difficult it was to deal with the fact that he would sometimes have the power of life or death over an individual enemy soldier. If he saw someone running in the open, he could put in a little aileron or just nudge the rudder and strafe him. He usually did, because that German soldier might kill two or three Americans the next day if he didn't...but he never felt good about it.
Immediately after the war, shooting a pair of gophers that had been digging up his garden was too much for Aanenson after everything he'd seen and been through, and afterwards he put the gun back on his wall and never shot again.
To be sure, every line of work attracts a range of personalities, but I think Aanenson was far more typical than gung-ho movie stereotypes and reminiscences told with bravado to put on a brave face and avoid difficult memories would suggest. He was definitely not having fun up there, and was all too aware of the reality of what he was doing. Aanenson will always have my respect not just for his wartime service, but for pulling zero punches in his documentary.

Are you sure? Because I’m Spanish but I don’t know this word 

Strong people make good times. Good times born weak people. Weak people make hard times. Hard times born strong people. 

Sure, if you actually have enough information to make the decision.  If this whole thing had gone another way - like the guy had simply served in a non-SS unit, then the CDS would have been snubbing a 98 year old vet, which would have blown up another way.  Given that he was not briefed on who the guy was - no one was, it is unfair to hold him responsible.  Now if evidence comes up that changes that well then you can feel free to splash this photo all you like.
But of course let’s compare the situation of the CDS in Canadian Parliament to a guy who was married to a Jewish woman in Nazi Germany in 1936: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser
 

Tough call.  Not sure how much the CDS was briefed before hand (likely not at all).  And the speaker never outlined Hunka’s service record in detail during the ceremony.  He presented the old guy as a “Ukrainian veteran who fought the Russians in the 1st Ukrainian Division” if anyone should have known what that meant it was the CDS but pretty tough decision to sit on one’s hands during a standing ovation for a 98 year old vet based on what he was given.
Not a good look but an apology from him would be taken as political and he likely has been muzzled by government at this point.

Create a Twitter list with your favorite sources on Ukraine, then just monitor that list when you want to look at Ukraine stuff. It makes the experience very focused and precise.
https://help.twitter.com/en/using-x/x-lists
https://business.twitter.com/en/blog/twitter-101-lists.html

Interesting concept. I would argue though that the "Hunter" vehicle seems overengineered and you'd get more bang for the buck by mostly substituting it with  lots and lots of Toyotas and quad bikes carrying portable missiles, small loitering munitions and micro UAVs.