Also, did anyone see this. Someone sent bees after police officers
Also, did anyone see this. Someone sent bees after police officers
Also, did anyone see this. Someone sent bees after police officers
Ok, lose points for getting bystanders stung, but...Also, did anyone see this. Someone sent bees after police officers
To bees or not to bees.Also, did anyone see this. Someone sent bees after police officers
You initially replied to my post specifically about surgery.We began discussing sexual reassignment approaches more broadly. Sexual reassignment may include surgery but often doesn't.
What's pretty universally recognised in the relevant medical fields is that gender dysphoria exists, and that approaches that help the individual's body to match their gender identity have (by far) the highest success rate, judging by most accepted quality-of-life metrics. That's not seriously disputed.
What you did was take the raft of 4 or 5 studies you were presented with, find limitations in a few of them ("this one doesn't have a control group") and then dismiss it altogether as a "bad study", rather than looking at the breadth of work as you're supposed to.
Also, did anyone see this. Someone sent bees after police officers
Hardly: they're not advocating capitulation to Russia's demands, or an end to the military support for Ukraine. They're merely pushing for diplomatic efforts.Progressive Democrats urge Biden to shift strategy and engage with Russia
Letter signed by 30 leftwing representatives from puts pressure on US president’s Ukraine strategy two weeks out from midtermswww.theguardian.com
Appeasement...
1.They are doing it when Ukraine is winning did they do it when Russia was winning?Hardly: they're not advocating capitulation to Russia's demands, or an end to the military support for Ukraine. They're merely pushing for diplomatic efforts.
And that's entirely right. That's how hostilities end with the least ongoing damage.
Yes, those whose names i recognised have been quite consistent.1.They are doing it when Ukraine is winning did they do it when Russia was winning?
They haven't called for that. You're just making baseless assumptions.2. They likely want Ukraine to give up land that Ukraine owns
That quote is a completely reasonable approach.“For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire”.
The IRA are a terror group,Russia is a nationstate with a struggling young man demographic problem. It’s NATO duty to crush them and finish the job from the Cold War so they may either be a democracy or never oppress Eastern Europe again.Yes, those whose names i recognised have been quite consistent.
They haven't called for that. You're just making baseless assumptions.
That quote is a completely reasonable approach.
Look. I live in the UK. If the government hadn't chosen to match its security response with a diplomatic response, we would still be in active conflict with the IRA. Diplomacy works at ending conflicts.
So you just want escalation into an invasion of Russia and (presumably) regime change, then.The IRA are a terror group,Russia is a nationstate with a struggling young man demographic problem. It’s NATO duty to crush them and finish the job from the Cold War so they may either be a democracy or never oppress Eastern Europe again.
You have a 3rd grader's understanding of diplomacy. You are supposed to use diplomacy if the cost-benefit analysis merits it. If you use it to sue for peace when YOUR WINNING you will get taken advantage of by bad actors in international relations. That's how iterative games work, you show weakness a couple of times, and people view you as weak.So you just want escalation into an invasion of Russia and (presumably) regime change, then.
Over the last several decades, efforts to force regime change through invasion have had an absolutely ruinous effect on global stability, security, and peace, not to mention an incredible toll of human suffering. It hasn't solved the issues it aims to solve: it's created countless new festering resentments, and prolonged conflicts that could have been ended or phased down.
And if you believe that any efforts to resolve conflicts without resorting to invasion and coercion are "naive or fifth-column treasonous", you're a clown. Diplomacy-- not capitulation, but true diplomacy-- offers the single most reliable route to resolving conflict.
He's a warchicken. If you read his posts about the place, he has a hard on for military scenarios and is constantly hoping for the US to slap fight someone in an 'all in' manner. He essentially believes the hype that the US is an unstoppable juggernaut and any real global military escalation will just be a nice quick job with a happy ending.So you just want escalation into an invasion of Russia and (presumably) regime change, then.
Over the last several decades, efforts to force regime change through invasion have had an absolutely ruinous effect on global stability, security, and peace, not to mention an incredible toll of human suffering. It hasn't solved the issues it aims to solve: it's created countless new festering resentments, and prolonged conflicts that could have been ended or phased down.
And if you believe that any efforts to resolve conflicts without resorting to invasion and coercion are "naive or fifth-column treasonous", you're a clown. Diplomacy-- not capitulation, but true diplomacy-- offers the single most reliable route to resolving conflict.
Only Russia, China, and Iran.He's a warchicken. If you read his posts about the place, he has a hard on for military scenarios and is constantly hoping for the US to slap fight someone in an 'all in' manner. He essentially believes the hype that the US is an unstoppable juggernaut and any real global military escalation will just be a nice quick job with a happy ending.
"They'll welcome us as liberators", "the war will pay for itself", etc. etc. etc.He's a warchicken. If you read his posts about the place, he has a hard on for military scenarios and is constantly hoping for the US to slap fight someone in an 'all in' manner. He essentially believes the hype that the US is an unstoppable juggernaut and any real global military escalation will just be a nice quick job with a happy ending.
Nah I would be fine with just destroying the navy and Air Force of a near peer opponent."They'll welcome us as liberators", "the war will pay for itself", etc. etc. etc.
Geminis use JDAMS.Only Russia, China, and Iran.
and I don’t believe the US is unstoppable, I believe US logistics is.