circuscritic

So what you’re saying is that Russia has no agency, and their invasion of Ukraine is NOT it imperial in nature.

In fact, they’re only seizing Ukrainian territory to add to their own, because of the United States. And that somehow negates any aspect of Russian imperialism.

Well that makes sense, because I know one thing about Russia, and that it’s definitely not a stitched together country of conquered and subjugated people’s.

Or, hear me out, maybe it’s possible for both the United States and Russia, to wage imperial wars of aggression. Just because the United States is an imperial power, that doesn’t preclude any other great powers from acting on their own delusions of empire.

Classic Ukrainian imperialism…

Also, classic enlisted soldier get rich quick scheme: dying just to get the death benefits.

Wait a minute…what now?

Not nearly as catchy.

I can’t wait for the nonfiction historical accounts of the FEMA deathcamps, or revised textbooks that accurately tell the story of how a devout group of Salem men saved the country from witches and witchcraft.

God damn I’m excited. Let’s go Texas, let’s get even stupider with it.

These will not be used to shoot down Israeli missiles…

I’m quite aware of THAAD’s capabilities, including its tracking radars, at least as far as publicly disclosed information goes.

That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about this reducing, or removing, one of Iran’s primary means of deterrence against Israeli attacks.

If Israel doesn’t have to worry about the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, it frees them up for an even more aggressive course of action.

Unless you’re suggesting that this means Israel can, and should, continue to directly attack Iran…?

This defense enables and emboldens Israeli aggression.

It removes, or significantly reduces, the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles.

That means, it removes, or reduces, any deterrent effect they have, on moderating Israel.

This is not good, but less because of the risk of American KIA, and more because of how it changes the Israeli calculus.

Yes, that first but confirms the news article.

And then it talks about a deployment 5 years ago for a training exercise.

These aren’t brick and mortar buildings, they’re mobile platforms, and mobile air defense batteries redeploy all the time.

Again, I am not closed to the idea that there was US military operated THAAD system in Israel during that attack, I just can’t find any reports confirming that, or even eluding to it.

Never mind, I misread that last bit. I will take a look at it later when I have a few moments, thank you.

I’m not saying it can’t be. I’m saying I don’t believe Iran has the capabilities or stockpiles available to do so, given the other American assets in theatre, or a desire to risk killing American troops.

I suspect they’re deploying THAAD because of the failures of David’s Sling during the last missile attack.

Air defense systems protect specific targets, not countries. Given the THAAD’s long track record under US operators, I would wager that the bases and targets that Iranian missiles hit, either lacked sufficient coverage, had poorly trained Israeli personnel, and/or were covered by David’s Sling.

Of course, I could be wrong, but we won’t know for many many years given how secretive Israel is on these matters.

Edit: I’m not seeing any reports of active THAAD deployments in Israel prior to this announcement, just previous deployments to Israel, including for training. But no mention if they rotated out prior to the Iranian missile strike, or that they were present for it.

I’m not saying they weren’t there, but do you have a source confirms they were present during this most recent attack?

They’re air defense operators, just like gets deployed around Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.

If you want to feel bad about anything, it’s that this will significantly reduce the likelihood that Iran can threaten Israel with ballistic missiles.

THAAD is really good at what it does, and something tells me that the Iranians aren’t going to want to waste their entire stock pile on fruitless saturation attempts. To say nothing of their concerns of killing American troops.

As in, this provides Israel even greater latitude on their quest to start a hot war with Iran, without dramatically increasing any threat to their military bases and government buildings. Well, at least not from ballistic missiles.

Goddamnit, you’ve made one heck of a case and now I’m a believer.

Yes, they were a regional hegemon.

If I’m being generous, from the view of the average Roman citizen, they were a global hegemony, because they didn’t know how big the world really was.

But they were not. There was no shortage of rival empires, some even right on their borders, and all during Pax Romana, including the Parthian Empire, Kushan Empire, and the Han Dynasty.

And my history is a bit rusty, but I’m pretty sure Rome tried multiple times to conquer the Parthian Empire, and failed.

Most importantly however, their reach did not extend across the globe, only where they could build their roads through, or sail their boats to, such as Carthage.

Also, Pax Romana, refers to a period of relative peace for Rome, brought by their imperial power. It’s only indirectly related to their hegemonic status, but it’s not in reference to it.

Sorry, meant that now deleted reply for someone else.

Two words: Armenian genocide

You’re confusing hegemon and classical empire, with global homogeny. We can debate whether or not global hegemony is unique to a unipolar world, but I don’t think it’s very debatable that it’s only been achieved through the use of neo-imperialism.

That is to say, no classical empire has ever achieved truely global hegemonic status, but there’s no shortage of historical hegemonic powers and classical empires, including that European ones you listed.

I will say that while I generally view the British empire as a classical empire, it’s competition with other European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries is what really gave rise to the concept of neo-imperialism.

But the Monroe doctrine put real checks on their imperial power and influence, that they could not, or would not, overcome. Which is why I have a hard time considering them a global hedgemon in the same context as America, but I realize for their time, they could be considered the first global hegemon.

deleted by creator

I’m confused at what they think good imperialism looks like. Empire by it’s very nature, is a crime against humanity.

Regardless, all empires grow to be too large and unmanageable, eventually.

I think it’s their perspective, of seeing how awful empire is. The death and destruction it leaves in it’s wake, and every other awful thing that empires do.

Because objectively, America was the first real global hegemon, and created a brand new type of imperialism to achieve that objective. America was the best at empire.

But now that it’s dying many people wrongly assume there was any other way it could have gone, that there was a malevolent external actor who actually ruined it, or that it could have been done in a more just or humane manner.

Maybe there is some truth to the latter, on the margins, but ultimately those concepts are antithetical to the concept of empire.

Unless there’s a way to secure public funding for them, this seems like a reasonable middle road.

Like Patreon, which while having its own unique set of problems, enables a paid content distribution ecosystem for independent creators unlike anything else available.

So, absent inserting invasive advertising, and lacking public funds, I can’t see how else they’re supposed to maintain infrastructure and development costs.

Not everyone has a safety deposit box, or the ability to access a proper and secure off-site storage.

And if you’re just keeping those in your house, then fire, flood, and other incidents can destroy all copies at once.

Your list of semi non-perishable foods does need some caveats about storage, because most of those things can go bad, depending on how they were stored.

Frozen meat can spoil, as not all bacterial growth stops, some just slows down a whole lot. So if Grandma threw in a store plastic wrapped tray of chicken quarters, after being in the fridge for 3 days, and now it’s 8 years later, those might not be safe for human consumption.

Stuff that was vacuum sealed, much more likely to last the long haul in the freezer, if done properly.

Long-term stored grain, when not in vacuum sealed or other airtight containers, can develop molds or other bacterial contaminations.

Improperly stored vinegar, if you try to use it…it will ruin your salad dressing, and taste like shit. But it’s pretty easy to see if vinegar has gone ick.

Can’t say I’ve ever seen moldy or spoiled vinegar, but I’ve seen the type of kitchens that would be capable of making it happen in a long enough time frame.

I’ve also never seen bad dry storage pasta or beans, but I imagine they carry the same long-term storage concerns as grains, even if they’re probably a bit more durable.

Aging for whiskey and scotch is done in specialized wood barrels with specific environmental conditions, not in the bottle.

If the hard booze bottles been opened for a long time, it’s always possible some evaporation, or other slight changes have occurred that may impact taste, but still perfectly safe. Assuming it’s 80 proof and up.

Throw out open wines if you’re not comfortable determining if they’re still consumable and not spoiled.

TLDR: Toss opened bottles of wine, but any hard liquor should be safe, even if it taste is degraded.