Facts and legality is also backed by power, not ethics. Yes, it is fact, but the US also absolves itself from illegally invading Iraq because they make the rules. So many here say facts because it legitimises questionable practices behind that may get criticised.

If China convinces most dictator driven African countries to support that Taiwan is part of China, will you accept it as fact if over 50% agree to it? If China was the one in power, will you accept their legal definition of who is a terrorist? I don't think anyone is good, just that nobody wants to admit their side is evil too.

The US isn't in Syria to fight ISIS. That's what the media says because its what the Western people care about (ISIS wouldn't have risen if the West back troops haven't supported the opposition into a civil war). They are there to fight a proxy war to get military alliance within the region. The US wants to get rid of the Pro-Assad, Pro-Russia team at all costs, even though they know their strategy to win will also end up in genocide of the Alawites.

Pretty much the war strategy of destabilisation absolves responsibility of any consequences that come from doing that, including the rise of ISIS. It absolved them from Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Haiti, Vietnam, Cuba, Venesuela, and El Salvador. So why is this any different?

And I'm not saying Russia is better, but that the a lot of people here don't understand the crimes committed by the US can be similarly abhorrent. Noam Chomsky also described that Sanctions are not ethical (due to the damage it does to civilians), but mostly used as a power play of the strong. The "International law" is not run on ethics, but the justice of the alliance who has the most power.

Right now a lot of people agree with the "law" because its an agreeable ally. Nobody will recognise a war crime the West has done until Russia, Iran, or China will do the exact same thing.

My point is, so many people here still has a notion of ethics and absolute justice in the US's motives and actions. They speak the legality instead of the power dynamics. I'm just suspicious of someone who believes in absolute justice for wars.

Pretty much my point. A lot of these war justification seems to lie not on an Internationally agreed definiton of invasion, but whether if you are allianced with the US or not. And "Internationally Recognised" is just who has power, not whether there's any ethical justification to it.

The West sends their military overseas to support a non-governmental faction-> Heroic democracy savers. Freedom fighters. Heroic murder.

Anyone else I disagree does it -> Terrorists and forces of evil that violate every single human right code out there.

I'm not saying anyone should be proud for killing others, but that there is some huge hypocrisy in that the West don't recognise their military endeavour of committing war crime isn't a war crime but simply a rewritten history.

Iran does it, but US also does a tonne of proxy war as well. The US's favourite tactic overseas is destabilise by funding the opposition. China's is offer loans to crippled dictators in exchange for military amd economic beneficial agreement. Iran's is also destabilisation (Soleimani was very fond of this) by funding their Islamic allies, considered terrorists by the US.

Pretty much anyone who chose destabilisation devastared that country, because all they did was destroy the system (Libya, Iraq, Lebanon) without something else to replace it with.

We also have to be careful of abusing Sanctions as a weapon of war because it's it relies on the US being a superpower and having alliance. African countries are alliancing with China now because they don't know if their dictator will be replaced by US next. There'll be a time when the voice of Sanction may flip to China's interest, rather than the US.

Isn't that pretty much a justification anyone can use?

Pretty much the entire history of US invasion was alliancing with the opposition and make them rise to power.

Russia can say they are getting rid of Nazis in Ukraine, and if they kill enough Ukrainians they are left with a pro-Russian population and all that's left is to get recognised by the Western biased International law.

I needed to watch that episode to know what you are talking about, and I was not disappointed.

"Iron chef, do these ingredients go well with yogurt?" "I don't know, maybe!?"

"Iron chef, this looks like plain Chinese noodle dish (Because we are expecting surprises)" "Ofcourse! What else does it look like!?"

"Iron chef, do you think it will turn out good?" "I don't know! I never made this before!"

I support this too. Markets don't need to be 100% fair for external corporations. While there are a lot of arguments for a fully globalized, free movements of good and service, passively putting yourself into a position external countries can take advantage of you isn't being progressive. It's being a doormat.

Sometimes localisation of markets is the answer.

There's an economic phenomenon where historically places with certain resource scarcity tend to become stronger super powers (Due to stronger working middle class rights). Resource rich Nations get ravaged with endless war until they become poverty struck. This is thought to be the reason why the US became a super power, yet the agriculture bountiful South America is an economically developing country to this day.

Gas scarcity is basically the same thing. Less availability = economy adapts. Though there is a lot of pain when you build you 50 years+ worth of econony around this.

Yes, and the British government supported the facist government to oust the dude who was democratically elected. Because he wanted to Nationalize the Nation's resources.

Looked at the graph of ozone healing over time, it's pretty impressive. It took 20 years to U-turn the dip starting fro 2000, but now the progress is pointing to a linear healing. By 2040 you'll start getting a thin membrane on the hole that is a huge leap in improvement.

I did a cheeky lookup on his ethnic makeup and couldn't believe he was half Asian.

The fat in the eyelid makes the characteristic Asian eye, and it's a dominant trait. On top of that if his non-Asian side has a shallow brow the eye character is more pronounced. It's always these two features that make a half-Asian look more Asian or not.

It's very interesting to see someone who's recessive trait is stronger in this case.

I'm not saying periods are not serious, just that regardless of it being cancer or tragedy, someone will be covering the responsibilities of the absent person.

Some jobs don't have that much responsibility or the work style is a periodic deliverable, which makes this work.

But if you set up a new one-man business and needed a hire someone to deliver fresh flowers, you won't choose an interviewee who says they have cancer so they need to take a medical leave every month for a week, and they expect that to be paid.

But will you be ok covering for other people's circumstances 4 days a month? If there were lots of mums wanting to pick up their kids at 3pm, should they allocate all the unsociable shifts to the childless workers since they are more abled?