Comment Re: Not wars over water (Score 1) 42
Netenyahu's approach lost the support of the Israeli voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Netenyahu's successor was willing to make a ton of concessions for peace: https://www.youtube.com/shorts...
This gave the US enormous economic clout and the ability to issue USD denominated debt at very low interest.
German Euro bonds are cheaper than US bonds, so you better rethink your economic theory (and stop watching youtube).
What the Ukraine war is making clear is that Russia can pretty much ignore European opinion.
That is not clear at all. Russia keeps threatening to nuke UK because they don't ignore European opinion.
We contend that reduced water availability, accompanied by substantially drier conditions, may have led to population dispersal from major Harappan centers, while acknowledging that societal transformation was shaped by a complex interplay of climatic, social, and economic pressures.
Don't conflate the arrogant headline with knowledgeable researchers.
Sure we could. We just don't want to. It would be far too violent for our present sensibilities. Gaza is about 5 to 10 dB less than what it would actually take to force Hamas to accept peace. Another 5 dB of violence on top of that is the minimum to disabuse the rest of the Palestinians of the "here junior, put on this backpack and ride the bus" mentality.
“serious administrative shortcomings [that] threaten the continuity and safeguarding of crucial technological knowledge and capacity on Dutch and European soil,” the government said, with "fears of tech leakage, meaning property and know-how are transferred to China.'
https://www.politico.eu/articl...
I don't know enough about Dutch law to say much more than that, but I'm sure they had lawyers work it out.
the two things--greater domestic wealth for the working class, and a strong foreign policy--historically have been demonstrably causally correlated. Again, as I have alluded to in my previous post, the postwar American economy was extremely prosperous
Someone might counterargue that building bombs that do nothing but explode (or worse, destroy assets) is not a benefit to the economy, and that the 90s had an economic boom as the world returned to peace, and anyway government spending doesn't matter (economically) if it's on bombs or on anything else.
It would be interesting if you looked up how much benefit was from war spending and how much was from other effects. I think you will find there is not actually a correlation.
If I set here and stare at nothing long enough, people might think I'm an engineer working on something. -- S.R. McElroy