MicroB

Defence= Military expenditure. Japan since WW2 has extremely strict export controls on defence equipment. Everyone knows this.

Yes really. You just quoted the number of certificates, not the number of firearms, and it seems decided not to look properly at the page you copy pasted. Use the quote function to properly format for the forum. Firstly your page is for England Wales, not the UK, so you used the wrong population. You've not realised that there are multiple weapons per certificate. The exact number of weapons is not known, so you have to use the Home Office averages. Now, likely the temporary certificates are just for a single weapon. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-england-and-wales-april-2022-to-march-2023/statistics-on-firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-england-and-wales-april-2022-to-march-2023 Certificate on issue Average weapons per licence (Home Office and Assumption) Total weapons, est, 2022 Firearms 147,140 4.20 617,988 Shotgun 500,894 2.70 1,352,414 Temporary Firearms 3,106 1.00 3,106 Temporary Shotgun 8,062 1.00 8,062 1,981,570 England 2022 Estimate 57,106,000 Wales 2022 Estimate 3,132,000 60,238,000 Guns per 100, England, Wales 3.3 Slightly older numbers from the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58198857 Which for 2021 give for England and Wales, 617,171 firearms, 1.4m shotguns, and in Scotland 70.839 firearms and 133,037 shotguns. This is inline with my estimate, and considerably more than your ludicrous estimae, which was based on a pretty basic misunderstanding of simple data.

It was a founding member of the UN, to give the USSR more votes in the General Assembly. Roosevelt agreed to this, while reserving the right for 2 more US votes to be added to the GA; essentially something like California and New York would get a vote. Quoting the UN Charter: The 1933 Montevideo Convention defines what a State is: Ukraine and Belarus met all the conditions except (d); they could not conclude agreements with other states. So in 1944, Stalin amended their constitutions to allow them to enter into agreements with foreign governments. Western jurists rejected the Soviet concept of the republics’ sovereignty, because it was clear that the republics had a factual and legal dependence on the central government. So no one recognised Stalin's absurdity. Except the UN. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic has been described as "only a hollow institutional caricature of a sovereign state". It was a political accomodation, in 1945, after a devastating world war, and Stalin was doing his bully boy bit. Stalin commited fraud, because the Montevideo Convention also says "The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law". The USSR was a federation, it doesn't matter if Belarus and Ukraine could conclude international agreements. They failed to qualify for the UN. Stalin's con job did not make Ukraine and independant state in 1944.

You got it wrong. NATO isn't funding Russia.

Belarus sends best wishes A slight change of tune

Based on recent precedent, the International community via the UN. Following the negotiated end of the Yugoslav wars through the Dayton Agreement, the Office of the High Representative was established. The OHR's role was to oversee the civilian implementation of the agreement. The money is coming from the World Bank. the World bank raises funds in a variety of ways, including raising funds on the capital money. The bank has AAA rating so it can get low rates. Financial Intermediary Funds are the vehicle to ensure coordinated global responses to events, like war, and the main funders are the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. There is $140 billion in Russian Central Bank assets sitting in a Belgian Custodian Bank. There has been recent agreement to release earned interest to Ukraine, with the first tranche being used by Czechia to source artillary ammunition. Its within the purview of the EU whether to use those Russian assets for postwar reconstruction. The G7 are also loaning Ukraine $50 Bn, guaranteed by the US, and funded through interest paid on $260bn of Russian assets in mostly European banks, topped up by sums from France, Canada and Japan, though Japan's contributed is set aside for non-defence purchases only. The irony is that postwar, Russia might need some sort of Marshal Plan bailout, as its economy is basically is ruined. The alternative is that Russia descends into a even more thuggish nation, with an increasingly weakened central government, and unpredictable seperatism, plus even more border disputes with FSU nations. Number 1 concern is Chechenya; what is Ramzan Kadyrov's game? He's not loyal to Russia, and its interesting to see, in the middle of Ukraine's incursion/seizure of the Kursk region, Putin goes to Chechenya, kisses the Quran at the new Prophet Jesus Mosque in Grozny, to drum up Chechen recruitment for the army. Recent prison riots indicates that Russia has basically tapped out the prison population for cannon fodder, and Putin is desperate not to do a full mobilisation in Moscow-St Petersburg, where his core support it. The Chechen military are self funding and self equipped; basically a private army, and to date, they have supplied about 50,000 troops, equipped through the Akhmat-Khadji Kadyrov Foundation. In addition, the Chechens are sending in food supplied into the annexed territories. I suspect Chechen support is conditional, conditional upon Moscow to continue to pour vast sums into a region that is historically backward and not particularly productive. Chechenyalreceives about $4-5 billion a year from Moscow. Kadyrov keeps hinting he is looking for investors into a refinery that woulld make the Republic self sufficient in energy; Putin is scared stiff that Chechenya will try to secede from Russia again.

Ahem, its not "the Ukraine" but Ukraine. "The Ukraine" was a term used to delegitimise Ukraine as a sovereign state, reducing it to nothing more than a region to be carved up by Russia, Poland and Hungary.

But not as limited as Russia's.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/jd-vances-ex-classmate-reveals-shocking-texts-from-trump-vp-pick-on-race-hating-cops-trump/ Now people's opinions change over the years, and I don't really care if people "hate" the police or love the police. A 31 year old man was complaining to a friend that he had a number of negative experiences with the police in "the past few years", so maybe over the previous 3 years or so. Some have suggested these negative experiences were race related; his contacts were because of the police picking on his Indian-American fiance who he had met in 2011. Possibly, but such an experience would remain as negative, rather than suddenly thinking, "yeah the cops had a point stopping us because my wife looked like a muslim terrorist, so you can't take any chances". Or maybe something else. I've only had one experience with the police, which was I suppose negative, in that I was interviewed under caution, but understandable given the circumstances at the time.

So why the obsession with tampons? This thread is about the man presently known as JD Vance (until he gets sick of that name). You switched to discuss an obsession about tampons for boys, concerning another fellow; I'm sure there is a thread for that, so you don't have to hijack threads to talk about tampons. The thread is about "JD Vance", not Walz. Why did he tell the world about his grannie asking him if he wanted to give a <deleted>? I actually think he made it up, about thinking he was a homosexual 8 year old, and that a lot of his life story is embellished, creating a character to engender sympathy, and votes (look his post university career; its very focused on entering politics).

I don't know you, so I cannot be your friend, or enemy. Pleas don't address as such, in an attempt to endear yourself to me. I don't think as a sergeant in the National Guard he had an inside knowledge of CentCom's strategies. He quit during his second enlistment contract. Hamel managed one and then notably, despite beign a fit young man, purposely did not transfer to the Marine Reserve, prefering instead to pursue a career in finance. I can see why you wouldn't support Walz because of that, but why does that translate into a compunction to support the other bloke. In an election you can spoil your ballot and vote for none of them. You are citing Hamel's 6 months photographing birthday cakes and a positive for why you would support him. Seems a bit shallow. Maybe you like his support on using fetal stem cells in drug research. Not sure where he's going to get those stem cells mind, maybe from non-Americans. Are you sure that Hamel/Vance hasn't embellished or lied about his military career? That seems a pretty big deal to you. Hamel/Vance served 4 years, leaving the service as an E-4, or in other parlance, a Corporal. In the marines, you make E-4 after about a year. Of course, not all do, they don't possess the intellect. Hamel clearly has above average intellect; in a Public Affairs role in the USMC, he should have thrived. Instead, his promotion record was mediocre, spending 2.5-3 years at E-4. Is that why he left and pointedly turned his back on his brothers (by not going to the Reserves). No meritous promotion. Walz's last deployment was to Italy during OEF, where his role was as a battlefield replacement; spending time in Italy, maintaining an operational readiness in the expectation he would be called to join what presumably would be an utter disaster (battlefield replacements are backstops to reinforce units that have suffered significant combat losses to the extent of combat ineffectiveness). He wasn't needed. Later, maybe he had an inkling his NG unit would be deployed to Iraq, though given he had a hearing problem (when he originally signed a second enlistment, the army rejected him due to hearing loss, and he appealed to a medical board), I doubt he would have actually been deployed, at that stage, when the expectation was it would be a complete walkover and Mission Accomplished. When Hamel left the Marines in 2007, there was no doubt, the Reserves were being deployed. His first role was as a Rifleman. He knew, with certainty, that if he transferred to the Marine Reserve, he would have been deployed. In 2007, Marine Reservists were being sent to Anbar Province, the most bloody province in Iraq at that time. 60% of US troops deployed to Iraq were Reservists and National Guardsmen. A mate of mine has completed 23 years in the US army reserves. In all that time, he has spend about 4 years not deployed. He didn't mind it, though the last deployment he found brutal, even in a command role. Vance didn't extend his enlistment for the same reason as Walz; ultimately, he didn't want another deployment. Walz left basically because he had a young family, and family comes before everything. Many soldiers have taken the same decision. You say he lied about it. Well maybe about what technical rank he had got to (though I note the Minnesota NG say it was all ok). Point of detail; retired commissioned officers are allowed to "promote" themselves in retirement. A Captain can present himself as Major (rtd) if his wants. Called tradition. Hamel at the time was young and single. Yeah, he didn't want to end up a cripple so chose not to re-enlist or chance it in the reserves. So on that basis, nothing wrong him deciding to cut his links to the USMC, including changing his name, so maybe no one would recognise him. But ultimately, because he didn't transfer to reserves and be sent to Iraq, then that meant someone else had to, someone without the security of a decent set of degrees. Questions arise about why he was not promoted; was this a competance issue, which seems unlikely, or something. On the face of it, he was a mediocre marine. But to both men; its important to recognise both were enlisted men, whereas most other politicians with military service tend to be officers, with less understanding of the "men" (and women). Hamel though needs to do an about face and stop being so anti expanding veteran health benefits. But maybe that also goes back to why he got out of the marines as fast as he could.

Both of them served their country. Both of them also serve their country through the ballot box, so I am not sure why you are disrespecting people who seek elected office, irrespective of their political journey. Of course, when in office, some of them, like those in the military at times, are disputable, but that should diminish their original ambition to serve their country. Lots of people serve their country; in the military, in the police, in the fire services, in government service. Those who juggle a civilian life and a military life often make the greatest sacrifice; modern Western militaries are utterly dependant now on reservists, which allows a surget capacity during war. I suspect Hamel only joined up to take advantage of free college education, courtest of the taxpayer, and made sure he didn't have to do a role that was too risky, nor demanded much time away from home. He got to stay for over 3 years in North Carolina. Nothing wrong with that; everyone eats at the trough when they can. Both completed their enlistments, one went before a medical board to appeal his reenlistment after completing a 20 year enlistment. One managed 6 months out of 4 years in Iraq, taking photos of birthday cakes and handshakes, when their fellow service people were doing 12-18 month tours, sometimes back to back with Afghanistan. One was told about sucking penises by his Grandmother when he was 8 years old during a discussion about whether the 8 year old was a homosexual; a remarkable and brave confession. Does he continue such open sexualisation with his children? And does he determine if his children are homosexual or heterosexual at age 8? One spent working career as an educator, but I do understand people who hate educators because education is where people with elite skills learn their skills, and go on to get PhDs, find cures for cancer, design rocket ships, invent crypto, because these are things people wit elite skills can do. Some people without elite skills hate the "elites". That job as a geography teacher followed working in a factory, assembling tanning beds of all things (Trumpf; take note). One had a little bit of VC fintech experience. And that person, investors couldn't actually recall what he did at Revolution. One got into the SPAC fad. Its not hard work really, going from meeting to meeting watching the coffee intake. https://www.axios.com/2024/07/16/jd-vance-venture-capital-career https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/08/jd-vance-financial-investments https://finance.yahoo.com/news/know-j-d-vance-vc-114105413.html I wouldn't over egg his business skills. VC is also fully embedded in the government trough. His activity with AmplifyBio is interesting; this is a company into cell therapy, manipulations of the genome to address disease. Which is part of what all these anti-Vaxxer fret about. AmplifyBio is primarily a CRO; they undertake contract work for other clients, such as animal testing (mostly beagles and monkey it seems, with the animals euthanised when the contract is over). They work with stem cells; it has a policy of not asking its clients if the cell lines they are working with are embryonic or not. Which seems at odds with Hamel's statements that he is 100% Pro-Life. Basically he invested in a company that profited from what some would call dead babies. Obviously not, if there is money to be made. I have zero issue with this kind of research. Interestingly, this company seeks applicants from the “LGBTQIA+ community” and says it forbids discrimination based on “gender expression” and even “citizenship status.” Also, the company requires COVID-19 vaccination. He's got a bit of a thing about this gene therapy research, because he's also invested in Kriya Therapeutics, which has a pipeline covering diabetes, eye disease and neurodegenerative disease, not based on stem cell transplantation, but using virus vectors to manipulate the genome. For this, they have to conduct experiments with one of the cold viruses, hopefully not affecting virulance.

Vance might be interested in this https://www.trumpytrout.com/?mid=12243062 Pretty mouth

Remind me, who pays the tariff? The exporting country or the importing entity? The importer sucks up the cost, which is what GM is doing with its Chinese built cars its selling in the US, or it passes onto the customer. The government benefits from the extra revenue.

Kari Lake receiving orders. Seems a dull event.

Apparently he hates this photo

And there are very good reasons why the authorities will not want to immediately disclose the name, rank and role of what was a senior officer in the immediate aftermath, The man was arrested almost right away. What do people expect the media to say between when the attack happened, and when he appeared in the magistrates court in July.

They proposed raising the cap to about £100k. That's not protecting the wealthy. Labour supported this Conservative policy, so the reversal is not due to some change in principle, but about the current state of the UK finances. Essentially, the Labour policy is abandoning Cradle-to-Grave; the State might be responsible for bringing you into this world, but you are on your own when you leave it. When you pay for a residential home, that's not your savings going to the state, that's your savings going to a private company. 84% of care home beds are in the private sector. The biggest operator is HC-One, and they operate through an offshore company. Essentially, the national wealth, which is what sits in people's savings accounts, and which generally finds its way into the rest of the UK economy, is being siphoned out. https://www.epsu.org/article/uk-s-largest-care-home-operator-shifts-cash-tax-havens-new-report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/07/care-home-operators-accused-of-extracting-disguised-profits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59504521 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/13/canadian-owners-of-signature-care-homes-avoid-uk-taxes-researchers-claim The average annual cost of a UK care home is £50,000 per resident, with maybe 50 residents per home. Most of these homes plead poverty, but the numbers don't add up. Potentially, £15bn a year is extracted from the UK economy. Savings, estates, are passed on. The very basis of the idea was created in the early 19th Century in order to move wealth of the hands of a few elderly people into the wider economy.

Its not an unknown phenomenom. Its a recognised weather event. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/9/502 https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/59805/1/JGR Oceans - 2023 - Tuchen - Modulation of Equatorial Currents and Tropical Instability Waves During the 2021 Atlantic Ni o.pdf

UK: 3.3 guns per 100 Australia: 3.4 guns per 100 US: 120 guns per 100 based on gun licence records. Number 2 in the world for gun ownership is the extremely safe country of Yemen, with 50 guns per 100.

Paraphrasing David Bowie, Life on Mars

Godwin's Law. Use reason. Substitute Communist for Nazi, and see how your paragraph works. There are no communists on this forum. There are no nazis either. Though having said that, what are you? You demand others identify what political ideology they follow by refusing to divulge yours, which seems rather rude. You don't state an ideology yourself. There are many ideologies that believe in constitutional government and free enterprise. I can conclude you are a Tory. Or a Neoliberal? Or like Maggie Thatcher, a classical liberal? Capitalism is not a political creed. You weaken all of your arguments by accusing your fellow citizens of being either communists or nazis just because they don't agree with you. And don't dare try the "Yeah, but they started is". Thats the language of a schoolboy. You are a middle aged, probably elderly man who should know better. There is nothing "illegal" within the Democrat Party rule book about how Harris was selected as candidate.Its their party, their candidate. Let the voters decide rather than party cronies who previously pledge allegiance to either party.

Factually, he is Leader of the Opposition. He will be until the Conservative Party selects its next leader. I'm not sure who I will vote for during the Leadership contest. A no for Priti Patel; mainly because of what she did as Secretary of State for International Development, which revealed a dishonesty that made her unfit for any cabinet role. No for Robert Jenrick; the man has no principles, despite being very capable. No as well to Kemi Badenoch; I disagree with her views on the Equalities Act. If she dropped the anti-wokisms, I might not be too disappointed if she became leader. Though like Jenrick, I wonder if her principles are somewhat fluid. James Cleverley; he's not too clever, but is good at delivering a message, and at least is part of the centrist part of the Tories. Mel Stride will be lucky to hold onto his seat at the next election; I frankly don't know enough about him, beyond that he might be a safe pair of hands, which is all we need right now during a period in opposition, that I think will last 1.5 parliaments. Tom Tugendhat; intellectually, I feel he will do well as PM Questions. Sir Keir certainly has a powerful intellect, as a top lawyer should have. Tugendhat was Intelligence Corps, firstly in Iraq with the Royal Marines as an Arabic-speaking office, and then Afghanistan, at the specific request of the FCO. There is more than a hint of secret squirrel about his service career. He would be equally analytical. I'm not sure he could be a Prime Minister, but thats not going to be his role, vis a vie the Tories (more about rebuilding the party around a set of decent principles, and persuading people to share those beliefs, rather than pandering). But many thought SKS wasn't cut out to be PM (despite a fine mind), but look what happened. What will expose labour will be not so much the policies from Sir Keir, but the factionalism of the Labour party, which voters will reject. Tjose who want Momentum Labour should have the courage of their convictions and set up their own party, and see how that fairs. Conservatives take heed. The sooner some Tory MPs decide where their party loyalties lie, the better.

The police went right to his house, within 30 minutes of the attack. They knew who he was right away.