Thank you for responding to my question! I edited my original comment because I took a quick look into it and came to the same conclusion you did. I'm of the opinion that things like sex work can be done properly, and if they aren't "officially" done properly they will be done improperly illegally. Sort of a "Prohibition" vs. "regulated alcohol sales" scenario. People like other sexy people, and some adults legitimately consent to be those other sexy people. However, in order for it to be ethical there have to be robust protections.
It doesn't take much research to find out these maid cafes do not always feature said protections. So I edited my original comment because I found the answer and then you kindly backed it up very shortly afterwards.
Punish Russia for invading your country and if it hurts their economy perhaps that will deter other countries from pulling the same crap.
The article is paywalled but I'm guessing the warnings are because of the energy economics involved. If an effective counter-offensive drives up oil prices then maybe that will be the (admittedly likely painful) push the world needs to finally swap to other forms of energy. I'm aware it might hurt, but I think it's long overdue regardless of wars and the decades of stalling for economic reasons has done a lot of harm to the world.
Any peace deal that doesn't involve Russia leaving behind all Ukrainian territory rewards Putin's Russia for their invasion. IMO Russia should have to at least pull back to the borders that existed before the 2022 offensive. Of course I'm not in a position to make decisions if it's a bitter pill that must be taken, but real gains for Russia will be proof that aggression worked.
Also, peace doesn't need a specific broker. If an international effort including China, or even led by them, can broker a good deal then so be it. Maybe China's relationship with Russia makes talks more likely to be productive. I can't think of an explanation as to why a US-led deal with the same terms would be inherently better (that isn't just nationalism/pride and much less important than halting war).
I really disagree with the narrative of "we all did this" - I consider it corporate reputation-saving propaganda. I refuse to take responsibility for choices I never had a say in (before I was born or when I was young), often no knowledge of, and opposed when I learned of them. It's even worse for modern kids.
It may be argued that executives and politicians across so many countries = more than a handful, but it's a tiny # compared to all the people dealing with the results of decisions they had no influence over. Handful can be used as shorthand for "a small quantity or number". I'm not saying you are making that argument, just heading it off preemptively.
Sounds like Sunak is trying to pry medical assessment out of the hands of doctors/other current professionals and into the realm of the more "economically motivated" shall we say. As well as potentially downplaying just how serious a concern the state of mental health response is in...I was going to say Britain but in a lot of countries honestly.
That would only be a fair comparison if the US was willing to devote it's entire military budget to these actions the way Iran can. It would also assume that the US can (and is willing to) spend 1 billion dollars + costs required with overseas operations every time Iran spends 100M on missiles. Iran broke the top 15 for military spending a few years ago so they're going to have decent capabilities when it comes to being a pain.
It also ignores the cost of dealing with Iranian proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthi, which has Pentagon officials worried as detailed in this article "A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone: Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks.". I'm definitely not cheering for Iran, but I don't think your total budget vs. total budget comparison is true to the actual economics of a US defense of Israel in the case of sustained attacks. Or even relative cost given that the US has it's budget spread across many more pursuits than this region.
As of the latest updates I can find, it sounds like the attack was in fact very limited. Assuming the unnamed sources are correct and this was the Israeli response that American and Israeli officials talked about, perhaps this will end the the regional escalations. Of course we’ll have to see how this develops, but maybe the posturing will be over for now given that both Israel and Iran limited themselves to largely symbolic attacks in turn.
As of the latest updates I can find, it sounds like the attack was in fact very limited. Assuming the unnamed sources are correct and this was the Israeli response that American and Israeli officials talked about, perhaps this will end the regional escalations. Of course we'll have to see how this develops, but maybe the posturing will be over for now given that both Israel and Iran limited themselves to largely symbolic attacks in turn.
That's a fair point, no need to apologize for keeping me accurate. I had read and forgotten that detail honestly, because in my head I lump the two deals together - the other one being the new $18 billion contract for F-15s that Biden's administration is seeking approval for currently. I think I mentally shorthand it to "arrangements for new jets going to Israel" but there is definitely detail involved as you point out.
"I'd love for you to meet our interior designer, Mr. M. C. Escher":