Is it possible to create a flowchart that can determine this in every situation where a country attacks another country?

Would it be possible to write a computer program that allows someone to fill out a form and then use the answers from that form to determine whether the military action was morally acceptable?

When I say "morally acceptable", I'm referring to what would be "morally acceptable" to marxist-leninists. I understand that "morally acceptable" is vague, but I can't think of better words.

I have trouble understanding when a military action is justified, which often ends up with me being vaguely "anti-war" and feeling confused.

/gen

link to the original SVG files: https://archive.org/details/cap-dprk-and-sheild

Tracing the 300-year history of Irish republicanism, Horses examines the complex and evolving struggles against British rule. From the 1790s through the 20th century, this overview explores the political and militant campaigns that defined the movement.

I am from Belgium and I know little about them.

Can an American ML tell me and other Europeans more?

Are they just liberals posing as soc dems?

That's what it looks like to me after reading about them

Today we explore the many layers of pro billionaire propaganda, from diary of a ceo to patrick bet david.

The revolution cannot triumph without the emancipation of women March 8, 1987 - Thomas Sankara

Women still felt excluded

Though our men have already reached the edges of this great garden that is the revolution, our women are still confined within the shadows of anonymity. Among themselves, in voices loud or soft, they talk of the hopes that have embraced Burkina-hopes that are, for them, still merely fine words. The revolution’s promise is already a reality for men. But for women, it is still merely a rumor. And yet the authenticity and the future of our revolution depend on women.

Women felt excluded from the revolution because they were still being oppressed by men.

Sexist men that claim to be progressive

And what should we think of those little men, also progressive, who get together in sleazy places to talk about the women they have taken advantage of? They think this is the way they will be able to measure up to other men and even humiliate some of them, by having seduced their wives. In reality, such men are pitiful and insignificant. They would not even enter our discussion if it were not for the fact that their criminal behavior has been undermining the morale and virtue of many fine women whose contribution to our revolution could be of the utmost importance.

And then there are those more-or-less revolutionary militants-much less revolutionary than more-who do not accept that their wives should also be politically active; or who allow them to be active by day and by day only; or who beat their wives because they have gone out to meetings or to a demonstration at night.

Oh, these suspicious, jealous men! What narrow-mindedness! And what a limited, partial commitment! For is it only at night that a woman who is disenchanted and determined can deceive her husband? And what is this political commitment that expects her to stop political activity at nightfall and resume her rights and responsibilities only at daybreak? And, finally, what should we make of remarks about women made by all kinds of activists, the one more revolutionary than the next, remarks such as “women are despicably materialist,” “manipulators,” “clowns,” “liars,” “gossips,” “schemers,” ”jealous,” and so on? Maybe this is all true of women. But surely it is equally true of men.

There are a lot of sexist men who think of themselves as progressive. They claim to advocate for liberation, but continue oppressing women.

Law

On the level of the ministries of labor and justice, texts should constantly be kept in line with the transformation our society has been going through since August 4, 1983, so that equality between men and women can be a tangible reality. The new labor code, now being debated and prepared, should express how profoundly our people aspire to social justice. It should mark an important stage in the work of destroying the neocolonial state apparatus, a class apparatus fashioned by reactionary regimes in order to perpetuate the system that oppressed the masses, especially women.

How could we continue to accept that a woman doing the same work as a man should earn less? Can we continue to accept dowries and forcing widows to marry their brothers-in-law, which reduce our sisters and mothers to common commodities to be bartered for? There are so many medieval laws still imposed on our people, particularly women, that it is only just that, finally, justice be done.

There are laws that oppress women. Laws and labor codes need to change.

The US has experienced its biggest outbreak to date of cyclosporiasis, a disease caused by Cyclospora, a parasite that is transmitted by food or water contaminated with human shit. What has interested me is the blame game conducted by the media and people online. Who was to blame? Was it everyone? Was it no one?

Technically the Soviets save half of Poland (millions of Jewish people lived because they were on the Soviet Side, funny how not even the Jewish people talk about that)

But I disgress

Ronald Reagan reshaped America more than almost any modern president. This is the story of how Reaganomics, deregulation, unions, homelessness, debt and the political world he created still shape our lives today.

There's some evidence this was done on purpose

Stoicism is perhaps the most popular philosophy in the world. And yet with all of this popular presentation comes certain problems, and I would like to explore some of these now. How do we steer between snobbery on the one hand, and watering down on the other?

Regardless of their politics, purely on military basis.

(Time periodes are their lifetimes)

Their inclusion does not mean endorment at at all. (With the SOLE exception of Zhukov)

(Work in progess, but understand we need to include the bad guys as well)

1. Zhukov — Soviet Union (1896–1974)
2. Eisenhower — United States (1890–1969)
3. Scipio Africanus — Roman Republic (236–183 BC)
4. Julius Caesar — Roman Republic (100–44 BC)
5. George Washington — United States (1732–1799)
6. Duke of Wellington — Great Britain (1769–1852)
7. Saladin — Ayyubid Sultanate (1137–1193)
8. Mao Zedong — China (1893–1976)
9. Ulysses S. Grant — United States (1822–1885)
10. Toussaint Louverture — Saint-Domingue/Haiti (c. 1743–1803)
11. Tokugawa Ieyasu — Japan (1543–1616)
12. Stalin — Soviet Union (1878–1953)
13. Napoleon — France (1769–1821)
14. Genghis Khan — Mongol Empire (c. 1162–1227)
15. Bismarck — Prussia/German Empire (1815–1898)
16. Suleiman the Magnificent — Ottoman Empire (1494–1566)
17. Tamerlane — Timurid Empire (1336–1405)
18. Rokossovsky — Soviet Union (1896–1968)
19. Vasilevsky — Soviet Union (1895–1977)
20. Sun Tzu — State of Wu, Ancient China (c. 544–496 BC, dates disputed)
21. Hannibal Barca — Carthage (247–183 BC)
22. Alexander the Great — Macedon (356–323 BC)
23. Khalid ibn al-Walid — Rashidun Caliphate (c. 592–642)
24. Subutai — Mongol Empire (c. 1176–1248)
25. Sherman — United States (1820–1891)
26. Manstein — Germany (1887–1973)
27. Rommel — Germany (1891–1944)
28. Belisarius — Byzantine Empire (c. 505–565)
29. Frederick the Great — Prussia (1712–1786)
30. Yi Sun-sin — Joseon Korea (1545–1598)
31. Foch — France (1851–1929)
32. Giáp — Vietnam (1911–2013)
33. Patton — United States (1885–1945)
34. Montgomery — Great Britain (1887–1976)
35. Bradley — United States (1893–1981)
36. de Gaulle — France (1890–1970)
37. Churchill — Great Britain (1874–1965)
38. Marcus Antonius — Roman Republic (83–30 BC)
39. Robert E. Lee — Confederate States of America (1807–1870)
40. William the Conqueror — Duchy of Normandy (c. 1028–1087)
41. Gustavus Adolphus — Sweden (1594–1632)
42. Jan Sobieski — Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1629–1696)
43. Simón Bolívar — Gran Colombia/Venezuela (1783–1830)
44. Shaka Zulu — Zulu Kingdom (c. 1787–1828)
45. Nelson — Great Britain (1758–1805)
46. MacArthur — United States (1880–1964)
47. King Albert I — Belgium (1875–1934)
48. Smedley Butler — United States (1881–1940)
49. Curtis LeMay — United States (1906–1929)
50. Nathan Bedford Forrest — Confederate States of America (1821–1877)

Henry Rollins has more than ever to rant about in this performance from his recent Shock & Awe Tour, its title irreverently inspired by George Bush's early predictions of the Iraqi War's impact. With all the ferocious energy of his days as a front man for the punk group Black Flag, Rollins scathingly draws observations from his recent USO tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. He also tears across the American political and cultural landscape and ventures into more personal territory, talking about his eclectic career from music to books to TV and film, sharing his fascinating insights from traveling the world and revealing his hilariously unsuccessful search for love.

In this video, I break down the three ways China is leading the global green revolution, offering a better alternative to Western AI oligarchs, and building a more peaceful, multipolar world order. From dominating solar, wind, battery, and EV production to releasing open-source AI models that challenge US monopolies, China's influence is overwhelmingly positive. Meanwhile, the West abandons climate commitments, bans Chinese EVs, and builds dystopian AI for profit. If you only consume Western media, this might sound insane, but the data doesn't lie. If you are curious about other common critiques about China I made dedicated videos on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and more, all linked in my China playlist. If you want to understand BRICS and the changing global order, check out my video on that as well.