WTF why does Bolivia (a land locked nation) even have a navy?

He was also to only human know to have gone for nearly 2 months without any REM sleep

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/21/showbiz/jackson-death-trial/index.html#:~:text=to%20his%20death.-,Jackson%20may%20be%20the%20only%20human%20ever%20to%20go%20two,nights%20of%20propofol%20infusions%20Dr.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

Well, it does if our entire justice system is based around the concept of free will.

That's a good question. The answer lies not so much about the general popularity and sympathy for Ukraine but rather the amount of pressure Ukraine can exert on the the present US administration to leverage more military aid.

The Ukrainians are aware of the level of sympathy they have in the US as the plucky underdog in this conflict. Striking oil and gas targets deep inside Russia doesn't diminish this but rather underlines and reinforces the situation. However, reducing the supply of oil and gas impacts the price of oil and gas and has a knock on effect on inflation.

The majority of Americans don't consciously make that connection, they just feel the pinch in their hip pocket. For better or worse inflation is commonly viewed as domestic issue and this is reinforced by the retoric of those on the right of US politics. So, for many inflation is Joe Biden's fault.

Therefore, by attacking these targets or threatening to, the Ukrainians can bring the very real pressure on the Biden administration. The President has to continue to show support to the Ukrainians (both moral and materiel) while attempting to rein in the Ukrainians ability and desire to strike deeply at oil and gas targets in Russia.

It appears that this delicate balancing game is ongoing with the US administration pressuring their opponents in the Congress to back down on defunding the Ukrainians while at the same time convincing the Ukrainians to back off a little and focus more on military targets.

That's a really facile statement. Look, I'm no Hilary fan but you have to admit that she's more than just some real estate loser wannabe (eg: Drump). This lady was Secretary of State under Obama and very nearly was the President of the USA (if there was a popular vote she would have been president).

That's a really good summary of the facts. Thank you so much

Well, this'll throw a spanner in the works. To be clear: it's the ulta-orthodox that have been responsible for the worst of the so called "settlers" (displacement of Palestinian people's from their homes) and are rabid supporters of the rightwing Government. They are always in favour of military intervention regardless of outcomes, probably because none of them have to serve in the military.

Ukraine has both tactical and strategic plans for striking Russian oil and gas facilities. Strategically it's important to hit these facilities as reducing output results in a long term slowdown in Russia's ability to wage war on its neighbours. Tactically it's a way of both boosting Ukrainian morale and also (most interestingly) forcing the US to help resupply Ukraine.

By reducing Russian production, Ukraine is pushing up oil and gas prices which affects the World and, more importantly, the US economy. Due to the US election cycle, inflation is a hot button topic in the US ATM and the Biden administration will do just about anything it can to reduce its impact on the upcoming Presidential election.

It's entirely valid to conclude that the Ukrainian's can bring pressure on the US to provide military aid by attaching Russian oil and gas assets.

Let me be clear: I'm on the side of the Ukrainians.

I'm not sure what the other commentors were hating on but I found this article to be a concise criticism of Drump's "debating" style contrasting with an appreciation of Biden's ability to actually debate. Drump wants to use these debates as an extension of his insane election rally's and I , for one, don't want anything to do with that.

Honestly, I can't see how SCOTUS could rule in his favour. The US constitution clearly states that there is a seperation between church and state. For SCOTUS to rule in his favour would require them overturning the constitution itself.

It wasn't really a failure of the intelligence community it was a failure of the Bush administration. Bush couldn't believe his "friends" in Saudi Arabia would do anything to harm his administration, after all his family had had a long and profitable association with them for years.

Plus, at the time the Bush administration was up to its neck in scandals (anyone remember the Enron Scandal?). Bush's popularity had cratered and it was looking increasingly like he would loose the midterms and Presidential elections.