I want to commend you for some sort of prize. I can't upvote twice but I would if I could. Nice!
p.s
I'm going to take a risk and say the comparison to fawns implies not very big breast but well defined and not very much parted.
I want to commend you for some sort of prize. I can't upvote twice but I would if I could. Nice!
p.s
I'm going to take a risk and say the comparison to fawns implies not very big breast but well defined and not very much parted.
Not really.
In my country, military personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution and to the flag.
Back 2012 or something, we had a very unpopular government (we were under IMF management) that rolled over with every single demand the IMF put on the table and then some. The government attempted time after time to pass laws that were blatantly against our constitution and, at some point, in very veilled way, threatned to order the military to supress civil demonstration (mostly peaceful).
The military openly warned against such ideas and remembered the government the military exist to defend the country, its constitution, rule of law and its people, not the political class.
There was a not so small risk of a repeated coup.
So, all of this to say: armed forces serve the country, not politics.
Any more of this and we all should be considering passing into law arsher anti social statutes, from any political quadrant or entity.
Okay...
I'm aware I'm going way out on thin ice with this but I have to ask:
Isn't there a joint military chief staff that actually advises and vetoes military operations on that country?
if my numbers don't fail me:
That is at least 5 potential theaters of war, some of which are not exactly helpless punching bags, with the potential to drain millions of lives.
Isn't there a military cabinet to say: $no, those are allies and we will not engage in warfare with allied nations"?
In extreme scenarios, military forces are expected to houst unfit heads of state. Don't the US armed forces have the balls for it?
I'm looking for the rats!
If I lived close to this person, I'd offer to go to their house and redo those doors and walls. Nasty looking.
Too much information.
Truly pressing matter. The world will collapse if no agreement reached.
No oil there, you twit.
That is a hope gun.
You hope it will fire.
You hope it will hit something.
You hope it will cycle again.
And you hope its sole victim isn't you upon pressing the trigger.
To paraphrase an answer I once read: yes, we tend to introduce warnings against bad behaviours we detect and deprecate obsolete information.
In this case: I don't need to tinker a valve in an engine nowadays. The fuel injection is done through an incredibly precise system, controlled by a computer. Even mechanics require specialized tools and equipments to fiddle with that part of an engine.
Car batteries have been built more and more to be maintenance-less; you buy it, run, when it dies you replace it and that is it. Battery acid is a thing and it is dangerous, hence the attempt to divert people from messing with it.
But because less and less people are prone to go into mechanics, the need to advise against tinkering with your battery really needs to be reinforced.
Warning labels are often first written in blood before taking form of paper and ink.
you picked a very lenient verb to designate whatever actions you're going to inflict on the monsters