This is the way to deal with billionaires!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-court-reportedly-fines-google-160502356.html

Interesting book

https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Purpose-Lifes-Evolution-through-ebook/dp/B0DGC41T7H/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&sr=1-1

Some Definitions

Some Definitions Scientist: A scientist is someone who pretends that they have developed ideas and concepts of great intellectual, cultural, and practical significance, that will dramatically improve the way we live, and will change everything in a very positive way and will solve all the world’s problems. In fact, scientists never do anything at all, other than say how great they are. Engineer: An engineer is someone who claims they have developed, and are developing technologies of immense value to humanity, that will achieve great things, solve the world’s problems, and make the world a much better and more interesting place to live in, and will vastly increase humanity’s potential, and will empower everyone enormously. In fact, all engineers ever do is blow things up, and say what a great job they did. Doctor: A doctor is someone who claims to be great healer, who saves peoples’ lives, who cures them of terrible diseases and makes them whole again, someone who eases pain and suffering, and is an angel of mercy to all mankind. In fact, doctors just charge people a ton of money to kill them slowly and painfully.

Is it possible to fight a war and not be a war criminal? How about Erwin Rommel?

Erwin Rommel, The Desert Fox, is a popular and enigmatic figure in military history. Having been forced to commit suicide by the Nazis -- he was given the alternative of suicide, or a public trial for treason, with the consequent destitution of his entire family -- has become something of a martyr and legend for people on all sides of WWII. He almost certainly knew about, and approved the Von Stauffenberg bombing plot to kill Hitler, in 1944, but, he wasn't involved in the planning to any extent. This was enough for Hitler to want him dead, so, the Nazis arranged it. Rommel was somewhat unique, in that he was respected by all sides, even at the height of the conflict, as an honorable and brilliant commander and general. He had no significant involvement in slave labor programs, extermination campaigns, the murder of civilians, or any other activities normally associated with war crimes. He was a brilliant and successful Nazi general, who was frequently used by Hitler for popular political purposes and propaganda, because of his effectiveness, his charisma, and his courage. So, let's just suppose that Rommel survived the war. Perhaps Hitler decides he needs Rommel too much to kill him. After all, Albert Speer is supposed to have known about the plot, and the plotters were even planning on keeping him in his position of Minister of Armaments and Munitions, if their plot had succeeded! Nevertheless, Hitler never touched Speer. He probably found him too useful. Perhaps, he might have changed his mind, and decided to spare Rommel as well, for the same reason. Or, quite possibly, if Rommel had refused the option of suicide, Hitler might have decided a public trial and humiliation of such a popular figure simply wasn't worth the political fallout, and might have backed off, at the end. Hitler was always very, very sensitive to German popular opinion, which is why he had such a hold over the German people. So, once they win the war, what exactly do the allies decide to do with Rommel? Will he be charged as a war criminal? On what basis, exactly? After all, Werner Von Braun and his merry band of engineer-rocketeers was certainly involved much more in killing civilians, slave labor programs, and war crimes in general, but, they were never touched at all! Von Braun wasn't merely a member of the Nazi Party, but a member of the infamous SS, responsible for the Jewish Holocaust. Why go after poor old Erwin Rommel? Rommel was never even a member of the Nazi Party, and openly disapproved of their policies! It might be instructive to compare the case of Admiral Donitz, the head of the German navy, and, hence of their highly successful U-boat campaign. Donitz would have employed slave labor in building his ships, and, his U-boats targeted civilian and military alike. Furthermore, his U-boat blockade of Britain was highly successful, and put the entire nation at risk of starvation. Yet, despite all this, he only got a ten year sentence at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. So, why would Rommel have been charged as a war criminal, at all? For what purpose? The Soviet Union, and Josef Stalin, who had suffered the most from the war, probably wouldn't have given a damn about Rommel one way or another. They never even fought him, he wasn't a Nazi, he was just a terrific general, and the Russians respect great generals, even amongst their enemies. I suspect even the Russians wouldn't have insisted on Rommel being charged for war crimes. So, I strongly suspect Rommel wouldn't have been charged with anything at all. He would simply have been an old, highly respected general, respected by friend and foe alike, and, would likely have gone into German politics, with some success. As his son eventually did, of course, OTL. Erwin Rommel represents something fairly unique, the "good general", the noble warrior. He reminds me a bit of WWI German air ace Baron Von Richthofen, who was shot down over enemy lines after having shot down 80 allied airmen in the course of the war. The allies buried him with high honors, and some even cried at his funeral!

Charles Hughes U.S. Chief Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Hughes https://www.nationalbook.org/books/charles-evans-hughes/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlo_J._Pusey

How much longer can Ukraine hold out? The British say, "Not much longer".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fkK42nJjtQ Russia is advancing on all fronts, and pummeling Ukrainian infrastructure with a ferocity which will make it virtually impossible for Ukrainians to survive the coming long, hard winter. Russians, of course, love winter offensives, so, the rate of advance is only likely to increase in the coming winter. By this stage, of course, NATO has essentially given up on the notion that Ukraine can mount effective counteroffensives, as Russia quite systematically liquidates all Ukrainians in their supposed "invasion" of Russia in Kursk. There was never any rush about this, of course, it was always quite clear the Ukrainians there weren't going anywhere, except to the graveyard, of course. By this time, the only hope of a NATO/Ukrainian victory has been based on the "overwhelming" Russian casualties reported by Ukraine, which, supposedly, would make Russia quite literally run out of manpower within a year or two. That these casualty figures have been exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude is rarely discussed in the Western media. I'm old enough to remember the "body counts" from the Vietnam War, and, we all knew how much those were worth! Another possibility suggested is that the Russian economy is about to collapse. The problem here, is that the Russian economy is now growing faster than any other in the industrialized world. A third possibility for "victory" for NATO/Ukraine, is that democratically elected Vladimir Putin is actually a brutal dictator, so extremely unpopular in Russia that he will be overwhelmed by a popular revolt. However, the problem with this hypothesis is that Putin was just elected with 80% popular support, about double the best any NATO leader has currently, and his support is quite steady among Russians, despite some rather limited opposition to his highly effective rule. Finally, there's always the hope of a military coup against Putin. However, given the successes of his military on the battlefield, and the general prosperity of Russia currently, and Putin's high level of popularity, this possibility does seem rather more remote than coups in the NATO nations, doesn't it? So, is this NATO backed war in Ukraine about to mercifully end itself? The British seem to think so, and nobody hates the Russians like the British, do they?

Russia is continuing its steady progress to taking over all of Donbas

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/9/russian-troops-grind-towards-pokrovsk-take-second-ukrainian-town-in-a-week While the Western media continues to generate its fantasy Russian casualty figures a la Vietnam era body-counts, Russia continues to take towns and territory on its way to conquering all of Donbas, its key objective when it invaded Ukraine. At the moment, it is systematically surrounding the large city of Pokrovsk, pre-war population 400,000, from all sides, by taking all the towns intervening, from the East. It's taken a couple just this week, with substantial territory, moving forwards every single day. Now, the West seems to accept that Ukraine can't actually take any of this territory back, it's too well fortified, and the Ukrainians simply haven't the manpower to do it, their military has been totally decimated. So, rather than talking about Ukrainian "counter-attacks" to retake territory, now the Western media is simply sticking to its script of claiming "overwhelming" casualties on the part of the Russians. Now, even the BBC has acknowledged, that its best efforts at research can only actually verify about 70,000 Russian dead in the entire war, about a tenth of the regular claims for Russian "losses". They comfort themselves by saying the "actual figure" is "believed to be higher". Well, maybe, but, probably not much higher. Now, that's just dead, of course, and, there are wounded as well, but, in most wars, the maimed and the dead turn up at about equal numbers, so, that really only means about 140,000 permanently out of action, or, about 1/10 of 1% of Russia's total population in three years of war, hardly an insurmountable figure from a practical point of view. When the Russians do take Pokrovsk -- which even the Ukrainians are acknowledging is inevitable by this stage -- that's pretty much it, for Donbas, Russia will effectively control it 100%. So, what happens then? True, the Russians have only taken about 20% of Ukraine so far, but, it's probably the best 20% of Ukraine! When they've finished taking Donbas, probably within a few months now, I suppose they could just keep going -- take Kharkiv, take Odessa, retake Kherson, eventually move on to Kiev. At what point will the West give up? Ever? Will the West want to keep fighting the Russians for decades, as they systematically colonize the rest of Ukraine? I doubt it actually. The war may be over next year, as Zelensky's support collapses. One can only hope so!

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-physicists-lie-all-the-time

Russia has remarkably quickly taken full control of the high ground, and the very important strategic fortress town of Vuhledar

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-secures-biggest-victory-since-164038972.html This is being described as the most important victory for Russia in six months of warfare. Although not a huge city, this town of some 15 thousand people was very heavily fortified, and is situated to control supply lines to much of what remains of Donbas, out of Russian control. Russia now controls more than 80% of Donbas, and, the way things are going, there doesn't seem to be much question that they will control all of it, by the end of the winter, if not earlier. Now, I know what many of you are thinking. "It was supposed to just be a 3-day operation, here it is, coming up on three years later, and they're still fighting. Doesn't this prove just how incompetent the Russians are, they can't even defeat the Ukrainians." Well, first of all, it's not just the Ukrainians. It's the Ukrainians plus limitless NATO assistance. The total amount of aid -- economic and military -- given to Ukraine so far from all NATO nations, is comparable to perhaps half the entire U.S. military budget, by far the largest in the world. Absent this aid, the war would certainly have been over, with a smashing Russian victory, within a month or two. Also, Ukraine is, actually, the second largest nation in Europe in terms of land area, after Russia, with a pre-war population of nearly 50 million people. So, between the massive NATO aid, and the size of the country, it's hardly surprising that Russia is having to work at this a bit. Now, many are claiming that Russia has proven that NATO is vastly superior to Russia in terms of military skill. After all, America defeated Iraq quite easily. Twice! Well, let's take a look at that. First of all, the population of Iraq in 1991 was 20 million people, in 2003, it was 27 million people. About half the population of Ukraine. And, about half the land area. Also, and perhaps more critically, Iraq was not getting 400 billion dollars in outside assistance, they were managing on their own. Finally, and perhaps most critically, America went in very big, from the start, they had nearly a million men in the initial assaults. In contrast, the Russians went in with just a couple of hundred thousand troops. They weren't expecting massive NATO assistance, and, that was the difference. If the Russians had went in with a million men, from the start, it would all have been over in days, probably, certainly weeks. What Russia is doing now, is colonizing Ukraine, one town at a time, and, it looks like Russia has achieved its primary objective, the reassimilation of Donbas into Russia. And, whoever wins the U.S. election, there's nothing whatsoever that can possibly be done to reverse that!