I’m not American, but nice ableism mate!

I love that you followed this comment complaining about harassment witth a comment telling someone else that you came from their mothers smelly fat vagina. Ah, to be 14 again.

I’m convinced a lot of you fuckers are zionists who want trump in the WH so that Israel gets a blank cheque.

And what is Israel?

A true Zionist would want the result that gives Israel the most freedom to act as it wishes. Given that a trump victory would enable this, I can only assume that you yourself are a zionist.

Yeah I think that’s why Iran attacked the US base (might have been multiple, I can’t really remember) iirc.

I think a big part of why the US didn’t respond is that a) they took out Soleimani first and b) an Iranian air defence battery, on high alert expecting US retaliation, immediatley shot down a passenger jet.

The airliner being downed really took the sting out of it, kind of like someone swinging at you, barely connecting, and then immediately punching themselves in the dick.

It’s more likely that they are being sent because they are trained to operate THAAD and sending them is more efficient than training IDF troops to operate it.

Iran launched missiles at US bases in Iraq a few years ago with very little in the way of retaliation.

Operating the anti ballistic missile aystem that’s being sent.

Removed by mod

Person who posts something on the internet: “omg why would you comment”

Sorry for your loss mate.

And asking two people was easier than using a search engine?

They never implied you were white, they implied you were racist.

That you think there would be outrage highlights your lack of understanding.

International waters are just so. It’s only a problem when a country decides to try and restrict access to international waters, and one way to show that this decision is not accepted is to sail warships through it.

That would be stupid I agree, but also not how it works in the UK or California either - according to CAs labour law website, the law there regarding holiday/vacation accrual is no different than the UK:

“California law does not permit “use it or lose it” vacation policies. Vacation accruals may be capped, but may not be forfeited. Therefore, unused, accrued vacation must be paid out at the end of employment”

Since you didn’t answer my last question I looked it up, California has no legal minimum number of vacation days? That’s grim as fuck and completely shoots down your “California labour laws are better than UK” where the legal minimum number of vacation days is 28 per year.

I say minimum because almost no employer here offers the minimum (who would want to work for someone offering 4 weeks of holiday when other employers offer 5 or 6? Shit man last year I ended up with slightly more than 7 weeks off.

Since I was looking into it, I noticed a number of ways that California labour laws are inferior to the ones I enjoy:

• theres no minimim number of hours before I am legally entitled to overtime, anything over my contracted 35 hours is paid as overtime (and any overtime is completely voluntary)
• 28 weeks of paid sick leave
• no “at will” employment, I cannot be terminated for no reason

I’m sure there are more but I’ve seen enough now to convince me that the labour laws in CA are hugely inferior to those in the UK.

I think that may be a company policy rather than a legal policy. I work for a scottish company in scotland where I am a union rep. My holiday year follows the financial year (april 1 - march 31st) and secondly I do not lose holiday hours that I don’t take - that would be wage theft. In theory I can rollover holidays indefinitely but if I worked for a company that did not allow this, the company in question would effectively have to buy any unspent holiday hours from me. There is no use it or lose it, theres use it for time off or be paid for it.

Out of curioisity how many holiday days do you get per year?

Whats shitty about UK labour laws vs californian?

You ok dude? Kinda seems like you’re just screaming into the wind here.

Can you point out the part of the geneva conventions that make using incendiary weapons against military targets in non civilian areas a war crime?

Use of incendiary weapons against military targets is not a war crime unless in an area where civilians are present.