“If NATO was created to guarantee peace and mutual defense, it must either become an organization that takes on this task by engaging with the Global South — and thus become something profoundly different — or we will not achieve the goal of having security within rules that apply to everyone,” he said.

It was created to guarantee peace and mutual defense in Europe. Why would NATO have to "engage with the Global South" (whatever the fuck that means in this context) to do that?

The hell did you want me to call it then? "Military service" is a completely common expression to use, and it applies whether we like what they're doing or not.

And before you get any bright ideas: no, I'm not American and no, I don't support what their military does. This kind of completely pointless semantic wankery just really activates my almonds

Both world wars look like "clear lines" to you after the fact. Of course you can just point at, say, Ferdinand getting assassinated and go "yeah that's what started WW I" but do you think anyone at that time thought "yup that's going to start the mother of all wars"?

As others have pointed out they absolutely didn't look like clear lines when they were kicking off.

But don't expect any medical treatment after your service if you're a Democrat or unmarried: ‘Extremely disturbing and unethical’: new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans

if there’s an accident, the parents will be fined and the scooter confiscated.

Yeah, but that's post hoc enforcement

Finland; our police force is already really overextended and generally doesn't give a shit about small stuff like this.

Good luck enforcing that shit