Dowry is payment from the bride family to the groom.

Dower is the reverse one.

Dowry is bride family payment to groom.

This is the reverse, which is called "dower", "bride dowry" or "bride price".

Except both are correct term though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dower

And without the quote it gets even more ambiguous

Bride price is up

vs

"Bride price" is up.

And dower has a different meaning for Western world, which is functionally an optional contract that's essentially a divorce settlement.

I mean if you put "dower" there it gets even more ambiguous and arguably "nefarious", because it appears you're hiding what you're doing behind an arbitrary term.

Most people don't know what dower is. "Bride price" is an accurate enough description, it's a payment for a bride, and you can at least get that concept across first before talking about the historical background.

Also it turns out that's the right term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dower

"Dower" is specifically a Muslim tradition if it involves groom paying bride.

Oh, ok.

For a brief moment I thought it said "dong" and wonder what exactly does an AK-47 shaped dildo looks like.

It's a sort of proxy to quality of life.

While a good economy doesn't necessarily mean high quality of life, it's sort of a pre-requisite.

It's "dowry"

Isn't dowry essentially "bride price"? It's a price you pay for a bride?

The issue is that dowry is so rare in western countries people likely don't know what it is anymore.

Closer to home means less stress of travel and more familiar faces.

Or the venerable Mosquito.

Airframe is almost all wood and cloth.

>Wars don’t end by one party saying they are wrong and turning back. The only way for it to end is through negotiated settlement.

Negotiation is ongoing. That's what wars are, negotiation. It's up to Ukraine and Russia to decide when the cost is too high, and there's absolutely nothing wrong for Ukrainian allies to make sure that cost is tilted as heavily against Russia as possible.

Russia already committed genocide against Ukraine once (Holodomor). Russia (at least Putin) already announced the intention to erase Ukrainian identity (also a genocide). So let me ask you this, how high a price would you pay to not get killed or enslaved? Or would you want someone on your side to make sure the cost to enslave you is high enough for those wishing to enslave you that they go home?

That's ultimately what this war is about, Ukrainian wishing not to be enslaved, and their allies supporting that wish. And every negotiated settlement will have to include Russia no longer have a chance to enslave Ukrainians.

You're certainly not offering any alternatives.

So we should award an imperial nation for their invasion?

Kind of is.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule-deorbiting-satellites

Well, there's a clear end.

Russia returns everything they've taken to Ukraine.

There, war ends.

The Russian might of sending their ethnic minority to die for them.

Much strength, very macho.

Simple numbers game.

There are way more Bradley's than any other MBTs.

They were living fine without war for quite a while, until Russia got fucking involved.

Or they switch to bartering.

Basically international trade is more or less fucked, but internally potentially tolerable.

They paid for their own satellite that took the image?

And it holds true historically.

Hell, survey post-WW2 showed that Japanese civilians didn't want to surrender despite having 2 fucking nukes dropped on them.

Not really.

Nazi V-2 bombardment of England didn't lead to capitulation.

Neither did the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

Neither did the two nuclear bombs dropped lead to civilians giving up (post war survey showed that the civilian population wanted to keep defending), it was the military after that and the threat of Soviet Union invading.

Targeting civilian targets rarely worked, because they know instinctually that if the enemy does that in war they will do worse afterward.

The best way to win war? Don't target civilians. Target military only, and force said military to be the "bad guy" trying to extract resources from civilian sectors. Vietnam War inadvertently showed that against the US. From the US perspective, Vietcong only targeted soldiers (even if for no other reason than that they have no means to target the US), and US civilians forced the military to give up despite the US military winning the war on the ground.

Assuming your country survives the generation and didn't break apart like the Soviet Union.

Another crazy part is that a vast majority of that "crazy amount of money" doesn't cost the US in the traditional sense.

Think of donating old clothes to Goodwill, that's essentially what a lot of US donations are, stuff we don't actually need and would've pay to dismantle/dispose of in some way anyway a few years down the line.

And a lot of newer stuff is in manufacturing sector that the US would've paid for anyway for other purposes to keep them operating. We paid for Abrams tanks that the Army specifically said they don't need more of just to keep the production lines running. So a lot of stuff we gave to Ukraine could be chalk up to "stuff we would've paid for anyway for other reasons". Russia's invasion just gives the US a better reason than "we need to keep MIC operating".