I just can't think of a single advantage in rejecting the fruits of the most productive period in the history of scientific thought and empirical research in favor of recycling past ideas. Ideas, which themselves were, of course, to a great extent informed by observations and scientific ideas of their time and times past. — SophistiCat

Well, you seem not to hold philosophy in high regard compared to natural sciences. But just like "pure math" isn't at all dismissed by natural science, I think especially analytical philosophy and formal logic has it's place also.

And I'm surely not dismissing science or taking the view that science wouldn't matter. What I just oppose is the simple reductionism of the view that If physics at the nuclear level uses QM, the QM should be used as an overall philosophy, because... at the nuclear level physics uses QM. Hope you get my point.

The US needs not lose its “status”, nor must it remain absent from world affairs while retreating from the mess of its former interventionist policies, which arguably exacerbated the problems to begin with. Afghanistan and Iraq were deadly mistakes. And, as critics of Trump’s foreign policy often fail to mention, until Trump came along ISIS was marauding across the land with near impunity. No amount of hopey-changey rhetoric or Biden’s finger-wagging could stop any of that. — NOS4A2

You don't notice just how illogical you are.

Firstly, retreating from the mess Bush and the neocons made was the reason for Al Qaeda to morph into ISIS/ISIL (as the US military aligning with some Sunni insurgents was winning the war against Al Qaeda with the "Sunni Awakening" was a great success, no thanks to US politicians).

And FYI, Operation Inherent Resolve was started during the Obama years in June 2014 and Trump just inherited it in a situation where already ISIS had lost huge chunks of land and was being pushed back, hence to say the "until Trump came along" that nothing had been done is simply flatly false.



But the real illogical part is your idea that the US won't lose its "status" by withdrawal. What "status" you just have in mind? Sure, the US can withdraw from many parts of the World, but that simply means that it isn't then a Superpower. If you leave, well, you don't have a say. You aren't an ally to be trusted, hence countries will adapt to a new situation in a post-US environment. There has been enough of discussion of what would happen if the US would leave NATO to understand that simply then Europe would form a similar defense pact without the US.

If the US leaves Africa -> France and others (China etc.) reclaim it
If the US leaves the Middle East -> the power struggle is already quite visible there
If the US leaves Europe -> Likely an EU dominated pack with Britain will be tried to be formed, but Russia will get a huge influence over Eastern Europe (Finlandization of place like Poland?)
If the US leaves Far East Asia -> Countries there (Australia, Japan, etc) adapt to Chinese dominance
If the US leaves (alone) Central & South America -> don't be suprised of Latin America's new ties with China.

(Flags to the replace the Stars & Stripes)


We've all seen how this plays out with the example of the UK. If you read let's say pre WW2 literature, the British Empire seems as this huge power having tentacles all around the World. Then especially after Suez, it wasn't anymore the player in Middle East or anywhere. What it just tried to do is to push for weapon deals to wealthy Arab countries. And didn't have even the deterrence (as it didn't have any flat top aircraft carriers) to keep an Argentinian junta off from trying to take British soil.

I think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of "differences between group outcomes = discrimination." - I suppose the other problem is that "Wokeness" as an ideology has a bad habit of taking what it wants from positivist social sciences, and then flipping to critical theory whenever it suits an argument. The issue being is that people are going to get turned off from the arguments because it's essentially pseudoscience. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, John McWhorter describes this as a religion. It's not open for debate, but a belief system where everybody criticizing it obviously is a racist.

Well, what would we base it on then? We obviously cannot assume that the current state of science is the last word and the whole truth about nature. — SophistiCat

For starters, remembering just what you said there: the current state of science isn't the last word or the truth about nature. Hence don't make your philosophy totally dependent of the current science of the present.

Hence if you are making a philosophical argument, far better to base it on previous philosophical inquiry on the question at hand. If the advances in science make that past views antiquated, that is then a different thing. But usually it isn't so: much that the philosopher of the Enlightenment said is current even today, even if the natural sciences of that time have evolved.

There is a reason why so-called fundamental physics is often thought to have an intimate connection with basic metaphysical questions (cf. physicalism, metaphysical and ontological grounding...) For example, while it is not a given that the ontology of fundamental physics has some sort of metaphysical priority, it is a popular enough notion. — SophistiCat

I would ask why would it be so. Because philosophy has debated already for long the problems of physicalism and materialism. And the pseudo-scientific world view was about a "Clock-work universe" and then this changed to "Multiverse" with Butterfly-effects, it really isn't pure philosophy. For me it's the questions we ask that define our answers, not an interesting scientific theory that gets people to mold their world-views to fit that theory.

Still, if we view science as a branch or outgrowth of philosophy, then professional scientists, as a rule, have a much more narrow specialization than professional philosophers. — SophistiCat

Well, if philosophy means love of wisdom, the link to science should be obvious. Just as PhD is is short for Doctor of Philosophy. Yet the problem is that when philosophers have a broader view, that makes it far more difficult to understand things you are handling.

Conversely, when you look at the history of thought, most important new developments in the thinking about nature were driven by developments in science. — SophistiCat

Yet Is philosophy just thinking about nature? Natural sciences answer more directly to what nature is, yet any question of "what should be" and you need philosophy.

The thing is that being childish or naive is seen as something negative. Knowledge and understanding is also seen as the opposite to thinking of things being "divine". Basically adulthood is viewed as an opposite to childhood.

Yet of course it isn't so. Scratch a little bit the surface and put people into a specific situation, and you can get adult men to behave like boys or adult women to turn into girls.

Yes, when the US leaves some area the US leaves some area. That’s the entire point. — NOS4A2

And don't think it won't have consequences.

You see, if the US simply disregards it's leadership and "goes home", it will simply be regarded as a somewhat bigger Canada. Canada is a big industrialized economy also, you know. One of the G8 countries. Yet nobody cares or knows what the Canadian prime minister says, few know who he or she is, actually.

And that is the reality for the US if it retreats out from the international stage, something that Americans would actually hate. You simply would be as other countries looked at the US prior to WW1 (and perhaps prior to WW2). A rich country, but not the most important player in the global scene.

Trump and Trumpism is the best example just why it's a pure delusion that the US would be OK with the stance of being just a "bigger Canada". Trump's rhetoric, MAGA, his insistence to beef up the military, and his actions on the World stage do make it perfectly clear that the US isn't willing to lose it's status and role enjoys.

It is just a simple fact the when the US leaves some area, it creates a void. And those countries left in the void, will have to adjust to the new situation.

That isn't absurd at all, if you would think of it.

But apparently you don't think as it doesn't matter to you, which is quite clear.

Worst arguments are those when there are no arguments, when it's just strawman after strawman with some covert or overt ad hominems added there. Or that just to raise a topic instantly means that you are categorized to have be parroting some obnoxious view we find in public discourse, which offends people so much that they are not willing to even look what you say.

The worst arguments are those replies were the person doesn't even bother to read the whole argument he or she is commenting and openly admit this.

Obviously, Darwinism and Einstein's relativity have had a pronounced effect on philosophy (for better or for worse). — SophistiCat

Was it Kant earlier that went a bit astray when referring to Euclidian geometry and not knowing that later non-Euclidian geometry would be a hot topic in math? Philosophers can relate to science, but basing philosophy on science can be a tricky thing as our scientific understanding can change a lot. Still, why the connection?

The reason is very naive and simple:

People tend simply to think that physics, Quantum Mechanics, cosmology etc. are somehow close to the basic philosophical questions, hence we let physicists blabber about philosophical question, things that they actually have not studied or worked on. It's actually not their fault: it's the media who asks them. And they (the physicists) can see that people are interested in books about the great questions written by them, if they have been picked up by the media and are known to the public. No philosopher will have similar popularity describing his actual field of inquiry. Hence the result of these physicists pondering philosophical questions is typically quite poor: they give answers that actually some age of enlightenment philosopher basically said ages ago better with only being mixed with the field of study that the physics works on.

I think it all shows that philosophers are a bit lost and the post-modern bullshit won't help.

I fully suspect that NATO leaders have said that to Biden.

You see, nobody wants to fill in the place that the US left during the Trump years, as that would inevitable lead to a power struggle like what we can already see happening with the "allies" of the US in the Middle East.

There Turkey is flirting with Russia, Saudi-Arabia trying to take away the leadership position of the Arab states from Egypt and Israel doing extensive diplomacy with Russia understanding that now they have Putin as their neighbor. Saudi-Arabia among some states is hopelessly lost in a quagmire in Yemen and the GCC partners nearly went to war with one of their members. And all these allies being on separate sides in Libya. So that's great leadership!

Yes, the Middle East is a perfect example what happens what happens when alliances fall apart. In fact, there's a history of alliances that simply have become meaningless that the US first created. Presidents like Trump, who actually didn't know that the UK has a nuclear deterrent itself, will inevitably lead to thing collapsing.

Like CENTO or SEATO...


But that doesn't matter for you! You'll surely remind us again about the "peace process" of small GCC states (and Sudan) having diplomatic relations with Israel!!!

:smirk:

Hope that he's in better shape now.

Oh well, since in March 2021 you don't have Trump anymore as President, there's at least then "alt-right" Jordan for you to ridicule, dismiss and/or to get upset about.

. Perhaps Corona is the earth ridding itself of us, and if so, we have it coming, but likely not. I suspect more of a light thinning will be the end result. — Book273

Not happening even that light thinning. Even tripple the death toll and it wouldn't have any effect on the demographics.

I'd say the real changes on human population come from:

a) Prosperity and the pension system: people don't make babies in order for there to be someone to look after them when they get older.

b) Lifestyle changes and changes in the society: women don't have so many babies as before. A lot more single people and less children.

Final nail in the head for population growth will be when it's acceptable to live your life with a humanoid robot. Hedonistic individualism rules. Some corona killing a few million doesn't flinch the population stats. Those mentioned above do.

High conviction rates are secured by forcing pleas in the overwhelming majority of cases. This makes the system work much more efficiently and cheaply, but it also has created a system where heavy potential punishment is used to force pleas from innocent people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or take a bit pessimistic view, it's the only way the whole system could handle the vast number of cases. Otherwise it simply wouldn't work. You can argue that it is hence "more efficient and cheaper".

Sorry for my ignorant view on this.

When attending a Far East history course in the university, much importance wasn't given to Dutch repression of the Islands when talking about the independence of Indonesia. Usually it doesn't compare with wars like the French had in Vietnam or the British in Malaya. Seen more as a hopeless endeavor from the start, which didn't do much. More emphasis was given to the fact that Sukarno waited for the Japanese to bless their independence, but didn't get it as Japan surrendered and then quickly made the proclamation.

Anyway, I've come across many who think that the most respectful, "nicest" colonial power were the Dutch. Let's say compared to your neighbors (the Belgians in Congo and the Germans in Namibia). Perhaps your historical PR department has done an excellent job! And don't you have some nice islands still in the Caribbean, so doesn't that make you still a colonial power?

And then there's the Boers... — Benkei

Well, people who were themselves put into concentration camps hardly aren't the first choice for moral condemnation in my view.

Somehow I think that the US establishment doesn't want to put two Presidents, one Democrat and on Republican, under investigation in the Epstein case. Nope, in the US it's always either one or the other, not both.

Anyway, isn't the case of Stephen Ward in the Profumo quite similar to the Epstein case?

x% GDP on military spending doesn't translate too well to its effect on the long term differences in total GDP per capita between colonised and coloniser countries though does it? — fdrake

The colonized and the colonizer are quite different, typically. With exception of perhaps prior colonies like Canada, Australia or the US. I was thinking about the difference between First World countries that a) had colonies and those that didn't have them. And especially those that did fight against the freedom movements in their colonies (UK, France, Portugal) and those that didn't do much (perhaps the Netherlands). War is a costly endeavor, which is why now days European powers typically fight wars through NATO.

Typically defence expenditure over 5% means that a lot of wealth and prosperity is sacrificed to defence. 10% of GDP (and over) to defence means these times that basically the country typically is at war. And naturally if there is universal conscription with military service being over 2 years, that will have an effect on the economy also. If the society is totally put to serve the war, the percentage can go as high as 50%, which Great Britain put into the war effort in 1945. But that means severe rationing.

The wealthiest, highest functioning European states, the Nordics, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. had fairly limited or no colonial aspirations. Meanwhile, Russia exerted and still exerts control across a huge amount of natural resources in Central Asia, and later held sway over Eastern Europe, and remains a low functioning and poor state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Those that are the wealthiest now have had to focus on maintaining a competitive export oriented industry. They have to compete on the open global market, not to rest on their laurels and have income from raw materials from the colonies take care of the government finances.

Colonies seem at first to be an economic blessing, but are more of a curse in disguise. First of all, the raw materials give an easy income stream which doesn't go into investment into the colonies, but usually make few people rich. Also the populations of colonies have been a great market for the industry of the colonizer without outside competition. And third, the costs of hanging on to the colonies has been enormous. One regiment living in the barracks of the mainland isn't much, but have that regiment stationed on the other side of the World and costs are totally on another scale. Then fight an insurgency there and the costs are dramatic.

(The real cost of Empire. Notice how high the defence spending is and how large the military is prior to the 1960's.)

That swing isn't even possible in the US because they don't offer such a wide variety of political options. Let alone that they perceive the gap between Democrats and Republicans as huge when in fact it's a tiny crack in the political pavement. — Benkei

This is the structural problem in the US political system of having just two options. Yet the two-party system is quite aware of this huge problem.

In order for the two party system to survive, the parties themselves have to be malleable, they have to be loose in their ideology and open to change. Otherwise to system would simply collapse. They need to present the "primaries", which is for me quite hilarious, as this democratic opportunity to influence the outcome. Hence people even here can believe that Bernie Sanders and the social democrats, sorry, democratic socialists can take power in the DNC. And with the GOP, they have had already Trump taking power from the old leadership... at least for a while, so the Republicans likely have a firm belief in the system. Hence Americans believe, that democratic change can happen through the two-parties themselves.

This is in the heart of the staunch belief that Americans have in their system. Unfortunately a two-party system creates inherently a problem for representation and a situation for corruption to take root. Besides, political parties themselves are not democratic and totally open for changing their basic ideology.

For example, you have something like 13 parties in your Parliament and we have 9 political parties in our Parliament (and about 10 more registered political parties). Now imagine all those parties that have Parliament seats put into just two opposing parties. As political parties have one leadership, especially when ruling through an administration, it's obvious that a lot of views would simply be silenced and a lot of various agenda pushed now by the present political parties would simply not come out.

This is the reason just why the US is prone to have political turmoil if the economy hits bad times as many people simply don't have a party that is aligned to their political views. Without a root to voice your concerns the whole system can get shaky. The two-party system simply cannot represent all. Such hard times as now, this creates really a problem.

Americans can someday oust both parties. That can happen, even if it sounds crazy now.

the idea of an "Eisenhower from the right" being a contradiction in terms. — tim wood

Eisenhower was a Republican, so what is your contradiction?

What do you disagree with and why? — tim wood

American political parties are quite malleable as their basic objective is simply to stay in power. There can be a lot of turnarounds.

Besides, If the two parties have changed so much in the past, why assume them to be static in the future? Trump's effect on the GOP shows how they can change... or basically how lost they can be.

I believe there are a lot of good, decent, sensible Republicans - but they've all migrated to the Democrat Party as refugees. — tim wood

I'm not so sure that many just how static the whole political landscape is in the US.

As I've said, the Biden administration will have a very short honeymoon period. It doesn't seem that people are as hopeful as they were lets say the first time Obama got elected. The relief of the Trump era being over will quickly evaporate... I think in six months or so.

In a nutshell, the Donkey is about you, and your well-being, and the GOP is about itself and getting as much as it can no matter what it takes, or from whom or how. — tim wood

Why is it for Americans so difficult to understand that everybody doesn't think as they themselves do, even if you just had an election there where 79 million voted for Biden and 73 million voted for Trump?

This wasn't Franklin Delano Roosevelt winning Alf Landon, an electoral vote of 538 to 8 (and the popular vote being 60,8% to 36,5%), even if Joe Biden clearly did win.

An example of how far the Republican party has fallen, the national highway system was Eisenhower. No Republican today could even formulate the underlying concepts of such a thing. — tim wood

I disagee.

On the contrary, an Eisenhower like Republican could actually easily get a firm grip on the Republican party, if he gets a following like Trump. Just think about it for a second: If they become total jelly in front of the totally inept Trump and even now a vast majority don't dare to say the obvious, that how utterly crazy Trump's post-election tantrum is, it all just shows how much they bow down in front of popular support. Now an Eisenhower type leader from the right could easily get the working class to choose him and not a democrat career politician. You simply cannot deny the malleability of the GOP.

In fact it's the Democrats that can rule their party with a far more firmer grip. They control their extreme-lefties with giving some limelight to Bernie and AOC types to please the activist crowd, but firmly put these aside when the chips are down. If Trump could take over the Republican party, surely someone of Eisenhowers character could take it also. (Of course, to get an Eisenhower, perhaps the US has to have that war with China first.)

Eisenhower's TV Add from1956. Might be something Americans would still want to vote for.

Eisenhower won back then with 57% of the votes and 457 electoral votes only with the segregated South supporting the Democrats, btw.

Is Sweden any worse off than some of the notable European countries like Italy or France who did lock down? Sweden is 25th in European countries per million for cases, and 11th in deaths. Then again, Norway and Finland are much better. — Marchesk

No, yet as it is naturally compared to it's neighbors, Sweden looks worse. Perhaps if it was next to Belgium, things would look better. Here's the situation in Europe, and you can see how Sweden compares to Norway, Finland or Denmark:





Here even if the country is one of more brighter spots in Europe, we are implementing new restrictions as it's estimated a sharp rise in cases will happen as the second wave hits. The above graph explains well why Sweden is issuing restrictions.

The sheer incompetence of the Trump administration and campaign is staggering. — Michael

Look at this way: as Trump makes this a huge fiasco of whining and lost court cases, the less he will have influence later come 2022 and 2024.

There's only so many redneck Republicans. Just like not all Democrats were enthusiastic Bernie supporters.

Oh, I didn't know that, but having looked into it, I get it now. — Baden

It's actually a reason why investing into bond funds might create large losses.

I know everything about sovereign bonds. I issued them for 5 years at the Dutch State Treasury Agency. So fire away. — Benkei

Very interesting to know! It's actually a very interesting world for investing, and basically where a lot of the actual money lies around compared to the stock market. One medium-to-large size insurance company would influence the stock market if they would put all of their assets into the stock market.

(even if the numbers are old, the ratio is shown well:)


I have to then ask you this Benkei: Was one reason why some Euro zone countries could actually dig a hole for themselves was that prior to the first Greek crisis the markets assumed that there wasn't much risk in investing in Greek bonds than in German (or Dutch) ones when all were in the Euro-zone? And then "suddenly" the markets noticed that there's a big difference in buying Greek bonds compared to Dutch ones. Is my thinking correct?

I don't know shit about bonds and I have a share in some property and some cash. Does that work? — Baden

About bonds.

Remember that we are at historically low interest rates meaning that there's in the longer term no other way than up. Interest rate cycle is historically very long. Last peak happened in the early 80's when there were inflation fears in the US and from there the rates have gone down up until now. Many have anticipated that a turnaround might happen. Basically your bonds give you the interest they promise (if you hold them until they mature), yet the selling price of the bond goes up if interest rates go down and down if interest rates go up.



Real estate is rather good, if you think people want to live there also twenty or thirty years from now. At least here in Finland an old apartment in the center of the Capital has risen far more than inflation for, oh, I guess at least 120 years (Helsinki city center hasn't become a slum). So it has been a "no-brainer". However if you have real estate in a dying urban area, you might lose your investment or take a heavy loss. And if you have good tenants, they will likely pay more in rent that with these interest rates you pay interest to the bank for a loan. Yet I think people tell far too many horror stories of tenants turning up to be drug addicts and tearing down your apartment.

And it seems that if/when there is a real estate bubble that bursts, it's likely that the price level comes back at least in one decade (and of course, you still get the rent). Usually. Of course it can take longer, just like in Japan:

Well, I'd still diversify. — Benkei

That is a smart move. In fact, if you do even a small investment, that gives you incentive to follow what is happening in the markets.

The other is that if you were a long term holder pre 2017 and held on, then the brutal crash following the bubble, in the long run, didn't sink your investment. — csalisbury

Do note the lower part of the graph showing the volume of trades. Now the transactions are over the 30bn range, however before 2018 the transactions don't even show in the graph. This tells it was then peanuts compared to now and then simply a small group people used / saved bitcoins.

The only good rationale for investing in bitcoin is learning and appreciating the value of the technology - trying to buy on the dips and sell on the peaks to get-rich-overnight might work occasionally, but is more likely to fuck you up. — csalisbury

And hasn't the internet and tech stocks also been profitable? Yes and no. Yes if you have picked the few winners, yet many mutual funds investing in tech stocks got a real beating first at the turn of the Milennium and then during the financial crisis. Knowing to pick netflix and not pets.com is trickier than it looks at hindsight.

Anyway, this is a very treacherous time to invest in general. An investment advisor said to me that he wouldn't be surprised if he would see a 50% drop in the stock market. We have the lowest interest rates ever in recorded history, central banks printing money in the trillions and stock market that is basically in the same level as pre-corona times acting as nothing has happened.

And then you have gold very high also. Which isn't actually good sign for the economy.

the US almost had the Taliban/Al Qaeda beat in Afghanistan. — The Opposite

Think so?



If last May the Taliban controlled 75 districts and the Taleban had roughly about 60,000 full-time Taliban militants and some 90,000 seasonal fighters, it means that it's quite alive and kicking. 60 000 insurgents means that the counter-insurgency war is anything but won. The Afghan security forces lose nearly 1000 troops a month (see here).

Knowing something about history, the US was never near beating the Taleban. Besides, the Taleban could always withdraw to Pakistan and then come back. Hence the Doha agreement was in truth realism from the Trump administration.

The few things Trump got right.

(The US making an agreement with the Taleban in Doha. Not something the Trump supporters eagerly display like the Israeli - Gulf State relationship normalizations.)

Ah, Nice! Thanks Baden.

Tell you, this thread is an indicator! Notice that the 2019 upturn didn't yet get people to write on this thread. But now..

If the US disappeared today, the reality is that China and Russia will terrorize the world into submission whilst Europe cowers in a corner. The US is a necessary nuisance and for this reason its imperialism should be maintained, but not accelerated. — The Opposite

Likely not.

There just is going to be many regional power plays as basically old allies (and rivals) of the US would start shuffling their cards to the new reality. Simply the large vacuum left from retreating Uncle Sam just by momentum has to be filled.

Just like, uh, already is happening in the Middle East. Because let's face it, the last US President that had control of the Middle East was the older George Bush. Getting countries like Syria to be on the side of the US alliance (when Syria had shot down US Navy jets just some years earlier) is a feat a genuine Superpower can pull off. From there it has been downhill. So don't be too melodramatic about it.

Bye bye!

OK,

This thread is back! Again people who basically are into Philosophy have become interested in talking about Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies. Last discussions were 2-3 years ago. Interesting actually, that this is the only investment that has been talked about here.

This thread is the perfect "canary in the coal mine" indicator: Just look at when people have written on this thread and what where the bitcoin price has been then.

(bit old graph, now I guess over 17 000 USD so back again where it was years ago..when this thread was active)



Hence best time to buy bitcoin when at least for a year nobody has written on this thread. :razz:

(although I'm pretty sure they didn't bomb many farmers). — jamalrob

At the end of the war USAAF was running out of targets, so they were also targeting individual houses. And I remember Chuck Yeager in his memoirs telling that they got orders designating a small patch of land in Germany to each fighter, where they should attack everything that moved. At least in his memoirs Yeager told that they thought the order to be so bonkers, that they just flew around and left the rare civilian driving his bicycle alone.

Also, I'm just curious: was Stalin a hero as well?

My own position on this question is about the same for Stalin as for Churchill: the cause of fighting the Nazis was a good one, and we can be thankful that they were victorious, and they certainly had personal qualities that helped the Allies win, but to call them heroes doesn't seem right to me. Most Russians are proud of their victory against the Nazis, but they're mostly not very enamoured of Stalin himself. — jamalrob

My view and the view in my country would be a bit different, of course.

If it wouldn't have been for Stalin, would a hopeless experiment like the Soviet Union persisted? No, and there are a multitude of similar examples that Marxism-Leninism needs strong dictators to survive.

Yet Russians love their country regardless of the moral righteousness that we at the present judge now the past. It's actually the Americans who see things from a viewpoint of moral rectitude, or at least want to. At least the British have (or had) this collective experience of actual war with German air raids. For the Russians the war is even more present. The modern Russian will admit Stalin was a dictator and the gulags existed, but that wouldn't tarnish their view of the Great Patriotic war. He and she does know that the system sucked, but still has a lot of pride in Juri Gagarin being the first man in space.

There actually is no problem in this view.

Perhaps it's fitting, for those Americans who think their own armed forces is their biggest fear will never change their view as the thinking is more of a religious idea: that the American state itself being the enemy. No logical conclusion done by looking at the facts will change that.

Very well said.

How much people here love Bernie, it would have gone down just like the UK elections if he would have been in Biden's place.

If someone still thinks that Trump would do a coup and as the commander in chief and would get the military to do anything, here's the final nail on those kind of fears.

Past veterans day, few days ago, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff general Milley went on a public speech quite openly to remind where the allegiance of the military lies on. Likely he wouldn't have given this kind of speech without the present political situation, but now it perhaps was needed to be clear about this issue.

But, for investors not looking at stock price, but say real estate properties, the criteria are different. — Caldwell

Real estate price are the classic way to speculate: if economic activity is going to increase somewhere, it will likely be seen in real estate prices.

After checking your statement that “not ONE of those Gulf States have ever deployed a single soldier to fight Israel. Ever”, I found that to be false. Sudan sent a few thousand soldiers during the Yom Kippur war in the 70’s. — NOS4A2

Learn geography, NOS4A2

Sudan isn't a Gulf State. It's in Africa, not in the Arabian Peninsula.

I think the conduct and successes or failures of the Biden administration will effect this, so a bit too early to say.

I was referring to your first statement that "Soviet Russia never had any direct battles with the US in the Cold War". And this was false.

To your second statement, if two nations are on opposing sides of some conflict, but not in open battle, then the seriousness of this comes from the possibility of an armed conflict. Cold War was serious.

First, no Gulf State will out of the blue start hostilities with Israel or vice versa. Only Israel has nuclear weapons and the capability to strike these countries with impunity. It would be different if the GCC members would have their own nuclear deterrent capable to strike Israel. They haven't and their threat scenarios aren't about Israel, but about Iran and possibly Iraq. And heck, for some countries their possible enemy is Saudi-Arabia or other GCC members!

This really is a similar "breakthrough" if Morocco and Israel would normalize their relations in a similar fashion. Absolutely "breathtaking achievement" that would be for the MIddle East. And Moroccan troops have actually fought the Israelis, btw. :roll:

Soviet Russia never had any direct battles with the US in the Cold War, therefor the end of those tensions wasn’t much of a breakthrough, because it wasn’t a “meaningful” conflict. — NOS4A2

Sorry, but that's not true.

There were many Soviet aces in the Korean War and Stalin decided that the Soviet Air Force would rotate fighter regiments to fight in the war. Hence US and Russian Air Force fought over the "Mig Alley" of North Korea. Natural was to hide this fact, as people would have become even more worried if both sides would have admitted that they are fighting each other. And it isn't the only example of this during the Cold War.

Soviet fighter aces of the Korean War. The success in the Korean War (which continued even in the Vietnam war) lulled the Soviet Air Force to trust that the American air force didn't have any edge over them.


And you cannot relate these tiny Gulf states that have no weapons of mass destruction as a serious competitor to a regional power like Israel. Or are you really comparing these tiny states or dirt poor Sudan to Soviet Union???

But “normalization” and the brokering of diplomatic relations between Israel and some Arab states is a huge accomplishment. — NOS4A2

Actually, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel have already found each other as both fear Iran. Saudi-Arabia here is important as the largest GCC member, which also creates the opportunity for smaller states simply to start normalizing their relations.

As I have repeated again and again, not ONE of those Gulf States have ever deployed a single soldier to fight Israel. Ever. The Saudis haven't done that since the Israeli war of Independence. It's a positive move, yes, but it really isn't as a breakthrough as you think, especially after Egypt and Jordan have already normalized their relations with Israel. Still, it's a positive thing.

Yet tone down those superlatives, NOS4A2.