In the (Dis)information war is on...as usual. But on full steam now.

Victim: Kuna (through Reuters page)

DUBAI (Reuters) - Kuwait’s defense minister said it has received a letter from the Commander in Chief of a U.S. military camp in Kuwait “declaring imminent withdrawal of all U.S. military forces in three days,” state news agency KUNA said on Wednesday.

“Receiving such [a] letter from Camp Arifjan was unexpected and we are communicating with U.S. Department of Defense for more details and information,” KUNA reported the minister as saying.

Yet Star & Stripes (via AP) reports:

TEHRAN, Iran — Kuwait says its state-run KUNA news agency’s Twitter account was hacked and posted false story on US troops withdrawing from the nation.Kuwait made the announcement Wednesday after the fake alert went out on its account, drawing widespread attention.

Interesting to see how the news media handle obvious fake news on real time.

Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

When it comes to Christians, it's because of the Bible.

Matthew 27:24-25

So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood;[a] see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

It's one the most obnoxious and absolutely disgusting things in the Holy Bible. Not only a totally absurd statement that crowd would ever give, but also the white-washing of the "real killers" of Jesus, the Romans, is really simply politics. At least in merit of the Bible, there are other versions of the life of Jesus, and nobody else recollects such absurd things to have happened I think. But Christians do stick to Matthew on this.

I guess it wouldn't have been a great way to try to spread Christianity in a ROMAN empire by stating that "Oh btw you killed our Messiah, so you what you have done is Deicide. But feel free to join us. ".

With the Muslims,

Mohammed turned first to the Jews, because obviously he did have the same God in mind (that's why Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called Abrahamic Religions). They weren't interested. So that among other things, it didn't turn well either.

It’s happening. — NOS4A2

Congratulations! You got yourself the First Trump war.

Or not.

If Trump starts a war and attacks those 52 targets he promised to attack, you'll be for it.

If Trump doesn't start a war (has this huge weak-dick moment) you'll be for it.

Remember this Trump from 2011? Boy, does he accurately predict his own policies (and shows his stupidity).

Now that Iran has casually shot missiles at American bases in Iraq, and with Iraq already demanding that these bases be gone, I wonder what the next improvised response is supposed to be? The assassination of another Soleimani? — alcontali

Well, we have the promise from Trump to attack 52 targets, and luckily a flip-flop from him on the cultural targets, so I guess Persepolis will be intact (if ruins can be intact) after this war. It's a tit for tat, which others than the neocons, Israel and the Saudis aren't so excited about:

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted that Iran was finished fighting and was not actively pursuing any kind of escalation to the conflict.

"Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched," Zarif tweeted. "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

At least now it's obvious. Iran took the responsibility, Iraq and the US both noticed that the ballistic missiles came from Iran. So let's see what Trump does. And he is so insecure and inept we cannot know where he will take it. You see, it's all about his popularity, his base, the US elections, nothing else for him. And if there are even a few cracks in his base, it will show. That Tucker Carlson says what says below (qoute), really shouldn't matter at all, but in the case of Trump, it does:

“It’s hard to remember now, but as recently as last week, most people didn’t consider Iran an imminent threat,” Mr. Carlson said at the start of his Monday show, going on to mock Mr. Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, for saying intelligence agencies had identified an undefined Iranian threat.

“Seems like about 20 minutes ago, we were denouncing these people as the ‘deep state’ and pledging never to trust them again without verification,” Mr. Carlson told viewers, eyebrow arched. “Now, for some reason, we do trust them — implicitly and completely.”

Iraq is now militia-land, just like Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia. — alcontali

Yes. It already was in a deep political turmoil and now likely will be a renewed battlefield with such confusion that nobody can figure it out. Which I guess is the objective. After all, the ISIS thing was just to be over, so what everybody needs is a new reason for fighting.

Risky to make bluffs that have your own guys contradicting you, especially when those guys are the ones you'll need to rely on for military action. — Baden

This is the fear everybody has about Trump. Nobody believes that Trump would even consider preparing some coherent plan or form an alliance. What he basically is now doing is waiting for the countermove from Iran. In my view for Iran the best response would be to spend time and work on those nukes as much as they can and try to get Iraq really to go with it's Parliaments decision of sending the US troops home. If Trump really responds with sanctions on Iraq, it's a win for Iran.

Surrounded with yesmen and neocons, Trump can make absolutely bat-shit dumb decisions. That Mattis and all the "adults" have left the Trump administration is the problem now. It really has been downhill after Mattis has gone: first the debacle with Erdogan and the Kurds, now this.

the US is looking more dazed and confused than tough at the moment. — Baden

You're not alone with this. I'm really starting to question if the country has anymore an effective foreign policy. Other commentators have made similar remarks especially about the State Department. It is simply a mess.

Obama seemed to have been better at juggling with Israel's pressure on the USA "to do something" about Iran. Israel is very selfish and will drag the USA without hesitation into adventures that are not in its best interest. — alcontali

It is the most astonishing thing about US foreign policy: that the sole Superpower goes is so much influenced and controlled by a small country, which is the closest ally by only defends it's own interests. It's simply crazy if you ask me. But when you have AIPAC and especially the Evangelicals with their insane beliefs, that's what you have. It's just about getting the votes and a twisted Overton window on what can be even said about the Mid-East policy in general.

Stupid of Trump to threaten terrorist attacks on cultural sites. Even the Pentagon told him to fuck off. If he's trying to unite the world, including his own armed forces against him, he's succeeding. — Baden

I think he's milking the "outrage" factor with this. He wants to be seen as this "no-nonse" tough guy and for him it works if democrats and lefties get "outraged" by his rhetoric. That's the method. Everything is just about the next elections.

The only way to avoid war now, is for Iran to urgently acquire a nuclear arsenal along with the ballistic missiles to strike anywhere on the globe. Hence, for Iran, it is a race against time now. By the way, Iran should obviously have done that a long time ago already. — alcontali

I agree with this totally. This is the stupidity of Trump as the Obama agreement was indeed a better option. But the bad thing was that it was done by Obama, so for Trump it had to be bad. This is the crazyness of Trump. When it comes to Iran, he's been a hawk right from the start. It's a thing many Trump supporters haven't noticed in their daydreams about Donald.

Another possible solution for Iran is to place itself under the Russian nuclear umbrella. If anybody strikes at Iran, the Russian Federation will immediately and without hesitation strike back. I think that this is to some extent already the case anyway. — alcontali

I think this is unlikely.

There's no reason for Russia to do this. The only country they would be willing to defend with nukes likely is Belarus, their closest ally. You see, Trump has a problem with Iran: he can surely bomb it, all those 52 places he has promised to bomb, but then what?

Invading and occupying Iran is out of the question. Too many people, a very socially cohesive people (unlike Iraq), very difficult terrain, all things that make it a nightmare to go in. Hence the thing Trump can do is to bomb the country and go after Iranian proxies or so-called Iranian proxies...and then declare himself a victor. Yet bombing Iran is as useful as bombing North Vietnam: it will strengthen their resolve and make the Iranian people back up their regime. The success is basically that the present nuclear program facilities can be destroyed. Hooray.

If Trump bombs Persepolis or even just sticks to military and oil production targets, Putin can actually be happy about it. Iran surely will need his help after the bombing has ended and the US is mired in a new war, which won't make him friends in Europe. After all, Putins objectives are:

a) break up NATO
b) break up EU
c) end the Transatlantic relationship between US and Europe
d) make Russia a Great Power again

How does the US attacking Iran hinder those objectives? It doesn't. Hopefully it can further them.

wouldn't they have to hold an international tribunal and declare him a war criminal? — ernestm

International tribunals give bad vibes to Trump supporters.

Besides, Trump doesn't care about all that humbug of international law and isn't in the business of forming alliances, working with other countries and all that nonsense. :down:

America first! MAGA! :up:

If the US goes to war, it might become a bit tricky, again he will face both ways, deceiving the public, while sending British troops anyway. — Punshhh

I don't think that's likely.

Remember that the British already said "No" to US when Obama wanted to bomb Syria. Remember that "red line" Obama draw and then didn't do anything? That was because of a firm NO from other countries on that occasion.

Boris would not win absolutely anything by supporting Trump with engaging the British military in the fight.

And now OUR OWN PUPPET GOVERNMENT wants us out of Iraq, which they really have to do to keep peace with their neighbor! — ernestm

You noticed it too? Not something that is on the first page, but ought to be. Trump is already contemplating sanctions against Iraq if they go through with this.

But hey, the US overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia and so now the new Serbia is ...an ally of Russia. So it's not the first time, especially in a country that you have bombed.

But when your bureaucrats and globalists told us they created the end of history, they gave us the clash of civilizations instead. Trump is left to clean up their mess and he’s doing a damn good job of it. — NOS4A2

The Fukuyaman moment of "End of History" was a different kind of hubris, but still hubris just like 'Manifest Destiny' with similar ideas of inescapable outcomes and inherent virtue. It's there perhaps with the hubristic idea of globalization and economic growth as a cure for everthing, which especially was (and is) rampant in the EU. The EU simply assumed that "all you need is economic growth, and that comes through integration, intergration and more integration and also through globalization". Well, globalization isn't only blessing and integration is difficult and isn't a cure for all. That the EU is a bag of independent nations with their own cultures didn't matter to the internationalist elites either: Let's just assume everything can be answered by bureaucrats in Brussells. Let's create EU unity with a flag and stealing from Beethoven "Ode to Joy" to be the "anthem" of the EU. Not so. People relate to their nation states, not the EU.

And it wasn't either so in the US. Not only was the Financial Crisis, but also so the "socialism to the rich" and the slow growth afterwards that lead to Trump.

The only serious disagreement which we have (which we I think we are totally OK with) is just how capable Trump is. Populism is something that becomes problematic once in power. Not everything in the "old order" was bad, just as a leader has to get people with different objectives and agendas to work together. Trump sure stirs up the soup, I wouldn't how much cleaner everything is really after him.

That’s the way it should be, in my opinion. The US needs to step away from the world stage, and especially leave that pile of dust to its inhabitants. We no longer require their oil, their workers, their ancient tribalisms. — NOS4A2

Careful what you wish for.

Have you ever considered just how much of the affluence of America IS BASED ON IT BEING IN THE SOLE SUPERPOWER ROLE? Have you ever thought that the whole International system is built around you? Or you just think it's natural because you are just so inherently awesome and there simply cannot be any kind of other system?

What you desperately need is the US dollar having the role it has now. Yet it could be replaced by a mix of currencies, where the USD is just one important currency among others. Just saying.

No, I don't think so.

You see, the allies of the US are still waiting for the US to take the leadership role. Trump is still seen as an anomaly and things can be thought to change back to 'normal' (like in the times of older Bush, Clinton, Obama, even Dubya). It would be only serious if the French President wouldn't be talking about NATO being braindead, but "being dead". It's when nobody believes any more in any kind of Transatlantic Partnership. Once the new talk in Washington DC is about bilateral defence agreements with various European countries, then NATO is dead. If that happens, then Europeans in the EU will seriously start to talk about CSDP (Common Security and Defence Policy).

Now CENTO collapsed in revolutions, first with the Iraqi revolution and then with the Iranian revolution. Yet the collapse of SEATO is the example of how things can go differently. France and Pakistan weren't interested in fighting the Vietnam war with the US and Pakistan finally left in 1973 when it didn't get any support in it's war with India. The US simply failed to see any point of the organization with Thailand, Phillipines, Australia and New Zealand and opted for bilateral defence agreements.

Is there logic?

Is there logic with Trump?

The logic seems to be more from film or a television series: The President is doing something and then he's suddenly whisked away to Presidential Emergency Operations Center, briefed quickly with the facts on the ground and then he has some seconds to make his decision on the go-ahead or to call it off. And what better for "the decider" to show Presidential decisiveness than to show the green light. No allies or nobody else than present in the room are consulted. And if things are talked about before, perhaps the "Walk & Talks" of The West Wing TV-series, making decisions literally on the fly when walking from one meeting to another, is the way how things are handled. Even if people might actually be seated.

Then once the decision is made, then the next thing is how to deal with the response (which nobody has had the time think about).

Because how else can you find a strategy in the actions of the US when it comes to the Middle East?

Suddenly the US withdraws from Syria. Secretary of Defence resigns because of this decision. Turkish leader Erdogan calls Trump and Trump OK's Turkish involvement in Syria. Then Trump backtracks: the decision changes to only a partly withdrawal. Trump sends a letter to Erdoğan threatening him not to invade Syria, even though Trump was already pulling back US troops. Erdogan does it anyway. Then Trump is great friends with Erdogan. And so on and so on...

So now quite sidelined issue was the Iraqi Parliament's decision to kick foreign troops out. Now, did the Trump administration think that this would be the response? Hardly.

There simply isn't any long term thinking. It is "Leadership by tweets".

But other than that you’re putting words in my mouth and forgetting your own point, about how some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. — NOS4A2

The US has been the biggest economy for a long time. The only thing is that it isn't as dominant as it was in the 1950's, when Europe was still rebuilding and China was destroying itself with Communism. I'm not forgetting my own point. US foreign policy has morphed to unilateral bullying without any kind of long term thinking behind it. It doesn't care a shit about it's own allies or bother creating alliances. Now with the Trump yesmen alongside Trump, it's just one disaster lead by tweets. I have no clue what they are doing...and likely the Trump administration hasn't either. It's just reactions to things that happen.

That’s right, and now the other members have to pay their fair share, because thankless Europeans have been benefitting from American defense and money for the past 70 years and have hardly anything to show for it. — NOS4A2

This is actually a myth.

a) European NATO members have vowed themselves to put more money in defence and some even have done that.

b) During the Cold War the other NATO nations they did their part: they had large armed forces. Once Soviet Union collapsed and the Russian tanks weren't anymore roaming around parts of Germany, things changed. It's totally natural that the defence budgets were cut. The US with the neocons chose a path to invade countries, which is the reason for the high US defence expenditure.

c) So let's think about that "fair share". That the US has continued huge defence spending has happened because of the WARS it started itself. So you tell me, NOS4A2, what has the US gained with it's 2,3 trillion dollar war and over 3 000 dead soldiers in Iraq? Because that is actually what makes the huge difference in spending.

And tell me just why NATO members would have to go along with another stupid war now with Iran, when there already was a gameplan how to handle Iran accepted by everyone, which Trump then decided to throw into the garbage. The only logical thing for Iran is to build as quickly a nuclear weapons deterrence as it can. It seems to be the only way to stop US Presidents from bombing their country once they are on the list of bad guys. You have great example of what will happen if you do it (North Korea) and another examples if you choose to stop your WMD projects and go along with the US demands (Libya and Iraq). So without WMD's = utter chaos, with WMD's = photo-ops with US President.

Yes, a leader would rethink these alliances, especially if they prove to be a waste of time, resources and money. — NOS4A2

Leaders ought to think how they can get their team to work for the common objective. A leader isn't someone who unilaterally decides to do something and bullies others that if they don't oblige, they will be working with the enemy. That simply isn't leadership.

And if you don't want to be a leader, then don't be. As I've said, countries would be OK with the US being a leader, but if opts not to be one, it's not the end of the World.

Look. Nobody will take your place. China will just have a bigger say in Eurasia and Africa, Russia in Europe and Middle East. That's it. There's just going to be this shit storm for a while when you go back home to eat your apple pie and the regional powers adapt to the new reality and sort it out themselves.

Iraqi Parliament votes to expel U.S. troops from the country, after airstrike that killed top Iranian military leader

WSJ

So there you have it!

Americans are kicked out by the government they used so much effort and money to create and install. Hooray for democracy. And with 2,3 trillion dollars used.

Teheran will be all smiles.

BRAVO TRUMP! :cheer: :ok:

Funnily enough, I read recently that Trump was losing support among Evangelicals and the religious in general and was concerned to shore that up. Maybe he cussed too much or something. Anyway, I like the angle. Something adroitly fucked up about it. — Baden

I think that finally many of them start to be tired of being called hypocrites (by supporting Trump and saying that they are also for Christian values/virtues). I think another reason is that the shadow of Hillary is fading away. You simply cannot now start defending Trump by saying how worse Hillary would have been. 2016 is ancient history.

They'll find Trump again if the Democratic candidate can be portrayed to be an overt atheist hell bent on attack people of Christian faith or something.

The US is more a leader now than it ever was. Number one economy, number one energy producer, number one military force on the globe. — NOS4A2

Wrong.

Number one energy producer is China. The US has been before number one, but isn't anymore.

And with the other rankings, if you mean by "more a leader now" at least in the post WW2 era there hasn't been any change other than the US has lost part of it's dominance.

But in the typical American fashion, these facts are somehow "forgotten" only to be rediscovered when a favourable President is in Office. As if during Obama somehow the US wasn't the biggest economy. Everything is just a commentary on the present domestic politics. Just choose the facts or falsehoods.

And any way, to make America GREAT AGAIN was only to elect Trump as President. Nothing else had to be done.

The US has effectively defended the West while Europe had to rebuild itself from its disastrous century of wars. It’s pretty clear the US is still the world leader, if not by choice, then at least because no one else has stepped up to the plate. — NOS4A2

And this shows how illogical and incoherent this is. Isn't that 'defence of the West' that you are supposed to be so tired of? And why would there even have to be a Leader country? Still, other countries would be just fine if the US would show leadership. But no. You won't do that.

The US especially under Trump has done the uttermost to vacate this leadership position. It's not surprising that the French President called NATO braindead. It is that. NATO still would have the smart agenda of the past: that is keep the Russians out, keep the US in and keep Germany down. but this administration surely doesn't want that. Yet of course, Trump supporters like this. They love that the US doesn't form alliances but goes alone. They don't see ANY reason for there being a NATO. These same people don't even know that there were two defunct similar organizations (CENTO and SEATO) which were replaced by simply NOTHING. Or with previous allies being now threats to the US.

As I've stated, I think US foreign policy is dead for now. The hubris of the Bush neocons is replaced by the total confusion of the Trump era. Hopefully adults in Washington will take it over sometime in the future. But I'm not hopeful. The biggest failure has been that the foreign policy establishment has totally failed in making the past US policy to be understood by the voters.

Not perfectly though. I can't plot a positive economic or strategic outcome to this for the US ruling classes that beats sticking with the Iran deal and encouraging progressive forces in the country. Maybe I lack a sufficiently Machiavellian imagination or something. Anyone here see a war being good for the US? — Baden

You don't count the heads of the military-industrial complex being part of the US ruling class?

Do you think getting the evangelical vote is something that the Republican elite would not want?

There's no US foreign policy designed for the common American. What there is are agendas and objectives of various groups in the power elite. Think of it like a version of trickle down economics.

(Besides, the Trump supporters will ardently favour war if Trump is for it and it's opposed by the Democrats.)

Why do we have a fortress embassy in Iraq in the first place? We should have left years ago. We never should have gone in. I'm in total despair about what passes for US foreign policy. — fishfry

I've come to the conclusion the US foreign policy doesn't exist anymore.

It's been replaced by Presidential tweets, that the US officials have to then respond to. And missile strikes ordered during meals in the "Winter Whitehouse".

Putin has such a grip on Trump that Trump keeps bombing Putin’s allies. — NOS4A2

Actually Trump also bombed his own allies. But I guess it works great. See how well it worked with Pakistan, your former ally.

Yeah, some time ago the US was really a leader in the World. Just think about this newsreel from the 1950's and how things are now.

Nature has a way of ending beefs. The strongest wins.

It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility. — NOS4A2

Lol. The one's in a tough spot are the Americans. Already Americans are fleeing Iraq. We'll see if they can still hang on to Iraq, or if we see them being kicked out. Might happen, might not, let's see later today.

Iraq’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammed al-Halbousi condemned on Friday a U.S. air strike in Baghdad that killed Iran’s most powerful general and a top Iraqi Shi’ite militia commander as a breach of sovereignty.

“Yesterday’s targeting of a military commander in Iraq’s armed forces near Baghdad international airport is a flagrant breach of sovereignty and violation of international agreements,” he said in a statement.

“Iraq must avoid becoming a battlefield or a side in any regional or international conflict,” he added. Halbousi, who as speaker is Iraq’s top Sunni Arab politician, called on the government to take all steps needed to stop such attacks.

Iraq’s parliament will hold an extraordinary session on Sunday to discuss the U.S. air strike in Baghdad which killed Iran’s Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, it said on Friday.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi called on lawmakers to hold an emergency session and address the attack, which he called a violation of sovereignty.

None of the above is the reason, IF the US would get into a war with Iran. (As Fishfry said, there's still no war)

You should have one reason:

"Lack of any kind of long term strategy and the result of narrowly visioned and not well thought responses to situations that simply have been let to go out of control."

The US doesn't want a war with Iran. Iran has shot down it's drowns, have attacked US troops in Iraq, taken US servicemen as prisoners without the US going to war with it. This is just playing the "US is the reason for every war to happen" card. The only country that truly wants the US to attack Iran is Israel.

Yes, the reason IS the utter ineptness of Trump into handling US foreign policy in a difficult area and the lack of strong sane leadership to counter Trump's emotional responses. And I know, there is a different thread to that.

I think the more crucial issue now is how the US will continue in Iraq. With it's 5000 troops there, it's not like when it was with 160 000.

“One sure result of the U.S. strike is that the era of U.S.-Iraq cooperation is over,” Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former American diplomat, wrote on Twitter. “The U.S. diplomatic & mil presence will end b/c Iraq asks us to depart or our presence is just a target or both. The result will be greater Iranian influence, terrorism and Iraqi infighting.”

Am I missing anything? — Baden

I'm not sure if you have missed it, but this is a total disaster.

So now the US is basically attacking militias that are at least theoretically under the control of Iraqi armed forces. And then makes the attack on Iranian military personnel in the Iraqi capital. Yeah, no wonder that the Iraqi Parliament will vote on the subject if the US forces are still wellcome or not in the country.

But perhaps Trump can overthrow the government the US spent two trillion dollars forming in the first Place? Would be a fitting end to the war that Dubya started.

Look, we've got your point, Jeffjo. — ssu

No, I really don't think you do. Or at least, you have shown no evidence of it.

The point of the evolution you misinterpret is to determine if the set T is internally consistent. — JeffJo

No. It's the inconsistency between two or more axioms in the axiomatic system, which make the system inconsistent. — ssu

And how is that not what I said? — JeffJo — JeffJo

Yeah, Jeffjo, how isn't it what you said? (Hint: see first line in the quote above)

It is a statement about philosophy, not a statement in math. — JeffJo

Great! So you admit that what you said was a philosophical statement.

FYI, it's the Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics part of the Philosophy Forum, so you shouldn't be surprised that we debate here questions of philosophy.

Infinity is just an abstract concept that exists in our minds. — Devans99

Infinity is quite useful in mathematics. Doesn't everything in math exist in our minds?

He looked at the infinity of the natural numbers and noted it follows a particular pattern. He called that pattern aleph-zero, claimed it was a number and that it was possible to do arithmetic with it. He then proceeded to examine the infinity of reals, noted that they cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the naturals hence had a different fundamental pattern. — Devans99

Yes, what does it indeed mean? What is the thing that transcendental numbers bring to this? It's a great question.

I said above that the shift to discussing morals at the nation level is problematic since these are not groups with a single set of morals. — Coben

I fully agree. The whole notion of talk at the 'national level' is difficult. After all, the whole idea of nationhood is invented, yet however 'artificial' people say it is, it is quite real. And a functioning idea of a nation joins together quite different views on just what that nation is about.

I think it is a mistake to view morals as, really, just self-interest. That's where I came into the argument. This is now being taken as me advocating for moral crusades. — Coben

At least I'm not saying that. The vast majority of people will make sacrifices that cannot be said to be done in self-interest, and there you can observe just how complex humans interacting in societies are to compared to anything else.

Even if a war with the US would likely be one sided and devastating. — Coben

Not actually.

You see countries with nuclear weapons will restrain from using those weapons, hence weaker states can call their bluff.

One perfect example is the Argentinian Junta invading the Falklands: here a smaller and far poorer state attacked a Great Power with a nuclear weapons arsenal. For the UK the war was indeed a close call, one aircraft carrier sank by an Argentinian submarine and the British fleet would have had to sail back and Thatcher would have lost the next elections.

And we may see this playing out just now when the US and Iran have come quite close to a conflict.

Of course. I just don't think we can rule out countries and certainly not groups choosing to put themselves at risk for a higher value. Higher according to them. — Coben

The existence of national sovereignty or the existence of the state is usually that "higher value". After all, extremely seldom does the enemy literally think of genocidal extermination of the people and to make an "artificial desert" of the area. (Even if that has happened in history, unfortunately)

I do think however that groups are willling to fight what they consider evil, even if given the option not to. — Coben

And the most evil things people can do is when opposing 'evil'. Evil in itself implies that one cannot understand it, one cannot reason it. Otherwise one oneself would be evil too. Fighting evil means that you have a firm view that you are right and that your opponent is wrong. Not wrong in the way that his objective as bad, but that they are wrong also in moral terms. This goes to the heart to the issue how you face "an enemy": is your opponent a person fighting on the other side, following his or her flag and people, is your opponent just an advocate of an ideology you don't believe in or is he or she truly evil.

Did this set theory experiment simply not work at all, or did it produce some small cadre of math geniuses? — boethius

Lol. Well, they took it back so I guess that the cadre was very small. And as Fishfry commented earlier, this experiment wasn't just limited to my country (Finland), but the US too. I'd suspect that we copied the 'new trends' during those progressive times from the US. From the viewpoint of teaching small children math, starting with counting sheep is the way to go. It is the natural way, I'd argue.

In teaching maths, I think it is important to make a clear distinction between pure (abstract) maths and applied (to the real world) maths. It is the conflation of the two that causes problems.

Of course children first learn maths with the conflated maths; counting sheep etc. But perhaps around the time they enter secondary school ( around age 13) the distinction needs to be emphasised. — A Seagull

I think this is a bigger philosophical problem for mathematics. Basically mathematics has evolved from the necessity of counting, calculating and computation. Hence 'applied math' came first. Abstract mathematical thought has emerged only later. This makes us start mathematics from the natural numbers.

I think we can say Britain took a moral stand which its leaders knew was taking a direct and immediate risk regarding their countries sovreignty. — Coben

Countries can explain and justify made decisions by a moral stand, but that justification hardly is the reason why they would do something that puts them into peril. With something that isn't as dangerous, isn't very risky, one can indeed put what is morally right on a pedestal on go with that because of domestic politics.

In 1940 it was truly about existential questions, not a moral question that Chuchill took. At hindsight it's totally obvious that you could not trust someone like Hitler. Just look what trusting Hitler gave Stalin.

Look, we've got your point, Jeffjo. Hope you would get the point of others too and not just make strawman arguments.

The point of the evolution you misinterpret is to determine if the set T is internally consistent. — JeffJo

No. It's the inconsistency between two or more axioms in the axiomatic system, which make the system inconsistent. Your assumptions what others think are incorrect here.

What was said, is that Math accepts no absolute truths. — JeffJo

Hmm. And in just what category would you put your idea presented here btw? :wink:

I think you fail to get the point so this discussion isn't productive. There is a thing called the philosophy of mathematics and there are various schools of thought in philosophy of math, you know.

More details on same. — Wayfarer

I've always said that Trump in his ineptness of leadership, inability to govern or make his own administration to work makes everything so evident, clear and so obvious. Every truthful book and article paint the same Picture of this guy.

What is clear is that it all came down to the president and what he wanted; no one else appears to have supported his position. Although the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. And while the situation continued throughout the summer, senior defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law.

Things like this simply paralyze the US foreign policy.

But that doesn't matter, of course. To his supporters everything is just a huge conspiracy against their Messiah.

My beef is that the real numbers are introduced too early in education. Infinite processes and essentially 100% of numbers being infinitely complex are, though perhaps can be dealt with abstract rules, too difficult to conceptually grasp for most high school students. — boethius

The problem is that no math course has enough time to really take the time. Usually it's just "here's the proof, there, I showed it to you, now use this algorithm".

About pedagogy, when I started first grade in my country in the late 70's they had the wonderful idea to start math education with set theory. I found it a bit confusing then (I had a problem to learn the various Venn diagrams and their relations to addition and subtraction etc.) and I remember that the teachers weren't happy about the reform either. Well, that was the 70's and now they teach things to my children in the first grade basically the same way they taught things to my parents (and even grandparents).

Real numbers are one of those things that at first glance seem to be easy, but aren't at all. Just as, well, set theory.

Not only do the foundations shift, but mathematics rolls along like a giant intellectual snowball, gathering layer after layer of new concepts and theory, a plethora of results that can be bewildering even to an expert in a specific area. I was in a classical area, complex analysis, for years, and still dabble in elementary research, but these days I can hardly understand the titles of papers in that subject. — jgill

I agree.

Even if math follows it's own logic (no pun intended), it's still something that people do and it does evolve. Early 19th Century Mathematics and present day mathematics are taught differently and are different, even if a large part is totally same. It would be naive to think that the intellectual snowball, as you put it, would now stop. Obscure fields of mathematics can become important once people can use the field to build models and compute things. As one physicist once remarked, he just hopes math will give us new tools to use. I'm optimistic that those new tools will be invented/found.

Beware, however: Abandoning fossil fuels will NOT be easy. There is no substitute for oil, in terms of molecules that are energy-rich and the basis of a vast amount of chemistry that composes the feedstock of many types of production. The world economy is organized dependence on fossil fuels. — Bitter Crank

The problem is transportation. You can have electric cars, but aviation represents a problem.

In my country the situation is totally different. And they don't believe that the political environment is fixed.

I would give a 4 to Eisenhower and 1 to older Bush and improve Reagan to at least 0.
Johnson would deserve a 2. (-5, if he was in the plot to kill JFK, but who knows.)

That sentiment is one consequence of the problems I'm speaking about. When neither candidate from either party is willing to tackle the underlying corruption, and all that that entails - head on - and all effected/affected Americans see the quality of life erode right before their eyes as a result... You get apathetic voters. — creativesoul

There are two very basic falsehoods and obvious myths that persist in US politics and with a large section of American voters.

1) The idea of the Omnipotent President. As if things would be different only if we got the right President to change things around. This myth of the omnipotent presidency is promoted by Hollywood and by media and naturally by any presidential candidate ever, yet it should be obvious to anybody the limitations of the presidency. Trump might tweet this or that nonsense, he might want to be best pals with Putin, but his influence on the US is still quite limited.

2) The idea that Third Parties don't matter. For some reason Americans treat their bi-party system as some God given fact, which they cannot alter in any way. No, the ONLY hope is to hop in with the two dominant parties and hope if they could be changed from the inside...typically with the Presidential candidate, which in it's absurdity again shows the power of the first myth. In fact, many Americans think that the so-called "primaries" are part of the democratic system. In reality the "primaries" are the way how the two corrupt parties dominate the whole political system. This second myth shows how estranged from democracy the American voter has become. He or she doesn't understand that the power of political parties start from the communal and state level. Without that there's no true power at the national level. A viable third party must have presence at the state and communal level.

We can judge sitting president from his actions on the job. All I'm saying.

Both parties have enacted legislation that caused and is still causing demonstrable financial harm to American citizens. — creativesoul

So why vote for either party? A What legislation you specifically have in mind?

Trump's claims about supporting American workers are bullshit, pure and unadulterated. He has a history of breaching contracts and using undocumented workers in lieu of American workers. — creativesoul

He has a history of other quite dubious things, but who cares about the "character issue" anymore? We have had plenty of his 'character' as President. I'd concentrate on his presidency.

But democrats have embraced identity politics in more recent years, to the detriment of the worker in my opinion. — NOS4A2

If you have record low unemployment, then salaries ought to rise. Yet then again it's a sign that the business cycle is reaching it's peak.

But democrats have embraced identity politics in more recent years, to the detriment of the worker in my opinion. — NOS4A2

Playing it too much for the 'woke' crowd indeed can alienate the traditional blue-collar workers.