If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

To the soft skinned, any new idea or thought is a critique of something old.

And then, we never start from an empty plate, we never clear our minds and be like a tabula rasa and then start create something new. We always create the new from the old. As Newton himself said "if I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

This is true in science, but it is also true in philosophy.

And as to post-modernism―I think it is simply the idea that we should drop the myth that history is necessarily a story of continuous progress or that there is a real underlying telos at work in history. — Janus

History already shows with many examples that there isn't continuous progress and that basically we can have such collapses that knowledge is forgotten. Yet as I said to @Skalidris above (on a comment he wrote pages earlier) that knowledge and new insights, be they scientific or philosophical, are created on the present knowledge.

Then once Iran has the bomb they can be like "See! See! We were right all along! If only we bombed them harder!" — boethius

Exactly. To welcome back Iran to the international community, or at least to accept not attacking it is against the hawkish policy. Even if Iran would want to change it's policies, it's very difficult to change the course of Israeli lead US now.

Then, as you note with North Korea, Iran doesn't strike anyone with nuclear weapons and the issue is forgotten about, but sanctions permanent due to having nuclear weapons. — boethius

Sanctions will be a natural part, but note that's it's only Western sanctions. Iran isn't similar to the Hermit Kingdom (North Korea).

If the MAGA people cheer on how inept and totally useless the UN or other international organizations are, do note that then simply "the South" goes it's own ways. As I've said earlier, we are on track to go to an international order that was present in the 18th Century (as even the 19th Century had functioning international cooperation and organizations).

And you understand that the UN Security Council and other western nations found that the Rwandan military were supporting M23, and actively participating with them in the DRC, despite their denials? — NOS4A2

That was known, but the main issue is what happens to M23 or what it does. Is it capable of fighting the DRC without backup from Rwanda? And anyway, many countries have put their troops and support into the mess that DRC is in. Basically earlier the African countries had their version of WW1 in the Congo.

There's still time to start a war with the cartels. Iran has now already been bombed. And Greenland, just as Canada, won't be annexed, unlike you think I've said. Panama I guess has also avoided a true conflict.

The FBI, just like the Department of Defense, will not show at all just how detrimental the ineffective leaders will be. Only later historians can write books about it, but that will take time.

And anyway, there's still the likely recession, the debt problem. And if the Democrats win in the midterms, what will that then give us in the end.

Yes, I was talking about the conflict between the DRC and Rwandan-backed rebels. — NOS4A2

And you understand that Rwandan military and the M23 are two different entities and that DRC is fighting mainly the M23 and that the agreement was between Rwanda and the DRC?

What war in the Middle East? — NOS4A2

You did notice that Trump attacked Iran, didn't you?

You didn't comment much then, when the strikes were still happening. Noticed your silence.

But then I did write a week ago this:

At best, the US is now on board with Bibi, as Bibi wanted, on this perpetual conflict of "war off - war on" where two sides stop for some time with announcements from Israel and the US that the nuclear threat has been now thwarted/eradicated... only for the next bomb strikes to happen later. But that will be enough for the MAGA-morons.

Once few weeks (or less) have gone and Israel and the US halt their strikes and declare victory, all these MAGA people will rejoice victory and the wisdom of Trump and deride those who opposed this war.

I think my forecast was quite accurate, if it just went on for 12 days. And btw, even Trump talked about a 12-day war. Hence it's very telling that you are trying to deny any war happened. At least, I was very accurate week ago just what your reply would be. :grin:

But no war, one precision strike, and an extraordinary de-escalation brokered once again by the US, while the EU leaders and your failed international institutions did nothing. Trump play in Iran was nothing short of brilliant. Everyone is saying it. Sorry. — NOS4A2

So then we will wait for the next time Israel/US will want to hinder the Iranian nuclear program with another short strikes. Could it happen in some years still in the Trump administration? Perhaps.

I was responding to your point that Trump doesn't have a plan. He does. It might be unrealistic, but the plan is to offer Iran goodies to drop their nuclear ambitions. — RogueAI

I do agree that Trump has plans. Many plans, actually. Like "Liberation Day" tariffs, remember? Great plans!

Yet in this occasion it's totally clear that Israel was the initiator and the real actor here, Trump simply responded when initial Israeli strikes went so well.

Would Iran trust us? Doubtful, but there is precedent for the U.S. bribing Iran to drop it's enrichment. Obama did it. What is Iran's alternative, though? They just got punished severely. They got no support from the (civilized) world and even their neighbors turned on them. Top Iranian officials now know Israel can and will take them out. Why not take the bribe the Trump Admin is offering? Isn't enrichment just not worth it at this point? — RogueAI

One thing would be for them to drop the program. Another thing to get Israel to believe the program is dropped.

We should remember all the talk of the "Mushroom cloud" and the "Yellow cake from Niger" when the Bush administration was making the case for war against Iraq after 9/11. Well, Saddam didn't have any nuclear program then. Saddam did have one before he went and invaded Kuwait, yet afterwards he didn't have a program. Yet in the end: that didn't matter. And similar thinking should be applied here too.

First of all, is an Iran that has great relations to it's Arab neighbors the optimum situation for Israel, or is an Iran that still is a "rogue state" that can be bombed every once and a while better? I fear that for Bibi, the war prime minister, the latter is a better option.

Iran can be later bombed again and again.

hink the Trump admin would be thrilled if Iran could be bribed into giving up their nuclear ambitions. — RogueAI

Think about it, just for a while.

Assume your country would be striken with missiles for 12 days. Over two hundred civilians would have been killed. Then the attackers would want to bribe you with third party investment.

How eager would you to start negotiations with your attackers? How much would you trust them?

Another US brokered peace agreement, this time between the Democratic republic of Congo and Rwanda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e0ggw7d43o.amp

None of this stuff will net him a peace prize, of course, because he doesn’t have the gift of hopey-changey rhetoric which the chattering class falls for. — NOS4A2

WTF peace deal are you talking about? You are basically talking about the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from Congo, but not about peace between M23 and the DRC.

If you would have any interest to look at the actual conflict in Congo, you would immediately notice that this is only a part of the conflict. Yes, Rwanda is a player (along others) abusing the weakness of the larger DRC. But what about M23? That Rwanda agrees to pull out it's soldiers, that haven't been as an major issue like the M23 taking towns, but basically been a humiliating issue for DRC showing it's inability to control it's borders.

Even the BBC article you referred to states the following questions:

Unless and until full details of the signed deal are made public, several crucial questions remain unanswered:

Will the M23 rebel group withdraw from areas they have occupied?
Does "respect for territorial integrity" mean Rwanda admits having troops in eastern DR Congo and will withdraw them?
Would the agreed "return of refugees" allow thousands of Congolese back from Rwanda?
Does "disarmament" mean that the M23 will now lay down their weapons?
Who will disarm the FDLR, after the failure of several previous attempts?
Would the agreed humanitarian access allow the reopening of the rebel-held airports for aid supply?

But yes, now that Trump broke the promises of starting wars in the Middle East by eagerly jumping on a strike done by Israel, naturally he has to now pretend he is this great peace-maker. And what else do MAGA loyalists now uphold than his "peacemaking abilities" after likely quite useless strikes on Iran, which they naturally won't talk anything anymore.

And since Trump alongside others (like Bibi, Putin) have made the UN totally useless, naturally two sides of a conflict want to get some kind international arrangement, then the second best way is to have the US to be involved. Just like in the case of India and Pakistan.

And oh yes! Trump can claim himself to be this great man of peace.

My analysis of the current situation is that Zionists "went for it" and tried to push the United States into a high-intensity war with Iran and the faction that stopped that from happening (for now) is the pentagon (because they know it conflicts with US imperial interest, represent far more costs than gains, have other regions they worry about, such as East-Asia) and (I would guess) managed to convince Trump in the situation room where it's mostly pentagon people in the room that war with Iran is incredibly high risk and don't recommend it (if they did, I have a hard time imagining the war wouldn't be on full blast right now). For, war with Iran as concept is easy to talk about, but when you get into the nitty gritty of how to actually make war with Iran, that they fought Iraq for 8 years and are not push overs, have bunkers everywhere, mountains and a surface area of 1 Rocky Mountains + 1 France, and the ballistic missiles capacity and so on, it's obviously not an easy task and many dead Americans would result tin the attempt. — boethius

Israel got lured the US to join the strikes on Iran, which sooner or later (and now sooner) were stopped.

The reality just why the noecons under Bush never attacked Iran are now quite evident: there is simply now way to "topple" the Iranian regime with a quick and inexpensive war, only a huge quagmire.

But for Israel this is totally OK: it is quite happy with the "war-on-war-off" mentality and a perpetual crisis that erupts into limited wars every couple of years or a decade. So the strike packages are sent to Iran and it's declared that it's ability to build nuclear weapons is pushed forward.

The reason I was so concerned about Israel escalating to nuclear weapons is because they have no diplomatic off-ramps by design, literally opening the war with assassinating negotiators; precisely so that the US would be inevitably sucked into an expanding conflict. — boethius

I assume that with using nukes Israel is as level headed as other nuclear powers. Why should they escalate?

To this discussion, Benkei adds the additional information that the previous nuclear agreement with Iran negotiated by Obama was clearly part of a strategy of detente with Iran, that drops sanctions and allows them to develop and normalize, and not some sort of 5-D chess move knowing Trump would come in and tear up the agreement, then Israel embark on a genocide under Biden to be finally in a position to attack Iran in a second Trump administration. — boethius

Obama at least had a plan. Trump doesn't have any plan just to wobble into the next crisis that is going to erupt and try to take center stage.

Israel and the US showed just showed their limits on how far they are willing to go. Hence if Iran can build it's military industry that is survivable enough to survive an 12-day bombing campaign, that's it. And now the logical step from a military point of view would be for Iran to learn from this campaign, rearm and get that nuclear weapon and the ability to survive forthcoming attacks from Israel and the US.

The current Harvard estimate is 400 000 Palestinians "missing" — boethius

That's something I've not stumbled into and something totally on a different scale than the Gaza health officials are themselves stating. It would basically mean that Hamas and Palestinian officials are hugely downplaying the death toll. (It is a possibility, perhaps)

Ethnic cleansing of simply moving the Palestinians I don't see how that could be a worse crime, since if they are still alive the situation could be reversed by the world or then at least compensated. — boethius

Ethnic cleansing on a huge scale just happened now in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan didn't get at all negative publicity, especially when they flatly denied it and said that Armenians would be wellcome to stay.

And basically that ethnic cleansing would mean a repeat of the Nakba. Then 720 000 or so Palestinians out of 1,4 million were moved off from Israeli controlled areas. Hence just to finish this you would have to move about 5 million Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank to somewhere else.

Now if you think they would be compensated or the move could be reversed, I'm not sure that would happen. But I'm sure that the Bibi administration is surely salivating about these kinds of plans. For the exrremists, that is their solution.

Yes, that is the crucial difference. So why does that difference exist? Is it religious fundamentalism and the rise of European secularism? — RogueAI

No.

It's because millions of Europeans died in the two World Wars and many countries have had the experience that defending their country only gave them misery and a humiliating defeat. The Pre-WW1 jingoism and imperialism died especially after the Second World War. Then Europeans had their continent divided with the prospect of a nuclear WW3 being fought in their cities and countryside.

(German soldiers going onwards to war in 1914 with flowers given by onlooking women spectators)


That's what Trump the idiot doesn't understand: European integration wasn't done to fuck Americans, but to finally put securely away the wars of the past. And even still that hasn't happened: In Yugoslavia there was a bitter civil war and thanks to Putin, several decades after the Soviet Union collapsed, the "Civil War" because of that breakup is fought in Ukraine.

Actually many neocons don't understand this either: the saying that Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus and hence Europeans don't have an eager enthusiasm to fight "Rogue states" comes also from this background. Basically the only European country that has still made it's own "Great Power" politics is France. Even this old colonial master has suffered major setbacks in it's former colonies in Africa in this decade. The UK opts sometimes to be the loyal sidekick of the US, but after Suez has been very passive, even if it can still kick ass as we saw in the Falklands/Malvinas war. Everybody else are happy with having NATO around.

But in the end, this anti-militarism comes from the experience of WW1 and WW2.



A similar war has never happened in Israel and not even in the Palestinian territories. The casualties especially on the Isreali side are minimal compared to the losses that European countries suffered in WW1 and WW2, although naturally Israeli jews do truly remember and keep in mind what their parents and great grandparents suffered during WW2 under the Third Reich. Yet that isn't something that happened in Israel or is part of this conflict. Perhaps now the Palestinians in the Gaza strip are truly suffering a total war. Now the Jewish people in Israel are about seven million, so 1% would be 70 000 people.



Hence some hundred Iranians and below fifty Israelis being killed, that won't make these countries to howl for peace. The jingoists and the militant hawks will be in power in both countries for a long time still, even if the cease-fire will last for a while.

Yeah, that's certainly not true. The rise of nations is a zero-sum bloody game. — RogueAI

In truth, it isn't. If we mean by nations rising that they become prosperous.

War and conflict doesn't create prosperity, it might only transfer wealth as loot as war is extremely costly. In truth nations have gotten prosperous through voluntary trade and cooperation and investment to education and technology and in general a positive attitude toward business and private enterprise. The most successful imperialist enterprise was the Mongol Horde, and that basically created zero prosperity itself and basically immediately fell into couple of different khanates. The Mongol cavarly traditions gave these Khanates the ability to survive a few Centuries until modern rifles made it a turkey shoot to defeat cavalry fighting on horseback.

Israel hasn't become prosperous because of the wars it has fought with it's neighbors, but with the trade and tech investments. Nearly one third of it's GDP is made up of exports of goods and services.

How many times has Alsace-Lorraine changed hands in the last 1,000 years? — RogueAI

Yet notice the crucial difference to the Middle East. Germans don't give a fuck that Alsace-Lorraine belongs to France now. And both French and Germans of today would be surprised just how some place like Alsace-Lorraine stirred up fervent jingoism in both countries in the past.

Every illegal attack, like the two we've recently witnessed, is an argument for them to pursue a nuclear bomb as that is the only weapon that truly acts like a deterrent. That's rather obvious. — Benkei

Having a nuclear credible nuclear deterrent keeps the US from attacking an "axis-of-evil" country that has been declared to be a rogue state. Worst possible situation is when a country doesn't have nuclear weapons, but the US firmly thinks it's trying to make them and is considered a rogue state.

Yet Iran also should really think about it's past aggressive foreign policies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and just how much they have worked. Iran should understand that trying to export their Islamic Revolution will ultimately fail and just worsen the situation with fellow Muslim states. Trying to create a "Shiite Crescent" will only push other states closer to the US and even Israel. What is notable has been the stance of the Arab League and Turkey in this conflict: the idea that Saudi-Arabia would eagerly join the beating up of Iran didn't prevail. What is also notable is that UK hasn't participated (in my knowledge, I could be wrong) to the defense of Israel.

What is normally the difficult to prove part is the intention. As mass chaos and violence and death can be presented as carried out for some other goal. — boethius

And here the courts got an ample amount of this rhetoric after the Hamas attacks. Yet I think the real threat is ethnic cleansing on a vast scale. Our international institutions are simply collapsing as the regional players and the US don't give them any role. Trump is simply making it more natural to speak about ethnic cleansing.

I can't blame everything on Likud. One event that sticks in my mind was the Olympic massacre of 1972. That wasn't under Likud. The violence has been there regardless of whether Israel has been liberal or conservative. — BitconnectCarlos

The Oslo peace process was far later than the 1970's. If you want another one to blame is of course Jasser Arafat, who didn't take the agreement when there was the chance. But still, even if he would have taken it, I'm not at all sure if even then peace would followed and the two state solution would have held.

And the structural problem for Israel that it actually needs a strong counterpart that could also keep the peace and control it's territory. With Egypt and Jordan this works. Failed states or nearly failed states Lebanon and Syria this isn't possible, hence the Israeli solution seems to be perpetual low intensity conflict.

The genocide is an openly declared policy such as starving the entire population and bombing every hospital and university, and horrendous crimes in themselves even considered in isolation to mass murder, such as sniping children, proudly boasted about by the perpetrators.

There is nothing to analyze or debate about these facts. It is as clear as anything taken for common knowledge such as the sun shining upon the earth.

If you want to live in denial about it, then you weld your soul to the fate of these evil doers. So I'd consider it carefully if you entertain the possibility of an afterlife.

Or if I misunderstand you and there's multiple genocides to consider at the moment, you're just asking which one I'm talking about, then in that case I am referencing all the genocides currently being perpetrated by Israel. — boethius

I understand your point.

My point is that we don't really want to have inflation on the term genocide or it to be a popular derogatory adjective as "fascist" or "nazi" describing something that it isn't. With genocide we are talking about the intent of total destruction of people. Of the two million people in the Gaza strip perhaps 60 000 in truth have been killed. That yet isn't genocide, or it is a very failed attempt of genocide. Do notice that amount hasn't grown even linearly. The real threat is famine, which truly could kill a lot more with a quarter of million people in catastrophic food insecurity and one million emergency condition. That catastrophy has not been initiated yet by Israel. Yet the number 50 000 - 60 000 dead out of two million ought to make it perfectly clear the absolute disregard for human life in this conflict.

To make some sort of plausible attempt at peace, Israel would have to stop its settler activity. — boethius

I don't think that the Bibi administration attempts a peace solution, it is attempting to win the conflict. The Oslo peace process has been dead for decades now.

Limited strikes by Israel (due to simply being way smaller) and then limited strikes by the US is the absolute worst strategy, as Iran can now transition smoothly to a total war system, and even better now after the US strikes knows exactly what these bunker busters can do. — boethius

Hear hear! :100: :up: :heart:

Now the clergy that rules of Iran can really go back to the times of the 1980's when it was in war. The idea that Iran's regime would fall because of this is an example of the utter stupidity now so prevalent. I mean really, think of yourself and your country that you live in. If two foreign countries that are thousands of kilometers away from you suddenly started bombing your country, why would your response be to attack your own government? Nope. Iran will try to transition to a wartime economy now.

Israel needed an existential enemy to justify its militarism and refusal of a 2 state solution and obstructing any peace process generally speaking. — boethius

I agree.

Yet you should give a thought here also to why is Iran, of all countries, so hellbent to be against Israel in the first place? Iranians aren't Arabs, they are (mainly) Persians. Iran doesn't have a border with Israel and Israel hasn't taken any of land that is considered part of Iran. One reason might be that the Pahlavi regime was not hostile to Israel (yet not extremely friendly either), but that isn't a reason enough.

The only reason I can understand is that in order to blow wind to the sails of the Iranian Islamic revolution, the Shiites of Iran had to attack Israel to get a following from the Sunni community. Because otherwise the Sunni states wouldn't be so accepting of the Shiite Islamic revolution. It's actually quite similar to the fact that after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was suddenly extremely supportive to the Palestinian cause and lobbed few Scud missiles into Israel, because why not?

Iran, like Russia, represents a lot of resources that the neocons can't control, so both they and their predecessors are psychologically damaged by the existence of Iran. They are used to being able to "do something" when they don't like someone or what's happening in a country. — boethius

Well, a lot of countries have a lot of resources that the neocons don't control. International trade is for that. In the end, the resources of some country don't justify war, because those resources never make wars actually profitable as in the end they cost a lot more than just to buy the Goddam resources by trade. Neocons and other imperialists give as reasons the natural resources of some country as a valid reason to invade them, but in the real world this never goes out so simple.

Likud rose to power because of the intifadas and the failure of peace agreements. The nice, left-wing Israelis failed, thus you get Likud. Sort of like how on 10/7, the most left-leaning progressive Israelis were killed. Hypothetically, I believe if the Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank truly wanted peace, we would see it, but this would not work the other way around. The Nakba always looms in the collective memory. I think the "Nakba" is how the "Palestinian" people came to be—both lies. — BitconnectCarlos

@BitconnectCarlos, naturally you see lies in there being a "Nakba" or "Palestinians", but the people living in West Bank and Gaza don't see it that way. Besides, these Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank don't see any prospect of peace because of Likud. Once Likud came into power, the peace process stopped. That's it. And it wasn't anymore the time of Palestinians negotiating, it was the time of Hamas.

With the other side remembering "Nakba" and the other side remembering "The Holocaust", it's no wonder you have a perpetual war.

I'll repeat one anecdote I remember from the times I was in the university. One of the brightest guys that I had started studying economics with was an Finnish reservist NCO who had been a blue beret in Lebanon. Once in the mid 1990's I was sipping beer with him in a student party and the discussion came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The guy said in the most earnest and straight forward way possible: "There is never going to be peace in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs." Not in our lifetime.

Looking back thirty years now, his words are still true. Yep, it might have been a conflict that could have come to the end when the Cold War ended, but it didn't. That Oslo peace process might have worked, but it didn't. And we cannot get back to that. And in the end we have this today.

Israel has no way to normalize due mainly to the genocide. — boethius

Just what genocide?

Israel has pursued a strategy of intentionally having no off ramp, so unsurprisingly finds itself with no off ramps. — boethius

I agree with you. This is Likud party's main line: there doesn't have to be any peace with the Palestinians, there can be a perpetual war as far it is low intensity and doesn't cost too much. And that has worked for decades now, whereas trying to do a peace with the Palestinians has been represented as utterly impossible, because it failed.

Moreover, there's really no way to conquer Iran. 90 million people, and a geography that similar to 1 entire Rocky Mountain chain in addition to 1 entire France.

It's just not feasible for the US to conquer Iran without going to full total war, drafting millions of people, which is obviously not happening. — boethius

This is the main issue that Trump in his ineptness doesn't understand. The only options are limited strikes. Trump should ask himself, just how long did he fight the Houthis? How long? 30 days and that was it, and they are quite alive and kicking.

This is behind the absolute stupidity that the neocons have spread for many decades of Iran being an existential threat to Israel and the US. The politically incorrect and utterly out of the Overton window is the fact that Iranian nuclear deterrent would be to deter Israeli nuclear deterrent, not to be used in an all out attack on Israel. Why would Iran want tens of millions of it's own citizens to perish? There's no reason.

The fact is that if Iran would have a nuclear deterrent, the US response would be similar as it was to North Korea. Bill Clinton was the last president that truly thought of attacking North Korea in the similar way as Trump has now attacked Iran. Americans too are sane in the end: they attack and occupy countries that don't have a nuclear deterrence capability. Unconditional surrender, occupation of the whole country and regime change are exactly the things that countries with nuclear weapons will opt to use them against.

This all just shows how stupid this war is and how Trump has been lured into a war that in the end won't give him that victory he so eagerly wants.

And anyway, especially the vice president is going batshit crazy in trying to deny just what has happened:

(CNN) Vice President JD Vance, in his first public comments since President Donald Trump authorized US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, emphasized that the US is “not at war” with Iran as he laid out the president’s decision-making process.

“We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” Vance said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” calling the strikes a “testament to the power of the American military.”

Vera was one of those members whose comments I always liked and whose discussions I enjoyed. Very sad to hear this. Condolences to her family.

Ah, Trump's big beautiful war is here. Trump the peacemaker, Trump the "no-foreign-wars" peace president! :rofl:

Seems that Donald "I'm not going to start wars, I'm going to stop wars." -Trump has now put aside his eager hopes for that Nobel-prize and has gone head on to the next forever war with his supporters eagerly cheering for this.

Now it's so warming to see the spineless MAGA-morons rallying around their big beautiful prez and supporting Trump's decision to go to another not-so well thought war. How desperately they now try to change their stance:

Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s one-time pick for the attorney general post who had warned of the Middle East conflict turning into another drawn out war for the U.S., said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict, and likened it to the strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during Trump’s first term

“President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike — one and done,” Gaetz wrote. “No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!

Few strikes and then go back home to eat that cherry pie? Well, might not to happen exactly that way. At best, the US is now on board with Bibi, as Bibi wanted, on this perpetual conflict of "war off - war on" where two sides stop for some time with announcements from Israel and the US that the nuclear threat has been now thwarted/eradicated... only for the next bomb strikes to happen later. But that will be enough for the MAGA-morons.

Once few weeks (or less) have gone and Israel and the US halt their strikes and declare victory, all these MAGA people will rejoice victory and the wisdom of Trump and deride those who opposed this war. Of course, likely Iran will continue to adapt it's defenses and simply then get the nuclear weapon and the clergy will stay in power in Iran. After these attacks, the young generations of Iranians will remember just how Israel and the US attacked them, hence the evil nature of the US doesn't have to be retraced back to the Pahlavi regime and the ouster of Mossadeq, which is old history for the new generations of Iranians. If Iranians had an 8 year war against Saddam Hussein, then this generation isn't going to be softer either. And then the Iranian nuclear deterrent, likely with ICBMs, will simply be a "non-issue", just like North Korea. Because that's what the US does when the country actually has nuclear weapons that could possibly strike mainland US. Bibi's Israel has opted for perpetual war already, so they are totally OK with this.

The US has an armed forces of over 1 million with roughly quarter of a million based outside of the Continental US. Of those less than 40 000 are stationed in the Middle East. Hence there's no land invasion happening. And no regime change, actually.

So along the invasion of Iraq, this is one of those stupid wars the US gets itself into.

he Israeli/NRA lobbies will become even more strong and wicked here in the US. — Eros1982

You meant AIPAC?

No. Don't you notice agriculture from the old times (even if it's used still today in India or Latin America)? They are creating a swidden. Very popular in especially Eastern Finland earlier. Make some land that you can cultivate for some time and then move on. Just thinking of being independent and close to nature. A lot of hard work but hey, you are totally independent. No need for any trade or government.

Trump's war is coming closer, more B-2 Spirits are deployed forward:

(UK Defensejournal) U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers have departed from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri with aerial refuelling support from eight KC-135 Stratotankers.
The aircraft appear to be heading toward Diego Garcia, a strategic U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean.

Flight tracking data shows two groups of four tankers each linking up with the bombers over Kansas. The B-2 aircraft were using the callsign “MYTEE21,” which has previously been associated with stealth bomber missions.

The movement comes during a wider repositioning of U.S. military assets toward Europe and the Middle East. In recent weeks, dozens of American aircraft, including fighters, tankers, and surveillance platforms, have been deployed to the region. Two U.S. Navy supercarriers are also operating forward, along with other naval and air force elements.

Seems also that Iran is still launching missiles into Israel.

(Reuters) Early on Saturday, air raid sirens were triggered across parts of central Israel and in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, with missile interceptions visible over Tel Aviv and explosions echoing.

If a woodchip floats from upstream, time to move further away into the wilderness.

I think he's not among us anymore. And people who think like him don't run the World.

I mean really, how many people live like him, seriously?

It's this myth that people think they want to live like.

Self sufficiency is smart thing to prepare if there is crisis and the sea routes for trade are blocked. If you're self sufficient in food production, your people won't starve if there is a war or another crisis that cut those important sea routes.



But that's it. Really, nothing else.

Perhaps it's really difficult for Americans to understand this, because there are 340 million of you, but the truth is that is your prosperity is dependent of global trade and you being a part of it. For us Finns, which there are a puny 5+ million, it's very easy to fathom: the World give a shit about us if we don't engage with the billions of people that make the rest of the planet. Our prosperity, is dependent on trade with other countries. And actually, even if many deny it, so is yours.

The MAGA people can live in their dreams that Trump can make the US independent of the rest of the World thanks to the "liberation" of tariffs! But if your industries don't have to compete on the world stage, then you will simply fall behind.

In Canada the provincial and federal leaders are negotiating with each other about lowering the steep and stifling provincial trade barriers, fast-tracking projects that would otherwise take decades to get through the red tape, cutting spending, lowering taxes, diversifying trade relationship, and other goodies. Last month King Charles gave the throne speech to open parliament, the first time the true Canadian sovereign has done so in around 50 years.

All of it is a complete reversal from previous domestic policy of the last half century, and now we all know that every thing the Canadian governments have done over the past few decades were complete nonsense. My god, and all it took was a few Truth Social posts. — NOS4A2

Never underestimate the effect an derogatory and condescending statement from a foreign leader has on a population. Add there sky high tariffs on highly integrated supply lines, and you have Canada in earnest looking for other trade partners than the US.

Everything that’s going in the world is the direct and indirect result of the kind of leadership you hope and pray for, and an old playboy and reality-tv show host is out here exposing how effete and obsolete it all is.

Thanks Trump! — NOS4A2

Well, I don't think that international trade has been effete and obsolete. Throughout history it has been global trade that has brought us prosperity. Not stupid naval gazing and mercantilism.

To target specific buildings or SAM sites by medium range artillery missiles is very difficult. You have a lot of difficulty in making the final corrections. But one can notice that the CEP (Circular error probability) is rather low, measured perhaps in some fifty to some hundred meters (meaning the radius that 50% of the missiles hit). Hence Iranian missiles are far improved from the Scuds, which were 1950's technology.

What can be noticed is the difference between the "normal" ballistic missiles, which rapidly decrease their speed once hitting the lower atmosphere and those that then have a motor for the last leg, usually referred to being hypersonic glide vehicles. The difference is notable, and also is the difficulty for anti-ballistic systems to get them.

Also what is noticeable is that the range between Iran and Israel is such that basically the ballistic trajectories don't take the missiles into space. The can be seen flying over Iraq and Jordan.

Tables turned, for now. Previously I remember Israelis watching from the Golan Heights the civil war in Syria. Now Lebanese and Jordanians can watch the Iran-Israel match above their sky.

Iran still capable of firing rockets at Israel? That doesn't sound good for Bibi. Fact is that Iran is a huge country. Israel is already starting to cut off videos of missiles hitting Israeli cities. Wartime censorship seems to got more tighter.

I think if/when Iran starts to hit bomb shelters large malls, schools, which naturally are public information, then you can make the argument of them being like the Russians. It's simply the systematic nature: not one hospital, all of them. Like in Gaza.

Now it seems Iran is trying to hit the Israeli SAM sites, which isn't as easy as it sounds when using medium range artillery missiles. If there's a night/day with no missiles, that would be telling.

Still, the body count in both countries, even in Iran, is rather low.

Funny how only Latinos are targeted no? — Benkei

Yep.

When I googled images "ICE going after Latino people", I got this photo:


When I googles images "ICE going after Dutch people", I got this photo:


Either the algorithms have to learn more, or Dutch people aren't really targeted by ICE. :wink:

Soon Nimitz will be in striking range of Iran, so there's going to be two carrier strike groups in the area. Plus the B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia, whichI mentioned about earlier two months ago, are still there. Plus the important tanker aircraft needed to attack Iran.

This is about what Trump wants to do, and likely he will follow what Bibi and the hawks wants him to do. It's the classic American take, when you are ready to pounce, the last thing would be for the target to back down, hence make as tough demands that they cannot simply abide to.

Now I might be indeed wrong, but I think it's just a matter of time before Trump comes for the help of Bibi "as Iranians haven't responded to all the efforts". No, in truth Trump is salivating too much to get piece of that "Winning" that Israel and Bibi are getting. A big juicy war.

The next likely outcome is if Trump stays TACO, that Israel declares that is has met it's goals. And the war on - war off - war continues...

Classic art of the deal. — NOS4A2

People refer to that absolute bullshit line, still? After all the whimsical "Liberation Day's" and so on? :rofl:

I think it should be clear how this dysfunctional administration will just go on forward from one crisis to another, and during this chaotic stumbling, the older crazy ideas are simply forgotten... hopefully. Like Canada becoming a state. Or the US annexing Greenland or Panama. Or Trump kicking over 10 million illegal immigrants from the US. Just like the "Liberation Day" tariffs.

I can imagine many future crisis that Trump will stumble into in the next three years. Ah, and you are going to be so tired of all that winning.



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WjMpD16nC2w?feature=share

You want Orwellian, this poster is being shared on social media by The White House and Homeland security. — praxis

Yep.

Definitions of invader:
Merriam-Webster: one that starts armed conflict against another especially without reasonable cause
Oxford Learners dictionary: an army or a country that enters another country by force in order to take control of it; a soldier fighting in such an army
Wiktionary: One who invades a region. Synonyms: assailant, encroacher
Cambridge dictionary: an army or country that uses force to enter and take control of another country

I'm genuinely happy that tourist are ditching Trumpland and going somewhere else. Foreigners really shouldn't go to the US as long as Trump is in power.

There is absolutely no argument that could justify that you should be detained or held responsible (on your example, that is. Obviously circumstances can exist to meet that burden). — AmadeusD

That's what I meant. It's a true political and philosophical question just where we draw the line of hate speech or inciting people to commit violence.

Being part of an identifiable group doesn't seem to lead to much anyway: Antifa, BLM etc... all carried out serious, violent terroristic actions, but other members were never called up and hte groups were not designated (this being political bias, obviously, but that's not quite relevant to my clarifying what's going on here. — AmadeusD

Have relations with Al Qaeda or ISIS members, and you will notice the difference.

Besides, irrelevant of Kash Patel being the head of FBI, the FBI has been quite systematic at looking at both leftist and right-wing extremist groups, including even environmental groups. In truth the security apparatus hasn't been biased as the partisan commentators always persist.

And do notice that you have gunmen that have tried to kill Republican politicians too. Starting with one Thomas Crooks.


This is the way that violence and upheaval can show itself. Solitary events create together the instability.

Hopefully this is the first of many moments they realize that things aren't being done quite right in the administration. — Samael Isn't

I think many government employees do realize how dysfunctional this administration is. It was surprising just how same the story was told during the last Trump administration by various commentators and reporters made out of it.

The simple fact is that Donald Trump is a great populist orator for his supporters, but a truly inept leader. His past failed businesses show this clearly. The only difference between this Trump administration and the previous administration is that this one is filled with lackeys and loyalists while the previous one did have Washington professional who tried to curb the most excesses of Trump. The fact is that Trump now will try to make his things, then fail, and then these failures are simply forgotten as the next crisis comes through the door.

And likely (hopefully) this is the outcome. Stephen Miller will get his ass kicked by the negative response to these kind of totally random operation on the street will have. I assume the ICE professionals do understand just how detrimental to the public image these kind of operations are, but naturally have to follow what the Trump crazies in the administration tell them to do.

The likeliest outcome is that ICE raids will tone down, be something not in your face but the normal operations that under previous administrations were done will prevail. And Trump's fantasies of deporting many millions of illegals will whimper and fade away just like the idea of Canada joining the US. Or the US annexing Greenland. People around Trump will just shut up about them and the discourse will be the next real crisis at hand.

The thing that is very consistent with Trump is that in the great dramatic things he wants to do, he will utterly fail in doing.

In my example, I was thinking of a scenario in which you are unarmed and face an enemy in the process of arming himself. Nobody is talking about Israel destroying Iran entirely. — BitconnectCarlos

And that's not relevant to this scenario, where Israel has a nuclear deterrent and enjoys total military dominance over it's rivals. And intends to keep it so by attacking them constantly.

It's impossible to know the Khameini regime's true motive. — BitconnectCarlos

One could educate oneself on it and not believe the propaganda. Yet in the Middle East one has to really try to make the difference with the rhetoric to the people and the real underlying policies and strategies.

The world, ideally, would have stopped Iran from going nuclear years ago. It shouldn't be left up to Israel, ideally, but here we are. — BitconnectCarlos

Have you ever thought about the possibility of Israel's enemies wanting to acquire a nuclear deterrent as to be a deterrent or do you genuinely believe that they are fantasizing about starting a nuclear war that likely will be as devastating if not more devastating for their people than the invasion of the Mongol Horde?

Khameini's words: "It doesn't matter if we die. Iran is not important, Islam is important." — BitconnectCarlos

That cannot be interpreted as Israel has to die and we have destroy it, even if we die trying.

Operation Downfall would have likely been extremely devastating. The typical American (Western?) position is to justify the atomic bombings as a necessary evil to avoid a land invasion. This was my position for most of my life. GEM Anscombe's essay "Mr. Truman's Degree" and her essay "War and Murder" caused me to rethink my perspective on this. You can find the first one online; it's not too long. — BitconnectCarlos

I haven't read this, but is has been known for a long time that Soviet Union joining the fight against Japan and it's rapid advance through Japanese defenses was a far bigger issue to the Japanese than American historians give credit.

The world should judge these countries on a case-by-case basis. Nuclear proliferation is a complex issue; I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs. — BitconnectCarlos

If you want to look at the geostrategic picture in the Middle East with the military balance in mind, you simply cannot forget that Israel has a functioning nuclear deterrent and it's enemies never had it.

It explains a lot more than at first you might think.

There are a good 500,000 European illegal immigrants that aren't getting rounded up alongside their Hispanic counterparts. — Samael Isn't

I don't know if it's true or just the ramblings of this administration, but....

(The Independent, 10th June 2025) Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly preparing to send thousands of illegal immigrants to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as soon as this week, marking a rapid escalation of the president’s mass deportation agenda which could target hundreds of people from European allied countries.

Immigration officials are considering whether to transfer as many as 9,000 foreign nationals, including people from the United Kingdom as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine, according to reporting from The Washington Post and Politico.

Officials are not expected to inform their home countries about their imminent transfers to the notorious facility, which opened in 2002 at the height of the War on Terror.

But at least there seems to be hope that Stephen Miller went simply too far by demanding the 3000 arrests per day quota, and ICE has to back down from random searches. So there are hopeful signs:



That the Trump administration gives out very confusing and opposing signals only shows the chaotic behavior of this dysfunctional administration.

I can't quite see whether you're trying to say that htis means its not a 'lone nut' or that it's somehow problematic that the security apparatus don't treat lone nuts like terror cells. I don't hold you to either, though. — AmadeusD

It's the latter case.

What I'm saying that especially with right-wing terrorism in the US, those who want it and promote it, understand that any conspiracy like forming terrorist cells or some organization simply alerts the whole security system. The legal system is made for fighting terrorist organizations. Yet if it's just individuals just acting alone, the security system cannot crack down on everybody. If you say you are against illegal immigrant, you cannot be detained or held responsible for someone who you don't know killing illegal immigrants in another state. But if someone makes a deadly terrorist attack and then it's publicly declared that the attack was made by "The Brotherhood for the Defence of America", guess which brotherhood members are going to have SWAT teams coming through the doors of their home in no time? Then having extensively discussed the illegal immigration problem in the Brotherhood website will get you into at least questioning or to be under watch.

It would require the U.S. to take Tehran, this is what the hawks and the Israeli lobby are trying to convince Trump to do now. Hopefully there is someone with a level head in that room. — Punshhh

Hopefully indeed, as that is a really foolish idea. Just look at the size of Iran. And unlike Iraq, it's a quite unified country and likely would put up a resistance. The armed forces are nearly 1 million strong and Iran has 85 million people.

Basically any land operation would be temporary or limited. Perhaps to clear and destroy the nuclear facilities. Or then take some islands in the gulf. But to march to Tehran, over the mountains and deep inside in the interior of the country? Ludicrous idea.

You would need a huge alliance to do this, but I'm not seeing this forming. For example the Turkish leader is saying that Iran is defending itself. Not a line if you would want to be part of an invasion force.

And how eager would be the Saudis to join this? Not even lukewarm:

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reiterated in a phone call with Iranian president the Kingdom’s condemnation of the Israeli strikes on Iran saying they have “disrupted” dialogue aimed at resolving the crisis, the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Saturday.

Speaking with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, MBS underscored Saudi Arabia’s “condemnation and denunciation of these [Israeli] attacks, which undermine the sovereignty and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and constitute a violation of international laws and norms.”

“The Crown Prince stressed that these attacks have disrupted ongoing dialogue aimed at resolving the crisis and have hindered efforts to de-escalate and reach diplomatic solutions,” SPA reported adding that MBS also offered his condolences to Pezeshkian for those killed by the attacks.

The Crown Prince “emphasized the Kingdom’s rejection of the use of force to resolve disputes, advocating for dialogue as the fundamental principle for resolving differences.”

So reality is that this is either between Israel and Iran or Israel with sidekick USA against Iran.

I am saying this because Israel has never lost a war. — Eros1982

Well, in the end Operation Peace for Galilee wasn't a huge success as in the end it created Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel had to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 after a long low-intensity conflict. The 2006 Lebanon War wasn't either a huge success and Hezbollah then wasn't destroyed.

The basic problem is that you have a perpetual cycle of Israel attacking it's neighbors and responding to attacks from various groups, which then simply repeat time after time again. These attacks have basically made Lebanon a failed state and Syria is too, if it cannot rebuild itself. Failed states cannot make peace even if they wanted. But I guess the present Israeli administration is totally happy with perpetual war and wouldn't care if all of their neighbors became failed states.

Netanyahu may be destroying Israeli and Western institutions, but he definitely won this war on Friday --when Trump gave him the green light to attack. — Eros1982

He finally got his war after decades for craving it.

But I fear that this is only a temporary solution and simply won't solve anything in the long run. And it's crazy to think that if Israel attacks Iran, somehow then Iranians would topple their government. This is a delusional line that you can hear in Western and especially American media. Just think about it: a foreign country starts to bomb your country, what would you do? Want to overthrow your countries government? There is no "liberation" of Iran from Iranians on the cards here. Trump declaring that Iran should surrender is the tone deaf thing that idiot is perfectly capable of doing.

Supreme Leader Khamenei says Iran won’t accept “imposed war”, “peace”, and warns any US strikes on its territory will have “serious irreparable consequences”.

If now the Gulf States like Saudi-Arabia and UAE are brought into this war (for example by closing the straight of Hormuz), then we'll have a oil price shock that likely will put us into a global recession.

Iran is wasting its rockets on Israel. The regime would do better if it wins time, while spreading chaos in the region surrounding Israel (Lebanon, Syria and Iraq). If Iran chose this path, a US invasion or Israeli nukes would not make sense. — Eros1982

Well, if they can continue firing rockets at this pace for weeks, that's a clear sign that Israel would have failed. If no rockets are fired to Israel, then Israel has achieved it's objectives.

Next up, cartels and Iran. Both of these will need to occur to get you back in the green. I read you often and enjoy your efforts, but I’m still trying to assess whether I’m being given insight or fear-mongering. — NOS4A2

That was just a month ago what you said, @NOS4A2.

Well, seems like it's very close that we indeed get a Trump war, now with Iran that was started by Israel.

(The Guardian, Tuesday 17th on June 2025) Trump convened a meeting of his national security team in the White House situation room after a day of febrile rhetoric in which the president gave sharply conflicting signals over whether US forces would participate directly in Israel’s bombing campaign over Iran.

He told journalists in the morning that he expected the Iranian nuclear programme to be “wiped out” long before US intervention would be necessary. Later he took to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to suggest that the US had Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in its bomb-sights, and could make an imminent decision to take offensive action. “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump said. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

In a post a few minutes later, Trump bluntly demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”.

It was not just Trump’s all-caps threats that triggered speculation that the US might join offensive operations. They were accompanied by the sudden forward deployment of US military aircraft to Europe and the Middle East, amid a general consensus that Iran’s deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities could prove impregnable without huge bunker-busting bombs that only the US air force possesses.

Demanding unconditional surrender is a quite extreme demand. Talk about an ultimatum. Is it going to be still TACO-Trump or will it be the big sidekick coming to the fight when the opponent seems to be loosing?

(The Hill, 17th June 2025) Trump — who on Monday cut short his visit to the Group of Seven summit in Canada to return to Washington to huddle with his national security team — has already authorized several military capabilities to the Middle East for defensive purposes. Those include more than 30 refueling tanker aircraft sent to Europe, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group ordered to the Middle East and two destroyers sent to the eastern Mediterranean Sea to help Israel defend against guided missile strikes.

The refueling tankers could be used to help replenish Israeli jets, offering Trump a less intense option for military involvement.

A U.S. official told NewsNation that the planes were moved to the European theater to give Trump “options” should things escalate further and the U.S. decide to become more involved.

The extra equipment and personnel add to the large U.S. force posture in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops, air defense systems, fighter aircraft and warships.

The deployments of air and sea assets, taken together, suggest Washington is preparing for a potential offensive operation as Israel and Iran take part in tit-for-tat attacks, open warfare that Israeli officials have said could last “weeks, not days” and threatens to spark a wider war in the Middle East.

To have a lot of tankers around is good especially for offensive purposes. You don't need them for defensive Combat air patrols, but you do need them if you want to strike deep into Iran. So I disagree a bit with the above article.

(Earlier the MAGA people thought like this. Let's see how it goes. But that was before the TACO-nickname.)

It is said that the regime has already so many woes to worry about. A quick defeat/retreat from Israel will add to the miseries of a big proud nation (that is overwhelmed from a nation ten times smaller). It may serve as the Falklands War example in Argentina (where it is said that their defeat from UK brought the collapse of the Argentina regime). — Eros1982

Argentina claimed the Malvinas, invaded it and then fought for them with the Argentinian forces finally surrendering to the British. That's a defeat, no matter how you look at it.



If Israel attacks by air strikes Iran and then stops them let's say after two weeks, that's a different issue. If Israel (or the US) would take Quesm and Kharg islands, then it would be far more serious and the loss would be more evident. Yet I have trouble envisioning the IDF taking and occupying Tehran. And this is the real problem here: attacking Iran is problematic, because a land war would be very, very difficult.

So much power is corrupting Israel and the US, in the same way as a jack pot might totally change me as a person. — Eros1982

One thing is totally evident, the Netanyahu administration has become a war cabinet which sees war as a natural instrument to solve it's problems. War is a normal state for Israel.

If a man comes at you with a gun, is the only justified time to respond after the bullet has been fired? Even while the bullet is in the air, there's technically no damage done. Guess we need to wait until after it strikes. — BitconnectCarlos

No. As I said, if you shoot a man that didn't shoot you, you simply need a lot explaining to do to the judge, because you will be the one that shot. And at some times, it will, even under law, be legitimate. But naturally there are quite a high bar for this.

When Israel has a nuclear deterrent, those countries who see Israel as a threat to themselves will try to get a nuclear deterrent. But you simply assume that they aren't seeking a balance, their own deterrence, but their motive is simply to destroy Israel, even if this put their own people and country to the peril of the many nukes that Israel has.

What Truman did was very questionable, and if there is a God, he will likely need to answer for what transpired. — BitconnectCarlos

We never can know how many Americans (and Japanese) would have died if Operation Downfall would have been initiated. And naturally we forget the huge importance of the Soviet attack in Manchuria for the Japanese to admit to surrender.

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclear. Israel is okay with other countries being stronger than it. — BitconnectCarlos

How about the Arabs? It would be interesting how Israel would react if the Saudi's would get a nuclear deterrent. What if the Egypt would also get a nuclear deterrent? Israel does have a peace agreement with Egypt (which it doesn't have with the Saudis).