I think it's well known that Iranians can be reasonable, if you just put aside the Middle Eastern death rants intended for the domestic crowd. And then again, Americans can be reasonable too.) — ssu

I know the Shah wasn’t too popular, but people forget what Iran was once like.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

Does then pinning your hopes on a politician promising change help? Or pinning your hopes on a narcissistic billionaire-pretend that wants to be accepted by the elite and would have been just fine as a TV personality? — ssu

Why not. What’s worked so far?

Have you ever considered the events of the last few days between America and Iran showing a greater understanding and appreciation of each other than ever before?

But have you told Trump about this? Because obviously they need to know.

Phew! You’ve convinced me.

Don’t forget the political system that enabled this. People understand business, they know who they’re dealing with, they understand the corruption of business, the drive for the bottom line. But they depend on politicians. If politicians let them down where do they turn?

I’m not unaware of the reasons you have, and many others, for your dislike of Trump: his background, his business dealings, his behaviour, his attitudes.

I can understand how you might feel about him being President with that sort of baggage.

However he is the President and he was elected on the basis of what he promised. If he won on the basis of who he was then that’s even more interesting. Which one was it?

If it’s his personality, his background, his attitudes, then it seems to be what many like about him. If it’s his promises then they like what he stands for. His promises he only has to deliver to his supporters, his opposition expect nothing because only the Democrats could give them what they want. Such is politics.

His constituency expect him to deliver on those promises. Has he failed them? I can’t be sure. I can read articles that say he has, then read articles that say he hasn’t. How is this possible?

There have been many Presidents adept at talking out of the sides of their mouths, Democrats and Republicans. Who can claim to be clean and honest in politics? Is Trump any better or any worse than others? Probably not.

So why the vitriol? Has he broken some sort of unspoken covenant about who America thinks it is? People claim he’s an embarrassment. Why? The rest of the world either likes him or detests him just as they do within the US, so what is embarrassing? Why should you care, he doesn’t represent you?

What the world is watching is the exposure of America institutions to the light and it doesn’t look good. Trump’s presence caused this and they exposed themselves through their response to his election.

Imagine what his constituency thinks, all their suspicions confirmed. Inadvertently or intentionally, who can know, he’s exposed a rats best inside the corridors of power. Everyone around the world sees that. That’s your embarrassment, that this has been going on for so long under previous Presidents and no one said anything. It makes you look very foolish and naive and confirms our suspicions about America.

This has nothing to do with a Trump. We always suspected you of this (apologies if I have it wrong and you are not American), now we know. So it became necessary for you to point the finger at Trump and say “It not us, it’s him!”

Please explain.

I will ask you what I asked NOS4A2 and didn't get much of an answer, how will Trump prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb? — Punshhh

He probably didn't answer because it's a stupid question. How could we possibly know?

:clap:

Is it possible to have real conversation about Trump these days? Maybe not.

Slogans such as "shake things up", "drain the swamp" and others, including "make America great again" are without specific enough meaning to be anything other than rhetoric. — creativesoul

Taking one of my comments and throwing it in with slogans of unspecific meaning in an attempt to make my comment look meaningless is so typical. You could hardly deny that Trump has shaken things up. Look at the posts on this forum.

I've no idea what group of people you're claiming are worried about Trump because they have so much to lose over Trump's suggestions... — creativesoul

Of course you know who I mean, you’re just playing games. You may not agree with who I mean by “those people” but you know what I mean. And you know what they have to lose; just an election for starters.

I'm not so sure that the US political environment is fixed, — creativesoul

I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, time will tell, but I see Trump as breaking, or shaking up, what was a very comfortable system for so many. His personality is abrasive and he’s uncompromising, but is this what’s needed to break up a system we may not even have a name for that operates under the guise of democratic process. If things are bad for people in general in the US surely that’s the result of entrenched corruption in the system that goes back many years. To me the fact that these people, the elites, are so angry and out of control over Trump suggests that they really feel threatened. And why wouldn’t they, there’s so much to lose?

Well, social pressure is one thing, morality another. — Bartricks

But that’s not always how it actually works, is it? Social pressure has been brought to bear on smokers. One of the positions anti-smokers have taken is that it’s immoral to smoke in the company of children. Or it’s immoral not to vaccinate your children because it threaten those who cannot be vaccinated. So these things cross over all the time. Social pressure can be used in the name of morality or to modify a moral.

The movement against eating animals has gone from cruelty to being immoral. If you take part in a society that you receive benefits from: security, care, support, etc. then you might be obliged to behave in a particular way, to behave according to the morals of that society that gave you those things. Otherwise withdraw, receive nothing and take nothing.

In the case of many Mats, if you have received benefits from the same system then are you obliged to offer your services when asked for? As in a welfare society, we make payments through taxation to help others; health, education, unemployment,housing, etc. and we can expect the same if we need it. But it only works by people accepting and agreeing to their obligations.

How long is this going to go on @Baden?

Well let’s just say he knows more about what he’s doing than you do.

surely I am not obliged radically to restrict my diet if a cow will otherwise die a month? — Bartricks

Yes, I agree.

Second thoughts: what in society would we be obliged to do? How do the two fit?

Yes, I agree with you, you’re not obliged. I’m just trying to shift the experiment over to the killing of animals. At what point does killing animals to eat become immoral? Like I said is it the shear number that’s immoral, or is it just obscene?

So whatever he does, what ever works out, is just dumb luck? This also applies to everyone he consulted with and even includes the response from Iran, that they got away with dumb luck and didn’t chose their targets carefully and announce their intentions before hand, all just dumb luck.

If there were many, many “Mats” and just as many people like yourself, then I imagine you would come under a lot of social pressure. Without doubt your refusal to go on the diet would be regarded as immoral. You would then have to find a moral defence for your refusal, which you can’t do. What moral position could you use?

in. By contrast, the practice of eating meat inspires others freely to continue to kill animals for money. — Bartricks

Equally so, the killing of animals is morally wrong, according to your OP, because it’s for money. So is it only the money that makes it immoral, or the numbers, or the way it’s done?

An alternative:

A: Check out this guy sticking pins in us.
B: Why is he doing that and how can we get him to stop without getting hurt ourselves?
A: Good question... — Baden

You have your answer.

“USA has had enough of it -- it calls out Iran in a western-type shoot-out.”

This from the survey, which got zero votes and turned out to be what happened.

Why did you get it so wrong?

Stick to your philosophy kiddies.

Giving the Russia a dominant presence in the region and forcing any US, or European presence remaining out. — Punshhh

Where’s the benefit for them in this?

I expect Russia will make the first move, as they have already been showing their presence in the Middle East. This is a big prize for them, because they lost the East European states to the EU. — Punshhh

Why is this a big prize to the Russians?

Perhaps we don't have all the information and probably aren't as smart as we think we are? — Tzeentch

Oh, finally.

Of course one can argue that if he wins again, America deserves whatever it gets! — tim wood

Well certainly what they want.

Derangement implies error in both fact and degree. — tim wood

I don’t think it’s reasonable to come up with your own definition so as to argue successfully against it.

From the Collins dictionary and pretty much understood by most:

“Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way.”

Some of the Trump agenda is standard for a Republican president. — tim wood

I don’t know if Trump really is a Republican. He may not be a Democrat’s but that doesn’t make him a Republican. What he might have done is hijack the Republican Party. A big problem for people, in my view, is that politics has changed, it’s never going back to what it was. And what was it anyway? Two parties sharing the spoils, smooth talking characters talking out of the side of their mouth. Maybe it turns out things can be done differently and a Trump is the first to see that, or has the nerve to do it.

I think Trump derangement syndrome infects both sides though, not just his opponents. — DingoJones

That’s very true. It’s a sort of for me or against me position on both sides. Trump’s been accused of polarising people, but it seems to me there are a lot of people who like to indulge in this. It’s an aspect of the times; heated over reaction. Like this OP, everyone ready for war, once again apocalyptic visions. This should be the OP, and I’ve tried to raise this as a discussion, why the rush to apocalypse, what does that mean?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/best-things-trump-has-done/

this neo-fascist, pocket proto-mini-Hitler. — tim wood

What you and others appear to have done is create a sort of cartoon character of Trump and then imagine him performing in ways that the character would behave; like he’s sitting in the White House eating hamburgers, watching tv, and thinking about attacking another country, then his hamburger goes cold, so he gets angry and assassinates some innocent abroad.

In fact you’re the trigger happy characters that jump up and down, waving your arms about, whenever Trump does something. Just using a little reason here on a philosophy forum, is it likely that everything he does is wrong, that he might not get something right even by chance? When are you going to apply a little reason to your responses to the elected President of the United States?

Obviously “Trump derangement syndrome is a real condition.

So you warmongers, salivating at the mouth over the possibility of war, wetting yourselves over Trumps error in judgement, once again you look stupid and deranged.

Edit: just look at the name of the OP; “Why do you think the US is going into war with Iran?” Fait accompli. Not “if” but “why”.

The assumption is that you are not allowed to play with yourself. No food sensation, no touch, no hearing, no seeing, no tasting, no defacating, no peeing, no itching, no scratching, no stretching, no bugyborekolas, no gurgling, no singing, no talking, no nothing. — god must be atheist

Is that who we are then?

But I still need to know what you meant.

Why would we not be content in a dark room with ourselves? I understand that we crave experience, but still. I remember reading the book ‘Future Shock’ about a monkey’s brain, removed from the monkey, being kept alive for a short time and Toffler ruminating about what the brain (monkey) would be experiencing

Hell is not other people.

or else was it a statement with a mistaken question mark? — god must be atheist

Mistaken question mark. I’ve no idea why I did that.

I don’t understand that?

which means that only combatant men will have a say. — alcontali

And what will they want?

the vast majority of men do not accept the terms and conditions (T&C) of the contemporary marriage contract. — alcontali

The vast majority of men worldwide, or in your country, or in your town, or in your street, or in your front room, or in your bed?

The laws enforced by western governments in the realm of marriage and divorce make generational reproduction impossible. — alcontali

Can you explain that a bit more?