However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is. — Tzeentch

It's not happening. France is doing it's own thing, EU isn't at all contacted, other countries (like India) are not taken into account. And this just shows how for example "the Quad" isn't anything serious, as obviously for it's members safe navigation on the global sea routes is quite important!

In the end it might be that ships will just reflag to China! Chinese ships have no problem going through and even if China has two surface vessels in the region (and a naval base in Djibouti), there aren't doing anything. They don't have to.

The US doesn't actually use the card that this is an attack to international shipping and this itself is a threat to global trade and international relations. Just putting it down to "are you for free and safe shipping in the World?" would likely do it. Yet if and when the US simply is only defending it's own flagged ships, fine, but don't think that other countries will give a shit about your "Prosperity Guardian". France here is the canary in the coal mine. Hence you end up with NATO members doing their own stuff and basically not knowing just who does what.

Lack of leadership, I say. And this has become very typical to the US. It really doesn't care a shit about having allies or not. It just spurts out decisions and actions and then just looks puzzled if nobody goes along with it.

If Israel were rational, they would just call it a "victory" and just stop the damn thing. — Manuel

Witnesses told Reuters that the raids targeted a military base adjacent to Sanaa airport, a military site near Taiz airport, a Houthi naval base in Hodeidah and military sites in Hajjah governorate.

Note one thing missing here:

The U.S. said Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands supported the operation, and sought to present the strikes as part of an international effort to restore the free flow of trade in a key route between Europe and Asia that accounts for about 15% of the world's shipping traffic.

This shows how incompetent the Biden administration, and US diplomacy in general, has become and how the US isn't able to take the leadership role.

So the US and British attack Houthi sites.

What about France?

France is also protecting it's vessels and has also shot down drones, but apparently frustrated at the pace (and obviosly where the US is just protecting it's own vessels, the NATO country is now working on it's own.

What about Norway? Or Denmark?

Tiny nations, but the Danish Maersk is the one of the largest (if not the largest) container shipping firms in the World and Norway already onboard the operation Prosperity Guardian.

What about the EU in general?

The EU had it's operation Atalanta there to fight Somali piracy, and actually Somali piracy stopped in 2017 until this year as the Houthis picked up their campaign. How difficult would it have been to get the EU support this operation?

What about India?

India was pissed of from attacks close to it's borders and Indian forces have been active in fighting piracy (or privateers perhaps in this case).

All above simply show the degeneration of US foreign politics and the unability to create large scale alliances. Long time has gone from the time when the US could bolster an awesome alliance to get Iraq out of Kuwait with UN resolutions and all that. It simply the total lack to do that. Haven't seen the foreign secretary going to countries to get nations around this. To simply talk about free navigation of shipping could in my view easily have gotten countries like Japan, the EU countries and South Korea, perhaps even India to commit to this. And this is very perilous, especially if (and when) Trump comes to be the next president.

* * *

Btw now the whole Arab league is supporting South Africa's legal case:

The Arab League has voiced support for South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its deadly military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

So I guess that's the end for Biden's attempts to "normalize" relations between Saudi-Arabia and Israeli in the continuation of the Abraham records. Accusing a country of genocide and then normalizing relations doesn't go hand in hand. :snicker:

Standard issue so far, but as you indicate, it's becoming less effective. You can only continue this mass butchery for so long, people see the pictures and it just becomes impossible to defend.

I think they are hoping that Lebanon will eventually lose its patience, then Gaza can be forgotten for a bit. Probably not helped by the issue that Netanyahu may end up going to prison for unrelated issues.

War is an excellent motivator for many politicians. — Manuel

Lebanon cannot do anything, I assume you are talking about Hezbollah. Two different actors, actually, even if in the same country.

One thing is that the Houthis could have success in the Bab el Mandeb missile shootout. One American merchant vessel sunk and I think it wouldn't be just me and @Tzeentch talking about the ongoing naval battle there.

Or then you have a terrorist attack either in the US or Europe, to which Netanyahu can give a "See I told you!" response.

Or people simply get numb. Just as they did with the war in Ukraine. That's the most likely scenario.

Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? — schopenhauer1

Do you have trouble looking from their viewpoint on the whole issue?

Schops, how would you feel if the US politicians would argue that your country is an existential threat for the US? The Iranians can quite easily make the statement to others and especially to themselves that the US is out to get them. Heck, they can just take a book by Noam Chomsky and start reading out loud from it. Starting with Operation Ajax, if not even earlier. And they can see themselves being in just as a perilous situation facing imminent attack from hostile foreigners as one other country that I won't mention.

But this is the Middle East and both sides see themselves having the need to defend themselves. As I've pointed out, the most lethal thing for a politician in that region is to try to make peace.

To make this more clear, of the Iranian attitudes toward this, just listen to the supreme leader of Iran on the subject on why the chant "Death to America", from some years ago:

But it's all pathetic, having no defense, they hurl insults, which is what happens when your arguments (or rather, propaganda) no longer work. — Manuel

Yet still it's working: the Ivy League presidents resign, the allies of the US are mute as they don't want to oppose such a dear issue for the Superpower.

Yet this aggressive counterattack works only for some time, actually.

You can cow the media to silence by hurling accusations of anti-semitism and racism, but that goes only so far. Ignorance too goes only so far too. Yet fear isn't a way to control people for long.

Because finally, and unfortunately, you will get the American politician that doesn't praise AIPAC or Israel. Who simply won't care about it. And why I say this is unfortunate is because then it's going to be real field day for the real anti-semites.

Israel's hope is that there comes another issue which takes the attention away.

How much do you expect and or fear that a strong fascist moment could be organized within the next 5 years? — BC

Well, what is sure to happen is that any movement that gains power, will likely be called (rightly or wrongly) fascist. Because calling the other side fascist is the usual insult.

Political polarization is now quite structural in the US political field. The two-party system simply enforces this. When there is little to show of your own achievements, then it becomes simply a game of telling how dangerous and evil the other party is and hence you have to vote for us. This message is spoon fed to Americans all the time. It's amazing just how little political violence the US has seen.

And then there is populism, be it leftist or right-wing populism, that will also fuel the polarization. After all, in the heart of populism there's the hatred against the rich, the powerful and the elites that are against the common people.

There is also the disenchantment to the state, the country itself. There's a fine line between being critical about implemented policies and then being self loathing. Many Americans find their own state as this potential enemy to themselves. One could naively think that this would counter the lure of fascism, but unfortunately it goes the other way. The state and it's power is only held by the wrong people, the correct people have to take the power and be uncompromising to those others!

In a similar way, you could assume that conspiracy theorists simply want transparency and sound policies that aren't high-jacked by special interest groups. As the Trump ensemble of Q-ANON people showed, this is the farthest from the truth. These people simply believe all is propaganda and they have to fight it with their own propaganda.

And as an foreigner, what I'm surprised is that Americans don't seem to understand that their perpetual deficit funding of their government relies on the status of the US dollar, which itself enjoys that status because of the Superpower status itself that the country has. Once the dollar loses it's status as the back up currency and just becomes the largest currency among others, then the perpetual deficit funding cannot be sustained.

This kind of economic crisis might then indeed turn the US into a policestate as it has all the trappings of one already in place. If the middle classes then start fearing for their own safety, then you can easily get a state that is quite fascist.

And likely total silence from the mainstream media... especially in the US. Or just a sidenote.

For example (just now) from CNN:

While South Africa outlined its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, here are some other developments happening in Gaza and the wider region as Israel continues its war against Hamas.

-Relatives of Israeli hostages gather near Gaza to send messages:

-Israel claims to have thwarted "terrorist cell":

For example any links to here this opening statement above, at least I don't find from CNN.

Yet what is told is the response from Israel:

Israel has rejected South Africa’s claims and application to the world court, saying through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs that South Africa “is calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, and that its “claim lacks both a factual and a legal basis.”

That's an interesting point!

I'm not so sure just how grass roots is the support for strict Wahhabism in Saudi-Arabia, though. But there surely are those Wahhabbi Trumpists around in the country. Usually putting religion to be state sponsored and you make the people to be not so religious. My country is a perfect example of that! And actually, the youth in Iran isn't so interested in the theocracy either.

Years ago the British parliament studied the issue of the US leaving. I think that will wake up finally Europeans put effort in their own defense industry. And similarly the US won't be as important as it is now.

At least Putin is betting firmly on this.

Europe really has to look at the possibility of the US leaving and basically being an ally of only Israel. :smirk:

It's only American politicians themselves that can ruin the position of the US it is enjoying now.

I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. — schopenhauer1

Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic???

I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. — schopenhauer1

Iranians have their Islamic revolution. No wonder that both Ansar Allah (the Houthis) and Hezbollah are also islamic movements too. Hence it's no wonder why they are islamic and shiite movements. It would be similar to be puzzled about the American revolution being so much about liberal policies and rights of individuals.

As I mentioned, Tunisia, though not perfect, is towards democratic reforms. — schopenhauer1

Tunisia has had it's share of going forward and back, but the country that started the "Arab spring" has improved somewhat. No news is usually good news, even if corruption still persists.

So what is Iran's goals, such that it would be a world where they wouldn't use violence? — schopenhauer1

I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is.

Second try...

The PLO wasn't (and isn't) Islamist. And it's difficult to say what the Palestinian liberation movement would be then if it wouldn't resort to the typical violence these movements use. But I guess that pacifism wouldn't be so successful in this case. The pacifist march to the Gaza wall didn't end up so well for the Gazans.

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1

This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian).



(The most authoritarian are North Korea, Myanmar and Afghanistan in that order).

In my view, for a country to be a democracy and a justice state, you do have to have a) a functioning economy and b) functioning, effective institutions to uphold those rights and freedoms. One might argue that many of the Gulf States are at least OK for their own citizens (not for the migrant workers). If you don't have to pay taxes, all services are provided and you can even get income from the state, many can be OK with an autocratic monarch.

The tragedy is that only true peace could possibly bring enough prosperity to the region for it to become not so wavering. But if a group of armed men in pick up trucks can create an "Islamic State" and militaries can make coups, there's a long road to political stability needed to have a functioning democracy. All rulers in the region can face violent overthrows, hence the belief in democracy isn't strong for starters.

It would be nice to know some more details about how complex this truly was, but a strike of this size would have been very dangerous to isolated navy vessels. — Tzeentch

I think there will be interesting military history written about this, but I think it will take years. Military professional magazines might have a good account on the missile war in a few months I guess.

No I’m talking about countries and Iran and their goals. Israel’s goal was quite clear, their neighbors was quite clear too about Israel at that time, so that point seems just an aside or not understanding my question. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps then I don't understand your question.

Is the question what are the objectives of Iran and it's proxies here?

Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? — schopenhauer1

Well, how did the Israeli independence movement look like to the British, who were fighting them?

It's a war, an insurgency.

Here's footage of the British doing anti-terrorist operations against the Zionists:

I went on a bit of a tangent there, but whilst writing this I started to realise how grave this situation might actually be. I used to take US naval dominance for granted, but I think we're actually past that point. — Tzeentch

Seems like the Houthis have tried swarming or similar attack, that the US CENTCOM called "complex":

On Jan. 9, at approximately 9:15 p.m. (Sanaa time), Iranian-backed Houthis launched a complex attack of Iranian designed one-way attack UAVs (OWA UAVs), anti-ship cruise missiles, and an anti-ship ballistic missile from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen into the Southern Red Sea, towards international shipping lanes where dozens of merchant vessels were transiting.

Eighteen OWA UAVs, two anti-ship cruise missiles, and one anti-ship ballistic missile were shot down by a combined effort of F/A-18s from USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Laboon (DDG 58), USS Mason (DDG 87), and the United Kingdom’s HMS Diamond (D34). This is the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19. There were no injuries or damage reported.

See here

Seems like US merchant vessels went through the Bab el Mandeb and the US warships and the British warship were on picket defence.

This low level deployment of paramilitary fighters, meant to disrupt without going to full scale war? — schopenhauer1

That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.

For example, warfare in Lebanon has gone on for a long time on a low burner even after Israeli withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The global media focuses on this only when large scale operations happen.

Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history. — schopenhauer1

Well, if the anti-Westerners have the idea of viewing things extremely black and white, I also urge to make the distinction between Iran and the IS / Daesh.

Iran isn't a suicidal death cult. It has managed far better in it's foreign policy than let's say another "Axis-of-evil" country, North Korea. The idea of "Mad Mullahs" is more of propaganda than reality.

And this is one thing we have to remember: in the Middle East the rhetoric is far more over the top than the actions taken. Rhetoric and actions are two different things. In European and American rhetoric and discourse this is different, especially if the person is at a leadership position. In fact, when some Iranian politicians vow to destroy Israel, this is rhetoric to the crowds. In similar fashion, we should also be somewhat hesitant also to make direct conclusions when Israeli politicians vow now to destroy Gaza or when they refer to Amalek. Just to take an example, the PLO said quite the same things as Hamas says now, yet could sit down with the Israelis and attempt the peace process. Yes, the rhetoric is very alarming and shouldn't be dismissed, yet the simple fact is that basically in the Middle East you have hotheads dominating the public discourse.

Remember that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the heritage and, at least officially, the aims of the Islamic revolution to promote the Muslim World. The hostility against Israel comes basically as a popular endeavor to woo the Arab street to support the Islamic revolution. Yet the Islamic republic is inherently against the present-day monarchies and the non-theocratic democracies (at least in name democracies) of the Arab states. And then there is the Sunni / Shia divide to that and also that Iranians aren't Arabs. So a lot of reasons for divisions.

And of course from their point of view, the Great Satan is out to get them and their revolution. This blends in to the Iranian history of the early 20th and 19th Century, when the state was quite weak compared to the Western imperialists and I think Iranians view this time similarly as present day China views the China of the 19th Century.

I think the whole region should have a real push to normalize relations, disarm and integrate as places like Europe have done. It's not just Iran's fault.

I don't expect the French or British to stick around if there is a real risk such attacks are carried out on their ships. — Tzeentch

Yet let's have a reality check here:

Houthi's have not sunk any ship yet and except for the hostage crew, nobody has been killed. And I think this is on purpose, actually. They have already hit the traffic, got the Western powers to respond, hiked up shipping costs etc, yet have not gotten the US aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea to make retaliatory attacks into Yemen.

I think this is the tit for tat game of limited escalation. All out attack will likely respond in an all out counter-attack and retaliatory strike.

The problem with that is, that physicalism is supposed to be true of everything that is real. Even idealism acknowledges that physical objects exist, but physicalism is the idea that everything is reducible to the physical. — Wayfarer

Is Donald Duck real? No. Is the Walt Disney cartoon character Donald Duck in pictures, cartoons and in costumes made depicting the duck real? Yes, in the pictures and cartoons there is the cartoon character Donald Duck. With a few pence strokes a cartoonist can create the fictional character.



What is real or true depends from the questions we ask and the context we make our questions.

If laws of thought govern all that is physical, then it is irrational to hold that these very laws of thought emerged (via supervenience or otherwise) out of that which is physical. Instead entailing that the physical itself is contingent on the occurrence of laws of thought—with laws of thought being commonly taken to not be in and of themselves physical unless they were to emerge from the physical. — javra

Well, Donald Duck was first drawn by Dick Huemer and Art Babbit and the immature character was developed by Dick Lundy. From there on many cartoonists etc have contributed to the character, like Carl Barks. Hence the physicalist could reduce everything about to basically molecules and atoms and acts what cartoonists and drawers have done.

Yet I think the real question is how fruitful is the assumption of reductionism itself? I view physicalism as one general answer to reductionism. The physicalist is happy to stop somewhere and waive off else in philosophy as near nonsense. Brush everything else off with accusing others of talking about spirits. Or at least something that isn't so important. Has this consequences?

Basically naive reductionism leaves us to ask about the foundations of everything from physicists, as if they somehow would have the cradle of knowledge about everything. Yet the fact is that even if a complex system is a sum of it parts, just looking at those parts individually don't answer much about the operations of the complex system itself. A metallurgist just looking at scraps of metal cannot answer how a jet aircraft flies, just as a microbiologist looking at cells has a hard time to explain our current societies.

The only navy I can imagine putting itself in the line of fire of such weapons is the US navy. And possibly the Indians? But then again, the Indians are part of BRICS so it's unlikely their ships would be targeted in such a way.

I think other nations will not be willing to run the risk of having one of their vessels swamped in anti-ship missiles and sunk. It requires a lot of faith in one's equipment. — Tzeentch

The Royal Navy has already shot down Houthi drones and missiles and the French Navy is already escorting French cargo ships through the Bab el Mandeb.

Shooting down anti-ship missiles and drones has basically been the norm from the 1980's, so it's not so difficult. The Houthi missile arsenal itself is technically quite old, the Iranian missiles like the Noor (originally the Soviet Styx missile) and the Chinese C802 are developed in the 1970's. There are newer Iranian missiles like the Sayyad, but all the anti-ship missiles seem to be subsonic.

The Sayyad missile on parade in Sanaa:


The only issue is that drones are dirt cheap while the surface to air missiles used to shoot them down cost over million dollars and there is a limited number of them on the destroyers and frigates. Hence the ships need to rearm, which isn't something you can easily do especially on the high seas.

Then there can be also remotely controlled ship borne explosive devices, something similar that the Ukrainians have used. Here some years ago a Saudi frigate was attacked by this kind of boat.



And the next level would be mine warfare. If mines are laid on the straight, it would mean that special minehunter ships have to be deployed. What makes this unlikely is that this ceases all shipping from passing through the straights, including countries that are friendly to Iran / the Houthis. For example, no Russian tankers have been attacked by the Houthis.

The only nation that basically has the ability and the will to possibly take an offensive stance here, to bomb Houthi installations, is basically the US Navy. Yet seems there isn't an eagerness to do this, if it can come to this.

Do you think you can articulate a physicalism without a cause concept? — fdrake

Or concepts in general.

The arguments for physicalism as the OP asked are best when we simply limit the definition of existence to only something material. Concepts, language, ideas, mathematics, logic, all of that can then simply be said to be something else. Perhaps true and logical, but not something that exists.

Of course some can argue that this just is circular reasoning and isn't very useful as we do need all those concepts, models etc. to say anything relevant about what does exist materially in our universe.

I've heard some talk about Azerbaijan being used as a potential springboard, though the route to Teheran would still be very well-defendable. It'd be a stretch — Tzeentch

The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. Only some 9/11 will push them eagerly to attack Iran. Yet Afghanistan is still quite in memory.

This came clear when in 2016, when the Bush neocons were still in office and the WOT still going, the US had ground forces deployed both in Iraq and Afghanistan and someone like the former national security advisor Brzezinski was fearful that the US would indeed strike Iran.

At this moment in January 2016, Iran took prisoner US Navy personnel of a small naval patrol vessel that ventured into Iranian territory:


And no war happened.

What happened is that actually, for no reason given, the US Commander of CENTCOM later resigned. It might be a coincidence, but actually the only way how a US commander can protest is by resigning. Even if it was just a coincidence, the neocons in the White House never attacked Iran. And after this time the US policy has been not so aggressive. Hence to invade Iran is simply a bad idea and the US military knows it.

Even now, the Houthis, part of the Axis of Resistance, are seriously warned about their actions and the operation Prosperity Guardian is said to be purely defensive. And even that US-lead operation isn't forming a great alliance as the French Navy is protecting it's merchant ship by itself and India is doing it's naval operations on it's own in tackling what seems to be Somali privateers now.

Indian commandos rescue a hijacked cargo ship just yesterday in the Arabian Sea:

There's a lot of talk about starting a war with Iran, but what would that look like? — Tzeentch

Like a disaster as everybody has for years anticipated it to be. Basically the US could simply mount a bombing campaign, something similar to Operation Desert Fox and likely nothing else. And Iran is far more powerful than the weak Iraq was after the liberation of Kuwait. A ground invasion? From where? Teheran is over mountains quite well inside Iran. Simply out of the question.

And where could Iran counterattack with it's proxies, the "Axis of resistance":

1) Bab el Mandeb -with the Houthis. Next step would be starting to mine the straits, which would be an absolute disaster for global trade. Already the global chokepoint is an area of fighting and attacks have also happened in the Arabian Sea and even in the Indian Ocean.

2) Iraq and the pro-Iranian militias there, which already have been active:

Iran-backed militias see the US as an occupying force interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs and undermining Baghdad’s sovereignty. Their operations are part of a wider campaign to pressure the US to exit Iraq and are aimed at two primary targets: military bases and convoys carrying logistical materiel (see graph below). Both these targets reflect a preference for indirect confrontation with US troops, and their respective prioritizations have fluctuated depending on the militias’ tactical objectives.

3) And Hezbollah and it's rocket artillery to attack Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been already evacuated from the northern parts of the country in anticipation of an all out war with Hezbollah.

If you notice, already 1), 2), 3) are already engaged, even on a low burner. Hence the US can attack Iranian nuclear facilities while Iran can attack many US facilities in Iraq, Syria and the Gulf States.

Hence I find this all very bleak and worrisome.

It's not about the reason for ethnic cleansing. It's the act of ethnic cleansing itself that is the issue here.

Or you assume that just big enough terrorist attack would have perpetrated by the IRA against the British, then the UK would have started to ethnically cleanse North Ireland and push all the catholics to Ireland? You think that would have been a normal response from a nation that says it upholds human rights etc?

Am I the only one who finds the use of language suspicious to say the least? — Tzeentch

Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, just as Iran is using the Houthis as proxy. Iran learnt to use proxies after using it's own forces against Western shipping with the US Navy launching the largest naval operation after WW2 against the Iranian Navy in Operation Praying Mantis. This short war that actually didn't surface so much in the media sunk a lot of the Iranian navy. Hence Iran uses proxies. Possibly now Israel / US has learnt it too? IS would be perfect as you cannot say it's an ally of the West... only with wearing an enormous tin foil hat, that is!

(If someone is interested in that US operation years ago, here's a good visual summary of the 1988 large scale operation, that is quite unknown, the video starts after commercials in 1:10)

The west cautioned Israel not to go overboard attacking Gaza because of all the helpless, innocent people who would suffer or be killed. Israel didn't listen. What was the west supposed to do about it? — frank

The question is, if Israel is part of the West and it's really looking at the possibility of ethnic cleansing, what does it tell about the West?

Last time ethnic cleansing happened close by it was the former Yugoslavia, that wasn't part of the West, even if European. Putin's Russia isn't also part of the West, hence the treatment of the Chechens isn't about the actions of a Western democracy. Former Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern bloc countries. And other examples have been from what we term as the Third World.

Or are you saying that Israel isn't a Western country and hence shouldn't be judged as one?

One thing in your comment I would put a serious question mark under though, is the the assertion that the US is no longer dependent on Saudi (or lets say, foreign) oil.

The US doesn't possess that much oil.

This matters very little in peace time, but in war it is crucial. This is why the Persian Gulf has been the most important area to the US outside the western hemisphere after Europe. — Tzeentch

Here's US oil production and consumption. You can see that net imports have taken a dramatic fall after the the shell oil / fracking revolution. Now they are at the level of the 1960's, when the size of the economy was far smaller.



Saudi-Arabia's importance is in that it can influence what the price of oil is. Secondly, a lot of US allies are dependent on Saudi oil. And Saudi-Arabia is very important to China too:

Many uphold the idea that Israel is Western democracy and a beacon of light in an area dominated by more or less totalitarian states. What I think is worrisome is what Israel's politics is going to as it indeed is a Western country. The talk about "voluntary removal" of the Gazan population to the Sinai desert is so frequent with so many administration members talking about it makes the ethnic cleansing of Gaza a genuine possibility, not just some over the top propaganda. What does this actually tell about the West itself? Once when a country finds itself in war, all the high minded ideas that the West believes are thrown away. And once it is in perpetual war, where basically low-intensity warfare is the "norm", the outcomes seem to be quite alarming. Yet it should be reminded that ethnic cleansing in Europe made the Western powers to intervene in a civil war where otherwise they might left the warring parties alone.

I already noticed this awful tendency happening already during the "War on Terror" with revenge, fear and islamophobia taking over. Hence South Africa has a point when it says that the West has double standards (Israel's actions compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine).

Yet, it's been shaky of late: 'There is only so much patience one can have’: Biden appears to back off vow to punish Saudi Arabia — Tzeentch

That the Saudi's cut oil production hardly is here something that is weakening this alliance: OPEC embargo hit the US far more back in the 1970's, yet the US came to help in the 1990's. First of all, the US itself isn't anymore dependent on Saudi oil thanks to the fracking revolution. That's the major geopolitical shift that has happened.

I think more of a recent rift happened when Iran (even the Houthis claimed it was them, yet the cruise missiles came from the north, not from Yemen) attacked Saudi oil facilities in attacked Saudi oil facilities in 2019 (and later in 2022) and the US did nothing.

Hence the warming of relations between Saudi-Arabia and Iran (lead by China) is notable. Saudi-Arabia cannot rely that the US will come to it's help, then it has to look at other options. After all, many Americans would just love to put Saudi-Arabia in the axis of evil.

I think their becoming a part of BRICS indicaters that they're not US-aligned any longer. They were never allied to the US to begin with, but I assume 'aligned' is what you meant. — Tzeentch

That is incorrect, @Tzeentch

Saudi-US relationship has been quite firm. The countries do have had a defense treaty since 1951. And the US has come to the aid of Saudi-Arabia (with Operation "Desert Shield" being the most obvious example). For the US, Saudi-Arabia was a crucial part of CENTO, then the "Twin Pillars" (where the other pillar was Imperial Iran). And now still is important.

US tank among Saudi tanks in exercise "Eager Lion 2022":


BRICS, just like the QUAD or the G7 aren't defense treaty organizations.

But what has happened is that the US isn't anymore in such a leadership role it was before. The Middle East is the obvious example of this: in places like US allies have been supporting different sides. And Saudi-Arabia was even close to invading another GCC member with an US base. Imagine having NATO countries in an operation where the UK & France would support one faction and Germany, Spain & Italy the faction fighting against it? Well, in the Middle East that is quite usual... nowdays!

And this would be so quite important to people that naively think that either countries are "US puppets" or are against the US: sovereign states have quite their own agendas and the US, even if powerful, is just another actor among others.

Only if a revolution happens, the change is quick and dramatic, but the way the US loses it's allies usually doesn't blow up with a bang, but with a long whimper. (Pakistan or New Zealand are examples of this.)

Ethiopia is quite closely allied to the US — Changeling

Yet not as Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and UAE. Ethiopia (a) doesn't have US bases or US troops in the country and (b) doesn't have Western / US equipment as it's combat aircraft, tanks and artillery are basically of Russian/Soviet origin. The US does provide a lot of aid, but that is mainly humanitarian aid, not like in the case of Egypt military aid.

I think the US-Ethiopian relationship could be seen to be as 'friendly' and 'warm', but this country isn't such an essential player as Egypt or Saudi-Arabia to the US.

Ok, maybe I am not that articulate, just curious, do you know what the BRICS is? — boagie

FYI, here's a video of Chinese and Indian border guards having a fight. Border skirmishes between the two aren't ancient history.



And about that being so anti-US, just from last year, US-Indian joint military exercises:



The reality is that just like the Quad, BRICS is far more a discussion group than an actual treaty organization. At least India is quite comfortable in being non-aligned, and being non-aligned means it doesn't take sides! The US would hope so, but the country simple wants to waltz with both China and the US. As do the majority of other Asian countries.

And now as BRICS has Saudi-Arabia, UAE, Egypt (and Ethiopia) as it's new members, it's obvious that these countries (except Ethiopia) are seen as allies of the US.

Hence the idea of BRICS being against the US is not simply true. The World isn't so black and white.

A more thorough report about the Houthi attacks on the Bab el Mandeb and where now things are going. In the international sea trade the links between military and political developments and their direct impact on the global economy. Also it seems that ships that the Houthis have attacked have simply visited Israeli ports at some time, not actually coming from or going to Israel.

Also what is explained why containerships are the more precious vessels here.

A drone strike in Lebanon possibly pulling in Hezbollah into the conflict. Dumb decision. — Benkei

Hezbollah is already active, if engaged in a limited brawl with Israel. Other factions in Lebanon are a different matter.

Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati issued a statement late Tuesday condemning an explosion in the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut, calling it a "new Israeli crime."

My knowledge is limited, — boagie

Indeed it is, so at least you are honest. :up:

but you used Ukraine as an example of the bad deeds of Russia, which couldn't be further off the mark. — boagie

Obviously you don't know the history starting from the collapse of the Soviet Union and all the ways that Russia has intervened in Ukraine and it's near abroad starting from the 1990's. And this might not be the correct thread to go (again) this. Anyway, a long story short, Russia's behaviour in it's "Near Abroad" and in former Soviet Republics is similar if not worse as US actions in Central America and the Caribbean.

America has already usurped the sovereignty of the countries of Europe when they placed nuclear warheads on their soils, American nuclear warheads. — boagie

Really?

It might be hard to fathom, but actually Europeans are happy with the defense treaty organization, just as they are happy with their European integration process, especially after the UK showed the example just how utterly bad is the idea of separating from the union. But if you think that these countries are mere puppets, I don't think we can have an insightful discussion.

The Eastern hemisphere, basically the history of European colonies, are tired of being kept poor, and brutalized in the process. — boagie

Are Taiwan, South Korea, the Gulf States poor? Here again the idea of the poor Third World of the 1960's and 1970's is different from the present.

All the while America has been using its awesome military to intimidate and crush weaker countries by making economic warfare on them, these countries have been preparing to meet the challenge of their brutal master, and today is the day. — boagie

The US has never been a brutal master of either China or Russia, or of India!

So again, you are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of a better world. — boagie

How do you think Putin and Communist China will make the world better? Being critical about the US is fine, I am critical especially about their Mid-East policies. But then thinking that those opposing the US have to be great is illogical. Enemy of my enemy isn't my friend. There is much to improve in this World, I agree with you, but I don't think those guys will make it better.

And I assume you never saw Soviet Union, or lived when it was still around. Sorry, but I'm for democracy, human rights, and having this kind of forums where you can openly say what you want...even about your own countries politics. So just remember when you cheer for Russia or China, remember what kind of states they actually are.

In fact a forum like this would be the first place that would at least get the administrator into trouble in Russia or China.

As the bannings thread closed again, I'll continue here.

It's true that when there's couple of hot political topics that bring up emotions (George Floyd protests, US police violence, Israel-Hamas war, perhaps also the war in Ukraine), they indeed can overwhelm the front page and some actually interesting philosophical debate can easily drop down to the second page. And let's be frank: who goes to check discussion on the second or third page?

Now there is on the left side all the various forums, but it's difficult to know just where a certain interesting thread is, especially if it could be "general" or more specific philosophy.

So here's my suggestion:

In the frontpage (or at least in my view on the frontpage) there is above the threads (ALL DISCUSSIONS) continuing with the shoutbox, guidelines etc.

Could you have there next to it INTERESTING PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS or something like that and the mods/administrator could pick the more philosophical or philosophically interesting threads. People could click this and see an interesting assortment of what the mods have deemed good threads.

This because, as we know, there aren't a huge amount of participants in this forum, the All Discussion, is good to show just what and who has written something on any thread. Yet just with one simple click, you would a serene philosophical thread screen without the bickering and ranting of current topics (politics, environment, elections, wars...) Hence a Philosophy thread without a Trump / Ukraine crisis thread etc.

That's my 5 cents.

There's obviously a difference between political philosophy and arguing politics, the former we see much less of. — Hanover

I think this forum makes a very good distinction between the philosophy of religion and religious debates themselves.

That's a good example.

A house-by-house, room-by-room, tunnel-by-tunnel rooting out of Hamas would result in many fewer collateral deaths. Israel doesn't have enough population to mount and sustain so personnel-intensive approach. — BC

Or the will. Just to give an example where a country treated insurgents as criminals and their supporters still as citizens is "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland: there more British soldiers and policeman died than IRA terrorists and the tho IRA perpetrators of the worst attack against the British army got off free as the court didn't find enough evidence for it. (The other later was killed when he was fixing a bomb, but I guess the other one lived free.)

The politics in Israel is going into a very worrisome direction. Many people are talking about transferring people out of Gaza, even building there new colonies.

Dropping bombs and shelling buildings is a more efficient use of resources, with ghastlier side effects. There's no such thing as a bomb smart enough to blow up only the right people. Bombs and shells are equal opportunity death-dealing devices. — BC

Destroying all buildings and infrastructure is an ominous issue here. Here again a totally different style of warfare compared to the US (for example in Iraq).

Myself, I wonder why this particular forum, which is mainly concerned with philosophy, ought to accomodate never-ending threads on vexatious topics such as Middle Eastern politics, which is famously divisive. — Wayfarer

I confess to be one of the perpetrators of posting and continuing threads that aren't philosophical, but political. The reason is at least to me obvious: people in the forum are more aware about global and political issues than average and there are intelligent people that do not share my political views. For me this forum is like a canary in the coal mine of sorts. It is also that others provide good links and other useful information. And lastly, you do also get good responses and other viewpoints!

And as being interested in the philosophy of mathematics, this forum was genuinely helpful for me: you can express your amateur ideas and if they are incorrect, you will get corrected. I remember years ago when in the university going to a teacher in the mathematics department and asking about issues and he seemed horrified that a total stranger from another faculty came up to him and asked about the philosophy of math (obviously some kind of crank!)

I get that threads on politics generate a lot of animosity, but this is a philosophy forum. That should mean that discussions about politics, society and conflicts at least follow an ability to formulate criticism and arguments by a certain standard of internal logic while maintaining a tone fit for proper philosophical discussion. — Christoffer

That would be the objective, I guess.

So I guess we should send the Palestinians back to Saudi Arabia or whichever surrounding Arabic nation they came from. — BitconnectCarlos

Just asking: Why is it so hard not to demand ethnic cleansing?

Waging war on the Axis made the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Axis children an inevitability. Much more than 8k. Such is war. The blood lies on the instigator. — BitconnectCarlos

Palestinians aren't even remotely close to Axis powers of the WW2.

Terror bombing and killing civilians isn't an inevitability. If you have good civil defense (bomb shelters), safety of civilians is important and the evacuation of civilians from the battlefield is possible, then a huge war can go without huge losses on civilians. And if the intent isn't to kill civilians. My country (with population of 3,7 million people) lost about 95 000 soldiers killed in WW2, yet only two thousand civilians were killed in WW2.

And "such is war" is one of the most stupid reasoning ever I've heard. Believe me, there really are very different ways of fighting a war. The Roman doctrine of "Get peace by making an artificial desert" or the Mongol doctrine of "Kill every human being and make the country grazing ground for our horses" is quite different from how the Western allies fought and occupied Germany and Japan. Or for that matter how usually wars are fought.

So let's put this death toll from Gaza into context:

In the US invasion of Iraq, according to Iraqi Body Count Project, the fatalities were the following:

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
Men accounted for over 80% of all civilian deaths.
Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?
30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

What was the most lethal weaponry?
Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

It should be noted that afterwards the actual Civil War in Iraq killed quite a lot of Iraqis and hence the minority of the 180 000 - 205 000 fatalities 2003-2008 (according to IBCP, but others are similar) were killed by US troops. Now we are reaching in Gaza the numbers that in the Iraqi war were killed in two years (24 000). And Iraq is quite more bigger than Gaza, Saddam's army was quite more bigger than Hamas and there was far more US and allied forces in Iraq than now in Gaza.