I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership. — Relativist

This is the unfortunate strategy that the gun lobby, or nearly every lobby, follows. Fight everything, every inch. Assume there never will be a consensus and that the other side will be demanding a total ban on every kind of firearm for any use or ownership, hence trying to compromise will be useless and counterproductive.

:up:

IMO, gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem. So the ideal would be to reduce ownership by the irresponsible and unstable. Training and exam (analogous to getting a driver's license) might help, as well as laws that support responsible ownership. — Relativist

That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. And the current political system where lobbies can have very much political power.

There's the obvious reasons when a lot of people have guns: If people have guns around to protect their homes and property, you will have problems. That's a lot of loaded guns lying around in drawers. If people who don't otherwise care at all about guns (don't hunt, don't go to the range), but still own especially small handguns, you will have problems.

Yet in the US example the whole culture around guns is one leading issue, and you simply don't change culture by exams and policy adjustments. For many Americans, the right to own a gun is part of being an American and what the US is all about.

Well, as you made the argument about genocide earlier, I remember answering that the bodycount (or the ethnic cleansing) has to be a higher number. That was months ago.

Well, now the death toll is going in your way quite obviously. That people are starting to starve tells a lot also.

And incidents like the shooting of the hostages that had escaped Hamas trying to surrender to IDF forces by waving white flags tells a lot. Of course it must have been a trap: why would otherwise any unarmed person waving a white flag try to approach Israeli soldiers, if it wasn't to pose a deadly threat to the Israeli soldiers. So obviously the Israeli soldiers had to shoot the men! :death:

Shoot everything that moves is seems a safe bet. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of blue-on-blue incidents happening in Gaza. Every fifth killed in action seems to be a friendly fire accident. (At least if we believe that the official statistics are truthful.)

(Times of Israel, Dec 18th 2023) Of the 105 Israeli soldiers killed to date in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s ground offensive against Hamas, which began in late October, 20 were killed by so-called friendly fire and other accidents, according to new data released by the IDF on Tuesday.

Thirteen of the soldiers were killed by friendly fire due to mistaken identification in airstrikes, tank shelling, and gunfire.

One soldier was killed by gunfire that was unintended to hit them, and another two were killed by accidental misfires.

Two soldiers were killed in incidents involving armored vehicles running over troops.

And two soldiers were killed by shrapnel, including from explosives set off by Israeli forces.

The IDF has assessed that myriad reasons have led to the deadly accidents, including the large number of forces operating in Gaza, communication issues between forces, and soldiers being tired and not paying attention to regulations.

So now it's a trainwreck because of extended involvement in the region most of the US's oil comes from? I give up. — frank

Again you got it wrong. And doesn't the most of US's oil that it uses come from North America? I think @BC is correct. So I don't understand your point at all.

Anyway, In those other places there hasn't been such a train wreck.

The US isn't fighting an low intensity insurgency in Latin America, the Far East or in Europe.
The US isn't being attacked by drones in Latin America, the Far East or in Europe.

That's why I'm saying that the train wreck has happened in the Middle East!

NOT IN OTHER PLACES!!!

Perhaps we shouldn't comment each other as there simply is no way we can understand each other.

So I give up too.

Well, then the 51st time... :wink:

But I think that the Hamas charter isn't so important now. Good luck if Israel still can negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

No, I thought you were saying American foreign policy is a trainwreck because the US is in decline — frank

Let me remind you: I said that the Foreign Policy in The Middle East has been a train wreck.

Where else have two former allies turned to be in the Axis-of-evil after revolutions? Where has the US fought it's longest wars post-1945? And where even today the US military is basically still fighting a low intensity war and is under attack?

In Europe?
In Asia?
In Latin America?

Oversimplification is a way to control the discourse.

An interesting take just on how much actual gun culture means. Something that isn't obvious to many, actually.



To put it simply: In the US people have guns to protect them from other fellow citizens (and for hunting and sport). In Switzerland (and in Finland) they don't have them to protect from other fellow citizens. With the militia system of the Swiss this is more evident.

And the video tells clearly the obvious: 2nd Amendment means now something else than it originally was meant to.

Trying to describe how things work.

But if your view is that there are good guys and bad guys and that's that, I cannot help you.

And this trickles down into practical matters. For example, for those on Israel's side, there is only one possible response to the Hamas attack and any suggestion, even exploratory that anything else could be done is anti-semitic. — Bylaw

So you think there is just ONE way to fight a war? One way to use military power?

Just to give an example why this isn't so, just look at the statistics how the US and the Soviet Union fought an insurgency in Afghanistan:

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:

Length: 9+ years
Soviet losses: 14 400 killed
Afghan mujahideen losses: 75 000 - 90 000 killed
Civilian casualties: 560 000 - 200 000 deaths, 5+ million civilians externally displaced (refugees outside of Afghanistan)

US invasion of Afghanistan:

Length: 19+ years
US losses: 2 420 killed
Taleban losses: 53 000 killed
Civilian casualties: 46 000 deaths

Even if the killed enemy combatants are at the same scale, do notice the difference between civilian losses. And compared to the 5 million refugees who mainly live in Pakistan and Iran, the US air lift evacuated 122 000 people out of Afghanistan. So yes, there are differences in how you fight a war.

I think we have directly opposing viewpoints on what's best for the world. You think it's best for the US to be a global leader. — frank

Actually not! Again I'm not saying that.

If the US wants to be a Superpower, then it has to do something, or otherwise just stick to a more passive stance! That's a big if.

If it's not the global leader, then take the advice of Ron Paul. He's pretty consistent in how America would be. And the US of course could be what it was in the 19th Century, a regional power. Just being the largest economy doesn't matter so much politically in the global arena.

But sorry to say, Americans don't actually want that. America cannot be a huge Switzerland, which would mind it's own business yet be prosperous. Too much of your wealth and prosperity comes from the position of being that sole Superpower. Many Americans think that it comes just from their sheer own exceptionality and awesomeness, but that isn't so as the whole global system starting from the role of the dollar in international trade and finance has been tailored for the US. And when you look at those institutions and why other countries have accepted them as they are now, the answer lies in the military might of the Superpower behind it all. Or otherwise, why on Earth would other Western countries accept the US dollar having the status in international trade and finance as now and not use a basket of the largest currencies? It obviously gives the US the ability print as much money as itself it can and have others pay for it. Why would they give that kind of advantage to a competitor? Because you are just so awesome?

In short, the difference between us is that you think the US is the good guys. I'm pretty sure they aren't. — frank

Any state being the good guys or the bad guys is naive in my view. Just why is it so hard to accept that nations can have good policies and they can have bad policies, even destructive ones. They can be both perpetrators and victims at the same time.

Hence actual policies matter.

Hence you saying that the US is "a heavily armed psychopath" is simply throwing the towel. The US has to engage with the World as the US is an important part of the World. How you do it matters.

For example, it's already quite evident what would happen if the US would walk out of NATO. UK, France and Germany simply would have to create new defense pact, which is likely easy when they are already in one. Russia would have immense leverage in Europe as it would be the single most powerful country in Europe. For example the UK Parliament has already discussed this hypothetical thanks to Trump.

Or what if you go back from Asia? What happens if you leave South Korea, leave Japan, null defense agreements with the Asian countries.

Simple:

China simply fills that void. South Korea, Japan simply have to rearrange their defense posture either arming themselves to the teeth starting with nuclear weapons or then choose "Finlandization" and embrace those warm ties with China.

Amazingly, even the good guys' newspapers don't all believe the good guys are good guys. — Baden

Yeah, well their media isn't controlled by or scared of the Israeli lobby from America!


And btw has anybody noticed the line of the Likud parties original platform(from 1977):

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

So no for a two-state solution and Israel from the river to the sea. Well, they are really working hard for that!

I was looking for a more objective analysis. What American foreign policy would not have resulted in a trainwreck? — frank

It's a good question.

Let's just look at the area first without the Palestinian / Israeli conflict. If you looked at the short historical video that put about CENTO in the last comment, notice that there the Middle Eastern members were calling for the US to join also the treaty organization. So first, there's commitment. If you want to be a Superpower, then you have to be one. If you don't want to be a Superpower, well, the US president will be listened to as much as the comments of the Canadian Prime Minister is.

Then a simple guideline: do take into consideration what the objective of the regional states are. Ask them, just like the Europeans themselves, what they want. As I stated, in the European integration process which lead to the EU, the US had a notable role. But if your real guidelines on foreign policy actions come from special interest groups, corporations and domestic lobbyists who have nothing to do with the actual regional politics, the end result will be different.

And there's many situations where could the US have taken another stance. Was Pan-Arabism really going to be socialist? After the US reprimanded the UK and France after their last Great Power adventure of the Suez Crisis, the US could have gone another way with Egypt. Of course now one get's to the what-if guessing, which makes only limited sense.

And then, if the US was OK with Mexico nationalizing it's oil production, what if you would have accepted Iran nationalizing it's oil production. In the end even Saudi-Arabia with Saudi-Aramco got it to be fully owned by Saudi Arabia. What would have Iran been if Mossadeq would have stayed in power and you wouldn't have had Operation Ajax?

And what to do with the Kurds? Again one problematic issue in the Middle East.

Then when the Gulf States organized into GCC, how about taking a role there and not letting these squabbling monarchs nearly going to war with each other. They nearly went to war... with a US base in the country. If the GCC would have been a treaty organization like CENTO was, would there have been the Yemen intervention as now?

And what are the effects now when Iran attacks Saudi-Arabia's oil refineries and the US reacts without doing anything? You think that's a great way to show your leadership?

Because there's something called leadership. Trump is one of the best example of a President who lacks this: a populist fixated on himself who isn't someone that listens to others (perhaps with the exception of the dictators he likes). But someone will argue that he did a lot. Well, he gave Afghanistan on a platter to the Taleban and with the Abraham accords basically tried to bribe the Arab countries into peace with Israel. At least Morocco got an OK for it's territorial annexations, which is quite ironic, actually. Bribing can be useful, but it's not a long term solution.

Just think how different it is today from how George Bush senior created a coalition when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US got a green light from Soviet Union. The US got a green light from the UN. The US got a large quantity of Arab and Muslim countries to join the coalition, including Syria. Above all, the US listened to it's Arab allies and didn't invade Iraq as the Saudis knew what would happen. And they actually were right.

How about now?

The US never intended to occupy Iraq long term. — frank

Well, at least John Mccain was honest about it wanting the US to stay for 100 years in Iraq. (Naturally as they are staying in Germany, but anyway...)

Why does Iraq asking the US to leave make the situation a train wreck? — frank

You think having troops in a country that has it's Parliament asking you to leave shows great diplomacy, fine foreign policy?
:roll:

How many drone attacks on US bases in Europe have been reported done by European militias that want the US out of Europe this year?

The response of East-European civilians when the US forces come by. From a few years ago.


Similar situation in Syria a few years ago, but do you know why they are pelting rocks at the US forces? Hint: a train wreck of a policy.


And during War-on-Terror times during "Operation Iraqi Freedom":


Foreign policy decisions matter. What the US decides to do has an evident impact on how foreigners will treat American forces.

If you're saying Iraq can't survive what it's been through, I'd say you're clearly wrong. — frank

I'm not saying that at all. Perhaps they end up as an failed state, that maybe just barely surviving, but still surviving.

What I'm saying that basically from decade to decade the US stance in the Middle East has become worse. Having to occupy countries isn't a show of success. Not having peace and not having cordial if not friendly relations isn't a show of success. What I'm saying that this is a long train wreck that likely will go on some decades, but the way it's going is not good. It just takes so long that people don't get the full picture from where the US started from.

Just how it was in the 1950's:

And this gives a lot of hope for America.

It shows just how difficult it is to hide in the US what some would say a conspiracy and others (like me) is "using the moment to promote ones terrible agenda".

In fact, for me it this also makes quite questionable any "9/11 inside job" conspiracies. Because you have a thorough picture of how the events went, starting from the first meeting after the terror strikes when certain people started talking about Iraq when everybody else in the room knew it was OBL and Iraq had nothing to do with it.

In a curious way even the public discourse in the US changed after Trump and how swiftly he sidelined a Bush family member. Nobody here is promoting the argument that "The US president simply got bad intel, which was just an accident". Or earlier ideas during the GWOT / Freedom Fries era that "Saddam had links to Al Qaeda". So this is really something that is well known.

Anyway, there is such a stark contrast how the US has handled Europe and how the US has handled the Middle East. It's not obvious that European countries would create with the US a functioning treaty organization like NATO as it isn't obvious that Europe would have gone with the route of integration. Even with the Soviet threat. The US still had a lot to do with this. It really takes long term leadership and understanding what the Europeans want to do that to get to a situation where European countries genuinely depend in their defense matter on an international treaty organization.

The failures of both CENTO and SEATO show how difficult this is. And just how there isn't anything similar in the area where the US wants so desperately to pivot: Asia is quite an assortment of bilateral defence treaties with nonexistent cooperation. That the US creates AUKUS shows this: in the end it's basically a bilateral defence agreement, because naturally Australia and the UK did have defence agreements already.

↪ssu, Iraq was based on false/fabricated intel and later turned into a disaster. — jorndoe

False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. They were looking for a moment and the successful terrorist attacks gave them that chance.

I think Afghanistan is different, though. Not so much due to the US rationale to catch Osama bin Laden (and end Al-Qaeda), but due to the takeover by extremist, anti-humanitarian Taliban (also 2001), whose wretched effects we can see today — jorndoe

And how much blame do you put to Pakistan and it's intelligence services, which created and backed and is still backing the movement? In my view this gave a very dangerous example to other countries how to handle the US: you can indeed burn the candle from both ends! Just give the nice photo-op of being in the coalition, and then aid and organize the other side too. I fear similar things are happening in the Middle East now also. You already had basically US allies on different sides of the Libyan Civil war (and now also in Sudan), hence the US doesn't have the situation in control. How great it is in Western Europe compared to other continents where the US wants to create alliances? Oh, but you have to pivot away from Europe.

I would like to mention that there was a time when US policy wasn't similar as now.

Let's remember that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US hadn't invaded any countries outside it's own continent after the Spanish-American war. In Korea, Vietnam or the intervention in Lebanon in 1958, there was a government that did ask for help. And in 1982 the US was part of an multinational force that was looking at the withdrawal of PLO from Lebanon.

So yes, there was a different era in US foreign policy before the unipolar moment.The greatest diplomatic triumph and the most easiest/most decisive war, the liberation of Kuwait, then lead to a tiny cabal of American politicians to make utterly bad conclusions about the US hegemony. As I said to @frank, their boldness was actually hubris which lead into lunacy.

You're judging the justification for getting rid of Saddam, not the benefits of getting rid of a torturing tyrant on health of middle-eastern culture. — frank

Please tell me the benefits after a war that killed 100 000 Iraqis gave in this case, really. Especially when the situation now is this like this:

(CNN, Dec 15th 2023) US and coalition forces in Iraq came under attack on Thursday afternoon, as the senior general overseeing US forces in the Middle East was visiting the region to meet with American troops and key leaders.

Multiple one-way attack drones were launched against Al-Asad Airbase in Iraq, on Thursday, a US official said. There were no casualties or infrastructure damage reported.

The attack marks at least 98 against US and coalition forces since they began on October 17. The attack came as Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, was traveling in Iraq and Syria on Wednesday and Thursday. According to a CENTCOM post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, Kurilla met with the Iraqi prime minister and other officials as well as the US Embassy team.

“The leaders discussed current regional and local security concerns with a particular emphasis on the attacks against US forces,” the CENTCOM post said. Kurilla then travelled to Baghdad, Al-Asad Airbase and Erbil Airfield.

In Syria, Kurilla met with “key partners” at various bases to discuss the ongoing defeat-ISIS mission.

“These visits provide valuable insights you cannot get without traveling to the region and seeing it first-hand,” Kurilla said in the CENTCOM post. “I came away with a great sense of pride in the professionalism, dedication, and competence of our incredible service members deployed in harm’s way.”

According to the US official, there have been 46 attacks on forces in Iraq, and 52 on forces in Syria, since October 17. There were three attacks on US and coalition forces in Syria on Wednesday. The leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia vowed this month to continue attacks on US forces “as long as Zionist crimes continue in Gaza and the American occupation continues in Iraq.”

As the Iraqi Parliament asked the US and other foreign forces to leave three years ago, this is a train wreck, no matter how you want to make it US policy in the Middle East something successful and meaningful.

The point of the Iraqi invasion was to democratize the Middle East. — frank

Totally wrong. Please remind yourself just how that war was marketed to the US. It was the Mushroom cloud. Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden. Remember?

It was bold gesture. — frank

It was a lunatic gesture, but yes, those neocons really believed it. At least publicly: the Gulf War had been so easy, all the Arab states including Syria had come to be allies with the US. Soviet Union had given an OK. That was actually the moment when the US lost it's ability to create alliances, use diplomacy. Why bother?

Besides: If someone puts a gun to your head and wants you to be a better person, the only thing you will notice is that some psycho is pointing a gun at you, not what that psycho is telling you. Not even he just wants you to be a better person. So invading countries that have not attacked you and occupying them and trying making them democracies is total lunacy.

Because yes, if a country attacks another country or declares war to it and then is totally beaten and occupied by this other country, that does make people in that country to think what went wrong with themselves and their decision making.

Really? What sort of policy changes would have made things better? — frank

How about not invading Iraq for weapons and a weapons program that didn't exist anymore in the first place?

Saddam would have had his share of trouble when Arab Spring came around, so the last thing he would have been is a threat to his neighbors. Or Israel. Or the US, above all.

And how about not invading Afghanistan and fighting your longest war lived there because a financier of a tiny terrorist group that was successful in one strike? He btw. escaped to the sanctuary of Pakistan, but you didn't invade Pakistan.

Americans craved for revenge and blood after 9/11 and they had this wonderful hammer of the armed forces of a Superpower, hence just to handle the terrorist strike like the earlier terrorist strike on the twin towers with FBI doing a long investigation and finally getting the terrorists convicted in a normal US criminal court, would naturally be totally off the table. Why have GITMO in the first place? Why trample your own values? No, the tiny terrorist cabal couldn't be handled as the criminals they were. Yes, invading and occupying Afghanistan was the answer.

I agree, a houdini of a politician could have gone and fought the "War on Terror" without invading countries, but at least it would have been theoretically possible. Even if these would have made the President look as a "weak dick".

And just how many terrorist strikes on mainland US have happened now when the Taleban are back in power? Because that was the reason for the occupation, for Afghanistan not to become a 'terrorist haven'. Compared to that, the whole "Domino Theory" is far more logical and reasonable. (Now btw. US and Vietnam have good relations.)

Or how about not listening anymore to any of the neocons, who had this lunatic idea of arranging the Middle East totally to their liking with military interventions before China would grow too large (that was their assumption, remember the Project for the New American Century. Those people advocated invading Iraq already in 1998, but after 9/11 they got into power as they wanted and the end result was that the train wreck just worsened. Why are they still an influence in Washington DC?

And how about a little more push on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, above all?

How about treating the state of Israel as a normal ally, like uh, the UK or Australia?

(Ok, the last one is totally ludicrous fantasy, I agree.)

But if you would make a simply extrapolation of previous events, then in the future likely all the arab/Muslim allies that the US have had are it's enemies or quite hostile to it (like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan) and the sole ally is Israel. When you look at it this way, Americans would just love to have Saudi-Arabia as a hostile power. Oh how bad and evil would the Middle East look like then.

How great that would after starting from a position decades ago where there was an treaty organization there, CENTO, and Nasser asked the CIA if it would be OK for US for the Egyptian military to make a coup against the Egyptian king.

And what do know?

Well, when the next terrorist attack against Americans happens, don't do what the terrorists want you to do. Don't listen to the neocons. Perhaps bombing Mecca and Medina would sound as a sound retaliation, but that's basically what the terrorist want. Once you start treating criminals as enemy combatants, you have given them what they wanted in a first place: that they aren't just criminals, but people fighting against the US. Fair fight, I guess from their point of view.

And perhaps Middle East policy shouldn't be decided by lashing out in retaliation when the next terrorist strike happens.

So what's your point? — 180 Proof

For any US President it's quite difficult to make a tough stance on Israel. Besides, US Middle East policy is and has been since the Gulf War a slow train wreck.

When US Presidents, even in later life, drift away from the official mantra of closest ally/only democracy around/Judeo-Christian heritage, they will be simply sidelined. For example, who cares if Jimmy Carter decades ago described Gaza as an open air prison? How much is he listened in the US Media? Not one bit. Likud can simply wait for the next President elect, who will be eager to have good relations with Israel. There's always some election going on in the US, so powerful lobby groups have power all the time.

In Israel there can be a heated discussion about the right-wing policies of Israel with many saying how things are openly, but not so in the US. That makes it difficult for any US administration, even if they would have an objective view about the situation.

Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century. — 180 Proof

Seems that the client has much power in this case over the provider.

As Netanyahu has spent so much time in the US, he knows how the US works and basically he can be an American politician. This even is easier when he can speak in English to Americans and in Hebrew to his voters. There's an obvious difference what the Likud party and others tell in the different languages! If he (or the Likud) have problems with an US President, he (or the Israeli right) can simply bypass the administration and talk directly with not only the party in the opposition, but also directly with the Congress members of even the administrations party.

Can you handle some more truth? — 180 Proof

Israel is a domestic politics issue in the US. It is as simple as that: American democracy can have powerful lobbygroups (in this case especially the Evangelist Christians, not the American Jews) that dominate rule the political discourse. Just think how powerful the gun lobby is in the US.

Hence once that is taken into account, at least some things that Biden has said have been reasonable, starting from his first comments of not doing the mistakes the US did after 9/11. It's no wonder that many commentators say that he (Biden) is actually quite popular in Israel.

Surely they didn't anticipate the Ukrainian response. But now they are adapting to it.

Yet Putin can hope that the Americans seeing just 'forever wars' around will just cave in and his friend Donald will help to 'reason' with the Ukrainians. And that in the end he will get what he wanted, all it needs is simply similar will as during the finest hour of Russians during the Great Patriotic War.

I see. Not in your name. :halo:

The Presidents of Venezuela and Guyana met and even shook hands. That both talk about peace is a promising sign.

KINGSTOWN, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Dec 14 (Reuters) - Guyana and Venezuela are committed to ensuring their region remains peaceful, Guyanese President Irfaan Ali said on Thursday during meetings with his Venezuelan counterpart President Nicolas Maduro, amid high tensions over a dispute involving a potentially oil-rich border area.

The two leaders met at the airport in Kingstown, in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, alongside representatives from CARICOM, the Caribbean political and economic union, Brazil, the United Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

So let's hope that the media attention now gotten is enough for Maduro. And this thread (or similar threads) won't continue about a war in South America.

The obvious example is in Hobbes. — NOS4A2

We are all children of our time. Hobbes saw the English Civil War, hence his experiences of "Parliamentarism" are very different from ours. Just as, well, every smart philosopher with an interest to politics, he would have likely wanted something else if he would have lived couple hundred years later in a more peaceful Great Britain.

One has to wonder, why does this State of Nature seem to work on such a grand scale, and with such non-entities, but is refused on the smaller scale and with real, living, flesh-and-blood human beings? Why is it rugged individualism for the powerful and the collective, but a paternal collectivism for the powerless and the individual? — NOS4A2

Why wonder?

Those who have power justify it for themselves and those who haven't are told that they have the power through collectivism. So go and vote in the next elections, little NOS4A2, and do your duty as a citizen!

Nobody has said that, but some people are extremely willing to forget the annexing part, if somehow that would follow from the other objectives (and wouldn't be worth mentioning). Nazi Zelensky!!! :joke:

If Zelensky was greeted with the standing ovation last time, now Republicans didn't want to see him in public.

At least the EU is giving the thumbs up for Ukraine even without Mr Orban from Hungary:

The European Union decided Thursday to open accession negotiations with Ukraine, a momentous moment and stunning reversal for a country at war that had struggled to find the backing for its membership aspirations and long faced obstinate opposition from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Now as the Russian wartime economy is getting to it's feet, the projections (in my country) on how long it will take for Russia to manufacture weapons to the now experienced losses are coming down. Last year people were talking about 2030, now it's come back to 2026-2028.

Interesting debate between Stephen Pinker and John Mearsheimer on Enlightenment. I think that the moderator here isn't great, but both Pinker and Mearsheimer veer the conversation into interesting issues. As Pinker promotes the importance of Enlightenment and Mearsheimer his realism, it's fitting to the discussion of Western Civilization as the issue is so central to it:

Part 1:


Part 2:

For example, do you think the morality I've posited is objective or subjective? — Philosophim

Well, assuming I have understood you (which naturally I may have not succeeded in), I think you are looking for objective answers. For example here:

The question of “ought” means that there is some reason behind the decision, a fundamental that ultimately drives why the outcome should happen.

The problem with morality has been finding that fundamental. — Philosophim

Bob Ross requested some of our long term posters here to give their view points on an "objective" morality. — Philosophim

Wouldn't morality be in the end a subjective issue? Something that either is right or wrong, is usually something that a subject has to decide. For a lot of things there is a vast agreement on it being wrong or right, or that it should be or shouldn't be, but there is still the subjects themselves coming to this conclusion.

If so, is it then wrong to assume that there could be an 'objective' morality? If there's objective morality, then the subject doesn't have to do anything. Just compute it, look up in a manual what the correct answer is. There's no moral questions with "objective morality", there are only correct (or incorrect) answers.

I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. The western world turned away from it. — frank

Don't we still have a five day work week???

Some workers rights still exist too.

(Oh right, they aren't anymore leftist objectives, they're universal practices.)

This isn't primarily a philosophical discussion. — Tzeentch

Primarily.

Yet philosphy should be welcomed and encouraged on a philosophy forum.
And accusing others of sophistry isn't the correct way.

The big question is what Israel will do after the military operation (and how long the operation will last).

At least the Israeli government has made it quite clear what it would like to do with the Palestinians in Gaza, the over two million that still are there.

Gila Gamliel, the minister of intelligence, wrote in the Jerusalem Post November 19th with the headline: ' Victory is an opportunity for Israel in the midst of crisis - opinion'

First he rejects the Palestinian Authority to take Gaza over. Then the answer what to do with the Palestinians in Gaza is simple: they go somewhere else.

(Jerusalem Post) Instead of funneling money to rebuild Gaza or to the failed UNRWA, the international community can assist in the costs of resettlement, helping the people of Gaza build new lives in their new host countries.

See here

That was an opinion of one minister in Bibi's administration. And seems like there has been more than just an idea of minister behind this. From Associated Press:

JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli government ministry has drafted a wartime proposal to transfer the Gaza Strip’s 2.3 million people to Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, drawing condemnation from the Palestinians and worsening tensions with Cairo.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office played down the report compiled by the Intelligence Ministry as a hypothetical exercise — a “concept paper.” But its conclusions deepened long-standing Egyptian fears that Israel wants to make Gaza into Egypt’s problem, and revived for Palestinians memories of their greatest trauma — the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people who fled or were forced from their homes during the fighting surrounding Israel’s creation in 1948.

But now the idea has gotten support from the US, namely one of those neocon hawks John Bolton:

Israel isn’t going away. Muslim governments have recognized Israel and, before October 7, more were coming. Moreover, the two-state solution is definitively dead: Israel will never recognize a “Palestine” that could become another Hamas-stan. Besides, Gaza is not a viable economic entity, and neither would a “state” consisting of Gaza and an archipelago of Palestinian dots on the West Bank be viable. Israel has made clear it rejects any “right of return” for Palestinians, and has announced it will no longer even grant work visas to Gazans seeking employment.

So no two-state solution and no Hamas-stans. And the refugees in the Nakba isn't a problem for Bolton, for he continues on The Hill:

Western peace processors trying to create a Palestinian state under the “Gaza-Jericho first” model made a cruel mistake, the victims of which were its intended beneficiaries. The real future for Gazans is to live somewhere integrated into functioning economies. That is the only way to realize the promise of a decent life and stability for a people who have been weaponized for far too long. The sooner the Biden administration realizes it, the better.

Refugee status is not hereditary.

So where to ethnically cleanse the nasty Palestinians? Bolton has a rather populist answer:

Iran, Hamas’s principal benefactor, should certainly be willing to accept large numbers of people in whom it has long shown such an interest. Most other Gazans should be resettled in the regional countries that previously weaponized them.

See Resettlement from Gaza must be an option

And now even the neighbors are getting extremely worried that this will be the final solution:

AMMAN, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Jordan's foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, on Sunday said that Israel was implementing a policy of pushing Palestinians out of Gaza through a war that he said meets the "legal definition of genocide", allegations that Israel rejected as "outrageous".

Safadi, whose country borders the West Bank and absorbed the bulk of Palestinians after the creation of Israel in 1948, also said that Israel had created hatred that would haunt the region and define generations to come.

I think the basic problem is that people want to define consiciousness as a clear division between the sentient and the non-sentient. Proto-consciousness just shows clearly this problem. I think there's a) an accurate model for the way consciousness emerges THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW and yet we b) cannot make a direct division just what is conscious and what isn't as sentient can be more or less conscious.

Even what is alive and what isn't is difficult to answer when you take (biological) viruses into question.

Again it's our own desire to make things to be what we want that is the main problem here.

Well, at least we have common ground in our wish that a war between Venezuela and Guyana does not happen. — universeness

Invasion as distraction I can understand, but Venezuela already has huge oil reserves of which it doesn't seem to be able to make effective economic use. Adding Guyana's oil, plus making Guyana's citizens bitter and resentful, won't help Maduro. To paraphrase Martin Luther, stupid presidents sink ever deeper into stupidity. — BC

Hopefully this is just posturing. Everything in order just to play that jingoistic card, but not then go further. Maduro can, quite correctly, then say that the US won't give what Venezuela has the right to, and Venezuela cannot take on the US. Hence in this time when passive-aggressiveness is the new normal, Maduro can again take the role of the 'victim' here on how Venezuela's "rights" are trampled.

Or then just act as if the mainly rainforest would be Venezuelan territory, but not to place Venezuelan soldiers on the territory. Then demand Venezuelan permits in order for mining the territory etc.

However how well this would in the end work for him is doubtful. The scary part is if Maduro thinks that he can use military force, that the US and UK somehow will not intervene or that Venezuela could fight a war like Russia does. Well, Venezuela isn't Russia.

At least there are talks scheduled this week.

I like the idea of 'national funds' but I far prefer a UBI as a human right of being a citizen of a nation. — universeness

They are a bit different issues. Because if you have sovereign wealth fund, to have UBI is actually far more easier. What you don't want to have is the country borrowing more debt in order to pay for UBI. That isn't sustainable in the long run.

Are you okay with individuals in these 'oil companies' you describe, becoming personally very rich? — universeness

As @javi2541997 stated, now the rich elite is the people closest to Maduro.

I'm not against especially some entrepreneur getting rich. A national oil company CEO should have an equivalent salary, but that makes him still an employee. Just as state officials should have high enough salaries that people do want to go into the field, yet not so low that basically their actual income comes from corruption.

If you have educated professionals in your national oil company, they will have good salaries as then other oil companies will gladly take them as employees. But that assumes that your PDVSA isn't a basketcase of a company.

Theft in the billions:


A short history why PDVSA failed (from 3 years ago):

I feel bad for the Venezuelan people because it seems difficult to get rid of this rotten system. — javi2541997

Well, Venezuela under Maduro is getting rid of Venezuelans:

The Venezuelan refugee crisis, the largest recorded refugee crisis in the Americas,[6] refers to the emigration of millions of Venezuelans from their native country during the presidencies of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro because of the Bolivarian Revolution.

There are 7,1 refugees now out from Venezuela. So naturally the best option is to start a war.

Fears about policing Iraq were well warranted. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As someone noted earlier by surprising people:


Same people talking then with sanity. What difference some years make. (And being the CEO of Halliburton)

So how would you ensure that all the people of Venezuela, get an equal share of the resources that Venezuela has? — universeness

I assume that the objective is to have prosperity among all the people.

One Cuban that was a party member (of the Communist party), said once to me: His dream was that Cuba would be someday like Sweden.

If you want Sweden, then you have to remember that Sweden is a capitalist country, even if it has been basically ruled by Social Democrats over 100 years. There's that crucial difference between socialism (and Marxism-Leninism) and European social democracy.

Hence, first the economy has to perform well so that if you want a welfare state, then those costs can be covered by a prosperous economy. Here's my 50 cents for that:

1) Over 90% of the population in Venezuela lives on the poverty line, with more than 80% of them having already lost an average of 19 kg due to malnutrition. Venezuela's abundance of oil reserves should have made it a wealthy country, but it isn't. Mismanagement and corruption have led to this. This fact cannot be sidelined. Also...

2) Understand, that Venezuela has been the primary example of the Dutch Disease. It was so easy simply to buy everything abroad with the oil revenue, when it was abundant, that the damage this would do to domestic sectors wasn't thought much.

3) Do not use the oil profits to directly fund your other government programs. You have to understand that your national oil company has to be competitive and has to make profit. It's the last place to put your supporters to job positions, when they don't know anything about engineering or the oil sector. Saudi-Aramco is a good example that even if corruption and so on, you still can have a profitable nationally owned oil company. Build up your own oil industry and don't just export oil, have your own oil refineries, but fuel, plastics, everything what comes out of oil. If your oil company can compete outside of your country means that you are competitive.

4) Adopt the model of Norway: use only the interest on those oil profits and hence create a Sovereign Wealth Fund. This fund will be important when your oil runs out or you have to create alternative industries. For Norway oil hasn't been a curse.

5) Invest in infrastructure and education and try to get other sectors of your economy to be competitive in the global market. Yes, trade barriers can protect some sector in it's infancy from global competition, but the trade barriers have to go, because your other industrial sectors objective should be to compete in the global market. Only that gives you actual prosperity.

6) Encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. Have the mentality that the World is an opportunity, not a sinister menace lurking to abuse you. Don't use the cheap trick of blaming foreigners for your problems.

When you have done parts from 1) to 6), then be happy to provide the welfare state you want, because when the economy works, even the capitalists are just happy with your socialist programs (just like in the Nordic countries).

what do you think of Hugo Chavez? — universeness

Hugo Chavez was a perfect example of leftist populism, who could rule by dividing the Venezuelan society by similar polarization that is going on in the US. Populism always starts with the division of 'us the people' and 'they, the elites' and Chavez used the leftist approach to this. Some leftists in the West went along with his populist approach to socialism. He had loyal supporters, so that the next president has been able to ride on that support too.

Chavez used the oil wealth so badly that the Venezuelan economy finally collapsed, but he died before that happened. The national oil company PVDSA has increased hugely it's personnel while it's production has gone down. Not usual when companies have more employees.



Not that Venezuela squandered off the wealth before, but now the solution of nationalizing nearly everything didn't help.

Since his convictions as a child sex offender essentially preclude his working in the defense industry he seems to have decided peddling Russian talking points, no matter how ridiculous, was a solid career move. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. This is the thing. One has to make a living.

Scott Ritter's apogee was when, as a former weapons inspector, he published a small booklet that convincingly stated that in 2003 Saddam Hussein didn't have any nuclear weapons program. That naturally did get him to be a persona-non-grata in Washington, but the former marine still was respectful. Then it got even worse after the sex offenses. So it brings enough bucks to tow the Russian line, that's for sure.

I'm just waiting when he will defend Venezuela, if it comes to war there.