There will always be those who pay attention and are ready to step in to seize power if unopposed. — Fooloso4

If they get elected, then it really comes down to thing of the parliamentary support they have and finally the next elections. If the people elected don't abide with these rules, what they do is basically make an autocoup of self-coup.

How the people and the institutions react to this is really then critical issue. Do the military go along with it? Can the other parties be simply removed from the political system? And finally, do the people themselves go with it.

I think if an autocoup would have been done, it's window of opportunity was passed the last time when the Congress building was breached. That would have been the perfect setting to do an autocoup. The masses breaching the halls of Congress would have been the perfect setting, but then those that did the autocoup would have had planned an extensive chirade of theatre-trials were the "culprits" of the fraud would have been convicted.

(Perfect setting for an autocoup: Angry people, US flags, all but the actual coup-plot missing. Otherwise totally writable to the narrative of American exceptionalism.)


Trump had no idea of doing this ...or utterly has no capability to do this. He really thought that a few phone calls or Pence could hand him actual victory. Perhaps he thought it would be as easy as with Bush and Gore where Al Gore in the end accepted the outcome. And Trump was just mesmerized that he got his base to storm the Capital building and finally his Secret Service, simply drove him to the White House where he watched in awe what his supporters were doing. Extremely pathetic, if I may say so.

Now, someone incapable of commanding his own personal security detachment is totally unable to do a self coup. What the frightening thing is that there would have been capable people to do this coup. I'm sure someone like general Mike Flynn could have through with an autocoup as he tried to advise Trump of using the military to seize the ballot machines. And understanding that an autocoup means either succeeding or life imprisonment (or even theoretically the death penalty), that would be enough incentive to go through with the mock trials and martial law. A lot of generals and politicians would have had to be detained, fired and so on. But once you are at that road, you cannot never turn back.

Now it's different. There isn't that "Deer in the headlights moment" where the Democrats (or the Republicans, actually) wouldn't simply fathom that a self-coup is happening.



What you have in store in the future is likely something just like in the 60's and 70's. Some political violence, a deeply divided populace, some fringe terrorists. But that's it.

Obviously the difference ought to be clear, but it's our natural desire to be rational and logical that we have the tendency of using facts rather than opinions. And also that we denounce someones facts as mere opinions, correctly or incorrectly. And when you have misinformation and disinformation widely used as effective tools for propaganda or marketing, it really may look like the difference between facts, opinions and outright lies is confused.

Yet even our Science is based on theories, so basically a lot more would be strictly defined to be opinions. Of course even if we don't exaclty understand everything about gravity, we can assume that jumping off from a ten-floor building isn't good for our health. Hence those theories aren't so wildly off from reality.

It's a limited number of topics where we admit that we only have opinions. Like for example art or beauty are subjects where we understand that there aren't concrete facts on just what is art or what is beautiful. In everything else we just crave for facts to base our rational thinking and decision making.

Unexpected? (Maybe it can help with the Falkland debacle?) — jorndoe

:grin:

Yeah, the UK might remember the Argies from that one.

Of course he isn't talking about NATO membership, so the proposal isn't ludicrouse. There is already Columbia as one. Just for those who don't know what a "global partner" of NATO is, here's from NATO's own website:

NATO has a number of “partners across the globe” or “global partners”, which the Alliance cooperates with on an individual basis. NATO’s global partners include Afghanistan¹, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. NATO’s engagement with global partners is taking on increasing importance in a complex security environment, where many of the challenges the Alliance faces are global and no longer bound by geography.

Which actually is hilarious that they still have a reference to Afghanistan (in 2024!) there with an asterisk 1, that then says the following:

The partnership with Afghanistan is currently suspended following North Atlantic Council decisions related to the security environment.

The "security environment" perhaps referring to the fact that Afghanistan is now an Emirate that made the US to withdraw and hence fought off also NATO. :snicker:

It's very rare that a foreign head of state attacks student protests, or more properly the university institutions where the students come from, that are in another country. Naturally the formal way would be one state talking to the other states officials. But this is America and Bibi knows how very well how American politics is played. After all, he has spent a long time in the US and understands that he has to talk directly to his base.



In fact, prior to the Revolution of Dignity and the break up of Russian-Ukrainian relations, Putin would often directly address Ukrainians and talk to his "base" just like Bibi is doing now above. Also then talking in a language that Ukrainians understand well.

Well, I guess meddling in American politics and discourse is quite proper when the US is also doing that in Israel.

The system is set up so that there are checks and balances, including checks against the tyranny of the majority and of a president without legal bounds. — Fooloso4

If it gets to that point then we are in deeper trouble than we are now. We must be on guard against the contagion of nihilism. — Fooloso4

The whole system is based upon the rational judgement of the electorate. If the electorate votes "wrong", there's nothing much to do then. It's not the job of any supreme court to decide on what the people of a republic voting a candidate into power. Trump's cases are still in the lower courts, hence there is no reason for the SCOTUS to make any decisions.

Is there good reason why the Supreme Court should not have already quickly and unequivocally ruled that Trump is not above the law? — Fooloso4

Who would be above the law? Almighty God? What do have atheists to say about that?

Without opening any American legal prints I'm sure that there isn't a case that someone is above the law. Hence it would be crazy to state this literally.

If Trump really would be a God-Emperor, then perhaps he should reject his deity or divinity as Emperor Hirohito did when he gave the Humanity Declaration. :snicker:

When it came to New Atheism, he was by far the best one. Not that the others were too good, but, he was much more kind which counts. — Manuel

I think it's the sheer hostility that some of these media atheists have gotten have made them very aggressive. It's not only 9/11 and what basically could be called Islamophobia.

Yet in my view New Atheism and it's Four Horsemen is much of a part media discourse drawn by well known figures that are popular in the media. Yet I think "New Atheism" is only a minor thing compared to Dennet's work.

The man himself talking about death with Richard Dawkins. Dennett gets to make some remarks too.

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch

At least if it would be Saudi-Arabia, then yes. Even Trump would defend the Saudi oil fields. And btw this was the major threat that the annexation of Kuwait posed.

Assuming that the belligerent would be Iran. But of course it could be that the Gulf States themselves would have a war. It came really close with Qatar. Then naturally the US would be just looking at a very awkward situation where it's so-called allies fight each other. Not a very good place to be. Already it's "allies" can be found on different sides for example in Libya or Sudan.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources. — Tzeentch

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. This would change dramatically the power balance even globally. Do note just how big the opposing alliance was against Iraq, it had even Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Pakistan taking part in the alliance. Hence it's likely that if a small nation with geostrategic importance, it won't be overlooked. (However if some Senegal wants to take Gambia, likely an international alliance to defend Gambia won't emerge. If done eloquently and peacefully, a Senegambia could easily happen.)

Naturally this is just theoretical speculation, but so is your assumption that the Gulf States could be easily gobbled up without US presence. What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier.

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure. — Tzeentch

And I would be extremely sceptical about historical trends. Especially in the near term (the next 50 to 100 years). As the saying goes, history never repeats, it just rhymes.

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades. — Tzeentch

But they had a significant role in making the region as it is now.

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). — Tzeentch

Isn't that a bit too much assume that kind of Mearsheimerian realpolitik?

Asia has it's share of small nations, and they haven't been gobbled up by regional contenders.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. With your thinking then in the Far East places like Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, East Timor simply couldn't exist. Why aren't they "gobbled up" by regional powers?

Small countries do exist everywhere.

Let's take for example the UAE. It has a military of 150 000 active members and 180 000 reservists, 137 combat aircraft, 356 Leclerc tanks (which is more than France has in active service),HIMARS and Smerch MLRS, Patriots and THAAD SAM systems. That's actually a rather big armed forces.

It's strange to assume that some regional player would just "gobble up" that kind of a force. If you think that's same as Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq, well, the Kuwaitis had on paper only 20 000 armed forces, they were basically taken totally unaware, no forces were mobilized and still actually Iraq lost about 100 tanks or so in the initial invasion.

But I guess for you many countries are simply "irrelevant" and somehow just barely existing.

t's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this. — Tzeentch

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so.

And btw, technically doesn't have allies, meaning that there exists a defense treaty, except perhaps with it's own "Axis of resistance". It just has cooperation with the CSTO. It was invited to the CSTO, but isn't a member. The agreement with China isn't also a defense treaty. Hence Iran doesn't have a military alliance that would automatically then put an US or Israeli attack on a totally different level.

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia.

A whole new vocabulary has been conjured to disguise what is in essence propaganda and censorship. — Tzeentch

Indeed.

After a brief interlude, state actors and lobby groups have adapted perfectly to mold propaganda and censorship to the new media of the net and the new environment. The biggest advance is AI, even if just search engines have dramatically changed the game.

Typically police states simply have become overwhelmed by their own apparatus: in order to have total surveillance of the population, you simply needed far too many employees to listen to the conversations, to read all the letters. Then to process all the data has been the major problem. Now with computers and AI that's something totally possible.

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". Putin uses rhetoric like that.
For example Oman has a very long history and has been around for a while, even if it has a small population.

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances — Tzeentch

But it did. And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. I think the reason is simply that the US has lost it's leadership role with the Arab states that are close to it. If it's not the US, then somebody will be on their side to keep the status quo.

they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear. — Tzeentch

I don't think so. We have small countries all over the world: in the Caribbean, in Asia, in Europe. Someone just coming them an absorbing them isn't so likely. The countries are heavily armed and they have huge importance.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. It's population isn't rapidly growing, nor is it's economy. The clerical state is very unlikely to be a craddle for technological innovation.

It's typically American thinking that if one Great Power leaves the scene, then some other Great Power fills in the void. Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? Yet the likely outcome is just like after decolonization, no other Great Power will come and colonize the countries ...and the countries can have their fights with themselves.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place.

Now btw. after France, the US is starting to leave the Sahel. Last remnants of the "War against Terror".

(20th April 2024, Al Jazeera) The United States will withdraw its soldiers from Niger as the West African nation is increasingly turning to Russia and away from Western powers.

The US Department of State agreed to pull out about 1,000 troops from the country that has been under military rule since July 2023, US media reported late on Friday.

US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Nigerien Prime Minister Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine met on Friday, the reports said, with Washington committing to begin planning an “orderly and responsible” withdrawal of its troops from the country.

The US built a military base in Niger to combat armed groups that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) in the Sahel region, which also includes Burkina Faso and Mali.

The major airbase in Agadez, some 920km (572 miles) from the capital Niamey was used for manned and unmanned surveillance flights and other operations.

Known as Air Base 201, it was built at a cost of more than $100m. Since 2018, it has been used to target ISIL fighters and Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The smaller Gulf States aren't really worth mentioning. — Tzeentch

Now this is something worth debating.

Even if they are tiny, they aren't "really worth mentioning". On the contrary.

Only Kuwait and the "Switzerland of Middle East", Oman, are quite neutral and haven't started to play "The Great Game" in the Middle East of backing various actors.

Just look how Qatar and the UAE throw their weight around ...as they have so much wealth.
UAE is active in Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia and Yemen. Qatar has Al Jazeera, and went on to support the Muslim Brotherhood when it was in power in Egypt. This is why the Saudi's and UAE nearly went to war with Qatar. UAE has intervened directly in Libya and Yemen. Qatar has also supported Hamas.

Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas.

For example UAE and it's support of Haftar in Libya:



These tiny nations have understood that money talks, money buys weapons, mercenaries etc. This is the one surprising thing that has suddenly happened in this Century. Hence it's not only the Saudi Arabia that can use proxies and intervene in other poorer countries of the region, it's also the smaller Gulf countries too.

US foreign policy isn't guided by domestic opinion. — Tzeentch

Especially with the case of Israel, I would beg to differ.

The Israeli lobby is very powerful, you could read Mearsheimer's book about it, but this should be general knowledge. Why the Israeli lobby is so powerful is because of a certain part of the US electorate Israel is important and both parties want the support of these voters. This is simply how US domestic politics works.

The only thing 'the Blob' is interested in domestically, is keeping the American populace docile and ignorant - something they've been quite successful at. — Tzeentch

You might argue that for any policy the US has, yet Israel is a very special case for example to let's say the UK, Canada or Australia. None of those countries has such a lobby like Israel that is committed to give US aid to those countries and is vigilant for anybody questioning the American commitment to these countries.

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East — Tzeentch

Really? Make your case then. Is it only the democrat administrations or only the Republican administrations that are fault here? Especially in the case of supporting Israel. I think the support for Israel is a genuinely bipartisan policy.

That's obviously a big topic, but geographically, geopolitically, economically and demographically it is simply the only country that can make a reasonable bid for becoming regional hegemon on the Persian Gulf. It is also in prime position to profit off Iraq's power vacuum. — Tzeentch

Yet to be a hegemon, it ought to have then a lot of influence over the Gulf States. It hasn't.

Basically it has good relations only with Qatar... which has had huge problems itself with Saudi-Arabia and UAE. Yet at least technically Qatar is a part of the GCC, which considers Iran as a threat.

The only way you would be right would be if basically Iran and Iraq got so close as Russia and Belarus are. That's isn't very likely. Perhaps after (or if) the US withdraws from Iraq.

So, anyway, the war seems to roughly have drawn up ...
▸ Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Iran, China
—versus—
▸ Ukraine, Europe, North America, South Korea, Australasia, Japan
... or something along those lines. So far at least. Much like certain someones' idea of a bipolar :smile: world. — jorndoe

Don't forget the unlikely battlefield of the Sudanese civil war:

Critiquing other countries is something Chomsky often does. There’s plenty to criticize all over. He’s been a fairly staunch critic of Israel, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. Despite your bogus suggestion, he’s done so for decades. — Mikie

I admit he's been a critique of Israel. But he mainly focuses on US actions because of the reasons he has given. That's simply a fact.

He says it all there in the video, so no reason you denying what the facts. And anyway, this is quite fruitless when you deny what Chomsky is literally saying in the video. Moving on...

The only point I disagree with him on, is the fact that US foreign policy isn't guided solely by Biden's desperate attempt to salvage his election. — Tzeentch

This is a bipartisan cause. And it's not simply the 7 million Jewish-American votes (of whom many don't like the present right-wing government in Israel), it's the Evangelicals which there are tens of millions, who want to support Israel. It's simply a domestic issue, not something chosen because of foreign policy realities.

Iran is set to become regional hegemon if left unchecked (based on population, there is no question). — Tzeentch

How?

There's a firm coalition against it on the Arab side. Even Nasser's Pan-Arabism didn't work because it posed a threat to the regions monarchies and utterly failed in creating an unified Arabian state with the attempt of unification with Syria. How on Earth then will Iran, a Shiite non-Arab nation, get to be the hegemon when a) it attacked Pakistan, b) It had a long proxy war with Saudi-Arabia and the UAE and allies, c) Iraqis don't want to be Iranian puppets and d) the Axis of resistance, Miḥwar al-Muqāwamah, are non-state actors with one being a side in a civil war that are totally dependent on it's arms.

If you want to be a hegemon, then you should have real allies and at least country that have Finlandization as their policy towards you. That's not happening. I think only Armenia in the region wants the help from Iran in it's dire situation.

Population doesn't matter. Heck, Bangladesh isn't going to become a hegemon. And btw Iranian population isn't growing as it used to before the 1990's, I think the women's fertility rate is just above 2. Hence it will stay as big as it is now.
.

Poor ol' Germans seem doomed to be on the wrong side of history again. — bert1

It actually shows just how much we truly value things like "freedom of speech". It's very sad.

What was hilarious was the Jewish person that was arrested carrying a sign "Jews against genocide" asking the police if he should then have had a sign "Jews for Genocide". But yes, obviously a gathering of hideous Islamists. As the German interior minister put it:

(Reuters) "It is right and necessary that the Berlin police intervened firmly at the so-called Palestine Congress," Interior Minister Nancy Faeser posted on social media. She earlier had urged police to be on guard for signs of hate speech at the congress.

Ah, onward to the triumph of defeating hate speech and hate speaking Islamists like Yanis Varoufakis. :joke:

After the attack I figure Israel must respond in some way to save face even if its orchestrated. Yet Israel did not respond militarily within a day or two of the attack so clearly they're taking their time with it. Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. How - I don't know. — BitconnectCarlos

You got the answer today.

Anyway, as Israel did attack the embassy, it's likely that the Netanyahu government did want to escalate this to Iran, as it's likely frustrated to have just the proxies having this tit-for-tat exchanges. Firstly, this moves focus away from the possible Rafah operation and then if Iran (and Hezbollah now respond), then Israel can freely go and fight Hezbollah and also attack the supply lines all the way into Iran. It's been long anticipated that there's going to be a war with Hezbollah (after all, all those tens of thousands Israelis now evacuated from the northern border aren't happy). All better for Bibi if Iran declares the war and Bibi can portray himself not to be the aggressor.

I think Bibi is quite open to have a little war with Iran. And for himself, why not? He can save his political career only by being a great victorious leader of Israel who singlehandedly defeated all of it's last existing enemies.

Yeah, this idea is somewhat of a relic of wars of past decades as well as the fact that Israel has no true friends in the region. — BitconnectCarlos

But it's propaganda value works well especially for those that aren't informed about the existing realities and people who still only remember and live in the 20th Century (Biden?).

"Identity" in mathematics is equality. — Metaphysician Undercover

A certain kind of equality, identity is an equation that us true for all values of its variables.

An equation might be true for some variables, like x+1=3 is true if (iff?) x=2. There's also equality, but not identity. Hence equality isn't always identity.

Law of identity, that each thing is identical with itself, isn't actually math, but general philosophy. So I guess the law of identity is simply a=a or 1=1. Yet math it's actually crucial to compare mathematical objects to other (or all other) mathematical objects. Hence defining a set "ssu" by saying "ssu" = "ssu" doesn't say much if anything. Hence the usual equations c=a+b.

It's very hard to think here that math would go against logic, so this is more of a mixture of definitions here. It's like comparing what in Physics is work and what in economics / sociology is work. The definitions are totally different.

For starters, I think the whole monetary system will sooner or later collapse. But that later can be in 10, perhaps even 50 years. And if it happens in 50 years, nobody cares about it.

Preparing for the worst is always sound. But here's the problem: we never do it. Unfortunately.

And this is the problem for all the markets, actually.

Hence I think that the Central Bankers can and will come up with various arrangements to keep the markets from collapsing. And the private sector, the pension funds, will be an actor they might use or abuse here. Already pensions will be a problem in future years because of the aging of the people in various countries. The usual way to handle it is to get new laws that will diminish the pensions of the people that are now babies and children: they aren't voting yet. But when there's private money around so much as the pension funds have, there's an incentive to use them and hide the central bank intervention into being just actions or private market participants.

Also, meta: This thread, "Infinity," is active, and I keep getting mentions for it and replying. But this thread does not show up in my front-page feed! Anyone seeing this or know what's going on? — fishfry

It's in the Lounge.

It was deemed not Philosophical enough, or just math. Or lousy math. :yikes:

The reason is that the Ukraine crisis thread and the Israel-Palestine thread (Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank) along other political threads got so heated and ugly, the admins decided to put them into the Lounge (meaning not Philosophical debates). Having to do with the appearance that a Philosophy Forum site would discuss eloquently Philsophy, I guess. :snicker:

I don't think mathematics/set theory deals with identity at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you can find that definition for me, I'll take a look. Then we can discuss whether "identity" in mathematics is consistent with the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok,

Even if the discussion has moved on, I'll just point out this, what identity in math is and why math does deal with identity:

In mathematics, an identity is an equality relating one mathematical expression A to another mathematical expression B, such that A and B (which might contain some variables) produce the same value for all values of the variables within a certain range of validity.[1] In other words, A = B is an identity if A and B define the same functions, and an identity is an equality between functions that are differently defined.

or in an other way:

An identity is an equation that is true for all values of the variables. For example:

(x+y)2 = (x2+2xy+y2)

The above equation is true for all possible values of x and y, so it is called an identity.

And what it isn't:

An identity is true for any value of the variable, but an equation is not. For example the equation
3x = 12
is true only when x=4, so it is an equation, but not an identity.

However, as recent events have demonstrated, the entire Arab world is not Israel's enemy. Jordan and the Saudis evidently are not fans of the Iranian regime and the Arab world has its own divides. — BitconnectCarlos

And this just undermines also the idea that all Arab countries are just waiting to get the chance to kill all the Jews and/or push them into the sea. The rhetoric is one thing, the actions are another thing.

Do notice that countries like Saudi-Arabia, UAE and even Russia have all asked both sides to ease tensions, btw.

When it comes to Saudi-Arabia, just ask which country has attacked it last? Israel or Iran? Well, Israel has actually never attacked Saudi-Arabia (that I at least know of). Iran has, just a while ago. And the US didn't come to the help of the Saudis (which they likely remember). Are there real tensions between the Saudis and Israel? Well, The Saudis have deployed some forces to the war theatre at some time, but hasn't been engaged in open war with Israel.

Or just look at Iran.

Notice that this is quite the same playbook as Iran did with Trump: it did attack with ballistic missiles US bases after the killing of the Iranian general in Iraq. At least with the US this didn't follow up with Trump then going another step in the escalation ladder. Iran might hope for this, but perhaps the lure for Bibi is too great now. IDF is already talking of counter strikes.

Set theoretic axioms can be difficult to anyone, so let's think about this.

What do you think identity in mathematics / set theory is?

So the axiom extensionality is that sets are equal if they have the same elements, if I understand it correctly.

So I think then the question for you, @Metaphysician Undercover, is how is the identity different between two sets that have the same elements?

Because you say "to read the axiom of extensionality as indicating identity rather than as indicating equality is a misinterpretation", it seems that you think this is different. A lay person would think that a set defined by it's elements.

And please just look how identity is defined in mathematics, and you'll notice what @fishfry is talking about.

__ __ __

Nice to see you, @fishfry on the forum again! It's been a while. :grin:

If the shoe were on the other foot, and Arab muslim armies were prevailing over Israel, I would expect Israel to fight to the last man. Israel would qualify as an "enemy population" from the arab perspective. — BitconnectCarlos

And this just shows how difficult it is to get a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

But I wouldn't expect the arabs to send in aid trucks or coddle the Israelis there. It would truly be genocide. — BitconnectCarlos

Why not would they? They still need to have relations with European and Asian states. They couldn't do it unnoticed, that's for sure.

Right, simple minded people admire dissidents for speaking truth against power in their own country where they have an impact, that's why rival powers support dissidents in other countries not in theirs. — neomac

Indeed.

At least academic professors in the West can act like "dissidents" because they have a tenure and there is an Overton window for free speech.

Unfortunately for media people, there isn't that free lunch. And for some of them, if the doors have been closed in their own country, have no other place than to get the support from rival countries.

What a stupid way of characterizing things. It’s like being in middle school. Embarrassing. — Mikie

Well, just look at the discussion of some here in PF about a) The Isreali Palestinians conflict or heck, even about the US Elections / Trump / Biden.

How many come out and say Trump did something good and bad. People would be confused on which side you are on. That's important for Americans.

Nope. Not what was said. — Mikie

That's exactly what he says.

Listen carefully, at (1:00):

"I'm here, I have a shared responsibility what the US government does...and to an extent, I can do something about it".

And later, when talking about Iranian dissidents (at 1:30):

"Nobody asks them, is there something good about Iranian foreign policy, it's not their job to say what is good in Iranian foreign policy["

And later states that if Iranian dissidents say something about Israel, we don't "respect them for that", but for being Iranian dissidents. So it's obvious that the "role" is to criticize your own country for Chomsky.

That's exactly my point here. And actually, since I am not more informed than others (as you portray me to think of myself here), for example @jorndoe says eloquently the obvious outcome that this can lead:

Criticizing one's own society is all cool, and important, except when it tends to tunnel vision (or Kremlin-blindness, apropos). — jorndoe

I find it rather perplexing: — neomac

It is perplexing. Yet the name of the first political book of the linguist, The Responsibility of Intellectuals, tells it all. Chomsky and others see as their role to criticize the US while to critique other countries "isn't their role". Yet when you just criticize one actor and be totally silent on everything else, people can draw conclusions.

If authoritarian countries are insulated from internal criticism, people can't do much to change it so it will remain authoritarian. — neomac

Or simple be ignorant of how authoritarian they are.

Besides, the free world can be infiltrated and intoxicated by foreign propaganda of authoritarian regimes to weaken the overwhelming foreign power that contains them . — neomac

The smartest propaganda doesn't outright lie. It just picks part of the story and forgets the part that would talk against the agenda at.

And people want simple straightforward stories. Not a story like "Country does a bad stuff X, yet it has done good things like Y and supported very good proposals Z". You have to be for or against!!!

You really have no idea how the world works, in that case. — Mikie

Then educate me. :confused:

but leaving stupid bullshit aside for a moment: the United States is by far the world’s superpower and has been for decades, beginning only now to be rivaled by China. — Mikie

So?

Hence when it's only Superpower and so superior in everything, why was it then defeated by the Taleban, the same Taleban George Bush vowed to do away with?

If it's so powerful, why does it feel that Israel is calling the shots and the US simply follows?

So yes, the US is one player, and a major one, shaping world affairs. — Mikie

And that's simply my point. US one actor, the largest, and Russia is another, China another and the local countries are also. If you don't take this account, then it might seem to you quite arbitrary just why someplace the US prevails and somewhere it doesn't.

Is the US a “bully”? If this fails under “a narrative” in your mind, then you can be easily ignored. — Mikie

No, it's not in my mind. If you do read my posts.

I think the US had done a lot of good and it has gained it's position with very skillful foreign policy, especially in Europe. Sometimes it hasn't been so good. Yet many indeed think it's very bad, like Noam Chomsky.But that's what he think he ought to do. And that the case with many want to be critical about the US. I think here below Chomsky tells it quite clearly why this criticism against the US.



And btw I don't agree with this: you don't have to be a dissident, you can support your country when it does something good.

Is this a joke or are you really just incapable of understanding the fairly simple idea? — Mikie

All those interventions, including the theoretical ones aren't fairly simple.

All are quite unique. And so are the "interventions". Giving just weapons to a country fighting a war or invading it are two totally different things with different consequences. Secondly, it's not a world where first the US acts and then everybody else responds. The US is just one player among others, even if it is a big player. And other countries do have agency. Also the domestic groups inside a country have agency. This all is simply ignored with an American narrative, either "the US fighting the Cold War against Soviet Union", "the US fighting the Global War on Terror" or the favorite Chomskyite "US being a bully to everybody else".

With all the above narratives the world looks simple and the US central. Not so if you start from the viewpoint from others.

The first goal is simply to renew the US backing so Israel can either continue the genocide in Gaza or then stop the genocide in Gaza. — boethius

Isreal got it's ironclad support automatically from Joe Biden. I think they will continue with the Rafah operation when the time comes.

There's no practical way to actually invade Iran. Escalating standoff attacks heavily favours Iran simply because Israel is so much smaller both in territory as well as people. Not that Iranian missiles would likely kill many Israelis if they just start firing missiles and drones at each other, but it's more the economic cost to Israel of the entire population going to bunkers regularly (the low casualties would be due to the bunkers). Israel wouldn't be able to have a similar effect on Iran (without nuclear weapons). — boethius

For both Israel and Iran the "war" between them is quite OK, because they don't share a land border. Simple geography limits the war here. What Israel can do is some limited strikes on Iranian territory, and vice versa. And in reality, neither side is willing to use nuclear weapons (even if Iran would have them). And Iran, unlike Iraq or Syria, hasn't build it's nuclear program in one centralized place which can be taken out. It's been preparing for the attack from Israel and the US for decades now.

But as you said, the whole thing starting from the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus got Bibi where he wants to be. He's the wartime prime minister and as you can see, it's the possible replacements of him like Benny Gantz who have to be bellicose against Iran now. And now when Iran has directly attacked Israel, Bibi has can choose the moment when he retaliates back at Iranian targets, which will then get Iran to respond. "Genocide-Joe" will automatically declare support of Israel and participate, just like he did now, with shooting down the Iranian missiles. With bigger and smaller US bases all around Syria and US, it's very easy to get US in this mess. And even if those aren't attack, a larger attack from Israel will get the US President to fight alongside Israel. There's no doubt about it.

The "coalition" that Bibi is now talking about is likely Israel, the US and the UK. Israel will just asses Iran's capabilities as now it has seen them against Nevatim air base and Mt Hermon. What Nevatim had was F-35 fighters, which likely weren't effected. And notice that Iran didn't attack against Sdot Micha air base, where Israel's Jericho III nukes likely are stored.

Palestinians -- according to polls -- are sympathetic to the events of 10/7. On 10/7, many palestinians civilians stormed in and murdered and raped their neighbors. We can call them "wonderful village people" for all I care, but treatment-wise, if I were a soldier or commanding them, I would advise extreme caution. I will concede that we don't need to use the term "enemy" especially if it leads to bad treatment. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet you are not a soldier and not even in the region.

But on the other hadn, even before Oct 7th, from 2016:

(Times of Israel, 8th March 2016) Nearly half of Jewish Israelis agree that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, and a solid majority (79 percent) maintain that Jews in Israel should be given preferential treatment, according to a Pew Research Center in Israel survey published on Tuesday.

So firm public support for ethnic cleansing and the apartheid state even years ago!

And now:

a recent study conducted by an Israeli sample and campaign company Direct Polls affirming that the majority of the Israeli settler society is in favor of mass displacement in Gaza.

The study surveys a representative sample of Israeli public opinion on their stance regarding the Israeli authorities' efforts to "encourage the voluntary immigration" of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

The results show that:

68% are very supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip";
15% are quite supportive of "encouraging the voluntary immigration of residents of the Gaza Strip"

Wonderful village people on the other side too.

And the conflict will go on... and there's a real possibility that we will see that "voluntary immigration", ethnic cleansing, of Gaza.

An interesting development: What is Jordan's role in this?

(AlArabiya News) Jordan will be Iran’s “next target” if it “cooperates” with Israel amid Iranian missile and drone attacks against Israel, the semi-official Fars news agency reported early Sunday, while two regional security sources said Jordanian jets downed dozens of Iranian drones flying across northern and central Jordan heading to Israel.

Iran’s military is “carefully monitoring the movements of Jordan during the punitive attack against the Zionist regime, and if Jordan intervenes, it will be the next target,” Fars reported, citing, an “informed source” in Iran’s armed forces.

“Necessary warnings were given to Jordan and other regional countries before the operation,” the agency, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), quoted the source as saying.

According to the two regional sources, the drones were brought down in the air on the Jordanian side of the Jordan Valley and were heading in the direction of Jerusalem. Others were intercepted close to the Iraqi-Syrian border. They gave no further details.

Naturally shooting down armed drones flying in your airspace is totally legitimate thing to do for Jordan. But likely Jordan doesn't want to be the first line of defense for Israel. The tiny nation has to do quite a balancing act here.

Regional players like Saudi-Arabia and UAE express concerns for any military escalation. The hope would be that Israel would act like Trump now (do nothing). But that hardly isn't goint to happen like that. As now Israel has gotten "the right" to go after Iran, it will likely use this opportunity. At some time of it's choosing.

I mostly agree with this, but there is a difference between terror bombing, which is probably immoral and doesn't work, and strategic bombing, which is a fair military tactic. — RogueAI

Ah, that is a really fine line in the sand. Because nobody will say that they are trying "terror boming" as a tactic. And it all comes down to targeting.

I remember Chuck Yeager in his memoirs telling about the air war in 1945 as a Mustang pilot that at some time in the end of the war, they got these orders of patrolling some small area (was it 15km to 15km) and simply attack anything that moved. He and the other pilots were disgusted about the order as they didn't think it was their job to hunt and attack some cyclists or civilian people walking on some dirt road in Germany and hence they basically just flew around. But in the huge wheels of what the USAAF someone had come up with this kind of order.

It all comes down to rules of engagement. Those are defined, unfortunately, usually by the political leadership. And for the political leadership things like "revenge" or "giving a strong message" means that sometimes they want that rules of war are interpreted quite loosely. If the politicians want dead enemy soldiers or dead terrorists, the armed forces will give them want they want.

Do you think Israel is doing terror bombing? — RogueAI

Just look at the scale of the bombing.

In the first six days that Israel started it's bombing of Gaza: It dropped then over 6000 bombs, which is far more than the US coalition when fighting ISIS used bombs in any month of the war.

Then compare this to for example the battle over Mosul (about 1,7 million people). There extensive bombing was used to clear out ISIS. The civilian death toll was 9 000 to 11 000. So you have now at least double, even triple figures. That tells a lot.

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) — The price Mosul’s residents paid in blood to see their city freed was 9,000 to 11,000 dead, a civilian casualty rate nearly 10 times higher than what has been previously reported. The number killed in the nine-month battle to liberate the city from the Islamic State group marauders has not been acknowledged by the U.S.-led coalition, the Iraqi government or the self-styled caliphate.

But Mosul’s gravediggers, its morgue workers and the volunteers who retrieve bodies from the city’s rubble are keeping count.

Iraqi or coalition forces are responsible for at least 3,200 civilian deaths from airstrikes, artillery fire or mortar rounds between October 2016 and the fall of the Islamic State group in July 2017, according to an Associated Press investigation that cross-referenced independent databases from non-governmental organizations.

So as I've said: the US approach to urban combat would be better than the Netanyahu-lead Israeli one.

So think for yourself, when the political leadership of Israel talks of human animals, the evil city, people in Gaza being responsible for the attacks because they voted ages ago for Hamas in an election and so on. Those things do amount to the death toll.

So now Iran has had it's revenge after the 1st April attack on the consulate, which the supreme leader promised.

Likely it won't end up here. Bibi can see here an opportunity to broaden the war. At least he'll get the distraction for the Rafah operation.

People back then believed the ideas of Douhuet, which was an error. Bombing the manufacturing military base works...just as destroying air fields and other military infrastructure. It does make manufacturing more difficult, even if German simply increased it's production of war material until the end of the war simply by spreading it's manufacturing into coal mines and so on.

But just think about it yourself: assume Hitler had in 1943 some magnificient Ural-bomber aircraft that could from Northern France (perhaps simply the Luftwaffe had mastered air-to-air refuelling) hit the east coast cities of the US. Then sometime at the end of 1943 or in 1944, German bombers would have appeared out of nowhere to bomb New York with all it's lights on. At least the first strike, US cities would have had no defenses.

Yet. Do you genuinely think that kind of attack would have cowed the US not to fight anymore Germany? Do you FDR would have gotten pressure from the opposition to stop the war with Germany? HELL NO! It would have had quite opposite effect:bombings would have just shown how the enemy was real, they did pose a threat were to the US. Mainland US being attacked would simply have increased the American will to fight. It would have made the leadership to increase it's efforst even more to push the Manhattan Project etc. to go ahead. And the bombings would be part of American history and experience, just like the attack Pearl Harbour is now.

The people that would be happy about it would be Hitler and Goebbels. They could say that they are revenging the bombings of Germany and thus give something for the Nazi supporters that wanted revenge. Yet it would be irrelevant to the war and it's outcome.

Hence the idea that Douhuet marketed, that strategic bombing would shorten wars, that if civilians would be bombed would want their governments to have peace simply has the negative effect. Strategic air war on the other hand is part of air war. Just as in tactical air support and intrediction.

That is the point: without US support, Ukraine, Korea, Vietnam, the Iraqi government, Israel, etc., wouldn’t have lasted too long. US support is crucial. Okay, then we ask: so what? Given this fact, the further question is: Why Korea and Ukraine and Israel or Nicaragua, but not Sudan or East Timor or Nigeria or Haiti? — Mikie

So what?
What do you have against K-Pop? Of having South Korean electronic gadgets and cars? Of them being wealthy and not on the verge of famine?

Is someone invading Haiti? I think the Dominican Republic doesn't have intentions for taking the whole island to themselves (Haiti had earlier that kind of agenda).

All of these are individual cases. It's useless to make a generalization when you have such different situations and countries at hand.

In Ukraine there's a the clear cut case of international law. The clear cut case that US allies share similar objectives of keeping Ukraine independent. And the clear cut case that Ukrainians are indeed willing to defend their country.

And I would ask: what's the reason for intentionally eroding the credibility of NATO? You think NATO's useless for the US?