It is the problem. It's an ongoing problem. — BitconnectCarlos

Well over for 100 years... so I'm not holding my breath.

What happened on 10/7 was - and I don't use this word lightly - straight-up demonic. Yet you have a large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified. — BitconnectCarlos

A large portion of the world sympathizing with it and even considering it justified? Really????

Perhaps we have to consider just what "a large portion" of the World is.

Don't you remember that even Hamas itself acknowledged that there were "some faults" on attacking civilians? Yep, even they admitted it:

See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’

Which in all fairness has already been achieved at some points. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed. Yet annexing territory is one of the most difficult things for any state to get acceptance from other states. Just look at the response of Russia annexing parts of Ukraine. Or Morocco with Spanish Sahara.

Despite all this, it's still far better than the system they have in the EU, where in some countries they are arresting people for what they post online—freedom of speech there is no longer a human right, despite what history has taught them. — NOS4A2

UK isn't in the EU, btw.

Israel certainly does not enjoy military superiority in that area. It has suffered defeats against Hezbollah in the past, and the balance of power today is probably closer than it was back then. — Tzeentch

This is simply false and your confusing things.

It can win the conventional armies and air forces of it's neighbors. What Israel cannot do is to venture out into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt and occupy those countries. That ability it doesn't have. Or will or stomach even to try. But it certainly can defend the areas it got in the Six-Day war.

And that's it.

That's the real objective For Likud.

It's from the River to the Sea. Not further.

And it's small, basically tiny airspace can give it the ability of defending projectiles from long range ballistic missiles to drones and mortar fire. What Hezbollah can do is to create a nuisance, not a potential threat that can destroy the ability of the IDF to defend itself and the country. And this is why there is no peace: the current environment can be indeed the "new normal" for politicians like Bibi.

How long can Russia continue going as it is? Forever? — frank

Not forever. This is a high intensity conflict, a conventional war, and it cannot go like this forever. It can easily become a frozen conflict.

This conflict has gone for a decade, actually, so with the losses and the strain, it won't go forever. But it can go at worst for decades. But then it's likely, as in the 100 year war between France and England or the 30 years war in Germany, it will have those time of lower intensity.

The longer it will go, the worse will be Russia's failure and more likely that Russia will fall from being the last Western Empire.

Given that everything in Turing Computability is decidable, and hence deterministic, then past states will elucidate future states of a process given enough time.

- What are your thoughts about this? — Shawn

Do remember that Turing's paper is an undecidability result. Not everything is Turing Computable, which would be very useful for us. Hence you are really stretching it when you conclude that "then past states will elucidate future states of a process given enough time".

But how to use already done work on algorithms and not to repeat the work, which @fishfry referred to, is obviously useful.

Regime commissars don’t like when people talk amongst themselves. — NOS4A2

I think it's the typical way that actually BOTH Republicans and Democrats would do this:

When corporations ask for simple rules they ought to then adhere to (by legislation), naturally the political establishment doesn't give this (which actually would be their job). Why? Because there's Freedom of Speach, of course!

What the government wants is to have in secret a watchdog system where they will inform the corporations which isn't tolerated and who should be banned. And if the corporations themselves won't follow, it's be trouble for them. And as they are free companies, they can decide who to ban and who not!

And if you think that the Republicans are different, well, it's simply other issues than the progressive wokester's see inappropriate.

I'm just being realistic.


What I'm seeing in Ukraine and what I'm seeing in Israel are quite similar patterns, except that every factor is even worse for Israel.

Israel has a population of roughly 7 million, and is housing a number of Palestinians roughly equal to that on the soil which it occupies. — Tzeentch

Realistic?

- Israel has a nuclear deterrence and enjoys military superiority over all of it's neighbors. The futility of Iran's missile attacks showed this. The sole Superpower will also defend it, as it happened during Biden's watch.

- Israeli losses in this conflict, especially after the initial attack that gain total strategic surprise have been minimal. Israel can perfectly contain the Palestinians and has the ability to continue military operations in Gaza (and the West Bank). It's not at all burdened by war like Ukraine (or Russia).

- After the October 7th attacks views have hardened in Israel and there's support for the hardliners. Those that don't like Likud and the hardliners are much more likely to simply migrate away from Israel than create a strong opposition against the current administration.

- Israel not only enjoys US support, but also support from other countries in the West. It also has still peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. There is no desire on the Arab side to join Iran and organization it has sponsored.

- There is no true sanctions or boycotts against Israel that hit the country hard.

So I guess your "realism" just bubbles up from your hatred about the US or something.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been intertwined with the conflict Iran (as leader of the Shias) and Saudi Arabia (as leader of the Sunnis) for decades. — neomac

The Sunni Shia conflict started in earnest with Iraq and later with the civil war in Syria. It hasn't intertwined actually so much. For example for a long time Isrealis went as tourists to see (naturally from their side) from the Golan Heights the Civil War in Syria. That you can sit comfortably on a hill and watch the fighting on the other side of the border tells that ISIS wasn't targetting Israel (which btw. has created a lot of conspiracy theories in the Middle East). The Sunni Islamists simply left their wounded on the border where Israeli troops picked them up and moved them to a Israeli hospital.

Innocent looking at first: Israeli tourist viewing the battles inside Syria from the Golan Heights.

For such Sunni and Shia regimes, supporting the Palestinian cause is also about securing domestic legitimacy and enhancing regional influence. By advocating for Palestinians, such regimes attempt to gain the moral high ground and appeal to the broader Muslim population, which often sympathizes with the Palestinian struggle. — neomac

Yes, just like Saddam Hussein then launched Scuds to Israel because ...why not. A populist move to gain support of the "Arab street" which people occasionally try to do.

Yet what has been the response this time? Some angry rhetoric from the Turkish leader and some angry rhetoric from other countries. And well, that's about it...

So these are quite different conflicts, even if the actors intertwine as you say.

From Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people”: — neomac

Why wouldn't OBL too go for the Arab street too? Yet I think that Al Qaeda was first and foremost interested in toppling the current monarchies and leaders in the Middle East.

And of course note that this is a "letter to the American people”. Naturally here OBL doesn't say what he says to his followers, things like it's all right to kill even American civilians, women and children. Which made Al Qaeda different from a lot of groups. In 1996 Osama bin Laden said about the Americans the following:

The ordinary man knows that [Saudi Arabia] is the largest oil producer in the world, yet at the same time he is suffering from taxes and bad services. Now the people understand the speeches of the ulemas in the mosques--that our country has become an American colony. They act decisively with every action to kick the Americans out of Saudi Arabia. What happened in Riyadh and [Dhahran] when 24 Americans were killed in two bombings is clear evidence of the huge anger of Saudi people against America. The Saudis now know their real enemy is America.

So if Osama was against Al Aqsa being in the hands of Israelis, he was more against Mecca (and Medina) being in the hands of Americans, actually. But naturally, why not also mention the plight of Palestinians when agitating terrorism?

Well, I don't believe it is in Israel's interests, because I don't think Israel will survive the moment the US leaves it to pay the bill. — Tzeentch

You underestimate the Jewish people far too much.

Really, not everything revolves around the Americans.

I generalize of course, but for whatever reason the Europeans here tend to understand e.g. Islamic violence in terms of blowback so, basically, whatever Islamic violence befalls a people it is in some sense deserved. — BitconnectCarlos

What blowback? Within Islam there's a lot of totally different struggles going on, which then splash even on our shores and then there's the question of migration in general. Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one specific conflict that soon will have gone for a Century. Separate is the Sunni Islmamism that started with Al Qaeda. Then there's Sunni-Shia struggle we've seen in Iraq and Syria. And then there's the now quite institutionalized Iranian revolution that is something like Marxism-Leninism was for the Soviet Union, which has picked Israel in it's crosshairs (and vice versa).

So umm, yes, you generalize. Perhaps a bit too much in this case.

I feel bad for the Europeans because with the decline in Christianity they're left without much guidance and they're facing a people who have a strong sense of purpose. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh for crying out loud, Christianity has withered for a long time starting from the 19th Century, so that cannot be the problem.

Besides, I've experienced a huge political and cultural transformation in my country, where actually people went for and the politicians changed their stances in a week or so after February 22nd 2022. Seldom you see such a huge change from a neutral country still suffering from "Finlandization" as it tried to keep good relations with Russia, then simply stop and change the course altogether.

And furthermore, what the right-wing media doesn't report is that a lot has changed in Europe: Sweden has changed it's migration policies, Denmark has all the time been very negative towards migration. There's a huge change happened in the discourse of migration... except in the UK. And East Europe want to have literally nothing to do with it. And nobody's talking about Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Kosovo or Albania, which have indeed the large muslim populations. Well, they've had them starting from the fall of East-Rome in 1453.

Nope, you think that Europe is like the Post-Brexit Keir Starmer lead UK. Well, it isn't.

Hence the narrative of the "Culture Wars" gives a false description especially if one makes the mistake of talking about Europe as one single entity. It simply isn't that. It would be like if we would generalize and talk about "North America" as one single entity. Well, Canada is different from the US and both of them are far different from Mexico. But of course I could say: "Oh, North America has no strong sense of purpose..."

You may believe that - many do - but I don't see it that way.

I disagree with those who portray Israel as the beneficiary in this relationship. — Tzeentch

We disagree again.

While Israel is carrying out US policy in the Middle-East, it is inching itself closer and closer to the geopolitical abyss. — Tzeentch

The US and Israel might agree on some policies, that is true. But if it's in the interest of Israel and also the US is fine with a policy, is it really then "Israel carrying out US policy".

Just state how is Israel carrying out US policy in the Middle-East that wouldn't be benificial to itself?

It wasn't too long ago that 2000+ Americans were killed in American soil and it sparked a war that at least initially had widespread support. Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe. — BitconnectCarlos

Hmmm... but what did Israel do for the US actually in the War on Terror?

The only thing it might have done is give intelligence... which likely played more to their interests. Which isn't to fight Sunni Islamists, but Israel's own enemies, the Palestinians and Iran and it's henchmen, which actually fight also the Sunni Islamists.

But did Israel help the US in Iraq?

Of course not.

But did Israel help in Afghanistan, in the longest war the US fought and lost?

Of course not.

Did Israel help in the fight against ISIS?

Of course not.

Did Europe help in Iraq?

Some countries did.

Did Europe help in Afghanistan? In the response to 9/11?

Yep. A lot more countries than just NATO members. In the end there were more NATO personnel than were US personnel. Were they consulted before bugging out of Afghanistan done by the Trump-Biden adminstrations? Of course not. And European countries also lost soldiers in Afghanistan: UK: 457, Canada: 159, France: 90, Germany: 62, Italy: 53, Poland: 44, Denmark: 43, Spain: 35, Romania: 27, Netherlands: 25, Czech Republic: 14, Norway: 10, Estonia: 9, Hungary: 7, Sweden: 5, Latvia: 4, Slovakia: 3, Finland: 2.

But of course, that doesn't mean a Goddam fuck to you that your allies did participate in your invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Israel fighting it's own war of existence makes you state: " Here we know the necessity of fighting and beating a wicked enemy - something that seems to have been lost on much of Europe."

In Israel Netanyahu is considered a 'moderate', if you can believe that. — Tzeentch

That's how bad things have gone in Israel, Tzeentch.

Also do notice that the Labour party is now a tiny party and not the force it was earlier.

Essentially Washington uses the same trick, but it uses Israel. Their interests align with that of Israel, and they have Israel to say and do all the things that would be erm... 'embarassing'... to have to say and do themselves. — Tzeentch

Please give example of this. Because I think Israel is and has been quite an independent actor.

Netanyahu receiving 50+ standing ovations in US Congress was a bit of an eye-opener to me. — Tzeentch

You should view what American politicians say on AIPAC conferences. That's actually also an eye-opener.

Netanyahu seems to believe he has US Congress in the palm of his hand, but US Congress may as well be playing to his shitty megalomaniac/narcissistic personality. — Tzeentch

But the US Congress is in the palm of his hand. Of course it can be squigly and difficult to hold. But the loyal devotion to Israel is a bipartisan issue: both parties want to have good relations with Israel because they fear having bad relations will alienate their own voters. Not the Jewish Americans, but the Evangelists. That's why both parties are so in favour of Israel. I think that Netanyahu was one of the first to understand this, because other Israeli politicians thought of the US had been such an ally because of the Cold War and the threat of Soviet Union. But it wasn't just that and Bibi understood. As I've said, Bibi is a lot more than just an Israeli politician, he understands how US politics works and is basically also an American politician.

The issue is that Israeli politicians want to draw a picture of the relations being fragile and problematic, which they actually aren't. That's just a way to influence Washington. But in truth, we've seen just this year in April just how the US came to the defense of Israel. And we surely know that it will do the same, hence this alliance is solid.

Here's the orginal article in Finnish:

IL:n tiedot: Suomen suojaksi 4 000–5 000 sotilaan panssaroitu Nato-prikaati

I think it's basically just extremely sloppy journalism: didn't even care to read the article carefully, took just the headline and made a story from it.

Quite in line with what I argued earlier, the idea that radical loonies are in charge of anything is just a guise — Tzeentch

Is it a disguise? The Likud party had as it charter "From the River to the Sea" Israel without any Palestinian state ever existing.

How is that a disguise? I think it's quite straight forward and consistent from them.

Interesting view, if "things get out of hand in a nuclear way", let's blame the US as the puppet master and the Ukrainians as the puppets, and not even mention Russia as the one actually nuclear bombing the region. — neomac

Some are here the cheerleaders for the attacker in this war. First there was no attack, just US creating hysteria over a possible attack. Then it has been a victory for Russia, case closed, for all the time. Why won't the Ukrainians simply stop and surrender because they have no chance against Russia?

Western audiences have become so gullible and ignorant that they would believe whatever story they try to sell it under. — Tzeentch

Everything is the West's fault. All the injustices that happen in the World happen because of the West.

This naive and false idea makes them believe that they're smart as they criticize the West.

Finland to deploy up to 5,000 NATO troops near Russian border
— Lisa Lambrecht · Deutsche Welle · Aug 22, 2024 — jorndoe

This is typical "journalism" of today, from DW:

The Finnish authorities have decided to station a NATO armored brigade on the territory of this country to contain external threats. A new formation of 4,000-5,000 soldiers and officers is already being formed and will be deployed in the city of Mikkeli, located near the border with Russia, the Finnish publication Iltalehti

What the Finnish newspaper Iltalehti actually said is that an lower HQ is to be established at Mikkeli, which will start to organize the training of a brigade (in the future). And it's equipment will be forward deployed into Finland (in the future). Basically at one time, once the training starts that is, there will be deployed a battalion with a strength of 800 soldiers. That's it.

This likely will happen annually, I assume, just like the training syllabus of other formations go. Hence there won't be a permanent station of even 800 men. But I guess the HQ, about 15 to 50 people (which many likely will be Finnish officers already in Mikkeli).

That is quite different from a formation of "4,000 - 5,000 soldiers and officers is already being formed and will be deployed in the city of Mikkeli". From that you get the false impression that actually 4000 to 5000 NATO will be deployed to Finland and exist there in it's entirety all the time. Where 4000 to 5000 soldiers would be permanently housed I have no idea, as such it would be one of the largest military bases in Finland...which isn't built. :smile:

Actually we have that in Finland with the Presidential elections as we have a multiparty system with three or four large similar voter base having parties and then small parties.

Elections have to be simple enough for people to understand them. This what you stated (RCV) is one of the clearest ways. If there are a multiple of candidates that get similar amount of votes (something that doesn't happen in the US with it's duopoly in political parties) and nobody gets 50% on the first round, then there's a second round with two candidates that got the most votes. The picking of the two best is enough usually. Having election day twice isn't too much.

It's simple and easy to understand.

I myself also do like the D'Hondt method which takes into account how much the party in general has won and how much the individual candidates have won. Of course this way has funny result that if in an electoral district there's a hugely popular candidate of one party, let's say Josef Stalin, and the party has also with him totally unknown or hated candidates that get just a few votes, they'll go in assisted by the result of the huge electoral winner. The method (called also the Jefferson method) isn't easy to understand itself (the calculation method) and it makes coalitions useful, but I think it works.

What I don't like are these political systems where ruling parties make it extremely hard for new parties to get seats. And (unfortunately) in the case of the US, the POTUS has this "Superman" image as if one person could make a huge change to the system. True political change starts actually from the communal level.

Neither one of the US candidates appeals to me. — Athena

In short, just having two political parties simply cannot be representive of what a population wants.
That's the problem. In fact, when these two entrenched parties agree on something, the matter isn't discussed at all, but given as a law of nature. It also creates the bedrock for corruption and the negative aspects of US politics.

Yes, even if there would be more candidates that have a realistic chance that they might win, you still might be disappointed. Yet with just basically a right-wing party and a centrist one, you won't have enough choices. The whole "primaries" thing is a stupid charade, where people hope to change political parties from inside.

Anyway, I'm guessing that a solution would require both plausible security guarantees and ongoing justice. — jorndoe

How this would happen is the real question.

Perhaps have then the European development.

Wonder why or how Europeans started to talk about peaceful integration, not only coexisting but being intergration an have continuously their heads of state meeting each other?

In order to pacify Europeans, you had to kill millions, tens of millions of Europeans in two absolutely devastating wars. With every fifth Polack being killed. Losing that war twice worked wonders on the German psyche.

That gives an opportunity for the peacenicks to have a say.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. — BitconnectCarlos

This is a whimsical and ludicrous statement that naturally Israel (and especially it's far right) will want to cherish. It is taken out of context, but as people wave Palestinian flags in riots and demonstrations around Europe, it's understandable that some people believe this. And there's a lot of people who want to spread these kind of ideas.

The absurdity starts naturally with the fall of Israel.

Of course the hilarious thing is that the real country that has a "muslim problem" is Russia, which in the right-wing discourse is viewed as a champion of Christianity (even if that's Orthodox). In the map those that are light green have less than 1% of the population muslim. How with 1% or less (or in that level anyway) some kind of "replacement" will happen is beyond my understanding. Kosovo, Northern Macedonia and even Bulgaria have had since the Middle Ages their muslim populations. For some reason they aren't the problem.

"from the river to the sea" is the original zionist motto - but I would rather be a muslim under jewish rule than a jew under muslim rule. Israel is currently fighting the palestinians over the west bank. The simple fact is is that Israel has no viable negotiating partner today. — BitconnectCarlos

And that's unfortunately been the objective for Likud. That's why Bibi gave money to Hamas earlier. Just as we can notice from the peace deals that Israel has with the neighbouring Arab countries, only a country in control of it's territory as Egypt or Jordan can make a peace deal with Israel. Lebanon, which has been a failed state for quite a long time simply cannot. And Palestine, well Israel doesn't even accept a Bantustan.

Simple fact is that peace in the Middle East comes through deterrence on both sides: if one side has no deterrence while the other side does, this other side will abuse this and continue it's military strikes. And this is primary cause why there is no peace in the Middle East: Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity as there isn't a real military threat for it. The air defenses against Iranian missiles work. It also is the only country in the region that has a nuclear deterrence.

Hence in the remote possibility of Isreal doing something extremely stupid, like blowing up the Al-Aqsa mosque and the dome of the rock and start to build again the Temple on the Temple mount, the Arab countries will not unify against it. We have seen this response already. And simply put: why would they want to go to war with a nuclear power backed up by the sole Superpower? Especially when their arms basically come from that Superpower itself.

The likeliest outcome is the continuation of the current situation. The real forever war continues.

pro palestinian protesters met with Harris this weekend and claimed that she would be open to stopping arms sales to Israel if elected (she is currently the slight favorite.) — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure that Kamala can lie to their faces things like that.

The Democratic Party today is a very unreliable "ally" to Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Nah. That's GOP sillyness. Bibi has just set up the bar so high. Here "unreliable ally" means that the US won't parrot everything what Israel wants. And it's just rhetoric. The US will be committed to fight for Israel, just as it has done during the Biden administration. US troops are already in Israel defending it.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. — Athena

Well, you're an American, right? What else would they say?

We'll be in power and we'll not care a shit about you, but keep voting for us.

Perhaps that would be at least honest?

What's going on here? — jorndoe

Taking the land by little steps, or one Palestinian at a time.

After all, the "River to the Sea" was Likud party's original platform:

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.

And btw, the original platform continued:

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.

When you think about it, Likud and Netanyahu have been extremely consistent in their objectives for many decades now. It simply isn't complicated. These guys aren't going to negotiate like the Labor governments did. That time is in the past. It would be hilarious if not so deadly tragic, that this party dedicated to it's original agenda and objectives is somehow portrayed in the hypocrite West to be as perhaps doing a two-state solution in the future. Quite similarly to those on the other side thinking that Hamas is willing to negotiate and make peace with Israel (especially after the example that happened to the PLO when it did go with the peace plan).

This conflict could have been solved in the end of the Cold War. This conflict should have been solved int the end of the Cold War. It wasn't. Hence it can totally possibly continue for the next hundred years.

It's interesting you chose to share a picture from 1945, during which Israel had not yet been established and the United States still could be said to have reasonable leadership. — Tzeentch

Then the close alliance started. Not even the worst terrorist attack hasn't withered this relationship as this pillar of the "Twin Pillars" policy has remained. Many times the two don't see things similarly, but so hasn't it been in the alliance between France and the US. And of course there's later pictures:





With Egypt naturally the close relations started only after the peace deal with Israel and the kicking out of the Soviet military advisors.

Ramble all you want in your own imaginations, it's just nonsense I won't be reading....

US and Egyptian interests clearly do not coincide, and this "alliance" is a product of something else. — Tzeentch

Clearly they do, just like Saudi-Arabia has done for a long time. Even if the two countries would seem to be perfect enemies for each other with 9/11 terrorists and OBL and everything. That for example the US came to the aid of Saudi-Arabia in the most spectacular fashion with Operation Desert Shield shows this bond, just as does the US support for the Saudi lead war in Yemen.



What you can only argue is that the relations might sour in the future, just as they did with Iran after it's revolution or like with Pakistan later. Yet the simply truth is that these two countries, just like the GCC countries, are quite crucial allies for the United States. Membership in BRICS doesn't change this reality, because there is a multitude of similar organization where countries hold summits.

I've been the first one here arguing that the US Middle East policy is a slow train wreck, but the truth is that many of the allies of United States aren't similar as NATO countries and have similar value based relationship and clearly have their own agendas.

But stay in your la la land where Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are enemies of the US.

Calling Egypt and Saudi-Arabia US allies just turns 'ally' into a vacuous term. Of course they are not allies - certainly not today. — Tzeentch

:lol:
Don't let actual reality or actual data hinder your delusions or your imagination:



If a country has gotten more military aid than the ill fated South Vietnam or the similarly ill fated Republic of Afghanistan and only Israel has gotten more, then you have very curious is your ideas of the enemies of the US. And likely you never have heard about the large Bright Star Exercises that the US and the Egyptian military have had from 1980 with latest in 2023 (and the next one to be in 2025). But, as I said, do not let reality hinder your imagination in any way.


From last year:

The US said it is cooperating "closely" with Egypt to de-escalate conflicts and promote sustainable peace, including by supporting UN mediation to enable elections in Libya as soon as possible.

They are also cooperating to restore a civilian-led transition in Sudan through the Framework Political Agreement, the statement added.

It noted that both nations share "an unwavering" commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the only path to a "lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and equal measures of security, prosperity, and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians."

The US said, based on Egypt’s transformational peace with Israel, it is partnering with Egypt to foster further regional cooperation including through the Negev Forum process, the state department added.

The statement added that Egypt is a valued US partner in counterterrorism, anti-trafficking and regional security operations, which advance both US and Egyptian security.

The decades-long defense partnership, it noted, is a pillar for regional stability.

It is interesting. I think it was the German authorities that made it.

I think Sweden actually stopped the investigations. Which I found quite telling.

I'm thinking more and more that this was a panic of the Biden administration or then really an Ukrainian effort. Or then both.

Of course now with Ukrainians holding a Russian city with the gas pipeline (and even earlier), Ukraine has had this dilemma: it's totally in their interest to attack key economic targets like the pipelines that Russia has, but that has quite a lot of international effects, also to those countries that support it. This is again the problem when Germany, for example, is aiding Ukraine but not part of the actual conflict.

Well, Germany has been quite clueless. At least Finland hasn't. Now when the border is closed and all trade has stopped, it's been really devastating for the border municipalities here in Finland. But there's no whining, on the contrary, people there say that earlier they were (and Finns in general) were too naive when it came to Putin's Russia.

They then thought that it was an ordinary country that would want to have good economic ties with it's neighbors and that there would be normal relations, just like Finland has with Sweden or Norway.

Well, Siberia teaches, as the saying goes.

Uh, both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. — ssu

They are really not, but there have been times during which the US attempted to placate them. — Tzeentch

Again @Tzeentch is in his fictional alternative universe. Get your facts straight, man.

Why do I bother commenting your absurdities and errors?

to say that Israel has the US wrapped around its finger is simply a misassessment of reality. Tensions have heightened in recent talks and the Biden administration has been quietly targeting Israel with unprecedented sanctions. — BitconnectCarlos

Is it?

Let's take what these "unprecedented sanctions" have just been, from the link you gave us:

The goal is not to reverse any policy by the Israeli government but to create a climate of controversy around Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition partners.

So, the goal is not to reverse any policy... sounds odd for sanctions, but perhaps not for "unprecedented sanctions". As here the victims of the sanctions are like these:

(PBS News, March 14th 2024) he Biden administration on Thursday imposed sanctions on three extremist Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank who are accused of harassing and attacking Palestinians to pressure them to leave their land.

Two farms that the settlers run were also targeted in the move that is likely to increase already heightened tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Gaza war.

The announcement from the State Department and Treasury comes at a time of increasing friction between President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose far-right government has reacted angrily to previous sanctions imposed against West Bank settlers.

U.S. officials — from Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken — have repeatedly raised concerns about a surge in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank since Israel’s war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip began.

Here's about this from the German DW News:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=k5DckrHCVBg

Hence these sanctions are against few single individuals, to whom likely this "sanctions" aren't even a nuisance, but a badge of honor. Hence it's rather whimsical even to refer to sanctions in the way we understand sanctions against Russia, Iran or North Korea.

And as the economy changes the human practices that are a part of it will too. And the economy is never stable, so science will continue to change. — Moliere

That's a similar conclusion I've made too.

Basically when humanity has to adapt to the post-Peak population era with falling populations all over the World, a lot more than just economics with models of perpetual growth have to be changed. It's not just economics: social sciences have to adapt to explain the new situation. Just like the research on infectious diseases have to adapt to the new diseases that simply show up. (If there aren't any, at least you always have a lab leak!)

Perhaps the real question is sciences like Physics, Chemistry or even Philosophy in general.

But great that you are optimistic! :)

It's not like the US hasn't tried on both accounts. — Tzeentch

Uh, both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US.

Coincidence? I guess so, since apparently US grand strategy doesn't exist, and articles like 'A Geostrategy for Eurasia' by Zbigniew Brzezinski apparently don't exist either. — Tzeentch

Mr Brzezinski, the former security advisor of Jimmy Carter doesn't make up the "Grand Strategy" of the US. Yes, he can write books like the "Grand Chessboard", but it's whimsical to assume that he controls a "Grand Strategy" of the US.

I'm honestly a bit shocked you would claim that US grand strategy doesn't exist, but all that means is that the US is being successful at hiding their agenda. — Tzeentch

I'm not at all surprised that you think that the all the administrations from the Carter administration through Trump to Biden have behind them a "Grand Strategy"...

...masterminded by Zbigniew Brzezinski. :snicker:

In fact your idea of there being a "Grand Strategy" simply shows how little you know of how Washington works and how it goes through different agendas and strategies all the time. Or you think that from "CENTO" to "Twin Pillars" to "Dual Containment" to "War on Terror" truly represent a part of a "Grand Strategy" in the Middle East?

Heck, even the stance on Israel has changed quite a lot, if you start from the 1940's.

It's now more like the far left, muslims, and far right have formed a bloc that opposes Israel. So it's more like horseshoe theory. Moderate Dems are generally supportive of it as are most Republicans except the ones are fringes like the groypers/white supremacists. — BitconnectCarlos

You do understand that people mean with the far right (just as with the far left) totally different people that others think they are.

Bibi said he did not intend to take Gaza in his speech to the US Congress. Maybe you know Bibi was lying? — BitconnectCarlos

Bibi knows just what to tell the Americans and when. For him Americans aren't a problem, he's lived enough time in the US and has followed the politics to understand how American politics works.

Young Bibi at Cheltenham High Year Book:


(Which btw Bibi later lied about... as he stated that he would have just been in schools in Israel)

What we are witnessing is a dangerous shift toward a worldview in which power and military force are the only legitimate means of ensuring security, regardless of the human cost. — Benkei

It's a tactic of rhetorical attack as would populist do. Your do not engage in any discussion, you simply firmly state your line, something that many could call propaganda.

A country that deliberately bombs hospitals, schools, refugee camps, universities, museums, churches, mosques, and entire residential neighborhoods rejects the foundations of a civilised way of life. The West's continued support not only undermine the principles of justice and humanity but pose a direct threat to everything we stand for as a civilised society. — Benkei

Seems you would be also talking about Russian forces, but anyway.

I think it was you @Benkei, that remarked this being a genocide done simply slowly. This may have the point in that if the IDF doesn't take into consideration civilians as when the US has fought in Iraqi cities, which is now quite obvious from the death toll, it doesn't reach the sickening numbers of civilians killed by Germany during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 or what the Japanese forces did in Manila and Nanjing. Yet that number of killed is far higher than how many civilians have been killed in the Ukraine war, even if it would have the few battalions of Palestinian fighters included.

Of course the fact is that Israel is also changing a lot. It isn't similar as what it was in the 20th Century and just shows clearly that a rather secular society can become more religious even in this Century.

Hm. I'm honestly not one to ascribe a decisive amount of influence to interest groups and lobbies like the US Israel lobby. — Tzeentch

Then you should compare the relationship to other allies of the US. Politics is in the end domestic politics.

I think Israel serves US grand strategy in that it gives the US a vital proxy in an economically important region. For example, Iran occupies one of three vital bottlenecks that connect China to Europe, the Middle-East and Africa overland. The other two being Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. — Tzeentch

If we go to geopolitics, wouldn't then Egypt be a far more crucial link with it having the Suez Canal? Or simply Saudi-Arabia with it's position and oil reserves? Sorry, but you cannot explain the exceptional status of US-Israeli relations by other means than the amount of American voters for whom Israel is important. Especially when there is no Soviet Union, when Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and the GCC states are allies of the US. During the Cold War it was totally different.

In my view, it isn't. These groups are just the patsies, while the main driver is actual US grand strategy and the interest groups we believe are somehow causing this are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh carrion. — Tzeentch

US Grand Strategy?

Really?

Sorry, but there's no US Grand Strategy when it come to the real actions and policies which the US takes.

Of the Great Powers I would say that the only country that has the patience and ability to think long term so much that it really could have something like a "Grand Strategy" is simply China.

Let us take a moment to note that the person responsible for conducting the most well-documented genocide in recorded history, Benjamin Netanyahu, got some 50 standing ovations while delivering a speech in US Congress.

It's like watching a scene out of Maoist China.

I wonder how Americans reflect on this. — Tzeentch

Students do.

This conflict should have been solved when the Cold War ended, but it didn't.

The Israeli right and Netanyahu understood that for the US, the US-Israeli axis was far more than just an Cold War alliance. It wasn't the few million American Jews, but all the Evangelists who had a special place in their heart for Israel. And Bibi has been the best politician to use this totally exceptional relationship. I think he partly could be said to be also a de facto American politician. That's how well he can influence the US, even if he basically is a foreigner.

Media has already forgotten it. Just look at this thread. The wheels of justice turn slowly and at least e have a few court cases to look forward to. — Benkei

And unfortunately, which I truly hate, for some it has become part of the left/right culture war.

The sad fact is that the IDF can continue this for a very long time ...it isn't unbearable for the Israeli society. After all, perpetual low intensity conflict is the "natural state" of Israel for the ruling party whose original motto was "from the river to the sea". And they are confident they will get there, it will just take time.

That seems sensible in purely military terms, though using conscripts is politically risky. — Echarmion

Not at all at this stage. Just look that they aren't from Moscow of St Petersburgh. And the fighting is in Russia.

It'll be interesting to see whether combat on this front if going to look significantly different from what we've mostly seen due to the absence of mines and heavy fortifications. — Echarmion

It makes sense from the Ukrainians if it lures Russian troops away from where they are focusing their assaults.

It's not the exception but a feature. — Benkei

Now about 39 000 in Gaza have been killed. That's like every 58th person
in Gaza.

I assume the way is now for the media just to forget it ...and with people then being surprised later (perhaps in 2025, 2026) that it's still going on.

But the position of low military spending relative to other European countries has remained, and thus it's only position is to be integrationist, not independent. It relies on the military support of others, and has no standing in regards to its hard power other than small support roles like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. — schopenhauer1

But then few outside the Baltic States and former Warsaw Pact countries could fathom how belligerent and utterly insane Russia would be with starting wars annexing territories from it's neighbors.

One truly has to simply totally sideline the actual delusional rhetoric that has been repeated in this war. Perhaps people would understand just how crazy it is if we would assume that the prime minister of UK would have similar rhetoric of "All the people of the British Isles should historically and by all logic be part of the same nation" and that the Republic of Ireland is simply an "artificial state" and it should naturally be part of the UK and it's independence has been a huge tragedy. Now a British politician truly saying something like that would be considered insane and briskly removed from office due to his apparent mental problems. Or perhaps an Austrian politician make the argument that Hungary and Austria should become one again.

But with Russia, this is totally natural and actually insignificant for those that want to see absolutely everything in the World just happening because of the evil US. But that's the repeated arguments for hundreds of pages now.

Yet the Ukrainian attack into Kursk shows that evidently the war isn't over.

- tho normal social hierarchies that are alive in all parts of our life are still operational in the sciences, too. — Moliere

And this is all it is, actually. After reading Thomas Kuhn's work I found it perplexing how someone could see it as something revolutionary or something that would be tarnish the shining shield of science. The simple fact that people in groups behave as people in groups. Yet this doesn't make science itself something else, a totally "social construct" as some wrongly think.

:D I don't mind. It is the lounge for a reason, even if there are some heady thoughts out there -- I really wanted to brainstorm science with this thread, as in, trip across different ideas about science that are nevertheless important. And that requires a tolerance for branching out to related subjects (and since I've barely set a theme, well... have at it!) — Moliere

I think there's no reason to have this in the lounge... this is an open Philosophy Forum and hence the threads in the first page aren't so different from this in the end.

An interesting question is if science will change, or will it be rather similar to what we have now even in the distant future, let's say 200 years from now in 2224. Now we can see very well where science was in 1824, just on this verge of a huge sprint that was taken in the late 19th Century and in the 20th Century. Yet in 1824, what typically was taught in the universities of the time and what was publicly known might be different than we think now. But how close science in 2224 to science in 2024? The more similar it is, I think it's more depressing as one would hope that astonishing new ideas would come around.

But will they?

If the knowledge or insight is worth money, yes. However there's still a lot of academic and scientific studies that people, who have done them, would enjoy if their ideas would be picked up by others. It's totally understandable that for example nuclear weapons technology and the science used is declared classified and you just don't sell it to anyone that wants it. With philosophy, it isn't.

Still, I think that there is a problem when there simply are so many scientists and academic researchers, group behavior kicks in and an incentive emerges to create your own "niche" by niche construction: a group creates it's own vocabulary and own scientific jargon, which isn't open to someone that hasn't studied the area. Then these people refer to each others studies and create their own field. Another name for this could be simply specialization: you create your own area of expertize by specialization on a narrower field. When there are a masses of people doing research, this is the easy way to get to those "new" findings. Hence even people in the natural sciences can have difficulties in understanding each other, let alone then the people who are studying the human sciences. Perhaps it's simply about numbers: 30 scientists can discuss and read each others research and have a great change of ideas, but 3 000 or 30 000 cannot. Some kind of pecking order has to be created. The end result is that you do get a science that is "Kuhnian" just by the simple fact that so many people are in science.

(In 1927 it was easier just with 29 quantum physicists meeting each other)


I remember when studying a course in philosophy in the university I personally got irritated when a philosophy teacher said that one could only use the German words for some philosophical terms or otherwise their "essence" would be lost (think example's like Heidegger's Dasein). Well, if you cannot translate your ideas to another language or cannot define something by using other words, there's something wrong with you. But that's just my opinion and others can disagree with this.

And this is universal and not just limited to philosophy. I remember another historian who went to great lengths to write one of her historical books to be as easily readable for the layman as she could do only then to be scolded by her peers for the book not being "academic" enough. For some to be as understandable as possible isn't the objective, the objective is to limit those who don't know the proper terms out of the discussion, even if they could participate in the discussion. Naturally people will simply argue that just like with abbreviations, we make it easier for people to read it when we use the academic jargon. But there can really be other intensions also.

(Yes, it's the length of the equation, even if mathematical beauty would say otherwise)