I doubt that. — neomac

Firstly,

1) They showed cooperation. That's a big issue.
2) At least what I've noticed, there hasn't been atrocities against minorities done in the liberated cities.
3) At least the leadership clearly is speaking the correct terms in a way that he's at least had thought what the future would be. Worth to watch, look at the surprising CNN interview of HTS leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani:



There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying...

What they say doesn't matter so much as what they do. In fact in Joe Biden's answer it's clear that the US is also waiting what will happen. Is there a hand over of power? Is there a coalition formed? Do the groups refrain from fighting each other now? Are there elections?

In fact, one of the more positive tweets from Trump on the issue:

Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad. Russia, because they are so tied up in Ukraine, and with the loss there of over 600,000 soldiers, seems incapable of stopping this literal march through Syria, a country they have protected for years. This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out, with Russia stepping in. But now they are, like possibly Assad himself, being forced out, and it may actually be the best thing that can happen to them. There was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia, other than to make Obama look really stupid. In any event, Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!

Of course Tartus naval base (now empty) was very important for Russia, but if Trump does stay away, likely better.

Now, of course everything can go to hell in a hand basket. In the end they can go the way like Libya or Sudan, but then again, it doesn't have to be so bad. Sometimes it's good to be a bit of an optimist.

(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread)


Perfect place for Assad, there with Putin. So nice that the Russian officials accepted the ex-dictator for "humanitarian reasons". :vomit:

or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran? — neomac

Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS was in wanting to create an international Caliphate, then those soldiers fighting for the dictatorship of the Assad family simply laid down their arms and took off their uniforms. Because the obvious reason why Alawites and Christians etc. would support the Assad regime was for the fear what the Sunni majority, lead by violent Sunni extremists, would do to them. That was the way the Assad family ruled. If there were no Syrians willing to fight for Assad, doesn't matter how much support Russia or Iran would give to them. The will to fight was lost.

A bit different situation in Ukraine.

Now as the Assad regime has fallen, the question of this thread is extremely important. It also shows how the US stance, which is still tied to 9/11 and the Bush era Global War on Terrorism, means that the US is totally out of the political scene. The victorious rebels, largest HTS group is on the US terror list and it's leader has a 10 million dollar bounty from the US. This is the ludicrous situation that the US is in. The Syrian rebels have ousted the largest ally of Iran, the sole ally of Russia in the region. And now...they should be against this, even if HTS tries to unify the country and wants a proper handover from the remains of the Assad regime and isn't wanting to create an Islamic Caliphate. Because of something that happened 23 years ago by a small cabal of terrorists that have nothing to do with Syria?

What countries are more important are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi-Arabia. And naturally Russia, which still has troops in Syria. It seems how they handle this situation is crucial. The US is just a looker on the side.

The most ethical policy would be for all foreign powers to withdraw from Syria, to respect it's sovereignty, help it restore it's institutions and help in the reconstruction and not to support their own proxies as countries did in Libya. Libya is a case example WHAT NOT to do in this kind of situation. In Libya you have already seen nominal allies, NATO member states, supporting different sides. My real fear is that some outside actors will want the Syria to stay as a failed state, where they can have influence on a tiny area held by their proxies. The real question is, is the World capable of coming together with sound policies in this situation?

That Assad falls shows just how the US has totally failed in it's policy towards Syria. First Obama failed after drawing a red line in the sand which didn't mean anything as he hadn't consulted US allies first. Then trying to assist Syrian rebels was a total farce as the Americans, consistent of their GWOT objectives, seem to have feared far more those opposing Assad's regime than Assad himself. And then it has declared that it's only in Syria to fight the tiny remnants of ISIS.

Yet I think Americans don't even notice how adrift their policies in the Middle East are from if the only consistent and clear policy is defending Israel. If that's the only policy, then why and what are they thinking of doing in the larger area where everything isn't about Israel?

At such a happy time of an overthrow of a dictatorship, these question should be quickly answered and obvious pitfalls have to be avoided. Assad kept control of minorities like his on Alawite sect with the fear that they would face genocide if they wouldn't stand by him. It's the moment to show that it won't go that way. There exists a way to have proper justice: either in the legal system of Syria or then in institutions like the ICC.

Yes, the Syrian Army is collapsing and I presume Damascus will soon fall. What happens in the coastal area of Syria where you have the Alawite minority is the real question now.

Around 2,000 Syrian army soldiers crossed to Iraq on Saturday, Turki al-Mahlawi, the mayor of Al-Qaim border town, told Reuters on Saturday.

Earlier on Saturday, two Iraqi security sources told AFP said Iraq has allowed in hundreds of troops from the Syrian army, some of them wounded, amid a lightning offensive by armed opposition forces.

After half a million people have died in this civil war, I have no sympathy for the gangster family that has ruled Syria.

A lot of people are saying the Trump is first pushing the MAGA crazies first and thus to see who goes through, and only then gives other candidates. I disagree with this. First of all, in the second Trump administration will likely come and go just like in the first administration. They will want to implement the crazy stuff Trump has said he wants to do, then when they either fail or create a huge mess (like Liz Truss), then they have to go. This creates a revolving door. And Trump is Trump, he won't change.
The idea that Trump is playing some 4D Chess is only the wishful thinking of the Trump cult, just like is the idea of his other superb capabilities. A great populist orator he his, no doubt about that. But otherwise.

Just like Trump sees himself:


So with the trade wars and the deportations, it's going to be a Brexit-like experience for Americans.

According to Central Command these were show of force flights, which doesn't involve attacking anything. They could be lying, but those are very common. — Count Timothy von Icarus

At least on the video footage, you could hear the ominous and very distinctive sound of the GAU-8 gun going off. That's more than show of force.

I wonder if this gives Putin any pause as he continues to push low morale conscripts into frontal assault with civilian passenger cars and golf cart style ATVs. Things often break all at once. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, the Russian people think of those going to the front as contract soldiers, as a volunteer force that has chosen the pay for the risk.

Yet also financial problems to mobilize troops has been a problem for Assad also. He has had to demobilize part of the Syrian Army as there simply hasn't been the ability to pay them. Even if Assad is now promising a 50% pay increase, this might be far too late.

It's also noticeable that the insurgents themselves haven't fought each other (Kurds vs Sunni Arabs).

From what I understand the current situation makes defending Damascus extremely difficult, so barring some major reversal Assad would have to flee to Alawite stronghold areas with more defensible geography and people actually motivated to resist. But it's hard to see how, given his failures, he would actually remain the leader of such an Alawite rump state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Two credible commentators have given the line that Assad fucked up really badly in the international field, both Turkey and Saudi-Arabia were willing to talk to Assad, but Assad didn't budge. So they let the rebels loose. Hezbollah reeling from the fighting with Israel, and Putin fixated on Ukraine, Assad's friends don't seem to be coming for support. The rebranded "Al Qaeda-light", the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is at least communicating the right things. They pledge that they won't kill Assad regime fighters if they surrender, they are talking about even dismantling them when this is over and then accepting that Syria is a multiethnic state. The strategy is basically mimicking the Taleban offensive.

The cacophony of Syria has to be that while the Russian air force is attecking the HST, then US aircraft are also operating in the country and attacking Iranian backed militias. So both Russia and the US are fighting in Syria, just like the statement from four days ago from CENTCOM shows:

(Dec 3rd) This morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces successfully destroyed several weapon systems in the vicinity of Military Support Site Euphrates that included three truck mounted Multiple Rocket Launchers, a T-64 tank, an armored personnel carrier, and mortars that presented a clear and imminent threat to U.S. and Coalition forces. The self-defense strike occurred after the truck mounted Multiple Rocket Launcher, armored personnel carrier, and mortars were fired toward U.S. forces.

The U.S. mission in Syria remains unchanged as U.S. and Coalition forces continue to focus on the enduring defeat of ISIS.

Referring to defeating ISIS is whimsical here, because the idea of ISIS going around with MLRs, tanks and ACPs is crazy, as the group has basically gone underground and holds tiny patches of territory in Syria. But hey, seems as for long the US is just "defeating ISIS", it's OK to have such a situation in the country. But this is putting proxy-warfare to the tip of the point where you cannot say it's just "proxy warfare". Yet so it has been since Trump's first administration.

American A-10s attacking ground target over Syria from a few days ago:

I take the voters seriously. This is no longer a country where belief in democracy prevails. — frank

At least South Koreans take democracy seriously:



(btw, not just a women as the caption says, Ahn Gwi-ryeong, the spokesperson for the main opposition party in South Korea)

Ah, yes, there's plenty to say about the continued carte blanche support and how our president, as representative of the Netherlands - the country hosting the ICC - is looking for possibilities of Netanyahu to visit the Netherlands without him getting arrested. — Benkei

:grin: The problems of the present day politicians.

Looks like at least one president is going to be impeached. And very quickly. After your own party is against you, not much to do then.

People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon, who had earlier said he would oppose efforts to impeach Yoon, said on Friday that “newly emerging facts” had tipped the scales against the president.

“I learned last night the president ordered the defence counter-intelligence commander to arrest major political leaders, characterising them as anti-state forces, and mobilised intelligence institutions in the process,” Han said.

“I have said that to prevent this country from descending into further chaos, I would try to stop the impeachment bill from passing this time,” he added.

“But based on what has been revealed, to protect South Korea and our people, I believe it is necessary to stop President Yoon from exercising his powers as president promptly.”

Even if this thread is 9 years old, I think it's now time to revive this and debate the thread started by @BC

The Assad regime is now collapsing. The Russians seem to be withdrawing and the Russian embassy stated that Russian citizen should think about leaving:

The Russian Embassy in Damascus has issued a reminder to Russian citizens about the “option to depart the country on commercial flights through functioning airports,” citing the “complex military-political situation in Syria.”

Hence the question that @BC stated in the OP will be very important, even if now in a different situation. Can a new Syria emerge or will it become even more failed state that it has been, something between Somalia and Libya, or worse? The backers of Assad, Russia and Iran, have had their problems elsewhere and Hezbollah isn't there to consider. Likely the next round of various states backing various groups will emerge to fight for power in Syria. But of course, things might also stabilize. The real fear is that many might be more happy to have Syria as a failed state.

But to the Assad regime and the Assad family, good riddance.

Patel won't be able to do jack shit by himself. He needs a cadre of Federal employees willing to do his bidding, particularly if investigations are initiated in the top-down fashion of William Barr.

That is where the proposal to end background checks by the Trump team kicks in. If one fills the ranks with people outside the meritocracy of working experience, then anybody can run any part of government. The last vestige of professional conduct will join the other extinct species. — Paine

FBI directors are given a ten year tenure for a reason: that they wouldn't be political appointees that are replaced as the administration changes. It's very telling here that @NOS4A2, for whom Kash Patel is a good pick, gives no reason why the present FBI director that Trump has appointed has to be fired.

If that doesn't matter, why then wait for supreme court judges to die, why not simply replace those who Trump doesn't like, who aren't loyal enough for Trump? Trump has already shown that he doesn't care a rats ass about the separation of powers in a democracy. At least the Trump team is totally transparent here: they want Kash Patel to be the FBI director that they can go after the opponents of Trump (including the media) and to have an FBI director that is totally loyal to POTUS Trump. This has been the already the real job of Kash Patel in the previous Trump administration. It was Kash Patel who tried to find the anonymous Trump official who wrote the famous "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" article. Did Kash Patel find Miles Taylor, who wrote the piece? Of course not, but his loyal devotion of being an unwavering sycophant to Trump is now awarded.

And if Patel, author of Trump children books, get's the job, then there's the obvious "And then what"-question. Just think how the outsidersthat Kash Patel picks to do the work inside the FBI will be looked inside the bureau. Even the "Whizkids" of McNamara were likely seen in a more positive view by the military than the "Patelists" in the FBI creating havoc in the bureau, which is the sole intention in the end.

* * *

Lastly, Trump's second term will follow similar roads as the last year of Trump in the previous administration. By manning his administration place with sycophant loyalists, that not necessarily have other credentials than being loyal Trumpists, will simply fail. Basically the start of the Trump administration will be a combo of "Brexit" and "Trussonomics" with steroids.

Trying to deport every thirty third inhabitant from the US will create huge supply-chain problems, far more than just when UK decided to kick out few hundred thousand Polish immigrants. Then have at the same time trade wars with other countries. Then cut trillions from the Government budget, which likely means to go for Medicare and Medicaid and raising the pension age many years simply won't pass. There simply isn't trillions being wasted, only perhaps just some hundreds of millions wasted. Great to get that into order, but it won't mean anything in the bigger picture.

Great! Somebody understood me. :smile:

Suppose true randomness exists such that event 1 occurs without reason. — A Christian Philosophy

I wouldn't say this.

Randomness doesn't meant that there isn't any reason. Randomness simply means that there isn't any self repeating pattern or patterns to be found. That there is no pattern doesn't make reason to disappear, what it means that the only correct model is the patternless entity itself. You cannot perfectly model in it a shorter way, like saying that there's an algorithm that can explain it shorter. Basically this idea comes from Algorithmic Information Theory.

My reading is, Soon had a very small majority in Parliament, and every move he tried was being blocked by the Opposition, so he basically tried to ride a tank over them, and failed. — Wayfarer

This is how it seems to have gone. An attempt of a self-coup, when everything else has not worked...

South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol ordered the arrest of his own ruling party's leader Han Dong-hoon when he declared martial law on Tuesday night.

The arrest list also included the leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, Lee Jae-myung, as well as three opposition lawmakers, the National Intelligence Service deputy director said.

The president tried to "use this chance to arrest them and wipe them out", said director Hong Jang-won.

The revelation came as the country's political parties held emergency meetings throughout Friday, with MPs planning to bring a vote to impeach Yoon. The motion, which is scheduled for Saturday, will pass if two-thirds of MPs vote for it.

So the positive side here might be the democratic system in South Korea prevailed. At least for now.

Yes, this is a small forum.

You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you. — BitconnectCarlos

Quite a strawman argument. The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime.

It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's put things into some context, the Syrian war has gone on for some time, about half a million have been killed. But as I said, nobody has claimed that the Assad-family run state has ever been a democracy. It's been a totalitarian state at least from the 1980's. Why no ICC arrest for Assad. The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it has not been possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.

Now it indeed might happen that the Assad regime falters. Hopefully the end state isn't then a totally failed state like Somalia or Libya.

Yep. There are ambiguities here that formality might serve to iron out. — Banno

I've been thinking that what logic is missing is some kind of axiom of uniqueness, which would give the logical foundation for subjectivity. What this means is still difficult to explain. You see, randomness or statistical "White Noise" is a very special type of uniqueness, which cannot be forecasted. Yet the opposite of random or being without a pattern, patternless, is something that is predictable, calculable, systematic and organized.

Perhaps something that can be modelled precisely in an objective manner: we can look at it from the outside and if we have all the data at hand, we can perfectly forecast it's actions or how it is going to develop.

So here's my five cents: Subjectivity is something that makes an entity unique and uncomputable in an precise way. Something being computational has to be an entity that can be modelled in an objective way. There simply has to be a link between objectivity and computability. Something that is unique doesn't have a computable pattern is somehow linked to the subjective.

How?

That's a great question to be answered.

What's worse, we place a great deal of emphasis, ordinarily, on the concept of a "fact" as being objective, something independent of individual viewpoints. — J

This is the real problem in uh... modern science, logic, philosophy.

As I said, we can see this in how lost we are when the issue is subjectivity itself and when we simply cannot avoid it. As the example I gave: what else would consciousness be related to than subjectivity? That my heart beats isn't something that I can by my will simply stop, but to write an answer to this thread is an option I can choose to do.

I'm not suggesting any solution to this concern. I think we should treat it rather as a koan, something we're aware is not comprehensible to us at this moment, but stimulates thought. — J

To say this in another form, there are still basic elementary truths that we can discover in philosophy and logic that still are a mystery to us. This is one of them.

Sure, your experience of the world has changed. But the world hasn't. The set of facts concerning the world remains unchanged, ex hypothesis, despite a change in the facts concerning your experience.

Or if you prefer, the facts that change are those that are subjective, while the facts that do not change are those that are objective.

No contradiction. — Banno

I agree here with Banno.

There's no contradiction, even if Alexa would refer to the cloud-based voice server. Then there's obviously a huge difference with being a human called Peter and being a machine that uses software and is linked to the net. An objective world view simply doesn't take into account subjectivity at all. Me being in a room with Peter and Alexa and you being either Peter or Alexa doesn't simply matter in an objective viewpoint where there is Peter and Alexa and a third person in the room. That's it. The subjectivity of doesn't matter, it cannot matter because the viewpoint is objective, not subjective. Hence no contradiction.

You simply cannot get from an objective viewpoint to a subjective viewpoint. In my view, the hard problem of consciousness is a perfect example of this.

The real problem here is that this hasn't been described in a formal logical or mathematical theory that it is so.

The point is that metaphysical randomness wouldn't refute PSR. There are so many events where simple probability theory /probability calculus works well. It is a sufficient way to model reality, just as game theory is.

My point was that you don't have to refer to Quantum Physics as the reason for this. The measurement problem happens even without Quantum Physics. This basically comes from the fact that we ourselves are part of the universe ourselves.

Yes. I think this will haunt Israel forever. It was a terrible mistake. — frank

What is happening now, yes.

It's telling that when the ICJ issued the arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and Gallant, the Hamas leader also issued that arrest warrant has now already been killed by Israel.

It is a story extremely successful military/terrorist operation launched by Hamas, which created a horrific event that first shocked the Israeli people and then made them cry for revenge, and of a government that was willing to milk this feeling for all it's worth as an opportunity to solve the Palestinian problem once and for all, something that never has been dared to be done earlier. The criticism of Israel has emerged from the understanding that it indeed was a Western democracy, hence not to be judged similarly as the undemocratic autocracies that surround it.

And to put these threads together: What is happening in Ukraine, in Israel and the successful march of populist authoritarianism can taken together be made into a picture of us losing the values that West did achieve in the 20th Century. A picture where liberal democracy is really under attack as it was in the 1930's. There might be too much gloom and doom in this picture, but only the future will tell us if it's correct or not.

Yet the silence in the Israel-Palestine conflict thread, Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, is to me, a bit discomforting. In the last month only me, @BitconnectCarlos and @Benkei have written to that thread. Yet a lot has happened in the Middle East.

And yes, I understand why this thread is put into the "lounge". Yes, this is a philosophy forum. Yes, @Christoffer is right about what the "Ukraine Crises" has become. But if this is a Philosophy forum and we are the people who love wisdom and have a passionate pursuit of inner understanding about the relationship between one's true self and one's world, what does it mean when we don't want to comment the obvious tragedies that are happening around us?

At least one of the people who said that was Isaac in an exchange with me. An otherwise normal person becomes unhinged when the topic is the USA. Weird. — frank

Yes, I think it was him, thanks for reminding it. Nice that others too follow what fellow members write here! And I think it was really a honest reply. People do get unhinged when the topic is the US, especially it's foreign policy. Israel and Palestinian conflict is another example, which also is understandable when you think of it.

In US foreign policy, just as with all Great Powers, you find such differences that it's hard to assume that you are talking about the same nation. Compare US foreign policy and influence on let's say the UK or Sweden, and then to Panama or Guatemala. This is evident when we think about just how NATO did enlarge itself and what soul searching mission it went to before coming back to it's roots. Here the crucial actors were the Eastern European states themselves and finally, neutral nations like Sweden and Finland and their people clearly responding to Russian actions. How unique NATO (and the EU) are can be seen when you compare it to the short history of it's fellow treaty organizations, CENTO and SEATO. The main reason why these sister organizations failed was because the member states didn't share common objectives or common threats. The threat environment of Pakistan and the Philippines is totally different, as different as the geographical location of the two states.

In my view @RussellA has a point. Why link Quantum Mechanics with something that is on a basic theoretical level? You'll easily simply drift to a debate about QM.

Isn't here already the existence of randomness enough? In many instances the best model of reality is randomness or stochastic processes. Throw of a dice. This isn't an obstacle for determinism, because if you throw a dice, you will get a dice number. Yet the process is easily and efficiently modeled as the dice number being random (from 1 to 6, if the dice is a cube).

Is this an obstacle to PSR? In my view no. I would argue that it is PSR, sufficient reasoning.

Anyway, when trying to measure something or the observation itself affects what is tried to be measured or observed, you cannot have total objectivity. The measurer plays a part in what happens. And as we are part of the universe, we simply cannot assume objectivity of us not being part of the universe. We cannot look at the university from outside it.

Again, is this a counterargument for PSR? No.

Well, don't know so much about South Korean politics. :yikes:

Because this doesn't look like the actual tit-for-tat conflict that the Koreas sometimes have. Again the real issue here is how well South Korean democracy survives. A coup or a self-coup can squash an otherwise functioning democracy.

In a way it is, yes.

Yet a counterculture cannot be the prevailing culture. If it's the dominant culture, then it's not anymore a counterculture. A counterculture needs some culture that it opposes. Otherwise it's meaningless or simply or becomes to be self-loathing. Think about it, could we have a "counter-culture" that opposes feudalism? It's silly, because this isn't a feudal society anymore. We then just have to invent that it's "feudal" in some way that simply isn't what feudalism means in history.

Hence when the US president claims to be "anti-establishment", it's simply illogical and absurd. How can he be that? When the "anti-establishment" people wield the power in the executive branch, in the legislative branch and some could argue also in the judicial branch and in the media, how can it not be the establishment itself? Populism simply has to create then this fictional entity that is the "Deep State" that they are fighting, which typically are any political opponents that they have. This is the structural problem that populism, or anti-elitism, has: when it achieves it's goal of getting into power, it loses it's original credibility and has to create fictional entities that it opposes. It can say it's defending the democratic institutions when it isn't. And when populism rallies around a "strong leader", it becomes just as hollow as the democracy of Marxism-Leninism, because a "strong leader" creates the new elite around himself.

This populism as a "counterculture" has other very detrimental effects. When the enemy is literally viewed to be your own government itself, this leads to then the anti-establishment populist to be very acceptable to the disinformation of the real enemies of the state, hostile foreign actors. They too promote the idea of your government being the origin of all evil. And hence this counterculture will relish the disinformation that hostile outside actors spread.

Thus to give an example, I think it's an error to accuse of a person like Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian agent. The simply reason is that when you portray your own state as the enemy, you will, unavoidably, reurgitate the disinformation that enemies of the US spread. Hence Gabbard could spread the disinformation of US sponsored bioweapon labs in Ukraine. She walked that back, but I remember how this disinformation spread like wildfire. With the anti-establishment attitude, you will start to "understand" the actors that are against your country.

There's a good side and a bad side to everything. You keep interpreting me as pessimistic or full of self loathing. Neither is true. — frank

I'm not making any ad hominem remarks. But coming back to the topic of the thread, one has to understand that Anti-Americanism typically leads to a distorted view that supports the disinformation of a totalitarian state.

We don't have to pick sides, I think it's totally logical for example be against Israel's actions in Gaza and Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yet the Anti-American typically goes with the thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. In fact one commentator in this thread (perhaps unintentionally) told the reason why the strange bias: he didn't want the US to be looked at as a knight in shining armor. Whatever other faults we might have, those faults don't make supporting a country that is attacked unjustified. It's not the victims fault that the aggressor in this case disrespects the agreements it has made earlier and has imperialist motives to annex other states.

I don't think the inflation is transitory. It's endemic, structural, will happen in waves. But anyway, if the present global monetary system collapses, it isn't going to be an end. People will deny the event, confuse people what happened. Just like with the "transitory inflation".

Combating climate change is really up to China and India, the newcomers.

You think we aren't capable of adapting to a changing climate?

Do you think that a declining Global population will still mean perpetual growth?

People tend to take the alarmist attitude to alarm people, as if they wouldn't be alarmed if you say: "You know, this issue will suck in the future"

The US is just the tail end of the British Empire, which invented global trade for our world. — frank

That's a really neat way to look at it. Well, global trade had been around for a long time. Some might argue that it really went off when the Ottomans basically cut the ties of Europe to the Far East and the Silk Road didn't work as earlier. Thus the Portuguese and the Spanish went looking for maritime trade roots and found them (plus another continent in addition). The last transformation happened when countries like China and India changed the economic policies from the ruinous socialism to capitalism in their own way (as still the Chinese think their system is Marxism).

I see flames in the future, and maybe a split in our species between technology-loving and technology-hating. That's where my head is. But I hope the best for Europe. — frank

The luddites broke machines in the 19th Century, so even that isn't anything new. Yet the dramatic change of people who work on the fields in the countryside and now are in cities didn't happen with huge swarms of unemployed farmers and farm workers roaming the countryside.

There has been always flames somewhere. I'm not so sure it's really the time to say "Après moi, le déluge".

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

As things will definately change, we simply have to cope with that change. This will force us to change our ideas and the models we use to think about civilization itself. The idea of cultural decadence and cultural collapse is very old. Oswald Sprengler wrote his Untergang des Abenlandes in 1918, a fitting year to think of the decline of Western culture and heritage. Pessimism and cynicism seem intelligent, optimism seems naive. Yet this has lead to a huge fallacy that is rampant in our society: the idea that our civilization is extremely fragile and could collapse easily.

We have had several collapses earlier: the Bronze Age collapse, the collapse of Antiquity to the "Dark Ages" of the Medieval Times. So if it has happened before, why wouldn't it happen now?

The error is that we look at our lifestyles and think how incapable we are to "survive" without buying food from the supermarket. But let's think about this. That my Iphone won't work or I cannot order stuff easily from another continent isn't life threatening to me.

Our present prosperity can falter, but not our society itself. We just witnessed a huge pandemic with millions of people dying from it. Did our society collapse? No. We discovered vaccines extremely quickly. Without modern medicine, pandemics would have wrecked havoc in our societies. But with modern medicine, they won't be something like the Black Death. People had then no idea what hit them. We were fairly quickly looking for vaccines against the lab leak virus. We have witnessed financial crisis and our international monetary system nearly collapsed (which was held secret). Did our society collapse? No. I think the a next financial crisis will happen, sooner or later. Will it destroy our society? Again no. Many people will loose money and some will prosper. Economic depressions are partly huge transfer of wealth from some to others.

Easiest way to think about just how enduring our civilization is with the idea of nuclear war. We are taught that it will end our Civilization and saying anything else is morally wrong, that it will increase the possibility of a nuclear war. Well, the overkill in nuclear weapons was reached in the late 1980's and we have now only a small portion of nukes left from that era. Many Russian nukes intended to destroy American cities went into fuelling the electricity of those cities. (A really uplifting story about humanity)

So today there actually aren't so many nuclear weapons to even kill all Russians and Americans. Perhaps just every fifth or every fourth. Like what happened in Poland during WW2, every fifth Polish died. This is because a) either side won't use all of their nukes and b) a lot of those nukes will go into counterforce targets, blasting missile silos in the Central Plains in the US and Siberia in Russia.

After Russia and the US have done this dramatic "urban renewal", then what about Argentina or New Zealand? Likely they won't get even much radiation. Will their civilization collapse like in the Bronze age? Yeah, ordering something from Amazon.com from the US or getting a old book from a Texan bookstore won't happen, but will they forget writing in New Zealand? Will life there really be like a Mad Max movie? Again no. There's likely far more books in New Zealand and Argentina than there were books in Antiquity, even if we long for the library of Alexandria.

Hence civilization will survive. What it can do is simply become very stale and stagnant. Because once something is developed to be as cost effective as possible and there's nothing to replace the useful item, then there's no need for an engineer to improve it. Books are still quite the same form as they were hundreds of years ago. Firearms have been quite the same for a hundred years only with optics and materials having changed. A pencil has been also around for ages:




Even culture can be so. It might be that a hundred years from now, in 2124, people still listen to Michael Jackson. After all, some are listening to Mozart still, so why not to the king of Pop? Will something change? Of course. It's likely that some people now living will see "Peak Humanity" and then the global population will decrease. This will change the economy quite a lot, yet as we can see from Japan, this doesn't mean an immediate collapse. There's simply will be a lot of old people. Different times likely will promote different thinking, and with that different thinking the next Renaissance and rebirth might happen. At least people surely have the desire to make the time they are living "the most important", even in the 2120's.

(World's oldest Office manager get's the Guinness World Record in 2021 at the age of 90, now she is 94 and still working.)

I wouldn't be sure about that.

Trump might not be a dependable partner, we'll see. There's still those Americans that actually believe in a healthy way in their country and it's role in the World. The self-hatred hasn't become endemic.

You might think the US is over, that's it's time is finished. But hold on, there's nobody replacing them. So the end might not be just around the corner. China and Russia are facing big problems themselves.

If we had a global government, that would be an issue that could be raised. — frank

In the case of Afghanistan, it was raised. You don't need a global government to do this.
That women were educated, could go to work was one of things that people were proud about in the Afghan Republic. And the women's demonstrations against the Taleban did happen, which tells what many Afghans think about Theocracy. Just like the youth in Iran.

(from years ago after the Western withdrawal from Afghanistan)

Redirect funds from social programs to defense? — frank

I'll repeat. What is so wrong with having an alliance? Several countries together are stronger than one alone. And the EU is actually giving in total more money to Ukraine than the US.

Besides, the Swedes did have nuclear weapons for a while. The problem was that only in the 1970's did they produce a fighter that was capable of carrying the free fall bomb. But what really stops Putin is a force that he simply cannot win.

Does anybody produce 'original' ideas? — Beverley

Yes. It can happen, even it's extremely rare and the person getting the "original" idea won't usually know that actually his or her idea is quite original.

My father had a wonderful saying about medical research: "Everything in medical research has been already been thought in old German medical journals, but as nobody reads them anymore, nobody knows about them."

Yes, but I thought Afghanistan was invaded on a quest to find Osama Bin Ladin. — frank

Indeed the American response was totally different as in the first Twin Tower bombings, but you did it. As the saying goes, once you break it, you own it. But I guess now the idea is to break it, then get bored and simply walk away.

Do you think that there was nothing good was in having a Republic of Afghanistan? Do you think that it's bad that girls and women would be educated? Have you ever talked with an Afghan on how they see the rule of Taleban? I have, had a long discussion. The Afghan hated the Taleban. He was an older guy, so remembered fondly the 1970's the times before the Saur revolution. But I guess that many Afghans would have preferred democracy (of some sort) and not a theocracy is irrelevant here.

I think that's because 1) it's not really in American interest to protect countries near Russia — frank

Really?
That doesn't sound well to a Finn, or a Swede. What is so bad with something like NATO? Not only is it a successful defense pact against Russian imperialism, but it has pacified countries inside Europe. It is far more stronger than Putin's autocratic Russia. What is so wrong with that? It's an international alliance that has as it's members states that have desired to be part of the alliance. What on Earth is wrong with that? Why do need now to bow to a bloody tyrant in Russia?

2) the US is in decline, with a giant debt that will never be paid and concerns over how it's going to keep paying social security. — frank

Why embrace decline? Is cultural pessimism so trendy?

If Americans themselves don't believe in their country, who will? How will that help you not believing in your country? Remember, if you hate your country and see as many Trumpist your own institutions as the enemy, then you will be talking the Russian disinformation lines and hence the Kremlin is so victorious.

What do you think Russia, China, and North Korea are going to do? — frank

Ask first, what will you do?

If you walk away, then you will just leave Russia and China here. North Korean troops are already fighting in Europe. Chinese vessels are already cutting internet cables in the Baltic Sea connecting my country to Central Europe. The Chinese are already helping their Russian allies with the hybrid attacks. It's a constant barrage of little sabotage that didn't happen earlier. Hence the cable cutting is no accident. You don't have freak accidents happening at this pace. And you can see the "Finlandization" here at the present: nobody is saying anything against China, even if it ships have been very active.

So please understand, that this anti-US alliance is already in Europe and already engaged in hybrid warfare against the US and it's allies. And if you let Russia have Ukraine, that will only embolden this alliance to go further. You do understand that Russian leadership views the US as an enemy, but will surely use every "useful idiot" they can find.

Self-criticism in Western thinking is good if you want to improve something, if you desire to better yourself. Yet in order to do that, you have to have a positive idea of yourself. Because self-criticism also leads to depression and apathy, where you don't see anything good in yourself. And here Russian disinformation is giving a toxic narrative for people to believe: that Western Culture is dying because of liberal democracy and somehow Russia is this last champion of Western ideals. That because of US actions there's war in Ukraine. Because US actions neo nazis rule Ukraine. And that the solution to the cancer of liberal democracy is strong leaders, like Vladimir Putin.

If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like Trump. His deluded haters just won’t give him a chance. — NOS4A2

Have you ever looked at how the Trump works and how the Trump team has worked? Have really followed how his prior tariffs/trade wars went in reality?

It's basically quite similar as to what the last year of the Trump administration was like, when Trump wasn't looking for the best, but looking for the most loyal.

And btw just look at that story above. Note the part where "a senior Trump transition member told Rolling Stone" and "Three sources familiar with those conversations told Rolling Stone". Yep, that's a Trump administration alright. Leaks like a faucet and is quite incapable of doing anything about it as one leaker will be the Television staring POTUS himself. I mean, the administration hasn't even started, and similar way how the Trump admin worked already can be seen. :razz:

Well, at least you have total transparency with a Trump administration. Having read a lot about the Trump administration, listened to interviews and so on, it's exactly the same story that everybody is talking. Everybody tells the same story. And when you listen to Trump, you notice exactly that person.

But of course you can have your rosy tinted glasses on and simply accuse everybody else of TDS.

I do indeed think he’ll do fine. — NOS4A2

If he's selected, then we'll see after few years.

Did you notice that when you bugged out from Afghanistan, the ally of yours collapsed immediately after you directly negotiated with your Islamist enemies without them?

This Trump-Biden cop out made Putin to think you wouldn't react much if he attempted a takeover Ukraine (as his intel painted a very rose picture of easy this would be). Hence if you push for a similar "peace" that is very unfavorable for Ukraine, just like you did with North Vietnam and the Taleban (without caring much about South Vietnam or Afghanistan), then you embolden Russia, China and North Korea.

Hope you understand the logic.

Textbook case how the US gets into conflicts:

Donald Trump and his team are reportedly debating “how much” to invade Mexico once he takes office, a new report claims.

Trump and his transition team staff are discussing a “soft invasion” of the country, Rolling Stone reports. These conversations come after Trump promised to “wage war” on drug cartels in Mexico both during his first term and on the campaign trail.

“How much should we invade Mexico?” a senior Trump transition member told Rolling Stone. “That is the question.” This “soft invasion” would involve American special forces assassinating cartel leaders in Mexico, another source close to the president-elect told Rolling Stone.

Three sources familiar with those conversations told Rolling Stone that Trump said that the US has “tougher killers than they do” and is mulling a similar plot to that carried out when American forces killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019. The deployment would be covert, the outlet reported, and would not rely on the Mexican government’s consent.

Or rely on the consent of the US Congress, likely. I can imagine drones hitting houses that may perhaps have organized crime members or simply unlucky innocent Mexicans. And then put the Trump stooges in control of this, it surely will work brilliantly. :vomit:

Nothing new under the sun. Yet a case example how the US gets sucked into quagmires then later blamed on the "Deep State" and the military industrial complex.

What else would be a better idea than bombing Mexico and having special forces running around the country without the knowledge of the Mexican Government? Or right, having also a trade war with them at the same time!

Hopes this doesn't come to be a reality. That it is just one of those fantasies that an incoming administration eager to do everything thinks about doing before the hard reality sets in.

I'd be pretty surprised if he supports Ukraine in any way. Why would he? — frank

That's the worry. That he will do the same thing for Ukrainian that he did to the Republic of Afghanista, a surrender deal and hence assist the Russians as he did the Taleban.

People are worried about this, just like NATO's secretary general.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has told U.S. President-elect Donald Trump that Washington would face a "dire threat" from China, Iran, and North Korea if Ukraine is forced to accept an unfavorable peace deal, the Financial Times reported on Dec. 2.

But why should Trump listen to people like Rutte, when he has his friend Putin. Who btw shows his prowess as an intel guy in how he talks to Trump:

No wonder he couldn’t get everything done that he wanted to. It’s difficult to run a country with the ceaseless disruptions from all branches of government and the fourth estate. — NOS4A2

No @NOS4A2, just stop and think about this one for a while: It's impossible for ANY President to perform at the same time of 1) tackling all the crises that land on the desk of the POTUS daily, 2) of doing the obligatory functions of the executive, 3) leading foreign policy, 4) leading trade and economic policy (and the trade wars), 5) leading all other policies and 6) implement radical reforms. And then is the work of getting all the contributions to the next elections.

The system is far too much any single person can handle, and that's the key point! It cannot be handled by one single person. In other countries you have a division of a President and a Prime Minister where the President isn't a ceremonial position, like in France. If there's a political crisis, the prime minister goes and in comes a new one, while the President stays. Now Project 2025 wants Trump to have more power. Come on, it's not going to work. Trump isn't a team leader and he just picks up the strangest people to surround him, but as long as their totally loyal and will do everthing he says, he's happy. Until nothing gets done and things just implode.

So I forgive any and all failures. — NOS4A2

Will you also forgive him for all the failures he will do in the future too?

It was Patel’s work on the so-called Nunes memo that broke the scandal wide open, and was later confirmed by the Inspector General’s report and the Durham investigation. — NOS4A2

Yes, and that's the kind of lawyer Kash Patel is and that's why he is Trump's pick. Doing lawyer stuff as an aide for Nunez etc. Yet Kash hasn't lead anything larger than a small team of lawyers and tried to find the "mole" inside the White House. Oh but you think Kash Patel will do fine by leading an organization of 37 000 policemen? Oh, any lawyer can do that, right? After all that rhetoric of going against the real gangsters inside the FBI.

It turns out it was right all along; the FBI was reckless, incompetent, grossly negligent. They failed to uphold their one mission, to maintain a strict fidelity of the law, and it’s clear they just didn’t want anyone to find out the truth. — NOS4A2

Nope. Comey simply couldn't handle Trump. Comey assumed he could avoid the political infighting in Washington DC, but he didn't, he failed miserably in it and created a mess himself. Starting from giving that "October Surprise" to Trump with restarting the probe on Hillary Clinton. Yet as Trump is so strange when it comes to his absolute love of Putin, that it just confused them (and actually, everybody). Even goddam Kash Patel said admitted in an interview that the FBI has to investigations are normal in the intel field. But then the Dems wanted to go further with the Russia link, just as they did all the time cried about what happened on the January 6th.

No, Comey's stupidity comes from not understanding what kind of person Trump is. When Trump asked him for loyalty, he would simply have said to be loyal to the President of the US and then veer the discussion to something like Trump likes, like how kick-ass FBI agents the bureau has and Trump should come to see them, it would be a perfect photo op for the Prez. Nope, he was so worried about the legal ramifications about the President asking for loyalty that was in shock about it. Even if it happened later, Comey should have taken example from the Secret Service: when Trump wanted to go to Capitol Hill on January 6th, the Secret Service just drove him back to the White House where he then watched everything happen from the television.

Actually Mike Pompeo as CIA director could handle Trump far better. He simply refused the position of the Director if he would have had to anything with what Trump saw as the witch hunt against the President. Hence Pompeo could run CIA perfectly easy and so well, that Trump picked him to be the secretary of state. Yeah, it was simply that simple.

Again, your experienced directors have been proven incompetent, and numerous investigations and whistleblowers has proven the FBI in need of serious reform. — NOS4A2

Again you fail to answer what wrong Christopher Wray has done. Perhaps the reason is that Wray got the highest DOJ reward for public service in 2005, which obviously makes him part of the Deep State. Trump said Wray was "a man with impeccable credentials" when he picked Wray. The Wray's tenure I guess would basically last until 2027.

Your unmitigated fears are not based on much, ssu. — NOS4A2

That the Trump team won't deliver, but just create a mess is for me the most probable outcome just by comparing how things went during the last years of the previous Trump administration. Likely what they can be successful is simply moving the FBI out of Washington DC, which isn't something like "destroying the Deep State". If you think that is an "unmitigated fear", then you are funny in your blind faith in Trump.

But it's the typical way that Americans totally devote to one side or the other and in doing so, totally throw out any critical thinking they have and simply become supporters of their side. I saw this happening first when Obama got to be President: when Bush was around, those liberals and Democrats were Oh so against the excesses of the War on Terror, against the Patriot Act, against GITMO, yet once Obama came into power and things continued totally the same, they were totally silent. Patriot Act wasn't repealed, GITMO is still open, and the War on Terror actually continues in places like Iraq. Even today, even if it's said that the US troops would withdraw from Iraq in 2025. Upholding human rights or the values of the Constitution only when it's convenient simply shows that people really don't care about those values, they are just issues that are used as means to get to the goal of having power. Anybody with some understanding of philosophy would notice how hollow this is.

And now the Republicans are against the Deep State, against big Government and will be in a similar denial as they always have been when the GOP won't deliver them the smaller government they have promised now for many decades. And the likely outcome is that the Intelligence/Security complex will get far more mercurial, less controlled by Congressional oversight and more "Deep State" like during the Trump administration. The exact opposite what these people promoting it to be. Just like the idea of a smaller government last time.

The Trump administration came into office with the expressed intention of shrinking the size of the federal government and its workforce.

However, our latest analysis shows that the number of full-time, civilian federal employees increased throughout the former president’s term, and despite some exceptions, several trends in demographics, seniority, career focus, and agency size also held steady during this time.

Overall, the federal workforce increased by an average of 0.9% per year between December 2016, just before the start of the Trump administration, and December 2020, just before the president left office. This increase compares with a 0.3% average increase during the second term of the Obama administration.

You think anyone living in western society today (which I'm assuming this thread is about) is going to be remembered as a great person? — Tzeentch

Certainly. And as history shows it, we have no idea of them at the present. Only the future will define who is seen as a great person of the start of the 21st Century. Important historical figures there naturally will be that we also know. Vladimir Putin is one example. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs possibly Elon Musk will be noticed too, just like Henry Ford or John D Rockefeller are historical figures.