The Great Replacement exists in a quantum state.
If you say that the Great Replacement is real, but is a good thing, then this is an argument that is allowed to be taken seriously and given real credence.
But if you say that the Great Replacement is real, but is a bad thing, then that is dismissed as a racist conspriacy theory which is beneath rational discussion.
The exisence of the phenomenon as a statistical fact is subject to epistemic uncertainty a lot like Shrodinger's Cat until the moral evaluation is brought forward to frame it, thus collapsing the waveform. Only once the speaker's morality is observed do their statistical facts become distinguishable as reality or conspiracy theory.
In this way, the fact of the existence of the Great Replacement is determined, not by statistics, but by moral evaluation and rhetorical framing.

That aspect of the Left's argument on this is utter bullshit. Settle whether it's happening or not first, which should be strictly based on the data, before we go evaluating it as good or bad or neutral.

Here's the thing on the demographic shift: I am perfectly happy to replace certain categories of whites whom I don't like with browns. — BenMcLean

First of all, nobody's replacing anybody.

The theory Renaud Camus is there with David Lanes "White Genocide" conspiracy theories. If you truly believe in those, I think you are on a wrong forum. See the site guidelines: "Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

What countries have done is to have immigration because a) they lack workforce and b) growing population bring economic growth while decreasing population hinders economic growth. That has been the basic reason, not an idea to change the population.

Population growth has nearly everywhere except in Sub-Saharan Africa gone negative as people have become more wealthy. That the fertility rate is falling and basically the fertility rate is below 2.0 has not happened because of some active policy from any administration (even the Chinese have gone back from their one-child policy), but many other reasons. There's an universal demographic transformation which hasn't been decided by elites. This transformation is not related to policies or agendas of any elites may have. Here lies the error which puts Camus etc. into conspiracy theories: that this has been some great plan pushed by certain groups.

Yet when you add up the two, having immigration while also then lower fertility rates, some argue illogically that this is an active policy truly "to replace" the existing population.

I'm OK with bringing in non-whites as long as they are the kind of non-whites who are going to help build a civilization and not the kind who are going to tear one down.

But fundamentally, completely apart from any ideology which says there's anything particularly special or superior about whites, absolutely nobody should be expected to just accept a system which is deliberately, maliciously stomping on their people's faces, no matter what color they are, no matter what period of history it is and no matter whether academic elites say they get to count as "historically marginalized" or not. — BenMcLean

It's not about helping "to build a civilization", it's about helping your society, your civilization.

The real question is how an society, any society, responds to an influx of foreigners. The basic answer here is that IF the foreigners bring wealth to the society, then the foreigners are accepted. Yet if this is questionable or it seems to be questionable if the foreigners do add any wealth to the society, then anti-immigration views, prejudices and also racist thoughts emerge about discussing the foreigners. And if the foreigners are indeed in the country to pillage the wealth of the society without any attempt to contribute to the society, we have a common term for them: the are then the enemy, an invading force. And the usually every society is up in arms to fight and kill the foreigners.

And that's basically it.

You can see the above three foreigner types in everyday discourse. Everybody is happy with tourists that come with their money to spend it in one's own local economy. If you start complaining that there are too many foreign tourist in your city, you'll likely be approached by some telling that he or she feeds his or her family thanks to tourists, so why don't you just mind your own business.

If the inflow of foreigners has a questionable effect on the economy, then you basically have an "immigration-debate" like in Europe. But similar would happen anywhere.

And if the foreigners are there to steel your wealth and subjugate you, you fight back like the Ukrainians are doing now against the Russians.

(This is btw something that the Trump administration should take into account when "running Venezuela".)

I am just hoping that the new American Right after Trump can be one which still promotes liberty and justice for all -- and to do that, it's going to need a new political theory, beyond Trump's populism. — BenMcLean

The American right should understand that Trump is the real RINO and his populism is extremely toxic and destructive for the right. It just leans on the worst aspects of what the right has been about.

I think first it should be noted the fears that are typical for present day populism: take the replacement theory, for example: that the evil elites want to replace ordinary people. MAGA people don't dare to say the racist fears out loud behind these ideas, but they can project these fears to Europe and declare that in Europe European civilization faces civilizational erasure. But the real fear is that white Americans won't be a majority in the US anymore. In a truly multicultural country like the US with it's painful history starting with slavery, it would be too much to say this out loud such racist lies. But when referring to Europe, it works fine.

This racism is something that is truly ugly and something that the right has to fight against. These are the worst kind of "radicals" on the right, if in the left the worst are the "Shining Path maoists" or people like Pol Pot who want really radical change by killing many, many people. You should never confuse those lunatics with your average social democrat. But also one should notice the difference with the traditional right and the Trumpists.

Who are the real dunces in this story? — ChatteringMonkey

Europe - thinking that appeasing Trump and just waiting three more years will make this self-destruction of the US built alliance system and international order to stop.

The US Congress - both the supine Republicans who assume that there's a huge support for Trump and the Democrats who seem to assume that it's business as normal with Trump and all they need is to wait for the next elections starting this November.

Trump - the real idiot who is voluntarily following Kremlin playbook on how to destroy the US Superpower.

the MAGA supporters - cheering all the way this destruction that Trump is doing.

Statements from House Trump and Ogles don't make much sense. What's missing? — jorndoe

Nothing as it simply doesn't make sense. It's all about the flag waving on the island. It's that Trump can say that he made the US greater in size with a territory larger than Alaska. It's make America Great, literally.

But there are no "adults in the room" in this administration, just yes-men that compete who can praise the president the most and reurgitate his fallacies. Yet I think this stunt might be the one that will change Europe's attitude of appeasement towards Trump. Already Denmark and Canada have seen the light.

That doesn't sound different at all. That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. — Tzeentch

Too simplistic. All Great Powers have had quite different foreign policies toward different states.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because Washington doesn't give a flying fuck about what the American people think. — Tzeentch

Well, only a minority supports the Venezuela campaign in the US.

WASHINGTON, Jan 5 (Reuters) - One in three Americans approves of the U.S. military strike on Venezuela that toppled the country's president and 72% worry the U.S. will become too involved in the South American country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Monday.

When it comes to invading the Kingdom of Denmark, the whole idea is too strange and odd.

And there are those that didn't vote for Trump.

LNG, the US is our main LNG supplier, which replaced the Russian pipeline gas. And also oil. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, this actually varies by country and do remember the change in energy production happening now. For example France gets a huge share of it's power needs from nuclear energy and my country gets 90% of it's electricity from nuclear power and renewable energy. Oil isn't so dominant as it was during the 1970's.

- The US is showing clear commitment to enforcing the Monroe Doctrine (aka domination of the western hemisphere). — Tzeentch

I'd still call more accurately the Donroe doctrine, because Trump's moves are totally different from anything else we've seen. It's basically "we've got this awesome military, so we can plunder weaker countries.".

- The US views Europe as an unreliable ally in the long run (ironic, I know), and a potential rival. — Tzeentch

Good that you notice the irony, because the US itself made this alliance and was truly successful of creating an alliance system that the Europeans voluntarily and happily were in, and thus gave US a say in their defense policies and also gave a lot of economic perks to the US (starting from the dollar being the reserve currency, even after Nixon's default).

- Greenland comes with large territorial and economic claims on the Arctic. — Tzeentch

Actually, it's really about the map and territory. Trump wants Greenland and then perhaps Canada, because then the US would be the largest country in the World. Even with Greenland, that's the largest territory extension for a while in US history, because it's larger than Alaska.

The real estate man Trump wants Greenland because of this. Everything else is just hogwash and lies, just as Greenland being needed for "security reasons".

I think that now the US has less than 500 servicemen, perhaps as little as 150 in Greenland and just one military base (earlier they had 17). That's how really much this is a "security issue".

- In the case of a US-EU split, Greenland would serve as a forward base against the Russians (mainland Europe could no longer function as a bridgehead). — Tzeentch

In case of US-EU, the Russians hardly don't matter anymore.

You see, it just takes some time for Europe to get over the appeasement stage with Trump to accept that the Trump administration is a hostile threat to them. And invading Greenland would likely push them over that line. Naturally nobody wants that, because Europeans largely love Americans. I've lived there two years when I was small and I liked the people very much.

And why isn't anyone asking the question from Americans just how much they want to invade an ally like Denmark?

At least some Republicans in the Congress are saying just how stupid all of this is:


(Starts at 0:51 about the comments made by Miller on Greenland)

If only amateur hour would be over...

Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. — ChatteringMonkey

Defense procurement is long term thing. And that's why something like SAFE does tell a lot.

I don't think there will be a military conflict over Greenland in any case, to much is at stake for both parties — ChatteringMonkey

Is there for Trump so much? If he get Greenland and the cost is NATO, why would it be for him a problem? Let's remember that this guy truly thinks that it's a great idea to go to Venezuela and take their oil and the US has been cheated by it's allies.

as the US is the main energy and digital services provider etc, — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you refer on energy, because the US doesn't export much. With digital services, Europe is starting to be aware just how dependent they are on US tech. Basically the real issue here is that the US is an untrustworthy ally, and is capable of freezing the essential logistics and supplies of advanced weapons systems. This is one of the reason why the heated F-35 vs Gripen discourse in Canada, for example.

And then there's the case of France and it's independent defense industry, something again on the lines of "strategic autonomy".

Destroying the Ba'ath Party in Iraq left a vacuum which created the conditions for ISIS. — ChatteringMonkey

Actually, let's be a bit more specific about just how it went: The US Military, on it's own and without the politicians in Washington, actually basically destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq and it's grasp in the Sunni areas by the Sunni Awakening, where Sunni tribes were supported to fight Al Qaeda and helped to form the Sons of Iraq.

But then the US troops withdrew and the Shiite leader of Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki denounced the Sons of Iraq and dismantled them... which then lead to a power vacuum and the emergence of ISIS. Remember that ISIS leaders were first Al Qaeda leaders...which emerged in Iraq only after the US invasion.

Hence a successful insurgency strategy that worked was stopped by Obama's withdrawal and Iraqi policies.

In Venezuela they left the regime intact... minus Maduro. — ChatteringMonkey

Which doesn't make sense. How is this even be thought to work in a country that basically is very close to just collapsing into anarchy? And why would the Chavistas roll over?

Here's what vice President Rodriguez is actually saying:

Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, has said that “no foreign agent” is running Venezuela in the wake of Nicolas Maduro’s abduction by United States military forces.

Rodriguez, who had been Maduro’s vice president before his abduction, spoke during a televised event on Tuesday, a day after Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, pleaded not guilty in a New York court to drug-trafficking conspiracy charges.“The government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else. There is no foreign agent governing Venezuela,” Rodriguez said.

And the Chavista government and the paramilitaries are cracking down on the people, so it really doesn't make any sense.

Just think of the present in the scenario of Iraq: So assume that under Bush prior to attacking into Iraq in 2003, the US would have made a similar stupendous special operation and gotten Saddam Hussein. And a high profile Baathist politician and field marshal Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri would have taken the lead in Iraq (Saddam's second in command). Yet Bush wouldn't have the nearly 300 000 ground force ready to invade the country, but only 15 000 even if the Navy and Air Force were at the disposal.

You think the Baathists would have then surrendered and given the US their oil?????

In 20 years we'll learn there was some of angle that was conveniently left out of the discussion, like the Israel angle with Iraq, that also 'happens to' establish mens rea. — Tzeentch

In decades we will have actual history writing. And when it comes to Trump, it really can be things like he got pissed off about Maduro dancing and ridiculing him. Just like that one partly reason for the Soviet Union collapsing was that Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't get along (and the people doing the Putsch didn't get Yeltsin).
.

They are just playing dumb, attributing to incompetence what ought to be attributed to malice, and attributing to the Trump administration what ought to be attributed to the machinations of all of Washington and the foreign policy blob. — Tzeentch

The Trump administration is quite different from the Obama administration, just as Putin is different from Yeltsin, even if the former are US administrations and the latter Russian administrations.

It's clear the American goal was to send a signal to all of Latin America: If you get too cozy with other great powers, we have the power and the will to ruin your country overnight. It's the Monroe Doctrine. — Tzeentch

I think the apt name is Donroe doctrine. Very different from the doctrine that European colonizers shouldn't try to take back their colonies that they've lost. (Which btw. was shown to be an empty threat in the late 19th Century, when France attempted to take over Mexico and had it's debacle there. But then the US wasn't a Great Power yet.)


What the future reality will be is unclear. Trump is simply a chaos engine, which then many try to make sense into, into the famous 5D-chess or whatever. And oh boy, do they have a tough time supporting their leader which changes his stances totally:

6 months ago:


and Now:


That's the kind of spineless turnarounds one has to make when supporting Trump. First against the neocons, now embracing them! Wonderful logic and integrity in one's beliefs.

All that said, Maduro was responsible for a huge amount of suffering and economic degradation. Venezuelans have been reduced to living in poverty while he and his cronies squirrelled away the wealth of the nation in their private accounts. His wife owns entire neighborhoods in Caracas according to reports. — Wayfarer

I think that Saddam Hussein was responsible for a lot more of suffering and death than the previous busdriver then President Maduro ever did. Saddam's policies were even worse for Iraq. Hence there were similar arguments for intervention in Iraq. You have always these kinds of arguments and the neocons have stated these, even if the real cause has always been the threat that the country poses.

Countries and their societies are very complex and difficult to change from the outside. Venezuela is the best example of a rentier state and country where the "Dutch Disease" went totally out of control. And later the Chavistas have absolutely wrecked the economy with disastrous socialist policies. That's were Venezuela is irrelevant of how much natural resources and beautiful beaches and wildlife it would have to make it very prosperous.

What would be the chances of a foreign entity to get things to improve even if they would be wholeheartedly welcomed to the country, yet with the same regime in power? Because they would have to improve in order for the oil industry to be modernized and put on to track... and the profits to start flowing. But here there's not even that. The Trump administration thinks that it can change at gunpoint with threats Venezuela where in a similar earlier case even by occupying the whole country of Iraq and having Americans in charge didn't work.

The short answer: it won't work.

I’m constantly reminded that I give Trump and his idiots too much intellectual credit for decisions, when in reality most of them are just a bunch of absolute morons representing the most brainless slobs of meat walking this earth. — Christoffer

:up: :100:

but from a team of 12 experts I would expect more - especially given the annual funding Brookings receives. — Tzeentch

Do notice one aspect here: everybody in the US Foreign Policy sphere, which obviously includes the Brookings Institute, is now walking on egg shells. Criticism will get a nasty attack from the White House, but there is still criticism.

Yet you can notice the real criticism, that is made very diplomatically:

Focusing narrowly on oil access or prioritizing creditor repayment over recovery would risk creating a small set of rent-seekers while keeping Venezuela’s failed institutions largely intact.

He seems to believe that oil revenues will fund the ongoing presence, stating that, “We’ll be selling large amounts of oil to other countries,” and that running Venezuela “won’t cost us anything.”

This is nonsense.

The oil industry in Venezuela is a shambles.

Trump’s particular brand of lawless bravado, narrow-minded nationalism and crony capitalism have combined in Venezuela to lead our nation down a dark hole of open-ended responsibilities for the world’s largest holder of oil reserves and the region’s largest source of migrants (though not narcotics, the alleged threat). The harmful consequences for U.S. national security, and international peace and security more broadly, will unspool for years to come.

Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine‘—his rebranding of the Monroe Doctrine aimed at building a U.S. sphere of influence in Central and South America—seems to have made a relatively secure region meaningfully less stable overnight.

And it just goes on like this. This is, in the long term, an absolute disaster to Venezuela thanks to Trump. Another consequence is the decline of the US position in the World will speed up, because Trump very likely cannot handle this.

It looks like "adults in the room" are betting on VP Rodriguez being more pliant and reasonable than her (former) boss. So, to them, "running the country" is basically keeping Rodriguez as a technical president and trying to work with (strong-arm) her. From what I have picked up about Rodriguez, she seems like a competent technocrat. But how secure her position in the hierarchy is an open question. — SophistiCat

These "adults in the room" aren't adults in the room, as in Trump's first administration. Only vaguely Marco Rubio tries to give an impression of normalcy by trying to say that the operation was to bring into justice Maduro, that the US isn't at war with Venezuela, yet his POTUS quickly made it clear it was about the Venezuelan oil reserves and that the US taking over the country.

Think about just how ridiculous this whole idea of "running the country is". So you have the Chavista regime in Venezuela still in power, you have thrown under the bus the Venezuelan opposition, and you have stated that you basically are talking to the Maduro/Chavista-regime. The Rodriguez team can now stall things and basically agree on something, yet still say "No" to other things. And it's still a large country. Venezuela is getting support from Colombia and Brazil. Trump can bomb the country and seize oil tankers, but what then? Now the Chavista-regime can convincingly tell it's population that any worsening of the economy will happen because of Trump that wishes to colonize the country.

Good to see your neocon side, NOS4A2. I didn't remember you being such a great fan of nation building.

I still don’t understand how far he can go before those with the power to remove him, do so. How many illegal things has he done by now? What does it take for the US to remove a president? Impeachment doesn’t work if the people who decide on it are part of his cult. — Christoffer

The political opposition to Trump hasn't woken up to the fact that this isn't a normal President playing by the rules. Many are just dumbstruck. And then there's the vast majority who don't follow politics and get only mad when the US economy tanks... or more precisely their own economy tanks.

What nobody even mentions is Article 1:

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

NATO is dead if the US uses violence of the threat of violence to take Greenland. Not just maimed as the UN is, but seriously dead.

Likely what the Trump lunatics want is that Greenland declares independence of Denmark and then they can rape the island. Because what is so peculiar in Trump's deranged mind is that he genuinely wants to increase the physical territory of the United States. It's not the mining rights, iwhat Trump wants is territory. He made it clear in his inaugral speech. With Canada and Greenland, the US would be far larger than Russia. (Let's remember that Greenland is larger than Mexico)

But again, the European allies of Denmark are holding drills in Greenland...



And Macron has visited Greenland with the Danish PM being the host:

One undersea cable cut again, one ship seized by Finnish authorities again:



Acts like this start to be the new normal. :sad:

Maybe the word ultimate is the problem. — Tom Storm

I think you are correct. Just look how problematic ultimates like infinity are still in math and logic.

What is good and what is bad? You and I may agree on individual examples, but we also may not. The answer depends on us, it is a subjective answer.

No objective information just what reality is will answer this. So what's the solution for this that humans have come up with? That there's an ultimate subjective: God. How do you accept this then? By faith.

Soo... should there be an "US annexation of Greenland" thread too? Really thinking of it.




Europe: time for Strategic Autonomy!

Venezuela was already a failed state. How much worse could it get? — frank

A lot more worse.

Civil war. Hundreds of thousands of dead. Widespread famine. Failed state with competing regime that have divided the country. Or become like Haiti with criminal gangs running the country without any much if any operating government.

Or something...

Believe me, things can always be far more worse. Improving things is the difficult part, creating chaos is easy. And it's very easy for things to come far more worse. Especially with Trump as now when he has quite a war lust going on. Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Greenland...

I liked the rest of your observations about the oil situation. — Tzeentch

How much of that Iraqi oil went to US oil companies in the end? Not much, there's few of them, but they don't represent the majority of the foreign companies now in Iraq: there's Russia, China, the Europeans etc.

And yeah, as @Mikie stated, not much even rhetoric of democracy or war on drugs with Venezuela! Yet in order for oil to flow to Chevron (or the bunch), Venezuela needs:

a) A regime/administration that is willing to have the US in the country and work with it.
b) enough stability that it's safe for American companies to work in the country and for the companies really be willing to invest in the country.
c) a way for all of the above somehow to be reached by a cunning and capable US, which the US isn't under Trump, even if it's military is very capable and pulled of a successful 90-minute decapitation operation.

What I'd like to know is how Trump is thinking of running Venezuela now. Basically the option is to seize the oil shipments from Venezuela at sea. Or then take strikes on Venezuelan leaders and government. So pressure them and assume they will cave in. And hope that this will pressure the "Bolivarian revolution" to surrender to Trump.

That's it.

Question: was Trump so petty that he had to through Machado under the bus because she got a Nobel prize? When is Trump we are talking about it, it might be really the reason.

And just like from the Iraq/Afghanistan playbook, they might want to pick up some Venezuelan who kisses Trump's ass the most. Likely will dedicate his or her time to make the Trump family wealthy. So fuck off, Edmundo Gonzales or any other anti-Chavistas, you aren't needed!

When I say I believe the universe is fundamentally good I am merely the superiority of a FAITH in truth and the ultimate goodness of the universe with the inferior FAITH in some book that has a talking serpent and a talking donkey. They are both types of faith. — Art48

Sorry, I didn't understand this part.

Exactly. But when one is stupid and full of oneself, one doesn't even notice how fucked up the whole situation is from the start.

Trump is just “defending our institutions”. — NOS4A2

Just what institutions I ask? In his press conference, Trump mentioned oil 20 times while he didn't mention drugs, war on drugs or democracy at all. That's quite telling just what "institutions" the sick fuck is values.

And it probably hurts knowing that the exiled opposition leader in Venezuela dedicated her Nobel peace prize to your favorite president last year, isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

Lol, Trump threw Maria Machado immediately under the bus, didn't even bother to mention Edmundo Gonzales, but was eager to tell that they were in contact with Maduro's vice president Delcy Rodriguez.

Trump idiocy as ever. Then claim that he's going to run Venezuela without any troops on the ground and the Chavista-regime quite in control of the country still.

Now you know. — NOS4A2

Actually, I don't. And neither do you.

Just how is this going to work out? What if the Chavistas don't simply surrender?

and your high-horse leaders just sat around and let him repress his citizens, as they’ve done all over the world. So much for “defending our institutions”. — NOS4A2

You are just contradicting yourself. So now you are in favor of nation building?

How well it went in Iraq? That country too had oil.
How well it went in Afghanistan?

Whose plan is it?

The way I understand it, Putin, Xi JInping and Trump are in a quid pro quo threesome, each concerned with their own imperialist goals. — Questioner

To break the Atlantic tie between the US and Europe, just as to hinder the European Union has been a plan of Russia for a long time. So the Russians are quite honest when they say that Trump's plan matches their plans. This is a dream come true for the Kremlin.

Perhaps it's just the absolute idiocy of Trump that he indeed wants to divide the World when there wasn't any need for division. Just as he thinks the EU was made to fuck the US, not an European response to two devastating World Wars.

I concede that maybe I shouldn't have used the world "superpower" to describe Russia. Maybe "power at play" would have been more accurate. — Questioner

Whose power play is this?

Next stop, Greenland. Trump wants it.

Oh, the White House has a plan today. It'll be different tomorrow. And then a totally different the next month. And so on....

Hence the Folk is correct. :wink:

There’s a plan in place to carve the world up into three superpowers. — Questioner

No. This is actually a plan to get rid of the US from being the sole Superpower. And Trump is eager to carry out his role, if he gets the billions he wants.

First of all, Russia isn't a superpower and China won't ever overtake the US, even if it came very close to overtaking it, thanks for mainland China not being Taiwan (in which case China would have already taken over the role of the US) and thanks for China being run by Marxist-Leninists who think they've used enough capitalism and now can go back to communism. And also by the "one child" policy now creating a huge decrease in the Chinese population. So actually, there was only one Superpower. Hence when you say that there are three Superpowers, you have already swallowed the Kremlin/Beijing rhetoric. Where does this defeatism come from?

Here is the perennial misunderstanding just why the US has the position it's enjoys today (which is obvious with this White House).

First and foremost, the US never started building a sphere of influence where it dominates others by the threat of violence and by a policy of divide et impera. Subject countries can understand when they are ruled by Divide et impera, and won't be enthusiastic about it.

The US chose a totally different way.

It formed an international system where it provided security especially on the global sea trade routes and in containing the other Superpower, the Soviet Union. The "International Order", that Trump sees now as the enemy for the US, was the way that the US created it's own "sphere of influence", which was voluntary and very beneficial to it's members, the allies of the US. It formed treaty alliances, of which NATO was successful and SEATO and CENTO were not. (Btw Peter Zeihan has talked extensively about this.)

Unlike the Warsaw Pact, NATO forces have never occupied a member state that was on "the verge of being disloyal" to the US. Yet the Warsaw Pact did this police action for the Soviet Union in 1956 and especially in 1968, which was the greatest military success, a successful "special military operation", that the Soviet Union ever had. Russia tried to copy the successful "Operation Danube" in Chechnya and in Ukraine and failed on both occasions to achieve a result as in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO has been a treaty alliance where states have voluntarily joined to, which is something that the Pro-Kremlin speakers ardently want to deny. The member states have truly built their defense on a common defense that is NATO. This is totally different from the Warsaw Pact and also from the failed organizations of CENTO and SEATO. Yet with Trump, the future of NATO is in question.

Now the enemies of the US are gleeing in delight on what is happening to the US with Trump. The US is shedding the system that earlier generations have worked for this system. That the Kremlin rejoices the US National Security Strategy should tell this to the astute observer. That the US hasn't created any alliances when confronting the Maduro regime (or should one talk now of the Bolivarian regime) tells just how clueless the White House is now. Trump is threatening the president of Columbia and the response of Brazil (and Mexico) to the strikes in Venezuela leave no doubt how Latin America is seeing this.

Watched your video.

So you come to the conclusion that the superior faith is "faith in truth itself, and in the reasonable and goodness of the universe", better than believing in the ancient stories that traditional religions give us.

First of all. I thin it's naive to think that religions are about truth. They aren't. Sure, they proclaim that they are the truth, yet notice what answer they give: that it's faith, not reason. Religions give us a moral compass on just what is right and what is wrong. They do give us also creation stories and tell us what happens after we die, yet especially the part what happens after we die is still linked to how we live our life (and hence is about doing the good and not bad).

These moral questions are SUBJECTIVE. Now how can one or any religion justify that it's answers on moral questions are correct? Well, as the question are subjective and not objective, their answer is universal: it's a question of faith. You don't deduce from facts that a God or Gods exist, you take him (or them) as an issue of faith. Never does ANY religion say that you will find God, if you just use your brain enough. What religions say is that they have to be taken into ones heart. Hence religions even themselves understand that the questions of what is right or wrong, good or bad, cannot be answered in an objective way using logic.

Also, note that religions when giving answer to moral/ethical question that are inherently subjective attempt to give an objective answer by having the ultimate subjective, God (or Gods). So why is something good or bad? Because God says so. God (or Gods) are all powerful, so that's your "objective" answer.

Furthermore, you are falling into a trap where many atheists fall when you assume that "the universe is good". What science just says is that "the universe exists". Existence isn't good or bad. Questions on just what is good or bad are different form the question what exists in reality and what doesn't. There simply is a reason just why Ethics and Moral Philosophy is a different branch from Logic. You cannot simply combine them! Yet many atheists just assume that "goodness" simply emerges from humanity.

Truth itself is something that needs objectivity, you have to have logical premises to make a model of reality, where you can then in the logical system state if things are true or false. Science is one system like that, it gives models about reality, but note that science doesn't at all answer to what would be good and what bad. That's a question for religion, and faith. This is an error that many atheists do when believing that science can give us answers on ethical questions.

Secondly, where does this assumption of the goodness of the universe come from? It's quite out there as is the "ancient stories" you mock religions give. Well, the dominant religions of the present emerged in the time of Antiquity, so it's obvious that the writings were for an audience for a past time. Yet the message that holds on even today are the answers that religions give to ethical questions.

If only that comment would be sarcasm. With you, I'm not so sure:

Trump Has Dropped the Price of One Thing: Cocaine

Trump has now his own "special military operation", attempting a regime change and trying to "run Venezuela" and get the oil in Venezuela into US hands. Trump was extremely clear about this when addressing the nation after the strike.

Yet nation building was what you wanted and why you voted for Trump, right? :blush:

Perhaps indeed he will now go annex Greenland.

I'm sure you would agree that this administration is capable of acting without any clear long term plan. — boethius

Not just capable, but simply acts without any clear long term plan. Or then "the plan" is illogical mixture of right-wing ideology and increasing Trump's personal wealth without any thought on the long term effects.

Trump didn't do this for fighting the war on drugs or to restore democracy in Venezuela. If either was the truly the agenda, then Trump simply wouldn't have talked so much about "running Venezuela" and having the Venezuelan Oil for US companies. Venezuela nationalized it's oil in 1975/76, so that was far earlier than the Maduro regime and then the US oil companies were compensated for their loss. When Trump talks about taking back the oil, he really means it.

Trump truly says what he is thinking. No amount of Marco Rubio ,or someone else, trying to make it the issue being about something else matters. And the response from the Democrats has been very condemning.

Yeah, apparently we're going to be running Venezuela. We're so good at that sort of thing. — RogueAI

Yep. Do notice the irony when Trump says that this won't cost anything to the US because Venezuela has oil. Yes, indeed the same line was given when Bush invaded Iraq.

Yet note that actually after this decapitation strike, the US doesn't now have boots on the ground (other than CIA and special forces, I guess). And how far will 15 000 troops go with occupying a country of 28 million people? 2003 invasion of Iraq was done with 130 000 US troops, which then had to be grown to 160 000 troops. By comparison Bosnia needed a stabilization force of 60 000 for a country of 3,5 million, which actually worked well and the country could be pacified.

So just how the Trump team will "run Venezuela" is to be seen.

So unclear at the moment what the plan actually is to run Venezuela. — boethius

Well, Trump did say just a while ago that they will run Venezuela.

Presumably they cut a deal with Venezuela's vice-president to capitulate to all demands, as that would make sense, but definitely things do not need to make any sense. — boethius

Just what this "deal" will be isn't so easy.

Now it's possible that he will act similarly as after the Iran strikes, but what we heard from him, this seems to be not the case.

Chaos? Civil war? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think they want to install that Nobel Prize winner, Maria Machado. — RogueAI

Trump in his media conference said that he (and the US) haven't been in touch with her and Trump didn't see her be fit to rule the country. So Machado it's not going to be. Trump said that the US will now rule Venezuela. Rubio seems to have had a long conversation with the Maduro-regime vice president, but Trump was quick to point out that she was part of the Maduro regime.

That would be the feat, if somehow now the US could install Maria Machado to be the President. Unlike in Panama, the US doesn't control the ground in Venezuela. At least the defense minister of Venezuela was quite adamant in the opposition towards the US.



From the military viewpoint, it might seem as a cakewalk: US transport helicopters (Chinooks etc.) and AH-1 attack helicopters roaming over Caracas obviously shows that the Venezuelan air defenses were not alert at all and didn't put up a real fight. Why would the US get such total surprise is beyond me.

One commentator said it quite well, if people will come to celebrate the overthrow of Maduro in the opposition held places, that is telling. If they don't show up and it's just the regime crowd, that is also very telling. Now, naturally those Venezuelans in exile are jubilant, but the real issue what happens inside the country.

Maybe people will be glad Maduro is gone and will welcome a change? — RogueAI

Depends on the change that actually Trump has in mind for Venezuela and it's people.

It's not like the Middle East, where you have historic enmities like Shia vs Sunni Vs Kurds. — RogueAI

Yes, but Venezuela is politically polarized even more than the US. Millions of those that have opposed the Maduro regime have fled the country. Has work been done with these people?

We should all be glad Maduro is gone. — BitconnectCarlos

Who wouldn't be. Do notice that here even on the PF there's not been support for Maduro. I remember that some PF members were supportive of Hugo Chavez in the early years, but that's it.

Now onto the democratic transition of power — Maduro did not represent the people of Venezuela. — BitconnectCarlos

And how is that going to happen? And even if Maduro obviously didn't represent all the people of Venezuela, we'll soon find out just how many he did represent.

But anyway, Trump is really now in the "nation building" business, even if he denies it. But "running the country" is exactly that.Trump has declared that now the US will be leading the country, so the idea that this would have been just an operation to get Maduro isn't so as the objective is to get the Venezuelan oil fields (something that Trump spoke extensively about).



So Trump isn't now going to be attached to Venezuela. Is this the new Afghanistan for Trump, we will find out. And just like with Afghanistan, the real quagmire can be evident to everybody only after years from now. Perhaps like in Afghanistan or Iraq, now the Trump White House will pick the most friendly (read most willing to give wealth to Trump) Venezuelan to rule the country.

So we got the war.



If Maduro didn't go voluntarily, then we'll get the Delta Force -movie very quickly. (Which is nice, Navy Seals started to be annoying in the media after the killing OBL. Last time Delta did something so spectacular, it ended in a spectacular disaster in Iran (yet we got a Chuck Norris / Lee Marvin movie anyway).

But to the real issues. What now? Nation building? Unlikely, as this has been still just a military strike. Leave it as a failed state or what? Hope that something good comes out of this?

Actually the best thing would be for Trump just to declare victory and go home. Leave it to be a successful military decapitation strike. He likely won't win anything else better now, as taking the oil fields of Venezuela would mean a real invasion, which is a bad thing to attempt.

But if he stays in Venezuela, hope that all the Maga-people remember Trump's wars about ending the forever-wars and other bullshit from Donald.

The world typically doesn't want and resists change. That is until it can't any longer, and then things can change rather quickly.

If you look at human history 'gradualism' doesn't really seem like the norm, but rather periods of relative stability interspersed with rapid revolutions... punctuated equilibria. — ChatteringMonkey

This is so true. Everything stays rather the same, until there's a war or people somewhere simply get fed up with their bad situation and revolt or when the markets panic and we have a crisis that gives us an economic depression.

The US is widely considered by political scientists to be in decline. That's not a result of Trump. It's just that the world changes. — frank

Well, I would still remark that a lot that has happened has been self inflicted. Yet, think about it for a while from another perspective:

If the US is decline, where does that leave:

a) Europe?
b) China?
c) Russia?
d) the rest of the World?

When you actually look at all the places now a) - d), they don't actually look so great.

Heck, it's said that I live in the country where the people are the most happy. If that would be true, the World really, really sucks. In many ways, my little countries growth projections are similar to Japan, even if our population hasn't yet declined. Yet Japan shows that this doesn't mean that there will be an economic collapse, just low growth.



One of the interesting questions is how much of this decline and low economic growth is simply due to the demographic transition of countries. Decreasing populations don't create a reason for economic growth.

One of these days you're going to finally get that this a concern for you, not Americans. — frank

Not at all worried about losing your Superpower -status? Lol. Heck, the whole Trump revolution says in writing that this clearly isn't so: Make America Great again. So I guess that a lot of Americans, including future generations, will ask why it happened, if you lose the status.

There's nothing stopping the world from doing this. — frank

The "world" typically doesn't want dramatic changes. Change just is forced upon "the World" when a crisis hits and the effects are unavoidable. Sticking to the present status quo is usually the policy that the vast number of countries prefer. Hence changes don't happen in an instant.

And here it should be noted that there's a quite cacophony of different signals coming from the US.

First and foremost, Trump isn't the kind of politician able to be in control of the whole apparatus (for which actual leadership would be needed). He is more in control of his surroundings in the White House as in the first term (where he unintentionally chose "adults" to be in the room).

Usually Trump's "policies" are just aimless reactions with no clear objectives. Tariffs were surely the thing in his mind (for a long time), but he had to do his TACO. And now? Just look at what a quarter of the US Navy is doing in Venezuela: what on Earth is the objective? Likely the objective is just to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what would stick. Trump and the MAGA crowd (what's left of it) might want to do away with EU and NATO to the great satisfaction of Russia, but it's not so simple. Hence in this environment the Congress and actually the US Military are sending quite different signals as the Pro-Kremlin White House.

NATO and Denmark got through the first Trump administration with Trump not invading Greenland and the US breaching article 1. of the Washington treaty. So the question here is: why wouldn't we get through the next three years too? Then have the democrats regain the White House and it's likely back to something similar as earlier...

These changes take time.

?

You don't notice that the real tribute is the dollar being the reserve currency and your government having this "perpetual" credit of taking on enormous amounts of debt? That is the tribute system that has made you so wealthy and capable of spending so much on the military!

But notice the important aspect of this: this arrangement has been fruitful and reasonable for the allies of the US and they have been OK with this.

Other Great Powers countries, like Russia/Soviet Union, don't have and never had such alliances like the US has. Russia has now basically North Korea and a lukewarm yet difficult China. And China? Basically Pakistan, because of India. (Which shows just how warm the relations are between BRIC-countries.)

Bullying just goes so far, you know. And this is one of those issues that people don't get: sovereign European countries chose voluntarily to be in the US lead security structure. Once the Soviet empire collapsed, those former "allies" rushed away from Russia. And for a reason, as it should be obvious to everybody!

And what Trump and other American politicians never will say that it's the US itself that has wanted Europe to be dependent on the US. Because there's always "Strategic Autonomy", which you should note when European leaders talk. It's something that the US has been against.

Hence you can look at it from this angle: Why are European countries really trying to get to that 5% defense expenditure so eagerly? Because the US has transformed to be a very untrustworthy ally. That 5% defense expenditure will establish deterrence if the pro-Kremlin stooge in White House wants to shatter the Atlantic alliance.

But then comes the real question: without the US being the defender of Western institutions and the primary member and leader in it's alliances, why would dollar be the reserve currency anymore? Remember that we didn't get Bancor, we got the Bretton Woods system and after the default by Nixon, the petro-dollar system was too based on defense pact with Saudi-Arabia also. Not based on economics. There's absolutely no other real reason for other countries somehow deciding that the US dollar should be a reserve currency. The logical solution would have a basket of currencies, where the US dollar is the biggest currency (but not the sole currency).

An odd observation is that American voters appear to have chosen this path deliberately and obliviously; it doesn't help them in the longer term, especially those who are not well-off. — jorndoe

Many Americans don't understand that their present prosperity exists because of the vast alliance networks the US has been able to create, which has made the country into a Superpower. And many believe the total opposite, which Trump promotes, that the alliance structure is a burden to them. Which is nuts, but anyway, when people are ignorant, they can believe anything.

Do you believe the terror attacks there would not have occurred had they stronger censorship laws? — NOS4A2

No.

The response to terrorism from small cabals and individuals who are fighting for some messianic lunacy is very difficult. There's no one silver bullet. Let's just remember how small the cabal was that formed the "Al Qaeda" in September 2001. Yet an excessive response that undermines the democratic institutions themselves is counterproductive. Many terrorist organization actually intend to act this way: they attack the government in order for the government to "show it's real ugly faces", which then will create the actual revolution. The Red Army Fraction of West Germany was a case example of this, it's members were totally convinced that the West Germany government was actually the Third Reich in disguise and from their actions the true "Red Army" would emerge.

Not to treat a tiny group of criminals as criminals, but as an enemy in a war basically gives the terrorists credibility and undermines the institutions in a justice state. Just like Trump inventing that drug smugglers are "narcoterrorists".

ISIS is direct result from US actions in Iraq and has basically nothing to do with censorship laws. Yet do I consider that ISIS propaganda ought to be banned? Yes. Democracies have to defend themselves from those who do want to overthrow it's institutions. Is it a complicated issue? Sure.

Guess who else bans speech they do not like. ISIS. — NOS4A2

For extremists "freedom of speach" has always been only a vehicle to get their message spread and something that afterwards can be done away with as it poses a threat to them.

Brilliant. Now we don’t know who is espousing that message and are blind to the content of that message. After all, the aim of all censorship is ignorance. — NOS4A2

Oh, you get it so wrong. Prior the terrorist attacks, the UK police didn't care what was preached in various mosques or what kind of leaflets were distributed. When some people noted just what kind of hate speech was distributed, the answer given back to them was that there's "freedom of speech". Now it's different.

Attempt to distribute ISIS material and you will likely notice that even the Canadian security apparatus will take a notice of what you are doing, nos.

When nothing has happened there's actually indifference, then people and politicians hail things like freedom of speech. Yet once something bad happens, the same politicians are the first to brush aside "freedom of speech" issues in an instant. When the discourse changes to fighting terrorism, then all those rights seem to go out of the window. Populists like Trump and his cohorts are the perfect example, but usually even with the conventional American politicians this was obvious.

In fact, it takes really strong institutions in a society to sustain a justice state and things like freedom of speech, when a society is faced with a traumatic terrorist attack or something similar. Too people many cry for revenge and for them "following the laws" is too lax and just shows the failure of the state. Worst thing is if politicians are eager to give this crowd the blood what they cry for and disregard the law when doing it.

The Nazis were routinely censored. Hitler himself brought up the fact of this censorship in his debates and used it as justification to censor others. The one time censorship ought to have worked, it didn’t. — NOS4A2

One time, eh?

I think there's far more examples of "censorship" actually working and it being positive that the actions worked, even if freedom of speech is extremely important to a functioning democracy. Let's start from things like the ideological teachings and the propaganda of Al Qaeda and ISIS that aren't permitted to be freely distributed due to "freedom of speech" laws anymore. In the UK earlier their message could be openly published and publicly preached. Not anymore.

Now you may have your ideological views and believe that incitement isn't real, then start from the writings of those above mentioned terrorists and their texts where they incite people to kill all Americans, including civilians, being the correct thing to do. Perhaps that shows you better what incitement is than the historical and present example of incitement against the Jews.

There does exist actual hate speech, not just what the woke consider to be hate speech or the term just used as a rhetorical tool to denounce someone.

One might argue that it isn't censorship, but that is quite hypocritical.

It doesn't make sense. Just like the term "narcoterrorists" (something similar to "islamofascists" that the Bush administration came up with).

Trump and Maduro had actually before talks about Maduro leaving. Maduro made demands on in what situation he indeed would be leave. Trump didn't accept these. If Maduro cannot save face and resign and leave his own country yet leave his country intact (which would make him a hero in the eyes of his supporters), then likely he will be there until the bitter end.

This isn't a person that like the former Afghan president who was picked because he had a stellar academic career in the US (and just happened to had been born in Afghanistan).

What can actually happen is what already happened with Iran. The US makes a strike against Venezuela basically destroying it's Air Defences and then Trump declares a victory! And anybody in the US government who even thinks to doubt this let alone comment about it publicly will be fired.

And Maduro can simply continue in power (or the Bolivarian revolutionaries, if Trump is so lucky that he get's Maduro killed), and then blame everything on the US and claim that the opposition are just stooges of the murderous Americans.

And Latin American relations are extremely strained, especially when it comes to Trump.

Remember still this?

Trump, speaking in The Hague where he attended a NATO summit on Wednesday, said his decision to join Israel’s attacks by targeting Iranian nuclear sites with huge bunker-busting bombs had ended the war, calling it “a victory for everybody.”

He shrugged off an initial assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency that Iran’s path to building a nuclear weapon may have been set back only by months, saying the findings were “inconclusive” and he believed the sites had been destroyed.

“It was very severe. It was obliteration,” he said.

This might be one outcome. If Trump doesn't sail his armada to the waters Greenland, if the Epstein scandal heatens still up.