ssu

Information and Randomness
The greatest degree of information is found in the most random or irrational sequences. — Benj96
?

If you take pi or the golden ratio or eulers number for example, eventually it will detail your entire genetic sequence from start to finish. Statistically, given its randomness and infinity, it mist contain this information at some point in its course. — Benj96
Ah, I think that this is the finding that infinite strings as being infinite also then do have the text of Tolstoi's "War and Peace" written in binary code...because there infinite.

But this is a statistical probability. And notice when you have something infinite, then you have a problem with statistical probabilities.

Yet this "information" on a random sequence is simply useless, because of the simple fact that you cannot handle infinite sequences. You can handle only finite parts of any random sequence. Thus finding your genetic sequence or Tolstoi's "War and Peace" in binary form or both from some finite part of a random sequence is, well, we can round that probability to 0, even if it's a very small positive number. Even if finite parts can be quite big. Now finding an exact sequence in very large finite strings is an interesting discussion itself...

And can there be a random sequence that doesn't have your genetic sequence and Tolstoi's "War an Peace" in binary form? I guess so. Can I prove it? Absolutely not! With randomness you slip easily to the part of mathematics that is unprovable, uncountable, etc. Yet it's still math.

Hence this is a bit of an illusion, I would say.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
The modern West is predicated on double standards. We can freely criticise certain groups without shame/stigma but not others. Only certain types of pride are allowed. — BitconnectCarlos
I don't think that this is our biggest problem. Public discourse simply can be annoying some times.

I can't help but shake the sense that the US is in decline. — BitconnectCarlos
If it helps you, you have a way to go still in that fall. So just enjoy the decadence. The Titanic sailing for the iceberg is still just being built...
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
Main problem about this hypothesis is how to contain potential devastating effects caused by scientific progress. — SpaceDweller
Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress?

Without scientific progress there sure would be devastating effects. Not just potential. Have you thought about this question from this viewpoint?

So let's assume there wouldn't have been any Renaissance and further age of Enlightenment in the West, but the Church would have held power as in the Muslim World. Where would be now?

I did agree that stopping research is not an option and so does the linked paper say it's unrealistic and costly, so this is not a solution, global governance and policing is a better solution but not popular, so we seek something better than that. — SpaceDweller
Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology?

Many times these problems actually need very nuanced and specific solutions, not radical and dramatic solutions like "World government".
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
Fire was first invention to prepare meals followed by stoves and now wait until food replicator is discovered like the one in star trek series. — SpaceDweller
Yet we won't get "food replicators", at least in the way in Star Trek, without new scientific insights.

And there are ample amount of global problems where science and technology would help. And just implementing current technologies globally would help. For example, the second largest exporter of food after the US is actually tiny Netherlands. Hence if other countries had as advanced agricultural sector as Netherlands, then there would be ample space for wildlife and nature and still everybody would be fed. Still, for example famines have eased even with the current development.
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
The point is that scientific progress leads to potentially devastating technologies. — SpaceDweller
So we agree that it's the potentially devastating technology, or the use of this tech, which is the real threat.

Because otherwise it's a bit difficult to say "Stop Science! It may discover things that can potentially lead to devastating use of technology." Once when you stop science, then there's not even the harmless technologies to help us. Everything will be just engineers improving current machines and concepts. But once you have developed the pencil, the written book, the spoon etc. there's not much to improve there. Spoons and books have stayed the same for quite a while. No incentive or reason to improve a technology that works so well.

Spoon from the Roman period, 4th or 5th Century. Looks quite the same as I have in my kitchen and likely used the same way as now:

When we don't have any new technologies, the problems that our current technology cannot be solved will mean that there likely won't be any solution for the problem. And that's why earlier societies collapsed as they didn't have the capability to deal with the changes that happened.
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
If science is just a means to technology, and science is funded almost entirely by a desire for technology (or other forms of power), then science is not about speculative knowledge in any real sense. We have seen science moving in this direction for hundreds of years now.

You are right that in theory science should be this separate, autonomous thing. But in practice it turns out not to be. — Leontiskos
A lot of people do think that science is just one part of the process of how our technology will improve and that tech is just there to improve our lives. But talk to a scientist and you will notice that they are actually interested in science itself. That isn't something irrelevant.

And then think about what science was hundreds of years ago: A tiny cabal of men that had the ability to think about science and not simply to work to feed themselves and their families. If they were aware of each other, likely they were writing to each other. Even at the start of the 20th Century the scientific circles were small.

Just look at this picture from 1926 of the "Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons". That's what a "golden age" of science looks like: a tiny cabal of people that we now know from the names of the various theories and models that make Quantum Physics.

There are 28 men and one woman in that picture. Now you couldn't take a picture of all scientists that are working in the field, even of those that really are just doing the science part. At the time of Newton, if such a conference on Physics/Mathematics in general would have been held and there would have been 29 participants, I think there would be nearly all of the people at that time studying these issues.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
A country needs something that its citizens can sign onto. Some type of common value system. A sense of citizenship, a common purpose. What is it that unites us? A collective guilt in the sins of the West? — BitconnectCarlos
Self criticism can be our strength, assuming that we also will respect the achievements that we have made. Totalitarian systems cannot be self critical, they cannot openly debate their flaws. It's something that democracies can do, which for some makes the look weak. Democracies always look to be weak, sometimes as they would be being broken apart.

Common threats unite us. In my country even if the political parties keep up the normal fights over policy decision, the opposition and the ruling parties could immediately get together when the shit hit the fan. First when Covid pandemic started and then when Russia attacked Ukraine in a full scale assault and Finland had to seek NATO membership. On both occasions suddenly there wasn't the typical quarreling, but a quick consensus on what to do and rapid decisions taken.

Same actually you can see with Israel. Israel was looking as it would become apart in a political crisis before October 7th, but it unified quickly to the threat. This isn't at all surprising: people can heatedly disagree about some issues in a democracy, yet come together when needed.

The thing is that there is a common value system, but we don't talk about it. Those things that we agree upon are considered basically self evident. We talk about the differences we have an paint these caricatures of the others who don't think like us.
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
Yes, there are many benefits of scientific progress but the thing is that only one wrong technology can devastate all benefits. — SpaceDweller
Must be really some awesome technology of the future, because the fact is that even an all-out nuclear war between US/Russia and China wouldn't devastate everything and kill everybody. It might be a well respected mantra to say to voice opposition to nuclear weapons, but destroying everything is a lot harder than we think.

The Library of Congress and it's 173 million items might burn up in a nuclear fireball, yet the libraries in Argentina and Chile would likely stay intact. And those libraries have a lot more information stored than the great library of Alexandria had. Also many Argentinians and Chileans would survive, even if there would be a nuclear winter of some sort.

I don't think science is inherently evil because of this, only that it has the potential of self-destruction if not controlled. — SpaceDweller
My father was a professor of virology, and while he has now passed away, he did live to see the Covid pandemic. What he was really afraid back then was the possibility that the Covid-virus had indeed been created by research and then had spread out of the laboratory. He personally believed it was a real, worrisome possibility and feared what damage such a thing would do to medical research and in the trust in medicine in general. With seven million deaths, one million dead in the US, you can bet that it to be a laboratory "Oops!" isn't something people actually want to hear.

So yes, you do have a point.

And just like the scientists that cloned the first animal, Dolly the sheep, in 1996 who insisted that governments should look at the ethics and have regulations on the subject, there is a large acceptance from the scientific community that regulation and limitations should be enacted to the possible dangers. Yet those who would prosper from even dangerous research can have other incentives.

Yet I think this isn't a problem of science itself. It's a problem of when technological research isn't given any limits. It's more of a problem of lax regulation of industry, I would say.

There can be limits to scientific knowledge and you can indeed keep technology at bay. The perfect example of this is just how ancient is now the technology to make nuclear weapons. Yet there's a great incentive for scientists not to make the technology public: they'll face long jail sentences or simply will be killed. That's a great incentive (to stay alive) not to openly market nuclear technology to someone just with the money wishing to buy it.

Hence technology can indeed be regulated and you don't need a global government. You need just common sense.
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
↪Leontiskos
Yet we don't call engineers scientists, but engineers.

There really is a difference between science and technology. Your simply not using the definition of technology and just putting it together with everything being 'science'. However there's a reason why the standard definitions are different. Let's define first what they mean:

Science is the study of the natural world by collecting data through a systematic process called the scientific method. (Human sciences then study the world that we have created ourselves)

Technology is when we apply that science to create devices that can solves problems and do tasks.

There's a fundamental difference between the two. The power that you are talking about comes really from technology, all those devices starting from steam engines to microchips to nuclear weapons.

And I wouldn't say that modern science has shifted away from speculative knowledge. Science has become a huge field with academia and research institutes where a lot of that new study has gone to applied sciences and hence basically to technological research. How you describe it would mean that scientific study has somehow diminished when it hasn't done so. There's still going on that original science stuff, no matter how much studies are directed by grants.

Hence what you refer to is more the situation when people first have a problem, want to solve the problem with new technology and then the engineers ask scientist if the technology would be even possible. Well, the scientists cannot just invent new scientific realities to give the engineers new ways to make technology work.
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
↪Leontiskos
Sorry, if I relate 'science' to using the scientific method, not a tool for gaining power.
Ukraine Crisis
Now I get it, you view US empire as good and Russian empire as bad. Therefore, the US is justified in moving its military hardware and system closer to Russia. My view is more complicated than this dichotomy. — boethius
There's a lot to be critical about of US actions, but when it comes to Europe, here fortunately the US hasn't made it's biggest blunders. On the contrary, I would say.

And let's think about this.

Ask yourself, how many NATO countries have been invaded by the US or other NATO countries, when the US has thought the countries were out of line?

With the Warsaw Pact, it did this action basically twice. In Hungary and in Czechoslovakia. And at least general Jaruzelski insisted that he declared martial law in order to prevent a Russian invasion in 1981. This shows what the actual objective was for the Warsaw Pact for the Soviet Union.

So has now Russia changed so much from those times with it's Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)?

How well did the alliance with Russia protect Armenia from Azeris? How much did Russia come to the help of Armenia?

But yes, it did come to help of the government of Kazakhstan to quell riots. And that actually fits quite well the previous Warsaw Pact mentality.
The Vulnerable World Hypothesis
Why use scientific progress and not simply technological progress?

Our weapons have become more deadly because of technological advances. Science is a bit different. Quantum physics tells us something about how the world works. Yet that Science itself didn't give us nuclear weapons, they are applications of science. Hence use of technology gave us nuclear weapons. So why be against science and think scientific progress makes us vulnerable?

There's a lot of examples that show that we aren't as vulnerable as earlier: we don't die as early as before. If there are bad harvests, we don't in the industrialized World die of famine. Actually famines have become more rare. We don't just have to raise our hands up and hope that the God's wouldn't be angry at us, we have an idea just how we changing (destroying?) our environment.

Therefore global government and policing supported by global government is it appears the most effective solution to prevent self-destruction caused by scientific progress. — SpaceDweller
I don't think so.

Besides, global government would lead to excessive centralization and yes, a lot lof people all around the World might come together... to oppose this singular government.

Sovereign states working not as an union, but a confederacy, would in my view work far more better. The concept of nation state has been proven quite effective. Also when there are multiple different countries trying different things, we aren't all then destined to make the same mistakes.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
When was the last time you saw a crowd of angry Jews surrounding and protesting in front of a mosque and disrupting their services? — BitconnectCarlos
There's few mosques here and very few Jews where I live. And people are quite well behaved.

It's a bit different in "Holy Land", where religious zealots have a field day:

Or dancing inside the Ibrahim Mosque?

Same mosque btw where Baruch Goldstein shot 39 Muslims and wounded 150 others before being killed by the crowd (and hence is a hero for the Zionist extremists).

And of course you have the religious zealots on the other side also, naturally, which people here don't support even if they are critical about Israel's actions...

Christianity is weak in the West. We believe in nothing. Western birth rates are low. — BitconnectCarlos
So you assume fundamentalists make a country strong? I beg to differ. In fact, I find the whole narrative of "the West being weak", especially "weaker than it's enemies" to be a load of bullshit.

And to discuss the demographic transition, it's also something that it isn't either so straight forward as people might think:
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
American controversial policies are also what Europeans must swallow to keep the front united, otherwise they have to struggle for greater decision power on the coalition, but what are the odds to succeed, really? — neomac
Actually here NATO works (...or doesn't work as a tool of US policy): only few American endeavors have been so that all NATO participates in them. And many times allies can opt out or simply give no actual support. Hence when an American President comes up with a too controversial policy of striking someone, it can be so that nobody shows up. This happened humiliatingly to Obama with Syria, if you remember. Not even the UK showed up and Obama had to backtrack away from his line drawn on the sand.

Besides, it has been more of the US simply changing it's mind without consulting to it's allies. Here Afghanistan is a great example: the US withdrawal came as a surprise to the other alliance members and they had to react to the whims of the US policy. Something that can be seen now in the support of Ukraine too.

On the other side, the more the European strategic interest diverges from the US national interest and the European partnership turns unexploitable by the US, the more the US may be compelled to make Europe unexploitable to its hegemonic competitors too. — neomac
To me this sounds a bit confusing. I think Europe is quite happy with the present, but it's the US who has these 'pivot-people' calling for 'pivot to Asia' all the time. Which is confusing.
Does Tarski Undefinability apply to HOL ?
You're off to the races into transfinite-order logics. If I understand the question of the title, it is equivalent to asking if Godel's incompleteness (theorem) is entirely resolved at some higher level of logic. My guess is not. — tim wood

I cannot give a rigorous answer, but I agree with this. If Tarski's undefinability theorem is basically that "arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic", or that true Gödel numbers are not definable arithmetically, meaning there’s no first-order formula for this, I think it does go for higher order logics. For those higher order logics there is their own true but unprovable Gödel number.

But I'm the amateur here, so don't quote me.

(PS, why two threads?)
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
People are more complex than Pavlov’s dogs. Look at the Taliban, the IRA, and Viet cong. Did the wars waged end them? — ENOAH
With two example, yes, they were victorious, militarily. And if you refer to the original IRA, 1916-1922, that was victorious too, they did get their independent Ireland! But what's the point here?

Also, Hamas. Did their horrendous attack end the plight of their people? No, if anything, it threatens the end of their people, period. — ENOAH
You really think Israel will ethnically cleanse or kill seven million Palestinians? I don't think so.

Realpolitik, far from suggesting war, actually ought to be more pragmatic, face the facts, and sit down for some immediate, open minded, bite the bullet, willing to compromise, negotiations. Both sides. — ENOAH
Yet for that you should have leadership that would actually show true leadership, think forward and restrain from the emotional response for revenge. And that's difficult, to restrain people from the worst of their emotions yet to show that you do feel with them.

Start from obvious things: yes, try to destroy Hamas, but don't create a famine. I've again and again said one simple example: fight like the Americans.
Ukraine Crisis
If you're point is Russia, being an empire, will seek dominate where it can (where it does being its "sphere of influence") its expand when it can: sure, obviously, but that's exactly my point that given Russia's propensity to expand — boethius
? ? ?

So if Russia you accept that Russia has this propensity to expand, how then view NATO enlargement is this US plot against Russia. More of a ploy of the neighboring countries to get under NATO security umbrella before they have a conflict with Russia.

Actual historians very much disagree with your view. — boethius
Well I've studied history in my own country and I think I know the history, so please say just to whom you refer this idea.

Had Ukraine accepted the peace deal on offer at the start of the war, — boethius
Stop right here.

There was an attempt to make peace talks. I don't recall a written peace offer on the table from Putin. Perhaps unconditional surrender is for you a "peace offer".

Besides, this is irrelevant as Russia has formally annexed more territories (partly one that it doesn't even fully control) and hence this is quite meaningless.

I can also continue saying "If Putin had only had large exercises on the border and never attacked Ukraine!". Yeah, but that didn't happen, he did invade.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪Moses
There's a plethora of violence, vandalism and a lot of emotions. Yet it's still politics.

The problem is really that people think their emotional response, usually revenge, would work. It doesn't. Basically with retaliation they simply reaffirm to the other side how evil they are and how right the other side is in not seeking a peaceful settlement.

Israel not allowing food to the civilians won't cower the Palestinians to give up an seek a settlement, but will harden their resolve. If not now, then the future generations will remember. The current leadership of Hamas were kids during the first Intifada. And terrorist attacks from the Palestinian side won't cower the Israelis, but reinforce their attitudes that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians. The policy that the Likud party has cherished from it's birth.

The only thing that matters in their minds is the absolute righteousness of the cause. — Moses
I think on both sides there's ample amounts of this around. Especially when religion is involved, it's always extremely ugly. People are doing God's work, on both sides.

They are zealots who never cared about much larger amounts of muslim suffering elsewhere. — Moses
American protesters usually protest about what their own country does. Some can protest at a third country (like China) if their country continues to have ties with such a country. But if you have a somewhere a civil war where one or the both sides have come to the conclusion that genocide is the only way out, then you have huge amounts of suffering. And not much emotional outbursts of anger. But it's not done in their name, when neither side is supported by their government (by weapons etc.). Actually in these cases, the US is against these states of actions. Like in Syria or in Sudan with Darfur.
It’s Bizarre That These People Are Still Alive
If you were in a coma starting in 1967, and woke up today 56 years later, much of the following list would make you feel right at home. — Mikie
And just how many persons from 1967 would know many from that list? Somebody not from Georgia surely will have difficulties to know the Georgia State Senate member Jimmy Carter, who had then only lost a Georgia gubernatorial election. You also have to be quite a Space fan to know Buz Aldrin in 1967, even if he then had I guess two space missions on his record (and the longest space walk). Then it was the Mercury Astronauts that were famous. Not the Gemini and the Apollo missions were just going on...

Makes me think how many will be around when it is 2080. Yep, there surely will be those that are now for example 10-29 years and we have no idea of them how powerful and well known they will be in the 2080's. However, there are those who we might know.

Justin Bieber, 86 years.
Jennifer Lawrence, 90 years.
Taylor Swift, 91 years.
Cristiano Ronaldo, 95 years.
Madonna, 122 years.

Now, when they estimate that people born now will likely to reach an average age of 100, I'm sure the list will be long.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Yes, I would argue that. However, differently from the British empire, Israel is fighting for its own nation state in Palestine, not to preserve an empire. — neomac
And Palestinians are continuing to fight for independence. But yes, this ought to be obvious that Israel isn't a colonial venture where "the Europeans" can just go home. Algeria had roughly 1,6 million ethnic French many of whom had been born in Algeria, the Pied-Noirs. Yet it wasn't only them fighting the Algerian war. The example of Algeria might have been an example that Palestinians hoped to repeat, but they are not fighting the US.

But naturally this goes both ways: Palestinians haven't either a place to go back. But if some Palestinians have illusions or fantasies that the Israelis would migrate back to Europe (or likely to the US), there are many people who have similar illusions about the Palestinians. You have even in this thread many examples of people believing the Palestinians being something "artificial" construct, and that Palestinians simply should move to somewhere else in the Arab world.

You are making it all about Netanyahu. To me it isn’t. Even though Netanyahu is politically hawkish, and willing to exploit the current conflict for political convenience, STILL he has the support of the Israelis. — neomac
The obvious thing here is that there's not just one way to fight a war. There are many ways. Starting from the way you approach the civilian population. I've made the point right from the start in October last year that Israel should approach the fighting just like the US approached it's fight against Al Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq: to take into consideration the civilian population. But it didn't. It went with no political goals, hopes of "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians somewhere else and the creating a famine. This has been a strategic mistake in the long run, but this government isn't thinking in the long run. It's thinking about the next day and it's popularity among the voters.

So my conclusion is that the US may STILL be compelled to support Israel against Hamas because Israel is a strategic ally either for power balance in the Middle East and/or for domestic power balance. — neomac
As long as the Arab side seems to be so vulnerable to simply collapse, this is true. Prior it was the influence of Soviet Union that was the reason why the US fervently supported Israel. And when the Cold War ended, Israel thought for a while that they had to go with the peace process because the US was losing interest. Not so, as there are plenty of Christians in the US for whom Israel isn't just a country, but part of their religion and who hence are adamant supporters of Israel. As one PF member who has only prior discussed religious matters in the forum, declared that Israel was dong God's work. So it's not AIPAC and the American jews (who many oppose Netanyahu's administration), it the Bible belt Evangelicals.

Hence even if Egypt is an ally of the US, Saudi-Arabia is the ally of US (and Iraq was occupied and should have a Pro-US government), the US does feel cautious about how strong this relationship is. Iran and the fall of the Shah and the present relations with the country tells a lot. So could it happen in Saudi-Arabia? Or Egypt?

If the Arab states could integrate more and speak more like the EU, then that could change. But that would also change Israel's position too.

We have seen how Hamas and Houthis managed to upgrade their military threats against Israel and the West, and how they want to have a role in the international arena, so we can’t underestimate how their threat can evolve in future scenarios. — neomac
Iran has here learnt the hard way to use proxies. They learnt it from operation Praying Mantis. Hence the use of proxy forces. It should be noteworthy that to attack the supporter of a proxy is truly an escalation. Just think of it if Russia would act the same to countries that support Ukraine. Just to give weapons and training isn't enough to be a real belligerent in a war.

The miniwar that the US fought with Iran during Operation Praying Mantis:
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Got it. :ok: Brilliant, groundbreaking analysis once again. — Mikie
Hey, Israel's doing Gods work! You should be rooting for Israel, or otherwise you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail.

That's says it all of this member and his contribution to this discussion.

No wonder they changed this thread to the Lounge.
Ukraine Crisis
↪jorndoe
It's really about influencing the American politicians that think the war can be negotiated to an end by not giving support to Ukraine. So basically Putin is pinning his hopes on people like Matt Gaetz and the like.

And this of course resonates to an audience that simply sums up everything that the US supports as "forever wars" that are basically destined to fail and enthusiastically devours Russian propaganda.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Everyone, please restrict your criticism to the organizations involved and not the ethnic groups they happen to be members of. Negative generalizations from events in this conflict to chracteristics of Jews or Arabs etc will not be tolerated. — Baden
:up:
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Has that been condemned yet? — Moses
I think that everybody here has condemned it. I even made the point that even Hamas admitted to "excesses" happening during Al-Aqsa Flood (October 7th), which is quite hypocritical. Nobody has denied that Hamas has perpetuated warcrimes.

Yet it seems that any critique of the way Netanyahu administration in dealing with the situation is viewed by some as "anti-semitic" and "pro-Hamas". As if the only thing in a philosophy forum is to rally around the flag and show your support to your side, thus repeat the mantra's given by your government. Well, that's not in the spirit of a discussion, especially from those who like philosophy.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪ssu, don't forget the Sunni (85-90% worldwide) versus Shia (Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bahrain) conflict. Internal to Islam, they're not seeing eye-to-eye, to the point of violence now and then. — jorndoe
Indeed yes. This is basically the Saudi-Iranian conflict that was fought in Yemen, for example. But also in Syria.

The Arab nations are no longer completely clueless when it comes to military matters, and recent history is filled with examples of how to counter the traditional western way of war (even carried out by the Arabs themselves). — Tzeentch
The Arab nations haven't been ever completely clueless when it comes to military matters, actually. But that Israel's neighbors have been poor Third World countries is a fact. And Soviet equipment and tactics weren't up to par with the Israelis (shown by Israeli aircraft winning an air battle against Soviet pilots flying the Soviet equipment during the War of Attrition, see here). Saudi Arabia did actually send couple battalions to Syria and one brigade into Jordan (which wasn't fighting, but still) yet these forces came so late that they didn't see action.

The Lebanon war of 2006 is indeed an example where Hezbollah had obviously improved it's fighting abilities from prior. The ability of lower leaders (and those usually referred as non-commisioned officers)
to take the initiative had been improved. Yet the performance of the Saudi and allied forces in the Yemen war was still poor. Similar equipment used by US forces wasn't used like the US forces, and the Houthis (at first literally fighting in flip flops) showed just how a badly equipped but determined foe could defeat the Saudis. That the Saudi monarchy is more afraid of it's own armed forces themselves making a military coup is shown from the fact that the force is cut into two with the National Guard and the Army and that there isn't any conscription, which would be optional for a country that had less people than Egypt, Iraq or Iran.

Saudi Abrams destroyed by the Houthis in 2018:

Syria is devastated by it's own civil war and is incapable of doing anything about the Israeli strikes in the country. Egypt has it's own potential domestic problems and still wouldn't opt to fight Israel, even if the population is extremely angry about Israel's actions against the Palestinians. And Turkey, well, it doesn't have borders with Israel. Overall what is lacking is the coordination among Arab states and Turkey. And as @jorndoe mentioned, we shouldn't forget the sunni/shia split.

The only sides that actually have anticipated to face off with Israel is Iran and it's creation, Hezbollah. They have tried to encounter Israeli air superiority simply with long range missiles and rockets and have opted not to try to fight a conventional war against it.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
The West can "forget the issue", but the geopolitical shift with Arab nations aligning to BRICS and taking a bigger role cannot simply be ignored. Or rather one may ignore it at their own peril. — Tzeentch
I was referring to the West and especially to the US. To the Middle East, well, it's quite laughable to talk about this being only a temporary setback in the warming of Saudi-Israeli relations.

Yet I think those countries close to the US will simply to have ties both to the US and to the east.

Israel is a small island in a sea of historical and potential enemies, and it is cultivating the seeds of a gigantic disaster within and without its own borders.

I honestly think you don't fully understand what is at stake here.

The only reason Israel still exists is because of its "special relationship" with the United States and basically the promise that the United States will come to Israel's rescue if it were ever in real trouble. — Tzeentch
I think the IDF and it's performance in the earlier wars is the reason, not only the just the assistance from the US. Also Syria and Egypt got quite a lot more assistance from a Superpower earlier than they could actually afford. And Egypt has now also gotten assistance from the US. Not so much as Israel, but still.

And don't forget Israel's nuclear deterrence. And it's conventional deterrence and technological advantage. And also that the Arab states, Iran and Turkey aren't all in friendly relations together and aren't good at coordinating an unified response. Not so long ago Iran attacked the Saudi's through the Houthis. Not long ago Qatar was nearly attacked by it's neighbors. Turkey, Bahrain and Jordan have at least called home their embassador. I think Egypt has not. So the bunch has far more quarrels than the EU has with Hungary. Iran was called to participate in a meeting with the Arab states, but that didn't go much more forward.

At least the situation was discussed last November with the Arab states, Iran and Turkey:

The military balance has not changed and also the US still there to aid Israel. What is changing is the perception in the West dramatically, and the real threat is a pariah status as Apartheid South Africa had.

The next real step would be sanctions, that for the export oriented Israel is very toxic. But only in the long run. And a lot would still have to happen. Just like this discussion shows, there are those who do support Israel and the actions it has taken.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
US support for Israel is tanking US credibility pretty much across the globe. Arab nations are an especially important factor in this, because US influence in the region is rapidly waning and basically all Arab nations are aligning themselves with the BRICS, threatening to cut the US out.

I think soon the Israeli government and the lobby will realise that there are in fact things more important to the United States than US-Israel relations, and that overplaying their hand is going to fundamentally hamstring their position in the future. — Tzeentch
It's not so severe as you make it to sound, because once the operation ends and we have some kind of a cease-fire, then the people will forget the issue. Out of sight, out of mind.

This goes only so long as Palestinians are indeed dying and the death toll rises and is noted in the media.

The likely change is that simply to criticize Israeli policies won't be a political suicide in the US. But then again, criticizing US-NATO relationship hasn't been anywhere near a political suicide ever, hence this change isn't so huge as we think.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Too many posters on this thread are looking through glasses - lenses - encrusted with junk. — tim wood
And then a give a repeat of the propaganda given through pro-Israeli glasses:

The purposes of the Arabs/Palestinians/Hamas are simply based in their beliefs and ideologies. The Israelis/Jews, on the other hand, are and have been literally fighting for their lives. And while this has been the reality of generations/centuries/millennia, 7 Oct. 2023 simply made clear and explicit the bestiality of Arab intentions and practices. — tim wood

Wonderful. :cheer:

Also It's a perfect example of the "shock - anger - revenge" mentality that took over also in 9/11. The obvious symptom is that people need to rally around the flag, defend all the actions of the government that has been attacked by the terrorists. Anything else would feel to these people like aiding the terrorists. Even to ask what will happen in the long run, how viable is the policy of revenge is outrageous. Or unpatriotic, or in this case, anti-semitic.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
↪Tzeentch
It just shows how powerful the Israel lobby is in the US. No other ally has this kind of "special treatment", because the Israeli lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

Actually many Israelis have pointed out that Joe Biden could have done what Bibi did with Obama: simply bypass Bibi and talk to the Israeli people / the Knesset directly. The thing is that the hugely traumatized and angry people wouldn't want to hear about the peace process, but they could have heard of not making the same mistakes that America did, which Biden was talking about. The simply fact is that Israel needs a policy what to do after the last battalion of Hamas is destroyed as a battalion. Hallucinations of "voluntary transportation" of people away from Gaza to a third country is not reality.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Biden has been stooging for the Israeli government in the hopes of securing support from the Israel lobby, which could in turn make the difference in the upcoming election. — Tzeentch
How's that different from Trump?

In fact, if Trump's great achievement, putting his son-in-law Jared to lead the Middle East, just how then is this different? In an interview he later did, Jared showed that he admired Netanyahu, thought that he was for the peace process, didn't remember when Israel snatched the Golan Heights from Syria and gave as the reason for accepting that annexation and moving the Embassy to Jerusalem was to gain "goodwill" from Israel.

Why would there be change then when Trump comes around...again?

The only reason would be if Trump's base would be upset about Israel. It's not. It's the leftist students in the university campuses and the Arab Americans who are upset about the treatment of Palestinians. Not Trump's base. If that base suddenly would "get woke" about Palestine, then of course Trump would be the worst nightmare for Israel. I'm sure that

In other words, the Israel lobby's importance in the upcoming election is diminishing, and as such the US may take a harder stance on Israel, since Israel is estranging itself from the entire world with its genocidal behavior, and its taking the US with it, destroying what little credibility it had left. — Tzeentch
These issues take time to change. Years, actually.

And one ISIS strike, similar as in Russia, can change views dramatically.
Arab Spring
I suspect the biggest problem with American foreign policy is that there isn't one. — Vera Mont
Well put.

American foreign policy is basically just the President and the White House reacting to events as they happen. That's it. Nothing else. The State Department hardly can do anything by it's own, and it isn't meant to do so. The Congress is fixated in it's domestic political struggles and seems like this administration is overwhelmed by the issues and has already thrown in the towel. Or the towel simply dropped (in Afghanistan) and the fighter just noticed it and said "Oh well, the fight ended".

If asked what the foreign policy is, you will get this tree hugging list of everything positive about embracing American values... which bare no resemblance to actual events and actions that the US is doing. Not only are there no real objectives set fourth, there also isn't any understanding of the historical continuation of US foreign policy. Long term policies are basically guided by lobby groups, which guard their own fields.

They don't seem committed to any long-term vision or plan; each administration just prods and pokes, pushes and pulls, tries to put out the fires left by the previous administration - sometimes by pouring gasoline on it, sometimes by throwing dollar bills on it, always wheedling and rattling their big rusty sword at the same time. — Vera Mont
This is what you get when people think the US President is some kind of Superman. Yet when there aren't any long term plans that the State Department could simply follow, everything becomes questions that the President has to answer. And since he is one man who has only so many hours a day that he can decide on foreign policy matters, the end result is this.
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
With a second Trump presidency looking more likely, perhaps the United States may come to its senses. — Tzeentch
How?

And why do you think so?
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Some of my most basic assumptions are that the first purpose of a state is the monopoly of coercion over a territory, and that people under a state rule are expected to support it at least to the extent the state keeps them safe. — neomac
You do understand that in case of the Palestinians, it is an independence movement. You may argue that Hamas has an "anti-Zionist ideology", but naturally an independence movement would be against any state, be it Israel or the United Kingdom. Challenging the Israeli territorial sovereignty is built-in Hamas’ declared anti-Zionist ideology. During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt the Palestinians fought against the British, hence then you could argue that the ideology was "anti-British".

However, that conclusion doesn’t add up with what you want to claim later (which I don't discount). Indeed, if Hamas succeeds in getting Israel “stuck in a war it cannot win”, something like an unsustainable or endless war for Israel, with ever growing material and reputational costs for Israel, then this would be a strategic failure for the Zionist project. And that still is what makes Hamas an existential threat to Israel as a Zionist project. — neomac
The "stuck in a war it cannot win" is basically because the Netanyahu government hasn't any policy what to do after the military operation. Here what is forgotten is that war is the continuation of policy. Just saying "destroy Hamas" isn't enough when you have no idea, no political objective what to do afterwards. It is as simplistic and stupid as Bush going to Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and then declaring that he won't do anything else and isn't interested in nation building. Well, it didn't go so and it's naive to think that once the IDF declares that it has destroyed the last Hamas battalion, then it can go home and everything is back to normal.

This isn't an anti-Israeli view. I think who makes this quite clear and obvious is former prime minister Ehud Barak. He states that the military side of might go as now, yet what is lacking is the political side of what to do. Many have stated similar thoughts, but Barak I think gives the most straight forward analysis (even if his English isn't the best). If you have time, you should listen to the former prime minister says here:

I don’t know what the chances for Hamas to get and use bio/chemical weapons are, but I can still argue that there are persistent concerns about bio/chemical terrorism which I have no strong reason to dismiss since they come from both the West and the Middle East — neomac
At the present, it's obviously low. For them to get any weapons now is questionable. Hamas has been capable of acquiring it's arsenal only by a slow process of making itself the rockets and funneling through tunnels the weapons. And Hamas isn't ISIS, even if don't care to "sort them out". But you will surely find alarmist literature of terrorists getting their hands on "dirty bombs", bioweapons, WMD's etc. It's a small possibility, but not the likeliest outcome, just as Russia invading Finland. That is a possibility too, but not something immediate and likely.

And btw many of your links look at states like Syria (prior Iraq) and their WMD projects. Understandably the objectives of these countries has to do a lot with having some kind of parity and deterrence towards Israeli WMDs.

Your arguments don’t sound consistent to me: on one side you readily concede that “Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win”, on the other side you seem to refuse to accept the consequences of such logic. — neomac
I'm not seeing anything inconsistent here. Terrorist want that their target governments lash out in anger and thus show how evil they are. That's their thinking.

Or you don't understand how Al Qaeda or ISIS work? Or how fringe terrorist groups of twenty people think they can change things and move millions of people in their favor?

Al Qaeda and ISIS aren't states, even if the latter insists being the Islamic State. They want publicity for their cause and anticipate the crackdown on themselves and hope that the crackdown will create itself support for their cause. They want an Islamic Caliphate to rise allover, hence their objectives are quite messianic (and really out there). It's quite consistent, so I'm not understanding what is so confusing to you.

Hamas and the PLO have the objective of creating an independent Palestine. The PLO has used similar terror tactics, until it choose to attempt the peace process way. Hamas is still using terrorism.
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
I think the main difference between a second Trump administration and the first one will be a quest for vengeance.

As chaotic as it was, Trump's first presidency was mainly focused on "trying to be president" as defined by the establishment. From what I could tell, in Trump's mind he had "won" and earned the respect of his elite peers and could just "enjoy being president" while putting his own spin on a few things.

Did we lock her up? Did we drain the swamp?

We didn't even build the wall, as you note above. — boethius
Actually I agree with this. It's a very apt way to put how Trump will see his second time: quest for vengeance. He will likely be far more determined, and where that determination leads us, Heavens know.

Like 2016, there's still plenty of powerful people that will have more to gain from a Trump presidency, whether from difference in policy or direct favouritism.

Since the Superpack is a legal thing, the "smart money" can go to those to mostly attack Biden, and what Trump raises from his base can keep him afloat. I.e. that Trump has taken a half billion dollar hit does not mean that a half billion dollars needs to be raised before any money is spent on campaigning. — boethius
This is true also.

And there are powerful interest groups that can put down hundreds of millions in loans (or investments), if and when it decides US foreign policy. Heck, the 2017 Shayrat cruise missile strike that Trump ordered, cost more than hundred million dollars.
Ukraine Crisis
Development?

After over two years of fighting, the Kremlin has finally come to the conclusion that it's actually fighting a war in Ukraine.

The admission marks an escalation in official language used to describe the conflict, which the Kremlin initially referred to as a "special military operation".

"Yes, it started as a special military operation, but as soon as this bunch was formed there, when the collective West became a participant on Ukraine's side, for us it already became a war," Peskov said.

Naturally that this is the way the Cold War usually was fought in Vietnam, Afghanistan and other places hasn't yet naturally been officially recognized by the Kremlin.
Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
Just how long Joe has been around:

Here with the newly elected conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, before her being prime minister.

Here as a senator (already) with president Carter:
Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
First, Hamas has a destabilisation power over Israel for the victims Hamas’ attacks provoke and for their indirect effects (psychological trauma for the population, internal migration and lack of investments due to perceived insecurity, political extremism/division). — neomac
I find this argument weak.

What Hamas could do was to breach a wall that had lulled the Netanyahu goverment not to focus on Gaza and Hamas. And basically it seems that the Israelis were confident about the inability of the simpleton ragheads to do any kind of coordinated military strike against the wall. And then the wall was breached in a humiliation manner. Somehow it's quite similar to the 1973 Yom Kippur war, which came as a surprise to Israel and it's leaders. Well, Hamas had planned it for a long time and then saw now the time to do it. Basically a force less than one infantry brigade (without any assisting arms) managed to infiltrate few kilometers into Israel, kill about 200 Israeli soldiers and 800 civilians. Some of those were killed by friendly fire as the IDF helicopters and incoming forces had trouble finding the terrorists among the people. I think in 24 hours or so the attack was over and Israel had gained back the territory. And naturally Hamas had withdrawn as they knew they had no way against the IDF on open terrain, even for a moment. To do that they would had to have vast numbers of shoulder lauched SAMs and Javelin-type ATGMs. Or tanks, aircraft, etc. Which they don't have as they have only their home made variants of the RPG-7 and rockets.

The "destabilisation power" that Hamas had was only because of the Israeli unpreparedness. This simply isn't at all an existential danger. A simple infantry/security team with enough ammunition could fight off the Hamas terrorists, as it in few places happened. A few companies ready in ambush behind the wall would have stopped Hamas bikers in their tracks. Yet Hamas achieved strategic surprise. Existential danger happens when large parts of your armed forces are destroyed. When the nuclear tipped Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha would be taken out in a surprise attack, that would be a real destabilization to the region.

Second, given Hamas extremism and support from Muslim world, there is a risk they could manage to get and use biological/chemical weapons — neomac
Ah, sorry to say this, but I've heard this so many times this lurid narrative during the war on terror. But let's think about this.

Biological weapons, really? I wonder which people have more safety measure to deal with HAMASCOVID+, the Israelis and their efficient health sector or the Palestinians now starving to death?

Then chemical weapons? So Hamas have their made at home rockets, which have a tiny warhead. Now filling that up (which would likely kill more Hamas fighters when making them), but what would be the purspose? To freak out the first responders coming to a scene of a rocket attack? Besides, the rockets can go wildly offcourse and aren't precision weapons in any way. And chemical weapons aren't simply very efficient. That's why they haven't been used much after WW1. The real way would pour some nerve gas in the water system of a big city, if you really want many casualties.

Yet how does this help Hamas? That Bibi's administration has more credibility when saying that they are human animals that one cannot negotiate with? That the media would be even more fixated on the terrorist attacks and turn a blind eye to the response of more intensified ethnic cleansing? That the US and the West would be more firmly on the side of Isreal?

Deadly terrorist strikes are usually made to get a complacent actor to lash out in revenge and get itself stuck in a war it cannot win. That was the whole idea with Al Qaeda specifically saying that Americans and American civilians are a worthy viable target. It got the tiny cabal noticed. Unfortunately for them the US didn't bomb Mecca and Medina and didn't even break up ties with Saudi-Arabia (from where the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorist came from). But Hamas has already gotten Israel to lash out with the October 7th attack.

But if you want to believe that Hamas and the Palestinians supporting Hamas is this rabid death cult who hate democracy and want everybody to be dead, including all Palestinians, then there's not much to argue with you. Because obviously it just then repeating the mantra we heard so many time during the War on Terrorism.

Third, Hamas is not a relatively isolated threat (as the Basque or IRA terrorism were). Indeed, it can easily combine with anti-Zionist threats coming from incumbent hostile forces (states and jihadist groups) around Israel, which also may have territorial demands over Israel as history has shown. Besides if Iran’s race for nuclear weapons succeeds, the support to Iran from Russia and China continues, while the support to Israel from the US declines and the normalisation with the Saudis doesn’t succeed fast enough, Israel survival as a state can be very much in danger. The world is changing. — neomac
OK, first of all, nobody else has territorial demands on Israel than the Palestinians naturally, who want their own independent state and Syria, which lost the Golan Heights to Israel in 1967. Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Saudi-Arabia or Iran don't have territorial demands on Israel.

Secondly, do you understand that with nuclear weapons those hostile to Israel seek nuclear parity? If they have nuclear weapons, perhaps Israel won't so casually bomb them as it does Lebanon. Or do you go with argument that Iranians are these rabid mad mullahs who want to destroy Israel and don't care that millions of Iranians could die in the Israeli counter-attack? Is this the death cult argument again?

Why is it so hard to understand that nations seek nuclear weapons for deterrence reasons, especially when a country hostile to them wanting regime change have them? We already see in Ukraine what happens when one country that has ambitions over another one's territory has nuclear weapons and the other one hasn't.
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
What actual solutions do you have in mind? — NOS4A2
I think we've already had this discussion when it was current. Starting from the fact that if you make an impenetrable border, then you'll move people to come on dingies and whatever ships from the Gulf coast or the Pacific.

You have to have a far more multifaceted approach than a wall. Starting from things like coordination among officials, creating a policy that does has general support, not one which will create such opposition that you start talking about Sanctuary Cities. But for that you have to have actual leadership skills, not just be a good demagogue inventing fancy slogans like "builiding a wall and Mexico will pay for it".

Didn’t Finland start building a big fence just recently? — NOS4A2
To show argue my point, let's delve into this.

You have to start with the fundamentals. First, people don't immigrate to Finland from Russia or via Russia from Third World countries into Finland. It isn't either a viable natural way to come to the EU. There is no chronic shortage of work force in Finland as there is in for example in California, where even with one million unemployed, a worker shortage persists.

Second, the "migrant crisis" on the borders have been artificially created by Russia. Journalists have reported how officials have given assistance to the migrants and naturally the most obvious reason is that when the migrants have been interviewed, they have given a unison story of how the FSB has gone through construction sites in Moscow and told them that now there's an opportunity to go into the EU. Finland has seen this, the officials and politicians understand this, to talk about it isn't creating a political turmoil because the older pro-Kremlin politicians have been silenced or have changed their attitudes towards Russia.

The response wasn't only to "build a fence". The response of Finland was to shut down the border to everybody. Nobody comes over the border or goes to Russia, not Finns or Russians either. If you were a Russian living in Finland, you have to go to Russia through another country. Also you can't even apply for refugee status at the border. They simply won't let you in. The border was totally quiet, I've seen it with my own eyes. (Building a fence is a minor issue to simply closing the border, don't you think?)

Above all, the parties did this in agreement. The opposition wasn't against it. Hardly any opposition to the actions was noticeable in the media or in the political discourse. Also the EU understands the Finnish position. Finland hasn't been tagged out as a reckless country for closing their borders. The case of Russia using migrants and asylum seekers as a way of a hybrid attack was clear cut to everybody.

So actually, Finland is a perfect example of democracies having the ability to close their borders quickly and not create a huge political turmoil in the process. (The border is scheduled to open 14th of the next month and they'll look if Russia will continue it's hybrid attacks.)

And here's the real problem with Trump. Trump supporters all love that he irritates the other side with his rhetoric and actions. But in order to shut the border, you need a lot more leadership skills than a mere slogan and a stupid fixation on structures that even when working, is only a small detail in a far larger complex effort. Yes, you can argue that you have a border problem. But hardly anything is done to unite the people into looking at the problem. And then there comes the obvious question:

Is Trump the kind of guy that will talk to the opposition, get them to tow the rope together? Is he capable of persuading people beyond his base?

No.

The great demagogue has little if any leadership skills. And he won't compromise because it might look bad for his base. His four years prove that as his administration was far more chaotic than anything we had seen and his future administration will be so. Now he will have the Republican A-team right from the start, but Trump being Trump and as he has already been POTUS, I assume he will start to gather sycophants and yes-men around him. He will not, for example, go with the idea as previously to ask the military who are the best generals.
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
Biden ended the Trump’s national emergency and the border wall construction on his first day in office. Now he’s dealing with a crisis at the border. Now the crisis is the biggest problem facing America, according to public opinion, costing the tax-payer more than it would have cost to build the wall. — NOS4A2
Trump couldn't even get the wall built. That's how bad he is. And building just a wall which can be circumvented isn't an answer.

But who the fuck cares about actual solutions. "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!" is such a great slogan. Why have any discussion on immigration policy when you have such awesome policies like that?
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
↪NOS4A2
Too late? :chin:
For what too late? You have to speak Spanish now? (Oh, I forgot, you didn't live in the US or did you?)

And I think having a border fence isn't similar to build a big, beautiful, wall. Which Trump was incapable of doing in 4 years.

Besides, the last glimpse on how wonderful, secure and efficient these billion dollar high-tech walls are was seen last year on October 7th.

Home » ssu

More Comments

Start FollowingSend a Message