Marjorie Taylor Greene is right

[Martin Peter Clarke]

And if we rely on negotiations instead of force to accomplish what we want, would that not be more ethical, or else more pragmatically preferable to solving the issue through force?

The ethics of Hamas? Israel? Russia? Trump? The ruling class enemy with the monopoly of violence everywhere?

I have to admit, I'm not sure what the point of your reply is. Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with diplomacy or that force is the only (or best) way to accomplish national interests?

Diplomacy is force by other means. It is always preferable if it's in your national self interest. Long term is best. Enlightened is best. International is best. For the greater good of humanity is best. None of that can possibly work with Iran now. If it ever could. They are bad actors, accumulating enriched uranium without any justification, time's run out. Ethics? Can the bunker busters work? That's it.

[Gary Childress]

The ethics of Hamas? Israel? Russia? Trump? The ruling class enemy with the monopoly of violence everywhere?

I have to admit, I'm not sure what the point of your reply is. Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with diplomacy or that force is the only (or best) way to accomplish national interests?

Diplomacy is force by other means. It is always preferable if it's in your national self interest. Long term is best. Enlightened is best. International is best. For the greater good of humanity is best. None of that can possibly work with Iran now. If it ever could. They are bad actors, accumulating enriched uranium without any justification, time's run out. Ethics? Can the bunker busters work? That's it.

Diplomacy is not necessarily "force". Intimidation and threats don't need to be met with intimidation and threats. If we lower ourselves to a base level, then we are no better than anyone else is and no one is raising the bar.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I have to admit, I'm not sure what the point of your reply is. Are you suggesting that there's something wrong with diplomacy or that force is the only (or best) way to accomplish national interests?

Diplomacy is force by other means. It is always preferable if it's in your national self interest. Long term is best. Enlightened is best. International is best. For the greater good of humanity is best. None of that can possibly work with Iran now. If it ever could. They are bad actors, accumulating enriched uranium without any justification, time's run out. Ethics? Can the bunker busters work? That's it.

Diplomacy is not necessarily "force". Intimidation and threats don't need to be met with intimidation and threats. If we lower ourselves to a base level, then we are no better than anyone else is and no one is raising the bar.

Uh huh. Glad you're not the foreign secretary. If we raise the bar Russia will? Yeahhhhhhhhhhh. How would you do that. Nuclear disarmament? Us first? How would you have stopped the Rwandan Genocide? Or rather, not started it. Not precipitated it. Like Clinton did. The world is full of fucking monsters who need to know, like Russia does, that decadent, soft liberal democracies will not blink. Why do you think that Russia hasn't used tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine? Jens Stoltenberg said that we would annihilate all Russian forces in Ukraine in three days. They believe him. That's diplomacy for an evil moron.

Kennedy completely fucked up the Cuban Missile Crisis, made it worse, could barely restrain his insane military. His navy were dropping hand grenades on a Russian hunter killer sub with nuclear torpedoes. And then he realised, and realised what he had to do. He had to treat a much older hero of Stalingrad, the greatest battle in human history, with respect. So he only responded positively regardless of Khrushchev's threats. Even so we were 8 hours from WW3. And it worked. That was the most successful act of diplomacy in human history. We're still here. No appeasement was implied. Just peace. And they backed down with faces saved.

Europe must massively re-arm. Then we can be diplomatic.

[Gary Childress]

Diplomacy is force by other means. It is always preferable if it's in your national self interest. Long term is best. Enlightened is best. International is best. For the greater good of humanity is best. None of that can possibly work with Iran now. If it ever could. They are bad actors, accumulating enriched uranium without any justification, time's run out. Ethics? Can the bunker busters work? That's it.

Diplomacy is not necessarily "force". Intimidation and threats don't need to be met with intimidation and threats. If we lower ourselves to a base level, then we are no better than anyone else is and no one is raising the bar.

Uh huh. Glad you're not the foreign secretary. If we raise the bar Russia will? Yeahhhhhhhhhhh. How would you do that. Nuclear disarmament? Us first? How would you have stopped the Rwandan Genocide? Or rather, not started it. Not precipitated it. Like Clinton did.

We just become what they mistakenly thought we were. An immoral person probably thinks that others behave as selfishly and immorally as they do. So if a moral person decides to meet immorality with immorality, it only affirms to the immoral that the moral were actually immoral all along. Should we not have faith that doing the right thing will prevail over stooping to the level of thugs?

The other issue is who committed the first immoral act? Was it X or was it Y. If it was X, then was it unjustified or did Y do something to justify X's response? We fall into a perpetual dilemma of eternal retaliation.

I'll give you an example. The US invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Iraqis, they were done by Saudis who sympathized with Al Qaida. Thousands of "collateral" casualties came out of the attack on Iraq. Many of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. So many in the ME think of us as the instigators of trouble. Many of those "collateral" casualties had families that mourned their loss and probably don't have much respect for the US anymore. Would you have respect for a country that killed your children or whatever as "collateral" casualties? Would you not spit in their face if the tables were turned and they did the same to us? There but for the grace of God we go. If we do unto others as we would not have them do to us, then how can we expect them to be any better?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Diplomacy is not necessarily "force". Intimidation and threats don't need to be met with intimidation and threats. If we lower ourselves to a base level, then we are no better than anyone else is and no one is raising the bar.

Uh huh. Glad you're not the foreign secretary. If we raise the bar Russia will? Yeahhhhhhhhhhh. How would you do that. Nuclear disarmament? Us first? How would you have stopped the Rwandan Genocide? Or rather, not started it. Not precipitated it. Like Clinton did.

We just become what they mistakenly thought we were. An immoral person probably thinks that others behave as selfishly and immorally as they do. So if a moral person decides to meet immorality with immorality, it only affirms to the immoral that the moral were actually immoral all along. Should we not have faith that doing the right thing will prevail over stooping to the level of thugs?

The other issue is who committed the first immoral act? Was it X or was it Y. If it was X, then was it unjustified or did Y do something to justify X's response? We fall into a perpetual dilemma of eternal retaliation.

I'll give you an example. The US invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Iraqis, they were done by Saudis who sympathized with Al Qaida. Thousands of "collateral" casualties came out of the attack on Iraq. Many of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. So many in the ME think of us as the instigators of trouble. Many of those "collateral" casualties had families that mourned their loss and probably don't have much respect for the US anymore. Would you have respect for a country that killed your children or whatever as "collateral" casualties? Would you not spit in their face if the tables were turned and they did the same to us? There but for the grace of God we go. If we do unto others as we would not have them do to us, then how can we expect them to be any better?

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

[Gary Childress]

Uh huh. Glad you're not the foreign secretary. If we raise the bar Russia will? Yeahhhhhhhhhhh. How would you do that. Nuclear disarmament? Us first? How would you have stopped the Rwandan Genocide? Or rather, not started it. Not precipitated it. Like Clinton did.

We just become what they mistakenly thought we were. An immoral person probably thinks that others behave as selfishly and immorally as they do. So if a moral person decides to meet immorality with immorality, it only affirms to the immoral that the moral were actually immoral all along. Should we not have faith that doing the right thing will prevail over stooping to the level of thugs?

The other issue is who committed the first immoral act? Was it X or was it Y. If it was X, then was it unjustified or did Y do something to justify X's response? We fall into a perpetual dilemma of eternal retaliation.

I'll give you an example. The US invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Iraqis, they were done by Saudis who sympathized with Al Qaida. Thousands of "collateral" casualties came out of the attack on Iraq. Many of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. So many in the ME think of us as the instigators of trouble. Many of those "collateral" casualties had families that mourned their loss and probably don't have much respect for the US anymore. Would you have respect for a country that killed your children or whatever as "collateral" casualties? Would you not spit in their face if the tables were turned and they did the same to us? There but for the grace of God we go. If we do unto others as we would not have them do to us, then how can we expect them to be any better?

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We just become what they mistakenly thought we were. An immoral person probably thinks that others behave as selfishly and immorally as they do. So if a moral person decides to meet immorality with immorality, it only affirms to the immoral that the moral were actually immoral all along. Should we not have faith that doing the right thing will prevail over stooping to the level of thugs?

The other issue is who committed the first immoral act? Was it X or was it Y. If it was X, then was it unjustified or did Y do something to justify X's response? We fall into a perpetual dilemma of eternal retaliation.

I'll give you an example. The US invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Iraqis, they were done by Saudis who sympathized with Al Qaida. Thousands of "collateral" casualties came out of the attack on Iraq. Many of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. So many in the ME think of us as the instigators of trouble. Many of those "collateral" casualties had families that mourned their loss and probably don't have much respect for the US anymore. Would you have respect for a country that killed your children or whatever as "collateral" casualties? Would you not spit in their face if the tables were turned and they did the same to us? There but for the grace of God we go. If we do unto others as we would not have them do to us, then how can we expect them to be any better?

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

No. Just no. OK, you're now Commander-in-Chief. Fix everything. All the historical wrongs. And stay in power. America hasn't suffered for sticking its boots following its nose on sacred ground for 25 years. Iran is made in England and then America, as usual, as every truly fucked up part of the world is (yep, including Russia), although we can't lay Kashmir at your door. Yet. Some of the more positive outcomes too. Yugoslavia. It's all about having power. That can never be ethical. Ever.

[Gary Childress]

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

No. Just no. OK, you're now Commander-in-Chief. Fix everything. All the historical wrongs. And stay in power. America hasn't suffered for sticking its boots following its nose on sacred ground for 25 years. Iran is made in England and then America, as usual, as every truly fucked up part of the world is (yep, including Russia), although we can't lay Kashmir at your door. Yet. Some of the more positive outcomes too. Yugoslavia. It's all about having power. That can never be ethical. Ever.

OK.

[Impenitent]

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

No. Just no. OK, you're now Commander-in-Chief. Fix everything. All the historical wrongs. And stay in power. America hasn't suffered for sticking its boots following its nose on sacred ground for 25 years. Iran is made in England and then America, as usual, as every truly fucked up part of the world is (yep, including Russia), although we can't lay Kashmir at your door. Yet. Some of the more positive outcomes too. Yugoslavia. It's all about having power. That can never be ethical. Ever.

ethical egoism is perfectly valid

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

No. Just no. OK, you're now Commander-in-Chief. Fix everything. All the historical wrongs. And stay in power. America hasn't suffered for sticking its boots following its nose on sacred ground for 25 years. Iran is made in England and then America, as usual, as every truly fucked up part of the world is (yep, including Russia), although we can't lay Kashmir at your door. Yet. Some of the more positive outcomes too. Yugoslavia. It's all about having power. That can never be ethical. Ever.

ethical egoism is perfectly valid

-Imp

Sounds on an individual level. Aye. Agreed. Small beer.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We just become what they mistakenly thought we were. An immoral person probably thinks that others behave as selfishly and immorally as they do. So if a moral person decides to meet immorality with immorality, it only affirms to the immoral that the moral were actually immoral all along. Should we not have faith that doing the right thing will prevail over stooping to the level of thugs?

The other issue is who committed the first immoral act? Was it X or was it Y. If it was X, then was it unjustified or did Y do something to justify X's response? We fall into a perpetual dilemma of eternal retaliation.

I'll give you an example. The US invaded Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the Iraqis, they were done by Saudis who sympathized with Al Qaida. Thousands of "collateral" casualties came out of the attack on Iraq. Many of them had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. So many in the ME think of us as the instigators of trouble. Many of those "collateral" casualties had families that mourned their loss and probably don't have much respect for the US anymore. Would you have respect for a country that killed your children or whatever as "collateral" casualties? Would you not spit in their face if the tables were turned and they did the same to us? There but for the grace of God we go. If we do unto others as we would not have them do to us, then how can we expect them to be any better?

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

It doesn't make sense. Period. It's got nothing to do with how I think and feel about it. Or you. My perception of the world is that it is full of narrow Devil's Alternatives, that we have painted ourselves in to corners with our constitutions, our colonial and imperialist pasts, our institutions, our systems, our economics, our politics, our religions, our deterministic natures, our hard wired morality, our civilization. I can think all I like. I'm as idealistic as John Lennon. And he was a son of a bitch. So what? As we speak we have forced Iran, to become a helplessly evil pariah state, to go nuclear. Nothing can prevent that now but American force, maybe. Obama and Europe were trying the Kennedy approach and it was working, maybe. In ancient times. Over two political cycles ago. Trump is taking into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at you, and us, as nations. Why wouldn't he be? And as for your last sentence, what? So what? I mean what?! Who's 'us'?

[Gary Childress]

It's got fuck all to do with ethics. The invasion of Iraq was an utter travesty. But ordinary Iraqis respect or not carries no weight whatsoever. The most stupid thing that was done in Iraq after invading it, on a false prospectus, a lie, a pathetic failure of intelligence, i.e. that was the the most stupid, lying (oooh, ethics!) thing, after that, was disbanding its army. Britain ran Vietnam with Japanese troops from 1945. The same British army was ruined, to this day, in Basra and Helmand. We created ISIS in reaction. We got bogged down in the longest war in American history in Afghanistan. What the hell for? Mission accomplished in weeks, days. Trump knows better. Thank God he's a ruthless politician desperate to stay in power. Not a bloody global do gooder. They would be truly terrifying.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

It doesn't make sense. Period. It's got nothing to do with how I think and feel about it. Or you. My perception of the world is that it is full of narrow Devil's Alternatives, that we have painted ourselves in to corners with our constitutions, our colonial and imperialist pasts, our institutions, our systems, our economics, our politics, our religions, our deterministic natures, our hard wired morality, our civilization. I can think all I like. I'm as idealistic as John Lennon. And he was a son of a bitch. So what? As we speak we have forced Iran, to become a helplessly evil pariah state, to go nuclear. Nothing can prevent that now but American force, maybe. Obama and Europe were trying the Kennedy approach and it was working, maybe. In ancient times. Over two political cycles ago. Trump is taking into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at you, and us, as nations. Why wouldn't he be? And as for your last sentence, what? So what? I mean what?! Who's 'us'?

So there's no choice for anyone but to do evil if that is what has been determined for them. Lovely. I'm going to go vomit now.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That doesn't make sense to me. It's almost as if you are unable to think outside your own narrow perception of the world. Are you able to put yourself in the shoes of others or are you one of those, "this time it's different" people? Are you drawing a line saying that a different president means we as a nation of people are no longer responsible for the mistakes of past presidents? Trump needs to take into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at us as a nation. A new president doesn't erase the mistakes of past administrations. There is history with our country that denies us the ability to think of ourselves as uniquely "exceptional".

It doesn't make sense. Period. It's got nothing to do with how I think and feel about it. Or you. My perception of the world is that it is full of narrow Devil's Alternatives, that we have painted ourselves in to corners with our constitutions, our colonial and imperialist pasts, our institutions, our systems, our economics, our politics, our religions, our deterministic natures, our hard wired morality, our civilization. I can think all I like. I'm as idealistic as John Lennon. And he was a son of a bitch. So what? As we speak we have forced Iran, to become a helplessly evil pariah state, to go nuclear. Nothing can prevent that now but American force, maybe. Obama and Europe were trying the Kennedy approach and it was working, maybe. In ancient times. Over two political cycles ago. Trump is taking into consideration that some people out there have reason to be pissed at you, and us, as nations. Why wouldn't he be? And as for your last sentence, what? So what? I mean what?! Who's 'us'?

So there's no choice for anyone but to do evil if that is what has been determined for them. Lovely. I'm going to go vomit now.

That's right. No choice whatsoever. Obviously. And the determination is not in some absurd foreordination. It's always present. You did not know this how? I have no idea what choice means in this all embracing context of the way of the world. It's in your oughts. There are no such thing. Moral outrage is as deterministic as what shall I have for tea today. Your helplessly privileged horror at it all is sympathetic. Go fishing. I feel sorry for Iran. Full stop. All inclusively. For its benighted leadership. It . has . no . choice. I feel less sorry for Israel now, even though it has no choice either. It's just as much a victim of human genetics. There is no choice in our genes. No choice in human nature. To have the luxury of personal idealist morality can only be reconciled to the relentless failure of the world to live up to that absurd expectation, absurd forlorn hope at best, except locally for the rich (that's us!), by utter and complete stoicism. Not woe. I rarely let the horror of the news wash over me. There is no point. Apart from morbid curiosity, from shared 'Ooooh, ain't it awful'. How Fergal Keane survives mentally wading through human misery for us I don't understand. And I don't watch. Apart from revelling in the existential horror of an air disaster. Didn't you? I feel sorry for you mate, I do. Put your ear buds in, listen to some Emerson Lake and Palmer. Go for a walk. Admire the gutter plants. Be busy. Watch a police procedural. Read a good book. Donna Tart's Goldfinch is epic. Your choices have nothing to do with whether poor Iran, which is desperately signalling for European 'moral' support, for Rogerian recognition, for tea and sympathy, gets its insane, lying, virulent, evil nuclear program shut down by force. Get in touch with your superficiality man. Not your utterly useless morality beyond your own back yard. Tidy up the house.

[Walker]

On behalf of Gary, who by all indications may lack the grace to say it, thank you for the sage advice.

Is such writing beyond AI capacity now, or ever?
(From what I've read of the effects of AI, I think it might be within AI's capacity to write that.)

[Martin Peter Clarke]

On behalf of Gary, who by all indications may lack the grace to say it, thank you for the sage advice.

Is such writing beyond AI capacity now, or ever?
(From what I've read of the effects of AI, I think it might be within AI's capacity to write that.)

Thanks Walker. Poor Gary. I'm the worst kind of neo-con. I'm not a neo-con. I've always known this about us, about human nature. My childhood anxieties blossomed in the full blown brambles of existential angst watered by Hiroshima and Auschwitz before puberty. In my never-never land of social justice for all humanity, I walk stoically. And carry a big stick. I expect my government to do the same. I might be Grok, yeah.