Marjorie Taylor Greene is right

[Martin Peter Clarke]

We tried it with Afghanistan and Iraq. Didn't it make things worse? Should we try a third time? Is "fool me twice" not enough?

Were Afghanistan and Iraq close to weapons grade enrichment with delivery systems in place for The Bomb?

You forget the major point. Nuclear bomb.
What's worse than that?
I thought The Bomb was one of your big fears.
Eliminate the nuclear bomb from Iran.
Period.

The people of Persia want that oppressive government, gone.
Out with the old, in with the new.
Persia used to be a modern country.

Clear and well defined.
They can sort it out themselves, without The Bomb.

Apparently, Iran hasn't been pursuing nukes, same as Iraq when we invaded. We can't go around bombing and invading other countries because they're catching up with us militarily, unless you want to piss off every people in the third world. How long do you think we can go around unilaterally playing global cop? Is that even ethical?

Iran looks like it's been pursuing nukes. Iraq did to a lesser extent. Since Israel took out the Osirak reactor the idiot French were building 44 years ago. Every people in the third world don't count. They are incapable of being pissed off coherently. They couldn't find America on a map with both hands if they were given one. The powerful, the haves (that's you and me, and the ruling class in the third world) have to police the far more numerous powerless, or they will eat us. What the fuck do ethics have to do with it? If we, the powerful, can't do it anymore, then that is the worst possible news. Because it won't be because social justice has been achieved. Please resolve any real world problem ethically. Show us.

[Gary Childress]

Were Afghanistan and Iraq close to weapons grade enrichment with delivery systems in place for The Bomb?

You forget the major point. Nuclear bomb.
What's worse than that?
I thought The Bomb was one of your big fears.
Eliminate the nuclear bomb from Iran.
Period.

The people of Persia want that oppressive government, gone.
Out with the old, in with the new.
Persia used to be a modern country.

Clear and well defined.
They can sort it out themselves, without The Bomb.

Apparently, Iran hasn't been pursuing nukes, same as Iraq when we invaded. We can't go around bombing and invading other countries because they're catching up with us militarily, unless you want to piss off every people in the third world. How long do you think we can go around unilaterally playing global cop? Is that even ethical?

Iran looks like it's been pursuing nukes. Iraq did to a lesser extent. Since Israel took out the Osirak reactor the idiot French were building 44 years ago. Every people in the third world don't count. They are incapable of being pissed off coherently. They couldn't find America on a map with both hands if they were given one. The powerful, the haves (that's you and me, and the ruling class in the third world) have to police the far more numerous powerless, or they will eat us. What the fuck do ethics have to do with it? If we, the powerful, can't do it anymore, then that is the worst possible news. Because it won't be because social justice has been achieved. Please resolve any real world problem ethically. Show us.

Maybe I'm an idealist and a "dangerous" instigator of "deluded" thought in others, then. Is that the case? Maybe my views are an unrealistic utopia where independent, sovereign nations solve their issues diplomatically among each other instead of intervening and going to war over their differences, arm-twisting, and exerting dominance. Is that the case? Am I deluded? Is that what I am?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Apparently, Iran hasn't been pursuing nukes, same as Iraq when we invaded. We can't go around bombing and invading other countries because they're catching up with us militarily, unless you want to piss off every people in the third world. How long do you think we can go around unilaterally playing global cop? Is that even ethical?

Iran looks like it's been pursuing nukes. Iraq did to a lesser extent. Since Israel took out the Osirak reactor the idiot French were building 44 years ago. Every people in the third world don't count. They are incapable of being pissed off coherently. They couldn't find America on a map with both hands if they were given one. The powerful, the haves (that's you and me, and the ruling class in the third world) have to police the far more numerous powerless, or they will eat us. What the fuck do ethics have to do with it? If we, the powerful, can't do it anymore, then that is the worst possible news. Because it won't be because social justice has been achieved. Please resolve any real world problem ethically. Show us.

Maybe I'm an idealist and a dangerous instigator of deluded thought in others, then. Is that the case? Maybe my views are an unrealistic utopia where independent, sovereign nations solve their issues diplomatically among each other instead of intervening and going to war over their differences, arm-twisting, and exerting dominance. Is that the case? Am I deluded? Is that what I am?

I'm a radical idealist too. Imagine is my anthem. A complete, perfect, global reset to fully sustained public luxury and private sufficiency, full social justice, achieved peacefully, the touchstone, the lodestone, the pivot being the liberation of the land. From ownership. Apart from an acre's WORTH each. It . will . never . happen. Not even close. I'm sure others are safe from either of us, as we and other dreamers can instigate nothing at all. We can shower the ones we love with love. That's it. Utopia can have no independent sovereign nations. Just contiguous friends and neighbours. We need to get to post-scarcity economics. There is no roadmap for that. And global warming will defer that for another 300 years at least. It might trigger a hive response. But it probably won't. That's the last thing the ruling class would want. They'd rather be eaten.

[Gary Childress]

Iran looks like it's been pursuing nukes. Iraq did to a lesser extent. Since Israel took out the Osirak reactor the idiot French were building 44 years ago. Every people in the third world don't count. They are incapable of being pissed off coherently. They couldn't find America on a map with both hands if they were given one. The powerful, the haves (that's you and me, and the ruling class in the third world) have to police the far more numerous powerless, or they will eat us. What the fuck do ethics have to do with it? If we, the powerful, can't do it anymore, then that is the worst possible news. Because it won't be because social justice has been achieved. Please resolve any real world problem ethically. Show us.

Maybe I'm an idealist and a dangerous instigator of deluded thought in others, then. Is that the case? Maybe my views are an unrealistic utopia where independent, sovereign nations solve their issues diplomatically among each other instead of intervening and going to war over their differences, arm-twisting, and exerting dominance. Is that the case? Am I deluded? Is that what I am?

I'm a radical idealist too. Imagine is my anthem. A complete, perfect, global reset to fully sustained public luxury and private sufficiency, full social justice, achieved peacefully, the touchstone, the lodestone, the pivot being the liberation of the land. From ownership. Apart from an acre's WORTH each. It . will . never . happen. Not even close. I'm sure others are safe from either of us, as we and other dreamers can instigate nothing at all. We can shower the ones we love with love. That's it. Utopia can have no independent sovereign nations. Just contiguous friends and neighbours. We need to get to post-scarcity economics. There is no roadmap for that. And global warming will defer that for another 300 years at least. It might trigger a hive response. But it probably won't. That's the last thing the ruling class would want. They'd rather be eaten.

Imagine is not my anthem, Noam Chomsky is my inspiration, though.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Maybe I'm an idealist and a dangerous instigator of deluded thought in others, then. Is that the case? Maybe my views are an unrealistic utopia where independent, sovereign nations solve their issues diplomatically among each other instead of intervening and going to war over their differences, arm-twisting, and exerting dominance. Is that the case? Am I deluded? Is that what I am?

I'm a radical idealist too. Imagine is my anthem. A complete, perfect, global reset to fully sustained public luxury and private sufficiency, full social justice, achieved peacefully, the touchstone, the lodestone, the pivot being the liberation of the land. From ownership. Apart from an acre's WORTH each. It . will . never . happen. Not even close. I'm sure others are safe from either of us, as we and other dreamers can instigate nothing at all. We can shower the ones we love with love. That's it. Utopia can have no independent sovereign nations. Just contiguous friends and neighbours. We need to get to post-scarcity economics. There is no roadmap for that. And global warming will defer that for another 300 years at least. It might trigger a hive response. But it probably won't. That's the last thing the ruling class would want. They'd rather be eaten.

Imagine is not my anthem, Noam Chomsky is my inspiration, though.

Love the guy. And you, me and him are all three standard deviation outliers of our Anglophone culture. The rest are easily led. As are all civilized peoples. And so are we of course.

[FlashDangerpants]

Can the bunker busters work?

Answer: Nope.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/24/poli ... lear-sites

But hey, now the Iranians are super pissed off and know that working with us on this stuff results in us still fucking them up. But they have noticed we don't do shit to the North Koreans ever since they tested a nuke, so that's what they are gonna do now. Unless you want a land war to actually stop them.

Next up, the Saudis can't let the Iranians have a bomb without getting one too, and the Qataris won't like that one little bit. Well done guys, Mission Accomplished.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Imagine is not my anthem, Noam Chomsky is my inspiration, though.

Chomsky is a pure Communist. A Communist absolutist. (Anarcho/Syndicalism is pure-form Communism). He seems also fairly characterized as a Machiavellian. I.e. that he analyzes all power-systems (all present political systems) in Machiavellian terms. If one is attracted to Ultra-Idealism Chomsky is your man.

Have you read any of his works cover-to-cover? When I counted I think I had read a total of eight. The one that most influenced me was Year 501: The Conquest Continues. (Because its focus is Latin America, where I live).

Nothing more true than Chomskian analysis …

And nothing more unrealistic and intellectually addictive … (for a certain type of man).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Maybe I'm an idealist and a dangerous instigator of deluded thought in others, then. Is that the case? Maybe my views are an unrealistic utopia where independent, sovereign nations solve their issues diplomatically among each other instead of intervening and going to war over their differences, arm-twisting, and exerting dominance. Is that the case? Am I deluded? Is that what I am?

How odd, Gary. You correctly define yourself as if you are asking a question. As if you ask for a “reality check”. Yet you have defined exactly accurately what you are, where you stand. And it looks as though it will only produce unhappiness, discontent, unease.

The next set of questions would involve alternative ways of seeing (and living) that are realistic, not idealistic.

“Trust your mother but cut the cards”.

[Dubious]

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

...and that in summary is the REALPOLITIK of it. Don't ever depend solely on treaties as any kind of defense guarantee. Treaties are nothing more than instruments of diplomacy, easily or forcibly annulled by any means available or considered expedient.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

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

...and that in summary is the REALPOLITIK of it. Don't ever depend solely on treaties as any kind of defense guarantee. Treaties are nothing more than instruments of diplomacy, easily or forcibly annulled by any means available or considered expedient.

The Monroe Doctrine comes to mind. We have Poseidon. Pretty big stick. We bust ourselves getting the H-bomb. Not to impress the Soviets. But USe guys.

[Gary Childress]

Imagine is not my anthem, Noam Chomsky is my inspiration, though.

Chomsky is a pure Communist. A Communist absolutist. (Anarcho/Syndicalism is pure-form Communism). He seems also fairly characterized as a Machiavellian. I.e. that he analyzes all power-systems (all present political systems) in Machiavellian terms. If one is attracted to Ultra-Idealism Chomsky is your man.

Chomsky would probably disagree as he has specifically stated several times a preference for anarcho-syndicalism. it would be no truer to call him a "communist" than to call Marx an "anarcho-syndicalist".

Also I wouldn't characterize him as "Machiavellian". Chomsky plays an entirely different ballgame. Machiavelli wanted to counsel princes on how to be the best prince. Chomsky challenges princely authority out right.

[Gary Childress]

Maybe I'm an idealist and a dangerous instigator of deluded thought in others, then. Is that the case? Maybe my views are an unrealistic utopia where independent, sovereign nations solve their issues diplomatically among each other instead of intervening and going to war over their differences, arm-twisting, and exerting dominance. Is that the case? Am I deluded? Is that what I am?

How odd, Gary. You correctly define yourself as if you are asking a question. As if you ask for a “reality check”. Yet you have defined exactly accurately what you are, where you stand. And it looks as though it will only produce unhappiness, discontent, unease.

The next set of questions would involve alternative ways of seeing (and living) that are realistic, not idealistic.

“Trust your mother but cut the cards”.

Thank you. Your opinion has been duly noted.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Chomsky would probably disagree as he has specifically stated several times a preference for anarcho-syndicalism. it would be no truer to call him a "communist" than to call Marx an "anarcho-syndicalist".

That term has often (historically) been synonymous with a general “communistic” position. I am aware of his admiration for certain Spanish anarchists however.

Also I wouldn't characterize him as "Machiavellian". Chomsky plays an entirely different ballgame. Machiavelli wanted to counsel princes on how to be the best prince. Chomsky challenges princely authority out right.

Chomsky’s perspective is precisely one of a Machiavellian but in the sense not that he is advising or instructing a Prince, but rather laying out the mechanics of the Prince’s machinations to young idealists. He reverses Machiavellianism. But his basic view is similarly cynical.

Chomsky applies a general analysis of power-systems to any and all power structures: a State, a business, a corporation, and potentially any hierarchy. Here, his “communistic” orientation is most notable.

[Gary Childress]

Chomsky would probably disagree as he has specifically stated several times a preference for anarcho-syndicalism. it would be no truer to call him a "communist" than to call Marx an "anarcho-syndicalist".

That term has often (historically) been synonymous with a general “communistic” position. I am aware of his admiration for certain Spanish anarchists however.

Also I wouldn't characterize him as "Machiavellian". Chomsky plays an entirely different ballgame. Machiavelli wanted to counsel princes on how to be the best prince. Chomsky challenges princely authority out right.

Chomsky’s perspective is precisely one of a Machiavellian but in the sense not that he is advising or instructing a Prince, but rather laying out the mechanics of the Prince’s machinations to young idealists. He reverses Machiavellianism. But his basic view is similarly cynical.

Chomsky applies a general analysis of power-systems to any and all power structures: a State, a business, a corporation, and potentially any hierarchy. Here, his “communistic” orientation is most notable.

Chomsky is no more Machiavellian than anyone else is, if not the opposite. Not sure how you're coming up with that, I think you have a tendency to overgeneralize.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Chomsky is no more Machiavellian than anyone else is, if not the opposite. Not sure how you're coming up with that, I think you have a tendency to overgeneralize.

I came up with it because I felt that I needed a “key” to decipher his general perspective. And, as I say, he works from a perspective that analyzes all power-systems through a very basic lens.

If you (if one) thinks about it, the Chomskian perspective dismantles any and all power assertions. Any manifestation of power, force, conquest, expansion and domination. And he helps young idealists to develop a self-critical perspective which, in my view, is addictive.

If I were to be frank I would point out that in this sense Chomsky — a Chomskian perspective — has you “captured”. He has undermined your very right to exist since, in truth, you are the heir to the American conquest, the establishment of the “evil” North American colossus built upon power-assertion, power-domination, displacement of the indigenous peoples, etc.

But do keep in mind that in referring to “you” I am making a general reference to a perspective that has taken hold of many people.

What Chomsky work have you read cover-to-cover?