US and Israel attack Iran

[phyllo]

Why don't you just come out and say it instead of dragging things out.

Life is short and getting shorter.

[Gary Childress]

An impeachment would send a message to future leaders of the US to use more tact in foreign policy because if they don't there will be consequences. A war crimes trial would make that message in bolder type.

No punishment at all might be a sign of tacit approval, so that seems like a non starter.

Sorry to keep focusing on your exasperated statements but these questions are interesting.

If the realistic aims of the US were better understood by “the masses” they might well get behind the program more. Even if “the world” — the Occidental world — better understood they (some at least) might be able to get behind it more.

What is there to "better" understand? Am I supposed to "understand" that "realism" dictates that our leaders must act like monsters? Does that make starting wars moral or excusable? What am I not "understanding"? Or what are the "masses" not "understanding"?

[puto]

People do not care how you feel about the subject. All you want is a win, then you can call, and tell your friends. This is a philosophy message board. Let me help you out, people want universality. Not how your senses are to be known. Logic is a method and a tool of philosophy. You name dropped a lot philosophers, have you ever bothered to read them with a philosophical comprehension and that was not a question. Next time you call yourself a philosopher, then be a philosopher. I can argue the subject either way, and not really care about if I wanted the "War" to happen or not. Yes, my feelings are the war was a diversion from presidential problems. The philosophy was it was not a mistake to deter nuclear warheads, for Big Satan and Little Satan. Or for that matter a, "Dirty bomb," from being unleased on a society. I study philosophy problems every day, I still have no idea how philosophy is used to solve problems. Can you help, you seem, so educated on the subject, but you look like a real idiot. You I know have to be using AI, then reposting it when you name dropped Hume and Existentialism, as those are heavy names in philosophy. I may know what you mean when you name dropped, or did I just repeat myself.

[Iwannaplato]

People do not care how you feel about the subject. All you want is a win, then you can call, and tell your friends. This is a philosophy message board. Let me help you out, people want universality. Not how your senses are to be known. Logic is a method and a tool of philosophy. You name dropped a lot philosophers, have you ever bothered to read them with a philosophical comprehension and that was not a question. Next time you call yourself a philosopher, then be a philosopher. I can argue the subject either way, and not really care about if I wanted the "War" to happen or not. Yes, my feelings are the war was a diversion from presidential problems. The philosophy was it was not a mistake to deter nuclear warheads, for Big Satan and Little Satan. Or for that matter a, "Dirty bomb," from being unleased on a society. I study philosophy problems every day, I still have no idea how philosophy is used to solve problems. Can you help, you seem, so educated on the subject, but you look like a real idiot. You I know have to be using AI, then reposting it when you name dropped Hume and Existentialism, as those are heavy names in philosophy. I may know what you mean when you name dropped, or did I just repeat myself.

This might be a response to my post since I mentioned Hume and existentialism. So, the first help I can give is: if you don't quote from a post you are responding to people will tend to assume you are responded the post above yours in the thread. So, best to quote from the post you are responding to. You can even quote and take out all the words. This signals the person you have responded to them and it lets others know you are not responding to them.

As I read the first part of your post I am not sure you are responding to me. But if you are: in a discussion of a war and the ethics of that war, the fact that people are dying can absolutely be part of a philosophical discussion. If people dying is the case, then it is a fact about the situation. Ethics and morals come out of our feelings, at least for many people.

You name dropped a lot philosophers, have you ever bothered to read them with a philosophical comprehension and that was not a question.

Yes, though not much of Locke. If it's not a question then the grammar was off in the middle there.

Next time you call yourself a philosopher, then be a philosopher.

I Haven't called myself a philosopher. I think of myself as someone interested in philosophy. Which part of your post here to me doesn't have to do with your feelings? Which part do you consider 'you being a philosopher'?

I study philosophy problems every day, I still have no idea how philosophy is used to solve problems. Can you help, you seem, so educated on the subject, but you look like a real idiot.

More feelings and not even on the war. Philosophy is often used to help us think about problems. The problems of thinking and discussing them and doing this well. Philosophers often name parts of reality that don't have names so they can be talked about. These can help solve problems, but philosophy itself is not going to solve a war, for example, or directly help one solve it.

A number of the sentences in your post I don't understand. Is English your first language? That's not me being snarky or insulting. If it is your first language then perhaps you could find another way to say them.

You I know have to be using AI,

I didn't know that.

I don't know what you're trying to get across here.

I may know what you mean when you name dropped, or did I just repeat myself.

Let me help you out, people want universality. Not how your senses are to be known.

The philosophy was it was not a mistake to deter nuclear warheads, for Big Satan and Little Satan.

Here I don't know what the phrase 'the philosophy was' means.

If this wasn't a post responding to mine, my apologies.

[puto]

Iwannaplato

You seem to be a person of sensation. My comments on philosophy were harsh, but I study it everyday and still no nothing. You and I have nothing in common, so our philosophies are going to conflict. You are Existential in ethics as I. My web is not an instinct, but one of learning philosophy and religion for decades academically. You seem Coherent, I have a Foundation to my knowledge. I like arguments, but there are, "Self-evident" truths. So, arguments are going to happen until truth is found whatever that is. Intellectual knowledge is universality and I am speculating on that. Hume was a sceptic who I studied very closely, as he wrote in the English language. I have also studied the sceptics in general, empirical, and foundational to the extent that philosophy makes a distinction. Sense knowledge is never the conclusion of an argument; intellectual knowledge is. Learn the terms philosophy uses, I am here to write. Not teach as that is for colleges. Realities and possibilities are what is happening in the now. Distinguish the, "Ought" from the, "Is" as Hume wrote. "I know, I know nothing," Socrates.

[puto]

Iwannaplato

By the way, I know how to write MLA, APA, and Proper English. So, to say that I do not know how to write is insulting to my intellect. Colleges make you learn how to write in their proper composition for articles, essays, and papers, etc..

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is there to "better" understand? Am I supposed to "understand" that "realism" dictates that our leaders must act like monsters? Does that make starting wars moral or excusable? What am I not "understanding"? Or what are the "masses" not "understanding"?

I think that realism explains how the world actually works. And the way it works can be viewed from a “distance”. We are in a time of war and that, I think, must be (or can be) better understood. To all appearances a low-intensity struggle has begun on numerous fronts. I think this can be examined coolly and objectively. To see things through an hysteria-inclined filter does not, cannot, help in the process of seeing clearly.

I think that “the masses” do not understand complicity in the very structure of things.

My view of Donald Trump’s actions and policies (if that is actually what is under discussion) is that I think that I grasp the ‘logic’ of some of his actions, and I think he (et al) is very incompetent in the way he does things. If he were less an idiot, and far more strategic, I think it would serve his objectives much better. So although I can see, or believe I can see, the logic undergirding his choices, I cannot get behind them because they are so crudely carried out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why don't you just come out and say it instead of dragging things out.

I thought that I had done just that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You know there's normally a really good reason why you don't send your military to assassinate or kidnap the leaders of other governments. Well a few. Aside from the pure lack of civilisation, questions of jurisdiction and international law, and the deeply worrying decision to commit something approaching a war crime without even declaring a war, there's the precedent it sets. The implications.....

The last few people to try and shoot Trump have all been his own voters. Stupid ones, with dogshit weapons, and no idea how to use them. The next is likely to have a much better aim now that open season has been declared.

The first stages of war, general war, definitely involve “targeted assassinations”. I know that Israel is very skilled at this, and contrives its unique justification, but apparently there is more of it going on. A bunch of different US scientists have recently died or disappeared (a few murdered) under unclear and suspicious circumstances.

The case of the kid who shot Trump is more complex apparently. There is a good deal of information now circulating. He can’t be said to have been a supporter though. His expressed ideas were all over the place. You cannot say that he did not know how to use his weapon (though it was not a difficult shot) since he came within two inches of success …

In war jurisdiction and rule of law go quickly by the wayside. These are ruthless, extra-legal machinations. War without declared war is the order of the day.

[phyllo]

I will let IC deal with you while I go cavorting with my fellow "moderns".

[Alexis Jacobi]

I will let IC deal with you while I go cavorting with my fellow "moderns".

I have vowed to take IC as a disciple. You will see great changes in him. God be praised!

[Radagast]

At some point the Senate has to investigate the causes and conduct of this war. Probably after the midterms when some of the collaborators have been swept from office. It's going to be much larger than the Benghazi commission.

I wonder how well Kegsbreath will do in those hearings.

I see you are making a prediction. Making predictions of the future is hard - much harder than making predictions of the past. Chaos theory implies that making predictions of the further future, ie beyond the next couple of weeks, is much harder still.

With this in mind, here are my predictions of the very near future relating to the US-Israeli attack on Iran:

1) Vance has been put in charge of the surrender negotiations precisely so that he can be blamed for the resulting agreement, if there is one. So my first prediction is that Trump will blame Vance for the outcome, but will do so obliquely.
1a) A corollary of (1): Rubio will expend a lot of hot air explaining how he could have obtained a much less bad outcome than Vance did.
2) The Iranians will insist on charging tankers of all nations for transit through "their" Strait of Hormuz.
3) The USA will concede this because it probably now has no choice, but Trump will spin this to his followers by claiming that the transit fees will be shared between Iran and the USA. ("It's a beautiful thing")
4) Trump will say that he doesn't care, because the USA has lots of its own oil, the best in the world, and also that the Yurpeans should open the darn Strait themselves if they are so worried.
5) The White House will announce that a gigantic and gaudy triumphal arch is to be built in Washington DC (***). It will never be built. The purpose will be to generate outrage and thus change the topic of conversation.


(*** I cheated on this one. It's not a prediction - the White House announced this earlier today).

[accelafine]

Oh my god, it's actually true. I thought you were being satirical

The Trump administration has released designs for a 250-foot tall "Triumphal Arch" planned for construction near Arlington National Cemetery in DC to commemorate the nation's 250th anniversary. The massive, white-and-gold structure is slated for Memorial Circle, and has already sparked legal challenges and controversy regarding its design, cost, and location.

Sounds really tasteful

[Impenitent]

Oh my god, it's actually true. I thought you were being satirical

The Trump administration has released designs for a 250-foot tall "Triumphal Arch" planned for construction near Arlington National Cemetery in DC to commemorate the nation's 250th anniversary. The massive, white-and-gold structure is slated for Memorial Circle, and has already sparked legal challenges and controversy regarding its design, cost, and location.

Sounds really tasteful

no, it sounds French

-Imp

[Walker]

That's not all.

Trump Presidential Library
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zem35YnlALk