Philosophy Now Forum

Apparently Athens has sent warships to defend Greek islands from Iranian attacks.

Old news, admittedly, since this was in 480 BC.

How can the problem of the man in the White House be addressed in a way to ethically and peacefully solve the situation?

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.

Gary Childress, you make no sense. All you do is claim, then no proof. Scholastics did distinguish defensive, and offensive Wars: Wars is self-defensive if waged to avert an injustice still about to take place; it is offensive if the injustice has already occurred and what is sought is redress (Nardin 20, 21.)

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 8:45 pm Gary Childress, you make no sense. All you do is claim, then no proof. Scholastics did distinguish defensive, and offensive Wars: Wars is self-defensive if waged to avert an injustice still about to take place; it is offensive if the injustice has already occurred and what is sought is redress (Nardin 20, 21.)

LOL! Did the mighty mortal scholastics decide that pre-emptive wars are unjust or are they "defense"? Or what did the mighty earthly eminences say about pre-emptive war? Did the Russians launch a "defensive" attack on Ukraine? Are the Iranians launching a "defensive" campaign to get nukes? Can both sides be "justified" if a war breaks out?

You are not even worth it anymore. You claimed analytical philosophy?

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 8:57 pm You are not even worth it anymore. You claimed analytical philosophy?

LOL! Getting frustrated? Now you know how I feel listening to two bit philosophy cranks foisting their stupid theories on me.

If this is going to fall into an ad hominem fallacy, then you dolt.

puto wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 9:00 pm If this is going to fall into an ad hominem fallacy, then you dolt.

Oh, but calling it a "conflict" instead of "war" is just brilliant. Maybe the Russians and Iranians can just say they're in a "conflict" with Ukraine and the US? So who's justified and who isn't? The US struck first in this round. Does that qualify as "just conflict"? Give us the "realist" perspective?

And which one of our countries is "fighting for God"? Is it the US or the Iranians? Or both? When both sides are fighting for God does God break out the popcorn and place bets on the winner with his bookie?

"Mission Accomplished"

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 9:35 pm POTUS 47 took out a 47 year old terrorist regime.

Obviously, it's a sign from God. I'll try my best not to step on any cracks in the sidewalk.

Well, if God were playing Bingo, as Gary says (Bookie Bingo), Gary who believes in God but does not believe in what the bible says, then T-47 would be the winning number.

What's worse than a blasphemer who does not believe in God?
A blasphemer who does believe in God, because then he's just cruising for a God-brusin', i.e. God's mercy that gives what you need, not what necessarily what you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef9QnZV ... rt_radio=1

The winning number may be 666

AI wrote :
Based on biblical prophecy and eschatological interpretations,
the Antichrist is expected to initiate a major conflict in the Holy Land (Israel) during the end times, culminating in the Battle of Armageddon.