distic
8d ago
I could argue about the power gap, because some of those countries could also hurt the US if they wanted to. And also where does this 50% number come from?
But more importantly, sovereignty is not about the power gap. Vatican and Luxembourg are sovereign states, yet the power gap with their neighbors (let alone the US) is not good.
And if you wonder why those states can remain sovereign, it's because of the balance of power in the world. Geopolitics is not a zero sum game. If you let your allies down, nobody wants to be your ally anymore. If you threaten your allies, you might get what you want because they have no other choice right now, but suddenly, they are not your allies anymore. They are slaves, and they won't like it.
The US has built its alliance network on the premise that the allied would remain sovereign countries. The US are free to change their mind, but if you assume it will go unchallenged, they are just wrong.
distic
9d ago
Rome has no real allies by modern standards. The so-called allies were not sovereign states, most of the time they were bound by a treaty saying they would have same allies and same enemies as Rome. And also, I don't know how it is relevant. The roman world is long dead, and its customs with it.
distic
9d ago
I had several hypothesis regarding Trump choices. I thought there was some secret plan explaining his behaviour. For example, asking NATO for help without consulting them could have been a plan to undermine and ultimately dismantle it. But unless he also wants to alienate Israel, I think he has no plan beyond what we see.
Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
Hezbollah is included, but you are right that they might not follow it either. It just makes less sense from my POV (the MOU was seen as a victory for Hezbollah, it would make no sense to undermine it).
distic
10d ago
the much more likely explanation is that people don't like when other countries bomb their homeland and react negatively to the people doing the bombing, regardless of their feelings about the government of their homeland.
And it makes a lot of sense. The regime at least needs the people, so they can't just destroy everything and kill everyone. Israel and the US, on the other hand, don't need Iran at all. They don't kill them all because it would not look good, but actually Iran being entirely dead would be better for them than what they have now. It's perfectly rational to stick with the regime.
distic
10d ago
Since then, the share of Jews steadily declined, and according to the 2021 Russian census, there were only 837 ethnic Jews left in the JAO (0.6%).
No they don't?
distic
10d ago
If Israel is our ally, greatest ally, then they can't be allowed to do this to us. They can't insult and undermine the clear foreign policy of the POTUS and be allowed to do so. From the beginning I've said that Israeli forces, inasmuch as they are allied to the USA, should be under the command of an American general, Spartan style. They can't be allowed to go against us and continue to suck off the teat of the American taxpayer.
But that is not how it works. Usually, when allies go at war against a common enemy is that none of them will end the war until both agree to end it. Israel is a sovereign nation, and it was not even represented during the MOU negotiations. Why would they feel bound by the resulting MOU?
Donald Trump and you seem to both assume the US can decide whatever, including starting or stopping a war with Iran, without consulting any of his allies, and those allies will just obey. But they are free countries, it just does not work this way.
distic
2mo ago
I was adding evidence to support your argument. It seemed not very elegant to reply directly to lizzardspawn while I was building on your argument. Sorry if it was confusing.
distic
2mo ago
Even if you are just interested in science, things like squares, circles, software do disappear if you analyse their physical realities. The mathematical laws of physics cannot be expressed without formal concepts like a ratio and a square, or the exponential function. Yet if you break everything to dust and you look at it you won't find those concepts either.
By the way, I'm quite sure that love, pain, mercy and happiness do exist, because just like consciousness I can experiment them directly. Matter, on the other side, might be an illusion.
distic
2mo ago
I think the Venezuela op is clearly different from the Iranian op and is not different rolls of the same game. One is a surgical kidnapping, one has just been continual bombing. I think there is something to be said how Israel is on the side edging America on, and very willing to dish some on their own. Imagine if the Ayatollah was kidnapped instead of being made a martyr.
I don't think he is seen as a martyr. The problem with the bombing is more that bombing schoolgirls is not the best way to be liked by the locals. I think the Trump administration expected Iran to go the same way as Venezuela: after a few days of bombing, the regime dies because there is a revolt, a coup or something. It's quite obvious they had no plan beyond bombing them for three days. And I think Venezuela could have gone badly in the exact same way as Iran.
Imagine the kidnapping does not go well, and kidnappers are taken or killed. Then the US military tries to get them back and is out of luck; a lot of americans get killed. It seems to me Venezuela/Iran are the same kind of bad ops, because it's high risk - low reward. The power the US can get over Venezuela through a simple kidnapping will only last until some coup or next elections. Was it worth risking a long and painful war with Venezuela?
Edit: and also, thx for your the information about hedging.
distic
3mo ago
There is a paradox if you do not assume any theory about economics. You are entirely correct, but this is not how a paradox works. It's like the Monty Hall paradox. If you think about it, it's perfectly logical, but there is a way to look at it which makes it weird. You need water more than you need diamond, and there are plenty of cases where diamonds would be less expensive than water. For example, you are in the desert and you have a diamond but no water.
distic
3mo ago
Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs?
Aren't futures made exactly for this purpose? Don't companies buy futures so they can price the tickets and not be bankrupt by the price of oil?
The Venezuela op was a masterclass.
Was it? It was very risky, as proved by the Iran op. Even in a game with a negative expectation, you can sometimes win once or twice. It does not mean it was a good idea in the first place.
distic
1yr ago
direct connections to the Republican president?
The president himself is not really an example on those matters
distic
1yr ago
A law is not just a piece of paper, and I don't think you can call "bordering on traitorous" something mandated by law (and not just allowed).
The government having a political agenda that isn't determined by constitutionally appointed political processes
I don't know what it means, given that the government always has a political agenda that isn't determined by any legally defined process. The people in charge are appointed by those processes, what they do with the power they get is up to them as long as they obey the Constitution
distic
1yr ago
It does not make sense to me: either you want the historical thing, or you want a sports optimised for tournaments (in its rules and techniques), and in the second case you have modern fencing which is a pretty much optimised olympic sport. But as long as people have fun, maybe it does not matter
distic
1yr ago
I think I agree, it's just that it is not at all how those purges do happen. The people they are firing are working for legally funded agencies or programs, and they are targeted under the assumption that people working in those agencies or programs are mostly political adversaries
distic
1yr ago
Unless that includes God or Nature as intent sources
Yes it does if you believe nature or God have intents (it works better with God than nature, as most people who think that nature has intent also think that nature is a kind of god). People who don't think God exists or nature has intents also don't think there are purposes in nature.
Intended purpose means that the way you use the tool now (the purpose it's used for now) is what it was built for (the purpose of its creator). For example if you use your shoes to protect your feet it's their intended purpose, but if you use them to kill a fly it's not (presumably).
distic
1yr ago
Neither does my comment have anything relating to firing people on the basis of their political opinions.
Given that the first comment has been removed, I might have misread yours, but it seems to me you were arguing in favor of incentivizing people to leave the country according to their opinions.
distic
1yr ago
"The purpose of a system is what it does" is a stupid opinion if it is taken as a general mathematical truth. The concept of purpose assumes intentionality (the purpose of something is the intent of the people who built/used/participated in it) and therefore the opinion assumes the effects of a system are always those intended by the actors, which is obviously false.
Most of the time "the purpose of a system is what it does" instead means that what the actors want is less important than what the system actually does (it provides more prediction power, as you said).
There are some cases however where intentionality is very important, for example if you kill someone the police and the court will be interested.
distic
1yr ago
A few years months ago, before Elon Musk bought twitter, there was a very popular opinion here on the motte, and probably also among conservatives, that freedom of speech should not be limited in any way, whether directly by the government, or by powerful actors like social medias. When big tech fired people due to their right wing political opinions, conservatives were defending them while liberals were saying things like "they are bigots, they must be improductive anyway".
I don't know what happened, but it seems that a lot of people who had a very broad definition of free speech switched to a very precise and restricted one.
distic
1yr ago
Obviously not in the government, but in private companies those fired for their right wing opinions had some level of support from conservatives a few years ago.
The lithography machines for semiconductors are built by ASML in Europe, and Facebook AI research as long as Google AI (DeepBrain) have labs in Europe. I'm sure there are other examples.
But more importantly Europe provides the US with scale. Software and weapon systems are conceived once in the US and sold all over the world.
And also Europe provides the US with logistics. The military operations in the middle east could simply not happen without logistics centers in Europe (unless the US finds reliable allies with Africa, but good luck with that).
More options
Context Copy link