USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
The threat and UKs response isnt much of anything but I think it may point to Iran not wanting to escalate and sending out perceived costs threats for getting involved. Iran could have done far more damage to the bases and the ships in the strait if they wanted to.
Maybe they want to wait out trump. Maybe dun is right that they dont have what people think they do. Maybe they are building up covertly atm. They've done a good job of that so far. But we are in their hood and wont leave so what options do they have?
The threat and UKs response isnt much of anything but I think it may point to Iran not wanting to escalate and sending out perceived costs threats for getting involved. Iran could have done far more damage to the bases and the ships in the strait if they wanted to.Maybe they want to wait out trump. Maybe dun is right that they dont have what people think they do. Maybe they
Trump and his appointees are so far out of their depth.
yeah. normally if you say something like that it’s because you’re making a strawman of moral antirealism. it’d be pretty weird to hold to the belief actually.
like my view is that moral statements make the most sense to be reduced to preferences. but that doesn’t mean that’s what morality actually is. that would be a matter of actually looking at what the term morality refers to cross-culturally. can a westerner that only speaks english speak unilaterally for all cultures at all times?
Let’s just take Kharg Island. What are we waiting for?
Why would you add in the last part? Are you a victim of Nut's pseudo-intellectualism?
They're waiting for you to enlist.
Why would you add in the last part? Are you a victim of Nut's pseudo-intellectualism?
no. nut keeps vocalizing superiority over amp, which is too silly to ignore.
Fair enough. In that case, "especially Nut," would have been a better choice than "including Nut," fwiw.
Clarity > all. But I can appreciate simplicity. As I like to say, why use a large word when a diminutive one will do.
Meh. 18 US troops have died in this war to date. Most of wars we have fought historically single battles have seen thousands of troops die. Including attacks on bases.
lol those pu$$y a$$ Persians, team America killed more than that day 1 at a girl's school alone.
Best ball teams? Are you into ballbusting? You like getting kicked in the nuts by a team of barefoot cam girls, eh?
Nut the issue with objectification isn't that it's unworkable. To the contrary, it is because it works that one may reconsider leaning into it as I think you've espoused itt.
When you call Obama an "Uncle Tom", and let's pretend that it's not even a racially sensitive term, you are still reducing him to a molded idea and effectively cutting off every piece of him that doesn't fit.
Consider Iran. We don't really bomb Iran. We bomb certain land with people and infrastructure upon it. Then we objectify those people as "Iran" and look at other things "Iran" has done. Yes, it remains convenient to describe concerted (and frequently, never forget, coerced) action on behalf of a state-government which identifies itself in line with the objectification of the post-Westphalian order of autonomous nation states, but if you lean too far over that line, you fall in - like your Beattie with his prostitutes, he fails to escape the loss of his self so he seeks others to deprive of their own.
When you look at a woman, you can objectify her as a sex object, or you can try to appreciate her subjective self and its cohesion with your own, which hopefully includes appropriate physical engagement in kind. The former necessarily fades at the moment of realization, while the latter has the potential to escalate continuously.
To paraphrase peak Jeff Goldblum, you are so focused on whether you can, you aren't stopping to think if you should!
