As to tolerating arms races, you can't stop them. And your condoning of anything is really not relevant. Its not like the nations of the world wait in baited breath for your approval. The underlying interests force this context. Your moral outrage at that doesn't alter those forces. So your moral outrage as much as it might matter to you doesn't change the system.
Your outrage... no offense... is irrelevant.
As to the UN being a sign that such a system could be built, no... you missed my point that the UN is ultimately a projection of US and Western liberal ideals. Absent Western hegemony those ideals won't be a controlling factor on international relations.
Obviously. See the obvious. It is obvious.
As to court, courts are ultimately backed up by the police. If I ignore a court, the cops come for me. For your international court to have meaning it would need a "cop" powerful enough to take any nation in the world to court by force. In other words... a hegemon. Currently the US has hegemony. What would you propose that would be MORE powerful than the US thus making it capable of taking hegemony from the US?
Even if the US completely vanished thus making it not something you have to surpass... you still have to have enough power to take the Russian Federation and the Chinese etc to court... BY FORCE. Because that's how courts work.
If anyone could just ignore a court, then the party that believed he would lose a court case would just ignore the summons.
This is really pretty fundamental.
What do you think brought the Germans to war crimes trials at the end of WW2? A letter? Do you think it was a court summons that brought Nazi war criminals to trial?
Obviously not. How can you not see how obvious this is? This is amazing.
What brought Nazi war criminals to trial was the combined military power of the allied military machine. Which as everyone knows was also the foundation of the UN itself.
How do you not know this? This is basic history. You're killing me here.
As to military upsides over the last 50 years...
Well, the US was asked by the Europeans and the UN to intervene in Kosovo, Iraq the first time, Libya, and I think they were asking as well in Syria. Just off the top of my head.
Whether you like or dislike war... most of these conflicts you're pissed at by the US go through a process of international law as signed by all member nations.
What is more, you limitation of the time of your argument to the last 50 years is also a concession that there are wars you clearly agree with.
What you probably don't grasp with that, is that the 50 year span you're talking about is largely the period of US hegemony. Prior to US hegemony... well, germany or imperial japan could contest for power. After US hegemony we have peace by and large in the world. With the only conflicts being limited regional conflicts that do not disrupt international trade or or pose a threat outside of the limited war zones.
if you removed US hegemony then that would change... you take the international order for granted. Everything you think people just "do now because its 2018"... they do it because of the system we have built. Take the system down and everything will change.
You give the US no credit for the international order. That is unsupportable given the US's overwhelming influence on everything. Give the US its due and then recalculate your position. Also keep in mind that most of the things the US does come with the backing
And before you try to defend your answer of "banana", I don't think you appreciate what a hegemonic power is and why having one is inevitable. There is always one within the scope of the range of effective military power.
In the 21st century that is global... which means you're going to get a global hegemony.
Who do you want to play that role? Keep in mind, whomever you choose will have to have the power and will to back it up.
I get your idealism... but its impractical, unrealistic, and if bought into indifferent to its impracticality will result in a lot of people dying for nothing.
You take the peace we have in the world for granted. You take the international order we have for granted. The order we have is a product of US hegemony. The UN has never known a day where the US wasn't in supremacy. The entire international "order" is a product of US power.
Absent the US, the entire system unravels. Nations that don't have to defend themselves would suddenly have to expand their military spending by a factor of 4. Regional tensions which are suppressed by US power would suddenly flair up and escalate into regional wars. Various powers in those regions would win or lose creating dominance hierarchies. Dominate powers in given regions would challenge neighboring dominate powers for supremacy... on and on until you had a global order again.
And who or what is going to win that kind of struggle?
Here you might say "but nuclear weapons"... Nukes only prevent direct invasion of your nation. They don't stop anything else. I can blockade your country or interdict your trade without invading. You're not going to nuke me for interdicting your trade if the consequence of nuking me is that I nuke you.
You need both a powerful conventional force and a nuclear deterrent.
Thus to replace the US, you'd need a power that was credible at replacing the US. Russia, China, or possibly some Islamic alliance is all you have unless Europe creates reboots.
You have no ideal option. Thus the ideal is a nonsense. Suggest another idea that is possible.
If you say banana again... I'm calling your father and we're going to have a talk about how seriously you're taking your studies.
What is litmus test for entry into the Security Council?
Military prowess is the key feature though there are some countries on it that got token seats.
Why is China on it and Mexico isn't? Why is Russia on it and Saudi Arabia isn't?
Think.
So no. The old lesson remains valid.
What is more, the UN doesn't decide wars. The UN is only relevant because the existing powers invest in it. And of those powers, which of them would maintain the UN absent the US? The concept and idealism of the UN itself is a product of Western liberal ideals. Is Russia a subscriber to that? Is China?
Absent the US or some other power that bought into Western liberal ideals... the UN itself would go into decay.
People keep thinking humanity is done with war after every big war. Learn. The war will never end. It is a feature of the species. And disarming yourself is the best way to fall prey to the hostility of other humans.
You say that is all in the past? Very well. We'll just disarm all the nuclear weapons. Sink all the war ships. Beat all the guns into scrap. Feel safer now? Because you're the only one that did it... your neighbors that you're so convinced are peaceful... retain their weapons. Which means your freedom and life continue only so long as they wish to permit you to have it.
People with your ideals should live near hostile countries... bare your throats... and suffer the consequences. I love my civilization too much to allow people like you to destroy it with ignorance and childish idealism.
As to management, the wages they pay are enough to attract the best talent as is... so I doubt it matters.
Go through the argument... what happens if management doesn't blink? Most of the people that go to work at google weren't born in northern California. They're attracting labor from all over the world. Whilst some people in some places might take this stuff seriously, over the span of the planet... money talks.
As to you being happy to cede military advantages to contesting powers, spoken like someone that cares nothing for the men sent into war. If YOU went to war would you not want the very best your civilization could provide for you? You would. You don't want to die. I don't want to die. But if I am going to war or if I am sending someone to war then I want the very best equipment that we can afford and produce. It is the least we can do for people risking their lives in our names.
As to Syrians, you do know that most of the people opposed to the US involvement in Syria have flip flopped on that one pathetically, right? The Europeans have begged the US to go to syria when we don't go... and then when we do go... they say we shouldn't be there.
It is this annoying and idiotic hypocrisy of certain people. The US is damned no matter what it does. If the US doesn't go, then we're ignoring genocide. If we do go then we're bombing another country which is apparently bad even if the guy we're bombing keeps poison gas attacking civilians.
Which would you prefer? Would you prefer we ignored genocides... and that includes ignoring the stupid politicians and diplomats from allied countries that beg us to go to war to stop genocides? Or would you prefer us to go into those situations and bomb the people doing the thing?
Because you can't have it both ways without sounding deceitful or confused no matter how smug and self righteous you feel when you do that.
As to UAV, that clearly augments manned operations and is an aspect of support provided to those forces thus rendering your observation naive.
As to our formidability, this is not a fixed constant of the universe. It is a constant struggle which requires constant investment, innovation, and adaptation SIMPLY to MAINTAIN the status quo.
If you presume your formidability absent investment, innovation, and adaptation then you're going to suffer the same fate that every power faces when it has become senial. I don't want my country to become some confused dottering old man that confuses his glorious youth with his saggy retrograde present.
Its a moral compass only if its a childish conception of morality that has no right to be respected by anyone over the age of 20.
The weapons will be developed. The weapons must be developed. If the weapons were not developed then if anything any moral principle being advocated would be damaged.
See, this is the perspective of maturity. Understanding that something that might from a very limited perspective seem bad in a wider perspective is good.
How is the world a better place with Russia or China etc having a military advantage? Want to see those powers enact their will on the world by force? Because that's currently restrained by US power.
And what do you think happens when the US's military supremacy is questionable? War. They will challenge the US and her allies for hegemony and that will mean war. And if you've done a good job and really given the US a real disadvantage then the US could lose.
Then you get to profess your irrelevant and childish moral system to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
This is not moral virtue you're advocating... its childishness. The world is not an ideal place of magical ponies and singing rainbows. What peace and justice you see in the world was paid for in blood, sweat, and tears. It wasn't easy. Weaken the US and US moral and ethical beliefs become less relevant in the world.
And that doesn't mean that French ethics will become relevant because the Europeans for all their whining are not actually interested in projecting hegemony anymore. Which means the world order will be set by those willing to project their values by force. And that won't be people like you. It will be the Islamists, the various radical ideologies, the empire builders... Nuclear war would be pretty likely in that case.
You're confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability.
A psychopath that is paralyzed is not going to axe murder anyone.
If we took Nazi Germany prior to WW2 and used some rhetorical magic to remove Germany's ABILITY to engage in a world war... just remove the industry for the sake of argument... they would not have engaged in that war.
Russia made very clear during its soviet period that it was very capable and very interested in going to war to expand its empire.
When the Islamic world was hegemonic it was likewise very interested in such things.
If the US lost hegemonic power and some other power held it, then you'd be dealing with the same thing by a power that wouldn't have ANY empathy for your position.
The US for all its sins is not trying to build an empire beyond its shores. We preserve our hegemony but not much more beyond that.
If the US ceded its hegemony, then not only would you be dealing with a new power with a new ethical ideal.... but you'd also be dealing with them preserving their hegemony... and MAYBE you'd be dealing with them attempting to conquer as well.
Be aware of world history. Back out and see the span of the human experience over the last 10,000 years. What given that knowledge leads you to believe that if the US ceded its hegemony you'd be in a world of peace and harmony?
1. AI and expert systems are going to be a standard in war regardless of what google does or doesn't do.
2. The US government is hardly the only power trying to integrate this tech into its military.
3. For all the largely LARPy ire at US foreign policy, what is the alternative hegemonic power you would prefer from the available contenders? Currently - Russia, China, maybe one of the Islamic countries or a coalition there of Pakistan/Turkey/Iran/etc. Of those which would you prefer to be the hegemonic power? Because Switzerland isn't a contender, sweethearts.
Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?
Its meaningless virtue signaling. It accomplishes nothing productive. And even if it did slow or shut down the US development of AI enhanced weapons, that would only give one of the other major powers an advantage. And since literally every single one of those powers is if anything more questionable in its ethics regarding war... What are you really doing here?
I get it. We don't live in an ideal world. This world has war. We kill each other on occasion. But that isn't going to stop. Idealism is a sad substitute for sound foreign policy.
As the line goes "if you desire peace, prepare for war."
I desire peace. And I know that if I were sent into the fires of a war, I would want the best weapons my country could supply for me. I cannot therefore in good conscience frustrate the development or deployment of any equipment or programs for our people that I would want for myself in the same situation. I want to live. I want to live in peace and security. And the only way that is going to happen on this planet short of submitting to enslavement... is to be formidable.
By all means, refuse to work on Google's AI project. It is a free country. No one will force you to work where you do not wish to work. But it is meaningless.
The tech will get developed and become standard. Everyone knows this. Opposing it is futile.
Impeaching a president from your own party is the only standard of opposition you accept.
Never mind that Democrats didn't try to impeach Bush and Republicans didn't try to impeach obama despite them being against the policies of both.
Your standard is obviously and even by your own admission... irrational. We have many examples of people and parties being against policies and sitting presidents without pushing impeachment. In fact that is the standard state of affairs.
This much is obvious and that you set the bar where you did was actually my prediction from the beginning. You did exactly what I thought you'd do.
Your position is ultimately not evidence or reality based. Its just a mindless ideological attachment. You're a drone. And like most drones you don't realize it.;-)
Let us say you were a flat earther... for the sake of argument... and I asked you "what would it take to prove that the world isn't flat"...
And you responded "I personally have to go into a rocket ship and see the round earth from the moon."
That's basically what you just did there. You set an unreasonable standard so that even if your dumb idea is dumb and easily proven wrong... I can't meet your standard because its so fucking unreasonable.
So okay... that flat earther's mind is closed to contradiction or evidence. He's telling me that he's not making evidence based decisions and is instead irrationally married to an idea that can't be reasonable disproven do mostly to that individual sticking their fingers in their ears and singing.
Now that example addressed... look at what you're doing. Can you see it?
Or are you going to double down?
If you're doubling down... I tried. Some people are too mulish to be reasoned with.
No, your standard is irrelevant. You don't need to impeach a politician to prove you are against them. Republicans opposed Obama and didn't try to impeach him.
Set a reasonable standard or you're basically conceding that your position is so weak that you have to use an unreasonable standard to protect your position.
There are a huge number of federal offices left unfilled at the moment largely because congress is dragging its feet on confirmations. The republicans have the majority in both houses so that makes no sense.
Unless I'm right and you're wrong. Which is obviously the case and your unreasonable standard effectively confesses to the point.
Bernie was so weak he let Hillary rip him off and then didn't even stick it to her on it.
The system is big and corrupt... whomever you put out there to fix it is going to have balls of fucking steel.
Like or dislike Trump, he at least has that quality.
Bernie doesn't. He got completely cheated by Hillary and didn't do anything about it. He should have ripped her head off for that. But instead he meekly accepted it.
You like Bernie's policies? Fine. But get someone that can actually seal the deal. Bernie is old, tired, and was never really politically crafty enough to be the man he said he was. He's a senator from Vermont, my dood. He has been a joke in the senate even amongst his allies for most of his career. This is not the man you hand the basket with all your eggs in them. He can't protect them.
Whatever you think of Trump as a man or his policies, you can see he's got guts. You can see he is walks into fire... surrounded by people trying to take him down and he stands tall. You might find that annoying because you want him to go down. Fine. But he doesn't.
I'm not saying support trump. I'm saying find someone that is strong like him. Because the presidency has increasingly become an elected emperor. The separation of powers is greatly weakened. The powers of the states are eroded to the federal government all the time. All that power flows to the Federal Executive.
I'd personally like for the presidency to be a lot less powerful. But no one agrees with me apparently. So the presidency is going to get more and more powerful. And if you want your vote to mean anything and for the president to not just be controlled by shadowy forces that didn't run for election... then you want the president to be very strong. You want someone in power that knows he has to fight for the power by taking down people in the executive that were NOT elected that would presume to take his power for themselves.
Bernie is not that man. Bernie is failure. Again, remember what he did when Hillary fucked him in the primary? The DNC was literally biased against him contrary to the bylaws of the institution. They broke the rules to screw Bernie. And what did he do? He sucked it up like a gimp.
If you can't grasp the difference and relevance of causation and correlation then I really don't think you're competent to make statistical arguments. This isn't an insult. Its merely that you either have a working understanding as to how to analyze statistics or you don't.
As to blacks receiving longer criminal sentences, that statistic was actually debunked. Extensive statistical analysis of that figure was made and it was shown to be specious.
I'll show you my link if you show me yours.
Its similar to the "wage gap" statistic that says men earn more money than women for the same work. The way that statistic works is it conflates people working at the same company as if they all do the same job. So for example, a coal miner in the wage gap statistics is cited as doing the same job as a secretary in the office. Never mind that one job is physically demanding, dangerous, and requires special skills in many cases... where as the other job requires none of those things and consequently doesn't pay as well. But wage gap statistics conflate the jobs of secretaries with the jobs of coal miners. We are inundated with bad ideologically driven statistics all the time.
As the man said "there are lies, damned dirty lies, and statistics."
As to your citation-less arguments about US gun violence. I've already shown your position to be baseless in previous posts. Refusing to read or respond to arguments is literally your argumentative strategy at this point.
We wouldn't strive to make it painless then... if you go through most execution methods over the last 200 years, you'll find the most common methods were painless.
Hanging generally involved snapping the neck.
Lethal injection has people knocked out by drugs prior to the getting the poison.
The guillotine was cited as being humane because it knocked the head off too fast for there to be any pain.. and did so consistently and reliably.
contrary examples exist... firing squads and electrocution... but as you can see, there is frequently an interest in being painless and humane.
Also, if we wanted punishment, we'd probably just torture them to death or something which we don't do.
Whatever your opinion of US foreign policy, its hard to pretend Iran is an honest actor. I think most people knew Iran was lying from the start. The loosey goosey agreement they signed was a big red flag.
Those that mourn the loss of this agreement, it was never real in the first place. All that is happening is that we're acknowledging a fiction for what it always was.
This has been the obvious way to put people down for decades.
For those concerned about discomfort... two examples:
1. They've done tests where a feed bin emits nitrogen gas. Pigs will go up to it, stick their faces in the bin to eat, not notice that they can't breath, and basically eat normally until due to lack of oxygen they pass out and fall over. Where upon they can breath normally, regain consciousness, and are fine. The point is, the pigs can't tell they can't breath. There've no clue. No instinctual panic reaction to nitrogen.
2. Military pilots are trained in how to deal with hypoxia. They are put in a chamber, given a child's cognitive toy (put square block in square hole, etc), and then the air is replaced with nitrogen. The pilots during this training do not notice the lack of oxygen or that all the air has been replaced with nitrogen. They simply get stupid, act a bit drunk... giggle, and then pass out.
Point is, you can't argue this is a cruel way to put someone down because you can't feel it. The fact that the pigs will literally eat until they pass out for lack of oxygen and the pilots have to be trained to recognize the symptoms makes the matter pretty conclusive.
Doubtless there are those that will object to this on the basis that they just don't like execution. Which "IF THAT" is your stated objection is fine. However, I suspect more than a few people are going to misrepresent their concerns as something else. This is one of those "issues" where people have a tendency to lack integrity when it comes to arguing.
IF you're going to execute someone, then this is the way to do it.
Cheap, certain, painless, no trauma to the body... the sentenced to death simply gets stupid, giggles a bit, passes out, and dies.
No toxic chemicals. No need for doctors with their Hippocratic oaths. No need for drugs special or common. No expensive maintenance costs. Cheap to operate. The only thing that has to be disposed of is the body.
IF you're going to execute someone, this method is from what I can tell... Ideal.
You missed it again. They only matter because invest in them.
Do you want to invest in them? Do you want me to identify with "my" race? Do you want me to advance the interests of my racial tribe?
Because when racial calculations become relevant... when you ask me to concern myself with your race... you are opening the door for me to consider my own.
This is not in the interest of anyone not of my race.
Making everyone think about statistical racial differences in economic attainment is not going to bring statistical equality to the West.
This is like the dumb article that recently said "Tech companies aren't hiring black women even though they buy a lot of iphones".
Is Apple racist against black women or is the statistical argument retarded?
That's a rhetorical question. Don't answer it. The answer is obvious.
This entire line of argumentation is foolish. If you interest is in equality, then examine what ACTUALLY is causing inequality. It isn't race.
No, it isn't race.
Race CORRELATES with a problem but does not CAUSE it.
Your racial arguments fail to address the real problem.
Slashdot Mirror
As to tolerating arms races, you can't stop them. And your condoning of anything is really not relevant. Its not like the nations of the world wait in baited breath for your approval. The underlying interests force this context. Your moral outrage at that doesn't alter those forces. So your moral outrage as much as it might matter to you doesn't change the system.
Your outrage... no offense... is irrelevant.
As to the UN being a sign that such a system could be built, no... you missed my point that the UN is ultimately a projection of US and Western liberal ideals. Absent Western hegemony those ideals won't be a controlling factor on international relations.
Obviously. See the obvious. It is obvious.
As to court, courts are ultimately backed up by the police. If I ignore a court, the cops come for me. For your international court to have meaning it would need a "cop" powerful enough to take any nation in the world to court by force. In other words... a hegemon. Currently the US has hegemony. What would you propose that would be MORE powerful than the US thus making it capable of taking hegemony from the US?
Even if the US completely vanished thus making it not something you have to surpass... you still have to have enough power to take the Russian Federation and the Chinese etc to court... BY FORCE. Because that's how courts work.
If anyone could just ignore a court, then the party that believed he would lose a court case would just ignore the summons.
This is really pretty fundamental.
What do you think brought the Germans to war crimes trials at the end of WW2? A letter? Do you think it was a court summons that brought Nazi war criminals to trial?
Obviously not. How can you not see how obvious this is? This is amazing.
What brought Nazi war criminals to trial was the combined military power of the allied military machine. Which as everyone knows was also the foundation of the UN itself.
How do you not know this? This is basic history. You're killing me here.
As to military upsides over the last 50 years...
Well, the US was asked by the Europeans and the UN to intervene in Kosovo, Iraq the first time, Libya, and I think they were asking as well in Syria. Just off the top of my head.
Do you want links on this? Lets do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.icc-cpi.int/libya/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whether you like or dislike war... most of these conflicts you're pissed at by the US go through a process of international law as signed by all member nations.
What is more, you limitation of the time of your argument to the last 50 years is also a concession that there are wars you clearly agree with.
What you probably don't grasp with that, is that the 50 year span you're talking about is largely the period of US hegemony. Prior to US hegemony... well, germany or imperial japan could contest for power. After US hegemony we have peace by and large in the world. With the only conflicts being limited regional conflicts that do not disrupt international trade or or pose a threat outside of the limited war zones.
if you removed US hegemony then that would change... you take the international order for granted. Everything you think people just "do now because its 2018"... they do it because of the system we have built. Take the system down and everything will change.
You give the US no credit for the international order. That is unsupportable given the US's overwhelming influence on everything. Give the US its due and then recalculate your position. Also keep in mind that most of the things the US does come with the backing
Not an option.
You just answered "banana" on a math test.
You get a grade of zero. Come see me after class.
And before you try to defend your answer of "banana", I don't think you appreciate what a hegemonic power is and why having one is inevitable. There is always one within the scope of the range of effective military power.
In the 21st century that is global... which means you're going to get a global hegemony.
Who do you want to play that role? Keep in mind, whomever you choose will have to have the power and will to back it up.
I get your idealism... but its impractical, unrealistic, and if bought into indifferent to its impracticality will result in a lot of people dying for nothing.
You take the peace we have in the world for granted. You take the international order we have for granted. The order we have is a product of US hegemony. The UN has never known a day where the US wasn't in supremacy. The entire international "order" is a product of US power.
Absent the US, the entire system unravels. Nations that don't have to defend themselves would suddenly have to expand their military spending by a factor of 4. Regional tensions which are suppressed by US power would suddenly flair up and escalate into regional wars. Various powers in those regions would win or lose creating dominance hierarchies. Dominate powers in given regions would challenge neighboring dominate powers for supremacy... on and on until you had a global order again.
And who or what is going to win that kind of struggle?
Here you might say "but nuclear weapons"... Nukes only prevent direct invasion of your nation. They don't stop anything else. I can blockade your country or interdict your trade without invading. You're not going to nuke me for interdicting your trade if the consequence of nuking me is that I nuke you.
You need both a powerful conventional force and a nuclear deterrent.
Thus to replace the US, you'd need a power that was credible at replacing the US. Russia, China, or possibly some Islamic alliance is all you have unless Europe creates reboots.
You have no ideal option. Thus the ideal is a nonsense. Suggest another idea that is possible.
If you say banana again... I'm calling your father and we're going to have a talk about how seriously you're taking your studies.
False. The UN is run by the Security Council...
What is litmus test for entry into the Security Council?
Military prowess is the key feature though there are some countries on it that got token seats.
Why is China on it and Mexico isn't? Why is Russia on it and Saudi Arabia isn't?
Think.
So no. The old lesson remains valid.
What is more, the UN doesn't decide wars. The UN is only relevant because the existing powers invest in it. And of those powers, which of them would maintain the UN absent the US? The concept and idealism of the UN itself is a product of Western liberal ideals. Is Russia a subscriber to that? Is China?
Absent the US or some other power that bought into Western liberal ideals... the UN itself would go into decay.
People keep thinking humanity is done with war after every big war. Learn. The war will never end. It is a feature of the species. And disarming yourself is the best way to fall prey to the hostility of other humans.
You say that is all in the past? Very well. We'll just disarm all the nuclear weapons. Sink all the war ships. Beat all the guns into scrap. Feel safer now? Because you're the only one that did it... your neighbors that you're so convinced are peaceful... retain their weapons. Which means your freedom and life continue only so long as they wish to permit you to have it.
People with your ideals should live near hostile countries... bare your throats... and suffer the consequences. I love my civilization too much to allow people like you to destroy it with ignorance and childish idealism.
As to management, the wages they pay are enough to attract the best talent as is... so I doubt it matters.
Go through the argument... what happens if management doesn't blink? Most of the people that go to work at google weren't born in northern California. They're attracting labor from all over the world. Whilst some people in some places might take this stuff seriously, over the span of the planet... money talks.
As to you being happy to cede military advantages to contesting powers, spoken like someone that cares nothing for the men sent into war. If YOU went to war would you not want the very best your civilization could provide for you? You would. You don't want to die. I don't want to die. But if I am going to war or if I am sending someone to war then I want the very best equipment that we can afford and produce. It is the least we can do for people risking their lives in our names.
As to Syrians, you do know that most of the people opposed to the US involvement in Syria have flip flopped on that one pathetically, right? The Europeans have begged the US to go to syria when we don't go... and then when we do go... they say we shouldn't be there.
It is this annoying and idiotic hypocrisy of certain people. The US is damned no matter what it does. If the US doesn't go, then we're ignoring genocide. If we do go then we're bombing another country which is apparently bad even if the guy we're bombing keeps poison gas attacking civilians.
Which would you prefer? Would you prefer we ignored genocides... and that includes ignoring the stupid politicians and diplomats from allied countries that beg us to go to war to stop genocides? Or would you prefer us to go into those situations and bomb the people doing the thing?
Because you can't have it both ways without sounding deceitful or confused no matter how smug and self righteous you feel when you do that.
As to UAV, that clearly augments manned operations and is an aspect of support provided to those forces thus rendering your observation naive.
As to our formidability, this is not a fixed constant of the universe. It is a constant struggle which requires constant investment, innovation, and adaptation SIMPLY to MAINTAIN the status quo.
If you presume your formidability absent investment, innovation, and adaptation then you're going to suffer the same fate that every power faces when it has become senial. I don't want my country to become some confused dottering old man that confuses his glorious youth with his saggy retrograde present.
Its a moral compass only if its a childish conception of morality that has no right to be respected by anyone over the age of 20.
The weapons will be developed.
The weapons must be developed.
If the weapons were not developed then if anything any moral principle being advocated would be damaged.
See, this is the perspective of maturity. Understanding that something that might from a very limited perspective seem bad in a wider perspective is good.
How is the world a better place with Russia or China etc having a military advantage? Want to see those powers enact their will on the world by force? Because that's currently restrained by US power.
And what do you think happens when the US's military supremacy is questionable? War. They will challenge the US and her allies for hegemony and that will mean war. And if you've done a good job and really given the US a real disadvantage then the US could lose.
Then you get to profess your irrelevant and childish moral system to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
This is not moral virtue you're advocating... its childishness. The world is not an ideal place of magical ponies and singing rainbows. What peace and justice you see in the world was paid for in blood, sweat, and tears. It wasn't easy. Weaken the US and US moral and ethical beliefs become less relevant in the world.
And that doesn't mean that French ethics will become relevant because the Europeans for all their whining are not actually interested in projecting hegemony anymore. Which means the world order will be set by those willing to project their values by force. And that won't be people like you. It will be the Islamists, the various radical ideologies, the empire builders... Nuclear war would be pretty likely in that case.
You're confusing inclinations and ethics with power and ability.
A psychopath that is paralyzed is not going to axe murder anyone.
If we took Nazi Germany prior to WW2 and used some rhetorical magic to remove Germany's ABILITY to engage in a world war... just remove the industry for the sake of argument... they would not have engaged in that war.
Russia made very clear during its soviet period that it was very capable and very interested in going to war to expand its empire.
When the Islamic world was hegemonic it was likewise very interested in such things.
If the US lost hegemonic power and some other power held it, then you'd be dealing with the same thing by a power that wouldn't have ANY empathy for your position.
The US for all its sins is not trying to build an empire beyond its shores. We preserve our hegemony but not much more beyond that.
If the US ceded its hegemony, then not only would you be dealing with a new power with a new ethical ideal.... but you'd also be dealing with them preserving their hegemony... and MAYBE you'd be dealing with them attempting to conquer as well.
Be aware of world history. Back out and see the span of the human experience over the last 10,000 years. What given that knowledge leads you to believe that if the US ceded its hegemony you'd be in a world of peace and harmony?
Process the absurdity of your position.
1. AI and expert systems are going to be a standard in war regardless of what google does or doesn't do.
2. The US government is hardly the only power trying to integrate this tech into its military.
3. For all the largely LARPy ire at US foreign policy, what is the alternative hegemonic power you would prefer from the available contenders? Currently - Russia, China, maybe one of the Islamic countries or a coalition there of Pakistan/Turkey/Iran/etc. Of those which would you prefer to be the hegemonic power? Because Switzerland isn't a contender, sweethearts.
Given the above reality... What does protest quitting Google do?
Its meaningless virtue signaling. It accomplishes nothing productive. And even if it did slow or shut down the US development of AI enhanced weapons, that would only give one of the other major powers an advantage. And since literally every single one of those powers is if anything more questionable in its ethics regarding war... What are you really doing here?
I get it. We don't live in an ideal world. This world has war. We kill each other on occasion. But that isn't going to stop. Idealism is a sad substitute for sound foreign policy.
As the line goes "if you desire peace, prepare for war."
I desire peace. And I know that if I were sent into the fires of a war, I would want the best weapons my country could supply for me. I cannot therefore in good conscience frustrate the development or deployment of any equipment or programs for our people that I would want for myself in the same situation. I want to live. I want to live in peace and security. And the only way that is going to happen on this planet short of submitting to enslavement... is to be formidable.
By all means, refuse to work on Google's AI project. It is a free country. No one will force you to work where you do not wish to work. But it is meaningless.
The tech will get developed and become standard. Everyone knows this. Opposing it is futile.
Impeaching a president from your own party is the only standard of opposition you accept.
Never mind that Democrats didn't try to impeach Bush and Republicans didn't try to impeach obama despite them being against the policies of both.
Your standard is obviously and even by your own admission... irrational. We have many examples of people and parties being against policies and sitting presidents without pushing impeachment. In fact that is the standard state of affairs.
This much is obvious and that you set the bar where you did was actually my prediction from the beginning. You did exactly what I thought you'd do.
Your position is ultimately not evidence or reality based. Its just a mindless ideological attachment. You're a drone. And like most drones you don't realize it. ;-)
... you really don't see it.
Okay, lets try again.
Let us say you were a flat earther... for the sake of argument... and I asked you "what would it take to prove that the world isn't flat"...
And you responded "I personally have to go into a rocket ship and see the round earth from the moon."
That's basically what you just did there. You set an unreasonable standard so that even if your dumb idea is dumb and easily proven wrong... I can't meet your standard because its so fucking unreasonable.
So okay... that flat earther's mind is closed to contradiction or evidence. He's telling me that he's not making evidence based decisions and is instead irrationally married to an idea that can't be reasonable disproven do mostly to that individual sticking their fingers in their ears and singing.
Now that example addressed... look at what you're doing. Can you see it?
Or are you going to double down?
If you're doubling down... I tried. Some people are too mulish to be reasoned with.
No, your standard is irrelevant. You don't need to impeach a politician to prove you are against them. Republicans opposed Obama and didn't try to impeach him.
Set a reasonable standard or you're basically conceding that your position is so weak that you have to use an unreasonable standard to protect your position.
There are a huge number of federal offices left unfilled at the moment largely because congress is dragging its feet on confirmations. The republicans have the majority in both houses so that makes no sense.
Unless I'm right and you're wrong. Which is obviously the case and your unreasonable standard effectively confesses to the point.
which is why they're assisting his programs instead of frustrating them...
oh wait, they're frequently frustrating them...
Let us cut to the chase, what evidence would be needed to cause you to concede you were in error here? Just hypothetically.
Because if "nothing" then your position is not based on reality.
Cite something... and then it will be on me to provide it... assuming what you cite is even relevant. :-)
you're trying to spin him submitting to corruption and fraud as dignity...
Good Game.
which is why everyone just gets whatever they want from him...
Right? That's why the establishment republicans love him.
Oh wait, they hate him because you're wrong... damn.
Make a new theory.
Bernie was so weak he let Hillary rip him off and then didn't even stick it to her on it.
The system is big and corrupt... whomever you put out there to fix it is going to have balls of fucking steel.
Like or dislike Trump, he at least has that quality.
Bernie doesn't. He got completely cheated by Hillary and didn't do anything about it. He should have ripped her head off for that. But instead he meekly accepted it.
You like Bernie's policies? Fine. But get someone that can actually seal the deal. Bernie is old, tired, and was never really politically crafty enough to be the man he said he was. He's a senator from Vermont, my dood. He has been a joke in the senate even amongst his allies for most of his career. This is not the man you hand the basket with all your eggs in them. He can't protect them.
Whatever you think of Trump as a man or his policies, you can see he's got guts. You can see he is walks into fire... surrounded by people trying to take him down and he stands tall. You might find that annoying because you want him to go down. Fine. But he doesn't.
I'm not saying support trump. I'm saying find someone that is strong like him. Because the presidency has increasingly become an elected emperor. The separation of powers is greatly weakened. The powers of the states are eroded to the federal government all the time. All that power flows to the Federal Executive.
I'd personally like for the presidency to be a lot less powerful. But no one agrees with me apparently. So the presidency is going to get more and more powerful. And if you want your vote to mean anything and for the president to not just be controlled by shadowy forces that didn't run for election... then you want the president to be very strong. You want someone in power that knows he has to fight for the power by taking down people in the executive that were NOT elected that would presume to take his power for themselves.
Bernie is not that man. Bernie is failure. Again, remember what he did when Hillary fucked him in the primary? The DNC was literally biased against him contrary to the bylaws of the institution. They broke the rules to screw Bernie. And what did he do? He sucked it up like a gimp.
That is your champion? Get a better hero.
If you can't grasp the difference and relevance of causation and correlation then I really don't think you're competent to make statistical arguments. This isn't an insult. Its merely that you either have a working understanding as to how to analyze statistics or you don't.
As to blacks receiving longer criminal sentences, that statistic was actually debunked. Extensive statistical analysis of that figure was made and it was shown to be specious.
I'll show you my link if you show me yours.
Its similar to the "wage gap" statistic that says men earn more money than women for the same work. The way that statistic works is it conflates people working at the same company as if they all do the same job. So for example, a coal miner in the wage gap statistics is cited as doing the same job as a secretary in the office. Never mind that one job is physically demanding, dangerous, and requires special skills in many cases... where as the other job requires none of those things and consequently doesn't pay as well. But wage gap statistics conflate the jobs of secretaries with the jobs of coal miners. We are inundated with bad ideologically driven statistics all the time.
As the man said "there are lies, damned dirty lies, and statistics."
Your screen name implied to me you were english " angel'o'sphere"... a play I presumed on the Anglosphere.
Regardless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your link is available in the English Wikipedia.
As to your citation-less arguments about US gun violence. I've already shown your position to be baseless in previous posts. Refusing to read or respond to arguments is literally your argumentative strategy at this point.
We wouldn't strive to make it painless then... if you go through most execution methods over the last 200 years, you'll find the most common methods were painless.
Hanging generally involved snapping the neck.
Lethal injection has people knocked out by drugs prior to the getting the poison.
The guillotine was cited as being humane because it knocked the head off too fast for there to be any pain.. and did so consistently and reliably.
contrary examples exist... firing squads and electrocution... but as you can see, there is frequently an interest in being painless and humane.
Also, if we wanted punishment, we'd probably just torture them to death or something which we don't do.
This is the "death to america" country.
Whatever your opinion of US foreign policy, its hard to pretend Iran is an honest actor. I think most people knew Iran was lying from the start. The loosey goosey agreement they signed was a big red flag.
Those that mourn the loss of this agreement, it was never real in the first place. All that is happening is that we're acknowledging a fiction for what it always was.
This has been the obvious way to put people down for decades.
For those concerned about discomfort... two examples:
1. They've done tests where a feed bin emits nitrogen gas. Pigs will go up to it, stick their faces in the bin to eat, not notice that they can't breath, and basically eat normally until due to lack of oxygen they pass out and fall over. Where upon they can breath normally, regain consciousness, and are fine. The point is, the pigs can't tell they can't breath. There've no clue. No instinctual panic reaction to nitrogen.
2. Military pilots are trained in how to deal with hypoxia. They are put in a chamber, given a child's cognitive toy (put square block in square hole, etc), and then the air is replaced with nitrogen. The pilots during this training do not notice the lack of oxygen or that all the air has been replaced with nitrogen. They simply get stupid, act a bit drunk... giggle, and then pass out.
Point is, you can't argue this is a cruel way to put someone down because you can't feel it. The fact that the pigs will literally eat until they pass out for lack of oxygen and the pilots have to be trained to recognize the symptoms makes the matter pretty conclusive.
Doubtless there are those that will object to this on the basis that they just don't like execution. Which "IF THAT" is your stated objection is fine. However, I suspect more than a few people are going to misrepresent their concerns as something else. This is one of those "issues" where people have a tendency to lack integrity when it comes to arguing.
IF you're going to execute someone, then this is the way to do it.
Cheap, certain, painless, no trauma to the body... the sentenced to death simply gets stupid, giggles a bit, passes out, and dies.
No toxic chemicals. No need for doctors with their Hippocratic oaths. No need for drugs special or common. No expensive maintenance costs. Cheap to operate. The only thing that has to be disposed of is the body.
IF you're going to execute someone, this method is from what I can tell... Ideal.
... Does projection normally rhetorically work for you? Because part of your problem in that case might be that you mostly interact with idiots.
What is my favorite news agency? I professed no affiliation with any news agency.
Seriously. Get help.
You missed it again. They only matter because invest in them.
Do you want to invest in them? Do you want me to identify with "my" race? Do you want me to advance the interests of my racial tribe?
Because when racial calculations become relevant... when you ask me to concern myself with your race... you are opening the door for me to consider my own.
This is not in the interest of anyone not of my race.
Making everyone think about statistical racial differences in economic attainment is not going to bring statistical equality to the West.
This is like the dumb article that recently said "Tech companies aren't hiring black women even though they buy a lot of iphones".
Is Apple racist against black women or is the statistical argument retarded?
That's a rhetorical question. Don't answer it. The answer is obvious.
This entire line of argumentation is foolish. If you interest is in equality, then examine what ACTUALLY is causing inequality. It isn't race.
No, it isn't race.
Race CORRELATES with a problem but does not CAUSE it.
Your racial arguments fail to address the real problem.
So if the mag capacity were set you'd oppose any further gun control.
Good to know.
Well, count down to viruses.
Of course I'm part of the Illuminati big feet alien jewish conspiracy. I'm not in your tin foil hat safe space. So I must be a Russian bot.
Cite media outside of your safe space that isn't propaganda. Try. I bet its mentally like trying to pull your foot out of tar isn't it?
Seriously, get help.
No really.