We have not reached the state in which AI creates AI.

If he is including civilians then yes. Surface targets are easy and their civilians have done nothing to deserve this.

Otherwise their leadership have been begging for decades to be decimated. The leadership that the US put in place. It would be quite a feat. Much of their leadership are secured waiting us out in missile cities that are immune to bunker busters and nukes. It would take a massive and prolonged ground assault to clear all of them out. Most people on all sides do not want this to become yet another multi-decade multi-trillion dollar war.

I would expect most of the civilians to flee the country and I have no idea who could or would accommodate 90 million refugees.

I think you and I know he says a lot of whacky stuff to make people think he is unstable and will do anything so other nations are more likely to assume he may do something unethical and to take him seriously.

But yes to your point if I took him literally then that would include civilians. I suppose we will only know if and when tactical nukes are dropped on cities. I have learned to never take him literally at his word.

So far his words seem to have been pretty good predictors for his future actions. Maybe not always in the same order and/or with the intended effect. But the list of stuff he said he would do compared with the list of stuff he said he would do but didn't do is changing day-by-day and for some of those things he didn't do the clock hasn't run out yet. I think you ignore these kinds of statements at your peril when means, motive and opportunity are a fact.

He's bluffed in the past. Some call it taco, I call it a bluff. All entirely expected from a former real-estate empire builder.

T-minus 6 and a half hours.

He was a patriot and very pragmatic. He knew France had been diminished. He had no time for delusional ideas.

Also, US is certainly gaining here from high oil prices since its not an optional luxury rather a necessity for entire economies.

But America's actions will not be forgotten.

As for polarization that's been the modus operandi in my country for at least 500 years. Everyone hates everyone but the alternative was the French, English or Spanish so what can you do? Turns out you actually really don't need to love your neighbour.

This is mentioned often, but is also such a broad generalization that it is not constructive in any meaningful way. If everything is politics, then it can be eliminated from both sides of the equation. Focus on real and immediate problems at hand and providing concrete solutions need not have "politics" label slapped onto it by default, esp. where the ideological infighting this attracts complicates having open and frank discussions based on the facts. "Politics" has become a weaponised word often used to derail good initiatives, and with great success. The mindset that everything is politics may be contributor to that.

Everything you want to be politics is politics. Caring for other people shouldn't be politics. Being a decent human being shouldn't be politics. There are plenty of things that aren't politics unless you decide you want to turn them into politics.

Is ‘caring’ (what does that mean exactly?) for someone on death row good or bad? You’ll likely find splits in answers along ‘political’ lines, especially depending on things like the nature of the crime, who the victim was, etc.

Is ‘caring’ (again, in what way?) for someone in Palestine good or bad? Or worth how much money to do? Similar split. How about Iran?

What about someone in the inner cities? Who doesn’t work?

Etc.

Hand wavy general statements are easy to have, but when it gets down to actual implementation is when real groups of people start to have very different concrete opinions on how it should be done.

You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!

That is politics.

caring: (adjective) displaying kindness and concern for others.

If you look at this definition of caring and find a way to turn it into a politics issue that's your problem, not mine.

If you scale a problem up, then yes, you get into politics. If you scale it all the way down, politics disappear. If you see your next-door neighbor struggling with something and you can help, you should. That's not politics. That's called being a decent human being.

> Hand wavy general statements are easy to have

I agree. In fact "everything is politics" is a stupid, hand wavy statement.

> You’ll also find lots of shaming among the group and against ‘outsiders’ trying to enforce idealogy. And if you think that part doesn’t happen, just read your own comment - it’s a mild form of that!

Disagreement != enforcing ideology, at least in my world. And if you don't see it that way, then I guess you're guilty of doing the precise thing you're commenting on.

With that struggling neighbor, are you talking about helping them take out their trash at night when they’re tired - or paying unemployment benefits for years?

Notably, in my experience, the ones who talk the most usually just keep talking - and aren’t the ones on the hook for actually doing the hard caregiving when things are really tough. But hey, maybe you’re different?

One big difference we have here is you’re again talking hand waving generalities, and I’m talking concrete economic behaviors and policy. It’s easy to say ‘if you can help you should’, it’s harder when it’s ’where is the line for “can” and “should” exactly when we’re talking millions of people and trillions of dollars’, and people you’ll likely never meet in your life - and taxes that definitely come out of your paycheck each month.

Move the line too much one way, and it incentivizes being a victim. Move it too much the other way, and it crushes people with legitimate problems. Both are real issues.

It was a good idea once but there's no doubt in my mind that the Americans will confiscate it all.

America did it to its own people too.