smooth_tea

I don't know if it is that off-base to be honest, restraint does not mean that they practiced pacifism, just that the response was disproportionately small.

In what world would a country in a similar situation not support groups that try to counter an invading force? What about the assassinations inside Iran? The terrorist attacks orchestrated by the west? The sabotage of their nuclear facilities? How is it that those things can go on for decades, and then when Iran finally reacts, people go "oh look what these maniacs did, how dare they!"

Do you not care that Iran was on the receiving end of these things, or were you simply not aware?

Iran has been notoriously docile because it knows the US had been looking for an excuse to attack it. Just like Wesley Clarke stated.

That's like poking a bear and then halfway through your shenanigans claim you'll have to put it down because you're in danger. What a bunch of hollow rhetoric. There's 3 sentences in your paragraph and each one is just a slogan. Each one vague enough that it means both nothing and anything you can think of.

Diverting from the usual warmongering is not isolationism, in fact, the problem you allude to is the result of the former, not the other way around.

I know it's a crazy idea but perhaps we should look at our failed approaches from recent history and try to learn from it. But judging from your edit, you have an extremely short attention span mixed with tunnel vision. Where were you when the US and its allies assassinated people inside Iran? Funded terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran? Sabotaged their nuclear facilities? Or, you know, when the idea of another pre-emptive attack on that nation was so imminent that one presidential candidate figured it'd be funny to fuel that by singing "bomb bomb Iran", based on nothing but the lie that they were close to getting a nuclear bomb?

Was all that a festering problem that Iran should've responded to, or is it different when you're on the receiving end?

I'll take "how to repeat bad mistakes from recent history" for 500 Jim.

Did you sleep through the past 20 years or are you just not that observant?

No I'm pretty sure they does the don't.

I'm sure someone already made a graph plotting the hours wasted learning vs the seconds gained not moving your mouse.

"Your honor the suspect had blood on his hands when we found him. Well you're 10% blood so what's your point?"

1-2 jars of anything a week is unreasonable.

It's just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

How is your intelligence different from being "biased data that can be accessed"?

The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining "reason", I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.

Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It's easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.

It's easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn't intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn't act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.

You're missing the point. The issue with Fahrenheit is not about the conversion from Celsius, most Europeans don't need to do that anyway. The problem is Fahrenheit in itself, it's just not elegant or scientific and therefore comes off as arbitrary and only makes sense when you grow up with it.

I know a 5 year old who shoved a crayon up his nose.

Ah yes, "we did good but they messed it up, as usual!"

If the US cared enough about the well-being and the services the people have access to in the nations they invade, they would probably not do the invading bit.