Iran has been building up military installations in Syria to launch attacks at Israel. I think the movement to eventually be able to openly invade Israel is clear.

The fact that the USA has acted badly on numerous occasions does not alter whether or not Iran is a Threat to the USA and USA interests. Truth is there are a number of things the USA has done since 9/11/2001 which have been bad and in the process created greater dangers to the USA than al Qaeda. One of these threats has been to create power vacuums which Iran has taken advantage of, and Iran is now exerting considerable influence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, and Yemen.

Iran openly wants to destroy Israel, and openly supports terrorists like the Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command; of course Iran calls them "National Liberation Movements" not terrorist groups. None the less, Iran's desire to destroy Israel is very well known and Iran has been working hard to increase the military power and to move military power closer to Israel to achieve this... hence a large number of Iranian military build ups in Syria. Iran has fired rockets from their Syrian based forces into Israel. Russia has given more advanced missiles to Syria which are a greater threat to aircraft which are going to be used to shield Iranian bases being built up in Syria with the direct purpose of attacking Israel.

While none of that is directly attacking the USA, it is certainly a threat to USA interests.

But, additionally Iran has been backing insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and kill USA soldiers; and these Iranian proxies are estimated to have killed as many as 1,100 US troops. That is a direct threat. Iran was behind a large bomb making factory discovered in Bahrain in 2015, bombs meant to be used in a series of bombing upon the kingdom. Iran was behind the 2012 bombing in India which targeted an Israeli Ambassador there. In 2012 Iranian terrorists in Kenya were caught while plotting attacks against United States, Israeli, Saudi, or British targets in Kenya; a primary target being Israel's ambassador to Kenya. Also in 2012 Iranian terrorists tried but failed in killing Israeli diplomats with bombs. In 2018 France froze Iranian assets which were going to be used in Paris against the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Unlike Saddam Hussein, Iran did appear to have strong ties with al Qaeda, in fact they had an alliance against Saddam Hussein; though after 9/11 Iran did place hundreds of al Qaeda in Iran under house arrest, for awhile, and there al Qaeda members under house arrest appear to have planed the 2003 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, bombings with Iran's help. This is not to say relations between Iran and al Qaeda were always good, but there was a lot more connection than with Saddam Hussein. In general, between 2011 and 2013 there appear to be at least 30 terrorist attacks around the world directly sponsored by Iran.

When you put all these things together with a clear goal to building up their military strength to be able to challenge both the USA and Israel at the same time, their considerably expanding influence, their penchant for supporting and sponsoring terrorist attacks, Iran's clear goal to remove Israel's existence by force, and the leadership and military of Iran expresses hate of the US... this seems pretty clear to be heading towards war.

Now, in the other direction, as far as I can tell, many Iranians don't want to be involved in this extreme position that the Iranian Leadership (political and religious) is leading Iran. But, the military and government are leading these extreme positions. It is a bit hard to separate the two, other than to try and limit any war to mostly striking the military while avoiding the civilian population as best as possible. I say this because I think it is only a matter of time before full scale war breaks out, though it may break first between Israel and Iran.

I did not consider Iraq under Saddam Hussein a real threat, I did not consider Afghanistan under the Taliban a real threat (though we did need to take out al Qaeda); but I consider Iran a real threat.

Iran is extending its influence across Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Yemen, and the UAE. Iran is actively supporting terrorist groups and insurgent groups who want to attack the USA and Israel. Iran is building up its military outside of Iran in locations like Syria, from where it has recently launched attacks with missiles into Israel. Russia has given new more modern missiles to shoot down aircraft to Syria, which will help shield Iranian military forces which are building up there with the specific goal of attacking Israel. Iran is working hard in general to make itself a powerful enough military force it can attack USA forces and get away with it; with the very distinct probability that Iran will attack USA naval forces in the Persian Gulf as soon as they do think they can do it and get away with it.

How can that be considered anything other than a serious threat.

Then why did Iran fire numerous rockets from Syria into Israel? It seems to me Iran very strongly wants to bomb Israel and is working very hard towards gaining enough military power up close to Israel so that Iran can launch a real invasion against Israel. The fact that Israel struct those assets in Syria hard do not change this build by Iran and now Russia has given Syria more advanced missiles which will be used to protect Iranian military bases being built up in Syria. Iran is extending its influence across Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Yemen, and the UAE.

Now, you might say that firing at Israel is not firing at the USA, but Iran is a very active supporter of insurgents and terrorist groups who want to strike the USA and Iran is strongly implicated in assisting indirectly in the deaths of US soldiers in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. The greatest threat Iran poses to the USA is by sponsoring terror and maybe striking our ships in the Persian Gulf, but they are a real threat.

ROFL.

Sorry, I feel this is very sad.

Humans are the current singular dominant species in virtually all ways that truly matter. To think that this leads to an "empty, pointless, meaningless life" is truly sad.

We are, at least for another decade or so, the dominant intelligent life form of Earth over the past at least hundreds of thousands of years if not millions or more years. We are the leading edge of "Intelligent Life" seeking to evolve into "More Intelligent Life".

The whole idiotic idea of describing this empty,pointless, and meaningless is just ignorant and stupid.

We are the singular more advanced form of intelligent life seeking very, very hard to evolve into the next more evolved form of life, a form of life we are actively intelligently evolving into what we will become.

Humans are currently evolving towards the next level of evolution, but few understand this.

What truly is socialism?

In my opinion, it is where society decided how the ownership and control of the production of products and services exists. Point being, if a society decides it prefers "Pure Capitalism" then that is "Socialism", so long as it is the "Society" deciding this path.

I do not believe we can have a social structure which does not have tiers of authority, thus there will be individuals within any society which has more "Authority and Power" than the average individual. It a true total "Pure Democracy" ends up being a Mob Rule and as such very "Chaotic". A Pure Dictatorship results in a Pure Rule by the Dictator, regardless of that Dictator being right or wrong. The best path then becomes a compromise between Chaotic Evil Pure Democracy and Utter Lawful Evil Total Dictatorship.

We need a balance to seek to avoid the what we consider most evil.

Well, it is going to happen, whether any individual likes it or not. Some number of the most advanced intelligent Terrans will begin living open ended life spans while being very hard to kill, which means they will be able to live hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and more years. While that is not immortality, that is what will happen, no matter what any individual feels about the subject.

It will be the most intelligent beings who live such open ended life spans. Not all living beings will achieve this. There are all kinds of complications and socially negative aspects we might have because of this Virtually Immortal Life Span, it is going to happen, period.

So, realizing it is going to happen, period, and whatever intelligent life achieves this will be the dominant intelligence, that is what we should be thinking about when it comes to the future. Some intelligent beings will become dominant and virtually immortal... we get to have a strong influence over who those intelligent beings will be... but we can't stop it from happening.

I am deciding upon this vote because of the two choices.

I do not necessarily think I will be left behind, though my chances are infinitesimal.

The primary challenge to this is that we will NOT become Immortal Gods.

Oh, we will begin living Virtual Immortal Lives, with Open Ended Life Spans... but that is NOT Immortal. To be immortal means living forever, which means living an infinite length of time, and that simply is impossible. So we will not be immortal, we will just have vastly longer life spans than we have now.

The next issue is whether or not we will be Gods. Well, what is a God is in the "Eye of the Beholder". I truly hope this is not the future we go into, because if it is, then it means that a few will have all the dictatorial power over the few and because of that they will become "Gods in the Eye of the Masses". That would truly be a sad future. So, I prefer a future with more individual equality and freedom which means that NO ONE should be considered a God.

No matter how poerful we become in the future, if such power is common place, then it will not define those with that power to be a God. Instead it will simply define them as being a common member of the far future society.

Now, I think we are all on a path we cannot prevent from happening where we will evolve into an Advanced Technological Race of Pure Minds with immense power over our existence compared to what people today have, but those future people will just be common people of the future... NOT GODS and NOT IMMORTALS.

This is nonsense and it is amazing so many people fail to realize it.

We have vast numbers of intelligent life forms and protecting the weak is a very common trait among them. This not only frequently and regularly happens inside a specific species, what is truly amazing to me is when Predators will on occasion save a Weak Member of a Species they Prey Upon for Food. It is truly amazing.

Humans are just an animal, one of a vast number of animals, and we have all evolved from the same beginning intelligent source which almost certainly began with small pieces of RNA which could figure out how to replicate without any other intelligent life existing. We have all evolved from the same origins under the guidance of RNA/DNA Swarm Minds which trace their origins to those first RNA Swarm Minds which formed randomly.

Yes, evolution has been intelligent and thus "Intelligent Design" is correct, except not from an all knowing GOD, but from the many various RNA/DNA Swarm Minds which have been intelligently struggling hard to evolve into more intelligent life forms.

The Human Species has currently won this competitive race, AT THIS TIME, but all other life is part of our development. The saving of weaker members of a species is an extremely wide spread trait among all species. It is just ignorance of the evolution of life to think otherwise.

Mind you, this does not mean the reverse has not also been common and that overall for any species to evolve it must survive, but a great many evolutionary decisions have had NOTHING to do with improving the chances of survival and instead have had some other reason behind that evolutionary change.

Morality is a "subjective relative decision making over to what degree a behavior is good or bad". This can happen with an individual or a group of individuals. As soon as this becomes more than one individual, it becomes a Social Agreement between the individuals within the group over the "subjective relative decision making over to what degree a behavior is good or bad". This is not to say that everyone in the group would agree, but within any group some form of social leadership will arise and the leaders of that social group will determine what those moral rules for that group will be, either because the majority believes they are the right morals or because the minority has enough power to force those rules over the majority.

Science is about learning how our existence really works and doing this in as objective a manner as possible while critically attacking every answer found to be true, thus trying to prove all existing truths found false, if possible. Those things which cannot be objectively proven false rise to become what is "Scientifically Most Likely True". Science is all about probabilities of what is most likely being true while constantly testing all results.

Science has nothing to do with deciding what is moral and what is not; but science is all about understanding why we chose morals and providing us as objective as possible arguments to decide one moral over another, thus can have a great influence over morals, but not decide morals.

Both obviously co-exist, meaning the answer to the question is obviously "Of Course", all one has to do is look at the existence we live in for scientific objective proof of this.

I would argue that science can very much explain morality, and thus part is wrong. But, science does not decide what is moral and not moral. Morality is a subjective retaliative choice over what behaviors are considered better, worse, and to what degree they are better or worse, and as groups of more than one individual decide this, it becomes a social agreement within a group over this. Because of this, science can explain it, but the decision making is subjective and relative to those making the decisions. What science can help with is to provide as objective as possible arguments towards choosing one moral over another, which does not dictate the outcome of the decision, but can influence it in positive manners.