It’s reasonable for her to say such things in order to get support of the nation most capable of removing Maduro and allowing her to rule. It doesn’t make her a bad person or speak negatively on how effective a ruler she will be.
The current Iranian regime is a direct result of US involvement in Iran. We are largely responsible for it, for two reasons:
1. By overthrowing a democratic government in the first place to make the Shah a dictator, creating the seeds of revolution; and
2. When it becamne clear that Iran was "lost" (to the West) and fearing a takeover by the Communists and Iran falling into the Soviet sphere of influence, the US got Saddam Hussein, our then-puppet in Iraq who we used to stoke a war for a decade killing more than a million people as an aside, to release the Ayatollah Khomenei from prison in the hopes that the Islamic fundamentalists rather than the communists would win the revolution.
He was imprisoned in Iran, then went to Turkey and from there to Iraq iirc, but it is long ago, so I suspect the GP meant after he was arrested by the Shah.
In the 90s I had a professor from Ukraine for a math class. He grew up during Stalin and Khrushchev and worked during the Brezhnev years. At a party a group of us decried Pinochet. His response, “What is the big deal. So he killed 10,000 people. In Ukraine we would gladly kill 10,000 people to have their economy.”
As far as one can reasonably know something it’s clear that Maduro was not the fairly elected president. Chavez and Maduro were disastrous for Venezuela and millions now have hope for a better future.
Your perception about Iran in 1953 is badly wrong.
Guessing it’s what he said in 2002? But the Tablet EIC made these remarks last week. Not really equivalent, although you’re entitled to your media choices.
A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99 per cent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against.[83] According to historian Mark Gasiorowski, "There were separate polling stations for yes and no votes, producing sharp criticism of Mosaddeq" and that the "controversial referendum...gave the CIA's precoup propaganda campaign to show up Mosaddeq as an anti-democratic dictator an easy target".[84]
A person has to be very gullible to believe 99% of the vote went one way in a fair election involving 2+ million people.
It appears quantum phenomena are accurately described using mathematics involving trig functions. As such we do encounters numbers in reality that involve transcendental numbers, right?
You don’t need quantum mechanics. Trigonometric functions are everywhere in classical mechanics. Gaussians, exponential, and logs are everywhere in statistical physics. You cannot do much if you don’t use transcendental numbers. Hell, you just need a circle to come across pi. It’s rational numbers that are special.
They're accurately modeled. Just as Newtownian phenomena are accurately modeled, until they aren't. Reality is not necessarily reflective of any model.
Five continuous quantities related to each other, where by default when not specified we can safely assume real values, right? So we must have real values in reality, right?
But we know that gas is not continuous. The "real" ideal gas law that relates those quantities really needs you to input every gas molecule, every velocity of every gas molecule, every detail of each gas molecule, and if you really want to get precise, everything down to every neutrino passing through the volume. Such a real formula would need to include terms for things like the self-gravitation of the gas affecting all those parameters. We use a simple real-valued formula because it is good enough to capture what we're interested in. None of the five quantities in that formula "actually" exist, in the sense of being a single number that fully captures the exact details of what is going on. It's a model, not reality.
Similarly, all those things using trig and such are models, not reality.
But while true, those in some sense miss something even more important, which I alluded to strongly but will spell out clearly here: What would it mean to have a provably irrational value in hand? In the real universe? Not metaphorically, but some sort of real value fully in your hand, such that you fully and completely know it is an irrational value? Some measure of some quantity that you have to that detail? It means that if you tell me the value is X, but I challenge you that where you say the Graham's Number-th digit of your number is a 7, I say it is actually a 4, you can prove me wrong. Not by math; by measurement, by observation of the value that you have "in hand".
You can never gather that much information about any quantity in the real universe. You will always have finite information about it. Any such quantity will be indistinguishable from a rational number by any real test you could possibly run. You can never tell me with confidence that you have an irrational number in hand.
Another way of looking at it: Consider the Taylor expansion of the sine function. To be the transcendental function it is in math, it must use all the terms of the series. Any finite number of terms is still a polynomial, no matter how large. Now, again, I tell you that by the Graham's Number term, the universe is no longer using those terms. How do you prove me wrong by measurement?
All you can give me is that some value in hand sure does seem to bear a strong resemblance to this particular irrational value, pi or e perhaps, but that's all. You can't go out the infinite number of digits necessary to prove that you have exactly pi or e.
Many candidates for the Theory of Everything don't even have the infinite granularity in the universe in them necessary to have that detailed an object in reality, containing some sort of "smallest thing" in them and minimum granularity. Even the ones that do still have the Planck size limit that they don't claim to be able to meaningfully see beyond with real measurements.
Yes, I can’t prove I have pi. But you can’t prove that I don’t. I’m not a physicist I’m a mathematician. Quantum phenomena appear to actually, in reality be “probabilistic” and to actually involve irrational numbers.
If rationals exist in reality and you are comfortable with Graham’s number existing in reality (which has more digits in its base 10 representation than the number of particles in the observable universe) then why not irrationals? They are the completion of the rationals.
There are a vast number of valid reasons to despise Donald Trump. He has publicly lusted after his daughter. He has said that he can sexually assault women with impunity since he is a star. He was convicted of felonies. He is barred from operating a charity in New York. He is known to stiff workers and hire illegals. He is incapable of admitting wrongdoing or admitting that he made a mistake. Hence his marking up a NOAA hurricane forecast map. He clearly knew about Epstein’s crimes and did not care about them. (Along with a lot of other famous people.) His threats against Panama, Canada, and Greenland are doing harm to the U.S. His henchmen in charge of ICE have deported U.S. citizens and he doesn’t care about that. He’s accepted billions in bribes via his Trump Coin. He lies constantly. He got into a twitter feud with a tennager while President. He is ignorant, incurious, vain, and narcissistic.
