Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Where I Pontificate
Phrobis
interdictor
I cannot pry myself away from the television and computer. Again, check out cedarseed's journal for the same kind of Johnny-on-the-spot perspective I had on interdictor.

This whole situation just reaffirms my original position that Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia should have been our focus (United States) instead of the more secular Iraq.

You know that quote from Plato, "Only the dead have seen the end of war" -- well I believe it. Mankind has just not been out of the trees long enough to maintain any kind of peaceful civilization for any kind of noticable duration. Sure, you get a couple of hundred years of peace here or there, but it's nothing to speak of. War is a condition human beings need to get used to, because it's always going to be with us. We fight over land, we fight over religion, we fight over rights, we fight over power. The constant is that we fight. In fact, right here in New Orleans, as soon as the winds began to abate, the social order collapsed and looting and skirmishing picked up. And the looting wasn't limited to people in need who were searching to meet their needs for survival; rather, residences and businesses were looted of everything from food to plasma television sets by people ranging in class from the cyclically poor to the political class and their enforcement agencies. It seems like man is never more than one thunderstorm away from turning on his neighbor.

I guess I don't find it depressing, since it's part of the human condition. It's as natural for man as sex. Maybe we will evolve past it, or maybe we're a hundred generations or less away from extinction.

I fear that it's a a lot less than a hundred generations.

London often seems to be a huge collection of strangers jammed in together with people that they would not associate with by choice. Was it the same in NO?

Here, that doesn't make for a functional society. I suspect that humans evolved for a village-sized group and relatively few strangers.

New Orleans was a city of neighborhoods with local loyalties and often ignorant prejudices about other neighborhoods. I say "was" as I have seen some of that breaking down since the disaster and more recognition of what we have in common as New Orleanians.

How big were the neighbourhoods? I would have thought that would have been more stable - but not when the people were on the move after the disaster, of course.

(Now I'm thinking about it. Here, there are neighbourhoods but they are very small. One can be off one's own turf and actually at risk by going 1/2 a km in the wrong direction.)

Humanity makes war and fights. It's been true, as you said, since we dropped from the trees, or before. It's what we're fighting *for* which will determine our future viability. IMHO. Do we fight for our survival (as a species) or do we fight for whatever scrap of detritus that's considered valuable at the moment?

I have been saying since 2001 that the public was being conned into going after the wrong countries. Saudi provided almost all the 9-11 terrorists and money.

If Iran goes nuclear against Israel that could make a real mess of the world. The West and Russia managed not to do it, but then they never showed the mental instability of the Islamic countries. A lot of those people act more like mad dogs than regular humans.


I agree, we need to go after Syria, Saudi, and Iran, but there was no way to do that while leaving Iraq untouched. For one thing, Kuwait would never have allowed us to use them as a staging area for an attack on anyone but Iraq. Turkey didn't even allow us that much. For another thing, Iraq had the largest military in the region until we destroyed it, and could have provided large amounts of men and material to support the defense of those other nations. That's assuming it didn't simply join in, forcing us to fight multiple nations at once.

It wasn't a con. Iraq was simply a necessary first step.

Funny story. When you tell someone you're doing something for one reason (yellowcake, WMDs delivered in 10 minutes or your pizza's free!), and then proceed to - once you've royally screwed up, say you actually did that "thing" for an entirely different reason... that's what you'd call a con.

Way to give a reacharound to the Project for a New American Century, though!

The PNAC published their goals openly, years before Bush even got to office. Anybody who got 'fooled' by the WMD thing is a simpleton who wanted to get fooled.


Actually, if you widen the net far enough, you will find that there is a tribal/nation/paramilitary/associational group at war with some other tribe/nation/sect group at all times, somewhere in the world.

The difference here is that Israel and the Middle East makes for good TV, and are somewhat powerful.

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.

"It's as natural for man as sex. Maybe we will evolve past it, or maybe we're a hundred generations or less away from extinction."

I only think it's natural to the extent that all societies based on property have instructed even their youngest that property is life, and life property. Even wars started for the sake of 'rights' can in retrospect be largely boiled down to land and/or property -> money. Sex is natural to the extent that reproduction is a biological imperative derived by chemical processes and inclinations. But things like war, violence, and greed are not biological. (We humans love making up excuses for all our naughty behaviors, don't we?)

Well, to a certain extent, property is life: try living without that property we call "food." Living without shelter is more feasible but not very enjoyable, and living without modern medicine cuts your lifespan in half. Living without land means you lose the shelter and your best way of creating replenishable food and medicine.

Even tribal people, with a relatively minimalistic view of property (live here for a while, enjoy what the land brings, then move on) managed to get into wars with each other when they found themselves wanting the same space at the same time. Why? Because both tribes still needed to eat.

It's human nature (and well, just plain nature) to evolve...you have to think, 60 years ago we were putting little kids to work in farm fields all day and 200 years ago slavery was legal.

I think, someday we will evolve into kinder beings, but it will take a long, long time. Hopefully, we won't blow each other up first.

You are viewing interdictor