General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2272938

    Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

    Locked

    by jardinier ·

    Well I hate to be the one to bring everyone crashing back to earth, but the fact is that while the news has been dominated by the tsunami tragedy, to the point where Iraq hardly gets a mention, the fact is that violence and civil disorder continue to escalate.

    The insurgents are apparently determined to do everything possible to ensure valid elections cannot be held by the agreed date.

    Here is the latest bad news from Iraq:

    Gunmen have killed the Baghdad governor in Iraq’s highest-profile assassination in eight months, and a suicide bomber killed 10 people near the Green Zone in an escalating campaign to wreck the January 30 election.

    The targeting yesterday of Ali al-Haidri raised fresh doubts whether Iraqi security forces can protect politicians and voters as the national ballot draws near.

    The assassination took place just hours after a suicide bomber rammed a fuel truck into a checkpoint near Baghdad’s Green Zone, a sprawling complex housing the Iraqi Government and the US and British embassies. It created a giant fireball that rocked the capital, police and hospital sources said.

    The bombing, which also wounded 58 people, brought new scenes of bloodshed and destruction to Baghdad a day after 17 security men were killed in a string of ambushes and explosions across the country.

    These included an attack in west Baghdad early on Monday when an explosives-laden car tried to ram through a checkpoint on a road leading to the headquarters of the National Accord party of the Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi.

    Three British nationals and an American were also killed in an attack on an American convoy in Baghdad on Monday.

    Details of Mr Haidri’s death remained sketchy. As the head of Baghdad province he was the most senior Iraqi official to be assassinated in Baghdad since Izzedin Salim, the president of the Governing Council, was killed by a suicide bomb last May.

    Hours after Monday’s bombings Dr Allawi spoke to the US President, George Bush, although US officials insisted that the Prime Minister did not tell Mr Bush that elections should be delayed.

    “There was no substantive conversation about delay,” an Administration official said. Dr Allawi”wasn’t even a bit wobbly” on that point.

    But some officials in Washington and in Iraq interpreted the call as a sign that Dr Allawi, who is clearly concerned that his party could be heading for defeat if the election is held on schedule, may be preparing the ground to make the case for delay to Mr Bush.

    While White House officials were hesitant to give many details of the discussion between Dr Allawi and Mr Bush, they said the Iraqi leader brought up questions of security and the ferocity of the insurgency.

    Yet Dr Allawi’s cabinet is already showing signs of weakening on the question of holding the elections this month.

    The Defence Minister, Hazim al-Shaalan, said in Cairo on Monday that the voting should be postponed to ensure greater participation by Sunnis.

    [Reuters, The New York Times]

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3299076

      I was getting bored with Iraq anyway

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      Presumably when the tsnuami is no longer newsworthy. Iraq will come back to the fore unless we get another disaster to take their minds off it.
      Can’t wait for the election, any sensible government’s first issue will be getting all the foreign troops out of their country. Which unless the american public can convince Mr Bush that it’s in his political interest will happen on the same day as the Iraqi people formally express their unamimous gratitude for being liberated.

      • #3299049

        Tell the troops you are bored of them……

        by it_lobo ·

        In reply to I was getting bored with Iraq anyway

        putting their lives on the line to ensure Iraq has a shot at being free.

        I have alot of friends in the military serving in Iraq and all they want for the people of the USA is to support them. It does not matter your views on the war itself you can still support the troops.

        Remember the men and woman of the military has fought for rights, including freedom of speach.

        • #3313642
          Avatar photo

          Actually I have to completely agree here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Tell the troops you are bored of them……

          But wouldn’t it be far better if it was the Politician’s who fought the wars instead of being the ones who are responsible for sending our troops to these places?

          Col

        • #3294279

          You lit the blue touch paper with that one, extensive rebuttal

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Tell the troops you are bored of them……

          I’m sure they do, and very few in your country or mine would withhold that support.
          And if you’d have stuck simply to that point instead of attempting to justify the war, I would eaten the humble pie and apologized for any offense my tongue in cheek comment might have given.

          However you did n’t did you .

          A shot at being free ?
          They are shooting at people who want to be free of western/christian influence and to run their country as they see fit. Don’t get me wrong, anyone who can implement rape clinics, torture, and genocide needs their hair parting with an armalite, but they think they should be free to do it.
          Fought for free speech, you could describe any conflict in those terms, but you’d be missing the point.
          The right to free speech in the UK was won mainly by the people against the army. So was your independence and subsequent constitution and if you are of african descent racial equality. The military (professional or conscript) is a tool of government, they are the ones who do the killing and the dying to enforce policy. It’s just nice when the policy is freedom or at least can be described as it at home, makes all the deaths seem worthwhile.

          Hitler described World War II as a pursuit of German freedoms. History has judged him wrong, or maybe it was losing the war.

          Last on a personal note you can never be given your freedom, you must take it. Because if someone has the power to give it they can also take it away. The intervention in Iraq has denied the opportunity for the Iraqi people to be free from Hussein’s tyranny, so now they are going to ‘fight’ at the very least figuratively to be free from ours. And please don’t tell me we aren’t being perceived as tyrannical by many Iraqi people.
          I have the utmost respect and the greatest sympathy for those who must be brutalized in this and any war, and none whatsoever for those responsible. I hold western policy in the middle east as a prime factor. If we didn’t help Hussein gain power we certainly helped him keep it as he was preferable to both russian communism and Khomeini’s interpretation of Islam. I’m sure he didn’t suddenly come down with a dose of evilness the day before the invasion of Kuwait, they knew what he was, but the policy at the time was to ignore it, and this is what’s now so important that our men and women and theirs have to die for it. Those who put this policy into place should feel every death in Iraq like a nail in their own coffin, but they won’t because politics is the art of expediency.

      • #3313771

        ALWAYS support the troops

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to I was getting bored with Iraq anyway

        Wars are started by politicians.

        It is tragic that so many service personnel and civilians are killed or maimed for life in order to satisfy some politician’s (or other type of leader’s) lust for power.

        • #3313697

          Bush, Iraq and the tsunami

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to ALWAYS support the troops

          I bet Bush and his government are heaving a collective sigh of relief that the tragedy of the tsunami came just when it did.

          Especially with the Iraq elections looming at the end of the month — assuming they’re not postponed, of course — the fact that the eyes of the world have been taken away from the mess the US has created in that country must surely have Bush thanking whoever his God may happen to be.

          I totally agree with you Julian; it’s politicians who begin wars, and we all know that Bush certainly began this one, simply so he could get his hands “legally” on Iraqi oil.

          That being said, it still saddens me to see anyone needlessly killed, be they soldier or civilian. The soldiers have no say about whether they WANT to fight or not; they simply go at their country’s (read: President’s) behest.

          As for the thousands of dead and those made homeless as a result of the earthquake and tsunamis, that, I expect, has to be laid at nature’s door.

          However, perhaps as far as Bush is concerned, it’s a blessing in disguise that the continuing help that must be given to Indonesia and the surrounding devastated area will need to go on for many months, even years, before things are restored to normal again.

          This will no doubt give Bush the opportunity he needs, while the world’s eyes are turned away from Iraq, to do the right thing and pull the troops out.

          That’s assuming he knows what the right thing is, of course. Maybe he can think of another way to clean up the mess he’s made there if he doesn’t want to go this far. I can’t. It’s really all or nothing.

          Gret

        • #3294275

          Not sure even I’d go that far.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Bush, Iraq and the tsunami

          Though I must admit I still don’t know why the american nation or more importantly mine have decide to go over the top as it were. Every reason put forward up to press, has been either disproven, shown to be extremely dubious, or is altruistic. As soon as any politician says they doing something for the common good, you know it’s an all out lie. There must have been a good reason or a substantial minority (including myself) were all halfwits for voting them into power. Being a british socialist I feel particularly betrayed as I thought I’d voted for a party that would never sacrifice so many of my principals that they could support this act.
          Unfortunately the main opposition in the UK make Mr Bush look like Karl Marx, so I could be a bit stuffed come election time.

        • #3294226

          How far is far?

          by levannah44 ·

          In reply to Not sure even I’d go that far.

          Maybe it all comes down to the way the war in Iraq gets reported in different countries which dictates how much you’re going to see or hear, and of course, within that, detect the truth, sometimes not very easy.

          For purposes of “sanitisation”, what the GP gets to see and hear on/in their media isn’t what’s really going on. Journos “embedded” with the troops will no doubt go all out to give the GP the truth as they see it from their — perhaps — somewhat confined observation point, but unfortunately, it’s not the journos who have the last say about how their reporting ends up in the media. That’s the editor’s job, and sometimes even s/he is pressured from above — need I say more?

          So when everything starts to go so horribly wrong, as we know it has in Iraq, I imagine it’s these “embedded” journos who are the first ones to be sat upon, to say nothing of their editors as well, because a turn for the worst, as has happened in Iraq, points very strongly towards government lies in the first place.

          We all know what pollies are like — most of them, anyway, especially the ones in power — and of course, that’s the way they want to keep it, with themselves holding power.

          So when something else comes along, big enough to hide their mistakes, they jump to “support” it, no matter what. Which is exactly the case with Iraq on the one hand and these dreadful tsunamis on the other.

          Tony, I’m only a cynic where politics and politicians are concerned; I’m not like this in every facet of my life!

          However, if you ferret around enough, you can find out why the UK i) so enthusiastically went into this war with Bush — apart from the oil, that is — and ii) why everything’s gone so dreadfully wrong and what they’re really trying to hide, tsunami or no tsunami.

          Gret

        • #3294158

          It was never going to go right.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to How far is far?

          Unfortunately even if they’d gone in for all the good and pure reasons they claimed, found WMDs in every bedroom on top of active terrorist cells funded by south american communist drug lords with a non christian world view supporting abortion and gay marriages.

          Lots of people would have still died.

          It would still have gone on forever.

          The Iraqi people would still have at least resented us while we have holes in our backsides.

          Why because no matter how right you think you are no one likes you waving a gun in their face while pointing it out.

          Simple human nature.

        • #3298106

          On media reports

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to How far is far?

          It is extremely popular on this website especially, to assert that the media only publishes the bad news.

          Well imagine my surprise when I got into conversation with a lass who is in regular communication with friends in Baghdad (by phone, until the phone line was cut off).

          Her friends said the amount of violence was far worse than what is reported in the media.

          There wasn’t just once bomb attack each day — they occurred continually.

          I have encouraged this woman to email me more details. If she does so, I will post her comments here.

    • #3313755

      And let’s not forget that…

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      since the start of the war in March 2003, the number of wounded US troops in Iraq has surpassed the 10,000 mark. However, a delayed update now reveals that the 10,000 mark is actually surpassed by 252. So out of the 10,252 total wounded, the Pentagon said that 5,396 were unable to return to duty and 4,856 sustained injuries that were light enough to allow them to resume their duties. The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq currently stands at 1336.

    • #3313671

      interesting timing

      by apotheon ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      It just so happens that, when I stumble across this thread, I’m in the middle of the first conversation in a few months (by IM) that I’ve had with a particular friend of mine. This friend is US Army Infantry, currently in Iraq.

      He just told me about a suicide bomber that blew up the chow hall where he used to eat.

      I wasn’t too keen on the fact that I was in the Army while Clinton was the commander in chief. On the other hand, in retrospect, that was much better than it would have been to be working for Bush, Jr.

      • #3294273

        Ironic that.

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to interesting timing

        Actually when you are in the military, generally you tend to like someone with clear, simple and consistent goals in charge. The only ‘may be’ in war is may be your about to die.

        • #3291646

          indeed

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Ironic that.

          Bush’s goals are so muddy that people will never, while he’s in office, stop arguing about what they are. It’s a mess.

        • #3298183

          Strange

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to indeed

          I thought his goal has been quite consistent, the imposition of the american way (his version) on the universe. His reasons or those he’s stated have been all over the place. With Clinton it was the other way round , his reasons were constant, but his goals changed every time he read the polls. A soldier can’t afford to care why he’s fighting, who, when and what with are much more important.

        • #3298130

          . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Strange

          You can sure boil it down to that oversimplified, overly vague statement of his purpose if you want to. In practical terms, though, that does little good. Besides, I’m not sure it’s accurate: I don’t think he’s as worried about his version of the American Way (his version) as he is about getting [b]his own way[/b].

          The muddy, indistinct goals are the concrete steps along the way, the true form of his final vision for things, and so on.

        • #3298006

          I meant no disservice

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to . . .

          The ‘american way’ was a terrible phrase, I doubt it exists as a concept except in the minds of politicians and media types. However in media presentations Mr Bush claims, is assumed, to represent mainstream american culture.

          Hence me unconsciously falling into the trap of President Bush = America.

          My aplogies for what to me would be a grievous insult.

          I still feel his goals are far from muddy, but perhaps this is due to the limited amount of media coverage he gets in the UK, compared to the US. I’ll have to start watching CNN again.

          Besides I really miss Ari Fleischer, the guy was a genius. I was in holland during 9/11 and the conflict in afghanistan and the only 24 hour news channels we could get were american. I was sharing the flat with a dutch girl and an american bloke, which made for some lively discussions. Every time Ari came out to speak, I was spellbound by his ability to answer every question without answering, admitting everything while admitting nothing. Us expats used to discuss his most recent escapades over lunch.

        • #3297940

          no big deal

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I meant no disservice

          I’m not feeling particularly offended. There just really isn’t a whole lot of clarity in what’s going on. There are some very plausible theories floating around, but they’re damned near doomsday scenario scary, and of course Bush would deny all of it if enough voters took it seriously to bother.

    • #3317175

      Some Australian Iraqis denied the opportunity to vote

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      According to a news report, there are 5,000 Iraqis in Australia.

      However voting facilities will only be available in Sydney and Melbourne, thus denying a large number of Iraqi citizens the opportunity to participate in the upcoming election (well, that is if there is an election).

      • #3294312

        So?

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Some Australian Iraqis denied the opportunity to vote

        Last I checked, Australia isn’t responsible for passing out Iraqi voting ballots. Iraq should be offering absentee ballots.

      • #3294269

        But should they ?

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Some Australian Iraqis denied the opportunity to vote

        They don’t live there, probably don’t pay taxes, none of the decisions taken will impact their quality of life, so they are right where they should be, at the bottom of list. If they want to vote they should move back and be available to face the consequences of their decision. If they don’t they should become the australian citizens they want to be and vote there.
        Can you imagine facilititating their vote and them tipping in a candidate who the majority who lived there didn’t want. Oh there’ll be an election, whether it does any good is another matter. I want to see Bush and Blair’s faces when they vote in someone considered entirely unsuitable.

      • #3294216

        apotheon, Tony Hopkinson ….

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Some Australian Iraqis denied the opportunity to vote

        Thank you for your comments. You are absolutely correct.

        • #3294153

          Well that’s never happened before !

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to apotheon, Tony Hopkinson ….

          That’s not cricket you know. I was expecting a reasoned argument about how simply choosing or being forced to live in a foreign country does not abrogate your right to political representation and if for whatever reason you cannot exercise it in the country you are in you should still be able to in your country of origin. Certainly if I was in their position, I’d swim over to post my vote, just in case someone decided if I didn’t do it last time, they needn’t bother with me again.

        • #3291634

          welcome

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to apotheon, Tony Hopkinson ….

          Heh. You’re welcome. I do try.

    • #3294112
      Avatar photo

      Just a little something to think on here

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      Now that the Australian Government has effectively annexed Indonesia by increasing the limits of its Territorial Waters it is only right that they should be providing so much support to the affected Indonesian communities.

      Currently we have a small number of troops on the ground there who could be supported by a “Friendly” Indonesian Government so it could become part of Australia and then increase our Territorial Waters once again.

      Personally I think the AU Prime Minister and his Cabinet has lost the plot in this case as they are effectively taking over Sovereign Nations by passing laws which can not be supported by the AU military or even upheld in the International Courts if challenged.

      But it is a good excuse to supply all of that aid that they are currently saying that they are going to do. Personally I think about 90% of it will be lost in the Bureaucratic maze of “Red Tape” and only a small % will eventually end up where it is needed.

      Col

    • #3291785

      Meanwhile, Back in Iraq…

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      While the world’s attention has been focused for the past 10 days on the catastrophic tsunamis in South Asia and the subsequent relief efforts, the situation for the United States and its dwindling number of allies in Iraq appears to have worsened.

      The administration of President George W. Bush and its supporters continue to insist that elections to a constitutional assembly scheduled for Jan. 31 will turn the tide against the insurgency, even as key figures in Baghdad’s interim government, as well as outside analysts, are expressing growing doubts about whether the poll should even go ahead, given the deteriorating security situation.

      Indeed, two weeks after a suicide bomber killed 18 U.S. troops and contractors, as well as three Iraqi security personnel, at a military base in Mosul, the ambush and killing in broad daylight Tuesday of the governor of Baghdad, Ali Haidary, raised new questions about whether even senior officials could be adequately protected less than four weeks before the scheduled elections.

      Haidary, a staunch U.S. ally, was the highest-ranking official to be killed by insurgents since last May.

      On the same day, five U.S. soldiers were killed in several incidents around Iraq — the worst toll since the Mosul bombing. And the number of U.S. wounded in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, more than half of whom have not returned to active duty due to the gravity of their injuries, surpassed the 10,000 mark.

      Meanwhile, Iraq’s interim president, Ghazi Yawar, who Bush himself had quoted just a week ago as being determined to proceed with the elections, expressed renewed doubts Tuesday, telling Reuters that the United Nations should ?stand up for their responsibilities and obligations by saying whether (holding elections) is possible or not?. He said it was a ?tough call?.

      Yawar spoke a day after President Ayad Allawi himself telephoned Bush on the latter’s first day back at work after the Christmas holidays about what White House officials described as ?impediments? to pulling off the elections given the prevailing insecurity and the growing likelihood that the Sunni population — about 20 percent of Iraq’s voters — is unlikely to participate.

      Two days before, another long-time U.S. favorite who played a leading role in the transition from the formal occupation to the formation of the interim government last June, Adnan Pachachi, expressly urged the administration to put off the vote to enhance the chances for Sunni participation and get the security situation under control. ?That situation has deteriorated significantly,? stressed the veteran Sunni politician and former foreign minister in a column published in the Washington Post entitled ‘Delay the Elections’.

      And, as if to underline the security problem, the interim government’s intelligence chief, Gen. Mohammed Shahwani, told a Saudi newspaper this week that he believed that U.S. and Iraqi forces were facing as many as 40,000 ?hard-core fighters? — twice Washington’s previous biggest estimate — backed by as many as 150,000 to 200,000 others who acted as part-time guerillas, spies, and logistics personnel. He blamed the growth in the insurgency on a ?resurgent Baath Party? under the direction of former officials, some of whom he said, are based in Syria.

      ?I think the resistance is bigger than the U.S. military in Iraq,? Shahwani said.

      If even remotely accurate — and U.S. officials were quick to cast doubt on Shahwani’s claims, although they did not deny them either — those numbers should discourage the U.S. military, since basic doctrine calls for a 10:1 troop-rebel ratio to control and eventually defeat an insurgency. Washington currently has 150,000 troops in Iraq.

      What’s worse, the insurgency, by virtually all accounts, is actually growing.

      ?Until now, the best efforts of the United States and the emerging Iraqi army have not succeeded in preventing the growth of the insurgency,? noted Robert Killebrew, a retired Army colonel and counter-insurgency specialist, who believes that even if the elections come off, Washington may well soon face the greater danger of a region-wide insurgency.

      Killebrew, whose theories will be featured next week at a forum at the influential neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), argues that the only way to redress the situation is to increase Washington’s, as well as the Iraqi government’s, troop strength, close the borders with Iran and Syria, and threaten Iraq’s neighbors with retaliation if they provide support or safe haven to the insurgency. He also favors substantially expanding the U.S. military as a signal of ?national will?.

      But to other counter-insurgency specialists who believe that Washington might still snatch some modicum of victory from the jaws of defeat, increasing U.S. forces and influence in Iraq at this point is likely to be counter-productive, if only because Washington’s actions have so thoroughly alienated so much of Iraq’s population.

      ?The beginning of wisdom,? wrote James Dobbins, an analyst at the Rand Corporation who served as U.S. special envoy in a host of hotspots from the Balkans to Afghanistan, in the latest ‘Foreign Affairs’ magazine, ?is to recognize that the ongoing war in Iraq is not one that the United States can win.

      ?As a result of its initial miscalculations, misdirected planning, and inadequate preparation, Washington has lost the Iraqi people’s confidence and consent, and it is unlikely to win them back,? according to Dobbins, who argued that the situation can still be saved ?but only by moderate Iraqis and only if they concentrate their efforts on gaining the cooperation of neighboring states, securing the support of the broader international community, and quickly reducing their dependence on the United States.?

      From Anthony Cordesman, a highly regarded military expert on the Middle East at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), also argues that eventual success will depend on Iraqis themselves taking control, mostly through the creation of ?larger and more effective Iraqi forces as soon as possible? and far more effective governance than the interim regime has been capable of to date.

      ?The nature of both the insurgency in Iraq and Iraqi politics makes it all too clear…that only Iraqi forces can minimize the anger and resentment at U.S. forces, give the emerging Iraqi government legitimacy, and support efforts to make that government and the Iraqi political system more inclusive,? Cordesman wrote in his latest analysis. ?It is also clear that even the segments of Iraqi society that tolerate Coalition forces as a necessity today want them out as quickly as is practical?.

      Source:

      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0106-01.htm

      • #3298197

        Deja vu?

        by levannah44 ·

        In reply to Meanwhile, Back in Iraq…

        Is it only me, or does anyone else have a sense of deja vu about this whole Iraqi business?

        Wasn’t this the way Saddam came to power a couple of decades back, as a “friend and ally” of the US?

        Didn’t they supply him with arms and everything he needed to invade Iran (and later, Kuwait), then decide that wasn’t how they (the US) had planned it, so everything just backfired?

        It all seems to be just going round and round in a continual circle. When are we going to have a break?

        Gret

      • #3298186

        Scary

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Meanwhile, Back in Iraq…

        Who’s this Killebrew chap, sounds like he’s planning the next war. Suspicious name he’s got as well, should there be an apostrophe in it.

        I love the Military expert as well. He wants the Iraqi goverment to take more effective control with a larger force. Just send Hussein back then.

    • #3298128

      AS THE WORLD TURNS

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Hello tsunami, goodbye Iraq

      Face it we live in a place that is nothing more than a soap opera. Everyday we read the news and show that ‘I left the oven on’ pannicked face.

      There are more disasters in the works, more hate and discontent being planned, and more unrest. The world has never been heaven. Some 2500 yrs ago the Persians marched on Athens. The army was said to be so large that they left the Earth barren and drank rivers dry. Before that Nebuchadnezzar defeated and enslaved the Jewish people. Closer to home, Axis powers engaged most of the World. And more recently, Radical Islamics unseccessfully declared Jihad.

      Natural disasters plague the past as they do today. Look at Pompeii or the Volcano in Africa whose gases killed entire villages. Every year in Bangladesh 10’s of thousands die during the typoons then they are eaten by the Bangel Tigers.

      The list goes on. What does man have to show for all his toils?

      • #3298115

        a lot

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to AS THE WORLD TURNS

        art, science, philosophy, high aspirations, great and honorable achievements

        Mankind has accomplished much. Don’t sell ’em short.

        • #3298094

          NOT TIMELESS ACHIEVEMENTS

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to a lot

          There are no timeless achievements you listed although they have survived time – so far.

          Art – Tell me a timeless period in art history? While some art points to principles and values, how does that advance mankind? We are still having wars, still dealing with hate, and still struggling against nature.

          Science – in the late 1800’s many scientist declared that nearly everything was known until Einstien popped their wigs in 1917. Today science has uncovered more questions than it is prepared to answer. Quantum physics paints a picture that this world may be nothing more than a reflection or perhaps a projection of events somewhere else. In this world your embodiment may be nothing more than a shadow of another creature in which your soul is part of.

          Philosophy – What is the point? I asked in a thread for people to discuss the essence and virtue of information and technology. No one could talk to it.

          The point is that for all our toils it is only temporary. The only thing we seem to be able to do is manage our conscience so our souls will be timeless.

          There are those of us who can see and there are those of us who cannot. How unfortunate for those who are unable to see.

        • #3297979

          Time is relative.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to NOT TIMELESS ACHIEVEMENTS

          Mankind’s achievements aren’t single events isolated in time. Einstein himself said that he had reached his conclusions by standing on the shoulders of giants, so think how high up the next one is going to be, worth hanging around for a look I think.

          P.S.
          If you are concerned about being a projection from a more probable quantum reality, read some Penrose, he believes that this idea is the result of an unjustifiable extrapolation of the maths used to express quantum mechanical concepts.
          Or at least he did, may be he changed his mind, it was a few years ago.

        • #3297938

          nice limited viewpoint you’ve got

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to NOT TIMELESS ACHIEVEMENTS

          Achievement is a continuum, not an end product. Advancement is a process, not a goal.

          Art is its own reward. Art is beauty, and beauty is truth. I pity you if you don’t find value in beauty and truth. Without being able to appreciate art, I rather suspect you live a bleak existence.

          Science is, in terms of its real value, closely aligned with philosophy. These things are both the pursuit of truth, and truth is beauty. See above, re: value of truth and beauty.

          The fact that you ask “What is the point?” when discussing the value of philosophy indicates your probable obstinate lack of sufficient understanding to bother putting even this much effort into continuing the discussion with you. You sound like an existential nihilist of the worst sort. You sound like a suicide waiting to happen. I find it difficult to care if someone with your apparent views kills himself, and because achieving that caring doesn’t particularly reward me I won’t bother to try.

          “There are those of us who can see and there are those of us who cannot. How unfortunate for those who are unable to see.”

          Oh really? See what? See the same bleak, pointless nature of existence that you perceive? See nothing but a judgmental lack of valuation of humanity, intellect, and expression? See an existential hell of coldly nihilistic lack of point? Yeah, I saw that at one time. Then I matured. Teenage angst is behind me, thanks.

        • #3301606

          Nice

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to nice limited viewpoint you’ve got

          Yep, that’ll do

        • #3318436

          I do try.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Nice

          Ah aimz ta pleeze, y’know. Thanks.

          After I’d posted that, it occurred to me that in arguing that there isn’t a “point”, he’s engaging in some (very weak) philosophizing. I swear, you can probably cut the hypocrisy with a knife around here.

Viewing 6 reply threads