Storm to Lockridge:
"'Don't talk to me about free choice...unless you think every war should only be fought by volunteers.'" (p. 177)
Robert Heinlein thought that. He opposed conscription. Free men fight. I saw a comic strip adaptation of Starship Troopers in which a general called for more conscription! A travesty of Heinelin's message. Not that I support Heinlein's militaristic message but nor should it be travestied.
Storm reminds Lockridge and us that Wardens and Rangers do not know their own future because the "'...corridor guardians...'" (p. 167) prevent them from travelling futureward. They learn their future only day by day like those of us who do not have time travel. If Storm had succeeded in mounting an attack through a new corridor driven into the Ranger heartland, then that attack would have taken Brann by surprise. However, treble-agent Lockridge warned him. Lockridge's role is crucial.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, I never thought Heinlein was "militaristic."
Ad astra! Sean
STARSHIP TROOPERS is:
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry..."
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, I see nothing "militaristic" in honoring the courage and valor shown by soldiers thru out history.
Ad astra! Sean
I am not sure what "militaristic" is, then!
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, "militaristic" is one of those words which has gone a long way down the road to becoming an empty cuss word carelessly tossed around by warring partisans.
Ad astra! Sean
OK. STARSHIP TROOPERS isn't militaristic. It just glorifies the military.
Well, Homer did sum that rather well: two warriors are talking, and one says:
"Why do our people give us the best they have, the good land down by the river, and honor us next to the immortal Gods? Because we are they who put their own bodies between our land and the war's desolation."
Now, -Rome- was militaristic.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! It's people who serve in often thankless professions like the police or military which enables most of us to have reasonably peaceful lives.
They also serve who stand and watch--as I think one of the Psalms says.
Ad astra! Sean
Rome aspired to 'imperium sine fine' -- which translates as roughly "empire without limit in time or space".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
As did China, when the greatest Imperial dynasties aspired to rule "All Under Heaven."
Your Antonine Rome books shows the Empire making a determined effort to make "imperium sine fine" a reality.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yup. Political unification of the planet is the obvious answer to nuclear war.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And I don't believe one bit that any unification of Earth will come about peacefully. Human beings are far too prone to being violent and quarrelsome for that. Something like the Solar Commonwealth of the Technic stories or the United Commonwealths of Anderson/Dickson's Hoka stories is the best we can realistically hope for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Unification will be resisted not because human beings are prone to violence and quarrelsomeness but because powerful vested interests want to conserve the status quo with all its divisions and scapegoating of foreigners and of anyone who is different.
We can aim for something far better than the Solar Commonwealth but will have to overcome powerful vested interests in the process.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, human beings are prone to being quarrelsome and contentious, esp. when they see themselves and their "interests" to be under attack. That is a patently obvious fact.
Rejected, what you said about foreigners, "immigrants" have no right to shove their way into other people's countries against their wishes and laws.
You are being unrealistic re unification of the world. Something like Anderson's Solar Commonwealths, United Commonwealths, or World Federation is the best we can reasonably expect. We might see a start in that direction if the US actually accedes to the British Commonwealth!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. We go round in circles. Of course people are prone to being quarrelsome and contentious when they see themselves and their "interests" to be under attack but they are not prone to be quarrelsome and contentious in any and every circumstances. That is a patently obvious fact. There are many circumstances in which people have no reason to be quarrelsome or contentious. I have just walked through the centre of Lancaster late at night without being argued with or attacked by anyone. There was no policeman in sight nor was one needed.
Every individual should be free to travel and to seek employment and a better life anywhere on this Earth which is our common inheritance. Capital is free to chase profits around the world. Living labour should be free to go where the work is like Polish men that I met in a local factory who said, "The money is better here." This is not just my country. It is the country of everyone who comes and resides here. Millionaire politicians like Farage stoke the "wishes" of British people to exclude immigrants in order to distract them from asking him where he got his millions from.
I am being realistic. A Solar Commonwealth is not the best that we can expect. A federation of free republics, yes.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have never said human beings cannot be peaceful. But that requires two things: people not feeling themselves threatened, and the existence of a State capable of enforcing peace. That is why you are able to walk thru Lancaster late at night.
However, the Jews of Manchester sure as heck don't feel safe! Not after a Muslim fanatic ominously named "Jihad al-Shamie" murdered two Jews and wounded three others at their synagogue on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jews!
Refused, what you said about immigration. National sovereignty is either absolute, or it is nothing. I have no problem with legal immigration, by people who respect the terms and conditions set by nations for legally immigrating. The stubborn refusal of people who think as you do to accept that is why so many are enraged at the Conservative/Labour parties in the UK (and the Democrats in the US). Their obstinacy about refusing to defend national sovereignty is stimulating the rise of new parties like Reform UK to oppose them.
You are unrealistic about how global unification might come to pass. Either some Napoleon type conquers the world, or an alliance of powers does it. Meaning something like Anderson's Solar Commonwealth or World Federation is preferable. Nor do I care what forms of gov't member states might have--as long as they are believed to be legitimate and doesn't rule too badly. A rigid one size fits all mentality is more likely than not to mess up everything.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I never said that people cannot be violent. I consistently say that they are violent in some conditions and not in others. You clearly thought that I had said something else. There is a massive failure of communication here.
No. I disagree. There are many times when people do not attack me not because there is a police force lurking somewhere in the background but merely because those people have no reason or motivation to attack me. There are many circumstances and conditions where people have no such reason or motivation and those circumstances and conditions can be extended in future.
I know that a fanatic attacked a synagogue and condemn it. What does that prove one way or the other except that the world is in a very bad state right now and we certainly disagree about the causes of that? I condemn Zionist terrorists who are murdering Gazan children right now. You speak up when a Muslim attacks a synagogue.
Refused, what you said about immigration. The only absolute rights reside in individual human beings, not in institutions. All immigration should be safe and legal. Nation-states, as long as they exist - and I think that they are historically temporary - should welcome refugees and immigrants. Labour is right now clamping down on immigrants in response to Farage. You clearly make a prejudiced assumption that Labour is doing something else. I think that the word, "stubborn," is more widely applicable!
I am realistic. People are capable of taking charge of their affairs and sabotaging the ambitions of all Napoleons. The word, "republic," does not express a rigid one size fits all mentality. Much of what you say is simply not a response to what has been said.
Paul.
Post a Comment