-Whitehead, quoted at the beginning of After Doomsday, 2.
"'Give you military your heads, and you'd build bases in the fourth dimension to protect us against an invasion from the future.'
"'We are always being invaded by the future...'"
-Poul Anderson, The People Of The Wind IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, March 2011), pp. 437-662 AT V, p. 490.
"'I pressed the lever over to its extreme position. The night came like the turning out of a lamp, and in another moment came tomorrow.'"
-HG Wells, The Time Machine (London, 1973), 4, p. 24.
We quote the Time Traveller entering "tomorrow," the terrain of sf, because Wells preceded so many of us into that dangerous and invasive future.
Breakfast post before bus to Morecambe Bay to visit Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop. I will probably return this evening with something to relate.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
If no forethought is taken for the future then an actual invasion gets more and more likely. As Flavius Vegetius wrote: "If you want peace prepare for war."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah. You're likely to deter an attack, and if it comes anyway you're ready.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Correct, which is why I dismiss pacifism as the hopeless futility it is.
Another thought I should have mentioned is that it is not wise for an aggressive, ambitious, would be Great Power to so badly enrage a real Great Power that it gets mercilessly smacked down. The idiot theocracy in Iran getting that smacking down being a current example of that.
Ad astra! Sean
That "idiot theocracy" exists because the US backed the Shah. The "real Great Power" cannot wash its hands of responsibility.
The Iranian people are oppressed by the Ayatollahs, by US sanctions and now by US and Israeli bombardment.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, because you totally ignored the bloody and violent history of that idiot theocracy. From its very beginning the theocracy has done its malignant best to harm the US, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. The Ayatollahs deserve that smacking down.
Disagree, re the Shah. Mohammed Pahlavi was eventually overthrown because he tried too hard and too rapidly to modernize Iran, becoming in fact a radical during the last 13 years of his reign. It was during those 13 years that he really alienated support for the monarchy, giving an opening for those idiot Ayatollahs for grabbing power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree. (Can we stop saying that?)
I do not ignore the bloody and violent history of that idiot theocracy. It is no good raging against them when they are the outcome of the coup which overthrew the Prime Minister who nationalized oil and which installed the brutal Shah. The US and Britain cannot wash their hands of that.
The people of Iran do not deserve the Ayatollahs, sanctions or bombardment. I am concerned about them, not about taking sides between the Ayatollahs and Trump.
Disagree. The Shah was overthrown because he was a dictator who ruled through a brutal secret police. His rule led to that of the Ayatollahs who are certainly not the only "idiots" involved here! We can concentrate all our condemnatory language on just one side of this conflict but that merely confuses the issues. Can't you see any other idiots in this?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I will "rage" against enemies who have openly longed for decades to destroy my country. My concern is for my country, not the jihadist crazies, thugs, goons, and brutes of the theocracy. There are actually Iranians happily cheering the bombing of the Ayatollahs, hoping they will soon be overthrown.
Your knowledge of Iranian history is inadequate. Compared to almost all other rulers within Islam, the Shah was no worse than most and better than some. I repeat, his mistake was trying to modernize Iran too fast, too radically. And, when push came to shove in 1978-79, he didn't have the heart to be as ruthless as would be necessary to stay in power.
MIGA! Sean
Sean,
My concern is for the human race. There are actually Iranians responding in every conceivable way as people tend to do. I agree with those Iranians who want the Ayatollahs overthrown but disagree with any that think that the bombing of their country is the way to do it.
The Shah was no worse...? A hopeless defence. He ruled with a secret police and his people wanted him overthrown. That is more than enough to condemn him and the clandestine forces that put him into power.
Paul.
Iranians and others would stop hating the US if it stopped interfering in their affairs like by backing that coup and, of course, arming and supporting Israel.
Kaor, Paul!
Refused, my country comes first. You stubbornly overlook how the Ayatollahs has been waging war on the US covertly thru terrorist proxies--they are reaping what they have sown.
Refused, what you said about the Shah. I stand by what I said, practically all other rulers within Islam were just as bad or worse.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Refused: this is no way to conduct a discussion.
I do not stubbornly overlook anything. I disagree with you about it. The US is reaping what it has sown. Would terrorist proxies act against the US if it had not done anything to provoke all this in the first place?
Clearly there is virulent hatred on both sides: an entirely negative emotion.
Others were just as bad or worse? How does that defend the Shah?
Paul.
Humanity comes first.
Post a Comment