Jan,
I hope you're right, but i fear that the usage of the concepts of
"democracy" and "freedom", the unconditional character of it, will
not make a halt at nuclear destruction. In fact these are the most
dangerous concepts in a world, One should not forget that
the US already and solely HAS used nuclear bombs, and has shown
no hesitation in other critical situations, a hesitation still
experienced by Stalin and Khrushchev. Somehow these iron notions
are the most powerful in the struggle for earth dominion, not
because they are just - in fact they're blind and ruthless - ;
but because they deliver the best justification: they confirm the
nihilist core of this world, which is ruled by lies. (and 'rightly'
so , because there is no truth, that is: no interest in truth)
It is because of THIS metaphysically determined situation, that
drives to extremes, that i foresee terrible trouble, not because
of the agressiveness of individuals. In fact these are more meek
than ever, but that's the dangerous: they are the easy *instrument*
of power, and in this sense they're our 'leaders'. We seem too weak
to even willing to analyze, and question the relation of politics and
philosophy, between 'this world' and 'world'. I'm the only one not
stopping, and look how i bore everyone.
That's all right with me, but the others are not all right: they're
pretending to do philosophy, but they're only in it for themselves.
All right again! Those with eyes can see.
appreciatively
rene
Nietzsche: the old values pull their last consequence. What is this
last consequence when nihilism has arrived? Nihilism is REAL.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Jan Straathof
Verzonden: woensdag 22 september 2004 2:15
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: [fyi] an Iraqi ambiance
Hi Rene, you wrote:
>What is economy when atomic bombs explode?
>That's what they're heading for, i'm convinced.
Okay, but let's try to blend in some realism here. Which country
would the U.S. choose to nuke (first) ? In any case not China,
Russia, Pakistan or India, because they will retaliate immediately.
North Korea than ? No chance either, because China will conceive
such an attack a severe breach of territorial integrity in its sphere
of influence; South Korea will see all her dreams of unification
go up in smoke and Japan will definitely turn its back to the US.
Okay, but what about a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran ? An
option much and overtly talked about in both the US and Israel
recently (but probably too late, because all signs indicate that
Iran has already developed its nuclear arsenal). Yet let's suppose
the US nukes Tehran (a scenario, i guess, Iranian generals have
contemplated enough about lately in their war games). Iran's
response will be a blitz-krieg attack on the US forces in Iraq,
likely resulting in a massive death and/or capturing of larg parts
of the U.S. Army there. Consequently, neighbouring countries
will not stand idle, Russia and Syria will certainly step in to take
sides with Iranian military actions, and Israel will be forced to
try to rescue the US positions, further escalating the conflict.
All in all, i don't believe that going nuclear will be a successful
option for US, neither in the Middle East nor elsewhere. I am
convinced that there is enough sanity and realism within the US
military to avoid a nuclear showdown; and besides, the pragmatic
American business establishment will never allow Bush, with his
doctrine of religious neo-conservative idealism, turn the US in a
pariah state.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
I hope you're right, but i fear that the usage of the concepts of
"democracy" and "freedom", the unconditional character of it, will
not make a halt at nuclear destruction. In fact these are the most
dangerous concepts in a world, One should not forget that
the US already and solely HAS used nuclear bombs, and has shown
no hesitation in other critical situations, a hesitation still
experienced by Stalin and Khrushchev. Somehow these iron notions
are the most powerful in the struggle for earth dominion, not
because they are just - in fact they're blind and ruthless - ;
but because they deliver the best justification: they confirm the
nihilist core of this world, which is ruled by lies. (and 'rightly'
so , because there is no truth, that is: no interest in truth)
It is because of THIS metaphysically determined situation, that
drives to extremes, that i foresee terrible trouble, not because
of the agressiveness of individuals. In fact these are more meek
than ever, but that's the dangerous: they are the easy *instrument*
of power, and in this sense they're our 'leaders'. We seem too weak
to even willing to analyze, and question the relation of politics and
philosophy, between 'this world' and 'world'. I'm the only one not
stopping, and look how i bore everyone.
That's all right with me, but the others are not all right: they're
pretending to do philosophy, but they're only in it for themselves.
All right again! Those with eyes can see.
appreciatively
rene
Nietzsche: the old values pull their last consequence. What is this
last consequence when nihilism has arrived? Nihilism is REAL.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Jan Straathof
Verzonden: woensdag 22 september 2004 2:15
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: RE: [fyi] an Iraqi ambiance
Hi Rene, you wrote:
>What is economy when atomic bombs explode?
>That's what they're heading for, i'm convinced.
Okay, but let's try to blend in some realism here. Which country
would the U.S. choose to nuke (first) ? In any case not China,
Russia, Pakistan or India, because they will retaliate immediately.
North Korea than ? No chance either, because China will conceive
such an attack a severe breach of territorial integrity in its sphere
of influence; South Korea will see all her dreams of unification
go up in smoke and Japan will definitely turn its back to the US.
Okay, but what about a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran ? An
option much and overtly talked about in both the US and Israel
recently (but probably too late, because all signs indicate that
Iran has already developed its nuclear arsenal). Yet let's suppose
the US nukes Tehran (a scenario, i guess, Iranian generals have
contemplated enough about lately in their war games). Iran's
response will be a blitz-krieg attack on the US forces in Iraq,
likely resulting in a massive death and/or capturing of larg parts
of the U.S. Army there. Consequently, neighbouring countries
will not stand idle, Russia and Syria will certainly step in to take
sides with Iranian military actions, and Israel will be forced to
try to rescue the US positions, further escalating the conflict.
All in all, i don't believe that going nuclear will be a successful
option for US, neither in the Middle East nor elsewhere. I am
convinced that there is enough sanity and realism within the US
military to avoid a nuclear showdown; and besides, the pragmatic
American business establishment will never allow Bush, with his
doctrine of religious neo-conservative idealism, turn the US in a
pariah state.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---