JamesBlond

When I was 18 I used to write letters like this to the local newspaper for a laugh. If this is 'trolling' then I may have invented it, but actually it's satire and the intention is to stir the bourgeois out of their conformist torpor. Done well, it serves a socially useful purpose by stirring debate.

My contribution to the debate is this: everyone is objectified. If anyone has ever worked for a company they are being objectived as human capital, often quite cynically.

Also, anyone over the age of reason (legally, I hear this is over the age of 14, though Catholics hold it to be aged 7) must take some responsibility for their own actions, and full adults must take full responsibility. Chew on that.

13 hours ago, JWRC said:

It is not a mountain, it is the worlds largest Rock. I do wish people would get their facts straight.

Technically it's an inselberg - a weathered sandstone 'island mountain', and not the biggest one - Mt Augustus is bigger. Incidentally, the aboriginals have declared that one sacred too, even though it is quite dull-looking. Apparently when there is so much nothing around, anything that sticks up excites religious awe.

I'm just worried that one day we will start seeing a "Man charged with historic parking ticket default after arriving at Melbourne airport" headline. I wonder how long they keep those records...

22 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

The identity of the victims hasn't been revealed, nor the starting point of their travels. All that's known is they're dead, arrived in a Welsh port by ship from Bulgaria and were then driven to Essex in an air tight transport causing their death.

 

The truck came through Holyhead but the container arrived from Belgium at a port in Essex. The police put out wrong information. Great job, plod. And why would they arrest the driver of the truck on a murder charge? The people would have been dead long before they arrived in the UK.

2 minutes ago, Thian said:

Right, so tomorrow i can send some huge fishing trawlers to Dirk Hartog island and catch all fish there since that''s just the sea which has always been there?

 

If the aussies want a closed of fish pond they should build one...

No, because fish are a limited resource whose existence is precarious. A rock is a rock is a rock. 

How if the aboriginals declare a huge swathe of the natural environment sacred? That's basically what they have done here. They can have their religious monuments but on a reasonable scale. No one's church, or even 'church', should take up more than a certain amount of the space out of modesty, practicality, and reason.

The issue with Uluru whiffs more of politics than religion. The aboriginals have adopted it as symbolic of their struggle for respect and while I think everyone should respect their culture and give them plenty of indulgence, I think they are making a mistake to push this as the rock is too big a thing for anyone to appropriate and that will only breed resentment. 

It's a bit rich to keep everyone off a natural feature because some people consider it 'sacred'. Just another example of the west's bleeding-heart syndrome. The aborignals keep calling it their "church'. It's not, it's a mountain that has been there for aeons before the aboriginals turned up. If they want a church they should build one on the top or carve one out of the rock itself. Then they can go there and enjoy their church. The rock though, is a rock.

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

regards your atlas... I’m assuming your referencing Yugoslavia regards new countries in Europe... Yugoslavia was partitioned, beyond that no external borders were significantly changed, and the same holds true for the breakup of the USSR, within its previous borders. 

 

Similarly, by and large, the same can be said about the Middle East and Asia as colonial powers withdrew.... Ceylon is still within its borders, with a different name, as is Burma.... so please, do point to something extraordinary... something that is not easily recognizable from 1950 or there about, till now.

Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Berlin, Hong Kong, South Sudan, Eritrea, Somaliland, Western Sahara, Ifni, Zanzibar...

Something more extraordinary? Israel, Tibet, Kashmir, Crimea...?

Not sure why I'm playing this game. My only point is that the world is in a state of flux and there are more changes to come - no matter how much you want everyone to suddenly stand still forever like musical chairs in order to calm your nerves. Certain regions have yet to get themselves sorted out and that is what is happening in the middle east. Nobody wants an apocalypse, so controlled change is necessary.

Partisan anti-Trump point-scoring is irrelevant. The Kurds were allies in the war against ISIS, not in their historical feud with NATO-member Turkey. It's never the case that every enemy of my friend should also be my enemy. The west has always sympathised with the Kurds, but perhaps people are not aware of just much terrorism they have perpetrated in Turkey. What is clear is that absolutely nobody in the west (except me maybe) is willing to view this from the Turkish perspective.

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If they are not, then neither are the Turks, so what makes the Turks claim more relevant than the Kurds?

The Turks are not claiming the territory, only trying to clear a corridor free of Kurdish insurgents in order to secure their own border. Given the amount of Kurdish terrorism in Turkey over the years (which doesn't often reach world news) I think it is a legitimate objective.

52 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I’m sorry... but... what? Those “arbitrary lines” are oftentimes drawn in blood...

 

In this case though I think they were drawn with a marker pen.

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

a border is an internationally recognised  geographic location . I don't know what you mean by " proper borders" 

As far as arbitrarily drawn borders(agreed is a problem) applies just as much to Turkey as it does to the Kurds. Historically the region was not Turkish , the Turks are invaders who .....

"Turks arrived from Central Asia and Western China and settled in the Anatolian basin in around the 11th century through the conquest of Seljuk Turks, mixing with the peoples of Anatolia. The region then began to transform from a predominately Greek Christian one to a Turkish Muslim society. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people   

Proper border = defensible and impermeable border between territories of different ethnicities sufficient to ensure the security of both parties. When populations have mingled or the borders have been arbitrarily drawn, the borders are fairly meaningless.

Correct that Turkey absorbed that part of Kurdistan centuries ago. I don't think the Kurds were native to the desert corner of Syria under discussion for so long though.

It's a real mess. I think Turkey's solution, which is to at least drive a wedge between the parties, is best.

8 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I’m sorry... but... what? Those “arbitrary lines” are oftentimes drawn in blood... but the question should actually be : why assist allies and friends, in reference to the Kurds, and if that needs explaining, I’m shocked... and expect it’s more willful ignorance than true ignorance.

 

your comment about atlases makes me wonder what century you grew up in as world borders have changed very little since WW2

 

 

and protecting borders... what? Would the US not protect its borders, and in need, would it not expect its friends and allies to support them in protecting its borders. With comments like that, I can’t help but wonder if you understand the purpose of alliances.

 

Perhaps the problem at the US southern border would go away if the US gave Texas and California back to Mexico. I recognize the stupidity of that sentiment... And holds true elsewhere... ie... its a stupid sentiment... one that’s heard said by the loser as it runs away. “It’s only a bit of dirt, let em have it if they want it!” 

 

If you're shocked at realpolitik and human nature I guess being in shock is your normal state.

You haven't noticed all the border changes in the developing (especially post-colonial) world since WWII? Whole new countries have been formed in some cases, even in Europe. Point is, it's naive to assume the world has reached a point at which there is to be no more change allowed and that everything must now be set in aspic, simply because first-worlders, who have got everything they need thanks, are afraid of the idea of conflict. The first world has been sorted out over the centuries - but that cost war along the way too, and plenty of it. The developing world is still thrashing it out. 

20 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 because these "imaginary lines" are not imaginary at all, they are there to separate one set of people from another, so that one set of people will not try and take what another set of people have worked hard to get.

  I wonder how you would feel someone took your wealth or freedom for their own purposes, I wonder if you would say ahh well  "let the world change a little "

 

Sure, that's the general intention of borders, but my point was that the 'borders' in this region were fairly arbitrarily drawn by a committee at one point in history. Quite often the line is simply a fence (or not even that) across a piece of land that looks identically barren on either side.

And clearly the borders in this region have done nothing to keep the ethnic populations apart, resulting in rising tensions. When that happens, conflict is inevitable to sort everything out. The reality is that you either have to keep the parties apart by proper borders (which I think is what Turkey is trying to achieve) or let them mingle and fight it out periodically because competition for resources - water and grazing land - (and for ethnic pride) is intense in this environment. Take your pick.

I'm not sure what it is you're actually proposing, unless it is avoid anyone having to move - but that is bleeding-heartist and will solve nothing.

If someone tried to displace me I would first ask myself who has the greater moral or historical right to be there, and if it wasn't me, I would move.

3 hours ago, jany123 said:

Sure sure.... that’s why NATO and US troops have such a heavy footprint in Germany and other Russian neighbors, right? Your hero just ceded allied territory to the enemy

 

meanwhile... Central America? Think Nicaragua.... and... Russian forces have a presence in Venezuela, just to the south, so are already heavily invested in Latin America.

 

Okay, so Russia has dabbled a little in the geopolitics of Latin America, presumably by invitation - no combat though.

As to giving away allied territory, that's an inflammatory perspective. Why defend arbitrary lines on a map?

The atlas of the world I grew up with bears little resemblance to today's atlas. The world is still sorting itself out. Just because a border has been there for a while doesn't mean that it's a sensible one. You can keep a lid on things by force for a while, but this region is basically another Balkans.

Trying to defend the status quo for its own sake by war is pointless when the only solution is to let the world change a little. That inevitably involves population movement, but population movement causes the problem in the first place. If people didn't keep shifting about and stealthily expanding there would be far fewer conflicts in the world.

Good result.

It's a far-flung corner of Syria - Assad didn't win the civil war outright so this territory is arguably up for grabs. I doubt anyone could say who it rightly belongs to. As it's volatile, I say let it go to whoever can best keep the peace.

No problem with Russia's involvement - they are Turkey's neighbour - far more reasonable for them to be there than the US, just as we wouldn't expect Russia to get involved in Central America.

It's not my system. Read up about John Locke and the centuries of political philosophy since then, which apparently you now want to overturn on account of losing the Brexit vote.

Well, my argument here is not about the interpretation of the letter of the law, which can be twisted every which way by those who want to, at least for the purposes of delay. It's about honouring the underlying system. Honour and decency exist to prevent endless conflict and impasse. In a sense, honour is the system, and if that system is flouted, the result is chaos - as we see. Perhaps the British pioneered this - I certainly take it to be the essence of Britishness - and I don't know about you, but I learnt how to lose with honour and decency at an early age.

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

A general election is binding. A referendum is not. Still don’t understand this after all the years?

It's binding. They put that clause in just in case the process of the referendum turned out to be illegal in some way or if some unforeseen circumstance compromises the result. The result was deemed legally valid so in all practical and moral terms, it is now binding. Drop it.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Democracy is a lot more than that.

 

Democracy is not simply what you say it is. It's what most people say - and in the case of a referendum, that's by definition. Most people voted leave in the referendum. The validity of the referendum was not legally challenged.

Back to the original question, which you dodged: do grace and dignity in defeat, and the honour of the nation, mean nothing at all to you?

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you understand that Democracy is a process and not a game of ‘winner takes all’?

 

 

The referendum was the process. Democracy is honouring the referendum. That's fundamental. Notice the word honour?

What's your next cavil?

3 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Didn’t world war 2 end with a bomb?

Only because Japan didn't also have one.

Not sure which world power the Chinese are aiming to defeat with a nuclear attack. If the target is Taiwan, correct me if I'm wrong but surely their missiles can already reach there from the mainland.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming, given their history, that they see the aircraft carrier as defensive than offensive, though mainly, as I said, just for show.