despot implies cruel so to mention that is biasing the statement to mean more cruel than other despots
I do think that in terms of his despotism he could be considered quite cruel when comapared to other despots, such as say King Ludvig of Bavaria, (though of course in English usage the term despot is a perjorative, though not necesarily cruel, just someone who acts an an absolutist monach outside of any constitional restraint could be called a despot). The scale of his crimes was also quite large, though of course by world standards he was a b-rater, and in a way that makes his cruelty even more sad as he didn't even have the scale of Mao, or his own personal favorite, Hitler.
This is a fact on it's own. It means nothing other than that Saddam is a Baathist. It's inclusion in the list of facts is subject to questions of valid relevance but I will allow that it is a fact.
Thats all I was saying, Baathists are Baathists, I was just describing his poitics in short-hand, I think its as Valid to say Saddam was a Baathist as to say George Bush is a Republican.
Taking out the last, ambiguous part, this can be shown to be a fact. "the West" needs to be defined as there is no country by that name. Additional note: it is not Iraq on trial here so the names of the corresponding heads of state ought to be mentioned, not hiding behind the name of their state.
The "West" is not easily defined though easily understood, just as say its difficult to define what "Europe" is, or "Asia" in precise terms. When I say the West I mean Europe, North America, and associated states and ex colonies such as Australia. All of the states involved are predominatly Christian (Catholic and Protestant), racially based on populations that are majority white europeans in origin, and based morally and culturally on christianity, the classical tradition, the rennaiance, the enlightenment, and are (generally) technical, rationlist, and scientific in approach, the law in these countries is also based on both Christian morality, the Roman Codex, Napoleonic Codes, and The English Common Law, (which is the basis for jurisprudence in the U.S.). In the Modern age Western Society has become multi-cultural, more diverse, more interdependent, and (in the development of the EU, WTO, GATT, G7, supranational again as it was before the rise of nation states.
Its in an interesting thing actually trying to pin down what exactly civilizations are, though its not difficult to understand what the Western World is to my mind. The modern Western World was basically a product of the reformation and the Renassiance and this was transported most sucessfully to the North American continent, though the South American Continent is also Western in many respects, with a distinctive iberian, and native cultural slant. Also I would consider countries such as Japan as ones that while having a completely different civilization to the west have adopted a lot of Western ideas and can be included in the overall "Western" system though remaining different. I think in terms of this conversation its fairly obvious that I am reffering to the West in general and not the anglo-saxon part of the west in particular. In terms of the names of other heads of state, are you suggesting that messers Blair and Bush should be summoned as material witnesses, I am sure many would like to see that, but its hardly likely, and not worth discussing.
That's a pretty good summary of the first Gulf War. It needs to be kept in mind that Kuwait is considered a province of Iraq by Saddam.
Yes, however thats hardly a valid reason to ignore the fact that he invaded a country that did not believe it was ever a province of Iraq, and neither did the rest of the world. Saddam belived a lot of things, as do many people, unfortunatly he was often in a postion to test his hypothesis, which was usually to the great detriment of those who were not his family or cronies.
Again, "the West" is not a country. For example: Canada is part of "the West" yet would hardly say that Iraq was an "enemy". I'm fine with this as a fact, it just needs the names of countries inserted.
I agree, that in terms of Iraq the use of the term the "West" avoids the fact that many Western governemnts (most notably France and Germany) were against the war, while many others supported it, not just Britain and the U.S., though they were the only countries who made an actual sizable contribution, and lets be honest it was always an American war with help thrown in by the British, happy to play the role of Brave allies in this particular instance. In terms of the previous Gulf War there was much more general consensus however and involvement.
Some might debate this but I will accept this as fact with the blue text removed of trying to mind read.
Even GW Bush has said this. This is a great big fact that has been ignored in other matters.
COLOR="Blue"]
I am not mind reading, I am making reasonable assumptions based on what I understand to be the case, there are only so many explantions for any event, so its not unreasonable to posit some explanatory notes, unless we are lawers and debating whether there technically was any war, or that Saddam Hussien is actually a person. I don't dwell too much on semantics, blame my scientific education, but too much analysis of terms and definetions outside of an agreed framwork of common sense, I find such things tedious, and a different debate. Though I do think that if we were to get into a very leglaisitic mode of discussion such things are necessary, but this is only a forum discussion and I have no wish to be a lawyer in international soverignty, war, nation-definition, or head of state trial jurist. What I have spoken about is simply my opinion, and not the definitive version of events.
Fine. I don't have a problem with this as a fact.
Again, leaving out the mind reading we still have a good fact there about the WMDs...extended even to say that he, indeed, did not have WMDs or the capability to deliver any such weapons to U.S. soil. Additionally, I don't believe he hated the U.S.
Based on the current evidence I agree, I think WMDs was a pretext as I have said, and a flimsy one at that. In terms of hating the U.S. that was a sloppy term, lets say he was an enemy of the U.S. Administration then in broad terms or was percieved by the U.S. government as such which is more or less the same thing.
This is an important fact for other discussions. There are more extremists now than before the invasion.
That is the current popular opinion, in fact no one has any idea how many "extremists" there are now or have ever been, or even precisely what "extremists" are or how different one extremist is from another. What it would be fair to say is that in terms of perception, the Iraq war has been a godsend for many militant islamic organizations as a propaganda tool to demonise the U.S. and the West, both to mulslims and gullible Westerners who may believe there are specific grievenaces that Islamic fundamentalists have that can be addressed, that is naive. In terms of perception this is entirely the U.S.'s own fault for getting involved in such a foolish and arrogant policy in the first place, though admittedly in extremist Islamic ciricles there is little that the West could do that would pacify them except to annhilate itself.
That was a very lengthy and well thought out post. I wanted to go through and clip out what I think are actual facts you add to our list...since we are all working together now. I saved all the bits that I clipped out with my comments and could go through why I clipped them individually. But this post is long enough for now
I agree, I think that we probably both share the same veiw of Iraq, though for entirely different reasons.
Death For Saddam
Death For Saddam
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Galbally,
Just a quick note that I don't have time to go through all of your last post yet but came across something that made me come back from preparations for sleep.
Your comments on human nature a little ways back, which prompted my thread on Ernest Becker, are quite profound and it was echoed again in a book I'm reading from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. He mentions that the elementary principles of politics are often the first to be forgotten. There are followers and there are leaders. This has historically been the case. It seems to be a matter of human nature but we need to ask ourselves if this is desirable. In political considerations, is it desirable to continue the division of people into leaders and followers? The answer to that question divides the two initial approaches to political opinion.
I imagine that most leaders think it is desirable. What do you think, and why? Also, are you a leader or a follower?
I am normally a leader but I don't think it is a desirable state.
Just a quick note that I don't have time to go through all of your last post yet but came across something that made me come back from preparations for sleep.
Your comments on human nature a little ways back, which prompted my thread on Ernest Becker, are quite profound and it was echoed again in a book I'm reading from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. He mentions that the elementary principles of politics are often the first to be forgotten. There are followers and there are leaders. This has historically been the case. It seems to be a matter of human nature but we need to ask ourselves if this is desirable. In political considerations, is it desirable to continue the division of people into leaders and followers? The answer to that question divides the two initial approaches to political opinion.
I imagine that most leaders think it is desirable. What do you think, and why? Also, are you a leader or a follower?
I am normally a leader but I don't think it is a desirable state.
Death For Saddam
koan;456203 wrote: Galbally,
Just a quick note that I don't have time to go through all of your last post yet but came across something that made me come back from preparations for sleep.
Your comments on human nature a little ways back, which prompted my thread on Ernest Becker, are quite profound and it was echoed again in a book I'm reading from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. He mentions that the elementary principles of politics are often the first to be forgotten. There are followers and there are leaders. This has historically been the case. It seems to be a matter of human nature but we need to ask ourselves if this is desirable. In political considerations, is it desirable to continue the division of people into leaders and followers? The answer to that question divides the two initial approaches to political opinion.
I imagine that most leaders think it is desirable. What do you think, and why? Also, are you a leader or a follower?
I am normally a leader but I don't think it is a desirable state.
I am his leader korn. Come to think of it I am your leader as well. Fetch me something please.
Just a quick note that I don't have time to go through all of your last post yet but came across something that made me come back from preparations for sleep.
Your comments on human nature a little ways back, which prompted my thread on Ernest Becker, are quite profound and it was echoed again in a book I'm reading from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. He mentions that the elementary principles of politics are often the first to be forgotten. There are followers and there are leaders. This has historically been the case. It seems to be a matter of human nature but we need to ask ourselves if this is desirable. In political considerations, is it desirable to continue the division of people into leaders and followers? The answer to that question divides the two initial approaches to political opinion.
I imagine that most leaders think it is desirable. What do you think, and why? Also, are you a leader or a follower?
I am normally a leader but I don't think it is a desirable state.
I am his leader korn. Come to think of it I am your leader as well. Fetch me something please.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Death For Saddam
Nomad;456637 wrote: I am his leader korn. Come to think of it I am your leader as well. Fetch me something please.
what's with your being so "korny"? Twice now.
what's with your being so "korny"? Twice now.
Death For Saddam
I come here for the conversation. :rolleyes:
Death For Saddam
Novelty;457152 wrote: well go to the pub..... you take a serious issue and plunder your intellect, how sad is that.........................
Gallaby tell me about magnesium.......... in our soil.. do you know?
right...........................................
Attached files
Gallaby tell me about magnesium.......... in our soil.. do you know?
right...........................................
Attached files
Death For Saddam
koan;456203 wrote: Galbally,
Just a quick note that I don't have time to go through all of your last post yet but came across something that made me come back from preparations for sleep.
Your comments on human nature a little ways back, which prompted my thread on Ernest Becker, are quite profound and it was echoed again in a book I'm reading from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. He mentions that the elementary principles of politics are often the first to be forgotten. There are followers and there are leaders. This has historically been the case. It seems to be a matter of human nature but we need to ask ourselves if this is desirable. In political considerations, is it desirable to continue the division of people into leaders and followers? The answer to that question divides the two initial approaches to political opinion.
I imagine that most leaders think it is desirable. What do you think, and why? Also, are you a leader or a follower?
I am normally a leader but I don't think it is a desirable state.
I think human beings are hierarchical and there will always be people who have more power than others in whatever field, intellectual, social, political. I don't see any other way that things can be done realistically, leadership is a decision making role ultimatley and its not possible to get more than about 20 people to make decisions as it becomes too difficult after that, and of course you usually need a nominal leader even within that number. Thats why you generally don't see political executives with more than about that number, in terms of actual decision making.
In terms of my personality I am I suppose more dominant than passive, though I will quite happily deffer to others like everyone else.
Just a quick note that I don't have time to go through all of your last post yet but came across something that made me come back from preparations for sleep.
Your comments on human nature a little ways back, which prompted my thread on Ernest Becker, are quite profound and it was echoed again in a book I'm reading from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. He mentions that the elementary principles of politics are often the first to be forgotten. There are followers and there are leaders. This has historically been the case. It seems to be a matter of human nature but we need to ask ourselves if this is desirable. In political considerations, is it desirable to continue the division of people into leaders and followers? The answer to that question divides the two initial approaches to political opinion.
I imagine that most leaders think it is desirable. What do you think, and why? Also, are you a leader or a follower?
I am normally a leader but I don't think it is a desirable state.
I think human beings are hierarchical and there will always be people who have more power than others in whatever field, intellectual, social, political. I don't see any other way that things can be done realistically, leadership is a decision making role ultimatley and its not possible to get more than about 20 people to make decisions as it becomes too difficult after that, and of course you usually need a nominal leader even within that number. Thats why you generally don't see political executives with more than about that number, in terms of actual decision making.
In terms of my personality I am I suppose more dominant than passive, though I will quite happily deffer to others like everyone else.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Novelty;457152 wrote: well go to the pub..... you take a serious issue and plunder your intellect, how sad is that.........................
Gallaby tell me about magnesium.......... in our soil.. do you know?
Erm, magnesium in soil? You are full of surprises, well magnesium is a naturally occurring metallic element of course, its up there somewhere in the top left hand part of the periodic table, its used a lot in technology and industry etc, and there is plenty of it in the earths crust in the form of its oxide I think, though how much is the natural level in soils I am unsure, and its probably different in different regions of the world as well. Why are you interested in magnesium?
Gallaby tell me about magnesium.......... in our soil.. do you know?
Erm, magnesium in soil? You are full of surprises, well magnesium is a naturally occurring metallic element of course, its up there somewhere in the top left hand part of the periodic table, its used a lot in technology and industry etc, and there is plenty of it in the earths crust in the form of its oxide I think, though how much is the natural level in soils I am unsure, and its probably different in different regions of the world as well. Why are you interested in magnesium?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;457263 wrote: I think human beings are hierarchical and there will always be people who have more power than others in whatever field, intellectual, social, political. I don't see any other way that things can be done realistically, leadership is a decision making role ultimatley and its not possible to get more than about 20 people to make decisions as it becomes too difficult after that, and of course you usually need a nominal leader even within that number. Thats why you generally don't see political executives with more than about that number, in terms of actual decision making.
In terms of my personality I am I suppose more dominant than passive, though I will quite happily deffer to others like everyone else.
This ties in to the Saddam issue because I think that we are surrounded by Saddams and Hitlers that just haven't been in the position of power. I've watched leadership roles corrupt perfectly good men who won leadership roles. They ran for election for an idealist purpose and as soon as they had the power it transformed them. The ones we remember merely had a combination of qualities including the one that got them into power.
Saying that it has always been a certain way doesn't mean it has to be. I truly believe that.
The question about your own role is just to put answers into perspective. ie) leaders will say there should be leaders.
I'd be interested to hear a follower state reasons why they prefer to follow. I've tried to elicit that answer a few times unsuccessfully.
In terms of my personality I am I suppose more dominant than passive, though I will quite happily deffer to others like everyone else.
This ties in to the Saddam issue because I think that we are surrounded by Saddams and Hitlers that just haven't been in the position of power. I've watched leadership roles corrupt perfectly good men who won leadership roles. They ran for election for an idealist purpose and as soon as they had the power it transformed them. The ones we remember merely had a combination of qualities including the one that got them into power.
Saying that it has always been a certain way doesn't mean it has to be. I truly believe that.
The question about your own role is just to put answers into perspective. ie) leaders will say there should be leaders.
I'd be interested to hear a follower state reasons why they prefer to follow. I've tried to elicit that answer a few times unsuccessfully.
Death For Saddam
koan;457272 wrote: This ties in to the Saddam issue because I think that we are surrounded by Saddams and Hitlers that just haven't been in the position of power. I've watched leadership roles corrupt perfectly good men who won leadership roles. They ran for election for an idealist purpose and as soon as they had the power it transformed them. The ones we remember merely had a combination of qualities including the one that got them into power.
Saying that it has always been a certain way doesn't mean it has to be. I truly believe that.
The question about your own role is just to put answers into perspective. ie) leaders will say there should be leaders.
I'd be interested to hear a follower state reasons why they prefer to follow. I've tried to elicit that answer a few times unsuccessfully.
I think its perfectly valid to not be pessimistic about the human condition and its certainly possible to make a better world, but its also very important to realize that this is actually a very common sentiment and that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, there were many sincere revolutionaries throughout history whos aims were benevolent but unfortunatly in practice led to diaster and the gulag, there are also of course many reactionaries who were just as bad but had a sincere desire to conserve that which they thought was good, its finding the balance that sustains progress, while also keeping tried and trusted things that have been there for many years and usually for good reason. I guess my own outlook is a kind of liberal conservative, or conservative liberal, I find that I don't have an easily definable poltical outlook, I'm more a pragmatist than anything, and I suppose that comes from the scientific part of me.
I think its obvious that people can be leaders and followers in their own way, though in terms of larger decisions we are of course all followers here whether we realize it or not, as none of us has executive power. Like I said somewhere else, I fundamentally believe that above all human beings are adaptable and are capable of adopting whatever role that circumstance throws at them, though of course some are better at certain things such as leadership than others and are more naturally suited to such roles.
Saying that it has always been a certain way doesn't mean it has to be. I truly believe that.
The question about your own role is just to put answers into perspective. ie) leaders will say there should be leaders.
I'd be interested to hear a follower state reasons why they prefer to follow. I've tried to elicit that answer a few times unsuccessfully.
I think its perfectly valid to not be pessimistic about the human condition and its certainly possible to make a better world, but its also very important to realize that this is actually a very common sentiment and that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, there were many sincere revolutionaries throughout history whos aims were benevolent but unfortunatly in practice led to diaster and the gulag, there are also of course many reactionaries who were just as bad but had a sincere desire to conserve that which they thought was good, its finding the balance that sustains progress, while also keeping tried and trusted things that have been there for many years and usually for good reason. I guess my own outlook is a kind of liberal conservative, or conservative liberal, I find that I don't have an easily definable poltical outlook, I'm more a pragmatist than anything, and I suppose that comes from the scientific part of me.
I think its obvious that people can be leaders and followers in their own way, though in terms of larger decisions we are of course all followers here whether we realize it or not, as none of us has executive power. Like I said somewhere else, I fundamentally believe that above all human beings are adaptable and are capable of adopting whatever role that circumstance throws at them, though of course some are better at certain things such as leadership than others and are more naturally suited to such roles.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Galbally wrote: Its in an interesting thing actually trying to pin down what exactly civilizations are, though its not difficult to understand what the Western World is to my mind. The modern Western World was basically a product of the reformation and the Renassiance and this was transported most sucessfully to the North American continent, though the South American Continent is also Western in many respects, with a distinctive iberian, and native cultural slant. Also I would consider countries such as Japan as ones that while having a completely different civilization to the west have adopted a lot of Western ideas and can be included in the overall "Western" system though remaining different. I think in terms of this conversation its fairly obvious that I am reffering to the West in general and not the anglo-saxon part of the west in particular. In terms of the names of other heads of state, are you suggesting that messers Blair and Bush should be summoned as material witnesses, I am sure many would like to see that, but its hardly likely, and not worth discussing.
Whether my ideas are revolutionary or common sense would only be determined if they were put into effect. I don't believe in manifestos but I do believe that all positive change comes from asking unusual questions.
In this quote from earlier, I agree that trying to pin down what "civilizations" are is very interesting. We do agree on a few things, as you've said. We don't agree on the death penalty obviously, but I'd hope that we could agree that it shouldn't be celebrated when that sentence is passed down. The next Saddam is just waiting in the wings. It's a somber event.
The point about naming the heads of state is that this whole fiasco has been presented as "the West" against Saddam. Saddam against the US. etc.
Failing Saddam showing up in army boots with a machine gun and trying to get through airport security, it was the US and Allies against Iraq. Or it was Bush and Blair against Saddam. That was my point. As head of state he represented the people like it or not and the people have certainly been the ones fighting this war. Not Saddam and not Bush.
Whether my ideas are revolutionary or common sense would only be determined if they were put into effect. I don't believe in manifestos but I do believe that all positive change comes from asking unusual questions.
In this quote from earlier, I agree that trying to pin down what "civilizations" are is very interesting. We do agree on a few things, as you've said. We don't agree on the death penalty obviously, but I'd hope that we could agree that it shouldn't be celebrated when that sentence is passed down. The next Saddam is just waiting in the wings. It's a somber event.
The point about naming the heads of state is that this whole fiasco has been presented as "the West" against Saddam. Saddam against the US. etc.
Failing Saddam showing up in army boots with a machine gun and trying to get through airport security, it was the US and Allies against Iraq. Or it was Bush and Blair against Saddam. That was my point. As head of state he represented the people like it or not and the people have certainly been the ones fighting this war. Not Saddam and not Bush.
Death For Saddam
I don't agree with the death penalty out of punishment...
I am just glad that lunatic(I'll accept that as my opinion) is out of power. Over anything!
I am for the incarceration of people who commit atrocities upon other human beings without it being in self defense, but I also wonder what would be the proper solution if it became too overwhelming upon our own survival if the overall population in prison systems became too abundant. In such a case I would prefer those people be off the streets, even if it meant the death penalty as a means of punishment.
Everyone has choices, and should be held responsible for those choices.
I am just glad that lunatic(I'll accept that as my opinion) is out of power. Over anything!
I am for the incarceration of people who commit atrocities upon other human beings without it being in self defense, but I also wonder what would be the proper solution if it became too overwhelming upon our own survival if the overall population in prison systems became too abundant. In such a case I would prefer those people be off the streets, even if it meant the death penalty as a means of punishment.
Everyone has choices, and should be held responsible for those choices.
Death For Saddam
Novelty;457280 wrote: So you don't you know that the magnesium is dwindling in our soil, we are not getting enough magnesium in our food? did you get the job? this is chemistry and biology my friend.......................
No I wasn't aware of that, I will look it up and see where you are getting that from, but then its not that strange as of course you could fill libraries with just chemistry alone, its why people have to specialize in science nowadays, there is too much information for anyone to know everything, even within one of the main branches. I havn't recieved word yet on the research posting, if I do get the one dealing with heavy metal concentrations in soils I will of course have to learn a lot more about soil microclimate than I do now, my degree was Chemisty, not life sciences so I am not brilliant with a lot of biology, but thats why I'd like to get this post as it will broaden my experience.
Now what is this five years left thing about again?
No I wasn't aware of that, I will look it up and see where you are getting that from, but then its not that strange as of course you could fill libraries with just chemistry alone, its why people have to specialize in science nowadays, there is too much information for anyone to know everything, even within one of the main branches. I havn't recieved word yet on the research posting, if I do get the one dealing with heavy metal concentrations in soils I will of course have to learn a lot more about soil microclimate than I do now, my degree was Chemisty, not life sciences so I am not brilliant with a lot of biology, but thats why I'd like to get this post as it will broaden my experience.
Now what is this five years left thing about again?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Another point of disagreement that I would love to see resolved is whether Saddam, and Hitler, and others of their reputation were born as evil little masterminds. Once all the acts have been committed society turns on the black sheep and isolates the person as an anomaly (a phenomenon occurring specifically in the condemned).
In my point of view, it just isn't so. Every human innately has the capacity to be evil. It is a daily, sometimes hourly choice.
In Saddam's case, I purport that a normal person followed a normal path of corruption (access to power) one step at a time.
In my point of view, it just isn't so. Every human innately has the capacity to be evil. It is a daily, sometimes hourly choice.
In Saddam's case, I purport that a normal person followed a normal path of corruption (access to power) one step at a time.
Death For Saddam
koan;457900 wrote: Another point of disagreement that I would love to see resolved is whether Saddam, and Hitler, and others of their reputation were born as evil little masterminds. Once all the acts have been committed society turns on the black sheep and isolates the person as an anomaly (a phenomenon occurring specifically in the condemned).
In my point of view, it just isn't so. Every human innately has the capacity to be evil. It is a daily, sometimes hourly choice.
In Saddam's case, I purport that a normal person followed a normal path of corruption (access to power) one step at a time.
I certainly don't disagree that people are not born either good or bad, but circumstances and above all choices both big and small will determine how someone is viewed, that is born out pretty much scientifically in terms of social and indivdual behavorial experiments that have been conducted. I also don't think that this in any way rules out peope fundamental responsibility for their actions. Just as an aside, I don't actually support the death penalty in general terms, but thats in my own country. I also believe in the rigtht to life in terms of individal humans everywhere, unforceable I know. I do however believe that there are cases such as Saddams where the acts involved are so grossly inhumane, on a huge scale, and systemic (as well as the political considerations) where I don't feel particularly upset if someone like that is put to death by their own people. I wouldn't celebrate it, as that would be in poor taste, but I wouldn't be too upset either. Saddam is the author of his own fate, whatever his justifications are, they are not enough and a little late in the day. But again I am in principal against the death penalty.
In my point of view, it just isn't so. Every human innately has the capacity to be evil. It is a daily, sometimes hourly choice.
In Saddam's case, I purport that a normal person followed a normal path of corruption (access to power) one step at a time.
I certainly don't disagree that people are not born either good or bad, but circumstances and above all choices both big and small will determine how someone is viewed, that is born out pretty much scientifically in terms of social and indivdual behavorial experiments that have been conducted. I also don't think that this in any way rules out peope fundamental responsibility for their actions. Just as an aside, I don't actually support the death penalty in general terms, but thats in my own country. I also believe in the rigtht to life in terms of individal humans everywhere, unforceable I know. I do however believe that there are cases such as Saddams where the acts involved are so grossly inhumane, on a huge scale, and systemic (as well as the political considerations) where I don't feel particularly upset if someone like that is put to death by their own people. I wouldn't celebrate it, as that would be in poor taste, but I wouldn't be too upset either. Saddam is the author of his own fate, whatever his justifications are, they are not enough and a little late in the day. But again I am in principal against the death penalty.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
koan;457900 wrote: Another point of disagreement that I would love to see resolved is whether Saddam, and Hitler, and others of their reputation were born as evil little masterminds. Once all the acts have been committed society turns on the black sheep and isolates the person as an anomaly (a phenomenon occurring specifically in the condemned).
In my point of view, it just isn't so. Every human innately has the capacity to be evil. It is a daily, sometimes hourly choice.
In Saddam's case, I purport that a normal person followed a normal path of corruption (access to power) one step at a time.
I don't either.
This is like asking why kids all of a sudden go to school and blow 15 of their classmates away with a machine gun, or why adolescence have an infatuation with being a vampire to only murder a peaceful family to suck their blood.
Doesn't matter if these people were priests,..if they commit atrocities, they deserve to be condemned,..for life,..I'm sorry I have no leniency. (My opinion)
In my point of view, it just isn't so. Every human innately has the capacity to be evil. It is a daily, sometimes hourly choice.
In Saddam's case, I purport that a normal person followed a normal path of corruption (access to power) one step at a time.
I don't either.
This is like asking why kids all of a sudden go to school and blow 15 of their classmates away with a machine gun, or why adolescence have an infatuation with being a vampire to only murder a peaceful family to suck their blood.
Doesn't matter if these people were priests,..if they commit atrocities, they deserve to be condemned,..for life,..I'm sorry I have no leniency. (My opinion)
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;458076 wrote: I don't either.
This is like asking why kids all of a sudden go to school and blow 15 of their classmates away with a machine gun, or why adolescence have an infatuation with being a vampire to only murder a peaceful family to suck their blood.
Doesn't matter if these people were priests,..if they commit atrocities, they deserve to be condemned,..for life,..I'm sorry I have no leniency. (My opinion)
You are in sizable company. One of the issues to be considered is how that POV might change if suddenly it was a person of close relation who waltzed into a school and gunned down other children.
In the case of the leaders in question, the access to power is indicated as the problem, in the case of the random bloodbaths it is the feelings of powerlessness that are indicated. So what is this power problem that creates monsters and why should we be content to only deal with it once it has erupted in "inhumane" acts? By the time someone has gotten to that point, I feel there are many others complicit in the crimes just by having ignored the signs.
This is like asking why kids all of a sudden go to school and blow 15 of their classmates away with a machine gun, or why adolescence have an infatuation with being a vampire to only murder a peaceful family to suck their blood.
Doesn't matter if these people were priests,..if they commit atrocities, they deserve to be condemned,..for life,..I'm sorry I have no leniency. (My opinion)
You are in sizable company. One of the issues to be considered is how that POV might change if suddenly it was a person of close relation who waltzed into a school and gunned down other children.
In the case of the leaders in question, the access to power is indicated as the problem, in the case of the random bloodbaths it is the feelings of powerlessness that are indicated. So what is this power problem that creates monsters and why should we be content to only deal with it once it has erupted in "inhumane" acts? By the time someone has gotten to that point, I feel there are many others complicit in the crimes just by having ignored the signs.
Death For Saddam
koan;458137 wrote: You are in sizable company. One of the issues to be considered is how that POV might change if suddenly it was a person of close relation who waltzed into a school and gunned down other children.
They would get no sympathy from me. The piece of sh** would get what they deserve. Which is to be locked up for the rest of their life. On a side note,..no one in my immediate family would do such a thing, but I will recognize it hypothetically speaking. I don't even know of anyone in my family otherwise that would either, but for the sake of history I cannot wholehearted object to the possibilities.
They would get no sympathy from me. The piece of sh** would get what they deserve. Which is to be locked up for the rest of their life. On a side note,..no one in my immediate family would do such a thing, but I will recognize it hypothetically speaking. I don't even know of anyone in my family otherwise that would either, but for the sake of history I cannot wholehearted object to the possibilities.
Death For Saddam
koan;458137 wrote: You are in sizable company. One of the issues to be considered is how that POV might change if suddenly it was a person of close relation who waltzed into a school and gunned down other children.
In the case of the leaders in question, the access to power is indicated as the problem, in the case of the random bloodbaths it is the feelings of powerlessness that are indicated. So what is this power problem that creates monsters and why should we be content to only deal with it once it has erupted in "inhumane" acts? By the time someone has gotten to that point, I feel there are many others complicit in the crimes just by having ignored the signs.
In terms of the question about why are we content only to deal with a dictarorial or cruel leader after they have risen to power is that we aren't, and we don't in general stop them because we cannot. Its hard enough to stop unsavoury people gaining power in our own countries let alone other countries. In my opinion there are many many world leaders and governments that from my persepctive I would rather not there, but I do not expect or want my governemnt or any western government from over throwing them unless they actually constitute a practical threat to us. Would that not constitute a sort of moral colonialism (thats the argument that most despotic governments use).
There is no world government, power or organization that can stop domestic politics within indpendent countries, (the UN charter also forbids it) even a government in America is not able to stop leaders in say latin america from rising to power whom they dislike so its unlikely that we would ever be able to stop someone preemtively in say Thailand or Veitnam from becomming a dictator, in the first instance its not the role of national governments to do so, and even if they have a hankering to do it, its usually impossible or impractical.
Saddam Hussein, Milosevik, and even say Herman Georing are notable because they are exceptions. Its simply a happy accident that Saddam Hussien was defeated and captured in a military campaign of the U.S. (which was not fought for humanitarian reasons) and that coincidently he also happens to be a very nasty and disagreeable person who is at last facing some sort of punishment for the immense suffering he has inflicted on his own people.
In the case of the leaders in question, the access to power is indicated as the problem, in the case of the random bloodbaths it is the feelings of powerlessness that are indicated. So what is this power problem that creates monsters and why should we be content to only deal with it once it has erupted in "inhumane" acts? By the time someone has gotten to that point, I feel there are many others complicit in the crimes just by having ignored the signs.
In terms of the question about why are we content only to deal with a dictarorial or cruel leader after they have risen to power is that we aren't, and we don't in general stop them because we cannot. Its hard enough to stop unsavoury people gaining power in our own countries let alone other countries. In my opinion there are many many world leaders and governments that from my persepctive I would rather not there, but I do not expect or want my governemnt or any western government from over throwing them unless they actually constitute a practical threat to us. Would that not constitute a sort of moral colonialism (thats the argument that most despotic governments use).
There is no world government, power or organization that can stop domestic politics within indpendent countries, (the UN charter also forbids it) even a government in America is not able to stop leaders in say latin america from rising to power whom they dislike so its unlikely that we would ever be able to stop someone preemtively in say Thailand or Veitnam from becomming a dictator, in the first instance its not the role of national governments to do so, and even if they have a hankering to do it, its usually impossible or impractical.
Saddam Hussein, Milosevik, and even say Herman Georing are notable because they are exceptions. Its simply a happy accident that Saddam Hussien was defeated and captured in a military campaign of the U.S. (which was not fought for humanitarian reasons) and that coincidently he also happens to be a very nasty and disagreeable person who is at last facing some sort of punishment for the immense suffering he has inflicted on his own people.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;458331 wrote: In terms of the question about why are we content only to deal with a dictarorial or cruel leader after they have risen to power is that we aren't, and we don't in general stop them because we cannot. Its hard enough to stop unsavoury people gaining power in our own countries let alone other countries. In my opinion there are many many world leaders and governments that from my persepctive I would rather not there, but I do not expect or want my governemnt or any western government from over throwing them unless they actually constitute a practical threat to us. Would that not constitute a sort of moral colonialism (thats the argument that most despotic governments use).
There is no world government, power or organization that can stop domestic politics within indpendent countries, (the UN charter also forbids it) even a government in America is not able to stop leaders in say latin america from rising to power whom they dislike so its unlikely that we would ever be able to stop someone preemtively in say Thailand or Veitnam from becomming a dictator, in the first instance its not the role of national governments to do so, and even if they have a hankering to do it, its usually impossible or impractical.
Saddam Hussein, Milosevik, and even say Herman Georing are notable because they are exceptions. Its simply a happy accident that Saddam Hussien was defeated and captured in a military campaign of the U.S. (which was not fought for humanitarian reasons) and that coincidently he also happens to be a very nasty and disagreeable person who is at last facing some sort of punishment for the immense suffering he has inflicted on his own people.
I did not suggest that any Western country should go about removing the out of control leaders of other countries, far from it. The Iraqi people are the ones responsible for allowing Saddam to remain in power and it was, imo, up to them to remove him. If we focused on maintaining our own checks and balances we might be more successful at home as well.
You have this seemingly overwhelming idea that so much is beyond our control. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone felt that way throughout time.
There is no world government, power or organization that can stop domestic politics within indpendent countries, (the UN charter also forbids it) even a government in America is not able to stop leaders in say latin america from rising to power whom they dislike so its unlikely that we would ever be able to stop someone preemtively in say Thailand or Veitnam from becomming a dictator, in the first instance its not the role of national governments to do so, and even if they have a hankering to do it, its usually impossible or impractical.
Saddam Hussein, Milosevik, and even say Herman Georing are notable because they are exceptions. Its simply a happy accident that Saddam Hussien was defeated and captured in a military campaign of the U.S. (which was not fought for humanitarian reasons) and that coincidently he also happens to be a very nasty and disagreeable person who is at last facing some sort of punishment for the immense suffering he has inflicted on his own people.
I did not suggest that any Western country should go about removing the out of control leaders of other countries, far from it. The Iraqi people are the ones responsible for allowing Saddam to remain in power and it was, imo, up to them to remove him. If we focused on maintaining our own checks and balances we might be more successful at home as well.
You have this seemingly overwhelming idea that so much is beyond our control. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone felt that way throughout time.
Death For Saddam
koan;458340 wrote: I did not suggest that any Western country should go about removing the out of control leaders of other countries, far from it. The Iraqi people are the ones responsible for allowing Saddam to remain in power and it was, imo, up to them to remove him. If we focused on maintaining our own checks and balances we might be more successful at home as well.
I agree, except where a foriegn leader uses his power to threaten us or attack us directly or through indirect means.
You have this seemingly overwhelming idea that so much is beyond our control. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone felt that way throughout time.
I believe that there would probably have been a lot less ideological, religious, and economic wars if leaders showed a bit more humility and common sense. I tend to be suspicious of anyone who has grandiose plans for us all, whether intellectual, economic, or political. In a world of 6 billion people and 200 nations, power is just a necessary evil to my mind, while indivdual liberty and the freedom from the unjustified coertion of everyone, (and everyone mind, every living person) and not just political, economic, or intellectual ellites in whatever system is a genuine ideal, being an ideal its actually impossible, but its a good idea I think.
Its obvious that politicans, wealthy captialists, dictators, armies, social elites use their power negatively, its also true that many well-meaning intellectuals also have a sad track record of discriminating against those who do not share their own worldview, and often justify the most appauling things based on their own interpretation of a "higher" ideal, but the result is just the same, human suffering. The operative idea is that people are hierarchical and will use whatever means at their disposal to push their own agendas, from a range that goes from mild argument, intemperate language, legal practice....right up to genocide and the use of nuclear weapons. It is impossible to prevent people from being conflictual, what is possible is to try and promote a reality of a diversity of interests, indivudals, ideas, creeds, and agendas that interact and coexist if not always peacefully at least in a civilized fashion, its difficult, and you cannot get rid of violence any more than you could get rid of desire or love, but you can try to manage it, and minimize its occurence. That to me is a realistic and achieveable goal.
I agree, except where a foriegn leader uses his power to threaten us or attack us directly or through indirect means.
You have this seemingly overwhelming idea that so much is beyond our control. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone felt that way throughout time.
I believe that there would probably have been a lot less ideological, religious, and economic wars if leaders showed a bit more humility and common sense. I tend to be suspicious of anyone who has grandiose plans for us all, whether intellectual, economic, or political. In a world of 6 billion people and 200 nations, power is just a necessary evil to my mind, while indivdual liberty and the freedom from the unjustified coertion of everyone, (and everyone mind, every living person) and not just political, economic, or intellectual ellites in whatever system is a genuine ideal, being an ideal its actually impossible, but its a good idea I think.
Its obvious that politicans, wealthy captialists, dictators, armies, social elites use their power negatively, its also true that many well-meaning intellectuals also have a sad track record of discriminating against those who do not share their own worldview, and often justify the most appauling things based on their own interpretation of a "higher" ideal, but the result is just the same, human suffering. The operative idea is that people are hierarchical and will use whatever means at their disposal to push their own agendas, from a range that goes from mild argument, intemperate language, legal practice....right up to genocide and the use of nuclear weapons. It is impossible to prevent people from being conflictual, what is possible is to try and promote a reality of a diversity of interests, indivudals, ideas, creeds, and agendas that interact and coexist if not always peacefully at least in a civilized fashion, its difficult, and you cannot get rid of violence any more than you could get rid of desire or love, but you can try to manage it, and minimize its occurence. That to me is a realistic and achieveable goal.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;458374 wrote: I believe that there would probably have been a lot less ideological, religious, and economic wars if leaders showed a bit more humility and common sense. I tend to be suspicious of anyone who has grandiose plans for us all, whether intellectual, economic, or political. In a world of 6 billion people and 200 nations, power is just a necessary evil to my mind, while indivdual liberty and the freedom from the unjustified coertion of everyone, (and everyone mind, every living person) and not just political, economic, or intellectual ellites in whatever system is a genuine ideal, being an ideal its actually impossible, but its a good idea I think.
Its obvious that politicans, wealthy captialists, dictators, armies, social elites use their power negatively, its also true that many well-meaning intellectuals also have a sad track record of discriminating against those who do not share their own worldview, and often justify the most appauling things based on their own interpretation of a "higher" ideal, but the result is just the same, human suffering. The operative idea is that people are hierarchical and will use whatever means at their disposal to push their own agendas, from a range that goes from mild argument, intemperate language, legal practice....right up to genocide and the use of nuclear weapons. It is impossible to prevent people from being conflictual, what is possible is to try and promote a reality of a diversity of interests, indivudals, ideas, creeds, and agendas that interact and coexist if not always peacefully at least in a civilized fashion, its difficult, and you cannot get rid of violence any more than you could get rid of desire or love, but you can try to manage it, and minimize its occurence. That to me is a realistic and achieveable goal.
As to the human nature aspect, the thread I started called Escape From Evil deals with that entire phenomenon from Ernest Becker's point of view. I think his work is very important so I isolated it into a thread of its own where people can read my summary of the lecture on his work. I'm just getting ready to do the final part. I hope you read it. It agrees with what you've written here.
As to matters of practicality and usefulness of trying to sort these matters out, I defer to a very wise man's words that can be found elsewhere on this board
This to me suggests that what we need to do is study our environment more and prioritize the necessity of understand that upon which is so basic for our survival we don't notice it, not to say, don't worry, go back to bed, it'll be fine.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=40
far from adopting the sound precautionary principal that upon entering such a phase it is unwise to continue accelerating our impact upon the climate, we should ignore all of the scientific "cassandras" and carry on regardless, its an insane position to take
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=40
I'm not suggesting that we are going to have an outbreak of peace and understanding, but I think that the gravity of the situation will eventually make all responsible governemnts at least attemt some solution.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=82
In this final quote, just change the environment references to social
What they are not sure about is the exact consequences of what is happening, there is no denying that the earths biosphere is an extremely complicated system that we do not fully understand, which should not be taken as meaning that we can't make some predictions about general trends, just that we do not have the capability of modelling the entire biospehere and its exact workings, which is a reason for us to be very cautious anyway in our activities as basically none of us are fully sure of what the consequences are, so being lasseiz Faire about it is not really an option) Neither are they sure on what precisely we are all going to do about it individually and collectively. Anyway, they can only advise as scientists are not leaders, and they don't have the authority to tell people what to do (thank god), but they can recommend different courses of action to deal with things...
Its certainly not an easy or quickly solved problem, but neither is it an impossible one, it will just take intelligence, resources, and the political will to get things moving.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=86
In these matters you were quite passionate, I expect you'll understand my passion in what I feel are similar circumstances.
Its obvious that politicans, wealthy captialists, dictators, armies, social elites use their power negatively, its also true that many well-meaning intellectuals also have a sad track record of discriminating against those who do not share their own worldview, and often justify the most appauling things based on their own interpretation of a "higher" ideal, but the result is just the same, human suffering. The operative idea is that people are hierarchical and will use whatever means at their disposal to push their own agendas, from a range that goes from mild argument, intemperate language, legal practice....right up to genocide and the use of nuclear weapons. It is impossible to prevent people from being conflictual, what is possible is to try and promote a reality of a diversity of interests, indivudals, ideas, creeds, and agendas that interact and coexist if not always peacefully at least in a civilized fashion, its difficult, and you cannot get rid of violence any more than you could get rid of desire or love, but you can try to manage it, and minimize its occurence. That to me is a realistic and achieveable goal.
As to the human nature aspect, the thread I started called Escape From Evil deals with that entire phenomenon from Ernest Becker's point of view. I think his work is very important so I isolated it into a thread of its own where people can read my summary of the lecture on his work. I'm just getting ready to do the final part. I hope you read it. It agrees with what you've written here.
As to matters of practicality and usefulness of trying to sort these matters out, I defer to a very wise man's words that can be found elsewhere on this board
This to me suggests that what we need to do is study our environment more and prioritize the necessity of understand that upon which is so basic for our survival we don't notice it, not to say, don't worry, go back to bed, it'll be fine.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=40
far from adopting the sound precautionary principal that upon entering such a phase it is unwise to continue accelerating our impact upon the climate, we should ignore all of the scientific "cassandras" and carry on regardless, its an insane position to take
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=40
I'm not suggesting that we are going to have an outbreak of peace and understanding, but I think that the gravity of the situation will eventually make all responsible governemnts at least attemt some solution.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=82
In this final quote, just change the environment references to social
What they are not sure about is the exact consequences of what is happening, there is no denying that the earths biosphere is an extremely complicated system that we do not fully understand, which should not be taken as meaning that we can't make some predictions about general trends, just that we do not have the capability of modelling the entire biospehere and its exact workings, which is a reason for us to be very cautious anyway in our activities as basically none of us are fully sure of what the consequences are, so being lasseiz Faire about it is not really an option) Neither are they sure on what precisely we are all going to do about it individually and collectively. Anyway, they can only advise as scientists are not leaders, and they don't have the authority to tell people what to do (thank god), but they can recommend different courses of action to deal with things...
Its certainly not an easy or quickly solved problem, but neither is it an impossible one, it will just take intelligence, resources, and the political will to get things moving.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=86
In these matters you were quite passionate, I expect you'll understand my passion in what I feel are similar circumstances.