Good for Iraq: Saddam caught!

[qjakal]

Re: Re: Hindsight and holy cow

What? Lie to the world as well as to lie to their own population? Thanks but no thanks! 😡

Have you ever thought what would have happened if Hitler hadn't been financed by quite a lot of US families (most of them living in Virginia and neighborhood)? Did it ever cross your mind that the Taliban would never have gained power in Afghanistan, that the Iraq/Iran war wouldn't have happened at all, that Monsters like Baby Doc, Pinochet or Pol Pot had never been able to maintain control for so long, if... yes, if the USA hadn't meddled somehow, under the veil of "giving aid"?

Think what you like, but foreign policy has never been a special US strength. They usually behave like an elephant in a porcelain shop! (I'm speaking of politicians and military leaders, not of US citizens in general.)

--------------------------------------------------------

Once again, the attempt to apply hindsight is misguided. You assume that Hitler wouldn't have found alternative funding sources, and you assume that whatever OTHER governing body that came to power in Afghanistan would have been better etc. etc.....but why is that so? The actions of individuals are just that, and whether they're aligned in some manner with a foreign government doesn't excuse or explain them no matter how emotionally you appeal to my sensibilities. These people are monstrous and their personalities and actions are deplorable.

I don't really think we need to debate whose foreign policies have been the most destructive throughout the history of humanity, and I still wish we'd adhere to either a course that insists on civilized behavior from those whom you deal with, or an outright absence of any financial intercourse with them at all. Removing horrific dictators IS a good thing and all the screaming in the (literally) world won't convince me otherwise.

One down.....

Burying your head in the sand and wishing reeeeal hard won't make 'em go away. Waiting to fight until they're knocking on your door(building/borders) isn't too clever either. It's the difficult thing to do, but perhaps that's an indicator that it's the right one as well.

Time will tell.

Btw, red, I was speaking personally about that 'ol high horse. Trying to justify past actions in the light of present events is nonsensical. Making the decisions given the amount of information and time available is all any nation can do, and of course actions leave one open to second guessing. One news report related Saddams capture to the initial objective in this manner:

"Today the largest weapon of mass destruction in Iraq was captured"

I thought that was apt. If you're debating whether or not this type of massive expenditure of lives and treasure is deserved by the citizens of the countries we've liberated....can't help ya there, we'll need to find some resources that speak directly to the issue. Should my own country ever fall into the hands of a madman who slaughtered 5% of the population wantonly, I'd sure as hell be praying for relief...but maybe that's just me.

Q

 

[Haltickling]

Once again, the attempt to apply hindsight is misguided. You assume that Hitler wouldn't have found alternative funding sources, and you assume that whatever OTHER governing body that came to power in Afghanistan would have been better etc. etc.....but why is that so? The actions of individuals are just that, and whether they're aligned in some manner with a foreign government doesn't excuse or explain them no matter how emotionally you appeal to my sensibilities. These people are monstrous and their personalities and actions are deplorable.

I don't really think we need to debate whose foreign policies have been the most destructive throughout the history of humanity, and I still wish we'd adhere to either a course that insists on civilized behavior from those whom you deal with, or an outright absence of any financial intercourse with them at all. Removing horrific dictators IS a good thing and all the screaming in the (literally) world won't convince me otherwise.

Q, what you call ‘hindsight’, I’d call historical analysis. We have a saying in Germany: “Far-sight is better than hindsight”. Meaning that we should learn from historic mistakes, and that’s only possible with an unbiased analysis of our own, however painful it might be. I agree that nothing can be said to excuse the personal responsibilities of those monsters, but they certainly are not the only responsible factors for their opportunities to act as they did.

All nations have committed mistakes somewhere along the road of history. I agree with your principle of “behave, or no more money”. But that’s exactly where I see the problems: Too many politicians are ready to tolerate monsters in power as long as they fit into their political concept. The USA in particular (but not exclusively) has shown a certain affinity towards dictators, as long as they were anti-communist (or anti-Islamic republic). Oh man, if I had only 0.01 percent of the money the US shoved up the anus of those dictatorships, I’d belong to the top 100 multi-millionaires! 🙂

“Removing horrific dictators IS a good thing and all the screaming in the (literally) world won't convince me otherwise” is another sentence to which I agree to a certain degree. Not pushing horrific dictators into power or not supporting already existing ones would be even better, don’t you think so? 🙄

-----
I snipped the rest of your reply, because discussing the unilateral superpower policy vs. UN policy isn’t the topic here. We’ve debated that frequently enough already, and we know each other’s view.

However, I think that red made some very valuable points here, no matter how much he and I disagree on other topics. I wish the current US administration would finally get off the high horse, before reality socks them in the face as it did so often in history…

 

[qjakal]

History lessons...

The biggest one there is to be learned is that we as a species are the slowest learners possible. Whether it's called analysis or hindsight, I think we can agree that it's always too late and always obvious...eventually.

I guess what I'm laboriously trying to point out here is that *certain* individuals will abuse their positions of power when given the opportunity. I'm fairly certain I could award you that theoretical money you spoke about and you STILL wouldn't decide that any particular ethnic group needed cleansing. On the other hand, obviously Saddam and some of the other aforementioned pyscho and sociopaths are going to behave in that manner to whatever degree they possibly can, limited only by their ability to wreak havoc. On a macro basis identifying these individuals is nigh impossible until the worst side of their acts is accomplished and passes into history. Red and yourself seem to think that we can look at them and distinguish which of these individuals will become dictatorial murderers when given the opportunity and/or means to do so.


I think that we need to act upon history in a more timely fashion, but that these scenarios will continue because the difference between a hard nosed aggressive military/politico and the embryonic madman is too fine a line in most cases. Regardless, personal accountability isn't to be abandoned so easily, imo. The fact that someone is bankrolled by country "X" or even organization "Y" does not ever excuse their choices as to how to wield authority....

I'm an advocate of justice, not war. Unfortunately achieving one without the other hasn't been the strong suit of anyone this century.

As always, a pleasure chatting with you Hal!

Q

 

[qjakal]

Re: Dont get me wrong Q........

.


Q says that maybe Saddam should have "taken an apinion poll of his allies before acting" which I assume was a joke, but the bigger joke is Saddam knew he did not need to bother with such formalities, as he could rely on the west to look the other way while he butchered and gassed his own people.

Even after Saddam became "western enemy number one" and we turfed him out of Kuwait, we encouraged Sunis and other large anti Saddam factions to rise up against him, which they did, we did nothing to help and stood back while he slaughtered them.....AGAIN!!!

Q takes the view that I am being rather petty in pointing out any connection between the murderous reign of terror that was the Saddam regime and those who have backed him financially, militarilly and politically. He feels that what Saddam did was his responsibillity, and you can not blame those who gave him aid.

Assuming that the war against Saddam was a war against terror, then I have a problem with this argument. The people who carried out the 9/11 attacks all died carrying out their mission. Why, therefore, following Q,s logic do we bother to persue the people who backed the 9/11 attackers? we should "put the blame squarely where it belongs" surely?

The current view is that Saddam backed many terror groups, financially, militarilly and politically and that although he was not personally involved in any of these attacks, he was clearly giving them aid, and thats why we attacked him. But Q thinks its wrong to go after the people who give out the aid and that we should "put the blame squarely where it belongs"

So you can see I have a problem here! I dont have the answers, and I am not being smugly rhetorical in any way.

------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry red, didn't mean to skip over this without some discussion. I think you misquoted me a bit regarding polling the aid givers, but you have the gist of it in most spots.

I've been wrestling with your message and the implications it contains. Part of the problem is of course that we give out foreign aid to just about everyone with a pulse for some damn reason, but there's an inherent flaw in trying to excuse the USA on that basis alone. Recently I've begun to wonder if moving away from a monarchy was the right decision. What we've gained in autonomy we've lost in terms of personality. In other words, we're a monolith with an everchanging set of faces, each having it's own flavor and charateristics/tendencies. 4 years is a blink of an eye in terms of history, and yet we change leadership on that schedule to maintain the concept of independence that was relevant 200+ years ago.

When you and Hal speak of those responsible for the actions of leaders of countries we've aided/allied with at points in time, the people that made those decisions are long gone from power and the consequences of their actions. Instead, there is a gap of 2 or sometimes 3 leadership generations dealing with the results of previous administrations as well as implementing their own visions. The lack of continuity is a weakness, but one that is the basis for our entire system of checks and balances.....

If we had a leader (call him Kevin for ease of discussion) that remained at the helm until removed by popular vote for Sam or Mikey or whomever, we'd have a chance to develop that "personality" and perhaps even a sense of accountability that would help our efforts mature and act as a censor on the constant pressure that is felt at the pinnacle of power as the sands of time run inexorably out on their reign. Your PM setup seems superior and well suited to this structure, with the royals lending an air of personality in their own right. Hopefully we'll evolve towards that organizational model eventually. A combination of superior technological and military/financial strength tempered with a long term view such as Hal suggested would be quite welcome to all rational world citizenry...not holding my breath waiting on it though.

Kevin feels that he needs to act "now" because the future holds no Kevin within it in terms of power structure in this country. He makes a decision based on available info and goes forward to other decisions. That one turns out badly...in 8 or so years, and Kevin is sitting on his stool shaking his head about it while writing his memoirs for his library. Meanwhile Sam has to deal with the fallout while simultaneously pursuing his agenda, also based on the need for haste....

A bit scary.

In your post you'd rail us for both action and inaction though, which certainly seems a bit one sided. Because someone funded Saddam we need to monitor him and the internal actions of his country? We're gonna need a bigger administration and just a few more ambassadors for THAT one red!

Can't you blame France since they helped us become independent? Or Britain for losing interest in us and letting us establish this flawed system of governing whcih makes us act at breakneck (in historical terms) speed?

Nah...

Balme the ones who commit the atrocities and clean them out as soon as they're identified. Let the actions of the country speak as independent policy, and don't draw all the connective lines. You'd be back to the Greeks and Athens eventually and we'd be paralyzed by analysis. Admitting mistakes is a silly exercise, because in a complex world they are inevitable and unavoidable. Rectifying them though...there's a plan I can jump onboard with! Britain did its part and more in this effort, and has always defined itself by its willingness to right a wrong...

I think that's all you can expect until evolution and Star Fleet Command get moving.

Always a pleasure red, and keep 'em coming. Q

 

[Haltickling]

But that's the point, Q !

"Balme the ones who commit the atrocities and clean them out as soon as they're identified."

Right, Q. My point was that the US funded and supported dictators at all. Dictatorship is wrong in itself, and not much good comes from them. Yet the US supported dozens of them (like the Shah, for example). They even assisted actively in overthrowing elected governments to back dictators instead (see Allende/Peron in Argentine for example, or the contras in Nicaragua). They supported them because they thought it favorable for the US, or US companies (like United Fruit in Central America), simply because those dictatorships were violently anti-communist. Don't pact with the devil to defeat your own hell, or you will be responsible for the outcome!

And I got your point about personal responsibilities well, I think, and I agree. However, the scale of damage grows with the opportunity given: A mass murderer can do much less damage with less support.

Apart from the personal accountability, there's something like corporate responsibility, in this case for the politicians. It irks me greatly to see how they always get off so lightly, instead of having to answer personally for their often most obvious mistakes. An administration who funds and supports dictators should be treated as accomplices and sued for indemnity to the victims! A corporate manager who hires and promotes a psycho gets fired and sued instantly, hindsight or not...

 

[red indian]

What a pleasure!.........

....exellent contributions from all in a good debate. What a nice change to be able to have an informed civillised argument with people without some jackass reverting to foul language or personal abuse, or pulling the race card when they have no better answer.

I must say I never envisaged this event producing such an interesting debate. It,s obvious though now I think about it!

 

[Deleted member 2452]

ok, let's get a few things straight .

the u.s. never supported hitler, but the german people did.
the u.s. never supported pol pot, but the comunists of the world did.
the u.s. supported the afgani people in their war against the ussr, but did not support a repressive government that the toliban became.
the u.s. did support the iraqi's in their war against iran, but that support started during a democrat white house.
the u.s. did support the formation of the state of isreal, and threatened to send in the marines if the british didn't let the jewish refugees in.
which is more than can be said for the rest of the western world.

so which of these do you want to knock in hindsight?

steve

 

[qjakal]

Chain of thoughts....

Internet interplay at it's finest...lol.

Hal, I think we're in agreement in there....somewhere. This thread has got me wondering a bit about our form of government, as I briefly outlined in response to red. We may have sacrificed a necessary component in our insistence on change in the executive branch, and foreign policy may be the most glaring example of why we might consider a touch of reform. The transitory nature of those in power may give a false sense of invulnerability to their decision making process.

Not to digress red, but a quick question on the monarchy. If the queen was to come out strongly on a position such as going to war, would the PM be able to, or even try to, thwart her wishes? Would such an effort lead to his rump being bounced those famous Whitehall steps or does he wield authority sufficient to withstand the expressed desires of the monarch? Would the population rally and become involved? Should the monarch call for war would it stir the nation in a more united fashion than having the process come from the more staid governmental officers? I'm asking because I think this type of "rule by personality" is what is lacking in some form here in the United States. We tend to be too quick on the button and have adopted the same worldview as the leadership here...namely that faster is a necessity. A strong personality that has continuity would (or could) offset that tendency IF the support of the population was an element of the equation......fascinating thought that we may need to take a step backwards to advance overall.

Hal, we definitely need to adjust to a post Communist world, but now we have merely substituted one enemy for another and thus haven't been able to truly define what the ramifications of that type of world entail. I think we could become a gentler economic power, one that might encourage development and growth in smaller countries if we would just take a deep breath and slow down for a few moments (that's years in historic terms..lol) and allow ourselves to trust capitalism to actually work. There's a lot of opportunity for ALL to benefit and cooperate, but once again there's an element missing, a proverbial fly in the ointment that's somehow causing the gears not to quite mesh. Perhaps the issues are intertwined and a revival of a monarchy would solve both. Can someone lend us some royalty until we develop our own?😉 Q

 

[Deleted member 2452]

q, i must assume you're pulling our legs.

on the subject of capitalism, what's all this talk of a gentle economy? what is it even?
our form of government is not in buisness, our government's policy is (hope i spell this right) laise fair. hands off.that is how capitalism works best. smaller countries have to develope just as we did. it is not the duty, nor responsibility of the u.s. to develope the world!

i fail to see how a monarchy will solve anything. q another eroneous point of your would be in your apparent thinking that america is the only country that has changes in the executive every few years.
all the democracies of the world have national elections, canada just had a change at the top. and come the next elections in france and germany, i bet new leadership is elected.

i choose to see our "quickness" in decission making to be a good thing. we learned in ww2 that we can't sit by and let evil run rampent, that wafling will only make matters worse. now we see a problem, we go fix it.

steve

 

[qjakal]

Re: q, i must assume you're pulling our legs.

on the subject of capitalism, what's all this talk of a gentle economy? what is it even?
our form of government is not in buisness, our government's policy is (hope i spell this right) laise fair. hands off.that is how capitalism works best. smaller countries have to develope just as we did. it is not the duty, nor responsibility of the u.s. to develope the world!

i fail to see how a monarchy will solve anything. q another eroneous point of your would be in your apparent thinking that america is the only country that has changes in the executive every few years.
all the democracies of the world have national elections, canada just had a change at the top. and come the next elections in france and germany, i bet new leadership is elected.

i choose to see our "quickness" in decission making to be a good thing. we learned in ww2 that we can't sit by and let evil run rampent, that wafling will only make matters worse. now we see a problem, we go fix it.

steve

------------------------------------------------------

Given that our brand of capitalism is anything BUT "hands off" Steve, I'd have to disagree with letting things continue along their present course. The USAs economic dominance can either be used to help, or to exploit other countries natural and human resources. Guess which method we've consistently utilized? As Hal pointed out, many things were done under the guise of fighting communism, and frankly as citizens we accepted that reasoning quite easily and applied it liberally when making economic decisions as well as military or strategic ones. It's time to act like a big brother rather than a kid in a closed candy store....we can relax our insatiable need for profit a tad I think. A gentler economic approach would have us as partners rathers than ravagers. We'd provide startup capital and a bit of guidance/experience. The system will still produce sufficent profit for all, but we'd be helping build an economic base within other countries, rather than transferring assets continuously to our own infrastructure.

The fact that other democracies have transitional executives isn't relevant unless they also wield the same influence economically and militarily, so I'd rather use the British example for guidance...
WW2s timing wasn't our proudest moment, but the need for speed hasn't been serving us well lately. Note that we had a 3 term president during those difficult moments. Continuity reared it's head even back then.

It won't happen, but it's an interesting topic to consider. I'd love to hear from a few other countries with alternative governing systems.
Q

 

[Deleted member 2452]

interesting oints q, but i still disagree.

on a friendlier note ,fdr was elected to 4 terms, not 3.
just which countries have we plundered?
we buy the natural resources from other countries, not steal them. we have started infrastucture in 3rd world countries from the ground up, and the result was that those countries then nationalized them! and the companies got jack in return! in several instances the american employees were thrown out at gun point. so much for alltruism.
i still disagree that we have to play big brother, it's enough that we are having to play policeman. imagine the whining and screaming if we get involved in setting up economy's in other countries? we'll be accused of colonialism, and raping their economies, forcing our system down other's throats, etc. and you know it.
no thanks. if anything different, i'd rather us just back out, and leave the world to go by it self. let's see how far things will go to hell w/o the good old u.s. to hold the pieces together, and to blame!

on the idea of punishing those that helped sadam; i suspect red, and ann mean america? ok, if that's how it's to be played, then how about holding countries like france, germany, russia, etc. to task for their illegal support of sadam after the first gulf war? they continued to do buisness with him after all his brutality came to light! i hold them much more responsible than the u.s.. we supplied him in his war against iran, a country that invaded our embassy, took our people hostage, and called for a war against us. so we helped our enemy's enemy. nothing new or wrong with that! and again that support was started during the carter administration, and stopped when regan took office. we also supplied the afgani people in their war against russia. we supplied england in their war against germany. which of those do you think was a mistake?

steve

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

Re: Hindsight and holy cow

Finally got back to this thread....

With all due respect Ms Ann, utilizing the superpower of hindsight to view history leads one to the erroneous conclusion that we can avoid what are obvious mistakes when reviewed a decade later....but if it actually was possible I'd be all for it and take a few swats for past mistakes. Each situation involves assessing the current "best" intelligence available and working within a finite time framework to make the decision that impacts the situation most favorably.

I'm not saying that we should never do anything again as we have in the past when time shows that a mistake was made. What I'm saying is that history can and does (if we allow it) teach us lessons. Do we say "I'm never going to trust again." Of course not. But, we CAN say "I'd better think twice about this one. There are too many similarities." It's just one other bit of information added to the equation.

That having been said, I can't help thinking of the Segal movies when those who'd worked for the CIA turned on us and ended up working against us. When the DCI was asked why he'd ever consider working with a nutcase like that, his response was "Sane people don't ..." While that's just a movie, it does speak a truth. Many of those we've dealt with over the years have been deeply desturbed individuals. I'm sure those we're currently working with have many others to add to the list. We don't hear it too often. But, they HAVE eliminated people in the past once they're through using them. The morality of it aside, one can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be the lesser of two evils to do so again when a risk is seen.

I don't pretend to have any answers. Only a fool would do more than speculate since there's so much we don't know. I'm just thinking out loud in view of the MANY times we've had these guys come back to bite us in the ass.

Ann

 

[red indian]

Very perplexing!!.......

....you all seem to have got the point of my message, and I dont know the answer. The general thrust from most of my detractors is that I am dragging academic historical issues in to "real time" events. Well, guilty as charged on that one, but this is the point, at what stage does past history, past decisions, become irrellevant?

One way to answer this is too look at the hammering France and Germany have taken for not supporting the U.S. and U.K. in the Iraq war (a hammering they deserve in my view) what is one of the first lines out of many American mouths? "you owe us for what we did for you in the second world war, how ungratefull can you be?"

Now surely that is applying past historical events as a way of explaining the present? and using it as a weapon to brow beat the French and Germans (Orielly used this argument against the U.S. German Ambassador on his show)

This may or may not be a reasonable way to argue U.S. foriegn policy, but, what some of you are saying is that it is not fair to use this argument AGAINST the U.S.in relation to its past support of Saddam, becuase this is now, and that was then. Which is the reply Oreilly gave me on his show yesterday in responce to my "pithy comment" E mail!

I aggree that Saddam is an evil man and that it was he who carried out all the terrible acts of genocide. Neither Tony Blair or George Bush are responsible for any of it. I also think that it was right to end his regime, but I am left wrestling with my thoughts (just like Q!) on the wider issues about the wisdom of backing these thugs in the first place and why we continue to do nothing to stop the likes of President Mugabe from doing much the same things in Zimbabwe as Saddam did in Iraq?


Q, regarding your theory on the merits of propagating a U.S. Royal Familly, I think you labouring under a missunderstanding about what power and what role the Queen has under the British constitution. She does have, for instance, the power to dissolve parliament at any time she pleases, but it is taken as read that she will not use this power. She has other such "powers" that are in her remitt, but she never uses them.

The consequences of this situation changing i.e. the Queen used any of these powers, would signal the end of the monarchy almost over night. Our modern democracy would not stand for any such intervention by the Queen. Similarly the Queen does not express political views, othere than via "the queens speech" which out lines the governments legislative programme in each parliament.

The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Queen is rather like the guy who goes to the dentist, he sits down in the dentists chair and as the dentist gets ready with his drill he gets hold of the dentists bollocks (testicles to you! ) and says " ok, you hold the drill, and I will hold these, we are not going to hurt each other are we?"

 

[Deleted member 2452]

nice post red

i agree with you this time around. it is only fair that if we want to use history in our favor, we have to use it to our detriment.

i also believe we should be doing more in various places around the world. the u.s. will never do anything against magabe though. the fact that he is black makes him un-touchable here in america. the blacks, and liberal media would absofreakinglutly blow a head gasket!
so as long as he remains black, i'm affraid he has nothing to fear from us.

steve

 

[qjakal]

Re: Very perplexing!!.......

Q, regarding your theory on the merits of propagating a U.S. Royal Familly, I think you labouring under a missunderstanding about what power and what role the Queen has under the British constitution. She does have, for instance, the power to dissolve parliament at any time she pleases, but it is taken as read that she will not use this power. She has other such "powers" that are in her remitt, but she never uses them.

The consequences of this situation changing i.e. the Queen used any of these powers, would signal the end of the monarchy almost over night. Our modern democracy would not stand for any such intervention by the Queen. Similarly the Queen does not express political views, othere than via "the queens speech" which out lines the governments legislative programme in each parliament.

------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting red. So your monarchs position is at this point in time mostly ceremonial, rather than functional. Seems like a damn waste of a possible useful tool in the arsenal of a democracy/republic. An active monarch would represent yet another check as well as provide a personality that lends the countries decisions continuity and accountabiltiy. I hadn't pictured them as "toothless" but rather as a force that overshadowed the parlimentary process, ratifying by silence rather than proclamation....


Congrats on making it to TV, btw. Have you been beseiged with autograph seekers yet, or perhaps the tabloids have attempted an expose of some sort?😉

This really puts a damper on trying for that Knighthood. Thought it would be more...invigorating. I think we need a thread on developing a more sophisticated form of government. Perhaps my vision of a World Order can be conceptualized....

Q

 

[ticklebutton]

Re: Very perplexing!!.......

...wisdom of backing these thugs in the first place and why we continue to do nothing to stop the likes of President Mugabe from doing much the same things in Zimbabwe as Saddam did in Iraq?

Or Nigeria, Nepal, Indonesia, Korea, Phillipines...and on and on.

We do nothing because these countries have nothing we want. (so far)

If some lovely profitable resource were discovered there, ohboy we'd be all over them like flies on honey.

At the moment it's more profitable to simply sell them weapons to murder each other with.

Occupying Iraq gives us a strategic position in the Middle East; then too, there's all that oil...

Button 😎

Ann & Qjackel for president!

 

[Haltickling]

I thought about your words for quite some time, Q, regarding a change of our political/economical systems.

It seems you're going for some kind of "benevolent dictatorship" when you speak about reviving monarchy. Even if the Head of State (call him king or president or Tsar or whatever) gets elected by the population, he can never represent all the political, economical, and ethnical fractions of a society. He can't just change his robes and forget his own political views, his own society circle in which he was brought up. He can't judge any given situation unbiased, because he's only human. And he'll need advisors who are fallible humans themselves. Even the ancient Romans knew the phrase "Power makes corrupt".

This saying is particularly relevant if you consider the career paths of leading politicians, regardless of their nation or political color. The "leading class" consists almost exclusively of wealthy people with strong elbows, shoving aside every opposition without too many scruples. Blackmail, slander, secret plots, and dubious financiers with their own agendas to pursue are typical for most successful political careers.

Another theoretical alternative would be a technocracy: A government of experts from each administrative area. They would be much better equipped for the problems that arise for their country, and undoubtedly superior in knowledge, compared with full-time politicians. However, they would be human beings, too, and not immune to the "power makes corrupt" principle.

I'm sure that there are a dozen other theoretical systems for state leadership, some of them even may work. The problem is: Every change of the political system can only become reality if approved by representatives of the current system, as they wield all the power. And they'd do everything to avoid this, as a new system would make them obsolete. They'd fire themselves, so to speak. Fat chance! 🙄

IMO, we're heading towards a new revolution. The current system leads towards an increasing gap between rich and poor, both on a national and a global scale. We just haven't suffered enough yet to be ready for a revolution. But we're steadily approaching a point when the pressure of suffering will become overwhelming. Already almost half of the populations in every democratic countries are non-voters, disappointed and tired of the old system and potentially open for new ideas. I think that the change will probably not happen in our lifetime, but later in this century. We need the change, or we'll extinct ourselves!

End of my ranting ramblings...

 

[qjakal]

Hope....

It's a complicated issue/idea Hal. But obviously there's no way to eliminate the human element of any ruling system, unless we want to go to a machine ruled world, based solely on logic and input/output parameters. Having seen both the Terminator world and the Matrix world, I doubt we'll go that route...lol.

I was thinking more along the lines of a group of beings that were bred specifically for this job/purpose. Ones whose heritage would prevent that climb up the political ladder that so often corrupts and influences our current leaders. Knowing from birth that you had the *opportunity* to become an influential leader if you were qualified and worked sufficiently hard might alleviate the worst of the symptoms. Conversely they'd have little knowledge of what the common mans lifestyle consisted of and the problems it entailed.

Of course we can throw genetic/DNA engineering into the mix, along with a multitude of advanced techniques for improving our species, and go down the road towards accidentally dividing our own race...ala XMen and mutants.

Damned if I have an answer, but as you and a few others have said: "There's gotta be a better way eventually."

Q

 

[Knox The Hatter]

I have my own questions about the theory involved in just how far a British monarch can go in effecting or altering government policy. I do know, though, that what you see currently has evolved over the last several centuries. The last British monarch I know of who really tried to do what Q and Red were debating about was George III. Most often, it was the King and his own party having to navigate through a Parliament filled with ruthless political giants like the Pitts and Fox...unfortunately, the King really wasn't cut out for the endless battle of wits with these notables. I think that all of this led to the current status quo.
However, I do wonder...if Prince Charles were a really politically minded individual, if by the power of his prestige and own (hypothetical here) political savvy, he were able to cement his own base of power in Whitehall, and have a real effect on British politics...would it be possible?

 

[Strelnikov]

Robert A. Heinlein said once that monarchy was a wonderful system, the principles behind it were well established by stock breeding since before recorded history. The only thing lacking is that you can't break the necks of the culls - sometimes you make them King instead. I think I'd rather stick with what we have - it has survived with relatively few changes since 1789, something you can't say about any other government on Earth.

As for America's foreign policy record, here's how I see it since 1940.
*We defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, liberating the people of Western Europe and the Far East in the process.
*We freed our colonies voluntarily, unlike most others. (Puerto Rico isn't a colony, its people have repeatedly voted to stay part of the USA.)
*We kept the Communists out of South Korea - compare that place with their neighbors to the north.
*We mistakenly involved ourselves in the Vietnamese Civil War - one down. That's a mistake we haven't repeated.
*We invaded Grenada, Panama and Haiti to evict noxious dictators, then left the people to govern themselves.
*We supported an insurgency against the communist government of Nicaragua. That forced the communists to hold free elections, which they lost, then lost again in the next two elections.
*By diplomacy and economic pressure, we encouraged the spread of democratic government in Latin America. Cuba is the only old-style banana republic left, and it's teetering with the loss of its Soviet patrons. The others - even the ones that are starting to back slide (Brazil, Venezuela) still pretend to be good democrats.
*We led the eviction of the Iraquis from Kuwait in Gulf War I.
*We invaded and destroyed despotic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
*Most importantly, we won the Cold War. Millions of Europeans are free as a result. We did most of the heavy lifting - American treasure and American lives on guard defeated the Soviet Empire, without a shot fired between us. We won big - compare the present western border of Russia to the World War I cease fire line when they made a separate peace with the Germans.

I'll put that record up against any other country. It's a record to be proud of.

Strelnikov

 

[R. Davis]

Peace in the Middle East. It will be a long road but someday everyone will be content.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

very good post hal, really.

we all know i don't like you ,and you don't like me, but i give credit when, and where it's due. your last post was excellent.

Q the system you referend to in your last post exists. it is right here in america. every child born here has the "opportunity" to become president. does the child have the drive, and blind ambition is really the only prerequisit.

strel. you have posted little this year, but when you do, it's great. i always look forward to your words of wisdom.

steve

 

[red indian]

To answer Knoxies Q............

......I seem to detect a missunderstanding amongst Americans about the level of influence the British Monarch or her siblings have on our parliamentary system and the democratic system. Yes, I have to conceed it is a bit of a mess, the way the system works, and what exactly our constitution is. I think also Americans underestimate the level of republicanism that is present in the U.K. populous, latent as it may be most of the time.

As I have said before, it is just not "cricket" for the Queen or Prince Charles or the corgis to make political statements of any kind. Neither can they influence parliamentary proceedings or individual parties or indiviual parliamentarians. The Queen is what is known as the "Titular" head of parliament.

It would be the death knell of the constitution and the Monarchy if these rules were not followed. Its a very silly set up i have to conceed, and lacks the clarity and simplicity of the American constitution, but we have the "restoration" to thank for a lot of the mess.

The Monarch does have an infulence in some way that is hard to define, clearly she stands for law and order, tradition, and is still the head of what is left of the aristocracy.

We are reminded of the kind of power that Kings and Queens used to wield at every "state opening of parliament". This is of course recognised today as a simple display of British pagentry at its finest, and nothing more than a tourist attraction. However its original function was to intimidate and bully the members of the house in to making sure the King got what he wanted from the exchequer in the way of money for himself and his private army, which of course he brought along with him, just to make sure the message got home!


It is a typical example of Britain upholding ancient traditions and yet having quite clearly moved on and become more democratic and less feudal.

So I dont hold out any hope, or indeed desire for the Monarchy to start crashing about in British political life, Prince Charles is in my view an amiable buffoon and should be left to do what he does best, growing organic vegetables.

 

[BigJim]

Re: good news for the whole world!

i hope they leave it to the iraqis to try, and punish him, their justice will be more brutle than ours in the u.s.
steve

Don't bet on it. 😉


You want to see him punished surely? Give him to the Iranians then sit back with the popcorn. 😀

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Re: Re: good news for the whole world!

Don't bet on it. 😉


You want to see him punished surely? Give him to the Iranians then sit back with the popcorn. 😀

TOUCHE'

steve