Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should the President/Prime Minister/Despotic Ruler
Topic Started: Nov 18 2003, 07:48 AM (574 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Nov 18 2003, 08:17 PM
HOWEVER, neither of those men were ever called morons in their own time as far as I know, and especially not by other world leaders of enduring stature.

Funny, I wouldn't count you as a world leader of enduring stature...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
nztrekkie
Nov 19 2003, 01:17 AM
HOWEVER, neither of those men were ever called morons in their own time as far as I know, and especially not by other world leaders of enduring stature.

I'm not sure that I would agree with that. :)

Maybe the word "moron" wasn't used, but something similar undoubtedly was. I know Truman was considered by many to be a failure prior to his presidency and I think even his presidency has been regarded better over time than it was while it was current.

I am not as familiar with Churchill's history, but I do know there were some rough periods there as well.

I would also point out that reporting was far different then. Just as the press held off reporting on FDR's physical condition and the escapades of various presidents in their personal lives, no doubt they kept quiet on some personal acrimony between world leaders.

I am curious though what current world leaders are of the "enduring stature"? While there have been periods of time when there have been various people who have significantly affected the future of their countries, I don't see many on the world stage at the moment. Certainly there are some who hope to be, but not many that are truly doing so IMO.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 18 2003, 07:37 PM
benetil
Nov 18 2003, 06:55 PM
But once the risk to our nation has abated

For this to occur, the risks have to have abated. They have not. In fact, I would say we are nearly at the same risk we were directly following 9/11. Things are marginally safer than before, but not through lack of trying.

First of all, Homeland Security has been hamstrung by public officials who would rather see President Bush get a black eye on "domestic attacks." We can't profile potential suspects, which means that 90 year old women in wheelchairs get strip searched at airports.

I was going through Dallas (DFW airport) a few months ago. A security guard with a clicker (you know, to count things as they pass) asks me, "Sir, may I randomly search your bag?" I said, "Go ahead, but what if I had switched places with the woman in front of me." He said, as he looked at my laptop and the disks in my case, "Then I'd search her." I asked, "Isn't that the WORST way to find a terrorist? You don't search guys in boots and a hat with an American flag pin, nor do you search old ladies with blue hair sitting in wheelchairs. They don't bomb planes!" He said, apologetically, "Sir, I legally can't search who I WANT to search unless he happens by at the right time." As I said, HAMSTRUNG.

Back during WWII, we had very little trouble catching spies and sabateurs. Why? Because we thought like AMERICANS back then.

People who think the USA PATRIOT act restricts civil liberties, WITHOUT READING THE ACT in itself, are helping terrorists. There are towns and cities that have passed ordinances forbidding cooperation with the government on this. HOW STUPID ARE THESE PEOPLE?? This spite is simply to make President Bush look bad, not because they really think there is a threat to civil liberties. If former President Clinton had done the same thing, these "useful idiots" (do a keyword search of "Stalin" and "useful idiots) would have held parades.

I could go on for pages and pages, but I don't know if I'd be believed.

Hi, Admiralbill_gomec. I appreciate your comments. My post wasn't meant to be an attack on President Bush - I was just expressing my general opinion in response to Wichita's question.

I don't disagree with you about our nation's risk of suffering future terrorist attacks - in my opinion, future attacks are more a question of timing and magnitude (as opposed to whether future attacks will occur). This ominous fact makes me very angry - and it scares me (I guess that's why we call it terrorism). I'm also resigned to the prospects of living the rest of my life under the shadow of terrorism. I'm also convinced that the Republicans and Democrats will be busy fighting among themselves, one trying to get the political upper-hand over the other, when the next attack occurs. And the next attack will not shake them (Republicans/Democrats) from their rivalry. I believe that these two political parties would rather see the destruction of our nation than work together on matters of national security.

I will offer a specific comment (just an opinion of mine) about President Bush: as long as I hear my President and members of his administration refer to Saudi Arabia as a friend and as long as I read reports about the Saudi lobby having more access to my nation's government than I do, I will question his (President Bush's) true commitment to protecting our nation from terrorism. I would like to emphasize that my feeling on this particular topic has nothing to do with the President's political party - it has more to do with a President's words reflecting the reality (what I perceive to be reality) of the situation. Hard as I try, I'm just not savy enough to see the virtues of a strategy that placates the world's principal supporter of terrorism.

Homeland Security - it is very difficult to protect an open society from terrorist attacks. And I share your disdain of any "public officials" who would intentionally and surreptitiously play political games with the critical issue of Homeland Security. Sometimes I fear that terrorism has no better friend than the bitter two party hate-fest that we have here in the United States. I believe that a Democratic administration would suffer the same political games as President Bush has suffered - partisan Republicans are no better than partisan Democrats.
| Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
as long as I hear my President and members of his administration refer to Saudi Arabia as a friend and as long as I read reports about the Saudi lobby having more access to my nation's government than I do, I will question his (President Bush's) true commitment


It causes me to question our state department. Remember our state department granted visas to the terrorists even though their aplications wee fruadulent.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
To get to the heart of the matter, let's get to the heart of the matter. Let's divide all rulers into three classes, presidents (any offical elected by the people), monarchs (head of a strict hierarchy of social classes), and despots (totalitarian rulers).

First, lets look at despots. They have absolute rule over their entire country. Any whim of theirs is instantly carried out. They usually rule through fear and by flaunting their power. Do their people trust them? Heck no! The people know that the despot would just as soon shoot them as look at them. Therefore, if trust is already nonexistant, then does the despot need to tell the truth? No, in fact the truth could be risky for a ruler who must keep the image of a powerful person to stay in charge.

Next, the monarchs. Their word is law, but they are influenced by a powerful upper class. People generally either trust or distrust a monarch depending on how they are treated. Since some trust is there, is truth needed? Not really. The king/queen must lie to prevent the upper class from gaining too much influence in their decision making. As for the lower classes, the monarch doesn't have anything to do with them.

Finally, we have the presidents. Elected by the people (either directly or indirectly), the president is expected to act in the people's best interest. That is a huge amount of trust to put on a person. Is truth needed? Heck yes! If a president is caught lying to his own people, then the trust that is given to him/her is gone. That president can look forward to being run out of office at election time. Why do you think lying is such a big issue in democratic politics?

Do all rulers fit into these neat little classifications? No, they can merge qualities of ones touching them. A monarch/despot would be Ivan the Terrible who used ruthless tactics to shake off the influence of the upper class (even leaving the throne and plunging Russia into chaos). A monarch/president would describe England after the Magna Carta. The Royal Family controlled England, but was held in check by the populace.

The one unanswered question in all this is: Does not giving information (secrecy) constitute a lie? If so, the secrecy hurts a democracy, if not, then the damage is minimal.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
doctortobe
Nov 19 2003, 12:25 AM
Finally, we have the presidents. Elected by the people (either directly or indirectly), the president is expected to act in the people's best interest. That is a huge amount of trust to put on a person. .

That’s why it is not put on one person - The president may be the leader of the nation but he is not alone. There are many elected officials up there with him. So while placing all that trust in one person may be hard to do, it is not what is done in a democratic state.

For example president Bush wanted to go to war in Iraqi - He first sought approval from congress and got it. So it was not only one man that had the power to make such an important policy it was many men and woman.

So while honesty in and of itself is very important in a democracy, we also must understand that we have elected officials and giving them the power to address the world on our behalf. They need not run every little thing past us, and they need not give all the details so long as all the elected officials work together and it is not left to just one man.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
But the public does not place its trust behind Congress. They want their trust behind one man, the President. This is one reason why Congress ceased to be the major power in the United States. The President as an office was better able to lead the people then the multitude of people in Congress. Even though the Constitution say otherwise, in the court of public opinion, the President is responsible if a baseball game gets rained out.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
First are we even willing to assume that such individuals are capable of telling the truth?

If you put it to any 2 given politicians of opposing parties, then they are going to have a differing views on just what truth is... (apart from the philosophical implications).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
There are certain things that there is just no truth to. Political ideals rarely have any actual truth to them. They are ideas, theories, for the most part they will never be 100% accurate. Truth can only be found in an instance when all facts being questioned can be proven to be true or false.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Dandandat
Nov 18 2003, 09:12 PM
nztrekkie
Nov 18 2003, 09:17 PM
HOWEVER, neither of those men were ever called morons in their own time as far as I know, and especially not by other world leaders of enduring stature.

Could this be because people were more courteous and respectful at that time?

perhaps.........but then again, I couldn't name any person anywhere more courteous than Nelson Mandela.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
perhaps.........but then again, I couldn't name any person anywhere more courteous than Nelson Mandela.

Mr. Bastard? :wow: :whistle: Just kidding. Everyone loves Mr. B. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
nztrekkie
Nov 19 2003, 02:52 PM
Dandandat
Nov 18 2003, 09:12 PM
nztrekkie
Nov 18 2003, 09:17 PM
HOWEVER, neither of those men were ever called morons in their own time as far as I know, and especially not by other world leaders of enduring stature.

Could this be because people were more courteous and respectful at that time?

perhaps.........but then again, I couldn't name any person anywhere more courteous than Nelson Mandela.

Yeah, he is so courteous that if he disagrees with you he will nicely have his goons soak a tire in diesel fuel, place it around your neck and light it afire and watch you burn to death. Very courteous.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
38957,

Maybe the poster was being facetious or satirical?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
38957
Nov 19 2003, 08:34 PM
Yeah, he is so courteous that if he disagrees with you he will nicely have his goons soak a tire in diesel fuel, place it around your neck and light it afire and watch you burn to death. Very courteous.

Wasn't that Mandela's ex-wife's method?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Wichita
Nov 19 2003, 03:56 PM
38957
Nov 19 2003, 08:34 PM
Yeah, he is so courteous that if he disagrees with you he will nicely have his goons soak a tire in diesel fuel, place it around your neck and light it afire and watch you burn to death.  Very courteous.

Wasn't that Mandela's ex-wife's method?

They were both leaders of terrorist organizations that used this practice.

African National Congress was just a Soviet funded communist terrorist organization. Nelson Mandela is no hero, he is a thug.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus