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 (572 Views)
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Wichita
Nov 18 2003, 09:39 PM
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.

Quote:
 
I am curious though what current world leaders are of the "enduring stature"? 


My initial comment was derived from 2 (now 3) unprecedented instances of (world) leaders publically commenting about other leaders -

1. Nelson Mandela, probably still one of the most respected figures in the world, publically calling the US President an "idiot" (or moron, can't remember exactly) "who can't think properly".


2. Russian President Putin, who during one press conference with Blair standing right bedside him (yes I know not Bush, but how can you separate them these days ?) openly and publically subjected PM Blair and the Iraq policy to ridicule, with the whole world watching.

3. THis week, the Mayor of London (who some might consider a bit of a crack pot, but he still the ELECTED representative of many millions of people in the capital city of the US's closest ally) called Bush the greatest threat to world peace that has ever existed.


In my memory, PUBLIC comments by leaders about other leaders, supposedly on the same side no less, are unprecedented. Of course leaders spout off about other leaders all the time I'm sure, but you always read about those comments in biographies or other books published years later - ie: they speak privately or discreetly.

I find it incredible that people are willing to speak out like this - just makes me even more sure that something really is wrong somewhere.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I find it incredible that you believe the swill of the left, you so-called conservative.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
I don't think that Czar Alexander spoke to highly of Napolean :lol:

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
nztrekkie
Nov 19 2003, 05:28 PM
In my memory, PUBLIC comments by leaders about other leaders, supposedly on the same side no less, are unprecedented.

Maybe they just aren’t news worthy or as news worthy, or maybe you only pay attention when someone is making bad comments about Bush/America. As for me I do not pay attention to comments like "he/she is a moron" they are counter productive and mostly have no bases in reality and are just emotional release with very little thought involved.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Dandandat
Nov 19 2003, 07:30 PM
nztrekkie
Nov 19 2003, 05:28 PM
In my memory, PUBLIC comments by leaders about other leaders, supposedly on the same side no less, are unprecedented.

Maybe they just aren’t news worthy or as news worthy, or maybe you only pay attention when someone is making bad comments about Bush/America. As for me I do not pay attention to comments like "he/she is a moron" they are counter productive and mostly have no bases in reality and are just emotional release with very little thought involved.

it's a shame more people never listened to the derogatory comments of some leaders about Hitler in the 1930's.

It may be true that sometimes derogatory comments are simply that - people letting off steam for little valid reason. However, every derogatory comment about every leader can not be dismissed out of hand, as sometimes it may well be true.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
nztrekkie
Nov 20 2003, 10:18 PM
Dandandat
Nov 19 2003, 07:30 PM
nztrekkie
Nov 19 2003, 05:28 PM
In my memory, PUBLIC comments by leaders about other leaders, supposedly on the same side no less, are unprecedented.

Maybe they just aren’t news worthy or as news worthy, or maybe you only pay attention when someone is making bad comments about Bush/America. As for me I do not pay attention to comments like "he/she is a moron" they are counter productive and mostly have no bases in reality and are just emotional release with very little thought involved.

it's a shame more people never listened to the derogatory comments of some leaders about Hitler in the 1930's.

It may be true that sometimes derogatory comments are simply that - people letting off steam for little valid reason. However, every derogatory comment about every leader can not be dismissed out of hand, as sometimes it may well be true.

If a point is true, and worth listing to, and the leader is up to snuff - he wont have to use derogatory comments to get the point across. I really cant think of any reason to use a derogatory comment when a intelligent one can be thought up. If an intelligent comment cant be thought up, then maybe the point should not be made.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
Nov 18 2003, 07:48 AM
.... ALWAYS tell the truth?

Do we WANT the absolute truth at all times?

Second question:

Who decides WHAT the truth is?

I think the two important factors are:

1) Will public safety be potentially compromised?
2) Does the public need to know?

If 2 is yes and 1 is no, the leader should always tell the truth.

If 1 is yes and 2 is no, the leader should not lie, but give no information at all when possible. If that is not possible (because maybe the public is demanding information), limited but incomplete information could be given to the extent possible without jeopardizing public safety. If even limited truthful information would threaten public safety, then lying at the minimum possible level that maintains public safety would be acceptable.

If 1 and 2 are both no, then no information at all must be given. If the leader decides to give information anyway, it should be truthful (no reason to lie here).

If 1 and 2 are both yes, then there is no uniform answer. It would depend on the individual situation.

I'm sure this is oversimplified, but I'm also sure I could right a textbook on the subject if I put my mind to it...

Who decides what the truth is? This might be different for different situations. Some truths would be objectively obvious with no need for an official decision-maker. Others might be decided by the courts. Still others by special committees. And so on...

In any case, it would first need to be decided if there even IS a truth. For example, in matters of opinion, there is no truth.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
But who defines when the public "needs to know"?

Here's a scenario that I'm sure Trek aficionados will appreciate:

Aliens exist, and they live among us. They have been genetically modified to resemble humans, but are telepathic (gee, Bill... sounds like Vulcans!).

Can you imagine the hysteria? The fact that non-humans live among us, and have without our knowing, for some time, and THEY CAN READ WHAT WE THINK!

Wars have been started on less...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Aliens exist, and they live among us. They have been genetically modified to resemble humans, but are telepathic (gee, Bill... sounds like Vulcans!).

Can you imagine the hysteria? The fact that non-humans live among us, and have without our knowing, for some time, and THEY CAN READ WHAT WE THINK!

Wars have been started on less...

Yep. And cultural shock is something that I think TPTB (Government? Military? Both?) ought to protect us from, at just about all costs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 21 2003, 10:42 AM
But who defines when the public "needs to know"?

Here's a scenario that I'm sure Trek aficionados will appreciate:

Aliens exist, and they live among us. They have been genetically modified to resemble humans, but are telepathic (gee, Bill... sounds like Vulcans!).

Can you imagine the hysteria? The fact that non-humans live among us, and have without our knowing, for some time, and THEY CAN READ WHAT WE THINK!

Wars have been started on less...

Wasn't that a B movie with Rowdy-Roddy-Piper? :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 21 2003, 10:42 AM
But who defines when the public "needs to know"?

Here's a scenario that I'm sure Trek aficionados will appreciate:

Aliens exist, and they live among us. They have been genetically modified to resemble humans, but are telepathic (gee, Bill... sounds like Vulcans!).

Can you imagine the hysteria? The fact that non-humans live among us, and have without our knowing, for some time, and THEY CAN READ WHAT WE THINK!

Wars have been started on less...

That's a very good question and point AB. I'll have to think more about that one.

In the example you gave, I would think the public needs to know. However, the issue of public safety comes into this too and making this knowledge public could become and issue of panic and therefore public safety. This fits my last scenerio in my previous reply in which I concluded that each of those cases would have to be evaluated independently. In this example, I would think the safety issue overrides the public's need to know.

That's my first off-the-cuff reaction. Again, I'm sure it's oversimplified...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 21 2003, 07:42 AM
But who defines when the public "needs to know"?

Here's a scenario that I'm sure Trek aficionados will appreciate:

Aliens exist, and they live among us. They have been genetically modified to resemble humans, but are telepathic (gee, Bill... sounds like Vulcans!).

Can you imagine the hysteria? The fact that non-humans live among us, and have without our knowing, for some time, and THEY CAN READ WHAT WE THINK!

Wars have been started on less...

Alright. Now we're getting somewhere.

So, are these disguised little green guys the ones I talk to about getting that waaaaayyy overdue secret decoder ring? <_< :blink: :D

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Swidden
Nov 21 2003, 08:34 PM
So, are these disguised little green guys the ones I talk to about getting that waaaaayyy overdue secret decoder ring? <_<  :blink:  :D

No, I think that would be the Post Cereal Company, or the folks who make Cracker Jack :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus