Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Saddam's a bad guy, so we should....
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 61 of 62 (33948)
03-08-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by caligula
02-15-2003 9:36 AM


Our "emperor" Bush,will be long gone and remember by history as a megalomaniac dictator that he is.All you have to do is sit back,relax and watch it unraveling.
Actually, this is probably not true. It is a fact that history is much kinder to leaders of action rather than equivocation, even if the action is wrong. Whether we like it or not, I dare say that if Bush is even moderately successful, history will be very kind. Now, if he fails, well that will be a different story and hardly, one of a dictator.
History teaches us that have been and will be many,many changes... but nothing is ever any different.
Correct. For example, if there was ever an imperial president, it was Teddy Roosevelt. And yet he is not treated in history books as 'a megalomanical dictator.' And look at the brutality in suppressing the Philipines uprisings under McKinley; but we hardly think of him as a dictator now. In fact, I don't think that any past presidents are thought of as dictators and truly they all pale in comparison to such giants as Stalin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by caligula, posted 02-15-2003 9:36 AM caligula has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 62 of 62 (33949)
03-08-2003 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Minnemooseus
03-05-2003 1:33 PM


quote:
As I see it, George W. and associates are setting themselves up, to go down in history as being perceived as being some of the greatest war criminals ever. That is because it seems that they are about to win the small war, but loose the greater war.
I am not so sure about this. Read my previous post. There are plenty of past presidents who have committed probably greater atrocities but are not treated as historical pariahs. I am not sure that dispassionate historians will treat Bush any differently. If there is even the slightest hint that Bush thinks (rightly or wrongly) he is protecting American citizens, there will be no (distant) future condemnation. As to the greater war which you refer to, I'm not sure that history recognizes this conflict or will chatise a president who ignores it, particularly since it has gone on essentially for centuries and will unlikely be resolved within Bush's term.
Certainly if the conflict spreads there will be blame to go around, but it will be shared by numerous leaders who could have averted it. For instance, it is entirely possible that Bush never intended to go to war, but now that France and Germany have undercut Bush, Saddam is effectively free to do whatever he wants except for an invasion. The Europeans could have handled this a little bit better, also. But on that scale, it's all about power and resentment.
Just some comments from a history buff. I am not taking sides, but trying to inject an alternative historical perspective. I think that sometimes we get so caught up in the passions of the time that we do not get a historical perspective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-05-2003 1:33 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024