Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Iraq needed Saddam?
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 3 of 133 (386963)
02-25-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2007 11:20 PM


Bad, but not Very Bad
Minnemooseus:
I'm not denying that Saddam was a very bad person. The question is, does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function?
Surely you realize this is still terribly vague. For this question to make enough sense for anyone to discuss it in a practical way, more clarity is required about the kind of regime you propose. Specifically, what do you mean by 'bad, but not very bad'? What do you mean by 'function'?
Can you give us a picture of this? Just a few details. A sketch.
'Function,' for example. You suggest it means the absence of civil wars. Does it also mean the absence of genocide? Or is genocide OK as long as the face on the money stays the same?
And 'bad, but not very bad.' Does that mean shots to the head instead of prolonged torture? Labor camps instead of dungeons? Mental hospitals instead of labor camps?
The Iraqis need someone 'bad' like Saddam Hussein, you say, but not 'very bad' like Saddam Huseein. Would that be someone more like Pinochet? Mao? Miloevi? Stalin? Pol Pot?
Do they need someone more like Baby Doc? Than Shwe? Mussolini? Castro? Amin?
How about Kim Jong-il? Is the North Korean model of functionality on the table?
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2007 11:20 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 02-25-2007 8:52 AM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2007 10:55 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 27 of 133 (387084)
02-25-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by sidelined
02-25-2007 8:52 AM


Re: Bad, but not Very Bad
Your response here, though emphasizing the horror perpetrated by men in power throughout history, nonetheless fails to answer the question " does Iraq need a "bad" (but not "very bad") person in order to function?"
Of course it fails to answer the question. As I said, the question cannot be discussed on its own terms until those terms are clarified. What is 'bad'? What is 'very bad'? What is 'function'? The questions I asked in response were not rhetorical.
I offered specific examples of 'bad persons' who have led countries. Which are 'bad' enough to serve as a model without being so 'very bad' as Saddam Hussein was? Which comes closest to the hypothetical 'bad but not very bad' leader whose potential usefulness we are being asked to consider?
What is meant by having this society 'function'? Is a society 'functional' if the leaders never change and no civil wars erupt, even as innocent people live in constant fear of those in authority? Or does freedom from authoritarian abuse itself represent a criterion for understanding 'function'?
____

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 02-25-2007 8:52 AM sidelined 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