T. Blair on CBC National

[Oleg Bach]

BLAIR is from the same set that BP oil guys are from - cheap cheap cheap - send in ill prepared troops..because you and your friends hate to part with the publics money that you think is actually yours?

[ToadBrother]

Yeah sure, I'll now endeavour to defend the indefensible. Why not?

I'll tell you why, because I can't stand how you people are unable to see the difference between the bullshit you are being fed by your leaders, versus someone else.

No, I would never trust my life to someone like Saddam Hussein. Nor would I trust it to Barrack Obama.

"Enlightenment" is relative to what else is around. Compared to the despots in neighbouring countries, Saddam was enlightened. If the war was againt the unenlightened, they really shoulda went for Iran or Saudi, or Pakistan. The fact is, Saddam made Iraq one of the most emlightened of middle eastern countries. And that fact is suppressed by those who need to keep it suppressed. Your taskmasters

No, Enlightenment isn't a relative term. The Enlightenment despots were guys who liked to fancy themselves Enlightenment rulers, and certainly advocated Enlightenment principles, very selectively mind you. Napoleon, in particular, was a lover of referendums. It was all a scam, but still Napoleon seemed to fancy himself the democrat forced by circumstance to play the tyrant.

What, you think Stalin wasn't revered as a hero in the soviet union? For years. Even long after he was dead. He murdered millions. So did Johnson.

Stalin was feared, not revered. His cult of worship by and large died with him (what we see now is merely a sort of twisted nostalgia). Napoleon on the other hand is still held in high esteem by the French.

Napoleon, was a liar. When he crowned himself emporer, he betrayed everything he stood for. Eventually the Bourbons got back whatever they wanted.

Well, he certainly lied, but at the same time, by the time the young Napoleon opened fire on the mobs in Paris, the Revolution had spun out of control (was it every really in control). Say what you will, but he restored rational government, created a constitutional system that he then set about exporting to everywhere speck of dirt he conquered. I'm not defending him, per se, but pointing out that Napoleon's legacy was far from purely negative, his conquests lead to constitutional government throughout Europe.

Napoleon "was not significantly troubled when faced with the prospect of war and death for thousands, turned his search for undisputed rule into a series of conflicts throughout Europe and ignored treaties and conventions alike. His decision to reinstate slavery in oversea colonies is controversial to his reputation. He institutionalised plunder of conquered territories: museums contain art stolen by his forces from across Europe. Artefacts were brought to the Louvre for a grand central museum; his example would later serve as inspiration for more notorious imitators. He was compared to Adolf Hitler most famously by the historian Pieter Geyl in 1947."

Comparing Napoleon to Hitler is grossly inaccurate. Yes, he was responsible for a considerable number of deaths, but that was hardly any different than any other leader of his time. And he hardly was the first to plunder conquered territory. Why do you think so many Byzantine artifacts can be found in southern Italian churches?

"Goya's The Third of May 1808, painted in 1814, depicts the civilian executions that occurred following the Dos de Mayo Uprising. Five thousand defenders of Madrid were executed in two days. Critics argue Napoleon's true legacy must reflect the loss of status for France and needless deaths brought by his rule: historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost." McLynn notes that, he can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life for a generation by the dislocating impact of his wars."

Oh balls. A generation? His wars cost lots of money, but it's not like the Bourbon Restoration delivered a better government. That took his nephew, Napoleon III, up until Bismarck decided he needed a war to punish France.

---

Whose name shall we substitute for the above criticisms?

Saddam...

Adolph Hitler...

Josef Stalin...

LBJ...

GWB...

BHO...

Pick yer poison

You're list is so ridiculously vulgar and dishonest as to make me wonder whether you have an insightful, let alone moral bone in your body. I'm not going to defending guys like Bush, but to compare him to Hussein or Stalin shows just how bereft of wisdom and proportion you are.

[eyeball]

At least I know some history. You seem ignorant of most of it, and proudly so. Like I said, just a mindless malcontent.

Far from mindless but yes I am a malcontent, and I'm rather proud of my prescient ability to realize years ago that Afghanistan would turn into a quagmire or as one of the world's leading security think-tanks now puts it a "long, drawn-out disaster".

The threat posed by al-Qaida and the Taliban is exaggerated and the western-led counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan risks becoming a "long, drawn-out disaster", one of the world's leading security thinktanks warned today.

Source

I'm clearly able to combine my awareness of what's happening in the present with my knowledge of history and project a future outcome better than the brainiacs like you who couldn't connect a series of dots to save your's or anyone's else's lives. You better just stay in your Momma's library, you'd only hurt yourself if you ever tried to apply what you know in the real world.

Please, our leaders are bad enough. Guys like eyeball make the worst kind of leaders, because they actually think they have all the answers. That's where the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot come from.

I find it's usually my questions that pester people like you the most but never mind what I might be like as a leader, what do we do with leaders like you who ARE in charge right now? I'm pretty sure I have a good idea of what things will be like if they stay in charge too...a long drawn out disaster.

[myata]

No, Enlightenment isn't a relative term. The Enlightenment despots were guys who liked to fancy themselves Enlightenment rulers, and certainly advocated Enlightenment principles, very selectively mind you. Napoleon, in particular, was a lover of referendums. It was all a scam, but still Napoleon seemed to fancy himself the democrat forced by circumstance to play the tyrant.

No argument here. And so if an "enlighted" (democratic, civilized, etc) ruler starts a gratioutous but perfectly enlighted war on occasion, how should we classify him (them)? As a fancy of the likes of Napoleon, Saddam, only different, democratic kind? Or as absolutely justified enlightened necessity?

In other, simpler words: can unnecessary war resulting in massive loss of life be pardoned and explained for "good" intentions of instigator and executor? Say yes, and all is understood and foregiven. Yes, Saddam, Napolean, yada, etc everyone and everybody. Because every single one of them had a good, solid, absolutely convincing (for themselves or those who chose to become complicit in the act) reason why it should be done that way and not any other.

No it's not comparing Bush to e.g Stalin. Only pointing out that the standard of "enlightened" or civilized is defined by one's act rather than ephemerious terminology. And once the standard is removed, so many things instantly become relative and justifiable by simple twist of a word.

[ToadBrother]

No argument here. And so if an "enlighted" (democratic, civilized, etc) ruler starts a gratioutous but perfectly enlighted war on occasion, how should we classify him (them)? As a fancy of the likes of Napoleon, Saddam, only different, democratic kind? Or as absolutely justified enlightened necessity?

It's a fine point, but it's hard to reconcile with reality a statement like "Napoleon and Saddam were the same kinds of guys", because clearly they were not. I'm not saying Napoleon was a good man, he clearly was not, and he tossed out most of his principles and his adopted Revolutionary zeal when the time was right. At the same time, he did spread Revolution throughout Europe, and was in no small part responsible for its spread in Latin America as well. He promulgated constitutional governments wherever he went. Saddam was pretty much a butcher, ruling through fear. Napoleon, even after his defeat and humiliating exile to Elba was still able to resurrect a good enough chunk of la Grande Armée to force the gloating Powers to rush to Waterloo to beat him. A wanton savage tyrant, once fallen and forced out certainly does not command that kind of respect and admiration among his countrymen that Napoleon did in 1815.

In other, simpler words: can unnecessary war resulting in massive loss of life be pardoned and explained for "good" intentions of instigator and executor? Say yes, and all is understood and foregiven. Yes, Saddam, Napolean, yada, etc everyone and everybody. Because every single one of them had a good, solid, absolutely convincing (for themselves or those who chose to become complicit in the act) reason why it should be done that way and not any other.

I think, as much as anything, it's what you do with power. Any student of Machiavelli is going to realize that, by and large, it is a very specific and narrow group of people who seek out, and ultimately achieve, high office, and manages to keep it. Men like Napoleon and Saddam have an obscene amount of ambition, and of course view themselves as being instruments of fate, providence or whatever they want to call it, and thus excuse the evils they do. But Napoleon at least tried to spread some of the principles of the French Revolution, which itself had degraded and devolved. Saddam, from what I can tell, was more in the Stalinist mode, accruing power purely to service themselves. It was naked ambition whose only purpose was to further the centralization of power. I'm not saying Napoleon didn't do that, but he very much seemed to believe that whatever compromises with his own ideals he made, they were done for the greater goal. I think in the end he overreached his ambition in every regard, seeking to create the French Empire as the replacement of the Holy Roman Empire, and for that he needed an Emperor, namely himself. And yet even the act of seizing the Crown from poor Pius and crowning himself was a shot across the bow of the Church, ending forever the dominance of the Latin Church in European affairs.

No it's not comparing Bush to e.g Stalin. Only pointing out that the standard of "enlightened" or civilized is defined by one's act rather than ephemerious terminology. And once the standard is removed, so many things instantly become relative and justifiable by simple twist of a word.

There are considerable differences. Bush was certainly a fool, misguided and directed by others, but you know what, he still only remained the constitutionally-mandated two terms. The Constitution maybe was bent a little, but Bush was hardly the first to do that. One might argue that the greatest bending it ever had was at the hands of Lincoln, who is lauded by many inside and outside the US as being one of the greatest presidents there ever was, perhaps even one of the greatest leaders of a republic in all of history.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even if I were to accept that Bush was as bad as Napoleon or Hussein, and was possessed of the same impulses and savagery, they were constrained. He was, from beginning to end, a constitutional leader of a constitutional state, and the most critical of all democratic constitutional concepts, that there be a peaceful, orderly and lawful transition of power still occurred. It was my thought as I watched the TV when the President and the President-elect met during the transition that no matter how harshly history may judge Bush, he surrendered the reigns of power as a democratic leader, and not clung to power. Men like Saddam Hussein are not in the mold of Cincinnatus, retiring to their farm when their time is done. Men like Saddam Hussein stomp on constitutions at their leisure, promulgating new ones to guarantee perpetual absolute power.

The President of the United States, by the mere fact that he commands one of the most powerful militaries in history, is capable of tremendously horrific mistakes (though I still think it's too early to declare Iraq an unmitigated failure, you simply cannot make those kinds of assessments at this point). Yes, some of those mistakes may be the result of flaws of character, or even perhaps self-aggrandizement or the desire for dominance. But the mere fact that the President of the United States, when he has either been defeated in an election, or after he has served his two terms, still steps down and in the model of Cincinattus, retires to his farm willingly and lets someone else take up the reigns.

So no, no matter how you try to rewrite the scorebook, even a genuinely crappy democratic leader whose mistakes, ambitions and deeds cost many lives and puts his nation in horrible positions cannot be viewed to be as bad as someone like Hussein, or even Napoleon, because, if nothing else, that man still recognizes the constraints of his position.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course I don't expect either of you ideologues to understand. The reality of places like Iraq is ugly, and it involves making compromises. There is no chance for democracy when people hate each other for centuries. The only way to run such a dreadful place is by dictatorship. Can you fathom that? No, I doubt it.

Ohhhh my. So now you're advocating Saddam-type dictatorship.

My God. Truly unbelievable.

[Jack Weber]

Churchill's failing was in siding with a monster to defeat another and we can thank the likes of the Blairs and Bushes for keeping us on this long dreary road.

What other option did Churchill have???

Lictor's option?

[ToadBrother]

What other option did Churchill have???

Lictor's option?

Wow, blame Churchill for making an alliance so Great Britain could survive. The alternatives being capitulation or defeat (was there a difference with the Nazis?)

We have some pretty bizarre people posting here.

[Sir Bandelot]

Ohhhh my. So now you're advocating Saddam-type dictatorship.

My God. Truly unbelievable.

I know it's too deep for you to understand. Better that you get back to the kitchen and bake some more cookies.

[Jack Weber]

Wow, blame Churchill for making an alliance so Great Britain could survive. The alternatives being capitulation or defeat (was there a difference with the Nazis?)

We have some pretty bizarre people posting here.

If that was aimed at me,you don't read very well....

[Sir Bandelot]

Men like Napoleon and Saddam have an obscene amount of ambition, and of course view themselves as being instruments of fate, providence or whatever they want to call it, and thus excuse the evils they do. But Napoleon at least tried to spread some of the principles of the French Revolution, which itself had degraded and devolved.

Well I think it's not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. In reading your replies its clear that there are many examples of things you wrote about, regarding Napoleon or Saddam, which are applicable to modern western leaders of "freedom loving" nations. It depends on how you want to measure "success", whether the acts of any such leader are beneficial to the whole, or just good for some, and bad for others. And that's the problem with an evil world, or where there are people with conflicting agendas. No one can be pure and good.

We know that Bush also believed he was on a mission from God, that he believed God personally spoke to him. He also worked at undermining certain parts of the constitution and American freedoms. He may not have been entirely "successful" in doing so, but that's not the point. And Bush also showed his aggressive ambitious nature in statements like "Bring it on...", as one example.

But despite all that, in retrospect now that he's gone there are things that I admire about Bush. And Napoleon, etc... Because whenever one looks at a leader who is put into a very difficult situation and somehow survives, devises a solution and achieves some measure of "success", it's human nature to admire that. At least to some extent.

[Guest American Woman]

I know it's too deep for you to understand. Better that you get back to the kitchen and bake some more cookies.

Yeah, "deep."

Better that you get away from the kitchen and stop baking so many brownies.

If that was aimed at me,you don't read very well....

I think he was agreeing with you ..........

[Jack Weber]

Yeah, "deep."

Better that you get away from the kitchen and stop baking so many brownies.

I think he was agreeing with you ..........

I certainly hope so...And I apologize if I misunderstood....

[eyeball]

I think, as much as anything, it's what you do with power. Any student of Machiavelli is going to realize that, by and large, it is a very specific and narrow group of people who seek out, and ultimately achieve, high office, and manages to keep it. Men like Napoleon and Saddam have an obscene amount of ambition, and of course view themselves as being instruments of fate, providence or whatever they want to call it, and thus excuse the evils they do.

What about the strong incremental constitutionalist in you that also says the way power is wielded is a sacrosanct process, a virtual instrument of providence in it's own right? Given the historical evidence of the damage power can cause, I see little excuse for allowing so much of it to fall into the wrong hands, like T. Blair's and GW Bush's for example.

[eyeball]

What other option did Churchill have???

Lictor's option?

I haven't got a clue what Lictor's is. As for Churchill's, I only suggested that Hitler and Stalin could have been left to cancel each other out. If people are going to constantly invoke the names of Hitler and Stalin etc as a segue towards positing some horrific future what-if scenario if we don't follow history's examples, I think it's fair to second guess the historical decisions that were made, especially in light of the consequences.

The West sided with communists to defeat the Nazis, then it sided with the Saddam's and Bin Laden's of the world to defeat the commies. Now the West seems to be willing to jump into bed with just about anything to defeat the Bin Laden's. As for what the future brings and if history is anything to go by, the bastard children of today's conflicted bedfellows will be every bit as bad and probably worse.

How far down this dreary long road do we have to go before admitting it's only going round and around?

Edited September 9, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

What about the strong incremental constitutionalist in you that also says the way power is wielded is a sacrosanct process, a virtual instrument of providence in it's own right? Given the historical evidence of the damage power can cause, I see little excuse for allowing so much of it to fall into the wrong hands, like T. Blair's and GW Bush's for example.

And how is it that you're going to stop it "falling into the wrong hands?" Will you set up some committee of orthodoxy to make sure candidates for high office have all the appropriate virtues?

The best any democratic state can do and still remain meaningfully democratic is set up a framework to deal with abuses. Preventing them is well nigh impossible, at least in a governing and political structure that both permits a responsive and effective government, not to mention one that can reasonably said to be democratic. So far as I can tell, on January 20, 2009 we saw precisely that; the peaceful transfer of power from democratically-elected leader to another. No shots were fired in malice, no bloody civil war, no attempts to amend the constitution in the dying days of Bush's presidency to give him another kick at the can, or more to the point under guys like Stalin and Hussein, no attempt to simply sweep away the constitutional restraints and limitations to rule as a dictator.

I'm not saying I approved of what Blair and Bush did. Clearly they lied, though they will try to write the account differently. I won't even defend the Iraq War, on a legal level the United States did not have the authority, and most importantly, they did it badly, sending enough enough troops to topple Hussein (a trivially easy thing to do, I suspect the Dutch army could have done it), but not enough to secure the country and ensure law and order. The latter sin is the worst, because if you are going to do something of questionable legality in the name of law, order and decency, and then do it inadequately, thus leaving the people you supposedly liberated to a hellish insurgency, well, then you're just plain inept.

But back to my point. The Constitution affords the President, as Commander and Chief of the armed forces of the United States, a rather large amount of power in regards to the use of said armed forces. Maybe there's some room for debate on whether it's desirable for one man to hold that much power, though to be honest, Congress certainly has it within its power to kill any such action by legislative fiat, either directly or by simply refusing to pay for it. And beyond that, the people get to choose, and choose they did. They voted against the Republicans, depriving them (at least until this November) of any meaningful control of the organs of power. I don't know what else you could want from a political system? Those perceived as wrongdoers were punished by losing power, and in a studied contrast to the likes of Saddam Hussein, rather than just holding the reigns of power tighter and killing or forcing into exile all the Democrats and other political opponents, they peacefully, if not all that happily, accepted the will of the electorate.

[ToadBrother]

I haven't got a clue what Lictor's is. As for Churchill's, I only suggested that Hitler and Stalin could have been left to cancel each other out.

They wouldn't have canceled each other out. Without British and American aid, initially in Lend Lease (the Brits actually diverted Lend Lease armaments destined for them to the USSR), it seems reasonably likely that the Soviet regime would have either been crushed or fled across the Urals. What kept the Soviets going was the opening of new fronts (Africa, Italy and finally France), and what kept the Brits and Americans going was the diversion of German forces to the Eastern Front. You might notice something here, that the Allies relied on each other to assure victory. Imagine the Battle of the Bulge if the Red Army wasn't smashing through Eastern Europe towards Berlin.

If people are going to constantly invoke the names of Hitler and Stalin etc as a segue towards positing some horrific future what-if scenario if we don't follow history's examples, I think it's fair to second guess the historical decisions that were made, especially in light of the consequences.

Do you think Churchill didn't know who he was forming an alliance with? He knew exactly who Stalin was. But let me ask you, you and the class bully are held at knife point. YOu have the choice of either standing on principle and getting it in the stomach, or allying with your mortal enemy and taking out the guy with the knife. Neither one of you can do it alone, but together you have a chance. Are you telling me you're not going to say "Hey Mr. Bully, let's do this together".

The West sided with communists to defeat the Nazis, then it sided with the Saddam's and Bin Laden's of the world to defeat the commies. Now the West seems to be willing to jump into bed with just about anything to defeat the Bin Laden's. As for what the future brings and if history is anything to go by, the bastard children of today's conflicted bedfellows will be every bit as bad and probably worse.

You fight the battles as they come, and prepare as best as you can for the battles yet to come. Roosevelt and Churchill knew full well that the Soviets were going to become the enemy after the defeat of the Axis. But Soviet aid was absolutely necessary to resolving the war. Maybe the US and Britain could have ultimately been victorious without the Russians, but it would have been a lot longer a war.

How far down this dreary long road do we have to go before admitting it's only going round and around?

That is the nature of history, it is cyclical. If we were faced with mortal danger again and a nasty bastard appeared ready to align with us, we'd sign him on again. Then we'd worry about the nasty bastard afterwards. Heck there were folks after WWII who wanted to immediately turn around and go after the Soviets.

[August1991]

I find it's usually the other way around, people refer to the U.S. when it's really the West; and when it's pointed out that it's the west, not the U.S., the comeback is usually something along the lines of 'well, the U.S. led the other nations, or 'it's the U.S.'s influence' or some such thing.

So I'm really curious as to who the "many people who immediately assume the West means America" are.

Also, I've found that most people refer to "the West" when including Canada. Rarely do I see "Canada" singled out. That's why I noted the lack of any Canadian PM's mentioned by name in this thread, while American presidents did make the cut.

AW, I think you missed my point. When I referred to Churchill as a war criminal, implicitly I included Truman and King. I chose Churchill because he is the most glaring example. He doggedly wrote about the Nazi threat in the 1930s, he alone among European leaders stood up to it between June 1940 and June 1941 (the Americans stood aside and did nothing during that awful year).

Yet, Churchill ordered the bombing of Dresden. And only someone with no moral sense would compare Churchill to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot.

----

I admire Americans for many things. You Americans tend to make the story about yourselves. As Shirley Valentine said, if you say you like Spring, they say they like Summer and the next thing you know, you're talking about Summer - not Spring. Americans are like that.

Nevertheless, sometimes I think that this American self-obsession will see us (we Westerners) through our future travails of this 21st century.

----

Added later:

No. They feel they have to take over the conversation. I mean, I mean with most fellas if you say something like, like my favorite season's autumn, they go oh, oh, my favorite season's spring and then you've got 10 minutes of them talkin' about why they like spring and you weren't talkin' about spring, you were talkin' about autumn. So what do you do? You talk about what they want to talk about. Or you don't talk at all. Or you wind up talking to yourself.

IMDb Edited September 10, 2010 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

AW, I think you missed my point. When I referred to Churchill as a war criminal, implicitly I included Truman and King. I chose Churchill because he is the most glaring example. He doggedly wrote about the Nazi threat in the 1930s, he alone among European leaders stood up to it between June 1940 and June 1941 (the Americans stood aside and did nothing during that awful year).

Yet, Churchill ordered the bombing of Dresden. And only someone with no moral sense would compare Churchill to Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot.

I agree regarding Churchill, but others in this thread were mentioned, including a POTUS or two. So in light of that, I just wanted to point out that no Canadian PM made the list, either. I'm not arguing your point.

I admire Americans for many things. You Americans tend to make the story about yourselves. As Shirley Valentine said, if you say you like Spring, they say they like Summer and the next thing you know, you're talking about Summer - not Spring. Americans are like that.

Or perhaps it's more a matter of Canadians are like that. If you make a comment about what you like, and Americans in turn make a comment about what they like, and you both then start talking about what they like, how does the blame for that lie on the Americans? Perhaps it's that Canadians are too submissive, and not the other way around.

Nevertheless, sometimes I think that this American self-obsession will see us (we Westerners) through our future travails of this 21st century.

It's hardly a "self-obsession," and that's really my point. Too much of the world is obsessed with Americans/the United States. That's where the spotlight lies, where the microscope is focused. And I'm not saying that out of arrogance, as I totally disagree with this focus and find it totally annoying.

[eyeball]

And how is it that you're going to stop it "falling into the wrong hands?" Will you set up some committee of orthodoxy to make sure candidates for high office have all the appropriate virtues?

No, I'd use that committee to make sure candidates maintain those virtues once they achieve high office.

The best any democratic state can do and still remain meaningfully democratic is set up a framework to deal with abuses.

I agree, what we don't agree on is the framework for doing so. The one you prefer is better suited for a democracy designed for the horse and buggy era and I prefer one that's a little more up to speed and with the times.

Preventing them is well nigh impossible, at least in a governing and political structure that both permits a responsive and effective government, not to mention one that can reasonably said to be democratic.

That is highly debatable.

So far as I can tell, on January 20, 2009 we saw precisely that; the peaceful transfer of power from democratically-elected leader to another. No shots were fired in malice, no bloody civil war, no attempts to amend the constitution in the dying days of Bush's presidency to give him another kick at the can, or more to the point under guys like Stalin and Hussein, no attempt to simply sweep away the constitutional restraints and limitations to rule as a dictator.

So far as I can tell so was the incapacity for accountability and transparency.

I'm not saying I approved of what Blair and Bush did. Clearly they lied, though they will try to write the account differently. I won't even defend the Iraq War,

No, you'll just feel deeply satisfied about one little aspect of it and sweep the rest into your dustbin of history.

on a legal level the United States did not have the authority,

Yet herein lies the rub with you, you argue relentlessly about making any sorts of constitutional changes, like the formation of a committee of orthodoxy for example, to even try to prevent people in high office from lying, regardless of how many hundreds of thousands of people's lives not to mention staggering amounts of scarce resources get wasted.

But back to my point....I don't know what else you could want from a political system?

Transparency, not after the fact, but during it. All the other stuff we use to check the abuse of power is pretty much pointless without it.

[ToadBrother]

No, I'd use that committee to make sure candidates maintain those virtues once they achieve high office.

Ah yes, the committee, which would be the true power of the state.

I agree, what we don't agree on is the framework for doing so. The one you prefer is better suited for a democracy designed for the horse and buggy era and I prefer one that's a little more up to speed and with the times.

There's nothing new about your idea. It's how the Soviets picked "candidates" for "election" for years.

Yet herein lies the rub with you, you argue relentlessly about making any sorts of constitutional changes, like the formation of a committee of orthodoxy for example, to even try to prevent people in high office from lying, regardless of how many hundreds of thousands of people's lives not to mention staggering amounts of scarce resources get wasted.

You won't prevent anything except democracy itself. What you want to prevent is what you view as an errant electorate. So you formulate some body that would, by all appearances, be the absolute power behind the lawmakers. You're not inventing a new system, you're reinventing a system first dreamed up many decades ago, and which produced what by no means could be called a democracy.

Transparency, not after the fact, but during it. All the other stuff we use to check the abuse of power is pretty much pointless without it.

Not even Queen Elizabeth I desired windows on men's souls. You have all the makings of a most terrifying tyrant, my friend.

[eyeball]

They wouldn't have canceled each other out.

Maybe, but given we're now playing what-if scenarios and as I've often said, if Europe had been left to it's own devices and the colonies had stayed out of the issues Europe was resolving in the 1st World War, Hitler likely never would have emerged and there never would have been a 2nd World War. It's entirely possible communism would have collapsed under the weight of its own crap much sooner and without a Cold War, the EU could have formed 40 - 50 years ahead of schedule and the War on Terror wouldn't be setting the tone for the 21st century.

Do you think Churchill didn't know who he was forming an alliance with? He knew exactly who Stalin was. But let me ask you, you and the class bully are held at knife point. YOu have the choice of either standing on principle and getting it in the stomach, or allying with your mortal enemy and taking out the guy with the knife. Neither one of you can do it alone, but together you have a chance. Are you telling me you're not going to say "Hey Mr. Bully, let's do this together".

No, I'd assume in all likelihood that the guy with the knife has an issue with the bully and I'd grab a weapon and tell him I'm not his enemy.

You fight the battles as they come, and prepare as best as you can for the battles yet to come.

Yes that's what I just said but I managed to do it while maintaining my principles.

Roosevelt and Churchill knew full well that the Soviets were going to become the enemy after the defeat of the Axis. But Soviet aid was absolutely necessary to resolving the war. Maybe the US and Britain could have ultimately been victorious without the Russians, but it would have been a lot longer a war.

And maybe somebody would have said, "you know, maybe if we'd just left Europe to its own devices and not interfered with it 50 years ago none of this would have happened".

That is the nature of history, it is cyclical. If we were faced with mortal danger again and a nasty bastard appeared ready to align with us, we'd sign him on again. Then we'd worry about the nasty bastard afterwards. Heck there were folks after WWII who wanted to immediately turn around and go after the Soviets.

Insanity is cyclical. History is just a record of our doing the same things over and over again and expecting a different result.

Edited September 10, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Ah yes, the committee, which would be the true power of the state.

Not if it was a jury or citizen's-assembly chosen from amongst the people at random.

There's nothing new about your idea. It's how the Soviets picked "candidates" for "election" for years.

They did not use anything like what I just described.

You won't prevent anything except democracy itself. What you want to prevent is what you view as an errant electorate.

Would you please stop putting words in my mouth, I made it very clear what I want to do. Need I remind you how often you've commented on how stupid you think the electorate is? Your ability to alternate between respect and contempt for the electorate depending on your mood is downright perverse.

All I want to do is inform the electorate.

So you formulate some body that would, by all appearances, be the absolute power behind the lawmakers. You're not inventing a new system, you're reinventing a system first dreamed up many decades ago, and which produced what by no means could be called a democracy.

No, I'm simply trying to formulate a body that can help verify to the electorate that the evidence the politicians are basing their decisions on is the truth, in realtime.

Not even Queen Elizabeth I desired windows on men's souls. You have all the makings of a most terrifying tyrant, my friend.

Interestingly enough our system was originally based on the assumption that God's ability to see what powerful people were doing would keep them from abusing their power.

Edited September 10, 2010 by eyeball

[August1991]

It's hardly a "self-obsession," and that's really my point. Too much of the world is obsessed with Americans/the United States. That's where the spotlight lies, where the microscope is focused. And I'm not saying that out of arrogance, as I totally disagree with this focus and find it totally annoying.

Only an American could say/post such a statement.

You sound like a disingenuous Hollywood star. "They're all talking about me while I just want a normal life!"

---

As I say, you talk about Spring and the next thing you know, we're talking about Summer.

Edited September 12, 2010 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

....As I say, you talk about Spring and the next thing you know, we're talking about Summer.

Maybe, but somehow, you will always be talking about Spring in America. Check the threads in this forum....and see just how common it is to invoke America without any prompting.