Politics & Stuff

[The only place to be 11,313]

Not having democracy in ones country doesn't suddenly make you a brute...

What does it make you? Backwards?

Democracy should be the aim but it's never achieved without bloodshed. Praising someone like Saddam as 'providing peace' when he disenfranchised 90% of the country is the worst form of logic.

The nuclear bombs on Japan?

A basic lack of knowledge of the second world war and in particular the Japanese notion of 'total war'.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

i dont think hitler was elected democratically. loads of opposition parties were banned after the reichstag fire.

the Weimar Republic had in many ways ceased to be a democracy by the time that Hitler was appointed chancellor. After 1930, Hindenburg began sidelining parliament and largely ruling by emergency decree (under the notorious Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution) through a succession of chancellors (first Bruning, then Papen, then Schleicher, and finally Hitler). So I

don’t think it’s quite right to say that Hitler was appointed chancellor as part of parliamentary politics — by the time of his appointment parliamentary politics in Weimar was basically dead already and the government was being run on largely authoritarian lines.

http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, so you might be right, but still you can't deny that he had the support of the majority of the people at first.

[Fernando 6,585]

CHOULO19, on 08 Aug 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Israel will say what exactly?

You are being ridiculous to even try to compare the two. Let me put thin in simple terms:

The reason Saddam is better than the current situation is because apart from doing horrible things, he did do some good things for a lot of people who now no longer have those good things.

But more importantly, Saddam is a better choice because the alternative is the death of thousands of people and constant terror in the country and the undermining of the security of the while region and possibly the world.

Even attempting to compare this complex situation with a completely different and more complex situation is ridiculously simplistic.

There's no comparison, I'm just saying your being a big hypocrite because you say one system of atrocities is better because of the benefits.

This is exactly what USA says what drug cartels say, what Israel says, pretty much every nation.

We provide peace, education and Why not.

Again I say to you, your just being hypocrite justifying one thing and condemning the other just to make your point.

Edit: And attempting to compare the complexity of the situation, you see it's mess up comparing Israel with Saddam. And I see your point of view here

BUT how do you think I feel when you compare Saddam atrocities to something that happened in WW2? Those two are completely different situation and calling leaders from a nation as criminals in the same light of Saddam is really going over board.

So who's being the hypocrite here?

[lucio 5,418]

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, so you might be right, but still you can't deny that he had the support of the majority of the people at first.

can't remember if it was majority. certainly at least 35%, and more than other parties.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

A basic lack of knowledge of the second world war and in particular the Japanese notion of 'total war'.

Over 200000 people killed in hours. Regardless of the circumstances, that is a war crime.

There's no comparison, I'm just saying your being a big hypocrite because you say one system of atrocities is better because of the benefits.
This is exactly what USA says what drug cartels say, what Israel says, pretty much every nation.
We provide peace, education and Why not.

Again I say to you, your just being hypocrite justifying one thing and condemning the other just to make your point.

Because one is actually better and the other is actually worse. The similarities you are trying to draw between the two do not overwrite the glaring differences.

[Fernando 6,585]

Over 200000 people killed in hours. Regardless of the circumstances, that is a war crime.

Because one is actually better and the other is actually worse. The similarities you are trying to draw between the two do not overwrite the glaring differences.

That says it all what I been saying to you from beginning.

In your view light it's the lesser of two evils. Simple.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That says it all what I been saying to you from beginning.

In your view light it's the lesser of two evils. Simple.

Yes, I've stated so. Saddam is the lesser evil while a genocide in Gaza certainly isn't the lesser evil. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[The Skipper 20,609]

What does it make you? Backwards?

Democracy should be the aim but it's never achieved without bloodshed. Praising someone like Saddam as 'providing peace' when he disenfranchised 90% of the country is the worst form of logic.

I agree that democracy should be the aim to work towards but then again, it's unfair to label a whole country as brutes.

I would never condone Saddam's actions at all, but what I do agree with is that the situation under Saddam is probably better than the situation right now, even if it is the lesser of two evils.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Thanks for the very detailed reply Mohammed. Very insightful. You're right though in saying that if you're not strong as a person in your faith, that it definitely is easy to get corrupted by them. If you don't know your Bible/Quran/Torah then yes, this is a real possibility.

It still really, really surprised me though, especially in regards to the previously anti-jihadist one. Many Muslims at school and college looked up to him because he seemed very knowledgeable about the Quran and all the Hadith teachings. Many of those immediately went to his Facebook page after the news broke out and started blasting him, complaining how they all looked up to him and how he's betrayed them and stuff, it was quite sad to see. I still find it very odd right now.

You see if he is knowledgeable but not strong enough as far as morals and principles ( I am not talking about the Islamic only but the humanitarian golden rule about treating others the way you want to be treated), there is a verse in the Quran that is always used to exploit that. Specifically a verse that directly says ( and I am puting the translation) " Obey God and His Prophet and those of you who are in charge/more knowledgeable". This is a key verse radicals use and really someone who is of knowledge but limited view can be pinned with. So basically they tell him God ordered us to fight all non Muslims (which is totally out of context and inaccurate). He then puts a Hadith to support it. And Challenges him to know better than himself (as far as verses and hadiths and knowledge are concerned). Most people fall into that. It is a verse that if misinterpreted and out of context demands total obedience.

That was used against me in a lot of group discussions. I saw people not responding back. They even try to convince you that you should take religion the way it is, word for word. And that you should not try to think much because that will lead you to misguidance. If you take the verse out of context and ignore the rest of the versus, their argument would be solid from a Quranic point of view. So people give in. But if you intellectually challenge them and show the many contradictions (which are really clear) in what they claim, they will definitely back off. They will avoid talking to you and will make others avoid you as well. I don't know what exactly happened to your friend. But I can imagine a lot of scenarios and the arguments put against him.

[Stingray 9,441]

What the heck your talking about men.

I was asking him what is his view.

My view is not that they are brute.

I was asking why the need for dictatorship? Because the people are brutes?

So it was a question to him not to you!

You seem a bit pissed off because i answered you. If you make a statement, why can't i address it? IThe way you formulated your statement was implying you thought that f they aren't ready democracy, they are brutes.

Also, keep your parties on, 'man'. This is a debate on a forum, not a fight.

[Fernando 6,585]

You seem a bit pissed off because i answered you. If you make a statement, why can't i address it? IThe way you formulated your statement was implying you thought that f they aren't ready democracy, they are brutes.

Also, keep your parties on, 'man'. This is a debate on a forum, not a fight.

I never meant they was brute.

I ask why would you say a nation wants to have a terrorist organization? Why they want to have a dictatorship?

Because the people can't think for themselves? Are they brute or something?

And that's what he's saying basically, if they can't rules themselves then they must be rule...

[Fernando 6,585]

Yes, I've stated so. Saddam is the lesser evil while a genocide in Gaza certainly isn't the lesser evil. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

This:

there is no right or wrong in the lesser of two evil, just who perceives it as the lesser of two evil.

For me evil is evil, no matter how little or how big.

For you is acceptable.

And just like you think is acceptable that's how many leaders of nations think. .ie Israel that nation your bashing.

[The Skipper 20,609]

This:

there is no right or wrong in the lesser of two evil, just who perceives it as the lesser of two evil.

For me evil is evil, no matter how little or how big.

For you is acceptable.

And just like you think is acceptable that's how many leaders of nations think. .ie Israel that nation your bashing.

He never said that he thought it was acceptable - what he was basically trying to get at is that the situation under Saddam is better than the situation right now, which is true IMO.

[Fernando 6,585]

He never said that he thought it was acceptable - what he was basically trying to get at is that the situation under Saddam is better than the situation right now, which is true IMO.

You need to understand this clearly.

There will never be better under such circumstances.

Is just the illusion of something better.

This is the same idea people used to say about Pablo Escobar.

Because of how he gave back to the community, he kept crime in his area low but people never wanted to see the repercussion of such things, the repercussion of drugs.

Have you ever seen the Two Escobars?

If not I recommend it:

http://youtu.be/6EilV9vgaEY

[The Skipper 20,609]

You need to understand this clearly.

There will never be better under such circumstances.

Is just the illusion of something better.

This is the same idea people used to say about Pablo Escobar.

Because of how he gave back to the community, he kept crime in his area low but people never wanted to see the repercussion of such things, the repercussion of drugs.

Have you ever seen the Two Escobars?

If not I recommend it:

http://youtu.be/6EilV9vgaEY

You're not understanding it at all... I'm not condoning anything Saddam has done. What I'm saying is that the general standard of living, whilst obviously not ideal, was a lot better in Iraq than it is now. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand. The circumstances under Saddam were bad, but the circumstances right now are far worse. Ergo, you can say that the circumstances under Saddam were better.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

This:

there is no right or wrong in the lesser of two evil, just who perceives it as the lesser of two evil.

For me evil is evil, no matter how little or how big.

For you is acceptable.

And just like you think is acceptable that's how many leaders of nations think. .ie Israel that nation your bashing.

No, there is wrong and more wrong regardless of what you define "evil" by.

I honestly find it very silly that you think that where there are two "wrongs" it is always a matter of opinion which is lesser regardless of the facts and that opinions for both as being the lesser evil are always valid.

It's like saying I hate needles. So there are no right or wrong opinions on what is worse: Taking my medicine injection or dying from disease.

Sorry, I don't share that view at all. Even when there are two wrongs, there can be a CLEARLY lesser evil.

[Fernando 6,585]

No, there is wrong and more wrong regardless of what you define "evil" by.

I honestly find it very silly that you think that where are there two "wrongs" it is always a matter of opinion which is lesser regardless of the facts and that opinions for both as being the lesser evil are always valid.

It's like saying I hate needles. So there are no right or wrong opinions on what is worse: Taking my medicine injection or dying from disease.

Sorry, I don't share that view at all. Even when there are two wrongs, there can be a CLEARLY lesser evil.

I don't agree. Evil is evil, that's why for me your clearly being a hypocrite thinking one thing is more allowable then the other.

[Fernando 6,585]

You're not understanding it at all... I'm not condoning anything Saddam has done. What I'm saying is that the general standard of living, whilst obviously not ideal, was a lot better in Iraq than it is now. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand. The circumstances under Saddam were bad, but the circumstances right now are far worse. Ergo, you can say that the circumstances under Saddam were better.

But it's a byproduct of having a regime as saddam like it was a byproduct all the violence and death in Colombia after Pablo Escobar death. When Pablo was alive a lot of things was rose and peaches. After It was very tough for many years.

But today Colombia is a much more different country then it was back in 94.

Now I do agree USA must help cause they had a hand in overthrowing saddam, and thank god they have started to help.

But never being run by a dictatorship who runs wild like a drug cartel is the best option.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I don't agree. Evil is evil, that's why for me your clearly being a hypocrite thinking one thing is more allowable then the other.

Well, not for me. I don't know if you mean this from a religious point of view, but I don't believe in "evil". For me there are all sorts of degrees of good and bad relative to people, times, places...etc. So, to me, it's not hypocritical at all.

[Fernando 6,585]

Well, not for me. I don't know if you mean this from a religious point of view, but I don't believe in "evil". For me there are all sorts of degrees of good and bad relative to people, times, places...etc. So, to me, it's not hypocritical at all.

Well if your Atheist then I guess you won't believe in that.

But if you call yourself a Christian, Muslim or such then something wrong with that view.

To be fair I don't know much about Muslim but I know in Christianity such thing does not makes sense. Evil is evil.

No matter how big or how small.