What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

The question here, O'George, as Okie framed it, was more than just whether leftist ideology were the provenance of repression regimes. Okie's thesis is that leftist ideology is the only source of repressive regimes, and by inference from many of his statements which all but say it, it is not possible for a right-wing regime to become repressive.

It is so absurd as to almost leave one speechless--almost, but not quite. He tortures history extraordinarily to suggest that the NSDAP and Hitler were leftist. He continues to remain mute on the subject of Ferdinand Marcos, the Somozas, Antonio Salazar, Augusto Pinochet, Juan Peron, the Brazilian generals, the Greek colonels--a host of right wing dictators which have been thrown up at him. I mentioned these people precisely because they are recent.

I made the point that there have been far more right-wing governments in history than left-wing, given that left-wing governments are a relatively recent phenomenon. I pointed out that this is no reason to assume that right-wing governments inevitably lead to dictatorships--rather, it is simply inevitable that there be more right-wing dictatorships, since the incidence and prevalence of right-wing governments dwarfts that of left-wing governments.

You'll not honestly deal with this thesis, O'George, until you recognize that Okie's simple minded notion is: "left wing bad, right wing good." That's ths sole basis of this idea, and he is twisting things incredibly to attempt to claim that history bears him out. It doesn't.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

okie's 'thesis' annoys me especially today, on the 65th anniversary of the day when tyranny in Europe was getting started to be defeated by the Americans.

It's true that the Nazis proclaimed themselves as guardians of both true democracy and true socialism. And there might be even a teeny-weeny grain of truth in that.
But certainly not enough to serve as a basis for okies fantasies.

I mean, Hitler and the Nazis claimed as well to be the only protectors of Christianity ...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I believe my complete disagreement with his central thesis was clear enough. I was trying to start with something in his argument with which we agree in order to better illustrate where his thinking went astray -- a very Jesuitical way to lure him towards the truth (though in this case it may not have worked).

Moral judgemnents of political leaders are particularly difficult because (as you have noted) it is hard to know their real motives and because most of them end up causing both good and bad outcomes. The emperor Ch'in did end the Warring States period, albeit at enormous cost, just as Mao brought China into the modern age (perhaps accidentally), though he enslaved and killed millions. In Mao's case it is easy to believe that any of the several available alternatives would have accomplished as much or more with far less human suffering.

Juan Peron ( a leftist populist in my view) bequeathed at least a generation of mismanagement and political turmoil to Argentina; while Augusto Pinochet left Chile in very good order indeed, even leaving the political stage more or less voluntarily when his time was up.

There is no shortage of moral ironies to the problem of political leadership. Ivan's tale of the Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov" comes to mind.

We agree though that in these terms the Left/right categorization is mostly without meaning.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

A bit like this thread.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

A bit like this thread.

Certainly the lack of meaning has never dissuaded you before !

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, thanks for the response. I think you at least get what I am holding forth here, even if you do not agree. I think you do agree that I do have a leg to stand on in terms of my argument, even if you don't agree, but you at least concede the point to an extent. Rather than trying to address all of the pilings on from all the posters, I am going to respond to your post, George, and specifically the following quote, because I think it largely captures the pivot point on which the arguments hinge for most of the others deriding and criticizing my position here.

georgeob1 wrote:

He appears to be asserting that individual freedom is a necessary, essential component of all right wing (or merely non-leftist) political doctrines -- or at least the subset of them that he is talking about. This is an important point in that, as several other posters here have pointed out, there are numerous examples of what would conventionally be called right wing political doctrines (i.e. those emphasizing private ownership of property, individual enterprise; and the rule of law) that have themselves resulted in equally oppressive dictatorships. Okie's response is, as in the case of Hitler, to explain that he was really some kind of crypto socialist; or to explain that as a dictatorship the result, by definition, could not possibly be right wing -- in effect begging the question and justifiably frustrating other posters here.

Hitler is a good example because we know alot about him, and his record is fresh in our minds. Also, many historians have studied this guy and have attempted to categorize him left or right. First of all, I will freely admit that his politics, Nazism, is regarded by probably most people as a right wing idealogy, and Hitler was therefore a right wing fanatic. Europeans especially are very sensitive about this, because they wish not to be associated with his record in any way, shape, or form. I think Walter and oe are good examples of that. Therefore, for me, "okie," one country bumpkin from Oklahoma to come on here, without a degree in history or political science, to come on a forum like this and proclaim they and their experts at the universities that have studied and written about this are basically "full of it," they are of course going to treat me with scorn and derision.

Actually, I don't care. I have been around the block a few times, and I have also been involved in quite a number of things, businesses, etc., and I have found that conventional wisdom is quite often wrong. In this case, I believe it is and I have brought forth good evidence. But it isn't just me, George, there are lots of other people that agree, and people have also written books with an opposing view that basically agrees with what I am saying here. There are some things that are not rocket science, at this one isn't, anyone can observe politics and history and correct answers are not always found with intellectuals. Too often, some people can't see the forest for the trees.

Now to address this subject of Hitler, as an example. First of all, just because he opposed communists, and communists opposed him, that means not much. There are numerous examples of leftists opposing other leftists. Hitler also opposed conservative governments, and was viciously opposed by conservative right wing governments, and ultimately defeated by them, with help from communists as well. Secondly, I am looking at this subject from a perspective of right vs left, as defined by the American definitions of left vs right wing, not some historian's definition based upon European politics, German politics in the 20's or 30's, or whatever. That is an important point, because views evolve, politics evolve, and perhaps even become refined.

Okay George, when you look at Hitler's politics, he was a socialist, that is clear and undeniable in my opinion, not as far left as the communists, but left nonetheless. He certainly was no conservative, thats for sure. Actually, what we are seeing right now in America, with Obama criticizing greed and placing greater control of government in commerce, is that left or right, George? Clearly, Obama is a liberal, he is left, probably the most leftwing president we have ever had. Is he a communist? He certainly claims he isn't. Is he a socialist, probably, but he doesn't claim to be. For comparison purposes, I am not comparing Obama to Hitler to say he is a madman, I don't think he is, but I see alot of similarity between Obama's leftist policies and the policies of Hitler in the 30's. People will jump on me here for comparing Obama to Hitler, for them I would say don't get excited, what I am doing here is comparing policies, economic policy, social programs, relationship with unions, business, volunteerism, and many other things, I am comparing these things to provide evidence for my assertion that Hitler was a leftist, just as Obama is clearly a leftist. If Obama should decide to become a dictator, he would be a leftist dictator, not a right wing dictator. He may still have private property ownership, and privately owned business, and other remnants of a right wing or conservative government, but he would also have instituted many socialist programs and government influence into the systems, until finally achieving a totalitarian State. He would have much more control over private property and business interests, as I think Hitler did. To repeat, although some remnants of a right wing or conservative government may exist, the dictatorship would occur as a result of instituting leftist idealogies into the system. Even though it may not evolve all the way into a communist or Marxist State, it would still be left of center, probably far left of center, although possibly not at the extreme left end of the spectrum.

George, I am interested to know what you think of this reasoning, which I think is very very sound. I realize it doesn't fit the European view, nor does it fit the most liberal professor intellectualist views at liberal colleges and universities, but it makes alot more sense when applied to contemporary American understanding of left vs right, than their assessment does. Also, I have posted this many times, but again I will post the link, "Hitler was a Socialist." Have you read it in totality, and if not, I recommend it. He has a view like mine, and he has alot of evidence to back it up in my opinion.

In contrast, those people claiming fascists were right wingers do so because that is what is accepted belief by many in academia, but they can't provide much evidence that I have seen. It is simply what they learned, they were taught it, they accepted it, and therefore it must be true. To think otherwise requires they throw a long held belief overboard, and that is difficult to do.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

2 Replies

Okie, you are an embarasement to conservatives.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Hitler is a good example because we know alot about him, and his record is fresh in our minds. Also, many historians have studied this guy and have attempted to categorize him left or right. ...

...
Now to address this subject of Hitler, as an example. First of all, just because he opposed communists, and communists opposed him, that means not much. There are numerous examples of leftists opposing other leftists. Hitler also opposed conservative governments, and was viciously opposed by conservative right wing governments, and ultimately defeated by them, with help from communists as well.
...
Secondly, I am looking at this subject from a perspective of right vs left, as defined by the American definitions of left vs right wing, not some historian's definition based upon European politics, German politics in the 20's or 30's, or whatever. That is an important point, because views evolve, politics evolve, and perhaps even become refined.

Well, okie, either you really are joking or ...?

0 Replies

@okie,

Okie,

It is clear that you have not read or attempted to understand anything in my posts except the brief acknowledgments of the (small) part of your story that is accurate.

Others have warned me of this and perhaps it is useless to try, but one more time....

The reality of political structures in this world is far more complex than the binary left right distinction you are making, or even a linear distinction with degrees of left and right. If you want to locate a point on a sheet of paper, you must specify how far left or right of center it is and, in addition, how far above or below it is. Restricting your information to just left and right leaves you with an infinite number of choices along a vertical line - and no ability to make distinctions among them (and that is precisely the problem here). The situation gets more complex with three and higher dimensional spaces.

Contemplate for a moment the complexity of the world we live in. Consider the Socialist governments of Sweden, Denmark, Britain after WWII, and those of the USSR under Stalin; Romania under Chauchescu; and China under Mao. The differences among and between them were enormous, and yet they were all rather left wing, relative to the Republican party in the USA (which seems to be your standard).

The complexity and variability of these political structures and the nations that created (or merely endured) them vastly exceeds what could possibly be described by a single label or measure. Much more information than that would be required to embrace the reality of them or the differences between them.

You are making the fundamental error of insisting that the whole story can be told by a (poorly defined) single linear measure. It cannot. It is no surprise that, as a result, you are reduced to the absurdities of rationalizing Hitler's place on your spectrum or suggesting that we will soon see a totalitarian state under Obama because he is instituting greater regulatory power and higher taxes.

As long as you continue the futile attempt to use an inadequately defined linear measure to classify and describe an N dimensional space you will find yourself mired in these contradictions and meaningless absurdities. Admit the existence of other orthogonal (or independent) measures (say authoritarian - libertarian; and others) and your ability to intelligently and meaningfully make useful distinctions will improve. Even this will be limiting for the real world is generally more complex than our rather simple-minded taxonomies.

2 Replies

Bookmark.....

Initial observations:

1. Topic: interesting

2. Thesis: conducive to discussion but wide open to interpretation.

3. Process: Looks like Okie is pretty well going it alone here to defend his point of view, and that has been made more difficult as the focus seems to have been pulled into a less-than-amicable discussion of what constitutes 'right' and 'left' rather than the initial concept of exploring what pushes, draws, prompts, or compels somebody to become a ruthless dictator. I appreciate where Okie is coming from but he won't win the argument between 'left' and 'right' with this crowd mostly because the terms are so blurred in modern vernacular as well as as can differ depending on which side of the ocean they apply.

4. Initial contribution: I would offer an excerpt from Thomas Sowell's current three-part essay posted on the Conservatism thread in another context. The part pertinent to this discussion:

Quote:

Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds " Richard Nixon " had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.

I am going out on a limb here to offer a completely unresearched hypothesis that your garden variety ruthless dicator was subject to some kind of resentment of the type that Sowell described coupled with at least some sociopathic tendencies and a social/political climate hungry for a savior.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Contemplate for a moment the complexity of the world we live in. Consider the Socialist governments of Sweden, Denmark, Britain after WWII, and those of the USSR under Stalin; Romania under Chauchescu; and China under Mao. The differences among and between them were enormous, and yet they were all rather left wing, relative to the Republican party in the USA (which seems to be your standard).

I might add that due to okie's definition even our past-war conservative governments were left, not to speak that such 'left' (e.g. about government, welfare, "social market economy' etc) is written in our constitution ...

When you look at any historic event, anywhere, it's really not useful to do so with our own situation, as it is today.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

okie is an embarrassment to Americans. He thinks he has some knowledge about economics and politics, but in actuality knows very little to nothing.

His attempts to tie tyranny to liberals is so insane, I wonder why people even entertain him with any respect.

Before Obama had spent his first 100-days in office, it was okie's opinion that he was a big failure.

okie's a crackpot.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Obama is an embarrassment to Americans

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Okie,

It is clear that you have not read or attempted to understand anything in my posts except the brief acknowledgments of the (small) part of your story that is accurate.

It may seem that way to you, but I have read all of your posts here and have attempted to understand your reasoning. That does not translate into agreement, so that when I disagree or do not choose certain passages to quote and discuss, it doesn't mean I passed over them, I may have merely thought they were superfluous or beside the point. At least you are courteous and have made an effort of honest discourse here. Thanks for that.

Quote:

Others have warned me of this and perhaps it is useless to try, but one more time....

I am sure those others that warned you could not be liberals that never agree with me, right? I have not seen a few of them ever compliment any conservative poster here, ever.

Quote:

The reality of political structures in this world is far more complex than the binary left right distinction you are making, or even a linear distinction with degrees of left and right. If you want to locate a point on a sheet of paper, you must specify how far left or right of center it is and, in addition, how far above or below it is. Restricting your information to just left and right leaves you with an infinite number of choices along a vertical line - and no ability to make distinctions among them (and that is precisely the problem here). The situation gets more complex with three and higher dimensional spaces.

Contemplate for a moment the complexity of the world we live in. Consider the Socialist governments of Sweden, Denmark, Britain after WWII, and those of the USSR under Stalin; Romania under Chauchescu; and China under Mao. The differences among and between them were enormous, and yet they were all rather left wing, relative to the Republican party in the USA (which seems to be your standard).

The complexity and variability of these political structures and the nations that created (or merely endured) them vastly exceeds what could possibly be described by a single label or measure. Much more information than that would be required to embrace the reality of them or the differences between them.

You are making the fundamental error of insisting that the whole story can be told by a (poorly defined) single linear measure. It cannot. It is no surprise that, as a result, you are reduced to the absurdities of rationalizing Hitler's place on your spectrum or suggesting that we will soon see a totalitarian state under Obama because he is instituting greater regulatory power and higher taxes.

As long as you continue the futile attempt to use an inadequately defined linear measure to classify and describe an N dimensional space you will find yourself mired in these contradictions and meaningless absurdities. Admit the existence of other orthogonal (or independent) measures (say authoritarian - libertarian; and others) and your ability to intelligently and meaningfully make useful distinctions will improve. Even this will be limiting for the real world is generally more complex than our rather simple-minded taxonomies.

George, you are trying to make the case that governments are too complex and varied to classify as left or right. While making this case here, do you consider the very real fact that we do this all the time in regard to politicians here in this country, and I have repeated more than once that my objective measure is in context with our understanding of "left vs right" here in this country. I understand that there are variations within the policies of every government, take Bush for example, he was liberal on some issues, conservative on others, moderate or in the middle on others, but I have not heard anyone claim that to try to classify Bush one way or the other was futile. I think on balance, he falls into the conservative class, not necessarily a very conservative Republican, but compared to all politicians in this country both left and right, he is conservative.

I understand it is more straightforward to judge politicians here in this country by using the measure of left vs right in this country, and when you begin assessing governments and politicians in other countries, perhaps it is a bit more daunting, but I do not agree with you that the attempt is futile or impossible. Especially if you preface the entire judgement process with the statement of how they are being judged.

You also criticize my use of a context of American standards of left vs right, well I understand your point, but I would like to point out that America has indeed established an impressive record of success, a unique achievement of becoming the most powerful and affluent nation on the face of the earth prior to this point. I would submit to you that one of the principle reasons is our political and economic philosophy and system, so I think that establishes a pretty good standard by which to judge the nature of the political spectrum left vs right.

I understand your point about the linear measure, I understand there are anomalies or outliers to this line, as there would be with specific politicians, however that does not stop us from labeling a politician predominantly left vs right, so I think we can do the same thing in other places besides here. I understand there may not be a perfect fit, but one must make a judgement of predominant tendencies to classify, and it is not at all unreasonable to make the effort. After all, as pointed out already, we do that all the time.

And I do think the graph can be displayed in a linear fashion, because I believe people form beliefs on many issues based upon more singular characteristics of their basic view of life, if that makes sense to you? In other words, people generally gravitate to various positions on issues based upon a basic mindset, rather than the various positions resulting from a shotgun approach or variation pertinent to each issue by itself. Views on issues do not occur in a vacuum, each issue by itself. There are underlying philosophies that drive these views. And if you want to really get to the heart of the matter, I suspect that most people's politics are driven by their basic religious beliefs or philosophies of life, maybe even formed in childhood.

You conclude it is absurd to even attempt to place Hitler somewhere on a linear spectrum of left vs right, and I say to that, I think it is absurd to suggest that we cannot or should not be able to make judgements here that are quite meaningful. Hitler obviously had a philosophy and mindset that resulted in characteristics quite predominantly to the right or to the left. Are you saying we can't judge it? I think we not only can, but we should.

One last point, you seem to think I suggested we will soon see a totalitarian state under Obama. I don't know where you got that? If you want my honest assessment, I think Obama fits the mold of wanting and keeping power, and in a system that would allow it, it is quite possible, but here, I don't think it will happen soon. I think, I hope, and I believe as of now there are enough checks and balances to prevent that. What I did suggest is that his politics certainly include the government as being a cure all / fix all philosophy in his mind, and if by some strange turn of events he did turn into a dictator, he would be classified in my opinion as a leftist.

There were some far out liberals that feared the same with Bush, suggesting he would suspend elections and declare martial law, which most of us thought was ridiculous. Now here is the difference between Bush and Obama, I do not think Bush really enjoyed the power that much, I think he treated it as a term of responsibility and duty to serve, but ultimately he truly looked forward to returning to civilian life. With Obama, not so, he has lived for this his entire life, he thrives on it and he loves power.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

4. Initial contribution: I would offer an excerpt from Thomas Sowell's current three-part essay posted on the Conservatism thread in another context. The part pertinent to this discussion:

Quote:
Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only President of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds " Richard Nixon " had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.

Sometimes, instead of making you appreciative of a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling, and resentful of those who were born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.

I am going out on a limb here to offer a completely unresearched hypothesis that your garden variety ruthless dicator was subject to some kind of resentment of the type that Sowell described coupled with at least some sociopathic tendencies and a social/political climate hungry for a savior.

I do not think you are going out on a limb at all. I think you said the same thing that I said at the beginning of this thread, only in different words. And so did Sowell, as you quote him. To be ruthless dictator, it is more likely if you are a very bitter person, starting in youth. After all, thats also the same fertile soil for criminals to result. There is nothing surprising about that at all. The second requirement is a society that will fall for your politics of promises to fix all the injustices that are perceived, a society that sympathizes with your bitterness, then buys into it, hook, line, and sinker. So a politician that wants to use the government to fix the injustices of the past, plus a population that believes in this, is a dangerous combination.

Examples of this are ample. Take the classic example, Hitler, he capitalized on the bitterness of the Germans in losing the first World War and what they perceived as giving them a raw deal in different ways. Theres always scapegoats involved, and the Jews constituted at least one. Poor economic conditions also drove those feelings forward.

Today, the thing that worries me is that some of these same types of sentiments are getting some traction here, surprisingly, but Obama, and I think his wife too, are somewhat bitter people, and he demagogues the rich and so forth, and even demagogues the past of his own country on a fairly constant basis. There are enough people that buy into this mindset. Again, I do not think Obama is another Hitler, not even close to it I don't think, but the success of his politics is not based upon optimism and sound policy, but is instead based upon the politics of envy and bitterness. Thats what the mantra, "change," was all about, make no mistake about it, that mantra contains alot more than alot of people even dream. Obama did not listen to the bitter and angry Wright rants for years for nothing. There is a reason.

Liberals can continue to call me a crackpot or whatever, I don't care, I am not here to be told how trendy or smart I am by the likes of Dyslexia, ci, oe, or any other lib., I am here to express my heartfelt and honest opinion. And the people that know me personally know that I am not anything at all like the opinions of libs here. Their opinions matter nothing to me.

1 Reply

@okie,

I have noticed that you (ab)use a fairly well known technique used by speakers to link certain terms together, while claiming they do not.

That is by using the following construction:

Person A has a trackrecord for doing C.
Person B also has a penchant for doing C,
but I am not saying that person B is like person A at all.

You have used it to compare Obama with Hitler several times. It is clear that at least in your mind this link is firmly established.

You know, you could easily claim that Dubya felt bitter as well, since he took up the war to finish the job the previous Bush never finished. And didn't the US citizens also believe in that war? Buy it hook line and sinker, complete with those illustrous yet remarkably elusive WMD that still haven't been found?

2 Replies

@najmelliw,

To an Obama voter, I admit my discussion probably offends them. I am sorry for that. I am careful to repeat over and over that I do not think Obama is like Hitler. Perhaps it is a mistake to use Hitler, but the reason I do is because I see some of the same political conditions exist now as occurred then, and it worries me.

Maybe it would help to tell you that although I am not a Democrat, I was pulling for Obama to beat Hillary, I was sick of the Clintons and did not want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency. At times, I even said that I found Obama somewhat likeable, certainly more than Hillary. Now, as we become accustomed to Obama and see more of what he is about, I admit that I have become more stridently opposed to him and his politics. I am very wary of him, you can certainly say that.

But Hitler, there was only one Hitler, thankfully, and if anyone thinks I am saying Obama is another Hitler, my apologies, I do not believe that. Obama is a different guy in a different country, in a different set of politics, in a different time, but the guy still bugs me to no end, I don't trust him at all.

In regard to Bush, obviously many felt about him like I do Obama. Personally, I like Bush as a person, he was imperfect, but a decent man. I did not always agree with him, but I respected him and still do. This all boils down to judgement of character, and that is the way I see it.

And Bush did not make up the WMD, so blame it on the CIA if you want to blame anyone.

1 Reply

@najmelliw,

Your analogy, as you use it to critique Okie, doesn't hold up on the face of it whether or not President Bush 'struggled' to get where he wound up--a claim that was never made by him, by the way, or anyone speaking on his behalf.

But let's look at it on the face of it. Among many others:

Bill Clinton believed the WMD existed long before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination.
Hillary Clinton believed the WMD existed long before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination.
Colin Powell believed the WMD existed long before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination.
John Kerry believed the WMD existed long before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination.
Madeline Albright believed the WMD existed long before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination.
Sandy Berger believed the WMD existed long before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination.

Before President Bush was even a name to be considered for nomination, every single one of these people suggested and condoned military action that would likely be necessary to deal with the situation that Saddam Hussein had and would use WMD and every single one of those people approved the military intervention in Iraq at the time it was done.

So, when George Bush is elected and believed Saddam Hussein had and would use WMD, and those other people are referenced, is that saying that he is like any of those other people because he believed what they believed? No. All it means that if it the WMD was a 'lie', they all unwittingly shared in it. No other inference is drawn from the comparisons.

And so it is in the parallels that Okie is using to draw illustrations of how leaders come to power. What phenomenon existed that brought a Saddam Hussein to power? Or an Adolph Hitler? Or a Vladimir Lenin? Or a Joseph Stalin? Or a Mao Zedong? Or a Winston Churchill? Or a George W. Bush? Or a Barack Obama? Each one came from very different circumstances and lived much different lives. Lenin, Stalin, and Zedong were all intrigued with Marxism. Hitler, Churchill, and Bush denounced and despised it at least on the face of it. So far as we know Hussein never studied it. And we have no clue what Obama thinks about it. Some of these men came from privileged backgrounds with no observable major trauma in their formative years. Some came from unpleasant or less favorable circumstances.

So to look for any common denominators or noting similarities of circumstances, which I believe was the at least philosophical intent of this thread, is NOT saying that any one of these men was like any of the others. It is looking for the keys of those components that bring certain people to power, those that produce ruthless dictators, and seeking to understand why some become that and others do not.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

And Bush did not make up the WMD, so blame it on the CIA if you want to blame anyone.

Ever wonder what happened to Saddam's 'yellowcake'?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

1 Reply

@Pamela Rosa,

Are you saying that Nuclear Weapons are the only elements of WMD?

The definition of WMD is "weapons of mass destruction" and those include Biological warfare--many of which were reputed to vanish from Iraq into Syria just before the invasion. You know that many biological weapons can be easily transported by truck.

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know