An Interesting Lunch

Damocles said:
Which solution? With Hitler the only choice was capitulation or war. Marginalizing him as a madman made little difference. Is it different with this gentleman?
Click to expand...

If he starts exterminating people and committing acts of genocide, I'd agree that his mental state would not be an issue. However, there may exist some room at this point for tit for tat regarding peace agreements and the stopping of nuclear proliferation. If you just write him or any other leader off as a madman who will not listen to reason, you limit the possibilities to finding a peaceful solution.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not analoguing here. Somebody specifically decried calling Hitler a madman because it limited us somehow. I was asking a question which you didn't answer because you were so hard-pressed to install this strawman to attack...
Click to expand...


I don't like the Hitler analogy, not only because it inaccurate, but I heard the same charges about saddam four years ago: NeoCons calling Saddam "the Next Hitler". Its was all marketing and propaganda to gin up a war.

We got fooled once into a war with over-the-top propaganda. I ain't getting fooled again.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not analoguing here. Somebody specifically decried calling Hitler a madman because it limited us somehow. I was asking a question which you didn't answer because you were so hard-pressed to install this strawman to attack...
Click to expand...

Still apples and oranges. Again, we have not gotten to the point where ahmed is exterminating Israeli's, I believe that if we are intelligent and understand his thought process, that perhaps we can gain some kind of resolution to the violence that is ensuing in the middle east and at the very least cool off anti-US sentiment over there. We're not going to get there assuming he's a madman. I don't agree with many of his policies, but you see Damo, you have people that are being extremely unreasonable about the new boogie man and claiming things like, "He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam. " and if you don't agree then you must hate jewish people. Which is ridiculous. I'm very hesitant and skeptical to take crap like that at face value because that kind of foolish thinking got us into our current quagmire. Have we learned nothing?
 
I mentioned Hitler so I will address it. In general saying someone is crazy or mad implies that they are not a capable adversary or may be incompetent. Now even in a situation where we have two choices capitulation or war an understanding of the leader of our foe is important if we choose war. If we see an enemy as crazy their is no rhyme or reason to the things they do and thus it is impossible to plan. However if we see their policies as calculated and following a specific line of thinking and ethos then we are able to plan and achieve victory more easily.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I mentioned Hitler so I will address it. In general saying someone is crazy or mad implies that they are not a capable adversary or may be incompetent. Now even in a situation where we have two choices capitulation or war an understanding of the leader of our foe is important if we choose war. If we see an enemy as crazy their is no rhyme or reason to the things they do and thus it is impossible to plan. However if we see their policies as calculated and following a specific line of thinking and ethos then we are able to plan and achieve victory more easily.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Screaming talking points like: "He's the next Hitler!" and "This is world war 3!" is meaningless propaganda and fear mongering, which does nothing to address the issue.

The american people can be treated like adults. They know this guy is an authoritarian thug. We don't need marketing buzzwords, to understand the problem.

Its essential to understand this guys goals and motivations (and therefore discern his weaknesses), in order to defuse the situation, isolate him, and form alliances of convenience against him.
 
LadyT said:
If he starts exterminating people and committing acts of genocide, I'd agree that his mental state would not be an issue. However, there may exist some room at this point for tit for tat regarding peace agreements and the stopping of nuclear proliferation. If you just write him or any other leader off as a madman who will not listen to reason, you limit the possibilities to finding a peaceful solution.
Click to expand...
My question had little to do with whether he was committing genocide. When Hitler first started he had yet to begin the Genocide... He was still unwilling to deal in Good Faith...

Is this gentleman willing to deal in Good Faith or is it much like Hitler? Or any other leader that are dealing in bad faith since Hitler seems to be getting in the way of discussion here. I specifically mentioned him because of the earlier ideation that we limited ourself by labelling him a "madman"...

Having the press label him a "madman" doesn't stop people from attempting to deal with him. That is a hogwash argument with little basis in actually answering my question.

Is this man dealing in good faith or is there an actual chance at a peaceful resolution that keeps from him nuclear arms?
 
I guess it ok to call American Christians Fascist and Bush Hitler .. but its not right to use the same analogies towards Ahmadinejad and extreme Islam ....
 
Cypress said:
Its essential to understand this guys goals and motivations (and therefore discern his weaknesses), in order to defuse the situation, isolate him, and form alliances of convenience against him.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And labeling someone as "crazy" by definitely makes this unattainable. Caligula was crazy, Ahmad isn't.
 
LadyT said:
Still apples and oranges. Again, we have not gotten to the point where ahmed is exterminating Israeli's, I believe that if we are intelligent and understand his thought process, that perhaps we can gain some kind of resolution to the violence that is ensuing in the middle east and at the very least cool off anti-US sentiment over there. We're not going to get there assuming he's a madman. I don't agree with many of his policies, but you see Damo, you have people that are being extremely unreasonable about the new boogie man and claiming things like, "He intends to start an apocoliptic war to bring back the 12th imam. " and if you don't agree then you must hate jewish people. Which is ridiculous. I'm very hesitant and skeptical to take crap like that at face value because that kind of foolish thinking got us into our current quagmire. Have we learned nothing?
Click to expand...
Still not an answer to the question I actually asked. Once again the name gets in the way and helps to erect a strawman. Is this man dealing in good faith, or is it much like Hitler, it doesn't matter what we do he will do what he wants regardless?

Basically, Hitler is getting in the way. The only reason I mentioned him is because he was specifically mentioned in the post I was replying to...
 
Having the press label him a "madman" doesn't stop people from attempting to deal with him. That is a hogwash argument with little basis in actually answering my question.

Is this man dealing in good faith or is there an actual chance at a peaceful resolution that keeps from him nuclear arms?

With leaders being described as insane we tend to view their subjects as also insane. It's like with Bin Laden. If we just say he is crazy then all his followers are crazy. There is nothing to understand just kill them all is the solution. If the press keeps saying such things there is a strong possibility such a position will enter the public concensus and thus negotiation will not be favored and a hard line approach will.

This is somewhat like dealing with children. Young children lack a considerable ability to reason much like a madman and thus negotiation is pointless. A strict firm hand is the only way to deal with such a person and thus tactics that are more authoritative are favored.
 
As far as ahmadinejad goes I think any man can be negotiated with its simply a matter of what incentives he requires. Sometimes the cost is to high and negotiation become impossible but all people's motivations are based on incentives. Our ability to negotiate with him will be based on presenting a situation which is more favorable then his current path.

By the way we put too much emphasis on ahmadinejad. He has gotten much attention because he has been vocal. It is the mullahs who control Iran and Ahmadinejad and the office of the President are impotent.

Remember in the 90s the impotency of Khatami's government for reform that was stonewalled by the mullahs. Khatami will ultimately perform the will of the theocracy as any Iranian President will until reform comes.
 
Damocles said:
Still not an answer to the question I actually asked. Once again the name gets in the way and helps to erect a strawman. Is this man dealing in good faith, or is it much like Hitler, it doesn't matter what we do he will do what he wants regardless?

Basically, Hitler is getting in the way. The only reason I mentioned him is because he was specifically mentioned in the post I was replying to...
Click to expand...

Well, I only mentioned hitler because you did, so I guess we can drop it. But, to answer you question I do think he is a reactionary. If we do something that seems to threaten his power he will react. I don't believe he will drop a nuclear bomb on Israel unless he's attacked first. Much like all the talking heads of the world, he says he wants peace in his country.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Having the press label him a "madman" doesn't stop people from attempting to deal with him. That is a hogwash argument with little basis in actually answering my question.

Is this man dealing in good faith or is there an actual chance at a peaceful resolution that keeps from him nuclear arms?

With leaders being described as insane we tend to view their subjects as also insane. It's like with Bin Laden. If we just say he is crazy then all his followers are crazy. There is nothing to understand just kill them all is the solution. If the press keeps saying such things there is a strong possibility such a position will enter the public concensus and thus negotiation will not be favored and a hard line approach will.

This is somewhat like dealing with children. Young children lack a considerable ability to reason much like a madman and thus negotiation is pointless. A strict firm hand is the only way to deal with such a person and thus tactics that are more authoritative are favored.
Click to expand...

Im all for peaceful resolution ... but lets not be a hypocrite here ...

Again ... This is what we are dealing with ... someone who is intent on fullfilling a Prophecy ....
Many on these boards use the same rhetoric when describing Bush.. that he is a fantatical Christian who claims to have conversations with God ... and that he thinks it is his destiny to bring about the War to end all wars ... in essence ...he is a crazy madman ...

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...le_10945.shtml
 
He's not going to nuke Israel regardless. Only a madman would set off a nuclear device a few hundred miles away from his nations borders. And he's not a madman and even if he is the rest of the governmemt isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top