Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dictators, tyrants and despots

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Oliver Cromwell
King George
Winston Churchill
Stanley Baldwin
John Bull
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:40:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher:
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

No, look again!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:42:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

WTF?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

WTF?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:47:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The list could certainly be fuller, but possibly the most ambiguous character on there would be Vlad the Impaler, who was afterall attempting to free his country from foreign aggression.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:49:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe

Your forgot one.
America- George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 12:41:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?

This is somehow new information for you?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 12:41:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?

I don't know about Churchill being a mental case, but Thatcher certainly was...however, she did win three elections fair and square so her inclusion in my list of dictators was only intended as a joke!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 12:41:42 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?

I don't know about Churchill being a mental case,

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal. He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.

but Thatcher certainly was...however, she did win three elections fair and square so her inclusion in my list of dictators was only intended as a joke!

I always assume that when you are being serious you are joking and when you are joking you are being serious.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 12:55:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

WTF?

LOL! That's what I said. XD
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 12:59:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:41:42 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?

I don't know about Churchill being a mental case,

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal. He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.

Yeah, that would have been a major problem. Hitler only wanted peace so that he could face his enemies one at a time, rather than all at once (gives him a better shot at winning). Any pease agreement would only last as long as you weren't next on his list.


but Thatcher certainly was...however, she did win three elections fair and square so her inclusion in my list of dictators was only intended as a joke!

I always assume that when you are being serious you are joking and when you are joking you are being serious.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 1:06:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 12:59:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Yeah, that would have been a major problem. Hitler only wanted peace so that he could face his enemies one at a time, rather than all at once (gives him a better shot at winning). Any pease agreement would only last as long as you weren't next on his list.

We were not on the list... but we were on Stalins list. From an ideological or pragmatic point of view we picked the wrong side.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 3:03:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:41:42 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?

I don't know about Churchill being a mental case,

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Nazi Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal.

Worked so well for France.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." ~ George Orwell

He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.


British Mandate of Mesopotamia not Iraq. The kingdom of Iraq was created when the British granted them independence.

A revolting population is not a civilian population, they are combatants. The same way Jihadists are not civilians.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 4:56:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:47:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
I request that you add FDR to the list as an American.

Also Wilson and Lincoln

Lincoln was a Nationalist and a tyrant to the North

Wilson was a huge Propagandist and drastically increased the size of government, and did many unconstitutional things. He also was also a racist who segregated federal agencies.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 9:41:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 3:03:55 PM, DanT wrote:
"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." ~ George Orwell

Who was preaching pacificism? Not that I agree with the quote anyway.


He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.


British Mandate of Mesopotamia not Iraq. The kingdom of Iraq was created when the British granted them independence.

Pedantry does not imply intelligence or knowledge.

A revolting population is not a civilian population, they are combatants. The same way Jihadists are not civilians.

Again, he authorised the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

I believe the Treaty of Versailles had something to say on the issue.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 10:44:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 9:41:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:03:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
present.

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Nazi Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal.

Worked so well for France.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." ~ George Orwell

Who was preaching pacificism? Not that I agree with the quote anyway.

You.....



He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.


British Mandate of Mesopotamia not Iraq. The kingdom of Iraq was created when the British granted them independence.


Pedantry does not imply intelligence or knowledge.


A large vocabulary is also not a sign of intelligence, and certainly is not a sign of historical expertise.

A revolting population is not a civilian population, they are combatants. The same way Jihadists are not civilians.

Again, he authorised the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Enemy Combatants. By your logic Osama was a civilian.


The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

I believe the Treaty of Versailles had something to say on the issue.

That was directed towards Germany, not a single country, who signed that , upheld it. Also it was a peace treaty, not a international prohibition; Peace did not last.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 6:03:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 10:44:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 9:41:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:03:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
present.

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Nazi Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal.

Worked so well for France.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." ~ George Orwell

Who was preaching pacificism? Not that I agree with the quote anyway.

You.....

Nowhere in this thread did I espouse pacificism.





He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.


British Mandate of Mesopotamia not Iraq. The kingdom of Iraq was created when the British granted them independence.


Pedantry does not imply intelligence or knowledge.


A large vocabulary is also not a sign of intelligence, and certainly is not a sign of historical expertise.

A revolting population is not a civilian population, they are combatants. The same way Jihadists are not civilians.

Again, he authorised the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Enemy Combatants. By your logic Osama was a civilian.

Please show how 'my logic' establishes Osama as a civilian.



The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

I believe the Treaty of Versailles had something to say on the issue.

That was directed towards Germany, not a single country, who signed that , upheld it. Also it was a peace treaty, not a international prohibition; Peace did not last.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

There was the Geneva protocol in the twenties... but I am not sure I accept that things only become 'bad' after you have signed a treaty.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 6:20:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 4:47:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
I request that you add FDR to the list as an American.

FDR was power hungry, I agree, but you're exaggerating. For someone to call a 4 term legally and democratically elected American president a dictator shows that he knows not what a dictator is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SirLego
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 6:27:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Armenia – Ismail Enver Pasha
Belgian Congo – King Leopold II
Cambodia - Pol Pot
China – Mao Tse Tung
Cuba – Fidel Castro
Ethiopia - Mengistu Haile Mariam
Gabon – Omar Bongo
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher
Hunnic Empire – Attila the Hun
Iraq - Saddam Hussein
Iran – Ayatollah Khomeini
Italy – Benito Mussolini
Japan – Hideki Tojo
Libya - Colonel Gadaffi
Nigeria – Yakubu Gowon
North Korea - Kim Il-sung
Romania – Nicolae Ceausescu
Russia – Tsar Nicholas II
Soviet Union - Josef Stalin
Spain - Francisco Franco
Uganda - Idi Amin
Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe

Genghis khan BY FAR THE WORST
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:20:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 6:03:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 10:44:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 9:41:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:03:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
present.

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Nazi Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal.

Worked so well for France.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." ~ George Orwell

Who was preaching pacificism? Not that I agree with the quote anyway.

You.....

Nowhere in this thread did I espouse pacificism.

Pacifism: The belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means






He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.


British Mandate of Mesopotamia not Iraq. The kingdom of Iraq was created when the British granted them independence.


Pedantry does not imply intelligence or knowledge.


A large vocabulary is also not a sign of intelligence, and certainly is not a sign of historical expertise.

A revolting population is not a civilian population, they are combatants. The same way Jihadists are not civilians.

Again, he authorised the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Enemy Combatants. By your logic Osama was a civilian.

Please show how 'my logic' establishes Osama as a civilian.


You claim that the people who are revolting, are civilians, simply because they are not uniformed soldiers.

Osama is not a uniformed soldier either; he serves no country and as waged war on the world.

If you insist on calling a enemy combatant a civilian, simply because they are not uniformed soldiers, than you might as well call Osama a civilian.




The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

I believe the Treaty of Versailles had something to say on the issue.

That was directed towards Germany, not a single country, who signed that , upheld it. Also it was a peace treaty, not a international prohibition; Peace did not last.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

There was the Geneva protocol in the twenties... but I am not sure I accept that things only become 'bad' after you have signed a treaty.

Now you are pulling straws, the Geneva convention didn't outlaw chemical warfare.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:37:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/25/2011 12:59:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:41:42 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:58:23 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 11:40:07 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:48:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:43:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:37:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:32:29 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Below is an arbitrary list of the world's most brutal leaders, past and present.

Is there anyone that should be added (or deleted because history has misjudged them and they were, in reality, kindly old souls without a bad word to say about anyone)?

Great Britain - Margaret Thatcher

Well, look who's forgetting all the English Dictators! :D

Winston Churchill

In a 2002 BBC poll of the "100 Greatest Britons", Churchill was proclaimed "The Greatest of Them All" based on approximately a million votes from BBC viewers.

The highest-ranked living person was Margaret Thatcher, who placed 16th.

And?

They were/are both borderline sociopaths.

WTF?

I don't know about Churchill being a mental case,

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal. He also had no moral objections to the use of chemical weapons against civilians, indeed he authorised this to pacify Iraq. I'll seek out some links when I can be arsed.

Yeah, that would have been a major problem. Hitler only wanted peace so that he could face his enemies one at a time, rather than all at once (gives him a better shot at winning). Any pease agreement would only last as long as you weren't next on his list.

I'd like to point out that the sane solution is not necessarily the most beneficial solution. If we equate sanity with (relative) rationality, then there are innumerable game-theory scenarios (such as the prisoner's dilemma, but perhaps the hawk-dove scenario is more applicable here) that demonstrate that rationality doesn't always lead to the (either mutually or individually) best solution.

In fact, there are many situations where unpredictability (and thus a level of social disconformity) can be an advantage, such as in poker. Now, admittedly, these situations are few and far between and such behavior determinental on the long run.

However, since they have utility in some situations, perhaps the existence of people who have such traits is a testament to that fact. They mill about in society, causing minor trouble due to their inability to conform, but, when a situation where their unpredictability has value, they make up for their burden by giving us another option where rational thinking would be a mistake. But I digress on this last point.



but Thatcher certainly was...however, she did win three elections fair and square so her inclusion in my list of dictators was only intended as a joke!

I always assume that when you are being serious you are joking and when you are joking you are being serious.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2011 12:51:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/26/2011 12:20:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/26/2011 6:03:17 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 10:44:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 9:41:01 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2011 3:03:55 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/25/2011 12:46:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
present.

Any sane Prime Minister would have urged for peace with Nazi Germany, he pursued the war with ideological zeal.

Worked so well for France.

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'." ~ George Orwell

Who was preaching pacificism? Not that I agree with the quote anyway.

You.....

Nowhere in this thread did I espouse pacificism.

Pacifism: The belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means


I don't see the need for the definition, I presumed you knew what it meant. I did not espouse pacifism.


You claim that the people who are revolting, are civilians, simply because they are not uniformed soldiers.

Where did I say this?


Osama is not a uniformed soldier either; he serves no country and as waged war on the world.

He formally declared war, took up arms, and recruited an army.

If you insist on calling a enemy combatant a civilian, simply because they are not uniformed soldiers, than you might as well call Osama a civilian.

I never did this, and I never insisted on doing this. A combatant or a member of the military command structure counts as a viable military target.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

I believe the Treaty of Versailles had something to say on the issue.

That was directed towards Germany, not a single country, who signed that , upheld it. Also it was a peace treaty, not a international prohibition; Peace did not last.

The Chemical Weapons Convention didn't take place till the 1990's.

There was the Geneva protocol in the twenties... but I am not sure I accept that things only become 'bad' after you have signed a treaty.

Now you are pulling straws, the Geneva convention didn't outlaw chemical warfare.

http://www.un.org...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.