Why bad guys finish first

[reedsch]

I am fascinated by this whole Saddam thing, not in the manner of voyeuristic spectacle like staring at car wrecks, but more as an insight into how this rather lovely blue planet we find ourselves on really works.

If nothing else, you'd think the good guys would want to figure out how the bad guys keep getting their hands on the steering wheel, after which it's damn difficult to pry them off. This is not an isolated phenomena, the last 80 years have seen some rather spectacular displays of this phenomena including Hitler and Stalin. Merely dismissing it as "evi" iis IMHO grossly oversimplistic and offers no real insight into the process.

Actually, I also look a the Hitler phenomena in the same light, as a study in how some non-descript Viennese hack artist managed to hijack an entire nation.

[Carl G]

You will need to probe below the obvious surface of things, if you really wish to know.

I'd probably advise against it.

People will make jokes at your expense, involving the term, "tinfoil hat."

Get a subscription to the NY Times. It's safer.

[reedsch]

I'd probably advise against it.
People will make jokes at your expense, involving the term, "tinfoil hat."

Is that supposed to scare me off or something? We make progress by learning how things fail.

[Tharan]

I think they failed because of tactical errors. Saddam should not have started his Iran adventure only a year after he got full power. Also, he miscalculated with Kuwait, because before that time, we were still maybe 50% in his camp; a remnant of the 70's and 80's when we seemed to love to saddle up with heartless dictators, of which nearly every instance came back to bite us.

Hitler also made tactical errors, of the same quality as Saddam. Both were impatient. Hitler should have consolidated his control for a year or two after Czechoslovakia, maybe pretended to discuss seriously in international circles more than he did. In the same way, Saddam should have picked a smaller target, then consolidated, then tackled Iran. If he had let the US know his intentions, he might even have gotten the same support against Iran that he enjoyed with US companies in the 80's, selling him stockpiles of chemical agents, plus he would have the resources of the smaller country he pilfered; maybe Kuwait first then Iran.

Power and ruthlessness still do win battles. It also doesn't hurt when you have the most powerful military in the world willing to bed down with you for a smile and the smell of oil. Sad but true.

*edit*
Ah, got ahead of your post, Reed. I re-read and see that you meant to discuss how they became local leaders.

[reedsch]

The failure is: how did the bad guys get to take over?

In a lot of ways I think the bad guys have the advantage in that they are unencumbered by the rules of fair play, like a Greco-Roman wrestler up against a street fighter with brass knuckles and a shiv. And nice people IMHO tend to stick their head in the sand and are not willing to battle the bad guys head-on. A lot of challenges are not always obvious at the beginning and by the time the full impact is seen it is very difficult to reverse the outcome. I have to admit also that the bad guys often know what works, I am a bit blind to the "baser" motives myself. If nothing else, our literature and eotehr entertainments would be pretty sterile without the Dark Side, my favorite is Agent Smith in the Matrix series.

In the final analysis though, what is "bad" is not universally agreed on and again depends on whose ox is being gored. Certainly there were winners and losers under guys like Stalin and Mao. It also depends on who wins in the end and gets to write the history books.

Do you know how we determine whose side God is on?

[Kelly Jones]

We make progress by learning how things fail.

Are you asking, why does the ego exist? Or, what makes it powerful?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The failure is: how did the bad guys get to take over?

Truth is: Saddam, Hitler and Stalin weren't so bad at all. They were slightly better in terms of will power and realism than average people but their position enlarged their remaining averageness like lying naked under a microscope. And add to that myth and history turned gossip.

If nothing else, our literature and other entertainments would be pretty sterile without the Dark Side, my favorite is Agent Smith in the Matrix series.

A side is only dark when its presence and origin remains unknown. Some story telling captures this well but some just demonize angels.

Agent Smith is an interesting villain as he was written according to his makers to represent the modern ego - including the copying, paroting and never-ending expansion. He gets its power from a leading terrorist called Neo, who is most of the time clueless which makes him the real villain.

In the final analysis though, what is "bad" is not universally agreed on and again depends on whose ox is being gored. Certainly there were winners and losers under guys like Stalin and Mao. It also depends on who wins in the end and gets to write the history books.

Is their any universal value possible you think?

Do you know how we determine whose side God is on?

God knows no sides, so each determination would be Satanic already :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A little demonstration from today's news on the point of average beings:

Saddam Hussein's gentle side

This Saddam -- executed on the weekend for human rights crimes -- wrote poetry, and his nurse yesterday told of a man who read his children bedtime stories and fed birds crusts of bread saved from his meal.

Saddam told him that cigars and coffee kept his blood pressure down, and it seemed to work. And he insisted his nurse smoke with him.

When he was allowed short visits outside, Saddam would feed birds bread crusts. He also watered a dusty plot of weeds.

Sgt Ellis said Saddam never gave him trouble, and didn't complain much -- and if he did, it was usually legitimate.

Saddam shared happier times, when his children were young: how he told them bedtime stories and give his daughter medicine when she had a stomach ache. When Sgt Ellis told Saddam he had to leave for America because his brother was dying, Saddam hugged him and said he'd be his brother.

I don't think Saddam suffered old age problem - this is just the true face of many perceived dictators - really doing his best, just acting mostly out of ignorance, a common problem.

[reedsch]

Is their any universal value possible you think?

This is the $64,000 question. There are universal human values, determined mostly by our shared biological imperatives and the supporting socio-cultural structure to meet those needs. My point is that we need a firmer bedrock than "God told me so".

Do you know how we determine whose side God is on?

God knows no sides, so each determination would be Satanic already :)

You didn't take my bait. And invoking Satan is IMHO a total cop-out. Do you deny that there are winners and losers?

[Gretchen]

If nothing else, you'd think the good guys would want to figure out how the bad guys keep getting their hands on the steering wheel, after which it's damn difficult to pry them off.

I have found through frequent observations that:

1. Good guys are usually not really "good" guys either...they need to examine their own motives for why they "allowed" the bad guy control;
2. The bad guys usually have some other psychological issues that manifest into "bad" activity in order to feed their needs for ______________. Fill in the blank with whatever...
3. The bad guys have charisma, charm and they know how to use it for their advantage making "suckers" out of "good" guys by playing to their ____________. Fill in the blank with whatever...
4. Funny thing is that men usually are the victims and it hardly ever comes to light because they are embarrassed that they allowed it to happen.
5. The bad guys, who also are usually men, will never admit to what they were doing was really "bad"...for many of the same reasons that the good guys won't admit that they were suckered.

I think Tharan has it nailed.

I will say that women are starting to show progress in the area of "bad" guyness these days.

[reedsch]

Has anyone posting here ever put their name on a ballot? Just curious.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is their any universal value possible you think?

This is the $64,000 question. There are universal human values, determined mostly by our shared biological imperatives and the supporting socio-cultural structure to meet those needs. My point is that we need a firmer bedrock than "God told me so".

Or: "the universe made me do it". A firm bedrock could start with a healthy level of distrust of everything ever taught. Perhaps a paradox: uprooting the foundations looking for a firmer position.

Do you know how we determine whose side God is on?

God knows no sides, so each determination would be Satanic already :)

You didn't take my bait. And invoking Satan is IMHO a total cop-out. Do you deny that there are winners and losers?

The moment you invoked a God, I invoked a Satan. But perhaps I didn't understand the question. Could you rephrase? There are gods invoked by winners as well by losers for different motives.

[Gretchen]

Has anyone posting here ever put their name on a ballot? Just curious.

I vote in every election, but you pick your poison.

The types of guys you want in office can either make more money taking advantage of those who are in because they own them;

Or they see the futility of it all.

I keep hoping to see a shining example of a human being run for office. In this election, we had a guy who I knew would do a decent job in some areas, but when he was sworn in the newspapers had to remind him of his business associations that had to be severed because of conflict of interest with his position

[Kelly Jones]

Hi Reedsch,

Do you know how we determine whose side God is on?

I've just noticed this idea appeared again in zarathustra's thread on "Postmodern warfare".

Speaking hypothetically, if super-massive-God chooses to support particular values, Reedsch, would that make those values right, or even, more right? How would you know?

Is it a matter of might makes right?

.

[Dan Rowden]

This is a thread I have to post in for the sole purpose of reminding me not to get involved...

[reedsch]

Is it a matter of might makes right?

Not necessarily. The most common spin would be, right makes might. In a Darwinian competition, natural selection favors the party best suited for survival. But methinks this is mythology as well, randomness may interevene to favor a less well adapted contender, for example two bull moose are having it out to see who gets the harem and the stronger one just happened to make a mistake, be sick that particular day, or some other temporary factor that weakened him and allowed the inferior male to prevail.

Anyway, to make a long story short, the way we determine whose side God is on is to put on the pad and helmets, meet on the field of battle, and whoever is left standing at the end is the one God favors. Am I wrong?

[reedsch]

Has anyone posting here ever put their name on a ballot? Just curious.

The types of guys you want in office can either make more money taking advantage of those who are in because they own them;
Or they see the futility of it all.

I keep hoping to see a shining example of a human being run for office.

It is a most interesting experience to put your OWN name on the ballot i.e. run for public office.

I subscribe to the theory of the 3 views of the soccer match: the player view, the referee view, and the spectator view (of course there is the owner view, stadium manager's view, beer vendor's view, etc., but I'm trying to keep this simple). Anyway the game looks quite different as a player than it does as a spectator. For a person to have been a player, a spectator, and a referee would have had the most comprehensive experience.

[Gretchen]

It is a most interesting experience to put your OWN name on the ballot i.e. run for public office.

Anyway the game looks quite different as a player than it does as a spectator. For a person to have been a player, a spectator, and a referee would have had the most comprehensive experience.

I'm sure it would be. One has to have enough self-confidence to think he could win, enough nerve to withstand the criticism during the campaign, and patience to endure the hypocrisy...that is, if your intentions are honorable. I have none of these gifts, therefore I pick my poison and hope that some initial goal on the elected's list that caused me to vote for him/her manages to make it through the sieve.

However, my time spent on this board and doing a lot of thinking has led me to think that the whole process these days is really moot. Politics has been the same since its beginning and our freedoms we thought we had are eroding into something that was never intended by the drafters of the Constitution. We are being strangled by entitlement. So, instead of looking outward, we begin looking inward because inward is something we can work at perfecting...perhaps.

In a Darwinian competition, natural selection favors the party best suited for survival.

What is strangely ironic is that those who do not work in our country that are able bodied and minded, are being favored and will survive as long as those who do work survive...but in killing those who do work, they will seek their own demise. Enabling, disables. We are guilty for our own extinction. And this fact crosses party lines.

[kennyvii]

Reedsch:

Anyway, to make a long story short, the way we determine whose side God is on is to put on the pad and helmets, meet on the field of battle, and whoever is left standing at the end is the one God favors. Am I wrong?

Not if history is written by the victors.

[Kelly Jones]

Reedsch wrote:

Anyway, to make a long story short, the way we determine whose side God is on is to put on the pad and helmets, meet on the field of battle, and whoever is left standing at the end is the one God favors. Am I wrong?

I wasn't sure whether you actually believe in the existence of a God that "plays sides". I still don't know.

Playing devil's advocate needs an audience who is sharp enough to recognise satire. Among the dull, it's better just to give the truth directly, it's far more shocking.



.