Heartland

OK, can you define precisely what you mean when you say 'a war through bloodshed'. Do you mean causing it, or because of it, or what...?

DarkAngel wrote:Alright then, name one leader who instigated a war through bloodshed who wasn't a sociopath.

Name one leader who instigated -

in·sti·gate -(from dictionary.com)
tr.v. in·sti·gat·ed, in·sti·gat·ing, in·sti·gates
To urge on; goad.
To stir up; foment.

a war

through bloodshed (meaning, through the use of physical violence)

who was not a sociopath.

Doktor Gott wrote:

9while9 wrote: Not to worry MarkFiend,
America has saved Britain's arse in the past
and will do so again.

Also, American "help" didn't come free to Britain, I think we finally paid off our war debt in the late 90s unless I'm mistaken.

it still isn't paid off [was due to be end 2006], but with the last gulf war et al.. more is owed. hence, in part, the ongoing love for america

DarkAngel wrote: Wow, your really hit the nail on the head Mark. Impressive. O.K. - not really. Don't you think in our case it could run just a bit deeper than that. Our countries are two of the most educated.

i think your confusing arragance and inteligence there

* edited to correct spelling mistake

Whilst I'd agree that the Allies declaring war on Nazi Germany was an exception (you could of course say it was Hitler who instigated that) I would agree that it clearly takes a sociopath to pursue violent action (I mean violent action that will kill civilians and not just willing combatants) in order to acheive their goals.
There's something seriously wrong with such leaders. I'm no pacifist though, I realise that combat will sometimes be neccersary but those who reckon it acceptable to kill civilians in order to deliver freedom (read take control of the oil, acheive global domination) are sociopaths.

Hitler did not even want a War with Britain, yet as Mark says - England declared war on Germany after all that European adventurism. Hell, old Adolf publically asked for a no-holds barred peace treaty with the Empire, which England promptly threw back.

Germany was more interested in the political enslavement of mainland Europe. The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 was started without any provocation at all, if you recall...

The Falklands War was simply a large PR stunt, ironically enough benefitting the victim (Margaret Thatcher of England) rather than the agressor (Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentine).

Wars are fought for many reasons, as I've said earlier, and not always just to sate some psychotic warlord's blood-lust.

timsinister wrote:
The Falklands War was simply a large PR stunt, ironically enough benefitting the victim (Margaret Thatcher of England) rather than the agressor (Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentine). .

i think you'll find oil was heavily involved [though hidden from the general public]

timsinister wrote:Hitler did not even want a War with Britain, yet as Mark says - England declared war on Germany after all that European adventurism. Hell, old Adolf publically asked for a no-holds barred peace treaty with the Empire, which England promptly threw back.

Germany was more interested in the political enslavement of mainland Europe. The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 was started without any provocation at all, if you recall...

The Falklands War was simply a large PR stunt, ironically enough benefitting the victim (Margaret Thatcher of England) rather than the agressor (Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentine).

Wars are fought for many reasons, as I've said earlier, and not always just to sate some psychotic warlord's blood-lust.

But it was right to declare war on him, the fault was one of not declaring war soon enough. I 'd say that he instigated the war by pursuing policies which were so wrong that civilised people would almost be obliged to confront him.

timsinister wrote:Hitler did not even want a War with Britain, yet as Mark says - England declared war on Germany after all that European adventurism. Hell, old Adolf publically asked for a no-holds barred peace treaty with the Empire, which England promptly threw back.

Germany was more interested in the political enslavement of mainland Europe. The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 was started without any provocation at all, if you recall...

The Falklands War was simply a large PR stunt, ironically enough benefitting the victim (Margaret Thatcher of England) rather than the agressor (Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentine).

Wars are fought for many reasons, as I've said earlier, and not always just to sate some psychotic warlord's blood-lust.

Your absolutely right had Briton and the U.S. set back and let Hitler take over more and more of Europe.
Hitler would never have looked to owning one more piece of it.
Sure, and you would be goose stepping right now.

Falklands was a miscalcultion on the Argentinian Junta's part; they thought that Britain would accept the fait accompli of the invasion and negotiate a face-saving way to transfer sovereignty. They reckoned without Thatcher's belligerence.

Interestingly, I've seen conspiracy theories bandied about that Gulf War I was a deliberate "TV War" in the model of the Falklands, designed to boost support for George Bush I.
* Desert location => none of the nasty jungle of Vietnam to get in the way of the panoramic pictures
* Saddam left to his own devices after Kuwait was recaptured; that was part of the "deal"
* The involvement of Hollywood scriptwriters and cinematographers in the US army's coverage for the "wow effect" of guided missiles going down specific chimneys

Not that I necessarily believe any of it.

PiB wrote:i think you'll find oil was heavily involved [though hidden from the general public]

I wasn't aware of that. Is there any evidence for it?

Driven wrote: I 'd say that he instigated the war by pursuing policies which were so wrong that civilised people would almost be obliged to confront him.

Allied awareness of German atrocities didn't come about until US troops were through the gates of Belsen, Auschwitz, and the rest. There was no moral motivation for starting the War, I think England perceived Germany's expansion as nothing more than a vengeful land-grab, domination style thing. Foremost in everyone's mind was the polar antipathy towards Communism, which probably sat well with pre-War Britain. Appeasement, anyone?

9while9 wrote:Your absolutely right had Briton and the U.S. set back and let Hitler take over more and more of Europe.
Hitler would never have looked to owning one more piece of it.

You're quite right, of course, I didn't think of what Hitler would have done had the campaign in the East gone well. Speaking generally, colonial war in North Africa would probably have spread until there was an inevitable conflict with Britain.

However, I wasn't advocating that Britain sit back and let Hitler run riot. I was merely saying, we nearly did, and could have for longer...as I mentioned above.

markfiend wrote:Falklands was a miscalcultion on the Argentinian Junta's part; they thought that Britain would accept the fait accompli of the invasion and negotiate a face-saving way to transfer sovereignty. They reckoned without Thatcher's belligerence.

Interestingly, I've seen conspiracy theories bandied about that Gulf War I was a deliberate "TV War" in the model of the Falklands, designed to boost support for George Bush I.
* Desert location => none of the nasty jungle of Vietnam to get in the way of the panoramic pictures
* Saddam left to his own devices after Kuwait was recaptured; that was part of the "deal"
* The involvement of Hollywood scriptwriters and cinematographers in the US army's coverage for the "wow effect" of guided missiles going down specific chimneys

Not that I necessarily believe any of it.

Heh, it does all scan doesn't it? And we all like a good conspiracy theory from time to time, but I think we've got enough surrounding this War, eh?

Driven wrote: But it was right to declare war on him, the fault was one of not declaring war soon enough. I 'd say that he instigated the war by pursuing policies which were so wrong that civilised people would almost be obliged to confront him.

And so it is true that Hitler was a sociopath and he did instigate a war through bloodshed.

The challenge question is: Can you name any leader who instigated war through bloodshed who is not a sociopath?

DarkAngel wrote: And so it is true that Hitler was a sociopath and he did instigate a war through bloodshed.

The challenge question is: Can you name any leader who instigated war through bloodshed who is not a sociopath?

Ok, OK, then, my query is - actively seeking War through provocative means, or a War occurring despite parties trying to avoid it, therefore passively?

Is it true to say that Hitler was a sociopath though? I haven't read Mein Kampf and have no real desire to, but I was under the impression that a lot of his philosophy was built on a misunderstanding of Nietzchean concepts of "the will to power"?

timsinister wrote:Allied awareness of German atrocities didn't come about until US troops were through the gates of Belsen, Auschwitz, and the rest.

Yeah, but people knew he'd used words like "extermination" in his speeches when it came to the "Jewish problem"; I guess they just didn't believe he meant it.

timsinister wrote:

DarkAngel wrote: And so it is true that Hitler was a sociopath and he did instigate a war through bloodshed.

The challenge question is: Can you name any leader who instigated war through bloodshed who is not a sociopath?

Ok, OK, then, my query is - actively seeking War through provocative means, or a War occurring despite parties trying to avoid it, therefore passively?

We cannot determine anyones motives - we can only see their actions. (Although I would personally think bloodshed to be provocative -nevertheless, there are many who rationalize it - so we just have to call it bloodshed.) Can you name any leader who instigated war through bloodshed who is not a sociopath?

markfiend wrote:Is it true to say that Hitler was a sociopath though? I haven't read Mein Kampf and have no real desire to, but I was under the impression that a lot of his philosophy was built on a misunderstanding of Nietzchean concepts of "the will to power"?

timsinister wrote:Allied awareness of German atrocities didn't come about until US troops were through the gates of Belsen, Auschwitz, and the rest.

Yeah, but people knew he'd used words like "extermination" in his speeches when it came to the "Jewish problem"; I guess they just didn't believe he meant it.

Certainly Hitler was a psychopath. I don't know what the definition of a sociopath is but I'd be pretty certain the extermination attempts made him one on a grand scale!
I've read alot of Nietzche, I think he was great. From a certain angle you could say that his philosophy was a perversion of "The Will To Power" but there's nothing written by Nietzche that would support Nazi racialism or the horrific results of it. If anything it was people like Hitler that Nietzche was warning against!

timsinister wrote:

PiB wrote:i think you'll find oil was heavily involved [though hidden from the general public]

I wasn't aware of that. Is there any evidence for it?

yes, lots ~search on google if you want. here's one such example

http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/FALK.htm

one thing i'll never forget from my old history teacher at the time (ex-royal marine).

"see all these union jacks and all this argie bashing, well it's all bollocks boys and girls. hopefully, in a few years time it all be forgotten, maggie will have her votes and the oil barons will be rich"

and he was right

plus i worked in design for the oil industry

sadly, i think the remainder of your post is bollocks, not your fault, just the way you were no doubt taught it at school

9while9 wrote: Your absolutely right had Briton and the U.S. set back and let Hitler take over more and more of Europe.
Hitler would never have looked to owning one more piece of it.
Sure, and you would be goose stepping right now.

Ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler expressed great admiration for the British, and wanted to be the "strong continental ally that France can never be". A defeated Britain would have only served to place her empire in the hands of the US and Japan anyway. So, I doubt very much if he would have declared war on Britain. Arguably Britain allied or neutral to Germany would have maintained it's vast wealth and it's empire rather than ending the war a bankrupt island. Still, it was a more dignified end to superpower status than the Soviets managed, I suppose.

Right, my brain is officially toasted by this thread. DarkAngel's overriding point is - War is Bad. I don't agree. Neither of us will convince the other to change their POV. I'm officially signing off on this crazy ol' trip!

[quote="markfiend"]Falklands was a miscalcultion on the Argentinian Junta's part; they thought that Britain would accept the fait accompli of the invasion and negotiate a face-saving way to transfer sovereignty. They reckoned without Thatcher's belligerence.


I've heard it said that the Junta had planned to liberate Las Malvinas from the British Imperialist yoke a few years previously. The CIA found out and informed the then PM Callaghan, who let it be known that a British nuclear sub was in the vicinity. Funnily enough the Argies decided not to bother.

A few years later and Thatcher was in power, suffering the lowest approval ratings for any PM ever recorded. The CIA again alerted the British Govt of renewed Argentine mobilisation and what does Thatcher do? Nothing.

6 months later she's riding high on a wave of jingoistic fervour and wins the next general election by landside. Hmmm...... can't draw any parallels with this can we?!

Interesting!

timsinister wrote:Right, my brain is officially toasted by this thread. DarkAngel's overriding point is - War is Bad. I don't agree. Neither of us will convince the other to change their POV. I'm officially signing off on this crazy ol' trip!

I think the biggest mistake onc can make in a debate is assuming one knows what the other is thinking. It is better to simply ask. For example, "What is your point excactly?"

War is bloody but unfortunately necessary. Because my point is - that every war has been instigated through an act of bloodshed by a sociopath. Sociopaths operate from a paradigm most of us cannot believe even exists. It is of utmost importance the sociopath be stopped.

But thanks TimSinister for the discussion.

Hey, no worries, it was good fun whilst I could keep up.

I must generally refuse to the usage of a (btw outdated) psychatric diagnosis to a certain group of humans (in this case leaders who instigate war through bloodshed) whose psychological details remain unknown.
DarkAngel, how many of of those people have you met personally or at least read their psychatric diagnosis?
There are certain defined criteria which define sociopathology or as it is called nowadays Antisocial Personality Disorder (DSM-IV-TR).

To use the term sociopath in this case looks pretty much like kitchen-psychology for me.