IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th October 2021, 04:18 AM   #1
Scorpion
Illuminator
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,011
Are world leaders megalomaniacs ?

It seems to me that the leaders of China, Russia and north Korea are all on the verge of starting wars. What the hell do they want to achieve?
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 05:21 AM   #2
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,760
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
It seems to me that the leaders of China, Russia and north Korea are all on the verge of starting wars. What the hell do they want to achieve?
I seriously doubt that any of these really want a war, because actual wars can be so terribly costly and unpredictable. Also, there is the risk that they could lose the war and end up like Mussolini and his mistress at the end of World War II.

Instead, I expect that what these people really want to keep the threat of war alive. Because the threat of war is can be a very useful tool for keeping them in power, keeping their political rivals at bay, and maintaining their public support.
__________________
"But Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President." - Judge Chutkan

On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 06:49 AM   #3
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 16,413
They might be megalomaniacs, but their bellicose stance is directed inwards against possible challengers and an unified populous.
None of these countries want actual war.
__________________
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 08:20 AM   #4
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,288
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Instead, I expect that what these people really want to keep the threat of war alive. Because the threat of war is can be a very useful tool for keeping them in power, keeping their political rivals at bay, and maintaining their public support.
Pretty much this. The conflicts in Kashmir and Ladakh provide clear benefit to the nationalist/militarist factions in India, China, and Pakistan. It is mutually beneficial for those groups to keep things on edge - but not to go into a full-on conflict where they can't be really certain how things would turn out (not just in the military sense, but also the long-term international political and business angle). It does not benefit those nations, but it certainly benefits the political groups that run them.

It is internal political power superseding actual national interest.

North Korea is much the same way. And Iran. Argentina still gets bellicose and threatening about the Falklands, even though the Argentine military is severely defanged. Turkey and Greece still threaten each other. Probably a lot of others that I missed. Gotta ramp up those external threats and potential conflicts to keep attention focused on the wrong things. That's always been the way of the world.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2021, 09:23 AM   #5
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
It seems to me that the leaders of China, Russia and north Korea are all on the verge of starting wars. What the hell do they want to achieve?
The leader of China, perhaps, because of repeated threats towards Taiwan.

I am not convinced about the leaders of Russia and North Korea.

You might want to include the prime minister of Israel in your list:
Quote:
Israeli planes said to strike in central Syria, killing 1, injuring three others
Damascus says ‘communications tower’ near Palmyra also damaged in the attack, marking the second alleged Israeli strike in recent days
(https://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian...untrys-center/).

There are also Israeli threats towards Iran, because of its "peaceful" nuclear program.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2021, 01:37 PM   #6
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,223
I think being a position of complete power make you a megalomaniacNever forget the axiom "Power corrupts.Absoloute power corrupts absoultely>'
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2021, 01:28 AM   #7
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,759
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
The leader of China, perhaps, because of repeated threats towards Taiwan.

I am not convinced about the leaders of Russia and North Korea.

You might want to include the prime minister of Israel in your list:

(https://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian...untrys-center/).

There are also Israeli threats towards Iran, because of its "peaceful" nuclear program.
It's possible you don't know what a megalomaniac is. It means someone who is power-mad.
The democratically-elected leader of Israel, who is part of a coalition government, would not be a good example of megalomania.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2021, 01:33 AM   #8
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,759
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
I seriously doubt that any of these really want a war, because actual wars can be so terribly costly and unpredictable. Also, there is the risk that they could lose the war and end up like Mussolini and his mistress at the end of World War II.

Instead, I expect that what these people really want to keep the threat of war alive. Because the threat of war is can be a very useful tool for keeping them in power, keeping their political rivals at bay, and maintaining their public support.
This.
Julius Caesar and Napoleon are also examples of possible megalomaniacs- plus the almost inevitable Godwin- and none of them came out of it well.
I would think the best way to seize and retain power would be to avoid a war. Wars unleash all sorts of unpredictable consequences. Look at Syria: Assad has only just held on to power, and that at the cost of reliance- possibly control- on Russia and Iran. Saddam Hussein also fell foul of this.
It's also too much of a lazy stereotype for my part. Sure, politicians want power, but it's possible to do that without wanting to become a dictator.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2021, 04:24 AM   #9
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,516
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It's possible you don't know what a megalomaniac is. It means someone who is power-mad.
The democratically-elected leader of Israel, who is part of a coalition government, would not be a good example of megalomania.
It seems to me that, for Israeli leaders (not just Bennett), attempting to keep most of Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region)) in the territories controlled by Israel is a form a megalomania:
Quote:
meg•a•lo•ma•ni•a (ˌmɛg ə loʊˈmeɪ ni ə)

n.
1. a highly exaggerated or delusional concept of one's own importance.
2. an obsession with extravagant or grand things.
(https://www.thefreedictionary.com/megalomania).

And you have to take into account that Israeli bombs are real, and they hurt (while the Chinese are just threatening, from time to time, so far).

It is true that Israel is more democratic than communist China, but this does not prevent them from causing trouble, a lot of trouble (like the U.S.).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2021, 08:15 PM   #10
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,333
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think being a position of complete power make you a megalomaniacNever forget the axiom "Power corrupts.Absoloute power corrupts absoultely>'
I think a good majority of world leaders may at least be pretty narcissistic to begin with. I think that's what makes kind hearted leaders like Jimmy Carter look bad.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2021, 11:45 PM   #11
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,786
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I think being a position of complete power make you a megalomaniacNever forget the axiom "Power corrupts.Absoloute power corrupts absoultely>'

Or, as Douglas Adams put it, “It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are those least suited to do it.”
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2021, 01:15 PM   #12
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,223
There is some wisdom in the saying the Catholic Church that the only person fit to be a pope is the cardinal who tries to run out of the room when he name is brough up in the conclave.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 02:37 AM   #13
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,759
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It seems to me that, for Israeli leaders (not just Bennett), attempting to keep most of Palestine
Nope. Most of Palestine was carved up and given to Jordan and the Palestinian Arabs. Israel was left with a tiny sliver of the original territory of Palestine, and the Arabs resent even that.
Wanting to survive is not megalomania.
By the way, when were the last elections in Palestine? If we're going to talk about who wants to retain power by any means necessary, you might want to consider that- and consider what happens to those Palestinians who criticise the Palestinian leadership.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
And you have to take into account that Israeli bombs are real, and they hurt (while the Chinese are just threatening, from time to time, so far).
Tell that to India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam and Tibet.
China has, at one point or other since the Revolution, attacked almost all its neighbours. It still retains territory captured in those wars. Strangely, no-one seems to care about that at all.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is true that Israel is more democratic than communist China, but this does not prevent them from causing trouble, a lot of trouble (like the U.S.).
Define 'trouble'. Most of what Israel has done to its neighbours is because of what those neighbours first did to them.
In what way did Tibet deserve to be invaded and occupied, and how is that not 'causing trouble'?
Is threatening Taiwan with invasion not causing trouble?
What about claiming most of the South China Sea, contrary to international law, seizing islands and reefs, and building military installations on them? How is that not causing trouble?
Hong Kong? The Uighurs? The general oppression of the Chinese people?

Whataboutism is not a productive argument, but you did invite it in this case.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2021, 07:10 PM   #14
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,607
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Most of what Israel has done to its neighbours is because of what those neighbours first did to them.
But a lot of that was because of what 'Israel' first did to them.

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Quote:
Before World War I, the Middle East region, including the Ottoman Syria (the southern part of which are regarded as Palestine), was under the control of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years...

The Zionist movement called for the establishment of a nation state for the Jewish people in Palestine... The World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund encouraged immigration and funded purchase of land...

Palestinian nationalism was marked by a reaction to the Zionist movement and to Jewish settlement in Palestine as well as by a desire for self-determination by the Arab population in the region... In some cases, a large acquisition of lands, from absentee landlords, led to the replacement of the fellahin tenant farmers with European Jewish settlers, causing Palestinian Arabs to feel dispossessed. Jewish immigration to Palestine was especially significant after the rise of the Nazis to power in Germany, following which the Jewish population in Palestine doubled.

1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine

The Arab population in Palestine opposed the increase of the Jewish population because the new immigrants refused to lease or sell land to Palestinians, or hire them. During the 1920s relations between the Jewish and Arab populations deteriorated and the hostility between the two groups intensified.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2021, 08:32 PM   #15
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 30,509
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
It seems to me that the leaders of China, Russia and north Korea are all on the verge of starting wars. What the hell do they want to achieve?
They talk a lot but haven't started many wars I can think of, outside of USSR v Afghanistan.

Can you give me a list of wars they've started in the past 50 years, as a combined total?

While you do that, I'll start counting how many USA started in the same period.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2021, 01:00 PM   #16
Scorpion
Illuminator
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,011
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
I seriously doubt that any of these really want a war, because actual wars can be so terribly costly and unpredictable. Also, there is the risk that they could lose the war and end up like Mussolini and his mistress at the end of World War II.

Instead, I expect that what these people really want to keep the threat of war alive. Because the threat of war is can be a very useful tool for keeping them in power, keeping their political rivals at bay, and maintaining their public support.

I sincerely hope you are right, but it seems like both Putin and the leader of China are escalating tensions, and preparing for war.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2021, 03:22 PM   #17
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,223
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I sincerely hope you are right, but it seems like both Putin and the leader of China are escalating tensions, and preparing for war.

Xi's threateaning Biden over Taiwan is not helping matters.
A bit too much like what happened before World War One for my taste;none of the leaders really wanted war but..at least with Germany and Austria Hungry..thought that sabre rattling and threats would give them what they wanted without war by forcing the other side to back down. They made a huge miscalculation. Most wars are started by Miscalcualtion other then actuall intent.
There are exceptions Germany in 1939 and Japan in 1941 stand out where the decisiion to start a war was a deliberate one. Granted, the way they got was not the war they wanted but wars have a way of not going like the people who start them expected.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2021, 03:23 PM   #18
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,223
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But a lot of that was because of what 'Israel' first did to them.

History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
The problem with Anti Zionism is that horse left the barn in 1948.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.