Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14766
    19 Jan '19 06:30
    I know Saddam was a brutal dictator, but despite that he did good things for women in that country. He was a champion for women's rights.....err......aside from the Kudish women he killed.
    Okay, he did it for selfish reasons. It was a good way to get support from half of the population, but isn't that the case with many leaders? I'm pretty sure LBJ didn't care about black people. Kind of the same thing I suppose.
    My point is that evil people can do good things even if it is for selfish reasons. Is it wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?
  2. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    19 Jan '19 08:412 edits
    @metal-brain said
    I know Saddam was a brutal dictator, but despite that he did good things for women in that country. He was a champion for women's rights.....err......aside from the Kudish women he killed.
    Okay, he did it for selfish reasons. It was a good way to get support from half of the population, but isn't that the case with many leaders? I'm pretty sure LBJ didn't care about blac ...[text shortened]... wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?
    Is it wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?


    I don't think it's wrong, as long as it's kept in proper perspective. Just remember Hitler instituted several programs to "ease the burden on the German housewife" and Napoleon's groundbreaking idea that any man who could meet the educational and physical requirements to be an officer could do so, while in other parts of Europe in the 17th and 18th century, one generally had to be a blueblood landowner to join the officer ranks.

    Just don't let these few good deeds blind you to the fact these 2 men, like Saddam Hussein were brutal, evil men with the blood of many innocent people on their hands.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    19 Jan '19 21:36
    @mchill said
    Is it wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?

    I don't think it's wrong, as long as it's kept in proper perspective. Just remember Hitler instituted several programs to "ease the burden on the German housewife" and Napoleon's groundbreaking idea that any man who could meet the educational and physical requirements ...[text shortened]... en, like Saddam Hussein were brutal, evil men with the blood of many innocent people on their hands.
    "....the fact these 2 men, like Saddam Hussein were brutal, evil men ..."
    --Mchill

    Napoleon's still honored as a national hero in France, whereas Hitler and Saddam Hussein
    are not so honored in Germany (or Austria) and Iraq respectively.
  4. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138652
    19 Jan '19 22:17
    @metal-brain said
    I know Saddam was a brutal dictator, but despite that he did good things for women in that country. He was a champion for women's rights.....err......aside from the Kudish women he killed.
    Okay, he did it for selfish reasons. It was a good way to get support from half of the population, but isn't that the case with many leaders? I'm pretty sure LBJ didn't care about blac ...[text shortened]... wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?
    Don't ever change your username !!
    We like it just the way it is. 😛
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14766
    20 Jan '19 09:52
    @mchill said
    Is it wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?


    I don't think it's wrong, as long as it's kept in proper perspective. Just remember Hitler instituted several programs to "ease the burden on the German housewife" and Napoleon's groundbreaking idea that any man who could meet the educational and physical requirement ...[text shortened]... en, like Saddam Hussein were brutal, evil men with the blood of many innocent people on their hands.
    "Just don't let these few good deeds blind you to the fact these 2 men, like Saddam Hussein were brutal, evil men with the blood of many innocent people on their hands."

    My OP made it clear I am fully aware of that.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14766
    20 Jan '19 09:53
    @mghrn55 said
    Don't ever change your username !!
    We like it just the way it is. 😛
    I like it just the way it is too. I love heavy metal!
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Jan '19 16:071 edit
    @metal-brain said
    I know Saddam was a brutal dictator, but despite that he did good things for women in that country. He was a champion for women's rights.....err......aside from the Kudish women he killed.
    Okay, he did it for selfish reasons. It was a good way to get support from half of the population, but isn't that the case with many leaders? I'm pretty sure LBJ didn't care about blac ...[text shortened]... wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?
    We all have our brand of morality.

    For example, the Nazi regime was dedicated to animal rights. They passed some of the harshest laws against using animals in medical experiments and abusing animals. Hitler was even a vegetarian because he loved animals so much. In addition, they were obsessed with the environment. The Nazi regime created the first national parks and created the first lists of animals that needed to be protected, as well as various endangered vegetation.

    Of course, anyone caught breaking these laws probably found themselves in an extermination camp, but hey, at least they had their "good" side.

    Mwhahahaha!
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14766
    20 Jan '19 16:33
    @whodey said
    We all have our brand of morality.

    For example, the Nazi regime was dedicated to animal rights. They passed some of the harshest laws against using animals in medical experiments and abusing animals. Hitler was even a vegetarian because he loved animals so much. In addition, they were obsessed with the environment. The Nazi regime created the first national parks and cr ...[text shortened]... nd themselves in an extermination camp, but hey, at least they had their "good" side.

    Mwhahahaha!
    Right.

    The real point I am trying to make here is that just because a leader does good things does not make them a good person. Ronald Reagan and his gang helped Saddam Hussein as he used chemical weapons on Iran. The Kurds before that.

    Giving people the changes a leader knows the people already want doesn't make the leader a good person. I think it is safe to say LBJ didn't give a rats ass about civil rights.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Jan '19 17:481 edit
    @metal-brain said
    Right.

    The real point I am trying to make here is that just because a leader does good things does not make them a good person. Ronald Reagan and his gang helped Saddam Hussein as he used chemical weapons on Iran. The Kurds before that.

    Giving people the changes a leader knows the people already want doesn't make the leader a good person. I think it is safe to say LBJ didn't give a rats ass about civil rights.
    Actually that's pretty "unsafe" to say since it isn't true. Without LBJ's strong support and persistent arm twisting, the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s wouldn't have been passed. And he took a significant political risk to do so knowing that it would adversely effect the long term chances of the Democratic Party in the South (which it obviously did):

    ays after Kennedy’s murder, Johnson displayed the type of leadership on civil rights that his predecessor lacked and that the other branches could not possibly match. He made the bold and exceedingly risky decision to champion the stalled civil-rights bill. It was a pivotal moment: without Johnson, a strong bill would not have passed. Caro writes that during a searching late-night conversation that lasted into the morning of November 27, when somebody tried to persuade Johnson not to waste his time or capital on the lost cause of civil rights, the president replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” He grasped the unique possibilities of the moment and saw how to leverage the nation’s grief by tying Kennedy’s legacy to the fight against inequality. Addressing Congress later that day, Johnson showed that he would replace his predecessor’s eloquence with concrete action. He resolutely announced: “We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for 100 years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law."

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here was Johnson, president for only five days, working out of the Executive Office Building because the White House was still occupied by Kennedy’s family and staff, with an election already looming less than a year away. Instead of proceeding tentatively, as most anyone in those circumstances would have done, he radiated decisiveness, betting everything he had right after he got it. As Caro shows so persuasively, from that moment, Johnson’s urgency and purpose infused every stage of the bill’s progress. And in the days and weeks that followed, the stagnant cloud that had settled over Kennedy’s agenda began to lift.


    Symbolism was the least of it. Johnson took off his jacket and tore into the legislative process intimately and tirelessly. As the former Senate majority leader, he knew his way around Capitol Hill like few other presidents before him—and none since. The best hope of moving the civil-rights bill from the House Rules Committee—whose segregationist chairman, Howard Smith of Virginia, had no intention of relinquishing it—was a procedure called a “discharge petition.” If a majority of House members sign a discharge petition, a bill is taken from the committee, to the chagrin of its chairman. Johnson made the petition his own personal crusade. Even Risen credits his zeal, noting that after receiving a list of 22 House members vulnerable to pressure on the petition, the president immediately ordered the White House switchboard to get them on the phone, wherever they could be found. Johnson engaged an army of lieutenants—businessmen, civil-rights leaders, labor officials, journalists, and allies on the Hill—to go out and find votes for the discharge petition. He cut a deal that secured half a dozen votes from the Texas delegation. He showed Martin Luther King Jr. a list of uncommitted Republicans and, as Caro writes, “told King to work on them.” He directed one labor leader to “talk to every human you could,” saying, “if we fail on this, then we fail in everything.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/
  10. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138652
    20 Jan '19 20:20
    @whodey said
    We all have our brand of morality.

    For example, the Nazi regime was dedicated to animal rights. They passed some of the harshest laws against using animals in medical experiments and abusing animals. Hitler was even a vegetarian because he loved animals so much. In addition, they were obsessed with the environment. The Nazi regime created the first national parks and cr ...[text shortened]... nd themselves in an extermination camp, but hey, at least they had their "good" side.

    Mwhahahaha!
    Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks you're a moron ?

    The Nazis conducted their medical experiments on people !!

    Moron !!
    Of course, metalhead agrees with you.
    Just need Mott to complete strike 3.
  11. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    20 Jan '19 21:17
    @mghrn55

    Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks you're a moron ?





    😀
  12. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2436
    20 Jan '19 22:42
    @metal-brain said
    I know Saddam was a brutal dictator, but despite that he did good things for women in that country. He was a champion for women's rights.....err......aside from the Kudish women he killed.
    Okay, he did it for selfish reasons. It was a good way to get support from half of the population, but isn't that the case with many leaders? I'm pretty sure LBJ didn't care about blac ...[text shortened]... wrong to say Saddam did good things for women, help educate Iraqis and give them decent health care?
    Saddam was less bad than IS, I'll concede that much.
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56379
    21 Jan '19 03:14
    Well, nobody’s all bad.
    To think in terms of good and bad and ultimate evil, etc. are all very Hollywood and biblical.

    Except Thatcher, of course. That was a demon from the planet’s arse.
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    21 Jan '19 04:32
    @mghrn55 said
    Do you ever wonder why everyone thinks you're a moron ?

    The Nazis conducted their medical experiments on people !!

    Moron !!
    Of course, metalhead agrees with you.
    Just need Mott to complete strike 3.
    And you call me the moron?

    Sounds about right
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    14766
    21 Jan '19 05:10
    @no1marauder said
    Actually that's pretty "unsafe" to say since it isn't true. Without LBJ's strong support and persistent arm twisting, the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s wouldn't have been passed. And he took a significant political risk to do so knowing that it would adversely effect the long term chances of the Democratic Party in the South (which it obviously did):

    ays after ...[text shortened]... .”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/
    LBJ was an overt racist. He cared as much about black people as Saddam cared about Kurds. Just because he was motivated to pass Civil Rights legislation doesn't mean he did it for anything but selfish reasons.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism
Back to Top