stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,861 
Likes: 13,249
|
Post by stevep on Jun 3, 2023 10:10:54 GMT
2) Given the different circumstances while the Canadians would be likely to want to liberate a fascist ruled Britain Roosevelt is probably going to be a lot less interested depending on events elsewhere. When FDR had a chance to push decolonization, what happened?
Strawman argument. He opposed colonization by other powers because it was seen as a way of weakening them further and because it appealed to the American exceptionalism element as well as the same sort of moral people who were calling for decolonization in Europe. Provided it doesn't affect US business interests the US is highly unlikely to be bothered by Britain being under a fascist regime.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,861
Likes: 13,249
|
Post by stevep on Jun 3, 2023 10:28:33 GMT
Not sure why you think that?He’s a POS dictator for sure, but Pol Pot unleashed Year Zero to forcibly turn Cambodia back to the Angkor Wat days and wiped out a quarter of his own people in four years. As far as I know, Al-Assad hasn’t done anything like that, with Syria’s crappy state due to the civil war currently raging instead of some ax-crazy primitivist who shot people for wearing glasses or speaking a foreign language. Back on-topic: I noticed you selectively quoted only the comparison I made — and didn’t engage with my larger question about what a persisting Ba’athist Iraq would look like. Due to Saddam’s age eventually catching up with him and his already-ferocious sons growing to despise each other, I think a succession crisis that ends in Uday’s death and Ousay’s ascendancy is the best-case scenario… and an Iraqi Civil War as the worst-case, which probably would resemble OTL Syria and also invite intervention from self-interested foreign powers who back one of various factions fighting to either keep power or carve out their own little haven once Saddam croaks. 1. Look at this experiment. You have to take into consideration that the author is an idiot. The experiment actually proved how easy it was for human beings in general to fall into conformist patterns of mob behavior. All that was required was someone be given unquestioned authority, who was: a. not qualified to lead, and who had no moral compass whatsoever. b. not restrained by a system of checks and balances.  2. Let me quote what I considered was pertinent here from the citation I supplied: Alarm bells should have gone off in a moral person, who was self-regulated; to end the dangerous experiment and instruct the class in methods of critical thinking of how to "non-conform" to the group-mind they had been turned into, Z. The teacher did not do that, did he? I am a most unpleasant person in real life, because I "non-conform". I question everything and I naturally oppose, because it is my contention that freedom and moral right, which are inseparable, require nonconformity from a sizeable section of the population of humanity in general to prevent the rest of the go-along-to-get-along mass of us from turning into non-thinking-numbed-empathy animals. Our Founding Fathers, the better ones, knew this truth about human beings. An American should be non-conformist. It is how our system was designed. ============================================ Pol Pot was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (communism), and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was Ak-47 armed death squads who murdered the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Pol Pot. Bashar al Assad was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (Bath'ism) and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was security forces bug-sprayed with nerve gas, the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Bashar al Assad. Show me the difference. Bath'ist Iraq would have looked exactly like what we found and smashed, Z. (^^^) It was actually the morally right thing to do to smash it into competing self-interest group factions, who check and balance each other. It just went "Confederate" on us, when we overstayed our welcome. Because once we left, as bad as it is today, it is still infinitely better than what we found. You remember Saddam Hussein's loyalists from his minority tribe, loyal to him, which was how he misruled Iraq, bug-sprayed the Kurdish people?
I will agree that the teacher should have realised his error and called off the 'experiment' as soon as he realised it had gone off track and sought to make that clear to his students.
Bashar al Assad was a dictator who's core base of support was a small religious minority in his own country. He sought to continue in power using the same brutal suppression of dissent his father had used before him and when the wheels started coming off he found a like minded ally in Putin. In that he was not really different from most of the dictators plaguing the world except that the opposition was strong enough it required a lot of force and deaths to keep it down. Rather like the dictatorship in Myanmar which has gained support from China to continue its rule.
Difficult to tell what would have happened with Iraq without Bush's invasion. It was suffering under sanctions which the regime was using to try and garnish support but the core base of the regime, the traditionally dominant Sunni Muslims are a much larger element in the population than the Alawites that are the prime base of support for the regime in Syria. Assuming it doesn't collapse before Saddam dies then it might well if there's a civil war.
If Uday was to gain power then things could well get very, very bloody as his sanity seems questionable to say the least. This could well prompt a collapse, possibly with other powers intervening as well to support their interests.
If Qusay gained power then it would depend on how he decided to rule. The best for Iraq would be a more moderate dictatorship which manages to mend fences with the west and the Arab world and get sanctions removed - although continued tensions with the Shia population in the south and Kurds in the north are likely and being a dictator he's unlikely to seek to settle that without brutal oppression. Alternatively he could like Bashar get very extreme in attempts to hang onto power. Whether that was better that the current cluster-f**k in Iraq would be difficult to say.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 3, 2023 14:40:34 GMT
I will agree that the teacher should have realised his error and called off the 'experiment' as soon as he realised it had gone off track and sought to make that clear to his students. That is all I need. When FDR had a chance to push decolonization, what happened? Strawman argument. He opposed colonization by other powers because it was seen as a way of weakening them further and because it appealed to the American exceptionalism element as well as the same sort of moral people who were calling for decolonization in Europe. Provided it doesn't affect US business interests the US is highly unlikely to be bothered by Britain being under a fascist regime. It historically happened. M. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 3, 2023 17:02:10 GMT
1. Look at this experiment. You have to take into consideration that the author is an idiot. The experiment actually proved how easy it was for human beings in general to fall into conformist patterns of mob behavior. All that was required was someone be given unquestioned authority, who was: a. not qualified to lead, and who had no moral compass whatsoever. b. not restrained by a system of checks and balances. 2. Let me quote what I considered was pertinent here from the citation I supplied: Alarm bells should have gone off in a moral person, who was self-regulated; to end the dangerous experiment and instruct the class in methods of critical thinking of how to "non-conform" to the group-mind they had been turned into, Z. The teacher did not do that, did he? I am a most unpleasant person in real life, because I "non-conform". I question everything and I naturally oppose, because it is my contention that freedom and moral right, which are inseparable, require nonconformity from a sizeable section of the population of humanity in general to prevent the rest of the go-along-to-get-along mass of us from turning into non-thinking-numbed-empathy animals. Our Founding Fathers, the better ones, knew this truth about human beings. An American should be non-conformist. It is how our system was designed. ============================================ Pol Pot was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (communism), and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was Ak-47 armed death squads who murdered the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Pol Pot. Bashar al Assad was a racist and a powermad individual who used a "religion" (Bath'ism) and a willing minority of loyalists to enslave and terrorize a nation. The result was security forces bug-sprayed with nerve gas, the designated "enemies of the state" as defined by Bashar al Assad. Show me the difference. Bath'ist Iraq would have looked exactly like what we found and smashed, Z. (^^^) It was actually the morally right thing to do to smash it into competing self-interest group factions, who check and balance each other. It just went "Confederate" on us, when we overstayed our welcome. Because once we left, as bad as it is today, it is still infinitely better than what we found. You remember Saddam Hussein's loyalists from his minority tribe, loyal to him, which was how he misruled Iraq, bug-sprayed the Kurdish people?
I will agree that the teacher should have realised his error and called off the 'experiment' as soon as he realised it had gone off track and sought to make that clear to his students.
Bashar al Assad was a dictator who's core base of support was a small religious minority in his own country. He sought to continue in power using the same brutal suppression of dissent his father had used before him and when the wheels started coming off he found a like minded ally in Putin. In that he was not really different from most of the dictators plaguing the world except that the opposition was strong enough it required a lot of force and deaths to keep it down. Rather like the dictatorship in Myanmar which has gained support from China to continue its rule.
Difficult to tell what would have happened with Iraq without Bush's invasion. It was suffering under sanctions which the regime was using to try and garnish support but the core base of the regime, the traditionally dominant Sunni Muslims are a much larger element in the population than the Alawites that are the prime base of support for the regime in Syria. Assuming it doesn't collapse before Saddam dies then it might well if there's a civil war.
If Uday was to gain power then things could well get very, very bloody as his sanity seems questionable to say the least. This could well prompt a collapse, possibly with other powers intervening as well to support their interests.
If Qusay gained power then it would depend on how he decided to rule. The best for Iraq would be a more moderate dictatorship which manages to mend fences with the west and the Arab world and get sanctions removed - although continued tensions with the Shia population in the south and Kurds in the north are likely and being a dictator he's unlikely to seek to settle that without brutal oppression. Alternatively he could like Bashar get very extreme in attempts to hang onto power. Whether that was better that the current cluster-f**k in Iraq would be difficult to say.
Finally, someone who answered my question straight-away! Been waiting for this, and frankly, it rather annoys me that others' manic fixations and roundabout theses got in the way first. 🙄
More or less in agreement on what Ba'athist Iraq would look like. However, while I'd say Qusay is probably the most "moderate" dictator you could ask for in Saddam's progeny, I'd also call Uday's sanity much worse than just "questionable". Ideally, he'd join his old man in the grave because Qusay and Saddam's other loyalists (rightly) fear how deranged Uday is, the difference between "Too crazy to fuck with!" and "Too crazy to let live!" and all that. And in the improbable event Uday seizes power and purges everyone else in a Vlad the Impaler-style fashion... well, Arab Pol Pot with less ideological zealotry and more wild, erratically sadistic bloodshed may very well be the best way to describe his short-lived reign — with Uday's name eventually being spoken in the same breath as Hitler and Stalin among Iraqis and Western observers alike.  |
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 3, 2023 18:55:43 GMT
I will agree that the teacher should have realised his error and called off the 'experiment' as soon as he realised it had gone off track and sought to make that clear to his students.
Bashar al Assad was a dictator who's core base of support was a small religious minority in his own country. He sought to continue in power using the same brutal suppression of dissent his father had used before him and when the wheels started coming off he found a like minded ally in Putin. In that he was not really different from most of the dictators plaguing the world except that the opposition was strong enough it required a lot of force and deaths to keep it down. Rather like the dictatorship in Myanmar which has gained support from China to continue its rule.
Difficult to tell what would have happened with Iraq without Bush's invasion. It was suffering under sanctions which the regime was using to try and garnish support but the core base of the regime, the traditionally dominant Sunni Muslims are a much larger element in the population than the Alawites that are the prime base of support for the regime in Syria. Assuming it doesn't collapse before Saddam dies then it might well if there's a civil war.
If Uday was to gain power then things could well get very, very bloody as his sanity seems questionable to say the least. This could well prompt a collapse, possibly with other powers intervening as well to support their interests.
If Qusay gained power then it would depend on how he decided to rule. The best for Iraq would be a more moderate dictatorship which manages to mend fences with the west and the Arab world and get sanctions removed - although continued tensions with the Shia population in the south and Kurds in the north are likely and being a dictator he's unlikely to seek to settle that without brutal oppression. Alternatively he could like Bashar get very extreme in attempts to hang onto power. Whether that was better that the current cluster-f**k in Iraq would be difficult to say.
Finally, someone who answered my question straight-away! Been waiting for this, and frankly, it rather annoys me that others' manic fixations and roundabout theses got in the way first. 🙄
More or less in agreement on what Ba'athist Iraq would look like. However, while I'd say Qusay is probably the most "moderate" dictator you could ask for in Saddam's progeny, I'd also call Uday's sanity much worse than just "questionable". Ideally, he'd join his old man in the grave because Qusay and Saddam's other loyalists (rightly) fear how deranged Uday is, the difference between "Too crazy to fuck with!" and "Too crazy to let live!" and all that. And in the improbable event Uday seizes power and purges everyone else in a Vlad the Impaler-style fashion... well, Arab Pol Pot with less ideological zealotry and more wild, erratically sadistic bloodshed may very well be the best way to describe his short-lived reign — with Uday's name eventually being spoken in the same breath as Hitler and Stalin among Iraqis and Western observers alike. After Uday was shot and crippled, it was Qusay who carried out his father's atrocities with cheerful enthusiasm. Uday was scheduled to have an accident if Saddam exited power from natural causes. Uday was NEVER going to succeed Saddam. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,045
Likes: 49,450
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 3, 2023 19:26:07 GMT
Can we any keep current political matters ore current affairs out of this thread, thanks.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,861
Likes: 13,249
|
Post by stevep on Jun 3, 2023 20:57:02 GMT
I will agree that the teacher should have realised his error and called off the 'experiment' as soon as he realised it had gone off track and sought to make that clear to his students. That is all I need. Strawman argument. He opposed colonization by other powers because it was seen as a way of weakening them further and because it appealed to the American exceptionalism element as well as the same sort of moral people who were calling for decolonization in Europe. Provided it doesn't affect US business interests the US is highly unlikely to be bothered by Britain being under a fascist regime. It historically happened. M.
The 1st point is inevitable for any responsible person.
Decolonization happened in large part because of the changing circumstances. The European powers were exhausted and changing social attitudes inside Europe also played a big part. So Roosevelt's attempt to weaken the friendly European powers was pushing against a largely open door, ditto with his successors. It took time to carry out in some places for various reasons but it was almost certain to occur once fascism was defeated. Only potential super-powers like the US, USSR and later China really had the capacity to maintain colonies to any degree.
PS - Sorry if this is what Lordroel is referring to as current politics but we are talking about but since FDR did nearly 80 years ago I wouldn't have thought its current politics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 3, 2023 22:33:48 GMT
One economic reason: Decolonization also happened because a small group of businesspeople (who made a disproportionate part of the money made there) saw that they had their ways of making money just as well after decolonization, while many other colonists... didn't.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 3, 2023 23:59:04 GMT
One economic reason: Decolonization also happened because a small group of businesspeople (who made a disproportionate part of the money made there) saw that they had their ways of making money just as well after decolonization, while many other colonists... didn't. . In simple English, if the old con game did not work anymore, then it was time for a new con game. |
|
mspence
Warrant Officer
Posts: 282
Likes: 244
|
Post by mspence on Jun 5, 2023 4:00:14 GMT
What if Xanadu was successful? What might the Internet have looked like before the World Wide Web as a result?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 6, 2023 23:35:43 GMT
What if Xanadu was successful? What might the Internet have looked like before the World Wide Web as a result? It's very impressive, the very idea of it, but I seriously wonder whether it'd be feasible. Not that I could prove it.
Also: Who'd control the central instance of Xanadu?
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jun 7, 2023 6:54:32 GMT
What if Xanadu was successful? What might the Internet have looked like before the World Wide Web as a result? It's very impressive, the very idea of it, but I seriously wonder whether it'd be feasible. Not that I could prove it.
Also: Who'd control the central instance of Xanadu?
1. If you think WWW is hackable and exploitable, then Xanadu was a sieve. 2.  Warning: vaporware can be hazardous to your computer health. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 7, 2023 23:12:21 GMT
One example of "person X survives an accident": At the end of 1940, author Nathanael West died from a car accident (he ran a stop sign). This is especially interesting for us because he also wrote a book - "A Cool Million" - which can be counted as AH: A populist demagogue in the US named Shagpoke Whipple (seriously) founds the National Revolutionary Party which also has its blackshirts, the leathershirts who wear Davy Crockett caps.
It'd be interested to see what he'd write if he witnessed the rest of the world war, the fall of the Nazi regime etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Jun 8, 2023 9:31:59 GMT
AHC: authoritarian, not totalitarian USSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 10, 2023 0:22:01 GMT
Heard of Milton Keynes? Yes, an odd city. In many TLs with a PoD during or befre WW2 it wouldn't exist. Or at the very least look very different. Or does anyone disagree?
|
|
