Thread: What is the point of emulating Jadis? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029947
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Which is what I thought when hearing that the ex-dentist will fight on until he controls his country again. Standing there in Damascus amid ruins and a deserted country empty of all except the dead who could not flee.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
He's insane? He's claustrophobic? He's a sadistic creep? Having absolute power is his whole definition of himself?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Because, like Jadis, he sees power as an end in itself. To say, this is mine and you cannot have it, is victory.
Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
[ 14. February 2016, 19:14: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Are you talking about Bashar al-Assad? Wasn't he an eye doctor? Or am I totally off-track here (which wouldn't be unusual)?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Oh yes. I got it wrong, not you. I can think why, but it isn't something to share. And I did think Ozymandias, as well. But he wasn't responsible for the devastation.
[ 14. February 2016, 19:31: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
I thought this was a thread about "The Magician's Nephew" ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
*Creeps away*
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Dear God, is there no end to this? It was only one this morning. Two by lunchtime. Why?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think normally Assad would have been overthrown, but Russia has seen Syria as their gateway to the Middle East. And since the West has basically opted out of doing very much, Putin is having an easy time, bombing the shit out of everyone, and pretending that it's anti-terrorist.
Pretty crude power politics, I suppose, but no-one can stop it now.
One ironic thing in relation to British politics, is that the 'moderate groups' whom Cameron was extolling a while ago, are probably now mostly flattened by Russian bombing.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Russia is poor, with all its state assets given away to Putin's oligarch friends, and all income therefrom being sent abroad, with no investment in its crumbling infrastructure. Life expectancy has plummeted, and the rule of law has evaporated.
It's a country in decline whose only way of distracting its own population from realising this is to indulge in foreign wars and paint itself as a Crusading state led by that chap on the white charger with the shaved chest and the dead eyes. Russia's economy has gone negative, so plunder is its only strategy.
Syria is being lined up to be plundered, with the chinless giraffe-necked optometrist holding the door open, until he realises that Russia has no interest in stability in the region, and he ends up travelling the Gaddafi road to oblivion.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And since the West has basically opted out of doing very much
I'm not sure what I think about this. I had the mis-judgement to supported the airstrike intervention in Libya when Gadaffi's troops were poised to massacre the rebels and civilians in Benghazi. It hasn't gone very well since.
I was against the ground war and the bombing in Iraq. That hasn't gone very well.
Syria doesn't seem to be going very well without either intervention but I'm not sure that's a reason to do anything. It is horrific to watch but I think it might be rational to say that while the mess Western intervention has made of the Middle-East might imply a moral imperative to act - at some point one has to stop this insane "double or quits" attempt to make it better.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Perhaps Russia's involvement in Syria was largely about demonstrating the capabilities of their various war machines - which Iran is now able to purchase. The cynic in me suspects that ever since Iran started negotiating in earnest, Russia has been picking candidates to show live-fire demonstrations of their assets.
It certainly is a better explanation of their circus of combatants engaging in Syria than any actual battle plan against some militants with decrepit rifles. I mean, who sends an air-superiority fighter wing to handle irregular troops in sandy foxholes?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And since the West has basically opted out of doing very much
I'm not sure what I think about this. I had the mis-judgement to supported the airstrike intervention in Libya when Gadaffi's troops were poised to massacre the rebels and civilians in Benghazi. It hasn't gone very well since.
I was against the ground war and the bombing in Iraq. That hasn't gone very well.
Syria doesn't seem to be going very well without either intervention but I'm not sure that's a reason to do anything. It is horrific to watch but I think it might be rational to say that while the mess Western intervention has made of the Middle-East might imply a moral imperative to act - at some point one has to stop this insane "double or quits" attempt to make it better.
Well, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the West should have gone in with troops. I'm not convinced that the bombing is of any use.
Russia's bombing works, because it is followed up by the Syrian army, who are making gains.
I think Western intervention would have been politically impossible.
I should think Putin thinks he is really showing the West a thing or two, well maybe. It could still all backfire on him yet, but he is probably gaining political clout in the Middle East, which after all, used to be a Western 'area of influence'.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I keep thinking of Guernica.
Three hospitals now.
I heard on the radio that the reason Putin is bombing the moderate opposition is because they are the ones near the Mediterranean port he needs. It's an old business, isn't it? Russia seeking ports which do not freeze.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Perhaps Russia's involvement in Syria was largely about demonstrating the capabilities of their various war machines....
Yes, and to pick up on Penny's observation, it's a Guernica, somewhere to try stuff out without any chance of an air opposition. And as quetzalcoatl says, "Putin thinks he is really showing the West a thing or two".
At some point soon, Turkey will erupt also. When that happens, the best thing the West can do is to pull out completely and let them sort out all their regional differences for the next twenty years or whatever, whilst making sympathetic noises from stage left. Then, when it's resolved itself, acknowledge the new borders and establish working relationships with whatever countries have survived or emerged.
It isn't our quarrel - we will have to adapt to the mass migration currently taking place, as the least bad option, and wait for them all to slug it out, whilst not getting sucked in.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
(Reply to point about ports). That's a good point, but Russia is also clearing the ground for Assad's troops to occupy. Whether they want a kind of cordon sanitaire, or a much wider area, I don't know. But all the Russian talk of bombing terrorists seems strictly for the birds.
Another odd consequence is that Iran and Hezbollah are also empowered by this. And of course, the West enfeebled.
[ 15. February 2016, 17:23: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
It's partly Putin doing a show of strength and partly the expansionist aim. Russia would like to recoup lost territories (hence Crimea and Ukraine) and expand some more. The thing with the fighter jets over the British coastlines is a bit more sabre-rattling. He needs to maintain popularity at home to maintain support for incursions.
Also, the bombing raids on Syria have the effect of destabilizing Syria even further and by extension the West, as even more refugees try to enter Europe, and in the midst of all the chaos, an unknown number of jihadis slipping quietly in. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are already at bursting point but from Syria's point of view that wouldn't be a problem: destabilizing the region would be a means of regaining territory lost about a century ago.
Bombing three hospitals with international staff is a really cynical move, whoever did it. That's two fingers up at the Western world. "I'm going to do what I want and you can't stop me." And the tragedy of it is probably nobody will. They'll rumble about sanctions and glare hard in Russia's direction and Assad's, and meanwhile, the news broadcasts will continue to feature "misdirected" bombing raids.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think the West can stop Russia. I mean, in political terms. Obviously, they could shoot down Russian aircraft - impossible though.
Or they could supply the rebel groups with stingers, or whatever they're called today. But of course, IS would end up with some, and shoot down Western airliners.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Four hospitals now. Rot in hell, you bastards.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's interesting that Putin has an arm-lock on the West. There is nothing that they can do, except tut-tut. It's rather weird that this has happened, and I suppose various right-wingers are now frothing at the mouth, saying that Obama is weak, or the EU is weak, and we should ... well, what should we do?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
We can't though - he's got nuclear bombs, and we think he might throw MAD out of the window and use them.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I heard on the radio that the reason Putin is bombing the moderate opposition is because they are the ones near the Mediterranean port he needs. It's an old business, isn't it? Russia seeking ports which do not freeze.
I've heard it suggested more straightforwardly that if Assad can defeat the moderates, the war becomes a straight fight between him and Islamic State, in which case the West will have no choice but to support him.
[ 15. February 2016, 22:14: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And of course, the West enfeebled.
What good did our apparent previous strength and influence in the Middle-East do? I don't see either the benefits for tax payers back home or for the altruistic happiness of humankind.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's interesting that Putin has an arm-lock on the West. There is nothing that they can do, except tut-tut. It's rather weird that this has happened, and I suppose various right-wingers are now frothing at the mouth, saying that Obama is weak, or the EU is weak, and we should ... well, what should we do?
Are these the same right-wingers who think Putin is so manly and decisive where Obama is so weak and ineffectual?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are these the same right-wingers who think Putin is so manly and decisive where Obama is so weak and ineffectual?
That's not necessarily an inconsistent position to take. It's perfectly possible to admire someone's leadership abilities while considering them an enemy.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
My impression of Putin is that he has a talent for reacting to events with an inscrutable expression that makes him look as though he had planned them all along.
E.g. I honestly think he would prefer people to believe he murdered Litvinenko or Politkovskaya or Nemtsov, than for them to think that some of his supporters are out of control.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Golden Key: He's insane? He's claustrophobic? He's a sadistic creep? Having absolute power is his whole definition of himself?
I have long argued for compulsory testosterone tests for heads of state.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
We can't though - he's got nuclear bombs, and we think he might throw MAD out of the window and use them.
Not so much the nukes, as much as the oil and gas Russia supplies to the West, without which us Europeans might freeze. Plus the likely collapse of the London property market if the Russians are bankrupted!
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The last of those might not be a bad thing. Not so sure about the papers and the football clubs.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Golden Key: He's insane? He's claustrophobic? He's a sadistic creep? Having absolute power is his whole definition of himself?
I have long argued for compulsory testosterone tests for heads of state.
If you think testosterone is necessary to do great evil, I can introduce you to many many female heads of state in relatively recent history who disprove your little theory.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
We can't though - he's got nuclear bombs, and we think he might throw MAD out of the window and use them.
The deplorable word, eh?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: If you think testosterone is necessary to do great evil, I can introduce you to many many female heads of state in relatively recent history who disprove your little theory.
My testosterone thing was a joke of course (although I would be interested in a measurement of testosterone levels of people like Putin, Assad and Erdoğan). But I'm interested to know who you'd consider to be evil female heads of state. I reckon that you count Margaret Thatcher among them? Who else?
(PS from a logical point of view, my joking post implies that high testosterone may be a sufficient condition for being an evil head of state, not a necessary one.)
[ 17. February 2016, 06:04: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I wouldn't go for testoterone (though anomalous levels are not restricted to men - it would be interesting to know the levels in the aggressive female leaders), but people who self define as alphas, or who fill in the tick boxes of alpha personality traits themselves.
Because the traits appropriate for dominant chimps are not those fitting for leading humans, and we should be looking for more nuanced characters. And heading off the chest beaters long before they get into power with their bunch of supporters who make it impossible to remove them.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Wasn't there some research suggesting that our promotion structures favoured people with psychopathic tendencies?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because, like Jadis, he sees power as an end in itself. To say, this is mine and you cannot have it, is victory.
Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Google "Saddam Hussein, death" or "Colonel Gadaffi, death".
[ 17. February 2016, 14:38: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because, like Jadis, he sees power as an end in itself. To say, this is mine and you cannot have it, is victory.
Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Google "Saddam Hussein, death" or "Colonel Gadaffi, death".
Google how long between siezing power and death for both of those. Google Stalin or Mao or their untimely deaths.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Wasn't there some research suggesting that our promotion structures favoured people with psychopathic tendencies?
Wasn't there some research suggesting anything and everything under the sun?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Assad's followers are fighting for their very survival and they know it. True, their survival means killing tens and thousands of others. Also true is the fact that the Assads make Boss Tweed look like Mr. Smith. Still, why they fight is not hard to understand.
For true evil in the modern world, one has to look to North Korea. All the other evil characters including ISIS and Boko Harem make sense if you accept their presuppositions. The Kims and their sycophants are just pure evil. Doesn't mean that the Kims are more of a threat than ISIS. Even with nuclear weapons I don't believe the Kim's are more of a threat to the United States or Europe than ISIS. However, North Korea under the Kims is the closest you get in the real modern world to Narnia under Jadis.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Except that the Narnians didn't regard Jadis as the great salvation of the country and worship her - though she would obviously have loved it if they behaved to her as many N Koreans do to the Kims.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Sorry but what is this 'jadis'? Wiki says it is a character from C S Lewis. Do they mean 'jihadis'?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Except that the Narnians didn't regard Jadis as the great salvation of the country and worship her - though she would obviously have loved it if they behaved to her as many N Koreans do to the Kims.
Some obviously did or Aslan's appearance alone would have been enough to liberate Narnia.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Except that the Narnians didn't regard Jadis as the great salvation of the country and worship her - though she would obviously have loved it if they behaved to her as many N Koreans do to the Kims.
I'm not sure that the DPRK actually has many who actually worship the Kims. They do have plenty of citizens who go along with instructions to laud the dynasty lest the MPS/SSD (just think Stasi) pull them in for questioning, self-criticism sessions, and re-education at a "camp near you".
The belief in the ability to create an isolated inward-looking serf population and lock them within porous borders is a reflection on the delusional aspirations of the would-be deity that is Kim the third. The glorious Korean dynasty he seeks to perpetuate is descended from Kim Il Sung, of course, who was born in Russia,
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry but what is this 'jadis'? Wiki says it is a character from C S Lewis. Do they mean 'jihadis'?
I take it you haven't read the Narnia books? Not intellectual enough for you, I daresay. If you had - and it might do you good if you did - you would know whereof we speak and perceive how the fictional character is reflected in many RL dictators.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I'm no expert, but I'm buggered if I can see any way out of this thing that isn't going to involve a lot more horribleness. If you gave me a time machine to go back five years I'd make sure that we (the west) made it perfectly clear to any Syrian rebels that while we might not actually help Assad directly we sure as hell weren't going to do anything to help those who were tyring ot overthrow him and we might indeed do what we could to hinder them. this on the grounds that Assad might be (OK, is) a bastard but at least he was a bastard who ensured a reasonable degree of stbaility and prosperity. Now, after how the Syrian government has fought this war, it's hard to see how he could be acceptable at all, tho' I still think he might be marginally the least-bad of some very bad alternatives.
I only hope that the West learns the lesson that on the whole effective but less than ideal and undemocratic governments are preferable to most of the alternatives, unless the alternative is very clearly worked out both in terms of how it is going to get power and what it will do to improve things once it gets there.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The West had plenty of time and opportunity to help the moderates defeat the Syrian regime, it chose to do nothing, pressumably fearing it would be another Iraq.
Mind you, let's not forget that a Mid-East without those annoying tin-pot dictators is a dream for Western ambition and progress. One can't help but feel that local unrest doesn't stand in the way of the oil trade quite like jumped-up little stalins did.
The only problem now is that Russia appears to have a, not so much tin- pot, but popular dictator. Even given this, a combined Western alliance is by no means weak against Mr. P. If however China sides in with Russia for WW3 then I think we all know it'll be pretty much chin chin to the whole kit and caboodle.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
We didn't put boots on the ground or planes in the sky but we did encourage the 'moderates' (yeah, right) and I think we gave them various bits of kit and possibly training and intelligence (not sure about that). But we should have actively discouraged them, not that it's much use saying that now- except in the hope that we'll learn our lesson.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Saying that Assad gives prosperity and stability is a bit rich. If he wins, his torture chambers and execution fields will be full of thousands of Syrians, who will be shortly dead. The areas where Sunni tribes live, will become a slaughterhouse.
Granted, realpolitik might impel the West to support such figures. I think some Western politicians supported Pol Pot, and many now cuddle up to the Chinese, and the Saudis.
Support for Assad would probably also help IS; unless there is no-one left to be recruited I suppose.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because, like Jadis, he sees power as an end in itself. To say, this is mine and you cannot have it, is victory.
Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Google "Saddam Hussein, death" or "Colonel Gadaffi, death".
Google how long between siezing power and death for both of those.
I am reminded of some dialogue from a webcomic I follow:
quote:
Tarquin: If someone conquers an empire and rules it with an iron fist for thirty long years, and then some paladin breaks into his throne room and kills him, what do you think he's going to remember as he lays dying?
Elan: That good triumphed over evil?
Tarquin: No, that he got to live like a god for three decades! Sure, the last ten minutes sucked, but you can't have everything. ... As long as I go into this accepting the price I may eventually pay, then I win - no matter what actually happens.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am reminded of some dialogue from a webcomic I follow:
quote:
Tarquin: If someone conquers an empire and rules it with an iron fist for thirty long years, and then some paladin breaks into his throne room and kills him, what do you think he's going to remember as he lays dying?
Elan: That good triumphed over evil?
Tarquin: No, that he got to live like a god for three decades! Sure, the last ten minutes sucked, but you can't have everything. ... As long as I go into this accepting the price I may eventually pay, then I win - no matter what actually happens.
Vanity, Oh vanity.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Saying that Assad gives prosperity and stability is a bit rich. If he wins, his torture chambers and execution fields will be full of thousands of Syrians, who will be shortly dead. The areas where Sunni tribes live, will become a slaughterhouse.
Granted, realpolitik might impel the West to support such figures. I think some Western politicians supported Pol Pot, and many now cuddle up to the Chinese, and the Saudis.
Support for Assad would probably also help IS; unless there is no-one left to be recruited I suppose.
Why do you make it sound like a bad thing?
Yes. He is a murderous, inasane, power-mad dictator, but at least he's OUR murderous, inasane, power-mad dictator.
We can't kill everyone in IS (or looks like they might know someone who thought IS might be okay) ourselves because people like you and others on here get all hanky-wringy and "think of the children"-ey, so we need a third-party mediator who will mediate with IS without the worry of so-called human rights laws.
Your first paragraph describes the mediation process quite well I think.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Saying that Assad gives prosperity and stability is a bit rich. If he wins, his torture chambers and execution fields will be full of thousands of Syrians, who will be shortly dead. The areas where Sunni tribes live, will become a slaughterhouse.
Gave, not gives. But who at the moment looks like a better alternative?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Saying that Assad gives prosperity and stability is a bit rich. If he wins, his torture chambers and execution fields will be full of thousands of Syrians, who will be shortly dead. The areas where Sunni tribes live, will become a slaughterhouse.
Gave, not gives. But who at the moment looks like a better alternative?
I was thinking that it's the Western fantasy that their interventions improve things, that has often caused them to deteriorate. I don't think there is a solution to this, since the urge to intervene is like a drug.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry but what is this 'jadis'? Wiki says it is a character from C S Lewis. Do they mean 'jihadis'?
I take it you haven't read the Narnia books? Not intellectual enough for you, I daresay. If you had - and it might do you good if you did - you would know whereof we speak and perceive how the fictional character is reflected in many RL dictators.
I have read them but strongly disliked them for their over-obvious Christian allegorising.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Saying that Assad gives prosperity and stability is a bit rich. If he wins, his torture chambers and execution fields will be full of thousands of Syrians, who will be shortly dead. The areas where Sunni tribes live, will become a slaughterhouse.
Gave, not gives. But who at the moment looks like a better alternative?
I was thinking that it's the Western fantasy that their interventions improve things, that has often caused them to deteriorate.
I'm with you there. I suspect part of the problem might be the over-optimistic tendencies of some American administrations. After all, their whole country came out of rebellion against government and they are pretty happy with the result, so they think it will work for other people too.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry but what is this 'jadis'? Wiki says it is a character from C S Lewis. Do they mean 'jihadis'?
I take it you haven't read the Narnia books? Not intellectual enough for you, I daresay. If you had - and it might do you good if you did - you would know whereof we speak and perceive how the fictional character is reflected in many RL dictators.
I have read them but strongly disliked them for their over-obvious Christian allegorising.
Then what was the point of your footling observation?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have read them but strongly disliked them for their over-obvious Christian allegorising.
Funny you should say that. I totally failed to notice the Christian bits and had to have them pointed out to me years later.
Although I did wonder about the lamb inviting people to come and eat fish, which is a strange thing for a lamb to do.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sorry but what is this 'jadis'? Wiki says it is a character from C S Lewis. Do they mean 'jihadis'?
I take it you haven't read the Narnia books? Not intellectual enough for you, I daresay. If you had - and it might do you good if you did - you would know whereof we speak and perceive how the fictional character is reflected in many RL dictators.
I have read them but strongly disliked them for their over-obvious Christian allegorising.
You did? Huh, and there I was thinking Firenze was the pagan. Oh well...it's the Church of England. Fuck the creeds just not somebody of the same sex.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I am reminded of some dialogue from a webcomic I follow:
quote:
Tarquin: If someone conquers an empire and rules it with an iron fist for thirty long years, and then some paladin breaks into his throne room and kills him, what do you think he's going to remember as he lays dying?
Elan: That good triumphed over evil?
Tarquin: No, that he got to live like a god for three decades! Sure, the last ten minutes sucked, but you can't have everything. ... As long as I go into this accepting the price I may eventually pay, then I win - no matter what actually happens.
Vanity, Oh vanity.
It's worth pointing out that Tarquin is very much a villain in that comic. But that dialogue is strangely compelling to me, so presumably chimes with others as well.
After all, the thread title asks "what is the point of emulating Jadis?" Surely the answer "because she got to rule Narnia like a god for a hundred years before being overthrown" is a valid one?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Going back to Charn, where she was left alone in a destroyed world, where she had to put herself in suspended animation on the offchance of someone coming by and falling for ringing the bell: that is the situation I was seeing waiting for Assad. Minus, of course, the suspended animation and the enchanted bell, which are not options waiting for him.
A flat in Moscow, I suppose.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
(Tangent)
Re Narnia:
Actually, they aren't allegories. Aslan is who Christ is in Narnia--not a symbol of Christ, but him. Jesus, in our world. On Mars, you'll have to check out the relevant parts of "The Martian Chronicles".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Saying that Assad gives prosperity and stability is a bit rich. If he wins, his torture chambers and execution fields will be full of thousands of Syrians, who will be shortly dead. The areas where Sunni tribes live, will become a slaughterhouse.
Granted, realpolitik might impel the West to support such figures. I think some Western politicians supported Pol Pot, and many now cuddle up to the Chinese, and the Saudis.
Support for Assad would probably also help IS; unless there is no-one left to be recruited I suppose.
Why do you make it sound like a bad thing?
Yes. He is a murderous, inasane, power-mad dictator, but at least he's OUR murderous, inasane, power-mad dictator.
We can't kill everyone in IS (or looks like they might know someone who thought IS might be okay) ourselves because people like you and others on here get all hanky-wringy and "think of the children"-ey, so we need a third-party mediator who will mediate with IS without the worry of so-called human rights laws.
Your first paragraph describes the mediation process quite well I think.
Because it's a bad thing.
He's not mine.
I'm thinking of The Child.
You need to do that.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But that dialogue is strangely compelling to me, so presumably chimes with others as well.
It is to me as well on first reading. However on consideration I wonder if it may be based on fallacy. Many who take on dictatorial positions seem to spend substantial periods in brooding paranoia, unsure who their friends are and suspecting assassination attempts around every corner. It can't really be that much fun can it?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
It's only strangely compelling to that part of me which engages in sociopathic fantasies - that part of me that I use Christianity to help keep suppressed.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
There seems to be some evidence that an unpleasant finale might well overshadow a long stretch of enjoyment.
The tyrant's dying thoughts might not be so much "gee, it was great being on top for decades!" but more "gosh, these crossbow bolts in the gut are really remarkably painful!"
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0