They're madmen!!

[Spiffor]

I' like to ask y'all a question:

It seems to me that a country's enemies (of all kinds) are usually depicted as stark raving mad destructors, who'll stop at nothing to destroy what is good and right. They're commonly depicted as people with whom rational dialogue is bound to filure.

However, this interpretation is mine, and might be coloured by my own experiences.

So, I ask you guys and gal a honest question: in your country, what was the last enemy that was commonly accepted as a rational calculating bastard, and not as a bunch of crazies?

[Spiffor]

To answer my question in the case of France, I can't say. I wasn't around when we had most of our wars, and I don't know about the common depictions of the time. I am also too young to remember how Saddam was depicted in Gulf War 1.

The "enemies" of France I can think of during my time of political awareness are (I am mentioning only the enemies that are especially relevant to the French context):

- Corsican terrorists. Generally depicted as a mafia, that will do mafia things (exortion, racket, murder of rivals).

- Laurent Gbagbo, today's president of Ivory Coast. Seen as a maximalist, dangerous for his own country, doesn't know what he's doing.

- Algerian terrorists during the 1995 terror wave. A bunch of crazies.

- "Racailles" creating crime in impoverished suburbs. Rabid and without a clue. (interpretations vary as to whether they're scum or vicitims of society, but the crime related to them is always seen as stupid).

- Milosevic: war occured before we could see if discussion could have brought something.

- Saddam, pre-Gulf War 2: a butcher, but rational nonetheless. Talks could have brought results.


In short, in my memory, it's a mixed deal between crazies, rational bastards, and idiots.

Edit: typo.

[GePap]

If your enemies are "rational", then your side might share blame for the troubles, after all, the other side could have some valid reasons for their actions. That means your side is then probably not 100% right, and fully justified in unleashing all possible death and destruction on the enemy. Henceforth, the enemy must either be insane, or if not insane, simply totally morally corrupt and evil, which is another form of insanity. Anything less than that might indicate that some form of dialogue is the key, and we all know that is simply unacceptable.

[CrONoS]

English Canadians for obvious reasons.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
If your enemies are "rational", then your side might share blame for the troubles, after all, the other side could have some valid reasons for their actions. That means your side is then probably not 100% right, and fully justified in unleashing all possible death and destruction on the enemy. Henceforth, the enemy must either be insane, or if not insane, simply totally morally corrupt and evil, which is another form of insanity. Anything less than that might indicate that some form of dialogue is the key, and we all know that is simply unacceptable.

Don't threadjack please

Please tell me when was the last time, in your opinion, that an enemy of the US wasn't considered a a madman/bunch of madmen

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Don't threadjack please

Please tell me when was the last time, in your opinion, that an enemy of the US wasn't considered a a madman/bunch of madmen

Growing up in the 1950's,1960's and the 1970's we were taught in school about the terrible (and often justifiabley so) Communist Mother Russia.

If your talking madman as in Jihad Mad bombers, no, I dont recall that being a reference and even when I served in the U S Army in Europe in the mid-to late 1970's, we were programmed to feel they were a dangerous and mighty enemy but not so much "madmen"

GT

[Gangerolf]

Nazi Germany and the USSR - totally insane but in a relatively rational and calculating way I guess

islamiacs - just crazy

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't threadjack please

Please tell me when was the last time, in your opinion, that an enemy of the US wasn't considered a a madman/bunch of madmen

You'd have to be mad to be our enemy

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Don't threadjack please

Please tell me when was the last time, in your opinion, that an enemy of the US wasn't considered a a madman/bunch of madmen

The attacks on Serbia. The Serbs were never categorized as "insane".

[Cort Haus]

The Soviet Union was considered to be a rational opponent by the British State during the cold war. The whole policy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the basis for the security system.

Military and civil servants were taught to see the USSR as a rational foe, and planning and attitude was shaped by this.

[SlowwHand]

NVA weren't considered crazy. They were damned fine troops. While we, or some of we, may have disagreed with their action, they were perfectly sane and fighting for interests they believed in.

[Jaguar]

I think Kim Jung Il is a bit of a rational calculating bastard, actually. Saddam, too.

Guys who are dictators of countries with fancy palaces and stuff don't want to lose all that.


Even some of the terrorist demagogues are probably of the "calculating bastard" variety. But the people who follow them are just dangerous irrational nutcases.

[Asher]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
English Canadians for obvious reasons.

You learned English because you recognized our superiority.

[SlowwHand]

[Eli]

Arafat and the Pals are(were, for Yassir) generally treated as blood thirsty lunatics, going crazy at every tiny opportunity.

Hizballah, at least today, is treated as a more serious enemy. Especially after their recent successes against IDF ground troops.