Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#81

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

sjg007 wrote: post #77
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course it does! Everything has. so does our system of sending the old people to an assisted living facility to live out the last couple of years in "dignity" while crapping their pants and not having visitors (except on every 1st Sunday of the month between 15:00-17:00 which is the time when everyone asks why they are still around because they are so demented and not part of our lives that we wouldn't know what to…

Even honor based societies can have criminal elements, the Yakuza being an example. This isn't just a Japanese thing, there are even honor based criminal clans such as the mafia.

let's rephrase what you're saying as so it's bulletproof:

  All criminal societies have honor based structures but not all honor based structures are criminal.
What German language speakers refer to as "clans" can have 600 or even 1000 people. That's the size of a small town anywhere. Chances that there are people who end up in crime from such a huge sample is obvious. Add to it that the tight-knit structure of that community will be associated to that individual is a weakness in the eyes of another society where a family doesn't have more than max 20 or 30 people. (they won't say "this person is not part of the family", they may only say that person did bad which is not regular behavior for us etc) The loss of honor & face due to being then associated to the criminal elements in their group (in the eyes of others) is almost impossible for them to defend against. Much easier to say I do not know my neighbor who I only went to kindergarden with (but otherwise do not consider as part of my tribe)

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#82

Post by boomboomsubban »

rtsil wrote: post #24
boomboomsubban wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My extreme cynicism makes me doubt it happened this time either. Not giving a victory speech and instead rushing into danger only to heroically die sounds like a cover-up of either a natural causes death or an internal coup.

The rebels claimed to have wounded him during the fights so this is more of an admission than a cover-up.

I haven't seen that claim, but even their attack that effortlessly took a border town than was completely repulsed while miraculously killing the president sounds pretty bogus.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#83

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

nsajko wrote: post #65
hourislate wrote: post #21

It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.

One big problem with your wish is that it's underspecified. How close to danger would you put the politicians, exactly?

> How close to danger would you put the politicians

the Japanese politicians currently arguing that "the water of Fukushima does not present any danger to the environment and that it should be dumped into the sea" should only be allowed to consume the water they claim to be safe. that's about as close as it needs to be in order for accountability.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#84

Post by dragontamer »

pradn wrote: post #53
dragontamer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever. Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I'd rather have more government o…

The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt, and are clearly the dominant force in Western Europe until the advent of industrialization.

Who were "The French"? The Armagnacs? Or the Burgundians?

The Armagnacs, who were slaughtered on the battlefield, weren't really in much power after Agincourt. The Burgundians, who stayed away from that fight, rose in power afterwards.

> The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt

That took over 30 years after Agincourt, an entire generation later. In the short term, Henry V gets crowned king of France after Charles VI.

And by "Winning the war", you mean, the French-line of kings get to remain king? Kicking out the English king from their country?

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#85

Post by mgarfias »

dragontamer wrote: post #29
hourislate wrote: post #21

It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.

Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever. Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I'd rather have more government o…

I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#86

Post by versale »

jcranmer wrote: post #73
versale wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He was one of Africa’s longest-serving leaders and a close ally of western powers..." So, it depends on how you view "western powers", I guess.

You can largely replace "western powers" with "France" here. France is pretty well-known for being extremely cozy with the dictators of its former colonies, so long as they represent stability rather than insurgency and let France have some measure of influence in the country. France is pretty unabashedly neocolonial in its treatment of Francophone Africa.

I'd like to add that it is France who controls Chad's currency policy with CFA francs [1]. Some people say it's a modern mean for wealth extraction from Africa.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#87

Post by dragontamer »

mgarfias wrote: post #85
dragontamer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the Battle of Agincourt happens and you lose something like 1/2 of all of your leaders. Then your status as a world power is lost forever. Besides, I don't think anyone wants a government based on military service today. Military is important, but not as important as say, infrastructure, hospitals, schools, technology, engineering, or a myriad of other government services today. I'd rather have more government o…

I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.

That's called a warlord.

Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally.

If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of their political power.

Turns out: having a bunch of warriors as leaders isn't the best political style. Not by a long shot.

----------

In any case, Agincourt remains the perfect example of that. The Armagnac decided to fight the English invasion. The Burgundians remained neutral.

Then the Armagnacs were virtually wiped out in the battle of Agincourt, allowing the Burgundians to basically take over France and win the Armagnac vs Burgundian civil war.

The Armagnacs died, defending their values. Since they died, the victory goes to other parties.

----------

> political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.

Note: with their heavy armor, superior training and armed guards... Knights weren't really the ones personally at risk in most battles.

The unarmored peasants who fought under them, too poor for fancy armor. Too poor for nourishment (much smaller and weaker than a nobleman due to malnutrition). The peasants were at highest risk in any case.

Agincourt was unusual in that the political class died as part of the battle. Normally, just the peasants die while the knights / noblemen retreat safely on their horses.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#88

Post by sjg007 »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #81
sjg007 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even honor based societies can have criminal elements, the Yakuza being an example. This isn't just a Japanese thing, there are even honor based criminal clans such as the mafia.

let's rephrase what you're saying as so it's bulletproof: All criminal societies have honor based structures but not all honor based structures are criminal. What German language speakers refer to as "clans" can have 600 or even 1000 people. That's the size of a small town anywhere. Chances that there are people who end up in crime from such a huge sample is obvious. Add to it that the tight-knit structure of that co…

I'm not saying anything like that.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#89

Post by pradn »

dragontamer wrote: post #84
pradn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt, and are clearly the dominant force in Western Europe until the advent of industrialization.

Who were "The French"? The Armagnacs? Or the Burgundians? The Armagnacs, who were slaughtered on the battlefield, weren't really in much power after Agincourt. The Burgundians, who stayed away from that fight, rose in power afterwards. > The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt That took over 30 years after Agincourt, an entire generation later. In the short term, Henry V gets cr…

I think you do make a good point. The Armagnacs really were decimated and their prospects dimmed. But the country still had enough of a competent elite that they were able to resist English conquest. That it took another 30 years speaks to the relative stalemate that was achieved, and also shows the French elite were able to field a competent set of leaders.

I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If the US cabinet is wiped out, there'll be plenty of similarly competent elites to replace them. After all, it happens every few years with new presidencies and power transfer between parties.

Yes, winning the war means the French kept their own kings in power. Clearly all of this is a huge waste of resources and probably wasn't very good for the average peasant.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#90

Post by pradn »

pradn wrote: post #89
dragontamer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who were "The French"? The Armagnacs? Or the Burgundians? The Armagnacs, who were slaughtered on the battlefield, weren't really in much power after Agincourt. The Burgundians, who stayed away from that fight, rose in power afterwards. > The French still win the Hundred Years' War even after the Battle of Agincourt That took over 30 years after Agincourt, an entire generation later. In the short term, Henry V gets cr…

I think you do make a good point. The Armagnacs really were decimated and their prospects dimmed. But the country still had enough of a competent elite that they were able to resist English conquest. That it took another 30 years speaks to the relative stalemate that was achieved, and also shows the French elite were able to field a competent set of leaders. I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If…

Moreover, I can only imagine how much grief the Armagnacs went through. It would make for a good opera. (I'm not trying to minimize the grief of the others, but just imagine if a ton of people from one family died - the grief must be different, devastating.) The one analogue I can think of is Mehmet III's summary execution of 19 of his (half)brothers when he ascended the throne.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/asia/the-night-19-ottoman-princes....

Post reply on HN