When the criminal and the insane are rulers of countries

You know, I don't hate the Iranian people. And I seriously doubt that most of the Iranian people hate me. I wonder if the Israelis and the Palestinians seriously hate each others's guts en masse. Did the people of Russia really want to destroy us Americans twenty years ago? Did we want to destroy them? I mean, why were we supposed to hate each other the way we did? It wasn't as if anything had been done to us personally, was it?

No, it's not the people of most countries in this world that do things like start wars and preach hatred of those in foreign lands... it's our leaders. With damned few exceptions, none of them are the least bit interested in serving the people that they are supposed to "lead". They follow their own appetites instead, and consider their people to be mere pawns in the games that they play. This world... and this country especially... is so screwed up because we've allowed too many narcissistic sociopaths to take the wheel. I mean, it's not like they've a brilliant record of management, is it?

No, I don't hate anyone in Iran. I've no reason to. Most of the people in America have no personal beef with them. That still won't stop the warhawks from beating the drums as they have lately (which I am more and more inclined to believe has to do with Iran's move on the oil industry rather than their nuclear research). Is Iran's head guy nuts? Yeah, definitely... even more than anyone I know of in the Western Hemisphere. And it's his fault too that a lot of his countrymen are probably going to get killed.

You see what I'm trying to say here? Us, the British, the Iranians, the Palestinians, the Russians under the Soviet regime... all of us and more have "been had" by a very small group of insane individuals that in a rational world should have been imprisoned at the least, and maybe shot for good measure, for the sake of everyone.

Well, I could say more about this, but there's a really good article by Michael S. Rozeff called "When Rulers Err" that says it a helluva lot better than I can. From his article...

...The higher-ups or rulers who have power produce the big crises and wars. Their subjects, few of whom benefit from them, do not. The masses are not irrelevant, but their impact on major events is secondary. The Iranian people are not making the decisions about nuclear power. They are not issuing threats, and neither are the American and European peoples.

Rulers are men accustomed to gaining and using power. This implies they possess an above average dose of certain characteristics. Benign philosopher-kings don’t become rulers. Those who rule tend to be overly aggressive, rapacious, hard-nosed, opportunistic, pragmatic, cruel, violent, and manipulative. Even if these tendencies are not abundantly present, their power allows freer reign to their worse instincts. Rulers are hawks, not doves. Their number includes more than its share of troublemakers.

Rulers talk to and make deals with other rulers. They aim to maintain and boost their positions by exchanges that give them advantages. These interactions are complex and often for high stakes. Rulers often gamble the lives and fortunes of the peoples they rule...

Common folk, which include most of us, our families and in-laws, working acquaintances, schoolmates, townspeople, those whom we have done business with, etc., do not ordinarily engage in the tactics rulers are accustomed to. Although movies and soaps feature many conniving people, it’s possible that a good many viewers do not think of their rulers being like that and worse. They still do not have a deep realization that their rulers do not have the same ethics that they do. They think of them as acting like ordinary people. Rulers would like the masses to revere their position and power while simultaneously thinking of them as being just men of the people...

Mash down here for more.