Why Brett doesn't deserve to have his number retired

[AmishMafia]

People change, or more accurately, people reveal themselves in time when they achieve a level of power, or in Brett’s case – perceived power. There is nothing wrong with having sports heroes. There is a problem when these people are put on golden pedestals that they can never do any wrong or the image is somehow made permanent in the minds of fans. Somehow because he was a great football player, he must be a great person that we must honor. Brett is human. He is not a very good human. His actions have revealed a person who is controlling, temperamental, spoiled, vindictive, perverse and megalomaniacal. At one time he appeared to be a faithful and humble man who just really loved playing the game. I, and many of my fellow fans, loved him for that. The bad characteristics, however, has led me to change my opinion of him.

I really don’t care what he did before. I refuse to hold him in anything but the lowest esteem because of who he is. It isn’t what he has done, it is about who he is. Who he is has been revealed by his actions. It’s not personal. It’s not my vindictiveness. It is because he is a bad person.

At one time Sadam Hussein was a great guy. Believe it or not. He began a literacy program – that was a model for the entire middle east. One of his tactics was the empowerment of woman. Mostly unheard of in Muslim cultures – Sadam felt that getting woman involved would bring greater power towards getting children to read. Sadam created a public school system available for every child. Sadam won international awards for his educational programs from ENESCO. Then he got really powerful and had thousands of political opponents tourtured and killed as well as gassing hundreds of thousands of his own people when he felt threatened. Can we agree that he was a bad person regardless of his efforts with education for children?

It’s okay to change your opinions on people.

It’s not forgetting the ‘good times’. It’s a re-evaluation based on additional information.



Yep - this is where we as Packer fans have come. Comparing Brett to some of the worst people in history.
(okay ThnxJackVainisi – you get the Benedict Arnold analogy credit – and I am going to now lay claim to the Sadam Hussein analogy)

 

[IluvGB]

kinda like absolute power corrupts absolutely....in this case he thought he had too much power.

*jumps off soap box

 

[net]

Finally one characteristic of a mature person is accepting that others can hold opinions contrary to one’s own; that many times there are legitimate points on both sides of an issue. net’s insistence that all Packers fans agree with him on this issue and his “resting his case” have a quality of immaturity. Is holding his breath until everyone agrees next? [/quote]
Seems to me, in reading your comments, that it is YOU who can't leave it alone. My argument is simple: Favre deserves to be in for his accomplishments with the Packers. Same as James Lofton, who if you read the complaint(as I did) filed against him by a woman not his wife, should have been sent to prison like other ****** offenders. He wasn't, but it was a stain. That is all forgiven now.

Yet some of you believe, apparently, that forgiveness isn't a virtue. Like children, you will apparently hold YOUR breath until everyone believes like you.
Maybe one should reread portions of the Christian Bible that talk of these things, like forgiveness.

 

[13 Times Champs]

At one time Sadam Hussein was a great guy. Believe it or not. He began a literacy program – that was a model for the entire middle east. One of his tactics was the empowerment of woman. Mostly unheard of in Muslim cultures – Sadam felt that getting woman involved would bring greater power towards getting children to read. Sadam created a public school system available for every child. Sadam won international awards for his educational programs from ENESCO. Then he got really powerful and had thousands of political opponents tourtured and killed as well as gassing hundreds of thousands of his own people when he felt threatened. Can we agree that he was a bad person regardless of his efforts with education for children?

We have a different criteria for determining who is a great guy. A few more facts about Sadaam. He modeled himself after ******. Prior to his rise to power he took part in several bloody coups and was imprisioned on one ocassion. When he obtained power in 1979 he immediately put to death those who had opposed him. He then immediately launched a war against Iran in 1980 where he used chemical weapons. His entire reigh of power was one of murderous acts against his own people and his neighbors.

The reforms you speak of were not out of any sort of enlightenment. He undertook them because he knew such actions would solidify his hold on power.

 

[AmishMafia]

We have a different criteria for determining who is a great guy. A few more facts about Sadaam. He modeled himself after ******. Prior to his rise to power he took part in several bloody coups and was imprisioned on one ocassion. When he obtained power in 1979 he immediately put to death those who had opposed him. He then immediately launched a war against Iran in 1980 where he used chemical weapons. His entire reigh of power was one of murderous acts against his own people and his neighbors.

The reforms you speak of were not out of any sort of enlightenment. He undertook them because he knew such actions would solidify his hold on power.

Don't spoil my fun. I started out with a ****** comparison but decided that was even too distasteful- even for me. Sadaam social reforms were instituted throughout the early 70s before he came into power. I believe he was the education minister ro something similar. Not sure if you find giving a woman rights or educating children distasteful, but the point was, he did a lot of positive things for Iraq. His underlying motives may not be appropriate - that is to get public support so he could seize power. But that was my whole point. Some people create a perception about their true character.

 

[AmishMafia]

Yet some of you believe, apparently, that forgiveness isn't a virtue. Like children, you will apparently hold YOUR breath until everyone believes like you.
Maybe one should reread portions of the Christian Bible that talk of these things, like forgiveness.

One of the more misunderstood bible concepts.

"An eye for an eye" is also in the bible. There is a biblical distinction between forgiveness and penalty for your crime. That is, if someone kills your brother, you should forgive them. That means you don't hold it against them in your heart. It doesn't mean you don't send them to prison or even to the gallows in order for them to pay for their crime.

In the comparison of Lofton, who committed a crime against a single woman, and Favre who spit in the faces of the Packers, I don't see much comparison. Yes Brett also was a ****** deviant, but I don't think that's the reason he is not held in honor.

Retiring a number is an honor. Brett lost his honor with his actions against the Packers. If you want to forgive him, that is fine. I'm not angry with him, I have forgiven him. But I sure am not willing to give him any honor that he no longer deserves.

 

[Dan115]

IMO Brett is the one who is going to hold this action up. I think the Packers are ready to do it.

 

[jaybadger82]

"An eye for an eye" is also in the bible. There is a biblical distinction between forgiveness and penalty for your crime. That is, if someone kills your brother, you should forgive them. That means you don't hold it against them in your heart. It doesn't mean you don't send them to prison or even to the gallows in order for them to pay for their crime.

I remember an Old Testament scholar at the University of Wisconsin suggesting that the "eye for an eye" language in Deuteronomy might best be regarded as a warning about the perpetuation of violence amongst men...

But please, don't let me stop anyone from tossing around Bible passages to justify doing/thinking whatever they like.

 

[TJV]

Seems to me, in reading your comments, that it is YOU who can't leave it alone.

This is getting funnier by the post. You post it's me who can't leave it alone but look at your posting on this thread: You begin by mounting your "high horse" and directing "all of (us) who DON'T want to retire Brett's number" what our opinions on the matter should be. You tell everyone who disagrees with you to "wake up and smell the coffee". You direct us to "grow up" and call us children. But it's me who can't leave it alone?

Yet some of you believe, apparently, that forgiveness isn't a virtue. Like children, you will apparently hold YOUR breath until everyone believes like you. Maybe one should reread portions of the Christian Bible that talk of these things, like forgiveness.

As if chastising everyone with the audacity to disagree with you wasn't enough, you felt the need to pull the "Bible card"? Really? C'mon you were already coming across as 'holier than us' did you really have to make it this obvious?!

So you're saying if we don't believe Favre deserves to have his number retired we are un-Christian? OK, I gotta admit your display of the Christian virtue of forgiveness toward James Lofton is admirable. You tell us you believe he should have been imprisoned for ****** assault but that all is forgiven now. That is really commendable except for one tiny little thing. Remember when that thread appeared here about Sam Shields throwing his fiancée out of his house? Remember what your first post on that thread was?

Another Miami thug.

Somehow, someway I'm sure that's another display of your Christian charity and forgiveness, I just need you to explain it to me from on-high.

To get serious here for a minute: This has nothing to do with maturity, forgiveness, or Christianity. I have posted Favre belongs in the Pro Football and Packers Halls of Fame. However, because of his actions against the Packers organization, I don't believe he deserves the highest honor it can bestow (even though he'll probably receive it). For example, I don't believe the numbers of Henry Jordan, Willie Wood, Paul Hornung, Willie Davis, Herb Adderley, or Jim Taylor should be retired either. That doesn't mean I hate them or anything similar, it just means I think their induction into both Halls of Fame is honor enough.

You've apparently lived long enough so you should know better than vehemently objecting to others disagreeing with you. So your motivation is a bit of a mystery to me. It's been my experience in life that those who insist on telling others how much they know (rather than just letting it be evident) or those who just can't abide anyone disagreeing with their point of view are somehow insecure in themselves or their opinions. I sincerely hope that doesn't describe you and rather you have just momentarily "swerved off the rails" here. (How's that for a show of Christian charity?)

 

[13 Times Champs]

Don't spoil my fun. I started out with a ****** comparison but decided that was even too distasteful- even for me. Sadaam social reforms were instituted throughout the early 70s before he came into power. I believe he was the education minister ro something similar. Not sure if you find giving a woman rights or educating children distasteful, but the point was, he did a lot of positive things for Iraq. His underlying motives may not be appropriate - that is to get public support so he could seize power. But that was my whole point. Some people create a perception about their true character.

Incorrect. He held the position of General of the Iraqi army just before he came to power in 1979. He instituted the reforms after his rise to power so he could gain popularity and consolidate his ascension to power. His motives were always sinister. Just like ****** who you mentioned. Are you saying ****** did positive things because he rebuilt Germany after WW I, put people to work, built the autobahn, etc? Both Saddams and Hitlers motivations were always evil.


"Saddam Hussein gradually increased his power in the Ba'ath Party and when Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr retired in July 1979, he became the new president. In the next few months Saddam Hussein swiftly executed his political rivals. Increasing oil revenues allowed him to increase spending on the building of schools, hospitals and clinics. He also established a literacy project that won him a Unesco award.
Another important reform was a massive programme to bring electricity to Iraq. This was followed by a huge nationwide distribution of free fridges and television sets. He also improved the status of women and by the late 1970s they were a major part of the workforce. "

 

[net]

I sincerely hope that doesn't describe you and rather you have just momentarily "swerved off the rails" here. (How's that for a show of Christian charity?) [/quote]

OK, I give in. You are the king of the bullies. I can't apparently disagree with you without long, self-centered attacks simply because....I don't agree with you. I will spare the rest of the Packer faithful yet another response.
I can't figure why you wasted a good portion of your morning other than you have nothing better to do.
Anyway, I still want Brett's number retired. I think it's time for people to grow up and move on, and discussing it further is pointless.
P.S. I didn't swerve off the rails. I could, of course, say the same about your argument, but why continue this?

 

[jaybadger82]

We have a different criteria for determining who is a great guy. A few more facts about Sadaam. He modeled himself after ******. Prior to his rise to power he took part in several bloody coups and was imprisioned on one ocassion. When he obtained power in 1979 he immediately put to death those who had opposed him. He then immediately launched a war against Iran in 1980 where he used chemical weapons. His entire reigh of power was one of murderous acts against his own people and his neighbors.

The reforms you speak of were not out of any sort of enlightenment. He undertook them because he knew such actions would solidify his hold on power.

Who gives a sh*t about Saddam's motives?

Regardless of his self-interest or the cruelties he visited upon his people, the fact is that the guy maintained order within his borders (no Al Queda activity in Iraq prior to US invasion) and he offered a traditional military foil for Iran (where now there is none and Iran is free to develop a nuclear program while meddling in the political affairs of other Middle Eastern countries). As far as I'm concerned, removing Saddam from power was utterly moronic in terms of our geo-political interests. The ex-pat Iraqis that I've spoken with (who lived in Iraq during the eighties and early nineties) are also rather bewildered by the decision to oust him.

(None of this has anything to do with Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers. I just saw an opportunity to pontificate on a subject of interest.)

P.S. I didn't swerve off the rails. I could, of course, say the same about your argument, but why continue this?

This entire thread has swerved off the rails. I don't think anyone's ready to change their position on the whole retiring #4 issue at this point... Maybe it's time everyone walk away.

 

[AmishMafia]

Incorrect. He held the position of General of the Iraqi army just before he came to power in 1979. He instituted the reforms after his rise to power so he could gain popularity and consolidate his ascension to power. His motives were always sinister. Just like ****** who you mentioned. Are you saying ****** did positive things because he rebuilt Germany after WW I, put people to work, built the autobahn, etc? Both Saddams and Hitlers motivations were always evil.


"Saddam Hussein gradually increased his power in the Ba'ath Party and when Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr retired in July 1979, he became the new president. In the next few months Saddam Hussein swiftly executed his political rivals. Increasing oil revenues allowed him to increase spending on the building of schools, hospitals and clinics. He also established a literacy project that won him a Unesco award.
Another important reform was a massive programme to bring electricity to Iraq. This was followed by a huge nationwide distribution of free fridges and television sets. He also improved the status of women and by the late 1970s they were a major part of the workforce. "

Through the motif of argument you have agreed with my point, even if my point was a sarcastic parallel. Some people do good things although they are evil at heart.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Who gives a sh*t about Saddam's motives?

Regardless of his self-interest or the cruelties he visited upon his people, the fact is that the guy maintained order within his borders (no Al Queda activity in Iraq prior to US invasion) and he offered a traditional military foil for Iran (where now there is none and Iran is free to develop a nuclear program while meddling in the political affairs of other Middle Eastern countries). As far as I'm concerned, removing Saddam from power was utterly moronic in terms of our geo-political interests. The ex-pat Iraqis that I've spoken with (who lived in Iraq during the eighties and early nineties) are also rather bewildered by the decision to oust him.

However, none of this has anything to do with Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers. I just saw an opportunity to pontificate.

I wasn't the one who brought him up in the first place. The example was ridiculous. I pointed out the history stated was incorrect.

 

[jaybadger82]

I wasn't the one who brought him up in the first place. The example was ridiculous. I pointed out the history was incorrect.

...Dude, you're arguing with the lunatic fringe.

 

[13 Times Champs]

...Dude, you're arguing with the lunatic fringe.

Amen!

 

[Dan115]

LOL -IT will happen someday-- number retired and in The Packer HOF.

 

[AmishMafia]

Who gives a sh*t about Saddam's motives?

Regardless of his self-interest or the cruelties he visited upon his people, the fact is that the guy maintained order within his borders (no Al Queda activity in Iraq prior to US invasion) and he offered a traditional military foil for Iran (where now there is none and Iran is free to develop a nuclear program while meddling in the political affairs of other Middle Eastern countries). As far as I'm concerned, removing Saddam from power was utterly moronic in terms of our geo-political interests. The ex-pat Iraqis that I've spoken with (who lived in Iraq during the eighties and early nineties) are also rather bewildered by the decision to oust him.

I disagree totally. I think the purpose of the Iraq war was to create an opportunity in the middle east. If the west can create a democracy in the heart of the Muslim world, we can make long-term inroads to the stability of the entire region. Although some don't think that is a possibility, one only needs to look to Turkey to see that isn't just possible, it can be very effective. Iraq is a great candidate for this objective- a very educated population (thanks to Sadam) and a 'trend setting' culture. Can that be an effective policy? It worked after WWII with Japan. Our investment in reconstructing Japan has created in-roads into the orient as well as created a trade partner with an economic power. Although the trade deficit appears to favor Japan, our benefits are more hidden with the export of technologies.

Yes, Sadam created a very stable government, anyone unstable was immediately shot. But the Iraqi culture was in serious decline. So much resources were exhausted in the war with Iran, Iraq was in trouble. Throw that in with Sadam's foolish agriculture policies and reluctance to promote new technologies in the farming community and the entire economy was shifting further away from its agrarian roots. His population, and dare I say the entire middle east, could have been dependent on Iraq's agriculture, which, at an individual level, is a far greater power than energy resources.

I'm curious. What were your views towards the diminishing emphasis on agrarian cultures for Iraq pre-US involvement? And how do you see that affected by a societal shift from a democratic government versus a theocracy based government?

 

[jaybadger82]

I disagree totally. I think the purpose of the Iraq war was to create an opportunity in the middle east. If the west can create a democracy in the heart of the Muslim world, we can make long-term inroads to the stability of the entire region. Although some don't think that is a possibility, one only needs to look to Turkey to see that isn't just possible, it can be very effective. Iraq is a great candidate for this objective- a very educated population (thanks to Sadam) and a 'trend setting' culture.

Yes, Sadam created a very stable government, anyone unstable was immediately shot. But the Iraqi culture was in serious decline. So much resources were exhausted in the war with Iran, Iraq was in trouble. Throw that in with Sadam's foolish agriculture policies and reluctance to promote new technologies in the farming community and the entire economy was shifting further away from its agrarian roots. His population, and dare I say the entire middle east, could have been dependent on Iraq's agriculture, which, at an individual level, is a far greater power than energy resources.

I'm curious. What were your views towards the diminishing emphasis on agrarian cultures for Iraq pre-US involvement? And how do you see that affected by a societal shift from a democratic government versus a theocracy based government?

I'm not familiar with this issue nor do I give a sh*t. Societies and economies will evolve on their own and life goes on.

The decision to invade Iraq was predicated on the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, not an expensive nation-building project.

Moreover, this sort of nation-building isn't prudent from a political science perspective. Human history is rife with examples of the same principle: people tend to resent having foreign systems/ideologies imposed on them. Real cultural change doesn't come by revolution; it comes by evolution. The notion that we have some sort of duty to export our ideas concerning democratic government upon foreign cultures is a cynical and condescending type of paternalism that only breeds resentment amongst the conquered. See the writings of Edmund Burke.

When a people are so dissatisfied by their government, it's up to them to cast it off by their own impetus (because even dictators operate under the consent of the governed). Our founding fathers observed this in the Declaration of Independence and I believe those founders wouldn't have liked the idea of this nation meddling in the political affairs of others.

Generally, I think the United States should have eschewed invading Iraq in favor of an energy policy (more domestic production, a shift to nuclear power and natural gas) that reduced our need to continue meddling in such a f*cked up region of the world. FWIW, the invasion of Afghanistan was damned stupid as well. Terrible waste of resources by a nation that cannot really afford to keeping pissing away money.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm not familiar with this issue nor do I give a sh*t. Societies and economies will evolve on their own and life goes on.

The decision to invade Iraq was predicated on the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, not an expensive nation-building project.

Moreover, this sort of nation-building isn't prudent from a political science perspective. Human history is rife with examples of the same principle: people tend to resent having foreign systems/ideologies imposed on them. Real cultural change doesn't come by revolution; it comes by evolution. The notion that we have some sort of duty to export our ideas concerning democratic government upon foreign cultures is a cynical and condescending type of paternalism that only breeds resentment amongst the conquered. See the writings of Edmund Burke.

When a people are so dissatisfied by their government, it's up to them to cast it off by their own impetus (because even dictators operate under the consent of the governed). Our founding fathers observed this in the Declaration of Independence and I believe those founders wouldn't have liked the idea of this nation meddling in the political affairs of others.

Generally, I think the United States should have eschewed invading Iraq in favor of an energy policy (more domestic production, a shift to nuclear power and natural gas) that reduced our need to continue meddling in such a f*cked up region of the world. FWIW, the invasion of Afghanistan was damned stupid as well. Terrible waste of resources by a nation that cannot really afford to keeping pissing away money.

We don't live in the 1700s when an ocean was a very effective border. This is a very different world that we live in and geopolitical science of Burke's times is irrelevant today. Like it or not our neighbors on the other side of this world are getting closer and closer. And I'm not just referring to transportation advances, I'm referencing the internet. The information age is moving us closer as a society. The evolving global economy has tied us all financially together. Its amazing that a financial Faux pas in Greece results in a reduction on rice exports from Thialand the next day. Why does that happen? Who knows? Its a vastly complex integrated global system.

As such, the problems and situations of Iran, Iraq, Argentina and Andorra are at our doorstep. Rouge countries bent on destroying the US have more and more alternatives to cause destruction. Even small events can lead to financial instability and collapse of economies. Isolationism was a dangerous idea in WWII and would set the stage for castastrophic consequences today. We need to set a proactive example of freedom and pioneer opportunity to the dark recesses of the world.

Freedom is such a powerful concept, the reality of it is overwhelming to the populace. I doubt it is recognized at first other than the most simplest of issues, but as a society evolves under freedom it can't go back. With opportunity to join the world's society, peace and prosperity can reign for all mankind. And that is worth fighting for.

 

[Dan115]

LOL What # was Sadam? Wasn't he a bear?

 

[NACHOMAN]

I think they should waffle back and forth on the decision of retiring his number just like he did with his retirement. I loved that guy, but his jersey has stayed in my closet waiting for me to see if I want to wear it again one day. As of yet I don't think I'm ready. Put a hold on his number and at some point in the uncertain future and let us the share holders vote on it. Some amends on both sides are due in the uncertain future. If he called me up and said hey lets talk it over with a beer and a steak, most likely I wear it again soon. Let Packer fans decide.

 

[jaybadger82]

We don't live in the 1700s when an ocean was a very effective border. This is a very different world that we live in and geopolitical science of Burke's times is irrelevant today. Like it or not our neighbors on the other side of this world are getting closer and closer. And I'm not just referring to transportation advances, I'm referencing the internet. The information age is moving us closer as a society. The evolving global economy has tied us all financially together. Its amazing that a financial Faux pas in Greece results in a reduction on rice exports from Thialand the next day. Why does that happen? Who knows? Its a vastly complex integrated global system.

Really? You're going to recite a T. Rowe Price commercial for me?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

(...and calling the financial problems in Greece a "faux pas" must be the understatement of the decade.)

Burke lived at the center of a global trade empire that would come to span several continents and a quarter of the Earth's land surface. International commerce is hardly new. More importantly, you miss the fact that Burke's observations concerning human nature are as true today as they were 200 years ago.

As such, the problems and situations of Iran, Iraq, Argentina and Andorra are at our doorstep. Rouge countries bent on destroying the US have more and more alternatives to cause destruction. Even small events can lead to financial instability and collapse of economies. Isolationism was a dangerous idea in WWII and would set the stage for castastrophic consequences today. We need to set a proactive example of freedom and pioneer opportunity to the dark recesses of the world.

1) The attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by religious extremists, NOT a rogue nation bent on destroying us.
2) Our disproportionate interest in the Middle East region (and other oil-producing countries such as Argentina) stem directly from our economic dependence on oil. Economic dependency is not an unlimited license for military intervention. Seems like we should address the dependency. This is not isolationism.
3) Setting a "proactive example of freedom" is a rather pleasant-sounding euphemism for imperialism, which tends to breed resentment amongst those in "the dark recesses of the world." Again, we're back to human nature and the mistaken worldview that foreign people welcome such encroachment. The hill tribes in Afghanistan want nothing to do with what we're offering. Have you ever read Heart of Darkness?

Freedom is such a powerful concept, the reality of it is overwhelming to the populace. I doubt it is recognized at first other than the most simplest of issues, but as a society evolves under freedom it can't go back. With opportunity to join the world's society, peace and prosperity can reign for all mankind. And that is worth fighting for.

Barf. Please spare me the idealistic speeches built around so vague and abstract a concept as "freedom."

 

[Dan115]

Packers by 10 over all them.

 

[AmishMafia]

Really? You're going to recite a T. Rowe Price commercial for me

(...and calling the financial problems in Greece a "faux pas" must be the understatement of the decade.)

Burke lived at the center of a global trade empire that would come to span several continents and a quarter of the Earth's land surface. International commerce is hardly new. More importantly, you miss the fact that Burke's observations concerning human nature are as true today as they were 200 years ago


1) The attacks of 9/11 were perpetrated by religious extremists, NOT a rogue nation bent on destroying us.
2) Our disproportionate interest in the Middle East region (and other oil-producing countries such as Argentina) stem directly from our economic dependence on oil. Economic dependency is not an unlimited license for military intervention. Seems like we should address the dependency. This is not isolationism.
3) Setting a "proactive example of freedom" is a rather pleasant-sounding euphemism for imperialism, which tends to breed resentment amongst those in "the dark recesses of the world." Again, we're back to human nature and the mistaken worldview that foreign people welcome such encroachment. The hill tribes in Afghanistan want nothing to do with what we're offering. Have you ever read Heart of Darkness

Barf. Please spare me the idealistic speeches built around so vague and abstract a concept as "freedom." I'm not some weak-minded simpleton.

Attacks on 9/11 were coordinated from persons who had tacit cooperation from a country.

Never understood the 'drain America first philosophy when it comes to energy. In time our huge oil/shale reserves may become the dominant fossil fuel source.

Imperialism? Funny we are talking about Iraq and the region of the first 'super power'. Cyrus of the Persians had a great slant to conquest. He would take over a kingdom and treat everyone better than their previous king. As long as we are going to consider archaic ideology, lets go back to then. Cyrus was beloved and populations of other kingdoms welcomed his conquest as it meant a better life. With that kind of attitude - conquest was easy.

Maybe your lack of understanding of freedom and other cultures is your problem. A myopic world view - ignorance is bliss, eh? Time to take the old head out of the sand and look around. I have news for you, the world you can't see is coming to your doorstep and all your ignorance is not going to stop that. I spent some time in some of the poorest places on the planet. Maybe you can look the other way, and BS your way through life in ignorance of others who need help under your veil of self righteousness.