Who's the worst leader?

[CrazyAnglican]

Whew, You guys thought I only had opinions about religion didn't ya? Okay one more and I'll be quiet.

Placing President Bush on the same list as Kim Jong Il overlooks, completely, the systems that each man heads. If he were as bad as Kim Jong Il, the worst possible scenario sees him out in eight years. The man has been legally elected twice according to our Constitution. We have a two party system so that the other party can serve as a watchdog for their opposition.

How long will Kim Jong Il be in power? Anybody? Do you know? Who is his opposition? What voice do they have in his government?

The system of check & balances provided in the Constitution help to keep our president from becoming a despot. Congress declares war. The balance of power in that Congress shifted against the Republican Party in the last election. They are not totally out, we don't want that, but they have been curbed by the voice of the people.

In my opinion the worst thing that President Bush can be accused of is the detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Even this hasn't been covered up in the media. There is nothing going on there anywhere like the atrocities in North Korea. I haven't heard of any credible source that accuses the U.S. of running a death camp there. I think they should be awarded prisoner of war status. We have a long history of treating our prisoners of war well (as long as they aren't fellow Americans or native Americans). Beyond their legal status, I have heard of little to suggest true mistreatment in the level that Kim Jong Il has perpetrated.

As for Bush threatening his neighbors, when was the last time you heard of a U.S. Missle launch, much less one that was aimed in the direction of a foreign power in an apparent effort to antagonize? I think there is a great difference between having a contingency plan and stating an enmity.

Kim jong Il is thankfully not at the helm of a country with truly global reach. I think that, if he were, the current situation would not only be different, it would be catastrophic.

[Mjolnirs]

It's unclear to me, and the rest of the world who are not die-hard US Republicans, what the point of the war was

Long story short and my understanding:
The US had intel that Iraq had the makings of a nuclear program. The UN had been threatening Iraq for YEARS with inspections and sanctions and Iraq continually refused to cooperate and did violate UN resolutions. The US formed a coalition of countries through the UN to remove Hussein (a very brutal dictator) from power and let the Iraqi people govern themselves. The US congress saw this intel and backed this move too.

Now, we have since learned that this intel was false. Was it falsified on purpose or was it bad intel? Did the administration know this intel was false or were they misled too? My thoughts are that it was bad intel (not on purpose) and the administration and everyone else fell into it. I believe that the military and the administration did not have a good plan going in. The idea of fighting a war with a people stuck in the 14th/15th century is a bad idea. The religious divides in Iraq make it nearly impossible to have peace, this pretty much goes for the entire Middle East.

The hearts and minds concept is the military leaders and politicians worrying about what the public and the media will say about what is happening in the combat zone. I think soldiers need to be concerned with doing their job rather than what others are going to think about how they do it.

How to get out of it? I don't think there is a definitive way to answer that.

Well, perhaps unriggable is young and naive, and believes that a democratic government ought to be elected by the majority of its citizens, like most people seem to think. Of course Bush was elected by a minority of the electorate, but that's how democracy actually works.

Considering the voter turnout in '00 was 51% and in '04 was 57% nobody is going to be elected by a majority of citizens.

Some numbers for you
(source=http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/historical.html)
2004 election
Electoral – Bush 286-251 Kerry
Popular – Bush 62,039,073 – Kerry - 59,027,478 – others 1,157,859
Popular % - Bush 50.7 – Kerry 48.3

2000 election
Electoral - Bush 271 – 266 Gore
Popular – Bush 50,456,062 – Gore 50,996,582 – others 3,910,654
Popular % - Bush 47.9 - Gore 48.4 <<<<<< No majority

Some other close elections in US history:
1960 – Kennedy defeated Nixon by 50.1 to 49.9 in the popular vote, and by 303-219 electoral
1888 – Cleveland defeated Harrison by 50.4 to 49.6 in the popular vote, but Harrison won the electoral 233-168 and became president
1884 – Cleveland defeated Blaire by 50.1 to 49.9 in the popular vote
1880 – Garfield defeated Hancock by 50.01 to 49.99 in the popular vote
1876 – Tilden defeated Hayes 51.5 to 48.5 in the popular vote, but Hayes won 185-184 in the electoral

My point? What happened in ’00 and ’04 is not unheard of in US elections and is not some vast right wing or Republican conspiracy. This is the way the system works and has worked for over 200 years.

[CrazyAnglican]

Good point about the rationale for the war. I might have to do some further research on that. If it holds, I may change my stance there.


You are dead on with the election statistics. We have a representative form of government, but it isn't a democracy. There are few of them and they are very small.

[flashleg8]

It's unclear to me, and the rest of the world who are not die-hard US Republicans, what the point of the war was

Long story short and my understanding:
The US had intel that Iraq had the makings of a nuclear program. The UN had been threatening Iraq for YEARS with inspections and sanctions and Iraq continually refused to cooperate and did violate UN resolutions. The US formed a coalition of countries through the UN to remove Hussein (a very brutal dictator) from power and let the Iraqi people govern themselves. The US congress saw this intel and backed this move too.

Long story short and my understanding:
After 9/11 the public were looking for a scape goat to turn their anger on - an attack on Afghanistan was launched, but this isn't really good enough for the general public 'cause who'd really heard of the Taliban before anyway? Plus, there's nothing really to gain for the US in this war economically. No. A better solution is to imply a link to Saddam - who everyone knows is a bad guy - and get a mandate to oust the fellow who'd defied Bush's father and still survived in power making the US loose face, with the added bonus of control of vast oil resources when the job was done.

[CrazyAnglican]

Long story short and my understanding:
After 9/11 the public were looking for a scape goat to turn their anger on - an attack on Afghanistan was launched, but this isn't really good enough for the general public 'cause who'd really heard of the Taliban before anyway? Plus, there's nothing really to gain for the US in this war economically. No. A better solution is to imply a link to Saddam - who everyone knows is a bad guy - and get a mandate to oust the fellow who'd defied Bush's father and still survived in power making the US loose face, with the added bonus of control of vast oil resources when the job was done.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with attribuing this to economic motives. If so, why not continue in 1991 and set up a government then. It's hard to say that we have control over vast quantities of oil when

a: most of the rich fields are in Basra, the British sector.

and

b: gas prices have tripled as a result of the war.


Also I don't believe that Afghanistan was a scapegoat. They were harboring Osama bin Ladin and they were not going to give him up. Going after the perpetrators of 9/11 was necessary. To ignore this would have invited more of the same type of attack. They were also well known to the U.S., as allies, I trained one Afghani, in Taekwondo myself. We had some interesting discussions as well. Like why a left handed American, such as myself, shouldn't eat with his hands as an Afghani meal.

[flashleg8]

but that's how democracy actually works.

Yes. The U.S., however, isn't a democracy any more than the U.S.S.R. was communist. An Athenian democracy can't work on a level greater than a city state. I can't imagine trucking off to Washington every time a big decision had to be made. Even with advancement in technology that I guess could conceivably allow government by email (can you imagine the corruption that that would allow?), the idea of electing a representative to handle government for us is a good one. It has worked well in the past (ie. the Roman Republic), as long a leaders are held accountable by an informed populace. The fault is not with the form of government, it's with the average citizen who would rather sit in front of the television eating potato chips than spend some time actually researching the issues.

Once the populace becomes more interested in the Colloseum than the Forum, any number of things are possible.

Good points all. The problem with any elected body is the introduction of populist policies appealing to the lowest common denominator. You are quite correct in saving an uninformed voter is at fault here. The Roman republic wasn't beyond this type of stuff either - free bread to the plebs to keep them on-side springs to mind.
A side point on your vote by email, I've heard argued before for a referendum system could be used where elected representatives (that would normally decide issues for their constituency) are no longer needed and the voting populace will decide every single issue by referendum by text/email (I assume this is similar to what you are referring to here). I personally would love to have a direct say in government but I think this system would really just increase the scope for ill-informed voting. A better solution in my book would be the appointing of experts to specialised positions. Not career politicians who have no relevant experience for the cabinet position they hold and are often just using the position as a stepping stone to a post with more authority. It seems to me that the only qualifications our cabinet ministers must have in the UK is a media friendly face with some good oratory powers, it really doesn't matter much if you know nothing about the Education system (for example) to get the job - just make sure you don’t hurt the party’s re-election chances by not causing a scandal.

And I agree with your point about the political prisoners in Guantanimo bay. They will undoubtedly have a grievance towards the US now (with good reason). If your government had allowed them a trial by jury and the appointment of lawyers and a fair judge I seriously doubt if you'd have more than half of them to deal with at all anyway. The ones that were proven guilty could have been imprisoned humanely as you say the US prides itself on. Once again I find the treatment of these people a stain on the character of the US government. A nation that should be leading the world in the promotion of justice and the rule of law allows this to happen. Its no wonder other nations like Zimbabwe feel they can get away with the torture and abuse of human rights if the look to the West’s "finest" for an example.

[flashleg8]

I trained one Afghani, in Taekwondo myself. We had some interesting discussions as well. Like why a left handed American, such as myself, shouldn't eat with his hands as an Afghani meal.

Sorry, I hate to post back to back but that made me laugh!

[CrazyAnglican]

Hmmm. It looks as if, in general, that is what has happened in the U.S. I give, as examples, John Oxendine the Commissioner of Insurance for the state of Georgia. Insurance companies only need to hear his name, and they become much more cooperative. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, all generals and admirals of the highest caliber. Don't even try to become a judge without being a lawyer. It worked in years past but isn't so easy today.
There is something, however, to be said for the idea that being a good leader doesn't always mean that you are an expert in any particular field. Sometimes the best leaders surround themselves with experts and make decisions based on the information they are presenteed. The guy who thinks he knows everything can be much more of a problem. As a teacher, I have suffered through the constant tug of war between each guy who has the best of teaching. I listen, take what is good for my kids, and ignore the rest. As a result 99% of my kids pass the writing assessment. Only 4%, on average, fail the reading assessment. I had a 17% jump in Reading scores the year I began teaching Reading as a remedial course. Let the experts get things done at the level in which they can do the most good. I've been a leader; I sucked at it. I'm happy teaching kids; that's my expertise.
Career politicians may not be the best choice, but I don't think I would buy appointment of experts. Who appoints them? For how long? What is your definition of expert? I've met too many Ph.D.'s who were rip roaring jerks or worse just unhinged. Brilliant, but not the kind of person I want running things. Give me a level headed guy, who understands that he has to listen to the experts and make a good decision based on their debate.
The fact is that in our system every citizen is encouraged to become active in politics. I mentioned Rome specifically because we struggle with some of the same issues, but all in all, it's a good sysytem of government.

[CrazyAnglican]

Sorry, I hate to post back to back but that made me laugh!

Glad you liked it. They were so polite it took me a while to figure out what I was doing wrong.

[flashleg8]

There is something, however, to be said for the idea that being a good leader doesn't always mean that you are an expert in any particular field. Sometimes the best leaders surround themselves with experts and make decisions based on the information they are presented.

Yes this is true and ideally consulting experts and making a decision should be the way it would happen, but often politicians make knee-jerk decisions based purely on media friendly polices and self interest powerfully lobby groups and in response to consultations and opinion poles to keep their approval ratings high.

Career politicians may not be the best choice, but I don't think I would buy appointment of experts. Who appoints them? For how long? What is your definition of expert?

Valid criticisms, a just system would obviously have to decided on. I would favour a system of peer review - similar to what regulates scientific journals etc. For example all Biologists decide who are the most respected and brilliant amongst themselfs and have those people speak on any relevant decisions, similar for all professions. Democracy of a sort, but hopefully more like a council of workers - each proficient in their own field. With perhaps a leader to ensure an over riding balance - a chairman if you will, someone who’s expertise is to lead, manage and mediate.

[CrazyAnglican]

Yes this is true and ideally consulting experts and making a decision should be the way it would happen, but often politicians make knee-jerk decisions based purely on media friendly polices and self interest powerfully lobby groups and in response to consultations and opinion poles to keep their approval ratings high.

I can see your point, but would an expert be tempted by the same pressure. I've worked in government and seen the way lobbyists work. I've held my tongue when this person or that one is spouting a line to get legislation passed. I was an aide and thought it better to avoid arguing as if I were a representative. I did, however, let my bosses know when I saw a fallacy. You can believe that, ....... right?

Valid criticisms, a just system would obviously have to decided on. I would favour a system of peer review - similar to what regulates scientific journals etc. For example all Biologists decide who are the most respected and brilliant amongst themselfs and have those people speak on any relevant decisions, similar for all professions. Democracy of a sort, but hopefully more like a council of workers - each proficient in their own field. With perhaps a leader to ensure an over riding balance - a chairman if you will, someone who’s expertise is to lead, manage and mediate.

Hmmm, all of the biologists are going to agree on who is the most brilliant? This is going to be an efficient government ....... right? How long will this debate take? I've heard all sorts of debate about who is the best martial artist, and those guys can take it to the mat , if necessary. I really don't want any part of the most brilliant teacher debate. "Well, Betty covers my class any time I want ..... ".
I don't think we are wired as humans to make this kind of decision rationally. We tend to like people who agree with us better than those who make us look like morons. I am really scared of that one guy who is the expert in managing. What if he's a real jerk? Do I have any protection from him?

[MeDeFe]

/me Ignores all other posts


Dubya has been dethroned, Kim Jong Il is the new Worst Leader!

[Mjolnirs]

I don't think I like the idea of experts being posted. Often times an expert in a field becomes an elitist in that field and eventually becomes out of touch with the general populace.

Education experts come up with some of the craziest plans that most parents and often times teacher think are way off. When is the last time agreed with a movie critic/expert's opinion on a movie?

No matter the political system government officials become a class to themselves. The average person in the states cannot run for state let alone national office. It costs too much money. You have to be a succesfull business man or have money to start to run for office. I saw a comic strip either Friday or Saturday that showed a guy who had just won the lottery holding a press conference. When asked what he was going to do with his millions, he replies something along the lines of "well, now I can afford to run for president."

Term limits for congress would be a great place to start.

/me Ignores all other posts
Dubya has been dethroned, Kim Jong Il is the new Worst Leader!

I noticed this too.

[Stopper]

but that's how democracy actually works.

Yes. The U.S., however, isn't a democracy any more than the U.S.S.R. was communist. An Athenian democracy can't work on a level greater than a city state. I can't imagine trucking off to Washington every time a big decision had to be made. Even with advancement in technology that I guess could conceivably allow government by email (can you imagine the corruption that that would allow?), the idea of electing a representative to handle government for us is a good one. It has worked well in the past (ie. the Roman Republic), as long a leaders are held accountable by an informed populace. The fault is not with the form of government, it's with the average citizen who would rather sit in front of the television eating potato chips than spend some time actually researching the issues.

Once the populace becomes more interested in the Colloseum than the Forum, any number of things are possible.

I wasn't talking about any form of direct democracy - I was making a simpler point about the 2000 election - fewer people voted for the president that got elected, than for the one that didn't.

I'm aware of how the weirdly archaic US presidential election system brought this about, but that doesn't excuse the basic point that GW Bush didn't win the 2000 election by any normal measure.

Direct democracy? Never mind that, America should try to get representative democracy right.

[unriggable]

It is called the Electoral College. Methinks you might need a civics lesson.

The electoral college was put in place when carrying thousands of ballots every two years would be a logistical nightmare. We live in the information age. If electronic voting machines are possible, why not a database that keeps count of the number of votes? I don't see why we need to use old ideas in a new age. And yes, I am aware of the fact that it is not 'republican conspiracy'. I never said it was. The point is that the electoral college, and the idea that winner takes all, has led to several messes over the years (all of which you have pointed out). All I'm saying is that the voting system needs reform.

The "for some reason" shows the Democratic line that ignores the Electoral process and thinks it was a Republic conspiracy that got Bush in office. He is not the first president who was elected without the popular vote. Thus the civics lesson.

Christ, I think I have to explain myself. I don't think it was a conspiracy. I never said it was. See above.

Of course, a conspiracy DOES seem crazy when the state in the 2000 election being recounted vigorously is run by your brother, when the first person to call that state's vote count is your cousin, when the decision for a recount is decided by a 9-person supreme court in your favor, when the republican secretary of state just *decides* that you are the winner even though the percent difference in vote is less than .01%...

Just found this, too. http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/pri ... 803-01.htm

[Stopper]

Long story short and my understanding:
The US had intel that Iraq had the makings of a nuclear program. The UN had been threatening Iraq for YEARS with inspections and sanctions and Iraq continually refused to cooperate and did violate UN resolutions. The US formed a coalition of countries through the UN to remove Hussein (a very brutal dictator) from power and let the Iraqi people govern themselves. The US congress saw this intel and backed this move too.

Now, we have since learned that this intel was false. Was it falsified on purpose or was it bad intel? Did the administration know this intel was false or were they misled too? My thoughts are that it was bad intel (not on purpose) and the administration and everyone else fell into it. I believe that the military and the administration did not have a good plan going in. The idea of fighting a war with a people stuck in the 14th/15th century is a bad idea. The religious divides in Iraq make it nearly impossible to have peace, this pretty much goes for the entire Middle East.

The hearts and minds concept is the military leaders and politicians worrying about what the public and the media will say about what is happening in the combat zone. I think soldiers need to be concerned with doing their job rather than what others are going to think about how they do it.

How to get out of it? I don't think there is a definitive way to answer that.

Well flashleg's already mentioned about the Bush admin's reasons for going to war, and I've posted my opinion about this on this forum too many times now - but suffice it to say, I agree that Bush's given reasons were thoroughly dishonest, and that the casus belli was completely fabricated.

Hearts and minds? The problem with saying soldiers should just "do their job" is that public opinion, both in Iraq and the wider world, is part of their job. Leave the military to do what they think best, and Iraq will turn into even more of a mess.

Well, perhaps unriggable is young and naive, and believes that a democratic government ought to be elected by the majority of its citizens, like most people seem to think. Of course Bush was elected by a minority of the electorate, but that's how democracy actually works.

Considering the voter turnout in '00 was 51% and in '04 was 57% nobody is going to be elected by a majority of citizens.

Some numbers for you
...
2000 election
Electoral - Bush 271 – 266 Gore
Popular – Bush 50,456,062 – Gore 50,996,582 – others 3,910,654
Popular % - Bush 47.9 - Gore 48.4 <<<<<< No majority

...

My point? What happened in ’00 and ’04 is not unheard of in US elections and is not some vast right wing or Republican conspiracy. This is the way the system works and has worked for over 200 years.

No-one said that the overall result was a right wing conspiracy, although the critical Florida result was definitely corrupt. But the fact is that most people would agree that whatever electoral system is used, somehow the candidate with more votes than any other should win.

Just because the system has existed for over 200 years, it doesn't mean that it works. It clearly doesn't.

[CrazyAnglican]

I wasn't talking about any form of direct democracy - I was making a simpler point about the 2000 election - fewer people voted for the president that got elected, than for the one that didn't.

Which everyone knows could happen. A presidential candidate must get a majority in a state. When he / she does then that state goes for the candidate. Admittedly, on rare occasions, this has lead to a discrepancy in popular and electoral votes, but everyone knew that was possible. Nobody tried to deny it. It is our electoral system. The nice thing about it is that our Constitution can be changed. Have you been writing your Congressman to have the electoral college abolished? That's how things are done. If it is that important to you; take some action. A two thirds majority in Congress can get the job done.

I'm aware of how the weirdly archaic US presidential election system brought this about, but that doesn't excuse the basic point that GW Bush didn't win the 2000 election by any normal measure.

Um .... it's our normal election process. It is the normal measure. Bush won according to the rules. The truly reprehesible thing, in my opinion, was that Gore wanted to change the rules when they didn't suit him. The tradition in the U.S. is that you concede when the results are in.

I'm a Democrat, but there was nothing that made me question that more than my party being reduced to a bunch of whining pansies because Gore didn't like the legal election results and wanted to weasel his way into office. For that reason alone, I'll never vote for that man or take him seriously on the world stage again. I can't see Gore conceding to Bush if the roles were reversed, not after the public fit he threw over the elections in the first place. If he was that desperate to get into the office, It was the last place in the world he should have been.

Play by the rules as they are established. Changing them because they do not suit you (there was a possibility of that election going to the courts, people were calling for it) is cheating. Period. I don't care if he got five percent more of the popular vote; he lost the election. This is legal; this is how it works. If you want to change it; see the above section.

Direct democracy? Never mind that, America should try to get representative democracy right.

We do have a representative republic. It works pretty well. We have had one civil war, but all in all things have been pretty stable for two hundred years. The electoral process is a part of that government. It is a part of the government that can be changed. Why is there no hue and cry in Washington for it to be changed? It works pretty well. There are many much more important things to fix.

[MeDeFe]

Like letting people know that Canada is not a part of the USA, that Hitler does not rule in Germany any more (in fact he died some 60 years ago), that "social democratic" is not synonymous with "communist" (imagine if it was, the USSR disintegrating is barely a scratch in World Communism then, what with half of western Europe ruled by commies!), that patriotism isn't the same as saying yes to everything your government wants, that free speech is not the same as being against everything your government (or anyone else, come to think of it) says, that two pounds of fat and sugar a day isn't a healthy diet, that a big car doesn't automatically mean a big dick.

And much (if not all) of that goes for the rest of the world, too...

[unriggable]

We do have a representative republic. It works pretty well. We have had one civil war, but all in all things have been pretty stable for two hundred years. The electoral process is a part of that government. It is a part of the government that can be changed. Why is there no hue and cry in Washington for it to be changed? It works pretty well. There are many much more important things to fix.

A direct democracy would work better. Keep in mind that now we get the results down to the last vote via television, so we should be using that ability to count votes to calculate the president. Why the hell not? Seroiusly?

[CrazyAnglican]

A direct democracy would work better. Keep in mind that now we get the results down to the last vote via television, so we should be using that ability to count votes to calculate the president. Why the hell not? Seroiusly?

Like I said, hey if that's how you feel. Start a campaign to get it changed. Our government has that built in, and it has worked many times in the past. The Bill of Rights being the first ten.

[CrazyAnglican]

Education experts come up with some of the craziest plans that most parents and often times teacher think are way off. When is the last time agreed with a movie critic/expert's opinion on a movie?

There is too much money to be made in fixing education. Everyone wants a piece of the action. As long as we are focused on finding a program to fix education, and are willing to spend exhorbitant amounts of money to do it, the problems are virtually assured of never getting fixed. The next guy thinks his scheme is better and wants the money that comes with that. There isn't money to be made in fixing American legal practices, medical procedures, or even CPA practices. Therefore there is little motive for people to come up with a new plan every year to fix them.

In education, the cure is a large part of the problem. Any one of the plans to improve education would probably work if we were allowed to follow it for a few years. Instead there will be a new plan to follow tomorrow, and teachers have to focus their energies on learning the new plan rather than improving their craft.

[flashleg8]

Okay the debate has moved on so I won’t rehash over old ground, but in response to this....

I am really scared of that one guy who is the expert in managing. What if he's a real jerk? Do I have any protection from him?

That guy will be me None of you guys will have anything to worry about!

[CrazyAnglican]

That guy will be me None of you guys will have anything to worry about!

Um ...... worried.....who's worried? Just a little.......concerned.....that's all

[SolidLuigi]

How is Bush even on this list, let alone tied for first. Because he is the American President, so everything is magnified a million times. This is absolutely ridiculous. I guess all those people who voted for Bush would rather have those other 4 as their leader, thats basically what you are saying. The only one on there that I would even consider replacing Bush would be Tony Blair. So please explain to me how Bush is worse than Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il

[CrazyAnglican]

How is Bush even on this list, let alone tied for first. Because he is the American President, so everything is magnified a million times. This is absolutely ridiculous. I guess all those people who voted for Bush would rather have those other 4 as their leader, thats basically what you are saying. The only one on there that I would even consider replacing Bush would be Tony Blair. So please explain to me how Bush is worse than Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il

I have to agree. Bush and Blair may be unpopular with some, but there is nothing to sugggest that they are guilty of the same type of criminal behavior that the others are engaging in. I do not know that much about Amadenijad. So I can't place him in the same category either.

Look at the situation, in Iraq. At Abu Grahib (sp?) the soldiers guilty of humiliating prisoners are held accountable, but the terrorists cutting the heads off of non military personnel. What system is in place to hold them accountable? The Geneva convention essentially boiled down to "We don't want you doing this to our guys, so we won't do it to yours". It is assinine to say that the people who are attempting to hold themselves to a higher standard are criminal.