Conquer Club

Stopper wrote:If by "worst leader" you mean, those on your list who are, or are likely to cause, the greatest unhappiness for the greatest number of people, it has to be Bush. Even if his treatment of his own citizens is far better than that of the other leaders listed (except Blair), the fact is, the US's maltreatment of people abroad is second to none of those on your list. Their influence is global, while all the other leaders above are merely regional (or even less than that.)

Incidentally, why

Spuzzell wrote:England: Tony Blair.

The man himself isn't even English.

Yes he is, same way Wayne Rooney is, he chose to be

I put England rather than GB or UK so as not to confuse our overseas friends.

flashleg8 wrote:

Mjolnirs wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

A story in the March 10 edition (2002) of The Los Angeles Times revealed that the Pentagon has drawn up a list of seven countries who are prime targets for U.S. nuclear weapons in the event of undefined “surprising military developments.”

The report, titled “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) and signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield,
.
.
.

Hmm...pretty threatening I'd say.

Really? You see having a plan in case we need it to be threatening? Maybe you think it would be better for the military and government to not have a strategy. Oh wait, I thought that was part of the problem with Iraq. Besides, I still didn’t see a reference to Bush in that article.

In my previous post in this topic I presented my view that I believe the senior advisors around him are responsible for the hard-line foreign policy not particularly the man himself who is merely a puppet. It is in my opinion better to talk about the "Bush regime" rather than Bush himself - who clearly doesn't have a clue. Rumsfeld's clearly instrumental in manipulating Bush's regime.

its not a regime its the U.S. goverment

You seriously think Blair deserves to be on a list with a leader who has committed genocide...

'Worst' is pretty objective to be honest.

Bush is a good leader if you believe in the Realist school of international relations. A leader should do the best thing for his country, and if Iraq had succeeded it would have been a very very good thing for the US (not for Iraq or the rest of the world, mind).

Blair, I think, has been a reasonably good PM. I can't complain too much about social policy really. People love to hack away at governments at the end of their terms, but I'm not gonna complain. I believe he didn't have much of a choice with Iraq. The 'special relationship' was a tory legacy and he can't get away from that really.

Mugabe... obviously... a horrendous man who has brought nothing but ruin to his country. His people starve whislt he spends thousands on his birthday cake.

Kim jong... Mad dictator... crippled his country... perhaps as bad as Mugabe really.

President of Iran... Its not so much him as the power behind him that people think is bad. I see Iran sticking up for themselves, at least to an extent. I despise the holocaust denial but they are holding out against western influence. People have a very warped impression of Iran in my opinion.

Spuzzell wrote:I put England rather than GB or UK so as not to confuse our overseas friends.

Well, I hate to persevere with such a pernickety point, but surely using "England" will just confuse our overseas friends further. He just isn't "PM of England" in any official definition whatsoever.

In fact, you've just reminded me of a diagram I have on my computer (I got it from Wikipedia) which makes it all clear and simple. That way, people can refer to it if necessary, and no-one will get confused.



Blue for political entities, and red for geographical entities, or quite possibly the other way around.

Stopper wrote:In fact, you've just reminded me of a diagram I have on my computer (I got it from Wikipedia) which makes it all clear and simple. That way, people can refer to it if necessary, and no-one will get confused.



Blue for political entities, and red for geographical entities, or quite possibly the other way around.

That'll clear all that up for everyone!

Kim Jong Il is the worst, Bush is just unfit for presidency. Maybe some other job. Bush doesnt seem to make decisions either, its all his admin.

That Bush and Blair are even on this list shows the great delusion of the Left.

You need to read some of Spuzzell's posts. And just look at his avatar. The man would probably be mortally insulted to be described as Left.

Aimless wrote:That Bush and Blair are even on this list shows the great delusion of the Left.

Well excuse us for admitting that pretty much every foreign situation Bush has gotten in has been miserable. If you believe in democracy then you should know that 90+% of the world thinks that Bush should not have been re-elected. Quite a mandate, when you think about it.

90% of the worlds think tanks? Which accounts for, what, 0.00001% of the world's population? In otherwords, you believe that the vote of some "elite" counts rather more than the vote of, you know, the American public.

And you lecture me on believing in democracy?

By the way, I make no defense of Bush's foreign policy. It's terrible. The point here is that, in comparison to someone like Kim Jong Il, who is directly responsible for the starvation of about 2 million of his own citizens, to place Bush and Blair on this list is a willful disbelief in reality.

Definetely Mugabe.

He, along with Ian Smith, turned Zimbabwe (a country with the potential to be one of the world's greatest economies) into a steaming pile of crap.

It's a fact that it is cheaper to use money than to buy toilet paper in Zimbabwe.

Aimless wrote:90% of the worlds think tanks? Which accounts for, what, 0.00001% of the world's population? In otherwords, you believe that the vote of some "elite" counts rather more than the vote of, you know, the American public.

And you lecture me on believing in democracy?

By the way, I make no defense of Bush's foreign policy. It's terrible. The point here is that, in comparison to someone like Kim Jong Il, who is directly responsible for the starvation of about 2 million of his own citizens, to place Bush and Blair on this list is a willful disbelief in reality.

I dunno, bush isnt exactly helping our education, and we are supposed to be on the top of the world in that area. And yes I am lecturing you on democracy, you are supporting a person who didnt get the popular vote but still, for some reason, got into office.

Kim Jong Il is obviously the worst. The man intentionally oppresses his people in order to maintain power. He eliminates dissenting voices to his policies and his people are nearly starving. Like I'm so sure that those of you that voted against Bush would be willing to live in a society controlled by the leaders of Iran or North Korea. Give me a break!

It is just ridiculous to put George W. Bush on the same list with these maniacal tyrants. It has been a real eye-opener though to witness the anti-US and anti-capitalist hatred exhibited by some of you.

I expect to get a lot of negative comments back from this of course. Especially from the 20 - somethings here who have totally indoctrinated themselves in secular humanism and communist ideology.

For those of you who believe in civil liberties, the rule of law, and preserving freedom....you should wake up and become involved. Make sure you vote and write letters to your representatives. If you just lay back and let these young ideologues have their way, you can look forward to societies similar to those in North Korea and Iran. (Of course, it will all be done in the best interest of the people as they claim...sheesh!)

Syzygy wrote:Definetely Mugabe.

He, along with Ian Smith, turned Zimbabwe (a country with the potential to be one of the world's greatest economies) into a steaming pile of crap.

It's a fact that it is cheaper to use money than to buy toilet paper in Zimbabwe.

The economy... what about the millions massacred in the 1980s? Matabeleland genocide I think it was called officially...

Guiscard wrote:

Syzygy wrote:Definetely Mugabe.

He, along with Ian Smith, turned Zimbabwe (a country with the potential to be one of the world's greatest economies) into a steaming pile of crap.

It's a fact that it is cheaper to use money than to buy toilet paper in Zimbabwe.

The economy... what about the millions massacred in the 1980s? Matabeleland genocide I think it was called officially...

I can be insenitive, human life is more important (and it was called the Matabeleland genocide). Sadly, it seems that massacres just become a statistic.

Mugabe is a sick man.

He's had tortured for critizing his clothing.

His 'Land Reforms' are a joke, where white farmerowners were kicked off their farms and the farms were taken over, that have left his people starving.

The huge cloud of suspicion regarding rigged elections.

As well as a horde of other things.

It all started with Ian Smith though, the fool who declared UDI and plunged Zimbabwe into a 15 year bush war.

luns101 wrote:Kim Jong Il is obviously the worst. The man intentionally oppresses his people in order to maintain power. He eliminates dissenting voices to his policies and his people are nearly starving. Like I'm so sure that those of you that voted against Bush would be willing to live in a society controlled by the leaders of Iran or North Korea. Give me a break!

It is just ridiculous to put George W. Bush on the same list with these maniacal tyrants. It has been a real eye-opener though to witness the anti-US and anti-capitalist hatred exhibited by some of you.

I expect to get a lot of negative comments back from this of course. Especially from the 20 - somethings here who have totally indoctrinated themselves in secular humanism and communist ideology.

For those of you who believe in civil liberties, the rule of law, and preserving freedom....you should wake up and become involved. Make sure you vote and write letters to your representatives. If you just lay back and let these young ideologues have their way, you can look forward to societies similar to those in North Korea and Iran. (Of course, it will all be done in the best interest of the people as they claim...sheesh!)

Wow. You do realise that these civil liberties, rule of law etc. are all present because, back in the day, some young ideaologues reacted against the whole idea of a totalitarian monarch, supression of the rights of all but the elite... Those young ideaologues were naiive enough to want to give women equal rights... and black people...

Sheesh I really wish all the over-20s back then hadn't sat back and let the young ideaologues have their way. Should have stuck with the old conservative ways. Tradition, not new political ideas, is the way to go.

And finally, what is wrong with secular humanism? Or should we all be forced to believe...

luns101 wrote:Kim Jong Il is obviously the worst. The man intentionally oppresses his people in order to maintain power. He eliminates dissenting voices to his policies and his people are nearly starving. Like I'm so sure that those of you that voted against Bush would be willing to live in a society controlled by the leaders of Iran or North Korea. Give me a break!

I agree, but Iran is actually loosening up, like alot. In the next twenty five years, I think it will go through drastic governmental change. North Korea is a mess. I hope Korea becomes one again.

unriggable wrote:If you believe in democracy then you should know that 90+% of the world thinks that Bush should not have been re-elected. Quite a mandate, when you think about it.

Ask me if I give a rat's ass what 90+% of the world thinks. Without arguing the right/wrong/or otherwise of the war in Iraq, if the actual military were to operate without being concerned with what the world thinks, things would end quickly.

unriggable wrote:I dunno, bush isnt exactly helping our education, and we are supposed to be on the top of the world in that area. And yes I am lecturing you on democracy, you are supporting a person who didnt get the popular vote but still, for some reason, got into office.

Our education hasn't been "on top of the world' in decades, not even close to being Bush's fault.
It is called the Electoral College. Methinks you might need a civics lesson.

Mjolnirs wrote:Ask me if I give a rat's ass what 90+% of the world thinks. Without arguing the right/wrong/or otherwise of the war in Iraq, if the actual military were to operate without being concerned with what the world thinks, things would end quickly.

The bolded part is exactly what the Bush administration thought when setting out to war with Iraq, and look at how well that is going. It is also lucky that the actual military do not operate without being concerned with what the world thinks, otherwise the deaths caused by the war would probably exceed the Lancet's fortunately low figure of 600,000.

Mjolnirs wrote:Methinks you might need a civics lesson.

No, what you have in mind is a "toeing the Republican Party line" lesson, which in most of the world does not amount to a "civics lesson". But then who gives a rat's ass what a non-Republican thinks?

Stopper wrote:It is also lucky that the actual military do not operate without being concerned with what the world thinks, otherwise the deaths caused by the war would probably exceed the Lancet's fortunately low figure of 600,000.

Wrong. While I have never been in battle I do have friends who served in Vietnam. They will tell you, to the man, that a war cannot be fought and won while being concerned with public opinion. Hearts and Minds is not how a military is designed to work.

Stopper wrote:

Mjolnirs wrote:Methinks you might need a civics lesson.

No, what you have in mind is a "toeing the Republican Party line" lesson, which in most of the world does not amount to a "civics lesson". But then who gives a rat's ass what a non-Republican thinks?

Really? He said:

you are supporting a person who didnt get the popular vote but still, for some reason, got into office.

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.

flashleg8 wrote: Rumsfeld's clearly instrumental in manipulating Bush's regime.

Not any more. He got sacked.

Mjolnirs wrote:Wrong. While I have never been in battle I do have friends who served in Vietnam. They will tell you, to the man, that a war cannot be fought and won while being concerned with public opinion. Hearts and Minds is not how a military is designed to work.

I'm sorry, but the US and the world was quite assured by the Republican administration that Iraqis would strew the streets with flowers when the US Army liberated them.

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, if not to win Hearts and Minds. I'm not clear what else a supposed "liberation" is supposed to do. Maybe you can tell me.

I mean, sometimes I think Iraq was invaded to secure an oil supply for the West, but that can't be right, can it? THAT kind of war could be fought without any attempt to win Hearts and Minds, but the American administration have explicitly said that that is not what why Iraq was invaded.

Mjolnirs wrote:

Stopper wrote:

Mjolnirs wrote:Methinks you might need a civics lesson.

No, what you have in mind is a "toeing the Republican Party line" lesson, which in most of the world does not amount to a "civics lesson". But then who gives a rat's ass what a non-Republican thinks?

Really? He said:

unriggable wrote:you are supporting a person who didnt get the popular vote but still, for some reason, got into office.

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.

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.

That's to ignore the electoral problems in Florida in 2000, but unriggable, being young and naive, probably doesn't realise that the people overseeing the electoral process there, despite the close relationships to the Republican Party, can indeed be relied on to be impartial.

Here endeth civics lesson #2.

Stopper wrote: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 voted Kim Jong Il as well. He is not only starving his people, but driving them to cannibalism. This has been documented by dissidents, who have escaped to China, and journalists, who have gone in and videotaped conditions. Who you might ask is sending large quantities of food to the people of North Korea, you guessed it, the horrible Bush regime.
Kim Jong Il is the second leader in another Korean dynasty, and I believe is probably looking at keeping his regime going as long as possible. The Korean idea of Tong-Il would be great if the ideas from the South could gain a hold in the North, but unfortunately both sides seem to want to unify on their own terms. This is the only way the Choson peninsula has ever been unified. The tiny kingdom of Silla did it first in around 600 A.D.
I don't think that any humanitarian reform is possible while Kim Jong Il is in power. This is the nuclear nightmare, a totalitarian maniac getting hold of nuclear weapons to fit his agenda. Yes, he is a regional menace, but only because he lacks the power to become a global one.

I support the American and Allied troops wholeheartedly. They are putting their lives on the line, in a tough situation, and trying to help a democratic form of government flourish there.

I disagree with President Bush on a few issues. It's my right, I'm a citizen, and it's my duty to question those in power. It's how we keep tyranny out. The issues I find troubling. (Sorry luns, you're going to argue with me on these I'm afraid )

Emergency powers: The goverment has unprecidented rights to check up on American citizens as a result of them. They were pushed through in a power grab just after 9/11.

The invasion of Iraq. No matter how good our intentions, invading a foreign country because they have might have the power to threaten us is wrong. We risk becoming the terrorists ourselves. Whatever the reason I think we would have been better served as a nation by staying out of Iraq. Now that we are there, however, we had better do a good job. So, supporting the troops, who are there is vital.

The prison at Guantanamo Bay. If they weren't terrorists going in, they and their families are now. We cannot keep these people forever. When we eventually let them go, we are letting thousands of sworn enemies with a decidedly anti-American agenda out to gain support in a world that isn't too hot on us at the moment anyway. I'm not worried about the five who try to get in to the U.S., what about the ones who go to Germany, the U.K., and Japan. This is a lose-lose situation. In short, I'm against governing from fear.