Worst World Leaders
- Thread starter Beffudled Sheep
- Start date
This guy gets quite a bit of crap he doesn't deserve. Not saying he wasn't a bad ruler, but he wasn't nearly as bad as he's often made out to be. Caligula was much worse.Jester Lord said:
And he probably didn't light Rome on fire, or play music while it burned.
This guy is also very much vilified by popular history (for lack of a better term). Again, not a good ruler, but he's a bit scapegoated on the Reign of Terror bit. There have been rulers with much higher death tolls. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler are the big three, but there are countless others.berethond said:
Chin Shi Huang Di epic failed. He had centuries of archives of Chinese history and wisdom destroyed to advance his "Year One" concept by starting the notion that all history would then on begin with his reign. So yeah, centuries of accumulated knowledge was thrown down the toilet, metaphorically speaking- most of it was burned, actually....
King George III, for having absolutely no people skills and not realizing that taxing colonies without allowing them to be represented in Parliament was probably not the best idea... In doing so he began what would eventually become the dissembling of the British Empire and prevented them from possibly becoming the 21st centurie's super power. So yeah, kinda screwed over his country there.
Hoover and Buchanan were flat out useless. You could have waved pictures of Hoovervilles in his face and it still would have taken the hand of God to make him 'really' acknowledge the Depression. Reagan squandered an enormous amount of money, but you wouldn't know that because most of the U.S. is still too busy glorifying his astoundingly unglorious presidency because he made them feel good about being stupid. Bush, needless to say, is and was an utter tool and to this day it astounds me that he was actually number 43.
Then there are the genocidal dipshits Hitler, Stalin, Pot, etc. And along with being genocidal dipshits they made themselves the standard with which we scale evil in our day and age and in the case of Stalin and Pot, eternally damned the world image of their political philosophy.
So yeah, all bad leaders.
King George III, for having absolutely no people skills and not realizing that taxing colonies without allowing them to be represented in Parliament was probably not the best idea... In doing so he began what would eventually become the dissembling of the British Empire and prevented them from possibly becoming the 21st centurie's super power. So yeah, kinda screwed over his country there.
Hoover and Buchanan were flat out useless. You could have waved pictures of Hoovervilles in his face and it still would have taken the hand of God to make him 'really' acknowledge the Depression. Reagan squandered an enormous amount of money, but you wouldn't know that because most of the U.S. is still too busy glorifying his astoundingly unglorious presidency because he made them feel good about being stupid. Bush, needless to say, is and was an utter tool and to this day it astounds me that he was actually number 43.
Then there are the genocidal dipshits Hitler, Stalin, Pot, etc. And along with being genocidal dipshits they made themselves the standard with which we scale evil in our day and age and in the case of Stalin and Pot, eternally damned the world image of their political philosophy.
So yeah, all bad leaders.
Lets see:LCP said:
1. Hugo Chavez has gone through a process of referendum three times now, has been elected twice, with the UN and Jimmy Carter stating that the elections were free and fair.
His policies have been economically nationalist / socialist. You may or may not agree with him, but atleast he doesnt invade countries on false pretenses.
2. So where does communism come into the picture, given that he is a self stated Catholic to boot.
3. One man's terrorist... Like Reagan calling the Nicaraguan Contras [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#Human_rights_controversies] Freedom fighters? Incidentally, Chavez also publicly opposed [http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1336689820080113] FARC for its kidnapping. I don't see you talking about say the Columbian UAC and its alleged attempts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Self-Defense_Forces_of_Colombia#Possible_paramilitary_activities_in_Venezuela] to bring down Venezuela.
4. So..you hate anyone who doesn't share your arguably limited world view? A kind off "your with us or against" approach eh?
You've just admitted that, at one time, Germany could have been considered a third world country, but that the term didn't exist at the time. This doesn't mean the term can't be applied to the Germany of that era.cball11 said:
Just because the proton wasn't named until 1918 doesn't mean that we can't say that objects in the 1800s were composed of them.
In addition, any country that is underdeveloped compared to the rest of the world would be poor. This means that I can use either word and most people would automatically assume the association of the other.
Most progressive nation in the world, eh?J-Man said:
So Communist Russia had a political system built in at the start for representative government. The lowest political units, which I believe were called soviets (where the name for the Soviet Union comes from), would elect the members of the higher political unit, and they would elect the members of the next unit, all the way up to the top. In this way, the Communist government was supposed to be responsible to its people.
Lenin helped create this system. Then he proceeded to walk all over it. He reversed the process, changing it from the intended bottom up, representative government, to a top down autocracy. He declared the unconditional right of separation for national minorities and oppressed nations, and then proceeded to use military force to subjugate Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
He had some good ideals, which either didn't hold up under practical implementation or he just didn't have the discipline and will to stick to. He was an idealistic, charismatic leader, who helped Russia in some ways, but have no illusions. It was not Stalin alone who made the Soviet Union what it became. Lenin paved the way.
I think people misunderestimate bush, leave him alone...
He's better than that French leader, I mean, you'd think he'd invent a word for entrepreneur already!
Never gets old.
He's better than that French leader, I mean, you'd think he'd invent a word for entrepreneur already!
Never gets old.