Worst World Leaders

[Samirat]

Well I think Hitler would top the list.
I wonder how long before someone says George W. Bush?

ur wrong with hitler, for germany he was if not the greatest leader for that country, he brought them back from bankruptcy and from being a third world country to controlling almost all of Europe so saying hes the worst world leader u r wrong, but if u r sayign the evil things he has done then yes he would top the list

Seriously? You just called Germany a third world country? Jackass.

dude after world war 1 they were poor because the leader decided 2 print more money to pay off the debt then the money was worthless so dont call me a jackass

Nope, you're a jackass. third world does not mean poor. You're just flat out wrong. And
ig'nant.

Please Enlighten us, friend. If the term "Third World" is not synonymous with the words "undevelopped" or "poor", as you put it, then what precisely DOES it mean.

Third World does not just mean poor and can't be used synonymously. It means underdeveloped in comparison to modern industrialized nations, circa the Cold War. Germany has never, ever fallen into that category. The only time in its history when it could, the term didn't exist, and couldn't. He was wrong, and so was that application of the term. Sorry if I've affronted everyone who thought they could speak political jargon.

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.

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.

Oh for.... no, ok? Just no. Germany is not a proton, that analogy barely makes sense in the remotest sense. There WERE no first or second world powers in the 40's, third world means nothing without greater powers present to be compared against it. It is a politically relative term. I think a more proper analogy would be that you can't call call Hitler a neoconservative, or a newspaper column a blog. And just because the majority of people would get it instantly doesn't mean it's not very stupid to say it. Most people understand the relationship between a circle and a sphere, and might even forgive a moron for using the wrong one, but would you use the words interchangeably and then defend it? No of course not. They're basically similar, but one's a whole lot less simple.

The term third world is primarily meaningful in relation to the Cold War era. The first world were the Western democracies, the second world the Communist states, and the third world were the leftovers. It is a classification and typology that's falling out of usage now, and has little meaning outside of the Cold war. "Undeveloped", "underdeveloped", or "developing" would be much more accurate terms here. Some of the second world was undeveloped, after all, so third world is not synonymous with the world's developing nations.

 

[Straitjacketeering]

Worst world leader had to be Nero, but offhand I think the coolest (Not the best but coolest.) is Putin, I mean, hot wife, probably martial arts skills out the ass and a james bond villian look? Not to mention running the place where Vodka originated, gotta admit the guy is kinda cool.

 

[Samirat]

Im surprised nobody else has said chavez, that guy hates you all

Well yes, he hates us, but what has he actually done?

Well, he supports wholeheartedly communism, and the terrorist organization FARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farc) whom have been holding hostages in the jungles of Colombia for over 10 years. His campaign was founded by FARC, they gave him millions. Also by slapping the rest of the world in the face by refusing to call those guys terrorists but rather, revolutionists or political groups. I just hate the FARC and anyone who supports them

wow people need to know about what happens in the rest of the world.

Lets see:

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?

Hugo Chavez and present day Venezuela present an interesting case. It can't be denied that Venezuela is rapidly approaching a semi-authoritarian state of politics, and that political freedom is becoming more and more restricted there. However, Hugo Chavez has constantly placed himself and his policies up for referendum, constantly tested for public opinion inside his country. Up until recently, the Venezuelans have, on the whole, supported Hugo Chavez, and his popular opinion remained high even as he curtailed political freedom. He didn't even hide the shift to semi-authoritarianism, he exposed it again and again to popular concensus, and the people have supported him every step of the way.

It's very odd.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

i would have to say joseph stalin or saddam hussien. you know what's funny about saddam? if you spell his name backwards it's kinda spelled like mad ass. also, first person who says george bush wins a dunce cap and a trip to the mental hospital on the short bus.

 

[LCP]

Im surprised nobody else has said chavez, that guy hates you all

Well yes, he hates us, but what has he actually done?

Well, he supports wholeheartedly communism, and the terrorist organization FARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farc) whom have been holding hostages in the jungles of Colombia for over 10 years. His campaign was founded by FARC, they gave him millions. Also by slapping the rest of the world in the face by refusing to call those guys terrorists but rather, revolutionists or political groups. I just hate the FARC and anyone who supports them

wow people need to know about what happens in the rest of the world.

Lets see:

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?

Sorry, but you clearly have not seen any of his speeches, makes me want to throw a shoe at the tv. Or watch the bayley show, hilarious anti-chavez stuff, if you speak Spanish.

But hold on a second, you have to be seriously uninformed for NOT hating farc. Whats wrong with you, if by "limited world view" you mean that i think that that blowing off peoples heads, planting mines, torture, and bombs on civilians are bad, yes i do have a limited world view. Defending a terrorist group i hope you feel "broad minded" now.

EDIT: Chaves was about to pass a vote of a legislation that would give him more power, the votes called for a No. but he passed anyway.

EDIT2: He doesn't invade countries of false pretenses, oh dear god, i hope your kidding, Thank you for proving the fact that you are not informed, allow me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%BAl_Reyes Raul reyes One of top leaders of farc is killed in the Peru border. Something that is supposed to help the safety of where i am from, and neighboring countries. What does Chaves do? "Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez called the attack "a cowardly murder", and reacted by moving troops near the border with Colombia and recalling all personnel from the Venezuelan embassy in Colombia" What a great leader! /sacasm , he wasn't involved with anything at all in the incident! and now he moves troops to the border isn't that grand? And Uribe (Colombia president in case you didnt know) has to actually apologize to him, in a conference.

 

[rekabdarb]

personally.. i believe that Hitler was a very good leader.

You can't judge him from a "hes murdering all jews standpoint" try to think of before WW2

I do also believe stalin was a strong leader but you know... thats just me

anyone who can make that many people follow him has GOT to be doing something right

anyways... i would probably say king george the 2nd because he was stupid enough to piss off the americans and lose britain's best source of income

I think it was George the 2nd who was leader during the revoluntionary war....

 

[YouGetWhatsGiven]

personally.. i believe that Hitler was a very good leader.

You can't judge him from a "hes murdering all jews standpoint" try to think of before WW2

I do also believe stalin was a strong leader but you know... thats just me

anyone who can make that many people follow him has GOT to be doing something right

My God, are you stupid. Both of them where strong leaders because both of them killed anyone who got in the way of him. There where plenty of people who opposed him in their reign, but they where never heard.

 

[Tattaglia]

There are many terrible leaders, but I think Boris Yeltsin does the best job of being a consistently intoxicated representation of his country.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMThTEA4M0o"(title,target)]Linky linky.[/URL]

 

[Lord_Of_Plum]

My vote goes to Stalin, no question about it.

 

[theultimateend]

Well I think Hitler would top the list.
I wonder how long before someone says George W. Bush?

Actually, Hitler was a very good leader up until the Holocaust...

*sigh*
Copy and paste.
no he fucking wasn't he only stopped unemployment because he forced Jews out of jobs and replaced them with less skilled workers or just forced people into what was almost slavery.
a good leader has to provide a secure and fair environment in they country. which he didn't
it pisses me off hugely when Hitler did some good things.
Also he stripped Jews of there Human rights for seven years before the Holucaust, he didn't just suddenly decide to butcher them all he wanted to all along and built up to it.

He didn't suddenly start killing them because even in the terrible position Germany was when he came into power (which I'm somewhat surprised nobody has attributed to the treaty of Versai or however its spelled) German's weren't ready to do anything like what became the Hollocaust.

He had to slowly move them towards it and for many people it was a matter of just lying to themselves and saying it wasn't happening.

I mean the entire point behind stripping Jews of their rights and making them look like animals was to ease the move to killing them. Just like Americans made Japanese look like donkeys in cartoons and shit. It's easier to overlook firebombings burning hundreds of thousands of innocent people alive when you don't look at them as people and instead imagine a bunch of donkeys that try to harass bugs bunny.

But it's usually easier to act like everyone was balls to the walls excited about murdering Jews in Germany from the get go.

 

[Raven_Letters]

Im surprised nobody else has said chavez, that guy hates you all

Well yes, he hates us, but what has he actually done?

Well, he supports wholeheartedly communism, and the terrorist organization FARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farc) whom have been holding hostages in the jungles of Colombia for over 10 years. His campaign was founded by FARC, they gave him millions. Also by slapping the rest of the world in the face by refusing to call those guys terrorists but rather, revolutionists or political groups. I just hate the FARC and anyone who supports them

wow people need to know about what happens in the rest of the world.

Lets see:

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?

Sorry, but you clearly have not seen any of his speeches, makes me want to throw a shoe at the tv. Or watch the bayley show, hilarious anti-chavez stuff, if you speak Spanish.

But hold on a second, you have to be seriously uninformed for NOT hating farc. Whats wrong with you, if by "limited world view" you mean that i think that that blowing off peoples heads, planting mines, torture, and bombs on civilians are bad, yes i do have a limited world view. Defending a terrorist group i hope you feel "broad minded" now.

EDIT: Chaves was about to pass a vote of a legislation that would give him more power, the votes called for a No. but he passed anyway.

EDIT2: He doesn't invade countries of false pretenses, oh dear god, i hope your kidding, Thank you for proving the fact that you are not informed, allow me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%BAl_Reyes Raul reyes One of top leaders of farc is killed in the Peru border. Something that is supposed to help the safety of where i am from, and neighboring countries. What does Chaves do? "Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez called the attack "a cowardly murder", and reacted by moving troops near the border with Colombia and recalling all personnel from the Venezuelan embassy in Colombia" What a great leader! /sacasm , he wasn't involved with anything at all in the incident! and now he moves troops to the border isn't that grand? And Uribe (Colombia president in case you didnt know) has to actually apologize to him, in a conference.

Lets begin with your first statement: Contrary to your assumption I have heard Chavez speak, and its the usual Bombastic rhetoric I have heard time and again from politicians across the world, from Bush to Ahmedinijad, so this is as relevant as judging a book by its cover. Just for the record I am not a big fan of Chavez -I consider the heavy handed attempts by him to be disturbing.

About your second statement: To begin with its not that I am any great supporter of FARC, but I find you "tarring everyone with the same brush" approach to be well - profoundly immature. The argument is as follows: I hate Joe. Harry is a friend of Joe, so I now hate Harry too. Jim is a friend of Harry (But doesn't even know Joe) so I hate him too, so on and so forth add infinitum. However, back to FARC. Lets accept stipulation as to the facts of the case that FARC does commit atrocities. That however does not mean that CHAVEZ is responsible for them nor does his ambiguous support of FARC mean that he is a co-defendant in its case. Your sarcasm not withstanding you havent given one shred of evidence that Chavez is connected to one single direct incident. Its like saying, Since there are SOME Muslims that support Al-qaeda, ALL Muslims are Al-qaeda supporters. By this logic too, The US is responsible for the death of 1300 Gazans because of their support for Israel. Furthermore, since you hate everyone who supports Chavez, does this mean you hate almost everyone from Venezuela? Even those who dont support Chavez? Since there is bound to be some Chavez supporters who are friends with Non-Chavez (sic) supporters...

Your third statement: An Irrelevant Appeal. Since firstly that's something internal to the politics of Venezuela, and if the referendums that have kept him in office are anything to go by, its none of anyone else business. Under Bush the office of the President and V.P Has concentrated more power in these offices than quite possibly every before. See: Patriot Act for one or many examples. Just to be clear: I am NOT calling Bush a fascist dictator whatever, nor am I saying that the judgment of his action can be analyzed in these simplistic terms. What I am saying is that just as when the US began centralizing its authority under the act, you didnt hear the rest of the world claiming that it was a threat to them. While there is an overlap between domestic and foreign policy; one cannot conflate the two.

Your fourth statement: This is purely Ludicrous. Its an Appeal to Consequences at BEST. Moving troops to the border is INVADING a country? Setting aside the reasons for such an act, MOVING TROOPS is NOT The same as INVADING. What a relative world view. That your actually can conflate one act for another! When India moved troops to the border with Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks, did anyone say that they were INVADING? When someone INVADES your country you will know about it! ask the Iraqis.
By your logic, the US didnt invade Iraq, they just moved troops to the border of Kuwait - but they just kept redrawing Kuwait's border till it included the whole of Iraq.

I stand by my statement - you DO have a limited world view, and worse a rather strange one , where "speaking" is the same as "doing" where internal politics is somehow an external act against you, where you can conflate one act for another without any doubt.

With regard to your Appeals to Authority, given that you seem to think you have some monopoly on knowledge; I would suggest what you deliberate on right now is not whether a given subject is factually true or untrue, but whether your arguments are Rationally Valid or invalid.

 

[Raven_Letters]

On a different note:

I generally dont make posts on such threads because quite frankly they are meaningless. However whats interesting is the tone and structure. We each attempt to put forth one individual who is the MOST-EVIL-EVHA!!! As though by grading their acts of evil we can somehow abdicate the responsibility of them being Human, and therefore representative of the worst aspects of our nature.

Today many people say that the worst leader ever is Bush. I find this assertion with very little merit because it actually does not even define a criteria by which he is judges nor provides any area for intentionality. yes Bush invaded a country and left it in ruins and has a lot of blood on his hands, yes the world economy went to rack and ruin on his watch. However this does not mean he is the epitome of Machiavellian EVIL that so many people suggest (That i reserve for Chenny =P) His evil is at best the evil of the fool rather than the evil of the devil. Our attempts to determine the quantity and quality of an act is ultimately dependent on the exigencies of our OWN existence, and therefore unlikely to be or much relevance for us, let historians down the ages determine that , when some degree of archimedian distance is possible.

This does not mean that such individuals should not be CHALLENGED when they arise and attempt such acts, but it does mean that we should retain some appreciation of the fact that ultimately leaders come to power and stay in power through to the implicit or explicit support of the public at large. In the case of Bush even if one discounts the first election, he won the second by popular majority. To quote the tired old but still true cliche by Nietzsche:

"Beware ye who fight with monsters, lest ye become monsters."

As for genocides - the primary criteria for judgment in this thread it seems from my view, I have yet to see any SERIOUS mention of the Rwandan Genocide, the Armenian Genocide or what is considered the greatest and the most forgotten genocide in modern history : the Congo genocide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Humanitarian_Disaster]under the Belgians, which is the direct cause of the Rwandan genocide. What is interesting here is this Genocide? Brutal, Horrific and a stain upon us all, but what scholars ask if all of the deaths taken together constitute genocide. Most arent sure.

What happened and is still happening in the Congo is positively Orwellian - we forget the forgetting of the forgetting. The number of external actors in the Congo, be it private or state run is extraordinary. Where was the outrage during the fist and second Congo wars? Where were we when the atrocities were being committed? Why did we let our governments stand aside and do nothing? Especially when it was known that what was happening was a result of our own economic and political interests? No modern day power has NOT had some hand in it, and as such does this mean we are all culpable if not accountable for it?

The US invasion of Iraq has claimed over a million lives by the most conservative figures, but you dont see me or anyone else calling it genocide. This is because no one can actually say that unlike other similar acts, the purpose was the systematic destruction of a group of people, all we can say at best is that it was done over economic interests - and that doesnt constitute Genocide.

My point here: Is stop trying to peg things in nice little categories graded on impermanent and shifting criteria - for one thing you don't actually know what that criteria IS.

PERHAPS (and let me reiterate I am not 100% sure) the best way to make such judgments is by the operative intent of the individual. Just as we say a person running over another in a car with a car while drunk is a lesser crime than a person with premeditated forethought runs the person over, so we should assess these individuals in the same light, and mind you - this is not easy either.

This is a messy world, and all I can say that its better to have continuously tested doubts than permanent and untested convictions - for convictions drive men mad as someone once said.

 

[Spaggiari]

Well I think Hitler would top the list.
I wonder how long before someone says George W. Bush?

ur wrong with hitler, for germany he was if not the greatest leader for that country, he brought them back from bankruptcy and from being a third world country to controlling almost all of Europe so saying hes the worst world leader u r wrong, but if u r sayign the evil things he has done then yes he would top the list

Seriously? You just called Germany a third world country? Jackass.

dude after world war 1 they were poor because the leader decided 2 print more money to pay off the debt then the money was worthless so dont call me a jackass

Nope, you're a jackass. third world does not mean poor. You're just flat out wrong. And
ig'nant.

Please Enlighten us, friend. If the term "Third World" is not synonymous with the words "undevelopped" or "poor", as you put it, then what precisely DOES it mean.

Third World does not just mean poor and can't be used synonymously. It means underdeveloped in comparison to modern industrialized nations, circa the Cold War. Germany has never, ever fallen into that category. The only time in its history when it could, the term didn't exist, and couldn't. He was wrong, and so was that application of the term. Sorry if I've affronted everyone who thought they could speak political jargon.

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.

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.

Oh for.... no, ok? Just no. Germany is not a proton, that analogy barely makes sense in the remotest sense. There WERE no first or second world powers in the 40's, third world means nothing without greater powers present to be compared against it. It is a politically relative term. I think a more proper analogy would be that you can't call call Hitler a neoconservative, or a newspaper column a blog. And just because the majority of people would get it instantly doesn't mean it's not very stupid to say it. Most people understand the relationship between a circle and a sphere, and might even forgive a moron for using the wrong one, but would you use the words interchangeably and then defend it? No of course not. They're basically similar, but one's a whole lot less simple.

You can't call hitler a neo-conservative for the sole reason that he isn't one. You also can't call a newspaper column a blog because those are two completely different things.

Although your analogy makes sense, it's hardly applicable.

Today the term third-world means "underdeveloped", despite the fact that it was originally taken to mean "those countries that did not belong to NATO or the Warsaw Pact". By your definition the term couldn't even be used in any era other than the cold war and thus has no meaning today. Although I agree that using that word wasn't particularily smart on the part of the unfortunate man who said it, my point is that most of us understood his point and didn't feel the urge to throw a tantrum about it.

The words sphere and circle can't be used interchangeably because spheres and circles both have certain characteristics that set them apart. By the modern definition, it could be argued that post-WWI Germany fit the definition of a Third World country. I personally would not describe it as such, but I would also refrain from denouncing someone who did as a jackass.

 

[Spaggiari]

Well I think Hitler would top the list.
I wonder how long before someone says George W. Bush?

ur wrong with hitler, for germany he was if not the greatest leader for that country, he brought them back from bankruptcy and from being a third world country to controlling almost all of Europe so saying hes the worst world leader u r wrong, but if u r sayign the evil things he has done then yes he would top the list

Seriously? You just called Germany a third world country? Jackass.

dude after world war 1 they were poor because the leader decided 2 print more money to pay off the debt then the money was worthless so dont call me a jackass

Nope, you're a jackass. third world does not mean poor. You're just flat out wrong. And
ig'nant.

Please Enlighten us, friend. If the term "Third World" is not synonymous with the words "undevelopped" or "poor", as you put it, then what precisely DOES it mean.

Third World does not just mean poor and can't be used synonymously. It means underdeveloped in comparison to modern industrialized nations, circa the Cold War. Germany has never, ever fallen into that category. The only time in its history when it could, the term didn't exist, and couldn't. He was wrong, and so was that application of the term. Sorry if I've affronted everyone who thought they could speak political jargon.

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.

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.

Oh for.... no, ok? Just no. Germany is not a proton, that analogy barely makes sense in the remotest sense. There WERE no first or second world powers in the 40's, third world means nothing without greater powers present to be compared against it. It is a politically relative term. I think a more proper analogy would be that you can't call call Hitler a neoconservative, or a newspaper column a blog. And just because the majority of people would get it instantly doesn't mean it's not very stupid to say it. Most people understand the relationship between a circle and a sphere, and might even forgive a moron for using the wrong one, but would you use the words interchangeably and then defend it? No of course not. They're basically similar, but one's a whole lot less simple.

The term third world is primarily meaningful in relation to the Cold War era. The first world were the Western democracies, the second world the Communist states, and the third world were the leftovers. It is a classification and typology that's falling out of usage now, and has little meaning outside of the Cold war. "Undeveloped", "underdeveloped", or "developing" would be much more accurate terms here. Some of the second world was undeveloped, after all, so third world is not synonymous with the world's developing nations.

English, being a living language, can evolve different definitions for its words. I guarantee you that if you looked up the term third-world in a modern dictionary, it would define it as underdeveloped.

 

[Spaggiari]

Well I think Hitler would top the list.
I wonder how long before someone says George W. Bush?

ur wrong with hitler, for germany he was if not the greatest leader for that country, he brought them back from bankruptcy and from being a third world country to controlling almost all of Europe so saying hes the worst world leader u r wrong, but if u r sayign the evil things he has done then yes he would top the list

Seriously? You just called Germany a third world country? Jackass.

dude after world war 1 they were poor because the leader decided 2 print more money to pay off the debt then the money was worthless so dont call me a jackass

Nope, you're a jackass. third world does not mean poor. You're just flat out wrong. And
ig'nant.

Please Enlighten us, friend. If the term "Third World" is not synonymous with the words "undevelopped" or "poor", as you put it, then what precisely DOES it mean.

Third World does not just mean poor and can't be used synonymously. It means underdeveloped in comparison to modern industrialized nations, circa the Cold War. Germany has never, ever fallen into that category. The only time in its history when it could, the term didn't exist, and couldn't. He was wrong, and so was that application of the term. Sorry if I've affronted everyone who thought they could speak political jargon.

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.

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.

Oh for.... no, ok? Just no. Germany is not a proton, that analogy barely makes sense in the remotest sense. There WERE no first or second world powers in the 40's, third world means nothing without greater powers present to be compared against it. It is a politically relative term. I think a more proper analogy would be that you can't call call Hitler a neoconservative, or a newspaper column a blog. And just because the majority of people would get it instantly doesn't mean it's not very stupid to say it. Most people understand the relationship between a circle and a sphere, and might even forgive a moron for using the wrong one, but would you use the words interchangeably and then defend it? No of course not. They're basically similar, but one's a whole lot less simple.

The term third world is primarily meaningful in relation to the Cold War era. The first world were the Western democracies, the second world the Communist states, and the third world were the leftovers. It is a classification and typology that's falling out of usage now, and has little meaning outside of the Cold war. "Undeveloped", "underdeveloped", or "developing" would be much more accurate terms here. Some of the second world was undeveloped, after all, so third world is not synonymous with the world's developing nations.

Oh my god thank you for understanding. I'm going to go weep out of joy now.

Weep all you want after you read...

From merriam-webster.com:

Main Entry:
third world
Function:
noun
Usage:
often capitalized T&W
Date:
1963

1 : a group of nations especially in Africa and Asia not aligned with either the Communist or the non-Communist blocs

2 : an aggregate of minority groups within a larger predominant culture

3 : the aggregate of the underdeveloped nations of the world

You seem to hold to the belief that only definition #1 is valid.

Please take note of definition #3.

I think our friend was trying to make use of the third definition when he referred to germany as "third-world".

You know what? This is all just semantics, which is really a pointless topic of argument, can we just forget about this retarded exchange.

 

[LordMarcusX]

WORST world leaders? I'm not even sure how to answer this. Hitler would certainly be up there, but I think this is primarily because he was an impatient lunatic who couldn't seem to grasp that his Thousand Year Reich had about 988 years to go by the time he gave up the ghost and ran Germany and basically all of Europe into the ground.

That's the problem with a question like "worst." I'm no anti-semite, but I can understand the mechanics behind why Hitler became so popular and if he hadn't been delusional and insane, World War 2 might have gone very differently with a large portion of Germany or even Europe declaring him a saint. But, he didn't; he made life universally miserable for just about everyone. So he certainly gets a vote.

But Stalin? Stalin was a danger to his own people, for the most part. Kim Jong Il? Same. Saddam Hussein? A laughable figure on the world circuit, so inept at international deviancy we in power in the United States had to invent fictitious claims to the contrary. George W?... well... he might be up there.

My nomination, though, would have to be for humankind at large. Leaders only exist with the consent and support of their people.

 

[unquenchablefire]

Comrade Mao.

Seriously, when you kill 30 million of your own people because of a famine you caused (look up the "Great Leap Forward"), you're a pretty bad man.

 

[AceDiamond]

wall of text in an attempt to overload

Moving troops to the border and recalling everyone from your embassy in that country is not a sign of "oh I'm just doing things normally". Military dick-waving or no, the fact was that Hugo "I once staged a coup on the country I now ironically lead" Chavez sure as hell seemed willing to take up arms against Columbia for the death of a terrorist. And hey, he did say it'd be cause for war if it happened in the borders of his own country.

And let's not forget the so-called innocuous joint navy exercises between Russia and Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez may not be the worst world leader by any stretch, but to claim he's somehow innocent and blameless about everything and "misunderstood" is a laugh. A big, honking, laugh.