NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a dumb question, but ill ask anyway.

who's the worst leader?

And let the flame war begin.

current or past/dead?

If all leaders across all time periods are considered.....caligula...hands down....any man who akes his favorite horse a member of the senate, is a class act...

Your The Worst Leader!

Henry the Lion

Ken Livingstone, or Harold Wilson.

FDR was pretty bad too. Maybe LBJ. Really there are just to many to pick from.

Asking whos the worst leader is like asking what turd smells worst. It cant be done. Any leader that got into power must have been a somewhatgood leader to get to that position. Now if by leader you mean dictator that might make sense. But your entire thinking is wrong

Stalin all the way. You spelt Stalin wrong. He sent people to gulags and machine gunned them down :(

Bush is the worst leader. However, Stalin and Hitler are worse people.

Bush cant be THAT bad. After all he did get reelected. So the man can lead but he might not know where hes going

None of them were really bad "leaders" because they led their people rather efficiently. Whether or not they were benevolent or malevolent is the real question, is it not?

I think all leaders, whether "good" or "bad" want power. Every political decision or action they make, is an attempt to gain more power. Remember, power can come in many forms, like social acceptance and respect, fear, etc. Even if you are a magnificant benevolent leader, pleasing the peopl is a power-getting tactic.

Power is a power-getting tool.

On the topic, I chose Stalin as the worst leader. I really dont know why, he killed just about as many people as Hitler did... Maybe.... I don't know... do I have to think about it?

bad leaders are killed by their own people......

I'm appauled that so far the majority of people consider bush "worse" than joe stalin and adolf hitler. I mean, compare the generally less popular things each of them have done.

Bush:
At worst, he generated maybe a few hundred civillian deaths in order to overthrow a despotic maniac.
Introduced the patriot act which infringes marginally on the liberty of the populace.

Hitler:
Gassed thousands upon thousands of law-abiding Jewish civillians, people of ethnic minorities and people who didn't agree with his crackpot idealism. This for no particular reason except the sheer hell of killing those of different ethnicity or different ideas.
Invaded about 3/4 of europe, planned to invade russia, africa and much of asia, with the idea of repeating the aforementioned process in these areas.

Can somebody actually give a reasonable argument which shows how Bush is "worse" than Hitler?

I'm not even suggesting that Bush is "good" here, I'm just proposing that his "crimes", if any, pale in comparison to Adolf's.

And for the record, Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but his style of killing was a little more random, Hitler's was focused on particular groups. I actually picked stalin simply because his killing total was higher.

On the topic, I chose Stalin as the worst leader. I really dont know why, he killed just about as many people as Hitler did... Maybe.... I don't know... do I have to think about it?
Yeah, from his own rows... In war, he used an easy tactic: send fighters against the enemy, until they run out of ammo...

I don't think the question is specific enough.

Hitler & Stalin killed people -- yes. But, that doesn't mean they were bad leaders, politically wise. Hitler was a mastermind public speaker. He persuaded everyone to believe him and his ideals. This makes him a good (in the sense, skilled) leader. Remember, he didn't gain supporters through threats & violence.

Stalin, I'm not so sure of, but I think it's the same type of issue.

They were morally bad, yes. But as political leaders, I think they were brilliant.

Hitler:
Gassed thousands upon thousands of law-abiding Jewish civillians, people of ethnic minorities and people who didn't agree with his crackpot idealism. This for no particular reason except the sheer hell of killing those of different ethnicity or different ideas.
Invaded about 3/4 of europe, planned to invade russia, africa and much of asia, with the idea of repeating the aforementioned process in these areas.

Just ad acta, he killed genetically deseased people, too. That is, the people who really suffered from this desease, not the carriers. I had an easy statistic calculation in anthropology class, which clearly stated, that with a certain percentage (one in every 100000 births i think) of ill-born children (with one particular illness), it would take 100 generations to HALVE the rate of the mutant gene!!! So, "cleaning the human genome", as Hitler called it, couldn't work!

Stalin didn't get to power through public speaking. He played members of the Bolshevik party off against eachother, first attacking Trotsky and his associates, with backing from supporters of the New Economic Policy like Bukharin. Trotsky had been skeptical of the NEP, and he also opposed Stalins "socialism in one country" idea. Since this was popular with other key party figures stalin used this issue against his opponent too.

As general secretary stalin was able to fill the empty spaces in the party with his supporters, and at the same time he removed members with different opinions. Eventually he attacked even Bukharin and Rykov - people he had sided with to remove Trotsky and co earlier.

I guess one could argue that his backstabbing politics were "good" in a sense of effectiveness as well.

If by worst skills as a politician, it would have to be Salvador Allende.

If by worst you mean most evil, definitely Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Mao, Ortega, etc.

Someone who was terrible in both these categories is Ngo Dinh Diem.

Hitler was a good leader.

Stalin didn't get to power through public speaking. He played members of the Bolshevik party off against eachother, first attacking Trotsky and his associates, with backing from supporters of the New Economic Policy like Bukharin. Trotsky had been skeptical of the NEP, and he also opposed Stalins "socialism in one country" idea. Since this was popular with other key party figures stalin used this issue against his opponent too.

As general secretary stalin was able to fill the empty spaces in the party with his supporters, and at the same time he removed members with different opinions. Eventually he attacked even Bukharin and Rykov - people he had sided with to remove Trotsky and co earlier.

I guess one could argue that his backstabbing politics were "good" in a sense of effectiveness as well.

Well, I have to admit, I don't know much about Stalin. I know a lot on Hitler.

But yes, one could argue that. I don't know if I would, now that I'm aware of his tactics. The burden of young years -- still so much knowledge to learn!

Hitler and Stalin were great leaders in the sense they could get people behind them, and could manipulate the people they were leading. They were not, however, great people. A poor leader is a person who has trouble getting people to follow him.

This is a dumb question

No, what's dumb is that you put Bush on there, and that 16 people voted for him. They/you obviously are ignorant to life, and have little knowledge of history.

No, what's dumb is that you put Bush on there, and that 16 people voted for him. They/you obviously are ignorant to life, and have little knowledge of history.

Agreed. Bush may be an extreme idiot. But, really, there HAVE been worse.

Pol Pot - His government is widely blamed for the deaths of up to two million Cambodians, although estimates vary significantly.

Kim Il Sung - Attacked South Korea, causing the Korean War and no less than two million dead. After the war, his regime starves its people to field a million man army and has gulags that make Stalin's look like kindergarten.

Agreed. Bush may be an extreme idiot. But, really, there HAVE been worse.

Idiot or not, you cannot even compare a modern leader to a past one. Your (not you specifically) viewpoint is pathetically biased.

In one way or another, all three have led their people to great achievements. (Great in the sense of impactful)

There are many worse than these three, though two of them are responsible for an absurd amount of death.

Idiot or not, you cannot even compare a modern leader to a past one. Your (not you specifically) viewpoint is pathetically biased.

I agree. Bush (neither of them) should be on the list.

And, I know it's biased. But, it's likely to be biased, if you put him on there. Many people are only aware of the current political situation in the United States, therefore they'd only focus on that. You know?

I, on the other hand, am not biased since I did not vote for Bush in this poll.

:D

Actually, I have to laugh about mentioning Bush with Hitler and Stalin.

But, I now have to nominate... BILL CLINTON!

Consider: John Kennedy got Marilyn Monroe. Bill Clinton got Monica Lewinsky. :D

No, what's dumb is that you put Bush on there, and that 16 people voted for him. They/you obviously are ignorant to life, and have little knowledge of history.

My point exactly. The people who consider Bush "worse" than Hitler and Stalin (and to be honest the implication of the inital thread was "worse" in a moral sense) need to read a few books about Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia and then sit down and have a quick think about the definition of moral "wrong".

Actually, I have to laugh about mentioning Bush with Hitler and Stalin.

But, I now have to nominate... BILL CLINTON!

Consider: John Kennedy got Marilyn Monroe. Bill Clinton got Monica Lewinsky. :D

I liked Bill Clinton. Stupid that he's been classified as a bad President simply because of his sex life.

I liked Bill Clinton. Stupid that he's been classified as a bad President simply because of his sex life.

No...he's bad cause he's a liberal ;)

Ken Livingstone, or Harold Wilson.

FDR was pretty bad too. Maybe LBJ. Really there are just to many to pick from.

i'll give you LBJ, but FDR pulled the US out of the great depression to win the Second World War. What else do you need, do you want him to cure cancer or something ... or maybe polio.

Jesus did I just say that? :eek:

i'll give you LBJ, but FDR pulled the US out of the great depression to win the Second World War. What else do you need, do you want him to cure cancer or something ... or maybe polio.

Jesus did I just say that? :eek:

FDR was a socialist. WWII brought the US, and the world, out of the great depression.

I liked Bill Clinton. Stupid that he's been classified as a bad President simply because of his sex life.

First, it's a joke post. See the :D ?
Second: I'm not talking about the fact that he was a womanizer. I'm talking about his TASTE in women. I mean, come ON. He couldn't do better than Lewinsky?!? ;)

(I won't even get into Hillary and Gennifer Flowers.)

First, it's a joke post. See the :D ?
Second: I'm not talking about the fact that he was a womanizer. I'm talking about his TASTE in women. I mean, come ON. He couldn't do better than Lewinsky?!? ;)

(I won't even get into Hillary and Gennifer Flowers.)

After his ugly bitch of a wife, any woman must have seemed supermodel-esque to slick billy.

No...he's bad cause he's a liberal ;)

Oh, erm, right. Obvious ... logical ... reason ...

No, still not seeing it. Comon, what did HE do wrong? I mean, he helped the economy, the people loved him AND his wife's still with him after the Lewinsky stuff.

That's gotta say something about a man. :D

No...he's bad cause he's a liberal ;)

Actually, I consider Clinton to be the best Demopublican we've ever had...

(NB: I consider the two parties to be about 75-90% same.)

from that list i would say Stalin because he screwed up Russia by trying to modernize it when it couldn't afford to. Hitler was a horrible, horrible person. But when it comes to actual leadership (keep in mind that this is only leadership that i am talking about) he was actually very good. He turned one of the poorest, most taxed nations in the world and turned around into one of the most powerful military and economic superpowers in the history of Humankind.

Again, Hitler may rot in hell, but he did lead fairly well, even if what he was leading was deranged.

I have to agree, Bush being on their is stupid. I don't really care for him, but he's hardly on par with Hitler or Stalin.

FDR was a socialist. WWII brought the US, and the world, out of the great depression.

given that it was the US that won the second world war under his leadership, and that it was American forces that directed the invasion of Europe, i would say that even if he was a socialist (by the way, what is so horribly wrong with that, how about some REALLY bad leaders, like Ivan the Terrible, and the un-aptly named Peter the Great) he was still a good leader.

Bush cant be THAT bad. After all he did get reelected. So the man can lead but he might not know where hes going


yeh he did get reelected because, contrary to what the liberal media has to say, allot of ppl like him. He got the most popular votes in the history of our country. He is a great leader. The worst is either saddam, or Clinton. The only thing clinton did in his last trem was have an affair and raise taxes, which intern brought on the economic recession in 2001. IT WASNT BUSH, A PRES. CANT MAKE A RECESSION IN 1 YEAR. Even if he could he was still running off clintons economic plan during most of the time up to the recesion.
And if you check the info the economy started to go down during slick willy`s administration. But the liberal media dosent tell you that cause slick willy is their boy.

given that it was the US that won the second world war under his leadership, and that it was American forces that directed the invasion of Europe...

Bullshit. American forces represented a part of the multinational force which invaded occupied europe from British soil, Britain being one of the only survivng european nations, and..

Forget it, I'm hopelessly biased.

um stalin wasnt that bad... he is the only reason russia ever became an economically viable country [5 yr plans]

Oh, erm, right. Obvious ... logical ... reason ...

No, still not seeing it. Comon, what did HE do wrong? I mean, he helped the economy, the people loved him AND his wife's still with him after the Lewinsky stuff.

That's gotta say something about a man. :D

well ur right with what did he do wrong cause he did nothing to begin with!!!!!!
he was the worst pres in the history of our country, plus his wife is with him cause she wants power. she hates slick willy, cant stand the guy, she just wants power. POWER!!!!!!
oh by the way check my last post for info on his "helping" the economy
ull find that i am more right than you want me to be. ;)

yeh i do got something to say about the man
he sucked as a president and he will always be the worst pres in our history

given that it was the US that won the second world war under his leadership, and that it was American forces that directed the invasion of Europe, i would say that even if he was a socialist (by the way, what is so horribly wrong with that, how about some REALLY bad leaders, like Ivan the Terrible, and the un-aptly named Peter the Great) he was still a good leader.

He was a decent leader, but historians give him a lot more credit that he deserves. The world's economy went into war-time production during WWII, creating jobs and boosting production ten-fold. Neither FDR nor his "new deal" had anything to do with that.

...and if you don't realize what's so horribly wrong (your words, not mine) with a US president being a socialist, than you need to go back to class.

i should make a poll for which person would be the worst if he was voted into office
kerry`s got my vote ;)

Bullshit. American forces represented a part of the multinational force which invaded occupied europe from British soil, Britain being one of the only survivng european nations, and..

Forget it, I'm hopelessly biased.

True. We must not forget the important, overwhealming British contributions for the Allied cause at:

Pearl Harbor
Wake
Midway
The Doolittle Raid
Guadalcanal
Coral Sea
The Aleutians
Luzon/Leyte Philippines
Gilbert Island
Iwo Jima
Okinawa
Saipan
Guam
Hioshima/Nagasaki
etc.

...all while sending food enough to keep the English alive and guns because England was foolish enough not to have a Second Amendment. ;)

PS- Don't get me wrong. I love England. I just dislike when folks forget that the US, USSR & UK all suffered about equally though differently in World War 2.

...all while sending food enough to keep the English alive and guns because England was foolish enough not to have a Second Amendment. ;)

Eh...now look at them...

Eh...now look at them...

Not sure what you mean.... :confused:

Not sure what you mean.... :confused:

England and their no-gun laws

More US soldiers died in WWII than English.

Hitler restored Germany to economic and cultural greatness. Germany was lightyears ahead of the rest of the world in it's space program, aircraft technology, and submarine technology. It had one of the most stable economies in Western Europe at the time, right after a period of economic depression. All of the Native Germans enjoyed a comfortable way of life, it was only ethnic communities who did not belong in Germany, or who were pro-communist who did not enjoy these ways of life, but Germany is for Germans.

...all while sending food enough to keep the English alive and guns because England was foolish enough not to have a Second Amendment. ;)

We were sending England guns because we were a much more developed industrial power, where as they were a much more developed naval power. We were also, and still are one of major exporters of agricultural goods. This would explain our large contributions of firearms and food.

When you said the "worst" did you mean in a moral sense or just a poor leader in general?

More US soldiers died in WWII than English.
Eeehh..no. They didn't.

Germany was lightyears ahead of the rest of the world in it's space program
They didn't have a spaceprogram.

They didn't have a spaceprogram.
I was referring to their rocket technology, my error. Werner Von Braun (sp?) was responsible for much of the knowledge and technology going into the NASA space program, and both Russia and the US benefitted greatly from information the NSDAP collected on Rocket technology.

Ken Livingstone, or Harold Wilson.

FDR was pretty bad too. Maybe LBJ. Really there are just to many to pick from.

All FDR did was to keep the US from being utterly wrecked by your Great Depression pre-WW2, but we all know that the GD were the magnificent results of the great capitalist experiment. And besides, he was elected only how many times? It's quite obvious that everyone hated him... Woodrow Wilson was obviously better, right?
LBJ is just averageish. He did get quite a bit of laws out including that thing with the civil rights, but he did tangle his country up in Vietnam. Definately not the worst. Caligula or Nero were the worst rulers ever. Loonies.

Originally posted by Conqured Countries
He got the most popular votes in the history of our country. He is a great leader. He got the most votes because of the voter turn out, which was impresive for both candidates. He did NOT get the highest percentage of the popular vote in history. He actually got one of the smallest percentages of the popular vote (not counting the times that presidents won less than half of the popular vote but still won the election).

Hitler was a good leader - he effectively got his people to believe in an ideology that was seriously messed up. He was an ass, but a good leader.

Bad leaders: Pinochet for one. Anyone who takes power by military force and uses that force to maintain that power.

um stalin wasnt that bad... he is the only reason russia ever became an economically viable country [5 yr plans]
Tens of millions of dead Russians isn't that bad? Russia never really was an economically viable country, the economy was just geared towards a permanent wartime economy, and much of the industry was steered towards military production, that is why there was a basis for employment in some parts, enslavement when desired (can you say "Gulag")? He is also responsible for the deaths of millions of Eastern and Western Europeans, through his engineering of Operation Groza, and thus the creation of an "Eastern Front" as detailed by Viktor Suvorov. Also take into consideration the engineered starvation of millions of Ukranians including women and children.

So now tell me, do you think Stalin still "Isn't that bad" With the exception of perhaps Mao, he has to be the 20th centurie's worst leader ever.

Bad leaders: Pinochet for one. Anyone who takes power by military force and uses that force to maintain that power.
How about the champions of democracy who helped to install him?

Hitler was a good leader - he effectively got his people to believe in an ideology that was seriously messed up. He was an ass, but a good leader.
"messed up" and "he was an ass" are not valid reasons, they sound like personal attacks, not recorded fact.

What part of National Socialism do you not accept? Do you even understand the core values? I think people understood a lot more in what to beleive in at that time, where as today people will follow leaders with a sub-grammar school education.

...and if you don't realize what's so horribly wrong (your words, not mine) with a US president being a socialist, than you need to go back to class.

I'm Canadian, and it works for us REALLY well.

England and their no-gun laws

ya, England is a real shithole, what with over a thousand less gun deaths per year than the US :rolleyes:

"messed up" and "he was an ass" are not valid reasons, they sound like personal attacks, not recorded fact.

What part of National Socialism do you not accept? Do you even understand the core values? Actually after studying history for four years at University and also political theory and philosophy, during which time I suffered through a reading of Mein Kampf and other Hitler writings, I have a very good understanding of National Socialism and yes I do understand its core values. To me his political philosophy was "messed up" (and I am being polite here).

Eeehh..no. They didn't.

ya, i mean, even Canada got into the second world war b4 the US, so don't say it's all equal

ya, England is a real shithole, what with over a thousand less gun deaths per year than the US :rolleyes:

people kill people

How is Bush tied with Hitler?

I'm a vehement bush-hater, but he doesn't hold a candle to Hitler.

How is Bush tied with Hitler?

I'm a vehement bush-hater, but he doesn't hold a candle to Hitler.

Bush is tied with Hitler because he is a current reality. It is more personal when it is happening now.

ya, i mean, even Canada got into the second world war b4 the US, so don't say it's all equal
Casualties of world war 2:
Country Men in war Killed Wounded


Unites States 16,112,566 291,557 670,846

United Kingdom 5,896,000 357,1164 369,267

Canada 1,086,3437 42,0427 53,145

If you're talking about leadership qualities... you cant compare...

Casualties of world war 2:
Country Men in war Killed Wounded


Unites States 16,112,566 291,557 670,846

United Kingdom 5,896,000 357,1164 369,267

Canada 1,086,3437 42,0427 53,145

Compare that to the USSR

20 million served 12 million dead

Compare that to the USSR

20 million served 12 million dead
Dead
6,115,0004

Wounded
14,012,000

No listing for served.

I cant believe you people think Bush is as worse as Hitler. Thats sick. Ever hear of the Holocaust. George Bush although stupid and incompetent shouldn't be tied for first with Hitler. You people make me sick

Bush is indeed not a very good president
although I think he's intentions are good

But worst then Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot!!!!
Please

The one reason why people see Bush as a dictator is because certain people
portray that image to the public. Last time I checked DEMOCRATS CAN STILL FILIBUSTER and CHECKS AND BALANCES STILL APPLY

Liberal media outlets are still allowed to function, unlike opposition in Hitler and Stalins time.

once again the Myth of Bush being a tyrant is Bull, Its nothing but an imagine that was conceived by certain people.
It’s the same F****** thing with Princess Diana. She is nothing but an imagine that was designed by the media. The real Diana doesn't exist, we only know what were told of Diana. NOBODY WHERE KNOWS DI PERSONALLY SO KNOW ONE KNOWS WHAT SHE IS REALLY LIKE!
Bush is passing the agenda of the people who elected him. If I was a House rep and the people in my district wanted gay marriage ban. I would vote on their behalf regards if i was Rep or Dem.
Because government is suppose to SERVE THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM. It doesn't mean i feel that i hate gays or that i don't want gays to marry. Im just giving what my people want.
THEY DO NOT ON THE OTHER HAND PASS LAWS BASED ON THEIR OWN SELFISH BELIEFS

Im not here to bicker
or argue on behalf of "liberals" or "conservatives"
so if you don't agree with me, then just ignore me

hehehe...i may have to change my position.....lol...after seeing all these posts about the evils of Ho Chi Minh, i will have to delve into the policies of Eisenhower....He was a terrible politician.....Charles degaulle can be seen as his partner in crime there....

Ho chi minh approached eisenhouer (can't spell the name right so the spelling will shift a bit as this post progresses..lol) in the beginnings of the revolution for help in setting up a DEMOCRATIC governemnt...he needed aid to get out from under FRENCH IMPERIALISM.....but Degaulle was an "old war buddy" so eisenhouer sided with him, and said no to minh.....this led minh to go to another backer with a seemingly sucessful government......China.....they got their support in starting a governemnt styled after china's communist system....if eisenhouer wouldn't have bowed to his imperialist french friends, the lives of millions would have been saved.....this is why eisenhouer sucked monkey balls as a politician...

We were sending England guns because we were a much more developed industrial power, where as they were a much more developed naval power. We were also, and still are one of major exporters of agricultural goods. This would explain our large contributions of firearms and food.

There were gun donation drives by the American Public to send guns to England for home defense, as Parliament had confiscated most private English firearms.

I voted Hitler and other, other being Arafat. He oppressed his people, and played the media into believing it was Israel.

asked that question, first thought would be hitler, but he wasnt a bad leader, just evil and confused. i chose bush ofcourse as that vagabond will probably see the end of humanity because, quite frankly, hes a beatnik

This is a dumb question, but ill ask anyway.

who's the worst leader?

Kofi Annan

I voted Hitler and other, other being Arafat. He oppressed his people, and played the media into believing it was Israel.
araft? i hardly new he existed until he died. and his people made the choices

Bush, clearly. I don't recall him getting his country OUT of economic trouble... it's the other way round with the Shrub and his Dad.

Im not sure what your definition of bad leader is.

Hitler turned Germany from an economic wreck into an industrial power house within 7 years.

Stalin industrialised the entire of Russia within a decade and when you think of the size of the Soviet Union at that moment, its no mean feat. He also constructed an army from nothing in the space of 6 months.

I don't think they were bad leaders - just bad people. A bad leader would be someone who couldn't govern.

So, Bush then?

The parliament of alalaea has created a law to ban the name bush. Bush is not only destructive to the people, he's destructive to the planet also.

The fact that Bush is even listed on this poll with Hitler and Stalin shows you the mindset of the person who set up the poll. Why did you even bother putting Bush behind Hitler? I think its clear what your view is.

The parliament of alalaea has created a law to ban the name bush. Bush is not only destructive to the people, he's destructive to the planet also.


Created a law to ban the name Bush? That's very mature... :headbang:

Gamilon, you're just mad because Bush is a worse LEADER than Hitler or Stalin. Sure, both of them were horrible people, but at least they were going somewhere. Bush is all around a better politician and human being, but a worse leader. Bush can't lead the United States anywhere but down, has no oratory skills to speak of (pun intended), and doesn't understand the principles of Constitution of the United States.

Dead
6,115,0004

Wounded
14,012,000

No listing for served.

I think that 20 million was for total casualties in the war, inc. civilians. Read it in a book somewhere ;)

Surely the worst leader was someone so bad that they lead their now-forgotten civilisation into utter ruin and eventually allowed it to be destroyed completely, then forgotten about.

One that I do know about and surely is best candidate for 'Worst Leader' would be Montezuma II.Look at it - there was a fairly well-developed and advanced civilisation that was wiped out by Herman Cortés with just 700 men. In one battle half of his men and nearly all his horses were killed, and yet he was still able to take on an agressive, fighting empire of hundreds thousands strong and defeat it. Due mostly to stupidity on the part of the Emperor.
Who can top that?

Except perhaps the Incas.
They knew what the Spanish were like and still tried to make peace with them. The Inca King, Atahualpa, foolishly turned up to a conference with his whole family, only to be kidnapped and forced to become a puppet leader. When tired of him, the Spanish just killed him. And they only had 200 soldiers. The Inca civilisation numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

Mao Zedong is the worst "leader" hands down . Not only did he purge China of old style communism killing many but he also completely failed in his attempts to make China an economic power (killing all the starlings! :confused: ). Bush may be a bad leader but last time I checked America was the most powerful country in the world.

Great...now we have 49 morons with no grasp of history...

...what a world we live in...

ya, England is a real shithole, what with over a thousand less gun deaths per year than the US :rolleyes:

That's a pile of shit. Consider the relative sizes of the two countries. Repealing our ridiculous gun control would drastically cut crime in a matter of months.

Great...now we have 49 morons with no grasp of history...

...what a world we live in...

define history :headbang:

Stalin industrialised the entire of Russia within a decade and when you think of the size of the Soviet Union at that moment, its no mean feat. He also constructed an army from nothing in the space of 6 months.


Trotsky was commander in chief of the red army since the beginning of the revolution. Stalin got rid of him and inherited that army. Read up on the Russian civil war, the military might of Russia was Trotsky's doing.

Trotsky was commander in chief of the red army since the beginning of the revolution. Stalin got rid of him and inherited that army. Read up on the Russian civil war, the military might of Russia was Trotsky's doing.

leave the russians out of this :headbang:

define history :headbang:

Main Entry: his·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'his-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histOr, istOr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know -- more at WIT
1 : TALE, STORY
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c : an account of a patient's medical background d : an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence>
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past c : one that is finished or done for <the winning streak was history> <you're history> d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)

Main Entry: his·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'his-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Latin historia, from Greek, inquiry, history, from histOr, istOr knowing, learned; akin to Greek eidenai to know -- more at WIT
1 : TALE, STORY
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c : an account of a patient's medical background d : an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence>
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past c : one that is finished or done for <the winning streak was history> <you're history> d : previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)

A simple definition would have worked :headbang:

leave the russians out of this :headbang:

wtf?

wtf?

im tired of hearing about the russians. i get enough of them during class

But someone said Stalin was responsible for the strength of the Red Army. That was just a lie. I'm sorry, but it's gonna be hard to keep Russia out of this thread with Stalin as one of the three worst leader candidates.

Cromwell

im tired of hearing about the russians. i get enough of them during class

Uh, Stalin is part of the discussion. Kind of hard to talk about him without the russians.

ETA: You beat me to it, Dogburg.

im tired of hearing about the russians. i get enough of them during class

Well too bad. No one is making you read this thread. Grow up or leave.

Can I get it cleared up that we are talking about what said person did for there country not what kind of person they are. Therefore obviously of the big three it would be Bush however on a scale of ability it would be Hitler-9.8, Stalin-9.5, and Bush-between 5 and 9 depending on how this all turns out.

Although one could make the argument that starting WWII which destroyed his country makes Hitler worse, to this I say imagine WWII without the US intervention.

Favorite comedy joke:

We were like, "Get the guns out here. What no guns! Then through the Ice Cream at them." Wereas the Germans had their War Machine.

The Germans would just build an empire ein, zwie, ein, zwie *brick laying motions* and then lets have a World War to celebrate and have it all come crashing down.

That's a pile of shit. Consider the relative sizes of the two countries. Repealing our ridiculous gun control would drastically cut crime in a matter of months.
States: 290.9 million people
UK: 59.2 million people
Both are 2003 estimates taken from official Government census sites.
States: 28 000 gun-related deaths (homicides, suicides, accidents)
UK: 81 gun-related deaths

THe UK has 1/5 the population of the States and 1/350 of gun-related deaths. And you're saying that's a pile of shit.
:rolleyes:

Just to really spell it out for you:
In 2000, Gun related deaths in the US were United States were 10.41 per 100 000. In England and Wales, they were 0.69 per 100 000.
In 1999, Gun related Homicides were 0.12 per 100 000 in the United Kingdom and 6.24 per 100 000 in the United States.


As for restrictive gun laws having no effect:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11202534%255E1702,00.html

You also might want to read this;
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,562335,00.html
Total gun deaths in the U.S. have been dropping steadily since 1993...recent research has demonstrated that strong gun laws should be considered a leading reason.
An article published last December showed that the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership had homicide rates that were three times higher than the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership. The study's lead author, concluded that "guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans."

Could someone please explain to me how Bush had 7 more votes than Hitler in this poll? Are people today honestly that ignorant?

Could someone please explain to me how Bush had 7 more votes than Hitler in this poll? Are people today honestly that ignorant?

Yes they are. They do not realise what this slow minded individual has tried to do for this nation. By giving the tax cut to the wealthy "in proposal" It was to allow for more and larger pay raises for the employees of the wealthy. When he was governor of texas he put in an express lane for the death penalty. 3 people see you do the crime then you get no appeal and odds are you die that same year. By starting a war in Iraq he guarenteed that our oil supply contract that Sadam was not going to renew got renewed so instead of paying 8$ a gallon for gas we still pay 1.6-2$ a gallon. If the idiots out there would pull there heads out there asses and look to the reason the leader does something then they would have a better understanding of it. Instead they have to be small minded and not look to the bigger picture of things going on around them. All this is coming from an individual who has not worked since bush has been in office and voted him for twice... Much bettyer choice then kerry.

Yes they are. They do not realise what this slow minded individual has tried to do for this nation. By giving the tax cut to the wealthy "in proposal" It was to allow for more and larger pay raises for the employees of the wealthy. When he was governor of texas he put in an express lane for the death penalty. 3 people see you do the crime then you get no appeal and odds are you die that same year. By starting a war in Iraq he guarenteed that our oil supply contract that Sadam was not going to renew got renewed so instead of paying 8$ a gallon for gas we still pay 1.6-2$ a gallon. If the idiots out there would pull there heads out there asses and look to the reason the leader does something then they would have a better understanding of it. Instead they have to be small minded and not look to the bigger picture of things going on around them. All this is coming from an individual who has not worked since bush has been in office and voted him for twice... Much bettyer choice then kerry.

Aww...you don't have a job.

...and yet you're still alive?

Comparing Bush to Hitler for anything other than the fact that they both ran a nation at one point in their lives is simply stupid. There is no nice way to put it. Anyone that ignorant to the past who voted for Bush needs to get slapped across the face with a history book.

States: 290.9 million people
UK: 59.2 million people
Both are 2003 estimates taken from official Government census sites.
States: 28 000 gun-related deaths (homicides, suicides, accidents)
UK: 81 gun-related deaths

THe UK has 1/5 the population of the States and 1/350 of gun-related deaths. And you're saying that's a pile of shit.
:rolleyes:

Just to really spell it out for you:
In 2000, Gun related deaths in the US were United States were 10.41 per 100 000. In England and Wales, they were 0.69 per 100 000.
In 1999, Gun related Homicides were 0.12 per 100 000 in the United Kingdom and 6.24 per 100 000 in the United States.


The UK also has much less Nonwhites than the US does. Despite being a minority in the country, nonwhites commit the overwhelming majority of crime.

White 75.2%
Non-white 24.8%
http://www.med.umich.edu/gcrc/demographics/USA-demograph.html

Where as in the UK, the demographics are much more white.
White 92.1%
Non-white 7.9%
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=455

# There is more black-on-white than black-on-black crime.
# Blacks are statistically 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice versa.
# Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
# Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women.
# And much more.

http://www.amren.com/colrcrim.html
or for those without adobe reader:
http://www.solargeneral.com/jeff/primer/The%20Color%20of%20Crime.html