NationStates Jolt Archive

For each region, put the name of your favorite political leader of all time of that region.

North America

Central America & the Caribbean

South America

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Africa

Middle East

Central Asia

Southeast Asia

Far East

Australia/New Zealand

Anyone?

Should have put 'gay,' 'Bush,' 'God,' 'evolution,' or 'Iraq' in the title.

*sigh*

its too muxh work for me, have a cookie for trying
http://www.terrysgourmetcookies.com/ProductImages/CHOCCHIP.jpg

its too muxh work for me, have a cookie for trying
http://www.terrysgourmetcookies.com/ProductImages/CHOCCHIP.jpg

Well, at least someone else posted. :)

North America
Tough call, I hate them all. But I'll vote Alexander Keith (Mayor of Halifax for a bit). I really don't like anyone else.

Central America
Hatuey, a Taino cheifton in Cuba who attempted to fight off the Spanish Conquistadors, and was burned at the stake in Spain for it. (Quote provided below)

Western Europe
Adolf Hitler. Just because he brought Germany back from depression really quickly, not many people managed to pull that off. Besides, I can;t think of anyone else.

Eastern Europe
Josef Stalin, did what Hitler did, but faster, and more effictivly. Can't deny that he brought Russia into the world as an industrial power, which it was not prior to him.

North Africa
Pharoh Ramases II, king of Egypt.

Middle East
Bilgames, king of Uruk.

Central Asia
Ghandi, obviously.

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh, fought off the French and Americans, can't argue with that.



Quote from Hatuey recorded by a Spanish preist moments before he was burned alive: These tyrants tell us they adore a God of peace and equality, yet they usurp our land and enslave us. They speak of an immortal soul and of eternal rewards and punishments. They rob us, seduce our women and violate our daughters. Unable to match us in valour, these cowards cover themselves in iron that our spears cannot pierce.

That's all I can think of.

(Braces himself for the imminent flames)

North America
George Washington
Patrick Henry
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
Joseph McCarthy
Grover Cleveland
Andrew Jackson
James Madison
James Monroe

Central America & the Caribbean
Anastasio Somoza Debayle

South America
Alfredo Stroessner
Augusto Pinochet (for the Chile economic miracle)

Western Europe
Konrad Adenauer
Edmund Burke
Antonio de Oliveira Salazar
Francisco Franco (for preventing the communization of Spain, and for providing the leadership that helped make Spain become a stable, prosperous nation, and for refusing to help Hitler seize Gibraltar during WWII)

Eastern Europe
George what's-his-name (the general who took over Greece in the late sixties)

Africa
Ian Smith
Moise Tshombe
P.W. Botha
That dude who's the leader of MDC in Zimbabwe
Chief Buthelezi

Middle East
King Faisal of Saudi Arabia

Central Asia
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi

Southeast Asia
Nguyen Cao Ky

Far East
Syngman Rhee
Chiang Kai-shek

Australia/New Zealand
Robert Menzies

Here I include political leaders who have yet to gain state power, or who have not done so in their lifetimes.


North America

I'd say Robert Avakian, but since not terribly many people have heard of him.. Huey motherfuckin Newton.

Central America & the Caribbean

Che Guevara
Subcommandante Marcos
Daniel Ortega

South America

Chairman Gonzalo (Peru - PCP)
Hugo Chavez (as far as progressive nationalists go)
I hestitate to say Castro; only to a very limited extent.

Western Europe

Rosa Luxemborg
James Connoly

Eastern Europe

V.I. Lenin

Africa

Thomas Sankara
Patrice Lumumba

Middle East

Manzoor Hekmet
Whoever the hell led the Algerian resistance to French occupation


Central Asia

Ibrahim Kaypakkaya (personal hero of mine)
Chairman Prachanda
The dude who led the Naxalite uprising in India, name escapes me.

Southeast Asia

Ho Chi Minh

Far East

Mao Tse-Tung (like you didn't see that one coming)
Kim Il-Sung for whooping some imperialist ass; not so much for the clusterfuck, bizarre post-war leadership. Juche socialism my ass..

Australia/New Zealand

Eh? No idea, not familiar with the politics or history of that region.
'
I'm also limiting myself to relatively modern people. If I weren't, people like Simon Bolivar and Tupac Amaru would almost certainly make it up there.

Whoever the hell led the Algerian resistance to French occupation

That would be Ahmed Ben Bella.

Anyone else?

North America

Ronald Reagan
Thomas Jefferson
Abe Lincoln

Central America & the Caribbean

Anastasio "Tacho" Somoza

South America

Augusto Pinochet

Western Europe

Winston Churchill
Margaret Thatcher

Middle East

Benjamin Netanyahu

whats with all the Augusto Pinochet and franco s? :headbang:

dem was bad guys

wish i was educated & intelligent enough to post on this one :(

whats with all the Augusto Pinochet and franco s? :headbang:

dem was bad guys
Doesnt stop them being great.

Wait, havnt i pointed out glaring inacuracies in your posts before.

As for my 2 maldovian florinettes ill have to say...

Western Europe

Boris Johnson (here's hoping)

Eastern Europe

Gotta be the Big L (lennin... you get it right)
Atilla The Hun

Middle Asia

Genghis Khan

Africa

Ramses II
Amenhotep IV

North America: John F. Kennedy

Western Europe: Winston Churchill

North America
Abraham Lincoln of the US
Central America & the Caribbean
Norman Manley of Jamaica
South America
Emperor Jorge I of Brazil
Western Europe
Margaret Thatcher of the UK
Eastern Europe
Vlaclev Havel of the Czech Republic
Africa
Too many bad apples here.
Middle East
Sulieman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire
Central Asia
Asoka of the Mouryan Empire
Southeast Asia
Don't know enough to judge
Far East
Emperor Qin Shi Huandai of China
Australia/New Zealand
Again, I don't know enough to judge.

North America-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
South America-Simon Bolivar
Central America-Fidel Castro
Western Europe-Charlemange
Eastern Europe-Mikhail Gorbachev
Central Asia-Badshah Khan
Africa-Desmond Tutu
Southeast Asia-Wang Kon
Far East-Tokugawa Ieyasu
Austrialia etc-Ned Kelly (hey, you can sorta call him a politico)

Mohammad, Churchill and Napoleon have to be on there.

For each region, put the name of your favorite political leader of all time of that region.

North America
Theodore Roosveldt
Abraham Lincoln

Central America & the Caribbean
hmm, none

South America
hmm, none

Western Europe
Napolean Boneparte
Elizabeth I

Eastern Europe
hmm, none

Africa
Tetchuwayo (spl.) leader of the Zulu nation.
Shaka

Middle East
Solomon

Central Asia
Constantine
I'm blanking, the Turk leader who conquered Constantinople finally.

Southeast Asia
hmm, none.

Far East
Tokugawa

Australia/New Zealand
damn, confess my ignorance and lack of knowlege here, sorry ozzies and kiwis.

North America
Chief Sitting Bull of the Sioux
Central America & the Caribbean
Cuahtemoc II of the Aztecs
South America
Emperor Jorge I of Brazil
Western Europe
Napoleon I of France
Eastern Europe
Ivan the Terrible of Russia (terrible but brilliant)
Africa
Shaka of the Zulus
Middle East
Suleyman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire
Central Asia
Cyrus I of Persia
Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam
Far East
Genghis Khan of the Mongols
Australia/New Zealand
Howard

North America
androscoggin(or is that the tribes name?)

Eastern Europe
attila the hun

Western Europe
eric the red(he discovered greenland! who cannot like someone that discovered greenland!)

Central Asia
joseph stalin

Southeast Asia
pol pot

Far East
ghengis khan

for all others, i don't know, it would most likely have been one of the ancient tribal people of the region. africa they most likely would have been one of the people that lived in zimbabwe, who i don't rememer their civilization's name, or one of the kush people.

Africa-


Rhodesia-

Ian Douglas Smith




South Africa-

Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd

Balthazar Johannes Vorster

P.W. Botha



South America-

Chile- Augosto Pinochet

Bolivia- Hugo Banzer

Argentina- Leopoldo Galtieri



Europe-

Italy- Mussolini

Spain- Franco

Portugal- Salazar

Germany- Frederick the Great (Technically Prussia at the time)

France- Charles Martel

Doesnt stop them being great.

Wait, havnt i pointed out glaring inacuracies in your posts before.

As for my 2 maldovian florinettes ill have to say...

Western Europe

Boris Johnson (here's hoping)

Eastern Europe

Gotta be the Big L (lennin... you get it right)
Atilla The Hun

Middle Asia

Genghis Khan

Africa

Ramses II
Amenhotep IV



actually it does, gengis khan? :p lol, ok

North America Abraham Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower

Central America & the Caribbean [ Insufficient Knowledge ]

South America Simon Bolivar

Western Europe Winston Churchill

Eastern Europe Peter the Great of Russia

Africa Chaka Zulu

Middle East Golda Mier

Central Asia Gengis Khan

Southeast Asia Ho Chi Minh

Far East [ Insufficient Knowledge ]

Australia/New Zealand [ Insufficient Knowledge ]

I see a lot of you admire genocidal nuts like Khan and Stalin.

I see a lot of you admire genocidal nuts like Khan and Stalin.
Ghengis Khan was not a nut. To the contrary, he was probably the most influential figure in shaping civilization since Jesus Christ.

North America

Tommy Douglas
For more than 50 years, his staunch devotion to social causes, rousing powers of speech and pugnacious charm made Tommy C. Douglas a popular political force. From his first foray into public politics in 1934 to his post-retirement years in the 1970s, Canada’s ‘father of Medicare’ stayed true to his socialist beliefs.

And my personal choice..

Pierre Trudeau
Trudeau’s unique blend of charisma and fierce intelligence managed to keep him in power for nearly 16 years. During that time, he never wavered from his goal to create a unified and “just” Canada. He worked to promote bilingualism, stamp out separatism and create a Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights.

North America
Eisenhower

Central America & the Caribbean
???

South America
???

Western Europe
Gustavus Adolphus

Eastern Europe
Alexander Nevsky

Africa
Africa fails.

Middle East
Saladin

Central Asia
Kubilai

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh

Far East
Oda Nobunaga

Australia/New Zealand
???

Southeast Asia Ho Chi Minh

Are you sure you're a vet?

Western Europe: I'll pick Henry II.

S.Africa: Cecil Rhodes

North America: Thomas Jefferson.

The rest is too much fiddle faddle for me right now.

Central America & the Caribbean

Fidel! (ever since I was Cuba at a MUN)


Middle East



Central Asia

Ghengis. You didn't fuck with teh Khan.

Southeast Asia

Ho Chi Minh (just while I'm on the facial hair theme)


Australia/New Zealand

Peter Fraser, Sir Apirana Ngata

I'd like to add one for New Zealand: Keith Holyoake

I'll just post what I know about.

North America
It's a tie between George Washington and Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFolette

Central America & the Caribbean
I'm not familiar enough with central american history, but right now I like Subcomandante Marcos.

South America
Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna. Typical, I know.

Western Europe
Hm... Earl Grey. He's my favorite, although there have been craftier politicians in Western Europe.

Eastern Europe
Mikhail Gorbachev

Africa
The typical Mandela response.

Middle East
I'm down with Mahmoud Abbas. Jesus Christ also seems cool, though he really wasn't -political-.. not in life, anyway.

Central Asia
Mao Tse-tung in his early days. Sucked when he got older.

Southeast Asia
Mahatma Gandhi.

Far East
Emperor Meiji or Takamori Saigo... I'm biased towards the Japanese. :rolleyes:

Australia/New Zealand
Er.. Peter Jackson?

North America
Ronald Reagan

Central America & the Caribbean
Anastasio Samoza

South America
Augusto Pinochet

Western Europe
Modern:
Francisco Franco

Not Modern:
Louis XIV
Frederick the Great
William the Conqueror


Eastern Europe
Peter I (The Great) of Russia

Africa
Ian Smith

Middle East
(I guess since this doesn't include Iran)
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

Central Asia
Non-Modern (tied):
Cyrus the Great
Darius the Great
Ardeshir I of the Sassanid Dynasty(For founding the dynasty which brought Persia to its final Pre-Islamic glory)
Shapur I of the Sassanid Dynasty (For defeating and capturing the Emperor Valerian, who ended his life as Shapur's slave in addition to taking many parts of Syria and Mesopotamia from Rome)
Khosru I (also spelled Khosro, Khosrow, or even Chosroes) of the Sassanid dynasty (For his support of the arts, conquest of much of Rome's territory, and even the sacking of Antioch)
Nader Shah (For defeating the Sultans of Delhi and sacking their capital and carrying many treasures back to Persia.)

Modern:
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi

Southeast Asia
Ashoka of the Mauryan Dynasty

Far East
Qin Shi Huangdi

Australia/New Zealand
No clue

BTW, thank you RB for putting His Imperial Majesty Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in there.

North America
Ronald Reagan


A neo-con, Bohemian Grove, who granted amnesty to millions of illegal mexicans, killed the rural white farming class (or at least tried to), slammed the white movement at every chance he got, was in bed with the folks de-industrializing the USA, helped spark more globalism and such, and started the militarization of the police under the guise of a war on drugs... Why him?

BTW, thank you RB for putting His Imperial Majesty Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in there.

No problem. In fact, you always make me think of him. ;)

Btw, judging by your choices, you and I are on the same wavelength. :D

oooh crazy right winger fight!

VE, you like Vorster? I'd have thought you'd hate him, after reading The Great Betrayal.

VE, you like Vorster? I'd have thought you'd hate him, after reading The Great Betrayal.


Yah, but what was he to do, SA was in peril and he was trying to play both sides and accomplish his goals. Indeed his first duty was to the Boer, not Rhodesia, but the Boer. So to was Rhodesia's first duty to the Rhodesian, not to the South African.

Although unity is the best way to go. I wish that Rhodesia had been annexed into South Africa instead of that disaster of an attempt to unify with Zambia and Malawi.

Yah, but what was he to do, SA was in peril and he was trying to play both sides and accomplish his goals. Indeed his first duty was to the Boer, not Rhodesia, but the Boer. So to was Rhodesia's first duty to the Rhodesian, not to the South African.

Although unity is the best way to go. I wish that Rhodesia had been annexed into South Africa instead of that disaster of an attempt to unify with Zambia and Malawi.

True, but I found his 'detente' policy disturbing, to say the least.

No problem. In fact, you always make me think of him. ;)

Btw, judging by your choices, you and I are on the same wavelength. :D

We definitley would agree politically on alot of things.

DA, the US has never had really good leaders, I blame democracy.

North America
Either Tommy Douglas (father of medicare) or Lester B. Pearson (best diplomat EVER)

Central America & the Caribbean
Fidel Castro

South America
Salvator Allende of Chile (Who said Pinochet? It's go time :D )

Eastern Europe
Tito of Yugoslavia (he made Socialism work)

Africa
Where would Sadat go? Africa or Middle East?
Anwar Sadat of Egypt or Mandela

Middle East
Anwar Sadat of Egypt or Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh (he defeated America. America!)

We definitley would agree politically on alot of things.

DA, the US has never had really good leaders, I blame democracy.


Richard Nixon.

Thomas Jefferson.

George Washington.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Grover Cleveland.

Andrew Johnson.

We definitley would agree politically on alot of things.

Indeed we would. :D

Oh yeah, I forgot a major favorite of mine:

Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy

Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon!?

*cough*sell-out of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, etc.; SALT I; renewal of relations with China*cough*

NORTH AMERICA (give me a break, i dont feel like typin bold and stuff)
Bob Avakian, think thats his name, founder of the american Revolutionary Communist Party.
CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
Probably ole' Fidel Castro, or the Sandinista's, but they never had a head hancho figure.
SOUTH AMERICA
Probably Che, or Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuala
WESTERN EUROPE
Thats a tuffie, probably Robespierre or Marat, before they went crazy with the red terror. Don't know a whole lot about western europe. Dont like the EU.
EASTERN EUROPE
Lenin-Trotsky-Tito
AFRICA
hrm, probably either Nasser(besides his islam thingy with getin rid of the infidels) or Kabila, one of the few leaders of the Congolesse Revolution that did anything. Or Mendela, thats a given though.
MIDDLE EAST
again a tough one, i gotta brush up on this stuff. eh, all I really know that was any good was Saladin, and that aint saying a whole lot, it was about 700 years ago.
CENTRAL ASIA
ahg, gotta brush up on this part of the world, no idea.
SOUTH EAST ASIA
Definetly Ho Chi Minh
FAR EAST
Early Mao.
AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND
All the major political peoples in this part of the world are incredibly racist and conservative, so, fudge em.

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh (he defeated America. America!)

No he didn't. Traitors in our State Department, Defense Department, and White House did.

Richard Nixon.

Thomas Jefferson.

George Washington.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Grover Cleveland.

Andrew Johnson.

Jefferson was too anti-government and against industrialization.

Washington was indeed good.

Roosevelt was good, except for getting a bit too anti-buisness.

Cleveland I know little about

Johnson was a good leader, but I didn't think of him.

Mc Carthy saved us from Communism!

AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND
All the major political peoples in this part of the world are incredibly racist and conservative, so, fudge em.


Sorry, what?

No he didn't. Traitors in our State Department, Defense Department, and White House did.

Exactly, if some scum allowed us a freer hand, we would have won. Did it never occur to anyone to invade the north and occupy the cities?

Parthia and GE, thanks for saying Somoza. He has suffered one of history's greatest and most undeserved smears, and is one of history's unsung greats. I pray for the day he will be vindicated as a patriot and an ardent anticommunist. God bless you, Anastasio Somoza Debayle.

thoughts on other lists:

Whoever said Pinochet or the Shah is going down (see my list) :mad: :D

And Lafollette...good choice. A Republican that doesn't make me vomit. That's pretty rare for me.

Exactly, if some scum allowed us a freer hand, we would have won. Did it never occur to anyone to invade the north and occupy the cities?

Yes, we are definitely on the same wavelength! ;)

I'll try:

North America
Tommy Douglas

Central America & the Caribbean
N/A

South America
Salvador Allende
Che Guevara
Simon Bolivar
Hugo Chavez

Western Europe
The CNT (They never had a real leader, so everyone)
The FAI (Again, same as above)

Eastern Europe
Leon Trotsky

Africa
Nelson Mandela

Middle East
Saladin

Central Asia
The Dalai Lama

Southeast Asia
Emperor Akbar
Mahatma Gandhi
Aung San Suu Kyi

Far East
N/A

Australia/New Zealand
N/A

Parthia and GE, thanks for saying Somoza. He has suffered one of history's greatest and most undeserved smears, and is one of history's unsung greats. I pray for the day he will be vindicated as a patriot and an ardent anticommunist. God bless you, Anastasio Somoza Debayle.

He was an American ally and an Anticommunist, that makes him a good person and much better than the Sadinistas who followed.

Oh, and why in the hell are people saying Ghengis Khan was great? He was quite simply a horrible butcher and a barbarian who brought only death and destruction. His armies changed the world, before him, China's north was the most populous portion of the nation, but after his hordes ran through, it is now the south which is more populous. That pales in comparison to Persia, which was burned from one side to another. The cities of Central Asia, once Persian were destroyed and EVERY inhabitant slaughtered. Samarkand and the other cities there are now Turkish. Iran proper was less destroyed, but many of the cities were destroyed. Parts of Iran took until the 20th century to recover Pre-Mongol populations. Thats almost 800 years. Ghengis Khan is one of the most evil men, along with Alexander of Macedon, Tamerlane, Abu Bakr, and Caliph Omar.

Washington was indeed good.

yes, but people were so glad for democracy, he didnt hafta do much

He didnt face problems other presidents did

Africa
Tetchuwayo (spl.) leader of the Zulu nation.

Cetshwayo. :) I'm going to class in like 2 mins, so I can't do this now, might be back later.

He was an American ally and an Anticommunist, that makes him a good person and much better than the Sadinistas who followed.

My friend, I highly recommend Nicaragua Betrayed written by Mr. Somoza, published a few months before his death. In it, he describes the heartbreaking, unforgivable treachery of Jimmy Carter and his pro-communist cohorts in handing over Nicaragua to communist tyranny on a silver platter. It should be noted that Carter is also the man who backstabbed the late, great Shah Pahlavi, and the greatest living statesman, Ian Douglas Smith.

Ho Chi Minh was a little guy (both in stature and country) who stood up to a big guy and won. I respect that.

Oh, and why in the hell are people saying Ghengis Khan was great? He was quite simply a horrible butcher and a barbarian who brought only death and destruction. His armies changed the world, before him, China's north was the most populous portion of the nation, but after his hordes ran through, it is now the south which is more populous. That pales in comparison to Persia, which was burned from one side to another. The cities of Central Asia, once Persian were destroyed and EVERY inhabitant slaughtered. Samarkand and the other cities there are now Turkish. Iran proper was less destroyed, but many of the cities were destroyed. Parts of Iran took until the 20th century to recover Pre-Mongol populations. Thats almost 800 years. Ghengis Khan is one of the most evil men, along with Alexander of Macedon, Tamerlane, Abu Bakr, and Caliph Omar.

You described Ho Chi Minh in a nutshell. The fucker killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Vietnamese. Read all about it in Death by Government, by Professor R.J. Rummel.

North America
Either Tommy Douglas (father of medicare) or Lester B. Pearson (best diplomat EVER)

Central America & the Caribbean
Fidel Castro

South America
Salvator Allende of Chile (Who said Pinochet? It's go time :D )

Eastern Europe
Tito of Yugoslavia (he made Socialism work)

Africa
Where would Sadat go? Africa or Middle East?
Anwar Sadat of Egypt or Mandela

Middle East
Anwar Sadat of Egypt or Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh (he defeated America. America!)

Mossadegh was a commie. He had links to Tudeh and wanted to give Iran to the Soviets. The Americans did Iranians a favor by deposing him and putting in the Shah, who brought the nation into the 20th century. A Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran is far worse a thought than an Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mossadegh was a commie. He had links to Tudeh and wanted to give Iran to the Soviets. The Americans did Iranians a favor by deposing him and putting in the Shah, who brought the nation into the 20th century. A Soviet Socialist Republic of Iran is far worse a thought than an Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Shah, like Somoza, is an unsung hero.

My friend, I highly recommend Nicaragua Betrayed written by Mr. Somoza, published a few months before his death. In it, he describes the heartbreaking, unforgivable treachery of Jimmy Carter and his pro-communist cohorts in handing over Nicaragua to communist tyranny on a silver platter. It should be noted that Carter is also the man who backstabbed the late, great Shah Pahlavi, and the greatest living statesman, Ian Douglas Smith.

Carter is responsible for the situation faced by Iranians today, and for the woes of millions of other people. He was a Soviet sympathizer who turned the world over to them, only to have Reagan rectify the situation after his embarrasing blundering of the hostage crisis he brought on himself. However, Iran is still a repressive Islamic Republic and former Rhodesia is now pursecuting their whites. Carter deserves to be tried by a court made up of Iranians, Rhodesians, Nicaraguans, and Americans.

The Shah, like Somoza, is an unsung hero.

It is really sad, for 2500 years Iran was a monarchy and now, that chain has been broken. I hear stories of back in the 60s and 70s, people could show their Iranian passports with pride and people respected Iran as a progressive westernized nation. The economist predicted Iran to be the next Japan, a nation which had modernized and was rapidly becoming a first-world member. However, thanks to that idiot Carter and his gang of Soviet spies, Iran is a backward nation where stonings and lashings are common. People criticize the Shah for his less than perfect human rights records, but they forget that his supposed victims were a lot of the time Islamofascists like Khomeini. Is the IRI any improvement? Thank you Carter for ruining a great nation.

North America
Jefferson Davis
Thomas Jefferson
David Duke

South America
Augusto Pinochet

Western Europe
Richard the lionheart
Adolf Hitler
Oliver Cromwell

Eastern Europe
Alexander the great
Leonidas

Africa
Ramses the great
Ian Smith
Cecil Rhodes

Middle East
Mehmet the conqueror

Central Asia
Genghis Kahn

Far East
Genghis Kahn - again!

Australia/New Zealand
Umm.... James Cook?? *shrugs*

Eastern Europe
Alexander the great
Leonidas

Central Asia
Genghis Kahn



David Duke? Ok, I assume you are white nationalist.

I really have the most objection to the three you named. Ghengis Khan for the reasons named (Ghengis's generals also cut a path through Russia mind you and sacked the city of Kiev).

The last two are a bit different from him. First, Leonidas was only known for his little defense of Thermopylae, which isn't difficult for a small force of heavily armored hoplites to do when you cannot flank them because they cover the entire valley when standing shoulder to shoulder. The sheer thinness of the valley also prevented Xerxes from using his entire army in a massive crushing force.

Alexander was truly evil. For one, he was a shameless cultural vandal who led his men trough Persia raping Persian women, burning and pillaging. He ran through the province of Persis, homeland of the Persians and pretty much ravaged it. The great palace of Persepolis was burned to the ground, leaving only the columns, statues and doorways still standing today upon a stone platform.

David Duke? Ok, I assume you are white nationalist.

I really have the most objection to the three you named. Ghengis Khan for the reasons named (Ghengis's generals also cut a path through Russia mind you and sacked the city of Kiev).
...resulting in the outcome that Mongolia became the most powerful nation in the world and Genghis Khan became probably the most effective organizer and conqueror of all history. One doesn't earn the largest empire the world has ever seen by being gentle. Genghis Khan's ruthlessness should definitely be loathed but the mere fact he conquered such huge areas of land automatically makes him one of the most important and greatest military leaders in world history.


The last two are a bit different from him. First, Leonidas was only known for his little defense of Thermopylae, which isn't difficult for a small force of heavily armored hoplites to do when you cannot flank them because they cover the entire valley when standing shoulder to shoulder. The sheer thinness of the valley also prevented Xerxes from using his entire army in a massive crushing force.

Alexander was truly evil. For one, he was a shameless cultural vandal who led his men trough Persia raping Persian women, burning and pillaging. He ran through the province of Persis, homeland of the Persians and pretty much ravaged it. The great palace of Persepolis was burned to the ground, leaving only the columns, statues and doorways still standing today upon a stone platform.
You are using hypocritical ethnocentric standards to condemn Alexander while celebrating the fact that the Persian shahs sacked Antioch, Delhi, and other foreign places. The plain truth is that Alexander was an immensely influential whose military skills can be respected no matter what your perspective is. Just like how Shapur must be respected for his campaigns in the eastern Roman Empire.

Personally I have tremendous respect for both the Achaemenids' tolerant, multicultural society, and Greece's heroic resistance against more powerful neighbors. Classical Greece produced some of the great mathematical and cultural achievements in world history, and it is amazing that such a small culture survived and prospered amid threats from more populous neighbors. I think it is a good thing that the Greeks lived to become the foundation of modern western civilization.

Australia/New Zealand
Robert Menzies
Menzies? No! How could you overlook Rob Muldoon!



Just kidding. Being a Kiwi, I'd go for Micky Savage.

...resulting in the outcome that Mongolia became the most powerful nation in the world and Genghis Khan became probably the most effective organizer and conqueror of all history. One doesn't earn the largest empire the world has ever seen by being gentle. Genghis Khan's ruthlessness should definitely be loathed but the mere fact he conquered such huge areas of land automatically makes him one of the most important and greatest military leaders in world history.


You are using hypocritical ethnocentric standards to condemn Alexander while celebrating the fact that the Persian shahs sacked Antioch, Delhi, and other foreign places. The plain truth is that Alexander was an immensely influential whose military skills can be respected no matter what your perspective is. Just like how Shapur must be respected for his campaigns in the eastern Roman Empire.

Personally I have tremendous respect for both the Achaemenids' tolerant, multicultural society, and Greece's heroic resistance against more powerful neighbors. Classical Greece produced some of the great mathematical and cultural achievements in world history, and it is amazing that such a small culture survived and prospered amid threats from more populous neighbors. I think it is a good thing that the Greeks lived to become the foundation of modern western civilization.

Define great leader. I define a great leader as someone who contributes culture back to the people they conquer, Shapur brought Persian culture while the Mongols were technologically backward, they used stone arrows and lived in yakskin huts. What did the mongols give back? Mass slaughter! Its like calling Hitler a great leader because he conquered so much.

Antioch was justified by Roman incursions into the territory of the Parthians several times before the Sassanid dynasty took power where the Romans sacked Ctesiphon. Its called revenge. Now, Delhi is a bit less justifiable, but Nader Shah defeated an army several times his size and made Persia a better place by abolishing taxes for three years because revenue from Delhi made up for it.

Define great leader. I define a great leader as someone who contributes culture back to the people they conquer, Shapur brought Persian culture
Shapur did not spread much culture to other people, especially in the eastern Roman Empire which stayed firmly Greek in culture. By the time of Shapur Persian culture was stagnating anyways, due to suppression of heresy and ethnic minorities. Scientific and cultural advancements during the Sassanian era slowed down and could not possibly compare to the great heights reached by classical Greece and Achaemenid Persia. Shapur can flaunt his emperor-slave but that cannot hide the fundamental decay in 4th century Sassanian culture and politics, especially considering that central authority was rapidly undermined by aristocracy during the reigns of his successors

while the Mongols were technologically backward, they used stone arrows and lived in yakskin huts.

Actually Mongol military technology was far superior to any other force on the planet. The Mongols had gunpowder weapons which allowed them to destroy middle eastern fortifications. Mongol arrows were NOT tipped with stone (mainly just sharpened wood or metal end), were highly effective, and were launched by the most advanced bows of the time. These armor piercing arrows decimated countless Central Asian armies and the German knights at Leignitz.

What did the mongols give back? Mass slaughter! Its like calling Hitler a great leader because he conquered so much.
Hitler didn't conquer anything. He seized some land for a while and then lost it all, and completely ruined Germany. In fact in his entire career Hitler did not gain land for Germany, but actually lost valuable land, because the Allies stripped Prussia from Germany after WWII. Genghis Khan is undeniably great, he conquered much more than Hitler did with much less men, and established a civil government infrastructure which allowed the Mongols to rule over much of Eurasia for centuries after his own death. The Mongol empire contributed to much cultural/economic exchanges between Africa, Europe, and far east Asia because trade routes were unified and safe.

Antioch was justified by Roman incursions into the territory of the Parthians several times before the Sassanid dynasty took power where the Romans sacked Ctesiphon. Its called revenge.
The argument of revenge is completely irrational and you can justify absolutely anything with trumped up claims of "revenge." Alexander's destruction of the Persian empire can simply be seen as the Hellenistic revenge upon Persia for past Persian aggression. These arguments are not going to get us anywhere.
Now, Delhi is a bit less justifiable, but Nader Shah defeated an army several times his size and made Persia a better place by abolishing taxes for three years because revenue from Delhi made up for it.
So basically you being a imperialist and nationalist here, you're saying "as long as Persia benefits, we can go plunder and kill as many foreigners as we want." This leaves you with absolutely no moral authority to criticize Alexander, who can just say "Macedonia benefited from the wealth of the east, so we can go plunder and kill as many Persians as we want." Personally I would say both Alexander and Nadar Shah were morally wrong to imperialize foreign lands, but the military prowess of both monarchs nevertheless needs to be acknowledged.

Jesus, what's with all the Ian Smith admirers? I thought RB wasn't a white supremacist, and here he is defending somebody who was in favor of white minority rule and said that giving the vote to the natives was just asking for "black tyranny".

Richard Nixon.

Thomas Jefferson.

George Washington.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Grover Cleveland.

Andrew Johnson.

1. Slave-owning hypocrite.
2. Slave-owning hypocrite.
3. Blustering imperialist.
4. ?
5. Pro-aristrocracy, pro-slavery.

1. Slave-owning hypocrite.
2. Slave-owning hypocrite.
3. Blustering imperialist.
4. ?
5. Pro-aristrocracy, pro-slavery.
Compared to the African leaders in VE's post, they're saints.

The fact is that it's really hard to find decent human beings who have power the farther back in time you go. This is primarily because the farther back you go, the simpler the social structures were, so the people who were in power were usually the ones who had the strength, will and lack of moral integrity to step on anyone and everyone in order to get what they want. That's how Kings were made. As time went on, however, people could come to power in more and more legitimate ways. With the advent of representative government, you no longer had to kill some people to become politically power. You could just be a really great, intelligent person who could impress others. Then you were in. That's why it's easier to say that recent examples of political leaders - say in the last 300 - 250 years - are admirable, whereas even some of the greatest political leaders before then also happened to be responsibile for genocide. Get what I'm saying?

For each region, put the name of your favorite political leader of all time of that region.

North America

Central America & the Caribbean

South America

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Africa

Middle East

Central Asia

Southeast Asia

Far East

Australia/New Zealand



North America
John F Kennedy

Central America & the Caribbean
Fidel Castro

South America
Simon Bolivar

Western Europe
Sir Leonard Winston Spencer Churchill

Eastern Europe
Viktor Yushchenko

Africa
Shaka Zulu

Middle East
Jemal Ataturk

Central Asia
Deng Xiaoping

Far East
Junichiro Koizumi

North America

George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln
(the worst are: F Roosevelt, L Johnson, Carter & Clinton)

South America
Gen.Pinochet for preventing the communist plot to take over Chile

Western Europe
Margaret Thatcher

Eastern Europe
Lech Walesa for standing up to the commies

Compared to the African leaders in VE's post, they're saints.


Verwoerd, Vorster, Botha, and Smith, ought to be sanctified.

Harare can be renamed St. Smith, while the ANC, talking about renaming Johannesburg, could consider renaming it St. Verwoerd.

1. Slave-owning hypocrite.
2. Slave-owning hypocrite.
3. Blustering imperialist.
4. ?
5. Pro-aristrocracy, pro-slavery.


(Sarcastically) "Yeah, all the founding fathers were just losers who made no contributions to the world. They weren't perfect like the modern liberals who have no flaws and live their lives and walk in all things Political Correctness."


Really though, are you telling me if you were raised in that society, at the time, you'd not have supported slavery?

One thing I seem to find amusing, liberals have no problem bashing their own culture and history, but they can't, for the sake of diversity, even begin to criticize other cultures.

Verwoerd, Vorster, Botha, and Smith, ought to be sanctified.

Harare can be renamed St. Smith, while the ANC, talking about renaming Johannesburg, could consider renaming it St. Verwoerd.

Yeah, let's rename everything in Southern Africa after hateful men who ruled over the majority of the population with out consent and WITH an iron fist... :rolleyes:

I'd rather see Jo'burg renamed eGoli. As it is Durban city council is actually eThekwini city coucil, which is great.

Ho Chi Minh was a little guy (both in stature and country) who stood up to a big guy and won. I respect that.

so mass murdering tyrants are ok as long as they are leftist? :confused:

I'd rather see Jo'burg renamed eGoli. As it is Durban city council is actually eThekwini city coucil, which is great.


Why is it great that historic cities are being ruined?

Is your hatred of the Boer/Afrikaner that strong?

Why is it great that historic cities are being ruined?

Is your hatred of the Boer/Afrikaner that strong?

I have NO hatred toward Afrikaners. I've told you before and I've told you to stop putting words in my mouth.

I'll say it one more time.

I hate racism. I don't have animosity to the Boers/Afrikaners as a whole because that would be doing exactly what I despise.

I have NO hatred toward Afrikaners. I've told you before and I've told you to stop putting words in my mouth.

I'll say it one more time.

I hate racism. I don't have animosity to the Boers/Afrikaners as a whole because that would be doing exactly what I despise.


Then why do you cheer when the cities they founded, are being renamed with words 95% of the world can't even spell and probably even pronounce...

Still think that Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta are cities?

Then why do you cheer when the cities they founded, are being renamed with words 95% of the world can't even spell and probably even pronounce...
Well Durban was founded by the British so you're wrong there. And I merely said I'd rather see Joburg called eGoli than named after your saints of apartheid.

And I don't give a shit if the rest of the world can't pronounce or spell the names. People have different languages, learn to deal with it.

And oh, forgive me if I don't worship the past oppressors of my people. :rolleyes:

Still think that Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta are cities?
Good point. And they were renamed with the un-bastardised versions of their own names, or at least a historical name for the area.

Well Durban was founded by the British so you're wrong there. And I merely said I'd rather see Joburg called eGoli than named after your saints of apartheid.

And I don't give a shit if the rest of the world can't pronounce or spell the names. People have different languages, learn to deal with it.

And oh, forgive me if I don't worship the past oppressors of my people. :rolleyes:


Good point. And they were renamed with the un-bastardised versions of their own names, or at least a historical name for the area.


So wait, the Boer oppressed Indians?

Nobody made the Indians go to South Africa, they ought to have been thankful for the work and wages.

Nobody made the Indians go to South Africa, they ought to have been thankful for the work and wages.
Geez, you really are ignorant aren't you?
The British coerced/forced Indians to go to South Africa and worked them under basically slave conditions, and then laws implemented by a Boer led government oppressed us for years. My dad's family lost their HOME.

It's pretty fuckin obvious!

Edit: Grateful? Grafteful for being worked to death and being paid a pittance that they actually had to pay back to "buy" their freedom? Yeah, grateful is EXACTLY the word that comes to mind. You are a horrible hateful person.

What, he's relating india back to south africa now? I was just trying to get him to fly off on a tangent about the renaming of India's cites.

Geez, you really are ignorant aren't you?
The British coerced/forced Indians to go to South Africa and worked them under basically slave conditions, and then laws implemented by a Boer led government oppressed us for years. My dad's family lost their HOME.

It's pretty fuckin obvious!

Edit: Grateful? Grafteful for being worked to death and being paid a pittance that they actually had to pay back to "buy" their freedom? Yeah, grateful is EXACTLY the word that comes to mind. You are a horrible hateful person.


I don't think the British would do that, as rotten as the they are for what they did during the Boer War, I don't really think the British would be engaging in the slave trade many years after they outlawed it (heck, they fought a war in Sudan to stamp it out)

What, he's relating india back to south africa now? I was just trying to get him to fly off on a tangent about the renaming of India's cites.
I'm South African of Indian descent, which is why I find his opinions so offensive.

I don't think the British would do that
What you think is irrelevant. It happened. I think I would know...

What you think is irrelevant. It happened. I think I would know...


Well, do you acknowledge that the ANC is a communist organization and that Mandela's thugs used to go around "necklacing" blacks who wouldn't back them, setting off car bombs against whites, and basically used terror as their main tool.

Will you also acknowledge that Mandela was put in prison for advocating terror, and not "Speaking out against apartheid!" as the West is so fond of teaching their children.


On another note, I have no real problem with India or Indians.

I'm South African of Indian descent, which is why I find his opinions so offensive.

Living in Australia? They must love you if you're a cricket fan.

Sry, I jumped in the middle of the convo so I unintentionally said something smart.

Well, do you acknowledge that the ANC is a communist organization
The ANC is FAR from Communist. They had LINKS withthe SACP and COSATU but they themselves were never Communist.
and that Mandela's thugs used to go around "necklacing" blacks who wouldn't back them, setting off car bombs against whites, and basically used terror as their main tool.
I doubt that violent acts against random civilian individuals were the work of the ANC party structure, although I do acknowledge the "armed struggle" and feel it was perfectly justified in light of the fact that the state only ever engaged the black population in a violent way. You have NEVER answered me on the issue on hundreds of protestors killed at Sharpeville or in Soweto in 76. Black lives worth less to you huh?

Will you also acknowledge that Mandela was put in prison for advocating terror, and not "Speaking out against apartheid!" as the West is so fond of teaching their children.
Actually, and I HAVE explained this to you before, he was imprisoned for treason. But yes, as I have stated above I am aware of the armed struggle.


On another note, I have no real problem with India or Indians.
As long as we're not too uppity? :rolleyes:

Living in Australia? They must love you if you're a cricket fan.

Sry, I jumped in the middle of the convo so I unintentionally said something smart.
Please do jump in, I need to reduce my blood pressure before bedtime.

But yeah, I do love my cricket, and rugby. It creates some interesting situations with the boyfriend, who's an ardent Aussie fan. :p

But yeah, I do love my cricket, and rugby. It creates some interesting situations with the boyfriend, who's an ardent Aussie fan. :p

I sat at the basin on tuesday watching my teams depleted bowling 'attack' get absolutely carted by the aussies. My face and legs got sunburnt too, even though it was overcast and no more than 16 degrees all day. Fuckin ozone hole. NZ are going to get absolutely munted in the tests. Vettori will have to do a shitload of bowling, but at least it'll only be one innings a match.


sorry, I went cricket ranting again. At least the Hurricanes beat the Reds in the super 12 last week.

Vettori will have to do a shitload of bowling, but at least it'll only be one innings a match.
*giggles* I have such a crush on Daniel Vettori.


*blush* shhhhhh, don't tell anyone. ;)

And the Stormers beat the Sharks, didn't they? I live in Victoria, where they don't even broadcast the Super 12. :(

I have just scared myself with my lack of knowledge- especially as I'm a bloody history grad! Time to start reading.... unfortunately, the more you read the more you realise that most political leaders have their good and awful points, and it becomes more difficult to choose... what would be great is to find an anti-war, socialist, human rights savvy, sensible leader, and make human nature such that sensible things are given a chance. Hmmmm

South America:Che

Western Europe:

Aleksander Kwasniewski (the one who came before Lech Walensa and would have been a better choice, unfortunately he preached forgivness)

Gladstone

Eastern Europe:

Vaclav Havel

Peter the Great (just because he was nuts)

Oh, and the Brits were very horrible in SA- as far as I can gather they and the Dutch established some of the first concentration camps- well before the Nazis and the Soviets got there!

*giggles* I have such a crush on Daniel Vettori.


*blush* shhhhhh, don't tell anyone. ;)

And the Stormers beat the Sharks, didn't they? I live in Victoria, where they don't even broadcast the Super 12. :(

Heaps of young ladies do ;) Apparently his mother has women coming up to her in the supermarket saying 'thanks to your son, my son will wear his glasses'.

Yes indeed, the Stormers beat the sharks showing that they are the most likely of the South African teams again. If you have sky over here in NZ, and loads of people do now, you get every super 12 game live.

Yes indeed, the Stormers beat the sharks showing that they are the most likely of the South African teams again. If you have sky over here in NZ, and loads of people do now, you get every super 12 game live.

I'm a poor student who can't afford Foxtel. :( Which means I miss all overseas cricket too. *cries*

AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND
All the major political peoples in this part of the world are incredibly racist and conservative, so, fudge em.

Racist? no.... Well, not these days.
Conservative? Too much.
Afraid of spending money? Yes.

I'm a poor student who can't afford Foxtel. :( Which means I miss all overseas cricket too. *cries*

I'm living at home with my parents, all the sport chans and a 34" flat screen :D

When I move out, the place either has to have sky, be near a sports bar, or near a mates place that has sky. If I can't waste away a day watching a dire 5th day draw unfold, what can I do?

Still think that Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta are cities?
They're curries aren't they?

I'm glad I'm over here and haven't had to see the sad spectacle of NZ been absolutely slaughted by the Aussies. The tests will be even worse. Bracewell's only a good One-day coach. He's crap at the 5-day game.

Anyway, back on the topic - considereing there are some Antipodeans here, and no-one else is mentioning Oceania, who's your best leader?
A few ideas:
Bill Rowling
Rob Muldoon
Sitiveni Rabuka
Malcom Fraser
Paul Keating
Taufa'ahau Tupou IV (King of Tonga) - Surely wins the award for heaviest leader (weighing in at an impressive 200kgs)

If I can't waste away a day watching a dire 5th day draw unfold, what can I do?
I hear ya. Lying on the couch, aircon on, cold drink in hand. :) That's the life. (I sound so blokey :p)

I hear ya. Lying on the couch, aircon on, cold drink in hand. :) That's the life. (I sound so blokey :p)

When I move out of home, I'm so getting foxtel.

I hear ya. Lying on the couch, aircon on, cold drink in hand. :) That's the life. (I sound so blokey :p)

You sound like the perfect women :P Actually, I always seem to proove the 'opposites attract' thing every time I end up with a girl so maybe not :( .

I doubt that violent acts against random civilian individuals were the work of the ANC party structure, although I do acknowledge the "armed struggle" and feel it was perfectly justified in light of the fact that the state only ever engaged the black population in a violent way. You have NEVER answered me on the issue on hundreds of protestors killed at Sharpeville or in Soweto in 76. Black lives worth less to you huh?



Sharpeville and Soweto were acts of police self-defense against domestic insurrection.

Sharpeville and Soweto were acts of police self-defense against domestic insurrection.
IMO, insurrection against oppression is eprfectly justified. What did you expect, for black people to lie down and take it? And I hardly call gunning down unarmed schoolkids "self defense." :rolleyes:

You sound like the perfect women
I get that a lot. ;) *shifty*

I get that a lot. ;) *shifty*


Don't worry, I'm sure you have some sinister underside or horrible secret that changes all that :p

IMO, insurrection against oppression is eprfectly justified. What did you expect, for black people to lie down and take it? And I hardly call gunning down unarmed schoolkids "self defense." :rolleyes:


I get that a lot. ;) *shifty*



They were unlawfully assembled and they had no right to be where they were. They were asked to leave, the police pleaded with them to leave, they refused to leave. After that, they really had nobody to blame but themselves.

And calling communist agitators, "Schoolkids" is loaded language designed to add sympathy to a communist cause.

Let's be open about it, I'm willing to admit that folks were indeed mowed down, but they were communists, you need to be open about that. Also be open about the fact that they were all breaking the law by assembling.

Don't worry, I'm sure you have some sinister underside or horrible secret that changes all that

*hides the corpses*

Why, whatever would make you say that?

They were unlawfully assembled and they had no right to be where they were. They were asked to leave, the police pleaded with them to leave, they refused to leave. After that, they really had nobody to blame but themselves.

And calling communist agitators, "Schoolkids" is loaded language designed to add sympathy to a communist cause.

Let's be open about it, I'm willing to admit that folks were indeed mowed down, but they were communists, you need to be open about that. Also be open about the fact that they were all breaking the law by assembling.

You don't get it do you? The law WAS UNJUST!! It sure as hell should have been broken.

And it's ok to mow down "communists?" Oh, and you show your utter ignorance by misusing the word communists. I also note your failure to address any of my points.

Goodbye, I don't feel the need to waste my ire and intellect on you anymore.

Edit: The protestors were in actual fact schoolkids... The protest was about the curriculum and the use of Afrikaans. Some of them may have been communists, but it was NOT first and foremost a communist protest. Get some facts straight...

*hides the corpses*

Why, whatever would make you say that?


No women can hang out and act like a guy without them :P Its part of being a guy.

*Edit: The protestors were in actual fact schoolkids... The protest was about the curriculum and the use of Afrikaans. Some of them may have been communists, but it was NOT first and foremost a communist protest. Get some facts straight...



I know quite well what it was about, the use of Afrikaans in a land founded by the people who came to speak the language. Since South Africa is the land of the Boer, they darn well ought to be able to have their language as the official language.

Since South Africa is the land of the Boer, they darn well ought to be able to have their language as the official language.
You're so far off in fairyland it's not funny. :rolleyes:

You're so far off in fairyland it's not funny. :rolleyes:

Everyone but him knows it, thats why most of us have given up on arguing with him. I'm still not convinced he's not making it all up (Snubis* anyone?)








*For those of you who have joined within the last year, disregard.

Everyone but him knows it, thats why most of us have given up on arguing with him. I'm still not convinced he's not making it all up
I probably should give up, it's just the South Africa issue is a bit close to home. (And the racism and sexism... but I could probably let those slide since there are plenty of people like that around here that I DO manage to ignore)

For each region, put the name of your favorite political leader of all time of that region.

North America
Pierre Elliot Trudeau - Canada
He was charismatic, he spoke to the younger generation, he kicked treasonist FLQ terrorist ass! 'Nuff said!

Central America & the Caribbean
Fidel Castro - Cuba

South America
This guy! ---> :cool:

Western Europe
God save the Queen! We mean it man!...
On second though, I pick: Winston Churchill - UK

Eastern Europe
You know, Hitler did a lot of great things before 1939(did you know he was Time magazines man of the year 1938?), but then what he did after 1939 eliminates him as a contender. And Stalin was a great leader during WWII, but after the war he had this nasty habit of killing his own people in record numbers so he's definitely out.
I give up.

Africa
Bishop Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. I can't decide which.

Middle East
It's a tie. They all suck. (Israel included)
My final answer: Who ever can bring peace to that area of the world.

Central Asia
Mao Tse Tung (China) had great vision, but his plans were idiotic. I mean, melting down the peasants woks to increase the countrys iron exports? Come on! So Mao's definitely out of the picture.
How about the Han Dynasty?

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi Minh - Viet Nam

Far East
Tokugawa Ieasu - Japan

Australia/New Zealand
Aussies are just cool in their own right! I'll say Paul Hogan for comedic value though. Either that or the band "8 Foot Sativa" from New Zealand!... Oh wait, you said political leaders right? My bad.

North America
Abraham Lincoln

Central America & the Caribbean
This one i'm having trouble with. I can remember the face but not the name...

South America
I'm not sure how much I like Lulu in office- but I really admire his background

Western Europe
Henry V - just for Agencourt

Eastern Europe
Alexander

Africa
Nelson Mandella

Middle East
Again, i'm having trouble with my names. There was a ruler during the crusades that sought peace with Richard.

Central Asia
Ghandi

Southeast Asia
I'm not sure. Ho Chi Ming fought off the Japanese/French/American occupiers, but aside from that, i'm not sure i care for him. When i think about communists, i just can't forget that Lennin hated Beethoven's music- and you just can't build a country on Beethoven hatred.

Far East
The Current Dhali Llama (is it the sixteenth?) the one who had to contend with the Chinese invasion.

Australia/New Zealand
Admittedly, I am quite ignorant of Australian polotics. Sorry again.

North America - Abraham Lincoln (He freed the slaves)

Central America - Pablo Monsanto (Although he led a revolutionist army/politic al group that wanted to overthrow the government, he almost cried in his joy when he found out they could agree on peace)

South America - Fernando Henrique Carodoso (He did great things for Brazil economically even though he screwed up with the whole land issue)

Western Europe - King Louis XIV (Dunno... heard he was good)

Eastern Europe - Alexander The Great/Emperor Augustus (Augustus restored peace and revived economic stability after the civil war and Alexander is just... great)

Africa - Nelson Mandela (Need I say more?)

Middle East - Muhammad (A man that had turned something everyone hated into something that spanned across most of the world and even after his death, Islam grows at a rapid rate)

Central Asia - Mahatma Ghandi (Made a huge influence on politics and the world without resorting to violence)

Far East - Genghis Khan (Best Asian conquerer?)

Pacific Asia/Oceania - Lee Kuan Yew (First Prime Minister of Singapore as an independant nation. He kept his seat from 1959 - 1990 through great troubles that hit the country)

Jesus, what's with all the Ian Smith admirers? I thought RB wasn't a white supremacist, and here he is defending somebody who was in favor of white minority rule and said that giving the vote to the natives was just asking for "black tyranny".

I'm not a white supremacist. Neither is Smith. He was not opposed to majority rule; he was opposed to immediate majority rule. Moreover, blacks already had voting rights (and had them since 1923).

The ANC is FAR from Communist. They had LINKS withthe SACP and COSATU but they themselves were never Communist.

Many of them were and are. Mandela was never officially a member, but he wrote a piece of work called How to be a Good Communist. He lauds Quaddafi, Castro, and Arafat as 'comrades in arms.' He was often photographed with communists at SACP rallies, and was often photographed raising a clenched fist.

I doubt that violent acts against random civilian individuals were the work of the ANC party structure, although I do acknowledge the "armed struggle" and feel it was perfectly justified in light of the fact that the state only ever engaged the black population in a violent way. You have NEVER answered me on the issue on hundreds of protestors killed at Sharpeville or in Soweto in 76. Black lives worth less to you huh?

I have no sympathy for apartheid. What happened in Sharpeville in Soweto was a terrible, unfortunate tragedy that should never have happened. However, I despise how leftists twist the facts around. The 'protesters,' were, in both cases, armed, dangerous, and rioting. The police fired in self-defense in those cases. And no, I am NOT defending apartheid, the police, or the government. Apartheid was one of the most odious, abominable, and hideously inhuman things in history.

Actually, and I HAVE explained this to you before, he was imprisoned for treason. But yes, as I have stated above I am aware of the armed struggle.

The overwhelming majority of the victims were black.

Southeast Asia
I'm not sure. Ho Chi Ming fought off the Japanese/French/American occupiers, but aside from that, i'm not sure i care for him. When i think about communists, i just can't forget that Lennin hated Beethoven's music- and you just can't build a country on Beethoven hatred.

Ho Chi Minh, contrary to popular misconception, never fought the Japanese. He spent his time during World War II collaborating with the Japanese and French, selling out genuine patriots to them in exchange for gold. Like Mao, he didn't fight the invaders, as a genuine patriot would; instead, he spent the time terrorizing peasants into submission and massacring thousands of political rivals- often by burying them alive, so only their head was above ground, and then driving harrows across the field, tearing their head apart.

Somehow I find that hard to believe, but I'll read up on it if I can.

And no, the ANC were most definetely not communists - but I don't hold it against them :p It's true that Nelson Mandela is too often portrayed in our school system as some sort of pacifist who would never hurt a fly rather than the badass guerilla commander that he was, and that's a shame.

As for this necklacing nonsense - the only source I've seen that even remotely backs that up is some book RB kept referring to that appears to have been written by a white mercenary who worked with the apartheid government, so I have a feeling its a load of horseshit. And even if it isn't, their struggle still would have been more than justified, since no resistance movement is ever perfect. They have to deal with real situations and conditions on the ground most of us sitting here moralizing in front of our computers never could. The American revolutionaries, for example..

-tortured tax collectors ("civilians" in modern parlance) through tarring and feathering.

-engaged in land seizures from people who remained loyal to the crown, and created many thousands of refugees fleeing to Canada that way.

-Hanged people who were suspected collaborators or spies for the royal government.

None of that means, however, that the US didn't need a bourgeois revolution against monarchy at some point in its history.

As for the fellow who put down Avakian too (see, I knew I wasn't the only one), Nosin: interesting choice given Trotsky's on there too; though however much I disagree with his theories he was an exceptional military and political leader during the civil war period. Out of curiosity though, how do you define Mao's "early years" and what after that did you find bad or objectionable?

As for this necklacing nonsense - the only source I've seen that even remotely backs that up is some book RB kept referring to that appears to have been written by a white mercenary who worked with the apartheid government, so I have a feeling its a load of horseshit.

Want to see pictures?

http://WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org/photos11.asp

Ho Chi Minh, contrary to popular misconception, never fought the Japanese. He spent his time during World War II collaborating with the Japanese and French, selling out genuine patriots to them in exchange for gold. Like Mao, he didn't fight the invaders, as a genuine patriot would; instead, he spent the time terrorizing peasants into submission and massacring thousands of political rivals- often by burying them alive, so only their head was above ground, and then driving harrows across the field, tearing their head apart.

That's totally, totally backwards. It was Chiang that was sitting around with his dick in his hand while the Japanese were rampaging through China, and Mao and the CCP who were actually putting up genuine resistance to the invaders. Chiang spent more time attacking Mao than he did the Japanese. This I get from a book called Red Flower of China , by a woman who lived through the cultural revolution and was an anti-communist by the time she put pen to paper to write her autobiography.

As for Ho Chi Minh, I suppose that explains why so many nationalist parties joined the Vietminh, why the nationalist, non-communist NLF was more than willing to work with his government, and why him and his party got %80 of the popular vote in the NV elections.. no?

As for Ho Chi Minh, I suppose that explains why so many nationalist parties joined the Vietminh, why the nationalist, non-communist NLF was more than willing to work with his government, and why him and his party got %80 of the popular vote in the NV elections.. no?

You do know that the elections were rigged, right? Diem and Ho both rigged their elections.

That's totally, totally backwards. It was Chiang that was sitting around with his dick in his hand while the Japanese were rampaging through China, and Mao and the CCP who were actually putting up genuine resistance to the invaders. Chiang spent more time attacking Mao than he did the Japanese. This I get from a book called Red Flower of China , by a woman who lived through the cultural revolution and was an anti-communist by the time she put pen to paper to write her autobiography.

Chiang fought both the Japanese and the communists. Mao did a little fighting, but not much. He spent most of his time recruiting peasants.

As for Ho Chi Minh, I suppose that explains why so many nationalist parties joined the Vietminh, why the nationalist, non-communist NLF was more than willing to work with his government, and why him and his party got %80 of the popular vote in the NV elections.. no?

The NLF were not 'nationalist, non-communists.' They were Hanoi's puppet.

Well, for one thing, How To Be A Good Communist was a CHINESE book written by Liu Shiaoqui, so their credibility is rapidly going out the window. Secondly, pictures of dead people don't necessarily prove the ANC did it or that it was a matter of ANC policy. The people who did that could have been ANC, rogue ANC, guerillas, SWAPO, SACP, whatever the other non-communist resistance group was called, bandits, or hell, even the Apartheid government itself to make them look stupid.

I do not, however, have any problem with using bombs against targets related to an oppressive, white-supremacist state. Anyone who kills fascists is OK by me.

Well, for one thing, How To Be A Good Communist was a CHINESE book written by Liu Shiaoqui, so their credibility is rapidly going out the window. Secondly, pictures of dead people don't necessarily prove the ANC did it or that it was a matter of ANC policy. The people who did that could have been ANC, rogue ANC, guerillas, SWAPO, SACP, whatever the other non-communist resistance group was called, bandits, or hell, even the Apartheid government itself to make them look stupid.

I do not, however, have any problem with using bombs against targets related to an oppressive, white-supremacist state. Anyone who kills fascists is OK by me.

Mandela also wrote a book called How To Be a Good Communist.

I do not, however, have any problem with using bombs against targets related to an oppressive, white-supremacist state. Anyone who kills fascists is OK by me.

So killing innocent people (white and black) with no affiliation with the government is okay?

Here's a link to How To Be a Good Communist (http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/goodcom.html).

North America

George W. Bush

Diem never even HELD elections, and I've never seen anything indicating that the elections were rigged; I don't even recall the United States claiming that at the time. They just refused to hold their own elections, period.

BTW: You just admitted that Chiang attacked the Communists and that Mao built up his forces and primarily fought the Japanese. That just proves my point, especially since Chiang agreed to a United Front against the Japanese and then used his resources to start attacking the CCP anyway.

And...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNnlf.htm

" Ho Chi Minh agreed to supply the guerrilla units with aid. He also encouraged the different armed groups to join together and form a more powerful and effective resistance organisation. This they agreed to do and in December, 1960, the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) was formed. The NLF, or the 'Vietcong', as the Americans were to call them, was made up of over a dozen different political and religious groups. Although the leader of the NLF, Hua Tho, was a non-Marxist, Saigon lawyer, large numbers of the movement were supporters of communism.

The NLF put forward a ten-point programme. It included the replacement of the Catholic dominated Ngo Dinh Diem administration with a government that: "represented all social classes and religions."

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you; as far as you're concerned, communists or people who work with communists are automatically evil, bloodthirsty maniacs.

But that makes absolutely no sense. If Mandela was a communist, why didn't he join the SACP instead of forming his own group and "spear of the nation"? And why did SA, under his leadership, basically adopt relatively free-market, neo liberal economic policies?

ehm...

North America
Abe

Central America & the Caribbean
Castro

South America
Che

Western Europe
Churchill (lovely chap)
close second: Guy Verhofstadt

Eastern Europe
There's an Eastern Europe now???

Africa
Mandela

Middle East
Saladin

Central Asia
Ghengis khan

Southeast Asia
eeeeeeeeeeeeh...

Far East
Far what?

Australia/New Zealand
sheep #1547828

Diem never even HELD elections, and I've never seen anything indicating that the elections were rigged; I don't even recall the United States claiming that at the time. They just refused to hold their own elections, period.

BTW: You just admitted that Chiang attacked the Communists and that Mao built up his forces and primarily fought the Japanese. That just proves my point, especially since Chiang agreed to a United Front against the Japanese and then used his resources to start attacking the CCP anyway.

And...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNnlf.htm

" Ho Chi Minh agreed to supply the guerrilla units with aid. He also encouraged the different armed groups to join together and form a more powerful and effective resistance organisation. This they agreed to do and in December, 1960, the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) was formed. The NLF, or the 'Vietcong', as the Americans were to call them, was made up of over a dozen different political and religious groups. Although the leader of the NLF, Hua Tho, was a non-Marxist, Saigon lawyer, large numbers of the movement were supporters of communism.

The NLF put forward a ten-point programme. It included the replacement of the Catholic dominated Ngo Dinh Diem administration with a government that: "represented all social classes and religions."

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you; as far as you're concerned, communists or people who work with communists are automatically evil, bloodthirsty maniacs.

Yes, Diem did hold elections. But as I said, they were rigged (during the referendum between him and Bao Dai, for example, he 'won' over 98.6% of the vote).

The NLF's ten point program was hogwash. They were not interested in 'representing all social classes and religions.' They murdered intellectuals, the upper middle-class, priests, Christians, etc. Read all about the real Ho Chi Minh and NLF in Death by Government by R.J. Rummel; Deliver us from Evil by Dr. Thomas Dooley; The Vietcong Strategy of Terror by Douglas Pike; How We Lost the Vietnam War and Buddha's Child: My Fight to Save Vietnam by Nguyen Cao Ky; United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Internal Security, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam; http://www.fva.org/0197/d_q_hoa.htm; Background to Betrayal by Hilaire du Berrier; The Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean-Louis Margolin; American Opinion, February 1968; American Opinion, May 1968; American Opinion, January 1969; Newsweek, May 15, 1967; Time, December 15, 1967; Reader's Digest, November 1968; and The New American, February 1988.

But that makes absolutely no sense. If Mandela was a communist, why didn't he join the SACP instead of forming his own group and "spear of the nation"? And why did SA, under his leadership, basically adopt relatively free-market, neo liberal economic policies?

I never said he was a communist. He was extremely pro-communist, often collaborated with them, and shared many of their views, but technically, he never was one.

Btw, thanks for arguing in a civil, rational, courteous manner, Kanendru. You have definitely earned my highest respect.

Well, there we go then. I was never arguing anything different.

Not that I think there's anything wrong with working with communists of course (if everybody thought that I'd get lonely after awhile :( )

North America: Franklin Roosevelt, Pierre Trudeau, Ronald Reagan

Western Europe: Winston Churchill, Willy Brandt, Fransisco Franco, Antonio de Olivera Salazar

Eastern Europe: Alexander Dubcek, Tito

Africa: Ian Smith

Far East: Chiang Kai-Shek, Eisaku Sato

Australia/New Zealand: John Curtin

Many of them were and are. Mandela was never officially a member, but he wrote a piece of work called How to be a Good Communist. He lauds Quaddafi, Castro, and Arafat as 'comrades in arms.' He was often photographed with communists at SACP rallies, and was often photographed raising a clenched fist.



I have no sympathy for apartheid. What happened in Sharpeville in Soweto was a terrible, unfortunate tragedy that should never have happened. However, I despise how leftists twist the facts around. The 'protesters,' were, in both cases, armed, dangerous, and rioting. The police fired in self-defense in those cases. And no, I am NOT defending apartheid, the police, or the government. Apartheid was one of the most odious, abominable, and hideously inhuman things in history.



The overwhelming majority of the victims were black.



Then I wll defend it because I LOVED it.

1) There are more blacks unemployed in SA today than under apartheid.

2) SA went from one of the safest industrial countries to the most dangerous country in the world, of any country, since apartheid fell.

3) SA now = rape capital of the world. Apartheid law was clear, rape = capital crime. (The first thing Mandela did was abolish capital punishment)

4) Their economy has tanked (The Rand used to be worth more than the USD, but now 1 USD gets about 6 Rand. That's how it started with Rhodesia, where the Rhodesian currency was worth 1.5 USD, then after a decade and a half of Mugabe it was nearly nothing, today it's 1 USD = 7,000 Zimbabwean dollars)


I could go on and on about the massive unemployment, crime, 20 million illegal aliens living throughout SA, but it's all too awful and I am so saddened and nearly physically sick that so many people (Mostly white people I presume also) are saying Mandela was not only a good guy, but the best leader of South Africa ever. I have to go.

Then I wll defend it because I LOVED it.

1) There are more blacks unemployed in SA today than under apartheid.

2) SA went from one of the safest industrial countries to the most dangerous country in the world, of any country, since apartheid fell.

3) SA now = rape capital of the world. Apartheid law was clear, rape = capital crime. (The first thing Mandela did was abolish capital punishment)

4) Their economy has tanked (The Rand used to be worth more than the USD, but now 1 USD gets about 6 Rand. That's how it started with Rhodesia, where the Rhodesian currency was worth 1.5 USD, then after a decade and a half of Mugabe it was nearly nothing, today it's 1 USD = 7,000 Zimbabwean dollars)


I could go on and on about the massive unemployment, crime, 20 million illegal aliens living throughout SA, but it's all too awful and I am so saddened and nearly physically sick that so many people (Mostly white people I presume also) are saying Mandela was not only a good guy, but the best leader of South Africa ever. I have to go.

Don't misunderstand, I think South Africa today is a thousand times worse than it was before.

Don't misunderstand, I think South Africa today is a thousand times worse than it was before.

I agree. One could draw parallels with the collapse of the Soviet Union, since economic and political instability resulted, and the future was uncertain. Now, however, the South African economy is somewhat rebounding.

Don't get me wrong, there is still a great crime problem in South Africa, I don't deny that. So, therefore, I can understand where both RB and VE are coming from when they say that SA is much worse off now than it ever was.

What I would like to know, though, is if the ANC government will be insane enough to start doing Zimbabwe-style landgrabs and killing those who resist.

What I would like to know, though, is if the ANC government will be insane enough to start doing Zimbabwe-style landgrabs and killing those who resist.


They already are doing it, what do you mean if? They're just doing it very quietly and in different ways. The farm attacks that kill entire families, the government takes over those farms and more often than not, they get sold to Pakistanis who come in and plant poppy seeds for opium.

Also whites arrested on trumped up charges lose their property (calling a black man a "Kaffir" can get you a 10 year sentence, granted it's a very nasty word, but come on! It's a word! Whites are being killed and raped and less than 10% of murderers in South Africa will even make it to trial, and they're worried about being called a word?)

(sorry if that word offended anybody, I would have put --- in parts of it, but many folks have never heard of it and would have been confused. It's basically the SA equivalent of n--ger)

Originally Posted by The Parthians
Oh, and why in the hell are people saying Ghengis Khan was great? He was quite simply a horrible butcher and a barbarian who brought only death and destruction. His armies changed the world, before him, China's north was the most populous portion of the nation, but after his hordes ran through, it is now the south which is more populous. That pales in comparison to Persia, which was burned from one side to another. The cities of Central Asia, once Persian were destroyed and EVERY inhabitant slaughtered. Samarkand and the other cities there are now Turkish. Iran proper was less destroyed, but many of the cities were destroyed. Parts of Iran took until the 20th century to recover Pre-Mongol populations. Thats almost 800 years. Ghengis Khan is one of the most evil men, along with Alexander of Macedon, Tamerlane, Abu Bakr, and Caliph Omar.


genghis khan truely was one of the greatest leaders ever, 'cause he united mongolia(one of my favourite countries in the world) and took over asia and part of europe. if it wasn't for kublia khan they'd probably still be around and we'd live in a much better place. i imagine that the world would have all drugs illegal, a mostly agricultural society, tradition holds high values, all buisenesses owned and controlled by the main government, advertising illegal, stronge punishments against criminals. that would be a very good country! tamerlane was good too, he tried to reunite it. and stalin was good too, he revolutionized russia. if it had gotten through the troubles of the new revolution it would have became the greatest superpower and remained there. he killed all the people that didn't have the same central goals, the country would have been progressing very fast without any disagreement. and those native american tribes before the europeans took over had very respectfull ideas and culture.

I have also included famous political figures who never gained power or attempted to.

North America

Eugene Debs
Franklin Roosevelt
Noam Chomsky

Central America & the Caribbean

Fidel Castro
Daniel Ortega

South America

Hugo Chavez
Nestor Kirchner
Salvador Allende
Che Guevara

Western Europe

Karl Marx
Rosa Luxemburg
John Maclean
Manuel Azaña
Léon Blum
Clement Attlee
Tony Benn
Arthur Scargill
Michael Foot

Eastern Europe

Vladimir Illyich Lenin
Leon Trotsky
Josip Broz Tito
Nikita Khrushchev

Africa

Nelson Mandela
Kwame Nkrumah
Julius Nyerere
Samora Machel
Agostinho Neto
Muammer Qaddafi

Middle East

Mohammad Mossadeq
Yasser Arafat

South Asia

Ho Chi Minh
Jawaharlal Nehru
Muhatma Gandhi
Aung San Suu Kyi

Far East

Mao Zedong (had many faults but also did a lot of good for China)

bump

bump

And again.

.

What's going on here?
What are our criteria for "Best Leader?"

I mean, Ghengis Kahn butchered by the thousands, but created an enourmous empire that was so frail that it hardly outlived him.

If Stalin and Mao were great, then Hitler was aswell: Either one of them is responsible for more mass killings than the Nazi regime could have imagined.

Russia may have been a nice place to live if the self proclaimed "Steel Man" had not been a part of the revolution. Lennin and Trotsky (sp?) (who he had assassinated after )

If we are talking about the country achieving military greatness, then these leaders are all laudable. But i would hate to live under any of their reigns.

The greatest trouble that revolutions face is leaders who don't trust their people to keep the government in place without them.

bumpy

I have also included famous political figures who never gained power or attempted to.

South America

Salvador Allende

Middle East

Mohammad Mossadeq


Mossadegh was a communist who wanted to turn Iran over to the Soviets. His Communist oil nationalization left the industry in tatters for years until the Shah was finally able to fix it.

Allende was another commie.

Here in my home country, Canada, I like to give praise to John A Mac. - whos famous strategy was to get people frunk and then have them sign all sorts of things they otherwise wouldn't - who says politics can't be fun?!?!?! :D

Mossadegh was a communist who wanted to turn Iran over to the Soviets. His Communist oil nationalization left the industry in tatters for years until the Shah was finally able to fix it.

Allende was another commie.

Agreed. I wish the Shah were still around, so I could meet him. :(

Mossadegh was a communist who wanted to turn Iran over to the Soviets. His Communist oil nationalization left the industry in tatters for years until the Shah was finally able to fix it.

Allende was another commie.

Everyone on his list (with the possible exception of Aung San Suu Kyi) was a commie.

Allende was another commie.

He also royally fucked up Chile's economy.

And Lafollette...good choice. A Republican that doesn't make me vomit. That's pretty rare for me. Early Republicans were different. The farther back you go, the cooler the Republicans were, all the way back to Jefferson.

LaFollette is the quintessential United States progressive. He fought for the little guy, for reform, for better government. I <3 him!


yes, but people were so glad for democracy, he (Washington) didnt hafta do much

He didnt face problems other presidents didWell, he kept the nation together, dealt with that whiskey revolt and basically defined what a President should and should not do; you'll notice that Presidents were held to his standards until the last 50 years. His impact is greater than it seems.

(Sarcastically) "Yeah, all the founding fathers were just losers who made no contributions to the world. They weren't perfect like the modern liberals who have no flaws and live their lives and walk in all things Political Correctness."
Bringing your irrational hate into this is foolish of you, but I'll set it aside. Every president had his flaws, but there are better examples of Presidents than the ones you listed; I prefer Jefferson and Washington to everyone but Lincoln in those early years, but it's important to point out that they had huge conflicts in their personality.

By the way. Never compared them to "modern-day liberals" and stated that they were flawless. What's going on in your brain, man?


Really though, are you telling me if you were raised in that society, at the time, you'd not have supported slavery?Jefferson didn't. But he kept them all the same. He was a hypocrite. There's no way around it. I love the man to death, but the fact that he was a huge hypocrite - both in his thoughts on slavery and on how much power the Presidency and federal government had - is unavoidable when considering Jefferson as a whole. In addition, Washington had all of his slaves released - AFTER Martha's death. Why wait? Can freedom be put on hold? Apparently not for white Englishmen, but it's fine for blacks.

One thing I seem to find amusing, liberals have no problem bashing their own culture and history, but they can't, for the sake of diversity, even begin to criticize other cultures.This has nothing to do with the issue at stake; in fact, it isn't based on anything concerning me. Get over your contempt. It's a flaw, not a virtue.

North America
Alot of them here. Ronald Reagan is an obvious one, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John F. Kennedy

Central America & the Caribbean
Oh dear... They've had good leaders?

Western Europe
Julius Ceaser, Napoleon

Eastern Europe
Fredrick the Great

Middle East
Muhamed

Central Asia
Ghandi

bump

He also royally fucked up Chile's economy.

Pinochet fixed it royally though. ;)

Pinochet fixed it royally though. ;)

Indeed he did, just as the late, great Shah Pahlavi did with Iran. :)

Carter deserves to be tried by a court made up of Iranians, Rhodesians, Nicaraguans, and Americans.

Agreed!!!!!

Ok, let's see...

Africa: Hannibal, Nelson Mandela

North America: George Washington, Abe Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Sitting Bull!

Central America: Moctezumas II., Fidel Castro!

South America: *shrugs*

Eastern Europe: Waclav Havel, Imre Nagy, Mikhail Gorbachov

Western Europe: Charlemagne, Napoleon Bonaparte, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Winston Churchill, Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer

East Asia: *shrugs*

Middle East: Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus XIII.

India: Mahatma Gandhi

Now, however, the South African economy is somewhat rebounding.
I'd hope so, since they have natural gold, diamond and uranium deposits. :eek:

North America - Washington, for refusing to be king, and then refusing to be president for life.

Western Europe - I am inclined to Queen Victoria, who left her stamp on an entire century.

Eastern Europe - Mikhail Gorbachev, for risking his position and his safety to start turning off the lights and closing the doors of Soviet Communism.

Far East - King Sejong of Korea, a scholarly monarch who commissioned the creation of an alphabet for the Korean language that enabled widespread literacy.

Latin America:
Pinochet

Western Europe:
Prime Minister Cavour of Piedmont, Churchill, Thatcher, Bismarck, Adenauer

Eastern Europe:
King Charles Hapsburg of Austria

Africa
Cecil Rhodes

Middle East
Nebudchanezzar, Ben Gurion

North America
Dunno... hate all damn capitalists

Central America & the Caribbean
Che Gunerva

South America
Knew nothing about them

Western Europe
Clement Attlee

Eastern Europe
V.I.Lenin

Africa
Nasser, Gamel Abdel

Middle East
Yasir Arafat

Central Asia
Gandhi

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi-Mihn

Far East
Sun Yat-sen

Australia/New Zealand
Who cares?

North America
Dunno... hate all damn capitalists

Central America & the Caribbean
Che Gunerva

South America
Knew nothing about them

Western Europe
Clement Attlee

Eastern Europe
V.I.Lenin

Africa
Nasser, Gamel Abdel

Middle East
Yasir Arafat

Central Asia
Gandhi

Southeast Asia
Ho Chi-Mihn

Far East
Sun Yat-sen

Australia/New Zealand
Who cares?

Wow... I'd say welcome to the forum, but it's pretty evident that you won't last long with an attitude like that.

Western Europe

Augustus Caesar