NationStates Jolt Archive

Does it ever work?

I can only think of Washington... but what did he really do that was important?

Grant's term was full of corruption. And I heard Eisenhower was a homo.

Does it ever work?

I can only think of Washington... but what did he really do that was important?

Grant's term was full of corruption. And I heard Eisenhower was a homo.

A gay was president! OMFG dat terrible!!!1111 Gays shouldn't be allowed to be prez, cuz all theye wan iz 2 pro-mote der kine.

Wait a second...aren't you the one was upset about the Ed Zachary disease joke?

Sure it does.
What about that Democrat Ex-General? I'm still amazed that the Dems didn't use him as candidate - he could've kicked Bush senseless on security.
Not a thing he said seemed overly ideological, the man is pragmatic, realistic and nice.

There is Charles DeGaulle's France...a little nationalistic, but it remained more independent than any other European country at the time. That's gotta count for something.

As for other countries...well, most of them had military dictatorships, and those usually don't return the best results.

Does it ever work?

I can only think of Washington... but what did he really do that was important?

Grant's term was full of corruption. And I heard Eisenhower was a homo.
A great deal of American presidents served in the Military in some capacity before entering civilian life and then going on to a political career. Like say Kennedy.

What did Washington ever do that was important?


My friend.......god gave us ways to find such answers.......The Firefox, The Google, and The Holy Wikipedia.

But seriously, do some research before you attempt to answer such questions.

But seriously, do some research before you attempt to answer such questions.
As a President...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_%281793%29

All the big things he did he did as a military man. When he became Prez, his record is pretty poor if you ask me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Administration

Thanks for the info! :eek:

Julius Caesar springs to mind, for some odd reason. Maybe it's that whole "conquering Gaul" thing that he did before making himself dictator of Rome. I seem to recall reading his book about it.

:p

Does it ever work?

I can only think of Washington... but what did he really do that was important?

Grant's term was full of corruption. And I heard Eisenhower was a homo.
Lord Protector Cromwell! That went well!

Andrew Jackson was a military leader who went political leader. We got the Trail of Tears out of that. Otherwise, I think he managed to pay off the deficit. I don't think anyone has done that since him (here in the US, that is).

Duke of Wellington?

As a President...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_%281793%29

All the big things he did he did as a military man. When he became Prez, his record is pretty poor if you ask me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_AdministrationNapoleon...

Once he became Head of State...he brought France to a whole new level...his statesman record is awesome...

Napoleon...
I was thinking more modern times...politics is different now than it was then really.

I was thinking more modern times...politics is different now than it was then really.
Musharraf?

Musharraf?
Hmm, is Musharraf doing a good job in government? Aryavartha doesn't think so. :D

Hmm, is Musharraf doing a good job in government? Aryavartha doesn't think so. :DI tend to agree with Aryavartya...about Musharraf.

Hmm, is Musharraf doing a good job in government? Aryavartha doesn't think so. :D
Well, by his own standards he's doing a good job.... he's still there isn't he!? Alive too! :D

Napoleon.I was thinking more modern times...politics is different now than it was then really.meh...

the OP mentioned Washington.

Hitler was just a soldier or did he have a good rank before he tried to become political (I can't remember)

In American politics:

Washington: Hmm... Well, he didn't really do much at all in office, as the president's powers were much more restricted at that point. I have to give him credit for not becoming King George I of the United Kingdom of America, though, which he could easily have done. He also managed to hold the various new states together in the rocky first years of the country.

Jackson: I don't like Jackson much, really; he was belligerent and caused all sorts of chaos by killing the Bank of the United States; plus, there was the Trail of Tears. His only saving grace was the involvement of more people in politics.

Grant: Corrupt and ineffective, especially compared to his predecessors- Lincolnd and Johnson.

Eisenhower: Pretty much the only good thing he did was build the freeway system- as history shows, infrastructure = good. He did a lot to heighten tensions and promote fear in the first decade of the Cold War.

Kennedy: I have mixed feelings on Kennedy. On the one hand, he strongly championed civil rights, alienating the South from the Democrats and completely inverting the political landscape on a north-south basis; on the other hand, he almost got the world nuked with the Cuban Missile Crisis, his election was steeped in controversy, and he launched an illegal invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs (which could be attributed to the Cabinet, but he picked the Cabinet and gave them permission on this). Not exactly the great leader the media portrays, I think.

Rome was famous for having influential military/political leaders; however, Rome also wasn't the finest demonstration of democracy. De Gaul's Fifth Republic was the strongest one yet, but he was also an annoyingly strong nationalist. The final chancellor of the Weimar Republic was a military leader in WWI; look at how that turned out. In most other cases, military leaders taking power wound up being dictators. So, all in all, military skill doesn't translate to political skill.

meh...

the OP mentioned Washington.
True.

So, there have been instances of military leaders doing a good job. As with everything, it depends on the person - which is why I would support that General for US President too.

I was thinking more modern times...politics is different now than it was then really.Chavez...

--oviously he is no Napoleon not even close but...--

He has built record numbers of schools in poor areas, raised the Literacy in Venezuela..from third world numbers to first World rate.
He has survived the US drives for "regime change"...and he played his cards very well during Katrina-Gate.

And as a Bonus he has humiliated Bush at the Americas Summit...he has changed the dynamics of the Western Free trade Block..which will probably affect the upcoming World trade treaty negotiations.

he leads a very weak country (he has almost no military or Economic leverage)...he is a small cat...but he behaves like he was a big bad tiger...and it is working for him.

As a military Leader he was a nobody...but as a statesman he is a riot..extremely popular anytime he is in poor neighborhoods...in any country...yes even in the US.

All but 11 of the 43 US presidents served in the military. Of the 32 who served, all but 6 saw combat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_military_service

Here is a list of US political leaders who served (and did not serve) in the military: http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Although that site does have an agenda, the list is well documented (if not entierly up to date).

So it is entierly possible.

Also of note, General Wesley Clark apparantly intends to run in 2008. Senator McCain may run as well. And many people still think Colin Powell woulkd make a good candidate.

Also of note, General Wesley Clark apparantly intends to run in 2008.
Good.
You need to vote for him. The lot of you.

Good.
You need to vote for him. The lot of you.

Hmm... Clark vs. Powell... That would be pretty much the only election that both sides would feel relatively comfortable with, no matter the outcome. Too bad Powell doesn't want to run.

Hmm... Clark vs. Powell... That would be pretty much the only election that both sides would feel relatively comfortable with, no matter the outcome. Too bad Powell doesn't want to run.

Clark vs McCain would work fairly well too. And it'd be more likely. Too bad neither is likely to be acceptable to the extremists who are holding the two parties hostage to their agendas. The US really needs a viable third party. Too bad we won't see one. :(

Does it ever work?

I can only think of Washington... but what did he really do that was important?

Grant's term was full of corruption. And I heard Eisenhower was a homo.
He made love to an apple tree,introduced Pantyhouse to Maine crossed the Delaware on a Surfboard made Trolley Jousting an Internationally recognised Sport and last but not least was a Slave trader.

Hitler was just a soldier or did he have a good rank before he tried to become political (I can't remember)
Rose to the rank of Colonel, I think. He didn't remain a low infantryman. He did raise through the ranks.

Though he was able to do much better in terms of his military rank, but his superiors didn't think so because he seemed a bit anti-social, not fit for higher leadership duties.

Hitler was just a soldier or did he have a good rank before he tried to become political (I can't remember)
Rose to the rank of Colonel, I think. He didn't remain a low infantryman. He did raise through the ranks.

Though he was able to do much better in terms of his military rank, but his superiors didn't think so because he seemed a bit anti-social, not fit for higher leadership duties.

Not correct. He reached the "lofty" rank of Corporal. He never served as an officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#World_War_I
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/warone.htm
http://auschwitz.dk/Hitler.htm

Well, if we're allowed to go back in history, some of the warrior kings were decent enough as statesmen.

From Japan, Tokugawa Ieyasu was just... frightning actually.

Not correct. He reached the "lofty" rank of Corporal. He never served as an officer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#World_War_I
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/warone.htm
http://auschwitz.dk/Hitler.htm
Hey its not that big a leap from Corporal to Colonel.:p