PDA

View Full Version : Which World Leader Do You Most Admire?



scotsboyuk
17 Aug 05,, 00:40
Which world leader, in modern history i.e. 20th & 21st centuries, do you admire the most?

The poll obviously doesn't include every world leader of the past hundred and five years, but I have included those I feel to have been the main ones.

If your choice isn't listed I apologise, but please do mention him/her.

Bluesman
17 Aug 05,, 00:43
Which world leader, in modern history i.e. 20th & 21st centuries, do you admire the most?

The poll obviously doesn't include every world leader of the past hundred and five years, but I have included those I feel to have been the main ones.

If your choice isn't listed I apologise, but please do mention him/her.

Uhhh...there's a poll, is there?

Is it here right now? Can it hear us?

scotsboyuk
17 Aug 05,, 00:53
@Bluesman

Patience my young padawan ... patience ... :tongue:

I had to think of some people and type them in first.

dalem
17 Aug 05,, 01:22
Churchill.

-dale

scotsboyuk
17 Aug 05,, 01:39
@dale

I also voted for Churchill although I was also considering Mandela, Ghandi and FDR.

dalem
17 Aug 05,, 02:15
@dale

I also voted for Churchill although I was also considering Mandela, Ghandi and FDR.

They pale in comparison.

-dale

scotsboyuk
17 Aug 05,, 02:30
@dale

Well each one shone in their own way, FDR is probably the most comparable with Churchill of course, but they all achieved agreat deal.

Bluesman
17 Aug 05,, 02:39
Wow. Cool. Churchill for me, too.

He only saved civilization, is all. And then his ungrateful country dumped him for a bunch of pinko bolshie commie-symp surrenderniks, and began their long slide into also-ran status...until Maggie.

And then they stabbed her in the back, too.

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 05,, 05:45
Major-General (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie

dalem
17 Aug 05,, 06:35
Wow. Cool. Churchill for me, too.

He only saved civilization, is all. And then his ungrateful country dumped him for a bunch of pinko bolshie commie-symp surrenderniks, and began their long slide into also-ran status...until Maggie.

And then they stabbed her in the back, too.

My Jack & Coke's and cigar sez "'zactly".

-dale

Leader
17 Aug 05,, 06:42
Reagan, but I might change my mind if Bush does a good job over the next four years

giggs88
17 Aug 05,, 09:40
FDR for me.

bull
17 Aug 05,, 10:04
Gandhi,JFk and Putin

Neo
17 Aug 05,, 10:13
Gandhi...surprize! :tongue:

sparten
17 Aug 05,, 10:43
I like Ike!

bull
17 Aug 05,, 10:49
Gandhi...surprize! :tongue:
why the surprise..??

Neo
17 Aug 05,, 12:33
why the surprise..??

I'm a Pakistan born muslim and yet a true fan of him!

Ray
17 Aug 05,, 14:40
Neo,

Good for you.

You were evaluating the same from the remarkable concept of satyagraha he gave the world.

You possibly chose him for giving a new dimension to opposing tyranny.

To be frank, I was about to write Mushrraf since I find him fascinating. He has salvaged a state to international acceptance and no longer Pakistan is beign shown the red card. Yellow card, maybe, but not the red card.

It speaks volumes for Musharraf given the political and theological reality of Paklstan.

Ray
17 Aug 05,, 14:41
What about the last Pope?

He started the march against Communism.

Karthik
17 Aug 05,, 14:54
I'm a great fan of John Paul II.

I dont agree with some of views. But they were more to do with the principles and doctrines surrounding his upbringing. Great man though.

Samudra
17 Aug 05,, 15:02
I'd vote for Gandhi , but I dont follow his ideas.
I'd vote for Churchill but for his comments on India.

Let me think it over....

Bluesman
17 Aug 05,, 15:03
Neo,

Good for you.

You were evaluating the same from the remarkable concept of satyagraha he gave the world.

You possibly chose him for giving a new dimension to opposing tyranny.

To be frank, I was about to write Mushrraf since I find him fascinating. He has salvaged a state to international acceptance and no longer Pakistan is beign shown the red card. Yellow card, maybe, but not the red card.

It speaks volumes for Musharraf given the political and theological reality of Paklstan.

Couldn't agree with you more, Ray, my friend.

His situation is incredibly dangerous and complex. He has been shrewd and courageous, and is doing about the best job he can. If he is overthrown and/or assasinated, it will be a tragedy for his people, India, the US, and opponents of extremism everywhere.

Neo
17 Aug 05,, 15:44
Neo,

Good for you.

You were evaluating the same from the remarkable concept of satyagraha he gave the world. You possibly chose him for giving a new dimension to opposing tyranny.

Correct!


To be frank, I was about to write Mushrraf since I find him fascinating. He has salvaged a state to international acceptance and no longer Pakistan is beign shown the red card. Yellow card, maybe, but not the red card.

It speaks volumes for Musharraf given the political and theological reality of Paklstan.

Musharraf was not mentioned on the list and to be honest I didn't want to provoke a certain group of posters by adding his name.
I would be a shame to see this interesting thread being ruined by useless posts as direct result.

But I'm truly admire him for many many reasons.
He's is the strongest leader in decades and one that has earned his place into millions of hearts..in- and outside Pakistan.

I believe that he's the right person that can turn Pakistan into a secular state.
He grew up in Turkey and has referred to Kemal Pasha Atta Turk as his inspiror and wants Pakistan to be a 'Turkey model' secular state.

He will even give his life to Pakistan.

Thats my leader, my hero!

Asim Aquil
17 Aug 05,, 16:42
No Jinnah?

Put one up, for Jinnah. I admire him and try my best to be as much like him as possible.

Ray
17 Aug 05,, 17:04
Neo,

Valid.

TopHatter
17 Aug 05,, 17:15
Voted for Winston naturally.

TWO votes for Bill Clinton? :eek:

I have a pretty good idea of one person that voted for him....

I wonder who the other person was though...

Dreadnought
17 Aug 05,, 17:30
IMO Churchill was a definate. No one could deliver a speech and raise pride like that man could. He was certainly one of a kind and I think Great Britian was fortunate to have him. De Gaulle are you freakin kidding me I associate that word along with another.. "FRENCH" both meaning the same thing pu**y's please all that guy did was take credit for the work all of the other countries did. He didnt even stay in France during WWII he ran for the safety of England while he paraded around as if he was something. But yet wanted to give the victory speech after we liberated France clearing the way of germans what a pu**y.Even the King and Queen refused to leave England when the Germans bombed them several times and almost into submission. Ronald Reagan I believe was a fair man and probably one of the last U.S. presidents that commanded the utmost respect. Maggie Thatcher wow talk about one tough bi**h. She reminded me alot of a female Churchill in the way she would take a stand. Her and Ronald Reagan were almost like a perfect team together. The jury is still out on Bush and Blair for now.
As far as any Russian... they were just puppets to the premier nothing more nothing less. Schroeder is another joke he wont do anything about terrorism but talk and appease and we all know why because hes afraid and also the fact that whats left of his country is overwelmingly populated by muslims and hes afraid of them along with France.

Repatriated Canuck
17 Aug 05,, 17:33
I admire Churchill so much. I just took a book out of the library on him that goes over his military record. My absolute favourite picture of him is the one the Nazis dropped on England as propaganda. It’s him in a top hat smoking his usual cigar with a Tommy Gun under his left arm. They tried to say he was just a thug gangster that would bring about the ruin of Great Britain but they just loved him even more.

If anyone votes De Gaulle I’ll internet slap them good.

Vive le Quebec Libre my ass. He started so much **** in Canada with that one. I hope that bastard rots in hell right beside Trudeau.

TopHatter
17 Aug 05,, 17:48
He didnt even stay in France during WWII he ran for the safety of England while he paraded around as if he was something. But yet wanted to give the speech after we cleared the way of germans what a pu**y.Even the King and Queen refused to leave England when the Germans bombed them several times and almost into submission. .

I am not going to defend De Gaulle as a leader, nor any of his actions, save one.
I will defend his decision to retreat from France to Great Britain.

De Gaulle could do far more to bring about the liberation of France by going to Great Britain than he could wasting away in some German Stalag.

As for the King and Queen staying in Great Britain, I will also point out that their country had not been invaded and overrun like De Gualle's.
They were enduring a terror bombing by the Luftwaffe and did set a great example for their subjects. They can and should be admired for this.

But comparing their refusal to evacuate to Canada to De Gaulle's withdrawing from France simply would not be accurate until Guderian's panzers were rolling onto the beaches of England.

Ray
17 Aug 05,, 17:52
Dreadnought,

I am afaid you are making your dislike for the French since they did not support the War in Iraq too obvious.

France was overrun by the Germans. If de Gaulle hung around you would call him a traitor or even worse - a collaborator

Therefore in such a situation what would you do if you were de Gaulle? To pre empt you he was not a common citizen that he could be the archtypical French Resistance that you see in the War movies - pub owners bicycling around the village carrying messages!

If UK was overrun by the Germans, would you expect the Royalty to hang around?

Just to be obtuse to indicate your line of argument, let me ask: the last time an aircraft was spotted near the White House, who scampered for cover?

Now to answer the "scampering for cover" from the logical standpoint. It is but necessary that people of import move to secret locations when unidentified aircrafts violate the security zone. They have to move out not because they are scared, but because it is essential to ensure that the decision making personage do not get wiped out in an attack.

I am sure you would not agree with Osama if he termed it as running away!

Therefore, you post on De Gaulle is invalid.

Ray
17 Aug 05,, 17:54
Hey Top Hatter,

You beat me to it!

I thought I was the fastest gun in the East! ;)

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 05,, 17:56
De Gaulle could do far more to bring about the liberation of France by going to Great Britain than he could wasting away in some German Stalag.

French Algiers.

Dreadnought
17 Aug 05,, 18:19
Im sorry Ray but I dont agree with you on that point. But thats the great thing about opinions...everybody has one. If your asking me if they should evacuate a us president because of a private plane has violated the airspace my answer would be no. It should be shot down period thats why its a no fly zone and those that violate it should be shot down regardless. The White House can very easily sustain a significant blow without collapse just in its design after the great fire 1814 and its redesign after the West wing fire of 1929 during the FDR term. As far as my point with DeGaulle is that he had no Army and very little support that was not either surpressed or in hiding. Instead he ran to England and called the shots from there. Which isint so bad although he had very little to offer the Allies as far as anything substainable yet he felt that he should call the shots after the Allies had appointed a supreme commander of the Allied Forces. In other words he was writng checks with his mouth that his country and army certainly could not cash. This being he still wanted to call the shots. In my beliefe all he did was argue his so called pride and if anything hinder the Allied efforts. But then again thats just my opinion. Oh and umm Ray Britian was on the brink of being invaded had the Battle of Britan gone the wrong way for Churchill but yet the Monarchy chose to stay to the end including the several bombings of London because they're presence encouraged the troops and they knew the troops would follow Churchill even to defeat if need be. Even know they were offered sanctuary here in the U.S. and in Canada. Sorry Ray but in my eyes France has the most mouth about pride with the least amount of ass as far as protecting it. And umm Ray like Russia with Chechnia and Germany itself they wont be able to look away much more about the terrorist problems that will soon be on their doorstep if not already. Like Churchill called the problem with Germany "A gathering storm" then im sure there will be an about face on that issue wait and see probably not with us on Iraq but the problem of terrorism in general and if im wrong i'll be the first to admit it but i dont forsee it.

Fairthought
17 Aug 05,, 18:27
If the Royal family had chosen to flee to America for Sanctuary before a single German soldier set foot on British soil, they would have been grilled for their cowardice.

Dreadnought
17 Aug 05,, 18:32
I certainly believe that to be true Fair.

Broken
17 Aug 05,, 18:41
FDR.

Compared to Churchill, FDR chose better commanders, had better strategic insight, and a more accurate assessment of the post-war world.

Even Stalin saw FDR as a more dangerous potential opponent than Churchill, and not only because FDR was head of a more powerful country.

In Stalin's view, "Churchill will pick your pocket for a kopeck. Roosevelt only reaches in for the bigger coins." Stalin felt Roosevelt timed the Normandy invasion perfectly... for Roosevelt. Any earlier, and the Allies would have taken far higher casualties. Any later, and the Soviets would have controlled almost all of Germany.

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 05,, 18:48
De Gaulle's actions during WWII certainly did not erase the cowardice lable.

TopHatter
17 Aug 05,, 19:21
Hey Top Hatter,
You beat me to it!
I thought I was the fastest gun in the East! ;)

You are indeed Brigadier. I however, am merely making a run for title here in the West :)


French Algiers.

De Gaulle's actions during WWII certainly did not erase the cowardice lable.

Unless I misread Dreadnought's post, I think he was taking De Gaulle to task for leaving France altogether.

De Gaulle (and Leclerc) for that matter, were 2 of the most self-serving officers officers of the war. It's just a shame that it had to be France that needed to be liberated and not a more grateful country.

The French people of that generation were and are grateful.
It's a shame that France's leaders didnt follow their example.

Officer of Engineers
17 Aug 05,, 19:37
Unless I misread Dreadnought's post, I think he was taking De Gaulle to task for leaving France altogether.

De Gaulle (and Leclerc) for that matter, were 2 of the most self-serving officers officers of the war.

Didn't you just answer your own question? If it was a matter of leaving for GB to raise an army, that's different. However, he left to shout from the sidelines. That's cowardice.

Dreadnought
17 Aug 05,, 19:48
Thanks guys for putting my point across from a different angle. The defense rests...lol :rolleyes:

TopHatter
17 Aug 05,, 20:26
Didn't you just answer your own question? If it was a matter of leaving for GB to raise an army, that's different. However, he left to shout from the sidelines. That's cowardice.

I'm only going to half-heartedly respond on this one because I still can't believe I'm defending De Gaullle....

The original statement by Dreadnought was:

"He didnt even stay in France during WWII he ran for the safety of England while he paraded around as if he was something"

My point is this, Yes of course he ran for the safety of England. What was the point in staying on in France? It couldnt be because he had a fondness for sauerkraut.
Even screaming on the sidelines kept the plight of the French people and the need to launch a cross-Channel assault in the media.

Anyway.

I think we can all agree that De Gaulle was not somebody we admire. :)

Leader
17 Aug 05,, 21:48
Putin

:confused: How is he worthy of admiration?

Dreadnought
18 Aug 05,, 00:02
Agreed. Sorry but I'd sooner vote for the three stooges :tongue:

Samudra
18 Aug 05,, 05:30
I made up my mind to vote for Gandhi.

He was the one who inspired Mandela and a dozen others worldwide.

sparten
18 Aug 05,, 06:19
Ike, casue he was reasponsible for defeating the German in the West, and later as President presided over the largest boom in US History.

bull
18 Aug 05,, 06:41
:confused: How is he worthy of admiration?

Crushing arms!!! i am fan of his crushing arm....

I voted for gandhi in the poll as my choice among the listed, but my favourite is not put up there..but then thats ok everyone wont have my opinion.....

Leader
18 Aug 05,, 06:48
"Crushing arms!!! i am fan of his crushing arm...."

I'm not sure I understand that completely, but couldn't you make the same argument for Saddam or Stalin or Hitler. Thou Putin isn't on that level yet.

bull
18 Aug 05,, 07:59
"Crushing arms!!! i am fan of his crushing arm...."

I'm not sure I understand that completely, but couldn't you make the same argument for Saddam or Stalin or Hitler. Thou Putin isn't on that level yet.

Well the three you mentioned used their crushing arms to int'l community and they got what they deserved.
Putin is not of that gene,he is 21st century democratic arms twister.

Leader
18 Aug 05,, 08:31
"Putin is not of that gene,he is 21st century democratic arms twister."

I question the extent to which Putin is a "democrat" and Russia is a "democracy." Putin has also seen fit to interfere in the elections of neighboring countries.

bull
18 Aug 05,, 09:13
"Putin is not of that gene,he is 21st century democratic arms twister."

I question the extent to which Putin is a "democrat" and Russia is a "democracy." Putin has also seen fit to interfere in the elections of neighboring countries.

Well yeah have to agree...but he is a strong leader....especially the way he has been cornering out his opponenants.

Samudra
18 Aug 05,, 11:10
Putin has also seen fit to interfere in the elections of neighboring countries.

Cant push it too far , I think.
Its all a matter of perspective.

An Example : Churchill whom 25% of us have confessed to admire is famous
for his comments on India's independence.Makes him any less great ?

Not , IMO.
So you simply cant find a perfect leader and therefore if one finds
Putin to be good enough to be admired at , it is best that he is left
to his opinion. :)

Samudra
18 Aug 05,, 11:28
Oh and someone do read Churchills statement in the House of Commons (1920) on the Jalian Wallabagh Massarce , India.

Pretty Smart , I'd tell you.
People of Britian ought to be ever gratefull to this man.

bull
18 Aug 05,, 12:52
well still i am unhappy that the my favourite, "b i t c h" has been left out of the poll

scotsboyuk
18 Aug 05,, 17:47
One of the reasons I voted for Churchill was because he didn't care about political labels. He was, in his time, both a Liberal and a Conservative and he didn't seem to care, he was more interested in getting the job done.

He advocated some of the early social welfare reforms in Britain as well as championing capitalism.

His comments on India should be taken in context of course, he was a product of his time when most Britons thought that they were almost divinely favoured and better than all other peoples. There was a certain arrogance to the British mentality at that time, and I suppose there still is now, that Britons are better than other people and if one isn't British, no matter how much one may like that person or admire them, they just aren't ... well British. It isn't really intended as an insult, it is just a peculiar national sentiment. It isn't quite as evident a view today as it would have been in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Churchill was a product of an age, in which whites were seen a sbeing superior to non-whites. He wasn't a racist, but he had the attitudes that were prevalent at the time. One shouldn't condemn him becaus eof current values.

He wasn't voted the Greatest Briton for nothing.

dalem
18 Aug 05,, 17:58
Churchill was a leader above all else.

-dale

scotsboyuk
18 Aug 05,, 18:05
@dalem

Yes he was, he had a sense of history and his own manifest destiny. He did not believe for a second that he would not do something great and I seem to recall that as a young boy he commented that one day he would lead the nation through war and defend the capital against attack. What makes him such a great leader is not only that fact that he had the same pig headed stupidity that all great British leaders do i.e. a refusal to face the stark reality of the situation and instead simply carry on until one wins no matter what, but he actually believed that victory would come when everyone else said that defeat was imminent. He didn't doubt for a moment that Britain would prevail.

Samudra
18 Aug 05,, 18:17
Scots

We understand the context of things pretty well , it is undeniable that Churchill was a leader that UK can never forget. :)

scotsboyuk
18 Aug 05,, 18:22
@Samudra

His greatest failure in a historical context was almost certainly India. His greatest failure in his own mind was probably his lack of success in bringing about reproachment between America and the U.S.S.R.

Samudra
18 Aug 05,, 18:51
Scots

Nice to see you using Esato habits in WAB. :)

Leader
18 Aug 05,, 19:54
Cant push it too far , I think.
Its all a matter of perspective.

Only in the sense that Putin thinks of his neighbors as part of Russia, and therefore doesn't see any problem with his meddling.

Praxus
18 Aug 05,, 20:16
Ghandi???? What????

scotsboyuk
18 Aug 05,, 22:31
Scots

Nice to see you using Esato habits in WAB. :)

You would appear to have me at a disadvantage, sir. Ayush? Whizkidd? govigov? :)

Samudra
19 Aug 05,, 04:53
I'm myself , Scots. Me is {Samudra}

Dont write a lot on Esato, just prowling around once a day.

Fairthought
19 Aug 05,, 05:52
Okay Samudra,

I'll bite. What did Churchill say about India, particularly in to the house of commons in 1920?

sparten
19 Aug 05,, 06:43
I think we can all agree that De Gaulle was not somebody we admire. :)

Disagree stongly Top Hatter. Now I will admit that his conduct during the WWII, was not exactly heroic, but,

1) Gong to the Colonies in a time of extreme anti-colonialism was not the brightest idea in the world.

2) His accomplishments as President of France are sufficient to admire him. Th Algerian issue was solved, history has shown it was the right decision. European integration became if not quite a reality during his tenure, than a lot further down the road than any other.

3) The Franco-German friendship. Now I will agree that Konrad Adenauer and others also had a part to play, but the accord ended almost 1000 years of hatred.

4) France finally came out of the 'long 19th Century' under him.

Now, before you jump on me, I voted for Eisenhower. But CDG, should be judged by his accomplishments, rather than present day FRanco-US relations and a notoriously malfunctioning CV.

Samudra
19 Aug 05,, 07:34
Okay Samudra,

I'll bite. What did Churchill say about India, particularly in to the house of commons in 1920?

Fairthought

In April 1919 General Dyer killed around 300+ innocent civillians in Jalian Wallabagh.Ever since it has been called the Jalian Wallabagh massacre.

After the Jalian Wallabagh massacre much hue and cry was raised about the man responsble for it.The British themselves have called it the Amritsar massacre.

It was decided by the powers that Brigadier General Reginald Dyer be removed from India and retired.This offended some politicians in the House of Commons.The matter was duly brought to the house and destiny had it that Churchill would defend the government for having removed Dyer.

Before he stood to talk the house was bitterly divided and it was expected that HMG would face some major embarrasment in case the House did not provide its assent to the HMGs decision of removing Dyer.

He , being him , brought around a u-turn in the opinion of the members of the house with some real calm and straight speaking.

HMG won , 247:37.


No one, not even the gifted Lloyd George, could hold the House as Winston did. indeed, on one memorable occasion he accomplished a rare feat. Eloquence, wit, and charge have not been uncommon in that body, but seldom in its six centuries has a speech actually changed the opinion of the majority, transforming imminent defeat into triumph. Churchill did it on July 8, 1920, thereby vindicating England's honour.

The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote Curzon that Churchill's speech had been 'unanswerable.' the Times called it 'amazingly skilful' and declared that it had 'turned the House (or so it seemed) completely round...It was not only a brilliant speech, but one that persauded and made the result certain.' Winston, the editorial concluded, had 'never been heard to greater advantage.'

Link (http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/churchill/am-man.htm)

bull
19 Aug 05,, 13:00
My favourite..."The witch"

Dreadnought
19 Aug 05,, 16:08
Originally Posted by TopHatter
I think we can all agree that De Gaulle was not somebody we admire.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Agreed. I would sooner vote for the Three Stooges.

Im thinking Shemp...lol :tongue:

Wraith601
19 Aug 05,, 20:57
I said FDR.

AchtungSpitFire
21 Aug 05,, 02:33
Where's Hitler on this list? :biggrin:

Leader
21 Aug 05,, 03:03
Where's Hitler on this list? :biggrin:

:rolleyes: ...not funny

troung
21 Aug 05,, 03:14
Not a world leader and not on the list but Indonesian General R. Soedirman is I leader I can admire. When the Dutch invaded Jogjakarta on December 19th 1948 the Indonesia rebel government basically surrendered rather then take the war into the jungle and told the army to lay down their weapons to the Dutch but Soedirman though very ill led his forces into the jungle and kept waging the war for the liberation of Indonesia. In the end Indonesia became free from the Dutch rule.

In 1950 he died just short of his 28th birthday of TB and has become a sort of saint/marytr for the Indonesian military. Of course that also left the army with the feeling that they know what is best for that nation... but still... :rolleyes:

General Giap would also be up on my list as would Kong Le (leader of the Nuertalists in Laos), Massoud, and Dostum...

My liberal ass admiring these guys... :rolleyes:

Adux
21 Aug 05,, 06:51
My favourite..."The witch"


she kind of reminds me of MARS ATTACKS!!!! SPOOKY

the strongest leader india has ever seen

josh

Equilibrium
21 Aug 05,, 21:11
I think a very unpopular but noteable candidate would be Richard Nixon.

Nixon arrived to the presidency at a time when America's power was questioned as a result of its unwillingness to pursue the Vietnam War with all its capacity. American society was in a crisis over the issue, and President Johnson's administration members went from muted criticism to open hostitlity upon Nixon's inauguration.

Nixon reestablished American influence in the Middle East at a time when Soviet sponsored radicalism had excluded it. Yet he also balanced Israeli interests with Arab sensitivities.

He led the effort to get SALT I ratified to limit the dangerous nuclear arms race that was dangerously spiraling out of control.

He successfully built up South Vietnamese combat power while withdrawing US forces, destroying the North's military sactuaries in Cambodia and forced Hanoi to recognize South Vietnam and sign a comprehensive cease fire for all of Southeast Asia after conducting an unrestricted bombing campaign of the North and mining Haipong Harbor.
Unfortunately, during and after Nixon's Watergate hearings, the liberal-dominated McGovernite congress took advantage of Nixon's downfall and drastically cut all aid to the South, and refused to fulfill American pledges of aerial support to maintain the Paris peace accords until the South collaped 2-1/2 years later.

And in one of the most historic diplomatic coups, opened the rapprochement with China, the red-baiter and the arch revolutionary together, as foreseen by Nixon who demonstrated that interests, not ideology determined foreign policy.

It is a true shame that a man who aspired to greatness had it in his grasp; and the defects of his personality let it slip away.

Dreadnought
22 Aug 05,, 13:42
she kind of reminds me of MARS ATTACKS!!!! SPOOKY

That is like sooo funny....lmao :biggrin:

Enzo Ferrari
23 Aug 05,, 06:44
Reagan, true follower of Churchill and Nixon...

Yunalesca
12 Sep 05,, 20:14
You would appear to have me at a disadvantage, sir. Ayush? Whizkidd? govigov? :)


@scots,

guess who is this? :biggrin:

@samudra,
how are you doin mate?

Hope you remember ....

thesaint
12 Sep 05,, 21:05
Which world leader, in modern history i.e. 20th & 21st centuries, do you admire the most?

The poll obviously doesn't include every world leader of the past hundred and five years, but I have included those I feel to have been the main ones.

If your choice isn't listed I apologise, but please do mention him/her.

Castro and Tito

Leader
12 Sep 05,, 21:07
Castro and Tito

That's some kind of sick joke I hope.

thesaint
12 Sep 05,, 21:11
That's some kind of sick joke I hope.

Well, Stalin was not beyond reproach, so I couldn't name it in all honesty.
Allende and Chavez would have made the list, except that they have been in power for a much shorter time than C & T

Leader
12 Sep 05,, 21:15
Well, Stalin was not beyond reproach, so I couldn't name it in all honesty.
Allende and Chavez would have made the list, except that they have been in power for a much shorter time than C & T

Yeah great

thesaint
12 Sep 05,, 21:27
Yeah great

Oh! Perhaps you wanted me to name The Conqueror of Grenada or Monica's Boy Toy ?
Forced to pick from the list, I would have chosen FDR, but the OP said I could pick anybody.

Leader
12 Sep 05,, 21:39
Oh! Perhaps you wanted me to name The Conqueror of Grenada or Monica's Boy Toy ?
Forced to pick from the list, I would have chosen FDR, but the OP said I could pick anybody.

Says a lot about FDR

gilgamesh
12 Sep 05,, 22:25
Except for Gandhi, Eisenhower and Ben-Gurion, rest in the list are all dillholes. Me thinks, Lee Kuan Yew is numero uno and we need one each in US and Canada. All commies, right wingnuts and feminazis would get major a$$ whipping.

remember1812?
13 Sep 05,, 00:44
Boris Yeltsin! This guy staggers out of his jet punch drunk and that too on a state visit to Ireland !!!!!!:biggrin: :biggrin:

Bluesman
13 Sep 05,, 01:17
Well, Stalin was not beyond reproach, so I couldn't name it in all honesty.
Allende and Chavez would have made the list, except that they have been in power for a much shorter time than C & T

Are you putting us on, man? If so, a smiley would make your meaning clearer.

Monk
13 Sep 05,, 14:00
I see that there are a lot of hawks amongst us. Most leaders here have been admired for their war leadership skills. i disagree to that being the only measure of a man's greatness but like someone else said before this is an opinion poll and i believe in "Different strokes for different folks".

To the next point about churchill's remarks about India. The argument by scotsboyuk about him being a product of his age is untenable. A man is known to the world as a great man for being ahead of his times and not for being a reflection of it. Great men are ahead of their times not just their mere reflection. Example in case would be Abraham Lincoln, a reflection of his times would have been to own slaves, he went ahead and abolished slavery. lastly, if churchill made remarks which were derogoratory to the people of India that is termed as racist whether the definition of the same be current or historical. So nice spin scotsboyuk but we are slipping.
Lastly i want to add that all this does not go to detract the greatness of churchill for the dogged determination with which he ensured the freedom of his people and his brilliance as an orator.

Mahatma Gandhi could have been no less a brilliant orator for he glavanised 250-300million people to fight peacefully for their freedom at a time when they had no concept of freedom and they were seriously divided by racial and religious lines.




His comments on India should be taken in context of course, he was a product of his time when most Britons thought that they were almost divinely favoured and better than all other peoples. There was a certain arrogance to the British mentality at that time, and I suppose there still is now, that Britons are better than other people and if one isn't British, no matter how much one may like that person or admire them, they just aren't ... well British. It isn't really intended as an insult, it is just a peculiar national sentiment. It isn't quite as evident a view today as it would have been in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Churchill was a product of an age, in which whites were seen a sbeing superior to non-whites. He wasn't a racist, but he had the attitudes that were prevalent at the time. One shouldn't condemn him because of current values.

He wasn't voted the Greatest Briton for nothing.

I think the thread has been limited by allowing voting for only the great leaders of the 19th century. it should have been open for all times. We could have dropped a few morons like Boris Yelstin and could have had some truly great leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Julius Ceaser, Alexander and even Genghis Khan.
Two glaring omissions on that list are Dr. Sun yat sen of China, Martin luther King (How can you miss this guy, thats a horrendous mistake) and definitely the Dalai Lama.

Monk
13 Sep 05,, 14:05
The correct way of addressing Gandhi would be Mahatma gandhi. He should have been put up on that list with the right title just like Sir Winston Churchill. We are not filling out forms for a census here.

indianguy4u
13 Sep 05,, 14:17
Mahatma Gandhi. Father of Indian nation.

Monk
13 Sep 05,, 14:20
This one is for those people who don't know what happened:
Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre
(April 13, 1919)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1919 the British government of India enacted the Rowlatt Acts, extending its World War I emergency powers to combat what it considered as subversive activities. At Amritsar, Punjab (Pañjab) district, about 10,000 demonstrators protesting these measures were confronted by troops commanded by Gen. R.E.H. Dyer. Dyer marched 50 armed soldiers into the Jallianwallah Bagh (Garden) that afternoon and ordered them to open fire on a protest meeting attended by some 10,000 unarmed men, women, and children without issuing a word of warning. It was a Sunday, and many neighboring peasants had come to Amritsar to celebrate a Hindu festival, gathering in the Bagh, which was a place for holding cattle fair and other festivities. Dyer kept his troops firing for about ten minutes, until they had shot 1650 rounds of ammunition into the terror-stricken crowd, which had no way of escaping the Bagh, since the soldiers spanned the only exit. About 400 civilians were killed and some 1200 wounded. They were left without medical attention by Dyer, who hastily removed his troops to the camp.

Dyer was relieved of his command, but he returned to England as a hero to many British admirers, who presented him with a collected purse of thousands of pounds and a jewelled sword inscribed "Saviour of the Punjab." The following year, Mahatma Gandhi launched his first Indian satyagraha ("clinging to the truth") campaign, India's response to the massacre in Jallianwallah Bagh.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what churchill said, it is truly brilliant, hats off to a great orator:

Following extract taken from
"The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill Visions of Glory 1874-1932"
by William Manchester, Copyright William Manchester 1983,
Sphere Books Ltd, 1984. pp 568-570.

No one, not even the gifted Lloyd George, could hold the House as Winston did. indeed, on one memorable occasion he accomplished a rare feat. Eloquence, wit, and charge have not been uncommon in that body, but seldom in its six centuries has a speech actually changed the opinion of the majority, transforming imminent defeat into triumph. Churchill did it on July 8, 1920, thereby vindicating England's honour.
The origins of that day's controversy lay in a shocking episode. A few months after the war an Englishwoman, a missionary, had reported that she had been molested on a street in the Punjab city of Amritsar. The Raj's local commander, Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, had issued an order requiring all Indians using that street to crawl its length on their hands and knees. He had also authorized the indiscriminate, public whipping of natives who came within lathi length of British policemen. On April 13, 1919, a multitude of Punjabis had gathered in Amritsar's Jallianwallah Bagh to protest these extraordinary measures. The throng, penned in a narrow space smaller than Traflagar Square, had been peacefully listening to the testimony of victims when Dyer appeared at the head of a contingent of British troops. Without warning, he ordered his machine gunners to open fire. The Indians, in Chruchill's words, were 'packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies'; the people 'ran madly this way and the other. When fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, and the fire was then directed on the ground. This was continued for eight or ten minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion.' Dyer then marched away, leaving 379 dead and over 1,500 wounded. Back in his headquarters, he reported to his superiors that he had been 'confronted by a revolutionary army,' and had been obliged 'to teach a moral lesson to the Punjab.' In the storm of outrage which followed, the brigadier was promoted to major general, retired, and placed on the inactive list. This incrediably, made him a martyr to millions of Englishmen. Senior British officers applauded his suppression of 'another Indian Mutiny.' The Guardians of the Golden Temple enrolled him in the Brotherhood of Sikhs. [Email comment received querying the accuracy of this statement] The House of Lords passed a measure commending him. Readers of the Tory Morning Post, Churchill's old scourge, subscribed L2,500 [pounds] for a testimonial. Leading Conservative MPs took up his cause, and Lloyd George reluctantly agreed to a full-dress debate. Venetia Montagu's husband, Edwin, now the secretary of state for India, would open for the government, with Churchill scheduled at the end.

Montagu's speech was a calamity. He was a Jew and there were anti-Semites in the House. He had been warned to be quiet and judicial. Instead, he was sarcastic; he called Dyer a terrorist; he worried about foreign opinion; he 'thoroughly roused most of the latent passions of the stogy Tories,' as one MP noted, and 'got excited...and became more racial and more Yiddish in screaming tone and gesture.' with the consequence that 'a strong anti-Jewish sentiment was shown by shouts...Altogether it was a very astonishing exhibition of anti-Jewish feeling.' The Ulster MPs had decided to vote against Dyer. After Montagu's speech they conferred and reversed themselves. Sir Edward Carson rose to praise the general - who was watching from the Stranger's Gallery - as 'a gallant officer of thirty-four years service . . . without a blemish on his record' who had 'no right to be broken on the ipse dixit of any Commission or Committee, however great, unless he has been fairly tried - and he has not been tried.' Carsen ended: 'I say, to break a man under the circumstances of this case in un-English.' 'Un-English,' in the context of the time, was anti-Semitic - roughly the equivalent of 'kike.' MPs roared their approval. The government was in trouble. Lloyd George being absent, Bonar Law, the leader of the House, asked Churchill to speak immediately.

Churchill's approach was entirely unlike Montagu's. He called for 'a calm spirit, avoiding passion and avoiding attempts to excite prejudice.' Dyer, he said, had not been dismissed in disgrace; 'he had simply been informed that there was no further employment for him under the Government of India.' But the incident in Jallianwallah Bagh was 'an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.' He quietly observed that the number of Indians killed was almost identical with the number of MPs now sitting wihin range of his voice. An officer in such a situation as Dyer's, he said, should ask himself whether the crowd is either armed or about to mount an attack. 'Men who take up arms against the State must expect at any moment to be fired upon...At Amritsar the crowd was neither armed nor attacking.' Thus the general had not, as he claimed, faced a 'revolutinary army.' Another useful military guide, Churchill continued, was the maxim that 'no more force should be used than is necessary to secure compliance with the law.' In the Great War, he and many other members of the House had been British soldiers 'exerting themselves to show pity and to help, even at their own peril, the wounded.' Dyer had failed to follow their example; after the massacre, his troops had simply sung around and marched away. Churchill knew, and many members of Parliament knew, of many instances in which officers, in 'infinitely more trying' situation than the one in Bagh, had, unlike the general, displayed an ability to arrive 'at the right decision.' Then, as if with a stiletto, Churchill knifed Dyer; 'Frightfullness is not a remedy known to the British pharmacopoeia.'

He twisted the blade. Dyer's most vocal champions agreed with Churchill's stand in Russia. It was compassion and its absence, he said, which marked the difference between Englishmen and Bolsheviks. His own hatred of Lenin's regime was 'not founded on their silly system of economics, or their absurd doctrine of an impossible equality.' It arose from 'the bloody and devastating terrorism which they practice...and by which alone their criminal regime can be maintained.' It was intolerable in Russia; it was intolerable in Amritsar. 'I do not think,' he said, 'that it is in the interests of the British Empire or of the British Army for us to take a load of that sort for all time upon our backs. We have to make it absolutely clear, some way or another, that this is not the British way of doing business.' He quoted Macaulay: 'The most frightful of all spectables [is] the strength of civilisation without its mercy.' England's 'reign in India, or anywhere else,' Churchill continued, 'has never stood on the basis of physical force alone, and it would be fatal to the British Empire if we were to try to base ourselves only upon it. The British way of doing things...has always meant and implied close and effectual cooperation with the people. In every part of the British Empire that has been our aim.' As for Dyer, Churchill himself would have preferred to see the general disciplined. Instead, he had been allowed to resign with no plan for further punishment, 'and to those moderate and considered conclusions we confidently invite the assent of the House.'

He sat and they rose crying, 'Hear, hear.' After five more hours of debate they voted for the government, 247 to 37. Carson's motion for mild approval of Dyer was defeated 230 to 129. The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote Curzon that Churchill's speech had been 'unanswerable.' the Times called it 'amazingly skilful' and declared that it had 'turned the House (or so it seemed) completely round...It was not only a brilliant speech, but one that persauded and made the result certain.' Winston, the editorial concluded, had 'never been heard to greater advantage.'



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pingingpuss
14 Sep 05,, 00:04
Which world leader, in modern history i.e. 20th & 21st centuries, do you admire the most?

The poll obviously doesn't include every world leader of the past hundred and five years, but I have included those I feel to have been the main ones.

If your choice isn't listed I apologise, but please do mention him/her.


Unfortunately i couldnt answer the poll. Im yet to find a world leader that actually gives damn about the working class, and lower classes..Yes i am a marxist :)

Bluesman
14 Sep 05,, 00:36
Unfortunately i couldnt answer the poll. Im yet to find a world leader that actually gives damn about the working class, and lower classes..Yes i am a marxist :)

You sure 'bout dat? Sure you're not just a poseur, trying to be all interesting and shocking and avant-garde by SAYING you're a Marxist?

dalem
14 Sep 05,, 01:35
Unfortunately i couldnt answer the poll. Im yet to find a world leader that actually gives damn about the working class, and lower classes..Yes i am a marxist :)

A real, live Marxist? My second one in a lifetime!

How does it feel to be 100% wrong about everything you believe in?

-dale

Bluesman
14 Sep 05,, 06:25
Yes, I'm curious about that, too.

Please tell us how you are able to ignore reality so totally. Does being a student help you maintain that level of cognitive dissonance, or do you feel that as you have greater contact with life's experiences you need to actively try harder to maintain your willful blindness?

In short, can you control whether the light bulb over your head stays dark, or will enlightenment someday creep up on you, flipping that switch that you consciously keep in the 'Off' position?

Leader
14 Sep 05,, 07:36
"Yes, I'm curious about that, too.

Please tell us how you are able to ignore reality so totally."

LOL

raj
16 Sep 05,, 09:12
well if any one deserved a respectable place in this list its none other than INDIRA GANDHI, a true iron lady who fought against all odds.
I did vote for FDR, i think with out him we would have been speaking german or japaneese.

wadafark
19 Sep 05,, 06:02
Why isn't Singapore's founding father, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew included in the list? He's also a respectable leader who built up the country from scratch.

pingingpuss
19 Sep 05,, 06:53
A real, live Marxist? My second one in a lifetime!

How does it feel to be 100% wrong about everything you believe in?

-dale
lol hi dale Im swayin the marxist way, and omg i thought i never would. I do have to say it is nice to dream :)

pingingpuss
19 Sep 05,, 06:55
Yes, I'm curious about that, too.

Please tell us how you are able to ignore reality so totally. Does being a student help you maintain that level of cognitive dissonance, or do you feel that as you have greater contact with life's experiences you need to actively try harder to maintain your willful blindness?

In short, can you control whether the light bulb over your head stays dark, or will enlightenment someday creep up on you, flipping that switch that you consciously keep in the 'Off' position?


We are all entitled to our opions on life, but how is being insulting going to achieve anything. Talk to me when youhave something intelligent to say

pingingpuss
19 Sep 05,, 06:56
We are all entitled to our opions on life, but how is being insulting going to achieve anything. Talk to me when youhave something intelligent to say


Btw i have to say i do like Bill Clinton he is a go get em kind of guy lolol

Leader
19 Sep 05,, 07:33
Btw i have to say i do like Bill Clinton he is a go get em kind of guy lolol

Oh yeah he was getting it and getting it and getting it.

Bill
19 Sep 05,, 08:02
I voted for churchill since neither Lincoln nor Washington were on the list.

Some of those listed don't even belong on the same list as the linkes of Churchill and Reagan.

pingingpuss
20 Sep 05,, 12:54
I voted for churchill since neither Lincoln nor Washington were on the list.

Some of those listed don't even belong on the same list as the linkes of Churchill and Reagan.

If i could choose a great australian leader I would have to say is Guelph Whitlam. He intoduced the medicare system and industrial reforms in australia. Revamped the education system as well. He looked out for the working class,(how rare is that) naturally the liberals didnt like this and for the first time in australian history was dismissed from government, due to a minor technicality( I cant remeber exactly now what it is, ill check my sources and get back to you if you are interested).

Bluesman
20 Sep 05,, 18:58
If i could choose a great australian leader I would have to say is Guelph Whitlam. He intoduced the medicare system and industrial reforms in australia. Revamped the education system as well. He looked out for the working class,(how rare is that) naturally the liberals didnt like this and for the first time in australian history was dismissed from government, due to a minor technicality( I cant remeber exactly now what it is, ill check my sources and get back to you if you are interested).

Yeah, how could we have all overlooked the way Guelph Whitlam shook the world, and made his name a household word.

C'mon. We're talking about giants on the world stage, here, not hard-working, busybody bureaucrats, however adept they may have been at grasping government resources for their pet issues.

Julie
20 Sep 05,, 19:06
Yeah, how could we have all overlooked the way Guelph Whitlam shook the world, and made his name a household word.

C'mon. We're talking about giants on the world stage, here, not hard-working, busybody bureaucrats, however adept they may have been at grasping government resources for their pet issues.Ahem...then why has George Bush still show "O" votes? :rolleyes:

Leader
20 Sep 05,, 19:23
Ahem...then why has George Bush still show "O" votes? :rolleyes:

His Presidency isn't over yet. With the light of time, he may get many votes.

Leader
20 Sep 05,, 19:24
Ahem...then why has George Bush still show "O" votes? :rolleyes:

He has one now BTW

Julie
20 Sep 05,, 20:05
He has one now BTWOh good, tied with Tony Blair no doubt. :) But hey,....he's still trailing Clinton!. ;)

Leader
20 Sep 05,, 20:20
Oh good, tied with Tony Blair no doubt. :) But hey,....he's still trailing Clinton!. ;)

Who's got half as many votes as Reagan

Julie
21 Sep 05,, 02:17
Who's got half as many votes as ReaganI can't knock Reagan....he began his political career as a Democrat.....changed his party to Republican to better fight communism. When President, he worked together with Democrats AND Republicans to overcome huge obstacles he was dealt when he took office. He tore down walls and made many allies for the US. He was an all-around exceptional leader. ;) God bless his soul.

THL
21 Sep 05,, 03:25
I can't knock Reagan....he began his political career as a Democrat.....changed his party to Republican to better fight communism. When President, he worked together with Democrats AND Republicans to overcome huge obstacles he was dealt when he took office. He tore down walls and made many allies for the US. He was an all-around exceptional leader. ;) God bless his soul.
I have to agree with Julie, here. Reagan seemingly had no political preference. He brought together two parties that otherwise worked against eachother. I also have a ton of respect for Tony Blair. He is definitely a terrific leader. He would be on my list of people to have at a dinner party.

thesaint
21 Sep 05,, 03:32
I can't knock Reagan....he began his political career as a Democrat.....changed his party to Republican to better fight communism. When President, he worked together with Democrats AND Republicans to overcome huge obstacles he was dealt when he took office. He tore down walls and made many allies for the US. He was an all-around exceptional leader. ;) God bless his soul.

...and a gifted actor, to boot

Bill
21 Sep 05,, 04:12
ill check my sources and get back to you if you are interested).

Why miss, surely you know everything you say interests me. :)

sparten
21 Sep 05,, 04:13
...and a gifted actor, to boot

He played in a band last time I checked :biggrin: . But acting is a part of a politicians job description.

Bill
21 Sep 05,, 04:15
"I have to agree with Julie, here. Reagan seemingly had no political preference. He brought together two parties that otherwise worked against eachother. I also have a ton of respect for Tony Blair. He is definitely a terrific leader. He would be on my list of people to have at a dinner party."

I lived through the reagan years. The Democratic Pols HATED him.

Unfortunately for them, the people almost universally loved him.

He gave this country back all the things it lost through the 60s and 70s.

Love of country. Patriotism. Sense of duty. Belief in the American Dream.

BTW, Reagan was very conservative....far moreso than GW Bush, that's for goddamned sure.

Julie
21 Sep 05,, 13:56
I lived through the reagan years. The Democratic Pols HATED him.The Democrats were just jealous because of the outstanding job he was doing. :)


the people almost universally loved him.That's what counts the most because you get more results that way. ;)


He gave this country back all the things it lost through the 60s and 70s. Love of country. Patriotism. Sense of duty. Belief in the American Dream. He most certainly did -- can't argue that. I have to admit, when those airline pilots were holding everyone over a barrel and he stepped in and layed them ALL off.....he won my heart then and there. :tongue:


BTW, Reagan was very conservative....far moreso than GW Bush, that's for goddamned sure.I damn sure agree with THAT!

Bill
21 Sep 05,, 15:27
I think it was actually the air traffic controller union he busted. :)

THL
21 Sep 05,, 16:01
I lived through the reagan years. The Democratic Pols HATED him. Unfortunately for them, the people almost universally loved him.
Regardless, He accomplished what no other president did, could, has or is. The dem politicians may not have liked him, but the democratic citizens did.

He gave this country back all the things it lost through the 60s and 70s.
Love of country. Patriotism. Sense of duty. Belief in the American Dream.
Yes and we could benefit from him now, I think, as well. If he were alive and able to run, I would not even hesitate stepping over that line keeping me on this side. In fact, there is nothing anyone could do to keep me on this side for his run.

BTW, Reagan was very conservative....far moreso than GW Bush, that's for goddamned sure.
I am aware, but the good he did elsewhere more than made up for that. I have mentioned the few things previously that keep me on the Dem side. I would give them up to have him straighten things back out again.

Julie
21 Sep 05,, 16:43
I think it was actually the air traffic controller union he busted. :)Yes...thank you for that correction. :)

Bill
21 Sep 05,, 16:46
He was a great man and even better leader, no doubt.

He was known as "The great communicator", and he truly was.

He also freed more people from tyranny than any other leader in the history of the world...all without a shot fired.

QUITE a feat. :)

Julie
21 Sep 05,, 17:08
He was a great man and even better leader, no doubt.

He was known as "The great communicator", and he truly was.

He also freed more people from tyranny than any other leader in the history of the world...all without a shot fired.

QUITE a feat. :)Exactly, and Reagan is proof positive to me that fighting terrorism can be dealt with in a more productive way. Reagan fought communism head-on, without violence, and succeeded at it.

Reagan had the knack to make other leaders he was dealing with look ignorant if they did not otherwise succumb. Bush on the other hand makes the US look ignorant in each of his maneuvers.

Sorry if I Bush-bashed, but that's just the way I feel, and I'm not saying that because Bush is a Republican.

Leader
21 Sep 05,, 21:56
"Exactly, and Reagan is proof positive to me that fighting terrorism can be dealt with in a more productive way. Reagan fought communism head-on, without violence, and succeeded at it."

Selective memory.

"Reagan had the knack to make other leaders he was dealing with look ignorant if they did not otherwise succumb. Bush on the other hand makes the US look ignorant in each of his maneuvers."

The US only looks "ignorant" in the eyes of liberals. They thought the same of Reagan.

"Sorry if I Bush-bashed, but that's just the way I feel, and I'm not saying that because Bush is a Republican."

You're problem is with his policies, which are at their core conservative. So yes you're saying it's because he's a Republican.

Julie
22 Sep 05,, 15:32
;) Bush is using the "selective memory" theory pertaining to Reagan in that he doesn't have to worry about the deficit. There were a few major factors that were quite different during the Reagan Administration that steered the success of Reagan's economics, that Bush seems to be ignoring. Reagan dramatically raised interest rates and Congress had a majority Democratic Party.

In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. What we could really use now IS Ronald Reagan. And Bush, does not nowhere compare to Ronald Reagan, in any stretch of the imagination. ;)

Leader
22 Sep 05,, 20:12
;) Bush is using the "selective memory" theory pertaining to Reagan in that he doesn't have to worry about the deficit.

So Bush's actions justify your own. Frankly, that's moronic and you know it.


There were a few major factors that were quite different during the Reagan Administration that steered the success of Reagan's economics, that Bush seems to be ignoring. Reagan dramatically raised interest rates and Congress had a majority Democratic Party.

Irrelevant to what I was referring to. you're distracting from the fact that your wrong.


In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. What we could really use now IS Ronald Reagan. And Bush, does not nowhere compare to Ronald Reagan, in any stretch of the imagination. ;)

It's nice that you believe that, but I can't see how it supports your argument.

Julie
25 Sep 05,, 13:59
My root argument is that Bush spends what he wants, leaving a huge deficit for his successor and future generations to deal with. This, in fact, does not set well with the future Republican platform at election time, which are already beginning to distance themselves from him.

This same strategy is why is company went belly-up because there is no long-term plan for offset or recoupment. He has no EXIT-STRATEGY when he comes out of office, just like he didn't have one in Iraq.

The infamous Reagan/Carter debate comes to mind...."Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" ;)

Get it now?

Bill
25 Sep 05,, 17:45
"Exactly, and Reagan is proof positive to me that fighting terrorism can be dealt with in a more productive way. Reagan fought communism head-on, without violence, and succeeded at it."

The two are not comparable.

You may recall that fully 50% of the time that reagan commited US forces to battle it was against terrorist elements.

Lebanon and Libya specifically.

The other two were Grenada and the 1 day destruction of the Iranian navy.

The reason that a different approach could be used against the Reds is because we had a nice clear target to aim our nukes at...and they knew it.

Bluesman
25 Sep 05,, 17:49
He has no EXIT-STRATEGY when he comes out of office, just like he didn't have one in Iraq.

Get it now?

'Exit strategy' is an oxymoron. It's not a strategy to QUIT. There is a strategy to WIN, which is and should be the proper focus of this Administration.

Do YOU get THAT now?

Ray
25 Sep 05,, 19:49
Bluesman,

Exit strategy means having WON, you leave.

One has to plan to leave. Obviously no non imperialist democratic power would like to continue its stay in a foreign country.

Therefore, the terminal objective is to Leave after the Task is over. The task is the intermediate political objective, though the primary military objective.

The Task is obviously to implement the strategic goal and the strategic goal can only be implemented when the situation is ideal. For the situation to be ideal, one has to win.

Therefore, the terminal objective is to Leave by implementing the strategic goal by a WIN.

If one does not plan to leave after winning, then one will just bumble along and left the events control him rather than controlling the events and thereby ensuring a win and then leave.

If one wins and not leave, then one will be condemned as an "imperialist".

It is a question of perceptions.

Leader
25 Sep 05,, 20:57
My root argument is that Bush spends what he wants, leaving a huge deficit for his successor and future generations to deal with. This, in fact, does not set well with the future Republican platform at election time, which are already beginning to distance themselves from him.

I wish they had some where to go because I'd join them, but they don't. Conservatives are stuck with the Republican Party. If we want change, we have to fix the Republican Party and win with it. If we succeed, I dare say you wouldn't like the result.


This same strategy is why is company went belly-up because there is no long-term plan for offset or recoupment.

Well run companies go belly up everyday. It's the nature of our system.


He has no EXIT-STRATEGY when he comes out of office, just like he didn't have one in Iraq.

I don't want a run away strategy. Win and then go home.


The infamous Reagan/Carter debate comes to mind...."Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" ;)

Yes


Get it now?

I've always gotten it.

stratadmir
07 Oct 05,, 18:55
Well, I'm not saying I like this guy, but whataboiut Hitler. He may have been stupid about his decisions during the war, but he made some very good advancements in the technology of the world and brought a country out of the economic depression in a couple of years and he did lots for a country that had very many unemployed to going employed, the youth getting their own groups to have sports and fun, the the women getting commemerated for their hard duties as mothers.

SovietHonor
24 Oct 05,, 20:33
i would say Stalin and Lenin, and other early 20th cent communists.

They believed in their systems, and fought for them.

Something which is lacking in todays world.

Leader
24 Oct 05,, 20:37
i would say Stalin and Lenin, and other early 20th cent communists.

They believed in their systems, and fought for them.

Something which is lacking in todays world.

You don't fight innocent women and children. You slaughter them.

Dreadnought
25 Oct 05,, 15:24
;) Bush is using the "selective memory" theory pertaining to Reagan in that he doesn't have to worry about the deficit. There were a few major factors that were quite different during the Reagan Administration that steered the success of Reagan's economics, that Bush seems to be ignoring. Reagan dramatically raised interest rates and Congress had a majority Democratic Party.

In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. What we could really use now IS Ronald Reagan. And Bush, does not nowhere compare to Ronald Reagan, in any stretch of the imagination. ;)

IMO I have to agree with her I miss Ronnie Raygun myself. As a U.S. president IMO he was the last that commanded respect without even uttering a word. As compared to those that have followed. :redface: All U.S. presidents have had my respect but Reagan just had something about him. Perhaps maybe it was because I was quite younger then now and the world a much different place.

Bulgaroctonus
25 Oct 05,, 16:14
Wow. Cool. Churchill for me, too.

He only saved civilization, is all. And then his ungrateful country dumped him for a bunch of pinko bolshie commie-symp surrenderniks, and began their long slide into also-ran status...until Maggie.

And then they stabbed her in the back, too.
Why were the British dissatisified with Churchill after the war? It seems he would be more popular than ever.

Dreadnought
25 Oct 05,, 16:29
Churchill was certainly an exellent choice for this catagory. And I do agree he was stabbed in the back imediately after the war. IMO Britian never had another leader before or after him that could raise a country to the heights that he could just by speaking to his people. A very special man indeed.

Hitler had a quality of speaking to his German people in a war torn and depressed nation after the first World War. Unfortunately beside rebuilding Germany the fatherland and returning a sense of pride to his people the rest was purely hatred for any race that didnt fit his criteria. Although he did alot to advance military strategy and science he did so as a part of his evil plans to exterminate those he deemed unworthy of life itself. Dam shame he killed himself Im sure there are countless others that wanted to see him hang for what he had orchestrated.

Maggie was a big breath of fresh air for the British from an American point of view
certainly a woman of character and yet she didnt stay in very long. Together her and Ronald Reagan made an excellent pair of leaders in the western hemisphere during the Cold War years and shortly after.

JFK in my opinion was also a good president for the time he was in office. Unfortunately as we all know he was assinated before we could really get a sense of what he was ultimately worth only being president for roughtly two years but he did some good things for the U.S.. Alot of people rite or wrong believe he could have done wonderous things for the U.S. had that day never happened and a second term to his presidency had followed.

These ofcoarse are only my opinion.

SovietHonor
25 Oct 05,, 20:39
You don't fight innocent women and children. You slaughter them.


When you understand the 20s-30s-and 40s of Soviet Union, then talk.

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 00:46
When you understand the 20s-30s-and 40s of Soviet Union, then talk.

I think I've got a purty good handle on it, and I think Leader's comment was right in the strike zone.

I'm not really sure HOW one could admire those bloody-minded tyrants.

Without being a mental and/or moral midget, anyway.

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 00:48
i would say Stalin and Lenin, and other early 20th cent communists.

They believed in their systems, and fought for them.

Something which is lacking in todays world.


And whatever it is that you find admirable about them is not at all lacking in today's world. Evil waxes prosperous throughout our planet.

Your heroes had it aplenty, and it is still available in huge quantity.

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 00:49
I think I've got a purty good handle on it, and I think Leader's comment was right in the strike zone.

I'm not really sure HOW one could admire those bloody-minded tyrants.

Without being a mental and/or moral midget, anyway.

They weren't "bloody-minded"

this is subjective, your world perception would lead you to believe this.
However, it is reasonable to say that you know nothing of the people that were the 12-state Soviet Union.
Like-wise given the circumstances and the social order that the time, it is remarkable what was accomplished in those short years, and for that it should be commended.

To have the courage, and boldness to be the first also needs to be commended.

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 00:51
And whatever it is that you find admirable about them is not at all lacking in today's world. Evil waxes prosperous throughout our planet.

Your heroes had it aplenty, and it is still available in huge quantity.

They weren't evil men, they were men of practicality, and they knew their people.
They understood the state of affairs present.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder, i think that N. Koreas Kim....xxxx is not exactly evil, but extremely foolish and narrow-minded. Others would contradict me.
Please, persue this in a private format?

For the record, they are not my heroes, but rather great men in history, ones with strong backbones. Something which is lacking in todays men of power.

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 00:53
Time to up the dosage.

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 00:59
They weren't "bloody-minded"

Yeah, They were. Record-holdingly so, in fact.


this is subjective, your world perception would lead you to believe this.

Yes. I deal in reality. My perception DOES lead me to believe this.


However, it is reasonable to say that you know nothing of the people that were the 12-state Soviet Union.

Actually, I DO know a bit about 'em. Most of 'em were captive nations, kept so by brutality and force.


Like-wise given the circumstances and the social order that the time, it is remarkable what was accomplished in those short years,

Actually, I agree. To murder that many people really IS remarkable. Grotesque and immoral, but an acheivement to marvel at, to be sure.


and for that it should be commended.

NO. No, actually, it's NOT to be commended. Deplored, condemned, PREVENTED, if at all possible. But COMMENDED? You, sir, are a retard.


To have the courage, and boldness to be the first also needs to be commended.

To repeat myself: you're a retard.

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 01:05
They weren't evil men, they were men of practicality, and they knew their people.

COMPLETELY evil.


They understood the state of affairs present.

Not if they actually BOUGHT that mind-pollution that they propagated. And if they did NOT believe, they were easily the most cynical men in modern history.


Evil is in the eye of the beholder, i think that N. Koreas Kim....xxxx is not exactly evil, but extremely foolish and narrow-minded. Others would contradict me.
Please, persue this in a private format?

I won't contradict you that Kim - another evil bastard that shares many features and philosohpical tenets with your heroes - is extremely foolish and narrow-minded. But he most certainly and demonstrably IS evil, so we'll have to differ on THAT point. The two positions do not contradict each other; in fact, they compliment one another.


For the record, they are not my heroes, but rather great men in history, ones with strong backbones. Something which is lacking in todays men of power.

Look again at the title of this thread: do you ADMIRE these monsters, you sad, deluded fool, as you said you did when you named them?

Your heroes, then.

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 01:06
once again, inside of manning up in pm, you resort to personal attacks.


"Actually, I DO know a bit about 'em. Most of 'em were captive nations, kept so by brutality and force."

Who was held captive?

"Actually, I agree. To murder that many people really IS remarkable. Grotesque and immoral, but an acheivement to marvel at, to be sure."

People? there was a war at the time, people die in wars. Thats a given.

Why again are you taking my words out of context?

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 01:08
"COMPLETELY evil. "

This phrase is thrown with such liberalism these days. Grow up, there is no boogy man coming to get you.

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 01:12
"COMPLETELY evil. "

This phrase is thrown with such liberalism these days. Grow up, there is no boogy man coming to get you.

Not anymore, there's not. We buried 'em in the asheap of history. :biggrin:

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 01:13
once again, inside of manning up in pm, you resort to personal attacks.


"Actually, I DO know a bit about 'em. Most of 'em were captive nations, kept so by brutality and force."

Who was held captive?

"Actually, I agree. To murder that many people really IS remarkable. Grotesque and immoral, but an acheivement to marvel at, to be sure."

People? there was a war at the time, people die in wars. Thats a given.

Why again are you taking my words out of context?


WHO was held captive?!?!? :eek: ALL of 'em that weren't Party members, you dolt. Why do you suppose they built walls?

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 01:14
WHO was held captive?!?!? :eek: ALL of 'em that weren't Party members, you dolt. Why do you suppose they built walls?


what walls, what are you talking about?

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 01:21
Why again are you taking my words out of context?

You want context? How 'bout THIS:


When you understand the 20s-30s-and 40s of Soviet Union, then talk.

There was no war until 1940, when, I should point out, one of your heroes was a willing accomplicew with Hitler in an unprovoked attack on Poland.

Who did they fight in the 1920s? Their own peasant class, that's who.

Who in the 1930s? Their own intellectuals, THAT is who.

How's THAT for context, scooter?

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 01:24
You want context? How 'bout THIS:



There was no war until 1940, when, I should point out, one of your heroes was a willing accomplicew with Hitler in an unprovoked attack on Poland.

Who did they fight in the 1920s? Their own peasant class, that's who.

Who in the 1930s? Their own intellectuals, THAT is who.

How's THAT for context, scooter?

There was war to the 40s.

the 20's and 30's was a class-war, among other things.

how could they have fought against the peasants, when the peasants were on the side of the Red Army?

the 30's, blood was lost yes. It was to finally get the system going, and to get rid of the sabotagers. (sabotagers a result of the 20's).

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 02:09
You. Are. Nuts.

ZFBoxcar
26 Oct 05,, 02:36
LOL you actually believe there were saboteurs! Anybody who didn't meet their quota and who wasn't good enough at lying about it was a saboteur. The entire Ukrainian people were sabateurs for trying to survive having everything they owned stolen from them. Every officer in the army was a saboteur. Anybody who criticized Stalin was a sabateur. Anybody who protested the unexplained disappearance of friends and loved ones was a sabateur. I can't believe we've got a real live Stalin/NKVD cheerleader here. Most commies today will try to disasociate themselves from Stalin.

SovietHonor
26 Oct 05,, 02:53
opinions.


BTW, i am not a communist.

astralis
26 Oct 05,, 05:32
actually, bluesman,

you gotta admit, there is SOME point here:


Like-wise given the circumstances and the social order that the time, it is remarkable what was accomplished in those short years,

stalin was a mass-murdering SOB (even khrushchev damned him) and soviethonor has a weird nietzschean "ubermensch" fixation, but hey, without the USSR taking on the vast majority of the pain coming from nazi germany, we'd probably be in some bad shape ourselves :biggrin: evil stalin was, yes, but not completely so. or else we'd have allied with germany instead in WWII.

http://www.wwii-collectibles.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/rup326.jpg

Bluesman
26 Oct 05,, 14:59
actually, bluesman,

you gotta admit, there is SOME point here:



stalin was a mass-murdering SOB (even khrushchev damned him) and soviethonor has a weird nietzschean "ubermensch" fixation, but hey, without the USSR taking on the vast majority of the pain coming from nazi germany, we'd probably be in some bad shape ourselves :biggrin: evil stalin was, yes, but not completely so. or else we'd have allied with germany instead in WWII.

http://www.wwii-collectibles.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/rup326.jpg

All that is well and good, but remember what question he was answering: What world leader do you most ADMIRE?

Well, do YOU find Lenin and Stalin admirable? ANYbody that does is either a whacko, evil, or stupid.

astralis
26 Oct 05,, 17:14
hmm, yes, admire isn't the right word. necessary evils? not sure how to turn that into a verb :biggrin:

Leader
27 Oct 05,, 04:11
When you understand the 20s-30s-and 40s of Soviet Union, then talk.
Genocide apologist

Leader
27 Oct 05,, 04:13
They weren't "bloody-minded"

this is subjective, your world perception would lead you to believe this.
However, it is reasonable to say that you know nothing of the people that were the 12-state Soviet Union.
Like-wise given the circumstances and the social order that the time, it is remarkable what was accomplished in those short years, and for that it should be commended.

To have the courage, and boldness to be the first also needs to be commended.

The hell it's subjective. I'm sure those millions of people Stalin murdered thought it was real "subjective."

Leader
27 Oct 05,, 04:15
"COMPLETELY evil. "

This phrase is thrown with such liberalism these days. Grow up, there is no boogy man coming to get you.
Bye you’re on my ignore list.

Enzo Ferrari
27 Oct 05,, 05:23
Communism SUCKS!

Live with it! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Enzo Ferrari
27 Oct 05,, 05:27
When you understand the 20s-30s-and 40s of Soviet Union, then talk.

When you understand the 50s P R C, then Chairman Mao murder his people was correct.

When you understand the 20s to 30s Germany, then Nazism and all later terrible things were correct.

When you understand the 1800s US, then the White people terminate all Indians were correct.

When you understand the 2000s US, then GW Bush invade Iraq must be correct.

Idiot!

Leader
27 Oct 05,, 06:04
"When you understand the 2000s US, then GW Bush invade Iraq must be correct."

The United States invaded Iraq.

Ironduke
28 Oct 05,, 03:14
Thought I'd add a couple options. I added Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Kemal Ataturk, the founders of the modern-day states of Pakistan and Turkey.

Sameer
29 Oct 05,, 04:51
Well Gandhi ji was not a world leader, he got shot plus his pacifist teachings had failed.

WHy?

Hindus and Muslims could not coexist and Pakistan was created, Gandhi had spent his last 2 years fighting against that.


The idiot actor turned genious President Regan should be credited for bringing down the Soviet Union.

gunnut
06 Apr 06,, 22:33
I voted for Reagan. The man had a vision and pursued it relentlessly.

Special mention should go to Tony Blair. He's Bush's staunch allie even though such a policy is extremely unpopular at home. He never waivered in his support of Bush. One can't find a better friend.

kemalist
13 Apr 06,, 17:41
with his anti-imperialist struggle and great ideas my favourite is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk...

yagmur
13 Apr 06,, 23:07
A man whose influence has shaped the world and whose name is known from Ankara to Zanzibar. Step forward... Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. http://www.ataturksociety.org/

Gautam
13 Apr 06,, 23:43
Tony Blair.

I would like to know who is the other person who has voted for Blair :b

He will one day for sure prove all his critics wrong. I may not be a supporter of his numerous policies @ home but I admire his leadership. I think his legacy will be that inspite of stiff opposition at home he stuck by America, realising that the French-Chinese-Russian alliance was merely safeguarding there investments & economic interests when it came to finally take a stand against terrorism & tyranny.

Time will prove he was right & all these so called peace lovers will realise that everything in this world has a price. Just by yelling peace u don't do any good, in fact u make nations weak & Divided.

Bluesman
07 May 06,, 17:55
Tony Blair.

I would like to know who is the other person who has voted for Blair :b

He will one day for sure prove all his critics wrong. I may not be a supporter of his numerous policies @ home but I admire his leadership. I think his legacy will be that inspite of stiff opposition at home he stuck by America, realising that the French-Chinese-Russian alliance was merely safeguarding there investments & economic interests when it came to finally take a stand against terrorism & tyranny.

Time will prove he was right & all these so called peace lovers will realise that everything in this world has a price. Just by yelling peace u don't do any good, in fact u make nations weak & Divided.

Right. On.

astralis
07 May 06,, 20:03
gautam,


Tony Blair. I would like to know who is the other person who has voted for Blair :b

He will one day for sure prove all his critics wrong. I may not be a supporter of his numerous policies @ home but I admire his leadership. I think his legacy will be that inspite of stiff opposition at home he stuck by America, realising that the French-Chinese-Russian alliance was merely safeguarding there investments & economic interests when it came to finally take a stand against terrorism & tyranny.

Time will prove he was right & all these so called peace lovers will realise that everything in this world has a price. Just by yelling peace u don't do any good, in fact u make nations weak & Divided.

that would be me. :biggrin: he's the current-day leader i most admire for taking a most decidely unpopular stand. he basically ruined his political career over this.

he's the democrat the US democratic party only wished they had :biggrin:

Gautam
07 May 06,, 20:12
gautam,



that would be me. :biggrin: he's the current-day leader i most admire for taking a most decidely unpopular stand. he basically ruined his political career over this.

he's the democrat the US democratic party only wished they had :biggrin:

I am really disappointed the way British public is treating him. His track record is one of the best one can remember. Yet he is plagued by the public's growing discord over things Blair had no control over.

Shambles of Prescott & Clarke don't reflect Blair's legacy. He is one person who has single handedly carried UK from strength to strength.

I hope Gordon Brown replaces him for if the Tories or Ming Bing Campbell come in, it will lead to return to the days of John Major.

Ming Bing is such an ugly sod that I would hate to call him my resident country's PM :frown:

Nemesis
22 May 06,, 03:19
I am completely protesting this poll. Abraham Lincoln, my personal hero and roll model, is not on it.

T-bone
22 May 06,, 21:59
Can everyone who voted Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan PM me so I can put you on my Ignore List.

Thanks T-bone.

T-bone
22 May 06,, 22:56
Where's Hitler on this list? :biggrin: In the sea, you idiot.


Why were the British dissatisified with Churchill after the war? It seems he would be more popular than ever. He was only a good war leader.



I am really disappointed the way British public is treating him. His track record is one of the best one can remember. Yet he is plagued by the public's growing discord over things Blair had no control over.

Shambles of Prescott & Clarke don't reflect Blair's legacy. He is one person who has single handedly carried UK from strength to strength.
What legacy, you mean for f***ing up the NHS and cutting 250 jobs where live, that sound like a very good legacy. The only good thing Blair has done is make a minimum wage. He is going to go down as the man who promised much and delivered little.

TopHatter
22 May 06,, 23:59
In the sea, you idiot.
Yo, easy there hoss! ;)

T-bone
23 May 06,, 00:26
Yo, easy there hoss! ;)Remember I am working for a foreign intelligence agency. I have data to compile on you. :)

ArmchairGeneral
23 May 06,, 00:30
Churchill comes in second after Ghandi. I can accept that. I would maybe have put Truman on the poll, although I wouldn't vote for him. He did put the US on the right track with USSR. FDR was a very clever politician, and a pretty good war leader, but the New Deal puts me against him completely. I respect Thatcher and Reagan, but I think it's a little too soon to be sure how significant their legacy will be. I personally believe that Reagan (and JPII, to be sure) was important in the downfall of the USSR, but it was probably inevitable. Dang it, I just saw Lech Walesa, and he has no votes. I would have voted for him if I'd seen that before.

TopHatter
23 May 06,, 00:33
Remember I am working for a foreign intelligence agency. I have data to compile on you. :)
I'll have to take that up with my CI directorate.


All kidding aside, ease up a little there, OK? ;)

T-bone
23 May 06,, 00:39
All kidding aside, ease up a little there, OK? ;)Ok.

I don`t think you would last on INTP Central, it is a jungle pit.

TopHatter
23 May 06,, 00:40
Ok.

I don`t think you would last on INTP Central, it is a jungle pit.
Probably not. Fortunately I have my Gestapo gig right here to fall back on :biggrin:

T-bone
23 May 06,, 01:39
Probably not. Fortunately I have my Gestapo gig right here to fall back on :biggrin:

Added to notes: Nazi leader and runs Gestapo gigs for new members.

TopHatter
23 May 06,, 01:51
Added to notes: Nazi leader and runs Gestapo gigs for new members.
No no no.... :rolleyes:

My job (or "gig") as moderator here has been described as "Gestapo-like" due to the recent crackdown.

However, some weeks back, after I liquidated what seemed like the 12th sock puppet in a row trying to sneak back into the board, a fellow moderator suggested changing my title to "Forum Beria".

While I happen to be aquiring Lavrenti Pavlovich's hairline, I preferred the sobriquet of "Iron Feliks".

Sheesh...university kids...can't write an intelligence dossier to save their lives :rolleyes:

T-bone
23 May 06,, 14:53
I am not voting because Clement Attlee was not on the list. Come on, he won by a landslide against Churchill. Churchill could only win because we have first past the post voting system.



Added to notes to be sent back to Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (Dirección de los Servicios de Inteligencia y Prevención) (DISIP):


"Gestapo-like" due to the smoking to much Crack.

Goes by the name "Forum Beria" but likes to be called "Iron Feliks" but I think he should be called a "grammar Nazi".

Confed999
24 May 06,, 03:48
I am completely protesting this poll. Abraham Lincoln, my personal hero and roll model, is not on it.
Funny, I said the same thing about Jefferson Davis. :tongue:

ArmchairGeneral
24 May 06,, 04:42
Heck, you want American political heroes, how about Grover Cleveland? Apart from women, that guy was seriously principled, and better yet, he agreed with me. :biggrin:

Archer
05 Jun 06,, 18:30
FDR for me. I find the man inspiring and underrated. Besides I wanted to vote apart from the usual.

Moroz
12 Jun 06,, 20:05
The idiot actor turned genious President Regan should be credited for bringing down the Soviet Union.
Genius? At 1984 elections Reagan was Altzgamer sick.
Wasting money for stupid weapon race was the idiotism. It is profitable only for military producers paying money into republicans and democrats election funds. Gorbachov wisely suggest to stop the race and stop it. Cold war is gone, but USA still waste half of trillion (450bln)$ per year.
What Reagan did for SU collapse? Mach more did Levi’s, JVC, Sony, Adidas, etc. Soviet people desired to become consumer society, but socialistic system can’t did it. USSR missed electronic revolution.

gunnut
07 Aug 06,, 22:38
Genius? At 1984 elections Reagan was Altzgamer sick.
Wasting money for stupid weapon race was the idiotism. It is profitable only for military producers paying money into republicans and democrats election funds. Gorbachov wisely suggest to stop the race and stop it. Cold war is gone, but USA still waste half of trillion (450bln)$ per year.
What Reagan did for SU collapse? Mach more did Levi’s, JVC, Sony, Adidas, etc. Soviet people desired to become consumer society, but socialistic system can’t did it. USSR missed electronic revolution.

I think you got your history backwards.

First Gorby called off the Cold War (he recognized there's no way to outspend the US), then came Levi's, JVC, Sony, Adidas.

We spend half a trillion dollars every year so our boys don't have to die by the thousands trying to make sure the world doesn't blow up.

HistoricalDavid
07 Aug 06,, 23:30
Cold war is gone, but USA still waste half of trillion (450bln)$ per year.

Believe it or not, there were and are other military threats in the world than just the Russia or USSR.

Canmoore
08 Aug 06,, 02:51
Sir John A McDonald.

Created a country, forged a rail line through some of the harshest and most diffucult environments on the planet, which would become the Steel Spine of this great Country, and to top it all off, squashed a rebellion.

MOPO3
14 Aug 06,, 19:23
I think you got your history backwards.

First Gorby called off the Cold War (he recognized there's no way to outspend the US), then came Levi's, JVC, Sony, Adidas.Whom did you try to explain? PepsiCo and Adidas have come to USSR at 1980, before Olympic Games. Soviet people were admired by jeans since 70th at least.

mich
15 Aug 06,, 13:21
Nelson Mandela for spearheading a movement that ended the disgusting system of apartheid in South Africa

spittle8
21 Aug 06,, 00:06
For current leaders, Putin. He's so deliciously evil. Nixon is dead, and I'm not sure Kissinger counts, so, Gerald Ford.

For dead guys, Teddy Roosevelt. For American politicians, Hamilton, Washington, Lincoln...

WHY ARE GANDHI AND CHURCHILL BEATING FDR? FDR calmed Stalin, marshalled the nation into a necessary war, sacrificed the fleet to get into that war, sent vital aid to Britain and the CCCP before even killing neutrality, and was elected president of the United States 4 times. He was damned popular, got the New Deal programs going, gave people work building dams and infrastructure at a time when our economy was dying, and built up our forces.

Churchill almost lost the war by almost losing North Africa, by forcing Wavell to sacrifice a huge portion of his Mediterranean forces in Greece, meddled in his military leaders affairs, caused deep distrust between the Allies and Stalin (he was, after all, the leading proponent of a significant, offensive force in Allied intervention at Archangelsk, wanting to "strangle the infant in the cradle" before Communism could gain serious power), and was generally a bitter, arrogant bastard. Also, after winning in WW2, he was voted out of power by his own loyal Britons.

Gandhi forced the British out by being highly annoying. Couldn't he have done it much faster by simply calling to arms some 1 billion Indians? He wasn't around to build that country in to much, was he? He was a dissenter. What a great legacy.

Just how I see it... :redface:

Dogukan
25 Aug 06,, 23:31
Mustafa Kemal is probably the best leader of the 20th century. He was the first muslim leader to fight against Imperialism. He inspired many other leaders around the world to fight for independence. He also introduced many reforms to modernize Turkey. He was the only one to use nationalism in a right way to improve his nation. He knew where to stop things on.

Ray
26 Aug 06,, 10:43
It may surprise many, but somehow Musharraf fascinates me.

He can run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

How many world leaders can claim that dexterity?

It is no mean feat!

MaxiBig
06 Sep 06,, 19:04
Mahatma Gandhi - I adore him

Churchill- that whacko called gandhi nanga fakir.Bloody nicotin addict...
Ataturk-Got syphlis . Didn't wear rubber
JFK-Nikita beat **** out of him,although most world believed otherwise
Rest-I don't care

gunnut
22 Sep 06,, 00:49
Whom did you try to explain? PepsiCo and Adidas have come to USSR at 1980, before Olympic Games. Soviet people were admired by jeans since 70th at least.

What about everything else? Pepsi was a pioneer along with a few western brand of consumer goods. They were probably quite expensive, out of reach for most people to use on a regular basis. Most likely status symbols.

Then after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the trasition to market economy, western goods became cheaper and more accessable by the public on a regular basis.

You can't tell me life under the old Soviet Union was better than Russia today. Unless you were a party boss back then and had all the power and the perks.

Ironduke
03 Dec 06,, 13:11
I am not voting because Clement Attlee was not on the list. Come on, he won by a landslide against Churchill. Churchill could only win because we have first past the post voting system.
If it were a US-style election, I'm sure Churchill would have won. The British voted out Churchill's party, not Churchill himself.

Bluesman
03 Dec 06,, 23:03
If it were a US-style election, I'm sure Churchill would have won. The British voted out Churchill's party, not Churchill himself.

Either way, it's a dam' shame, and simultaneously a symptom and a cause of the 'European disease' of softness of foreign policy, statism on domestic policy, and they dam' near spent themselves into ruin and surrendered themselves to the Soviets.

Liberals are WRONGWRONGWRONG on just about everything they believe, and while Churchill and the Tories may have been holding on to a past that was slipping away, the goddam' feckless Labour Party certainly were the wrong guys to ask for answers. (Imagine, if you can, Labour members addressing each other as 'comrade', while being threatened with destruction by foreign communists. There were other equally disgusting outward signs of this mob attempting to surrender themselves and their once-great nation, most involving disrespect and outright treachery toward anything American. The bastards.:mad: )

NEVER has history witnessed a Great Power decline so precipitously in a time of peace after a victorious war, and if you want to place blame, the hapless atlee (no caps for a 'man' such as him) gets some fingers pointed his way, and guess which ones I'm going to use?:mad:

astralis
04 Dec 06,, 00:02
bluesman,



Either way, it's a dam' shame, and simultaneously a symptom and a cause of the 'European disease' of softness of foreign policy, statism on domestic policy, and they dam' near spent themselves into ruin and surrendered themselves to the Soviets.

i am not about to question either the fecklessness of the labor party at the time nor the greatness of churchill, but i think it's ridiculous to go and accuse the brits of "european disease".

you're not thinking from the viewpoint of a brit at the end of WWII. years of stiff rationing, a continual call to duty- either for men or for more war bonds, getting bombed by the nazis, and seeing their boys die all around them (either above them, in the continent, or in colonial jungles and deserts).

after years of this, finally victory; and everyone knows churchill to be an imperialist...which means that he would go tooth and nail in keeping the empire together, with force if necessary. british blood for freedom and destroying the nazis is justifiable, but the people were starting to see that british blood to oppress and keep a worn-out empire together...not so much. after a while, the appeal of blood, sweat, and tears for something less than a mortal threat just doesn't work.

in the short term, the labor party was definitely bad for britain's economy. but their anti-imperialist policy allowed the brits to avoid the harrowing experience of the stiff-necked french- something that would prove in the long-term to be far, far better for both the UK and the world.

Bluesman
04 Dec 06,, 04:36
This is going to surprise you - but I'll give you most of that. The Brits have, except for some absolutely appalling lapses, which admittedly, Americans are prone to as well - been as stalwart as any ally we've had, and if they haven't been as 'American' as they should've been sometimes, they've NEVER, EVER been 'French'. And the world is a better place for it, too.

Hurrah, Great Britain. Hurrah, United Kingdom. We love dear old Mum.:)

astralis
04 Dec 06,, 05:28
bluesman,

we-ll, a surprise indeed, but not shocking- our positions on most issues are closer than what one would suspect, sir. ;)

i will second that hurrah for the UK and Mum anyday. cheers to that. :biggrin:

Draconion
04 Dec 06,, 13:16
I might have been a bit late on the poll, but better late than never!;)

I voted Mahatma Gandhi

Truely a great leader. What he did was not only good for India, but also for Great Britian!

I wish I had the gumption to follow his ideals to the hilt.

But alas, it is not so. The world has become too complex to do it now.

Theres too much deceit and hate to follow his way. Too many cheater, liers, compititors to live like a saint.

I salute him.:)

globaltracker
13 Dec 06,, 07:27
I think you have missed one of the most beastly man Adolf Hitler he was an enigmatic leader for germany. He came when germans where totally deprived of self respect and living in a very poor state. He gave them the self respect and made them to call them selves as Germans proudly. You can't say that as he was responsible for so many deaths he cannot be a great leader. Because in the list i see many people who are responsible for that many deaths like tony blair and bush responsible for the present war on terror.

you can say that muslims have started this war but who was the main culprit in here USSr and USA there enemity brought the mujahidins in this world. they encouraged pakistan to train more of them and fund them. so they are reponsible for the recent terror. Britsh is no holy angel. they are responsible for the state of many countries. They killed scores of people in India inthere reign over 250 years. they looted the country dry. present slums and all the skum was because of UK. They came to INdia when it was in prime of its glory.

Draconion
13 Dec 06,, 08:40
^
!
!
Troll?:confused:

gilgamesh
13 Dec 06,, 10:12
I think you have missed one of the most beastly man Adolf Hitler he was an enigmatic leader for germany. He came when germans where totally deprived of self respect and living in a very poor state. He gave them the self respect and made them to call them selves as Germans proudly. You can't say that as he was responsible for so many deaths he cannot be a great leader. Because in the list i see many people who are responsible for that many deaths like tony blair and bush responsible for the present war on terror.

you can say that muslims have started this war but who was the main culprit in here USSr and USA there enemity brought the mujahidins in this world. they encouraged pakistan to train more of them and fund them. so they are reponsible for the recent terror. Britsh is no holy angel. they are responsible for the state of many countries. They killed scores of people in India inthere reign over 250 years. they looted the country dry. present slums and all the skum was because of UK. They came to INdia when it was in prime of its glory.

N/T

Firestorm
15 Dec 06,, 17:29
I admire Deng Xiaoping.
Though i'm not chinese, i believe china wudnt have been what it is today without him.From one of the poorest countries in the world to the fastest growing economy...It was Deng that kickstarted it.

RussFag
16 Dec 06,, 21:03
:confused: How is he worthy of admiration?

You have to be a Russian to understand this phenomenon.
It’s funny that after two bloody wars Putin enjoys a 55% approval rating among Chechens.

RussFag
16 Dec 06,, 21:04
A real, live Marxist? My second one in a lifetime!

How does it feel to be 100% wrong about everything you believe in?

-dale

I think you are confusing marxism and stalinism. These are different things. Stalinism is bankrupt today, but marxism is common in Europe. Indeed most of continental Europe now has socialistic economic systems. In Austria, one of the richest societies in the world, you can find hammer and sickle on the state blazon.

RussFag
16 Dec 06,, 21:05
Seems that the majority of contributors (with some exceptions) here tend to prefer their national leaders.
The Americans love Reagan,
the Britons adore Churchill,
the Indians worship Gandhi,
the Turks obsessed over Ataturk,
the Russians like Putin and so on.

Nationalism lives and blossoms.

But what about a real world leader?

cape_royds
16 Dec 06,, 21:31
My vote went to Churchill, because not only did he provide his best leadership at a time of the deepest crisis for the world as he knew it, but because he was able to overcome many of his own prejudices over the course of his career. He was able and willing to learn. He went from being "brilliant but erratic," to being a pillar of statesmanship.

Also, he penned a great motto:

In War, Courage.
In Defeat, Defiance.
In Victory, Magnanimity.
In Peace, Good Will.

northface
17 Dec 06,, 23:43
In War, Courage.
In Defeat, Defiance.
In Victory, Magnanimity.
In Peace, Good Will.

Beautiful quote..I like it. IF Churchill and not his speechmakers did say it. Admirable. :)

Bluesman
19 Dec 06,, 00:23
Winnie could turn a phrase. I bet HE said it, and any speech writers (a modern invention) he may have had said, 'I wish I'd come up with that.'

T_igger_cs_30
21 Mar 08,, 00:29
I do believe Winston wrote all his own speeches

Bella
21 Mar 08,, 01:22
I voted for Roosevelt! The man was handicapped, led his nation out of the Great Depression, and led during WWII. That's pretty respectable in today's politics. How many people today would vote for a handicapped President?
God Bless the Media!:rolleyes:
My second vote would go to Churchill. He was just as good as Roosevelt in my book, but a little too much of a drunk.;)

kuku
21 Mar 08,, 09:51
Mr. Boris, for being funny on TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v/R-z9wfueMAw

And Mr. Bill for being the most convincing on TV ever.
YouTube - Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs)
and also for being one of the most popular foreign leaders to visit India for no apparent reason.

Form my nation it will be Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri, many points i disagree with however for most i agree with his thoughts.
Perhaps also because what he said with a soft voice
"We would prefer to live in poverty for as long as necessary but we shall not allow our freedom to be subverted."

Ray
21 Mar 08,, 10:36
Ironduke!!

With TH as his deputy!



And of course with all the sidekicks they have to nod their heads in agreement!! :))

Do I get banned?

Please PM and I will apologise!

snc128
21 Mar 08,, 20:37
of course various leaders can be listed because of some specific reasons.
absolutely Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is one of the most suitable leaders for the nomination because of his war tactics, political strategies,modern point of views and unpecedented belief to his nation for success.

Ghandhi, was a true leader. cuz to bring back a nation's independence by refusing war might only be peculiar to a minority of people throughout the history.it was an another stroy of success.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah,was another great leader. despite facing numerous obstacles, he never loss his dignity and found the state of Pakistan. he just played the game the way that suits his personality and succeeded.

Reagen, is the man whom the current Americans owe their prosperity. He was a leader.

I like Kennedy personally.I think he was a brave leader.

I generally love the ones who row against the flow.if you have money,you can raise your money much more.but raising the amount of your money without having a capital at first is the real achievement.

LetsTalk
22 Mar 08,, 05:17
easy choice for me, Gandhi

LetsTalk
22 Mar 08,, 05:20
I voted for Roosevelt! The man was handicapped, led his nation out of the Great Depression, and led during WWII. That's pretty respectable in today's politics. How many people today would vote for a handicapped President?

My second choice

Clinton and G. W. Bush do not belong on this list :(

AAAO
24 Mar 08,, 00:09
One of my classmates wore a Joseph Stalin T-shirt to class the other day. I verbally abused him in public. He hasn't worn it since, but he still barks a lot on the usual left-wing topics.

S65
24 Mar 08,, 02:27
I think Genghis Khan is missing on there. That'd be hilarious!

AAAO
24 Mar 08,, 02:38
I voted for Kemal Pasha. Of the listed modern leaders he accomplished more with less, in my opinion.

AAAO
24 Mar 08,, 02:46
. . . my reply would violate WAB guideline § 1) 3., "posting content which is sexually suggestive" . . .

gunnut
24 Mar 08,, 05:34
Clinton and G. W. Bush do not belong on this list :(

Agreed. Not enough time has gone by to allow us to really look at the effects of their administrations on this nation and the world.

The funny thing is B J Clinton was like Jesus Christ Superstar to the dems before they found another messiah in Barack "my grandmother was a typical white person" Obama. Liberals are a fickle bunch.

gunnut
24 Mar 08,, 05:35
One of my classmates wore a Joseph Stalin T-shirt to class the other day. I verbally abused him in public. He hasn't worn it since, but he still barks a lot on the usual left-wing topics.

Good for you! I'm surprised all his friends in Che T-shirts didn't come to his defense and shout you down with comments like "racist...bigot...":biggrin:

AAAO
24 Mar 08,, 08:13
(I still have the "Drop It" button from the '60s that matches your avatar. Arc-lite appreciation society . . .)

Big K
24 Mar 08,, 08:31
..Ataturk-Got syphlis . Didn't wear rubber..

i do not think so...he died because of cirrhosis...

Big K
24 Mar 08,, 08:36
any of these leaders didnt led their nation to a new life from the ashes of an ancient empire.

(sorry i forgot :) )edit:

except M.Kemal Ataturk, so my vote goes M.Kemal Ataturk.

gunnut
24 Mar 08,, 08:40
any of these leaders didnt led their nation to a new life from the ashes of an ancient empire.

Ronald Reagan did. He rebuilt America following 20 years of narcissist tree-hugging weed-smoking socialist liberal hippie movement. :biggrin:

Big K
24 Mar 08,, 12:21
Ronald Reagan did. He rebuilt America following 20 years of narcissist tree-hugging weed-smoking socialist liberal hippie movement. :biggrin:

wasnt he an actor?

was he a good one?

gunnut
24 Mar 08,, 17:11
wasnt he an actor?

was he a good one?

Yes he was an actor. I don't know how good he was but I know he was a staunch anti-communist, rare for an actor these days. Might be rare back then too.

Shipwreck
25 Mar 08,, 22:40
wasnt he an actor?

was he a good one?

Nope.

Kansas Bear
26 Mar 08,, 05:07
Where's Glyn's name? Of course, once he takes over the world.........:))

crooks
26 Mar 08,, 19:24
I voted De Gaulle just to pisch the yanks here off :biggrin: - besides my token vote for the Right-Wing Looneypoo (whom I generally have no love for, he blocked Ireland's entry to the EEC cause were were 'too close' to the Americans!) I'd have to say Gandhi - he mobilised a nation to look for peaceful self-determination, truly an inspiration.

Bob Jones
27 Mar 08,, 17:57
Were going off the point a tad chaps, back to the thead and keep your politics to the PM arena, cos no one else really cares

brak
20 Apr 08,, 07:27
oi...where's lil Kim ? :biggrin:

ameer
20 Apr 08,, 07:46
8 votes for Dubya? Seriously?

TTL
21 Apr 08,, 17:04
The importance and scope of Ataturk's impact on Turkish history and way of life, as a statesman, soldier and reformer is unparalled by any other event or leader IMO. So i also vote for him. And where is Stalin, Lenin or Hitler? I think they at least deserve a mention for so many people followed them let it be for good or bad.

pravin
21 Apr 08,, 17:14
They forgot SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE the great leader .I can't bear it

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 08,, 17:37
He lost.

Fiona Shrot
27 May 08,, 19:46
Gandhiji