Best Leader of History?
- Thread starter Fayadi
- Start date
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
As an Englishman I have to say that the best leader in history would have to be Churchill. I admit that I cannot be objective in a question of this sort but no-one can deny what Churchill did was the actions of a great leader.
Fayadi
Technocrat
Mikoyan sorry....................
For your sake i am gonna tell u,You will find anti arab msg everywhere among white teenagers,my friend actually tell me not to tell anybody but just to prevent further misunderstand my good friend's relatives died in WTC and I know her! and I know the feeling of my friend i still remembered a week of anti arab statements he made to me clearly(he cant control himself perharps?)... and I have overexpressed myself.You know that kind of things happened in life.....I really hate the terrorists......I have overexpressed.....Allright Mikoyan i will delete all the anti arab's messages
For your sake i am gonna tell u,You will find anti arab msg everywhere among white teenagers,my friend actually tell me not to tell anybody but just to prevent further misunderstand my good friend's relatives died in WTC and I know her! and I know the feeling of my friend i still remembered a week of anti arab statements he made to me clearly(he cant control himself perharps?)... and I have overexpressed myself.You know that kind of things happened in life.....I really hate the terrorists......I have overexpressed.....Allright Mikoyan i will delete all the anti arab's messages
K
knowltok
Guest
Fayedi: The fact that what you believe to be (We are talking about the net here) white teenagers have made racist comments doesn't exactly make it right. I am glad you hate terrorism, but you can do beeter than echoing thoughts and opinions you see in chat rooms on the web. As an American I can say, please don't take your information or views from American teenagers in chat rooms.
The reason that others are pointing to China is that you have come out as a China supporter and they are providing an example of why you shouldn't generalize. They could have made the point that you can't judge Germany by the Nazis, but it is more likely to hit hoe if they use China as an example.
Your disregard for starvation death concerns me. If a government institutes a policy in which millions starve to death I fail to see how this is any less criminal than killing them in some other way. Personally I would chose flaming inceneration over slowly starving to death. Watching my friends and family die and having nothing I could do about it. It may not be terrorism, but it is a particularly cruel form of torture. Hopefully that period of China's history seems to be in the past.
A note on CNN, while they are generally a good news service, they are not the arbieters of truth. They are an American For-Profit company and will fill the airwaves with what gets people to watch so that they can sell advertising. That means you will see Arabs demonstrating, not going about their daily lives. You will see the few students demonstrating in Berkly, not the Millions of Americans quietly going about their lives in support of the war on terrorism.
The reason that others are pointing to China is that you have come out as a China supporter and they are providing an example of why you shouldn't generalize. They could have made the point that you can't judge Germany by the Nazis, but it is more likely to hit hoe if they use China as an example.
Your disregard for starvation death concerns me. If a government institutes a policy in which millions starve to death I fail to see how this is any less criminal than killing them in some other way. Personally I would chose flaming inceneration over slowly starving to death. Watching my friends and family die and having nothing I could do about it. It may not be terrorism, but it is a particularly cruel form of torture. Hopefully that period of China's history seems to be in the past.
A note on CNN, while they are generally a good news service, they are not the arbieters of truth. They are an American For-Profit company and will fill the airwaves with what gets people to watch so that they can sell advertising. That means you will see Arabs demonstrating, not going about their daily lives. You will see the few students demonstrating in Berkly, not the Millions of Americans quietly going about their lives in support of the war on terrorism.
Fayedi:
Another thing, not wanting to jump on the anti-fayedi commitee
, but when the English were 'governing' Ireland, the Irish had a thing called the Irish Potato Famine. It devastated them for decades afterwards. The English could have helped, but didn't. This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today.
Another thing, not wanting to jump on the anti-fayedi commitee
, but when the English were 'governing' Ireland, the Irish had a thing called the Irish Potato Famine. It devastated them for decades afterwards. The English could have helped, but didn't. This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
What could the British have done that would have saved the Irish. They depended on the potato crop like Third world countries depend on crops such as coffee. I am not defending the actions of the British which I admit were appalling but you have to remember the time in which they occured. If something like the potato famine happening in Britain at that time do you think that the reaction of the British government would have been different and if so how?
The IRA are around today because they consider British occupation of their homeland to be unacceptable. They are not the only group in the world who feel this way about a different country, take Eta for example. So you can not blame the Potato famine for the current problems in Northern Ireland.
"So you can not blame the Potato famine for the current problems in Northern Ireland"
"This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today."
Note I said 'one of the reasons'.
."What could the British have done that would have saved the Irish?"
I didn't say they could have saved them, I said they could have helped but didn't. Big difference. Millions died, millions left the country. Ireland was never the same again.
"This is just one of the reasons why groups like the IRA are around today."
Note I said 'one of the reasons'.
."What could the British have done that would have saved the Irish?"
I didn't say they could have saved them, I said they could have helped but didn't. Big difference. Millions died, millions left the country. Ireland was never the same again.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Best leaders in history:
1. Cyrus the Great
2. Peter the Great
3. Philip II of Macedon
4. Genghis Khan
5. Prophet Mohammed
6. Otto von Bismarck
7. Akhenaton
8. Augustus Caesar
9. Josef Stalin
10. Shi Huang Di
1. Cyrus the Great
2. Peter the Great
3. Philip II of Macedon
4. Genghis Khan
5. Prophet Mohammed
6. Otto von Bismarck
7. Akhenaton
8. Augustus Caesar
9. Josef Stalin
10. Shi Huang Di
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Stalin farted constantly.
My vote goes elsewhere.
R.III
(Perhaps, to Richard III, who is about as qualified for the title as Stalin is?)
My vote goes elsewhere.
R.III
(Perhaps, to Richard III, who is about as qualified for the title as Stalin is?)
Originally posted by CurtSibling
...Perhaps we should have let Stalin and Adolf blow each other to smithereens...
Not a upper-class toff who slaughtered thousands of men in the First World war.
Churchill once shot a soldier in the foot while posing for a PR photo!
Ace
1. Hilter would have steamrolled Stalin without British Aid (Yes, British Aid until 44 Britian give far more than the US) and British
action in North Africa (Rommel & the Africa Core were the cream
of the crop and they would have been in Russia).
2. Please explain this one "who slaughtered thousands of men in the First World war." Churchill did not defeat imperial Germany single handed. He had help.
3. So whats your point?
To borrow a phrase "You can argue about Churchill all Day"
If you want to attack his character you got an easy target,
He was a drunkard, egoistal, spoiled, you name it. If you
want to attack what he accomplished your going to have
a very hard row to hoe. He has been a victim of an campaign
of subersive propaganda since 1914 that contines to this day.
You setup any of his so called follies and i'll knock it down.
Guess who I vote for.
History Guy
Number Six
Well...err...I am not a Red, so Joseph Stalin isn't going to get my vote...but come to think of it, I can't really say who is the greatest leader of all time, except that I am sure it was not Montezuma...
Another question would be to ask which world leader had the greatest impact on history. I've somehow come to the conclusion that Mehmet II, that old scumbag, was the world leader who had the greatest impact on history because of conquering Constantinople in the (in)famous siege of 1453. With that victory, old Mehmet brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, paved the way (unwittingly) for the Renaissance and (unwittingly again) for the discovery of America.
Another question would be to ask which world leader had the greatest impact on history. I've somehow come to the conclusion that Mehmet II, that old scumbag, was the world leader who had the greatest impact on history because of conquering Constantinople in the (in)famous siege of 1453. With that victory, old Mehmet brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, paved the way (unwittingly) for the Renaissance and (unwittingly again) for the discovery of America.
Churchill didn't design Galiploi, he supported fighting anywhere
else but headon the german trenchs. Galiploi could have been
won if Admiral Robeck hav'nt loss his nerve after losing 3
battleships to mines. The Turkish gun emplacements were
almost all silenced. Fisher obstructed galiploi in everyway
possible. This was the real reason Galiploi failed. The
British government (especially Fisher) were playing politics.
The army in the plan was only to occupy, the navy was
to take the straits.
This is my opinion, you'll find other opinions that back me
up on this in the Galipoli thread. Churchill actually saved
lifes (allied anyways) by forcing through tank production.
The poster is a Scot, and I can understand the poster maybe
misinformed. Australia has Galipoli, We have Dieppe, so we
are not untouched by Churchill's leadership.
History Guy
Number Six
Where the Potato Famine is concerned, Mr. President is correct.
Actually, the British made an attempt to held out. Lord Russell headed that attempt, and though it helped a good many people, the majority of Irishmen could not be helped, nor could the British government do anything about it. It is silly to continually say that the British could have done oh so much more.
Actually, the British made an attempt to held out. Lord Russell headed that attempt, and though it helped a good many people, the majority of Irishmen could not be helped, nor could the British government do anything about it. It is silly to continually say that the British could have done oh so much more.
History Guy
Number Six
Churchill was truly great. He was the only guy out there up to 1941 who really opposed Hitler, everyone else was getting squashed or trying to keep out of it. Thank heavens for Winston Churchill.
Crimson Sunrise
Slaying tanks on turn 104
Abraham Lincoln. Without his iron will and determination the modern era of the United States and the 20th century itself might have unfolded differently. Who knows if the U.S. could have won the Second World War had there been a Confederacy to enter the equation, possibly as a belligerent on their doorstep?
Xiahou-Dun
Retired Super Hero
I would choose Ghandi.
Sargon of Akkad
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2002
- Messages
- 37
Sargon of Akkad.
Well he did establish one of the first empires in history, 2334 BC.
Other then that, I don't think he holds a torch to some of the other leaders mentioned.
Well he did establish one of the first empires in history, 2334 BC.
Other then that, I don't think he holds a torch to some of the other leaders mentioned.
Similar threads
