The Real World NES

[Symphony D.]

EDIT: As for Bush, I still think SwissEmpire is the best for this role... However, out of older NESers, emu also strikes me as similar - he just tends to have a more cooperative and grateful population.

No... no, Swissempire is definitely either Mussolini (regardless of what's being measured!) or, if we must stick to US Presidents, William Henry Harrison.

 

[das]

I agree that he is Mussolini... nevertheless, all of us mostly observed him playing minor upstart would-be so-called "empires". However, in stalin's unfortunately-dead latest NES, he played a fairly Bushite Russian great power...

 

[Thlayli]

Hmm, I could do worse then Chavez. In terms of populism, certainly, and his political strategies are quite intelligent, especially the more subtle alignments.

But I don't care for his positions much, and in the long term he'll be taken out of power. If and when the proverbial IT begins, Chavez may expire quite quickly, unless his Chinese allies manage to protect him.

H.W's failure to drive for Baghdad in the Persian Gulf War reminded me a bit of that original invasion of the Ottoman Empire in NES2 V. Like Chavez, I prefer to have a large fanatical base of support, using Islam or another religion as the primary motivator. Fanaticism will practically secure a country for you, if it's channeled correctly.

 

[Swissempire]

I rule a damn fine great power, i just never get the chance. Thats why i'm so pissed Satlin chose to have a life over NESing. Damn him!

Though i sadly admit i'm a Bushy NESer. It makes me cry inside, but its true. I think my Russia and my Swade.....show it.

*cries*

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Swades? They're not Bushish, IMHO.

 

[Israelite9191]

Of modern leaders, the first two that come to mind are Emir Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani and his son Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar. Like them I am a moralist domestic reformer. In foreign affairs, like them, I take a strong hand and often act beyond my actual power, and with normally pleasent results as Qatar does. Of more prominent leaders, I can't say.

 

[Swissempire]

Swades? They're not Bushish, IMHO.

Very Relgious
Hate of another major religion
idealist foreign policy
spreading our ways around the world
Exerting influence over large nation near you(Canada....Myocaca)
Obsession with Swords

 

[Israelite9191]

I disagree. Bush has not "lost" a military campaign yet, he has just failed to meet certain critical objectives. In all cases, there was initial stunning success (the initial combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan were, frankly, brilliant). The military aspect is not where Bush suffers, it is the political aspect. In that way, he is the exact opposite of Thlayli.

George W. Bush would be somebody who frequently wins wars, yet is disliked and ultimately perhaps isolated or destroyed due to his inability to politically connect. That description fits none of the people who have been nominated (or volunteered) for it, except perhaps Darkening's performance in Segu, which is too small a sample to make a total judgment off of.

On that note, I still don't see what makes me Lincoln. At all. Man was far too unsure of himself and eloquent. Now, if William Tecumseh Sherman had been a President... but alas.

George W. Bush did succesfully, quickly, and efficiently bring an end to the Taliban and Sadam Hussein's regime, but he completely screwed up in the withdrawal and stabilization stages. If Bush was such a good military president, would we still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, would the Taliban still be able to fight us, would Osama bin Laden still be free, etc. etc.?

 

[Symphony D.]

At the risk of turning this into a political topic, but in order to answer the question:

I don't know of anyone who has a shred of knowledge on military matters who earnestly believes you can topple the government of a dictator who has for thirty years repressed all ethnic disagreements and strife through brute force and armed his nation to the teeth, and expect to walk away within three years. A lot of people seem to like to throw this idea out there with their talk of time tables and withdrawl plans and "bring the troops home" in order to posture politically but it has no basis in reality or fact.

Similarly, you can't waltz into a nation where for over twenty years all that has been known is civil war, and where carrying an AK-47 is a symbol of manhood, knock out some badguys, and walk away. That's pretty much what the US did with Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, and it landed us precisely where we are today.

Stabilization and occupation, despite what some pundits might lead one to believe, is not something that is achieved in six months after you topple a government, and then you go home. Knocking off an enemy is one thing; bringing peace is a whole 'nother. As an example, how long ago were the Korean War and WWII fought? We still have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, not always wanted either.

In these regards, Bush has made quite a number of mistakes, although the vast bulk of them are in fact public relations (he has done an abysmal job here) or equipment (problems with Humvees could be solved by deploying M113 APCs, the body armor issue was inexcusable, so forth) problems. Occupation of nations which have been or are on the edge of civil war is not and has never been easy, and the notion one can just go in and magically fix things is a distinctly modern misconception (I blame Gulf War I for somehow luring people into believing nobody dies in war and it's over quick and easy). Kosovo today is little better, yet I don't hear anybody criticizing Clinton. The chief problem stems from the fact that the Military is not the Police; they are not designed to serve in a peacekeeping or occupational role. But that is another matter entirely.

Regarding bin Laden, he's over-rated. He's the pretty face and the front man. Most available intelligence points to Ayman al-Zawahiri being the real brains of the operation. Given he also hasn't been seen in something like two years, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he had died, by our hands or some others either. That he was not captured is unfortunate as a public relations coup, but given the layout of Tora Bora, unless we had literally deposited something exceeding 200,000 troops into Afghanistan, I do not think we would have caught him regardless, or it would've been a very iffy thing; which it has been anyway. Most top-ranking Al Qaeda members except these two have been taken out anyway.

Bush is, at worst, an average military President, and, at best, a fairly good one. Certainly his record, for all its flaws, stomps all over Clinton's like Godzilla in Tokyo. Or, for that matter, Jimmy Carter's, or Lyndon B. Johnson's (now McNamara and his "Whiz Kids" are a prime example of how to send military operations way south of FUBAR; that man makes Rumsfeld look like a goddamn genius). At least, for a more modern President, anyway. Most of the recent ones have been fairly terrible at it or have only had to engage in minor actions, to be honest.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

@Swissempire- Hmm, in that sense I suppose... and you DID do some highly unsuccessful spreadings that brought misery to many people (mainly the Svitzers...)

 

[Oruc]

EDIT: As for Bush, I still think SwissEmpire is the best for this role... However, out of older NESers, emu also strikes me as similar - he just tends to have a more cooperative and grateful population.

Im Bush? awesome

 

[~Darkening~]

for it, except perhaps Darkening's performance in Segu, which is too small a sample to make a total judgment off of.

For which I am glad. I would be perfectly happy without being associated with GWB.

No, if it was a personal jab, I'd put you as Buchanan.

If you had read my hypothetical historical voting record, Nixon is actually one of the few Republican presidents I would have voted in for both terms.

Is that supposed to be compliment or what ;]? And, don't vote republican- its such a bad thing to do ;].

 

[Azale]

It's just the "in" thing to bash GWB...I completely agree with Symphony, his ideas are basically mine except he has a deeper understanding of military history

I want a freakin leader associated with me already! Chop chop!

 

[das]

Chiang Kai-Shek? Hatred of PRC+general competence+bad circumstances+bad luck.

 

[Luckymoose]

Bumped from the netherworld of NESing for the enjoyment of Lord Iggus and I.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Following Alexander the Great's Conquests- Part 2

Darius3: I still think it's stupid that you managed to conquer Greece AND me in one turn. I put so much work into this, and he writes a few stories about some perfect general-king and destroys it all!?!

Alex_teh_Great: You can be my vassal.

Darius3: MODERATOR ACTION: This comment has been removed for coarse language. Watch it next time.

Alex_teh_Great: EDIT: Okay, your comment's gone.

Darius3: I'm going to rebel, you know. You've destroyed the Achaemenids, but I shall return as... the Sassanid Persians!

Alex_teh_Great: Don't be a metagamer just 'cause I beat you. It's not cool man.

Darius3: Say that to your collapsed empire next turn.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Symphony D, with hindsight, (given it is hard to think without it), what would you have done in George W Bush's posistion?