1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Who are the best leaders

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Bast, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    Although I agree that the war pulled us completely out of the Depression, I feel the New Deal presented by FDR did indeed help, Although it is debated among economist, whether it did or did not help.

    To be fair, He did what he could do. I mean how many people actually know how to battle that kind of collapse lol especially at that time.
     
  2. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    Um... well, it depends. Augustus killed any hope of political freedom once he gained sole dominance. Freedom of speech was not allowed if it meant you were speaking out against the regime. In that way, he most certainly reduced liberties, though it may not have been so cut-and-dried at first.

    As to whether that was reduced "much" compared to what was before (in Caesar's time), well, there you may have a point. :D But compared to the good days of the Republic, it was less free. Of course, his other reforms were excellent, and turned Rome into a long-lasting world empire.
     
  3. Quueg

    Quueg Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    168
    Wow, this is so far wrong, it's hard to know where to start. In the interest of keeping this a civil gaming forum, I won't. I'll just suggest that you open your mind a bit. And do some reading.
     
  4. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    lol I thought the exact same thing when I read that one, I skipped it. I was like wow. COME ON
     
  5. dante alighieri

    dante alighieri Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    Oberammergau, Germany
    That is one of the reasons I thought "crackpot". But I don't want to derail the OP's thread, so let him go on hatin'. In being inflexible in his opinion he only shows his own intolerance.
     
  6. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    I'm no economist, I study international history. However, my research center has a few economists working for it.
    I know personnally 3 credible economists who wouldn't agree with you at all.

    I'm not familiar with the academic debate on this, but considering that none of them would say that "every single measure FDR passed" hurt the economy" and considering that many economic and politicalhistorians say that FDR was one of the best President, I don't think there is a consensus on the subject.
    Furthermore, considering how highly regarded FDR is by many scholars, I think it is reasonable to say that credible scholars agreeing with you would be a minority.
    Therefore, I think your comment is false (lacks so much nuanced that it can be called false) and ideologically biased.

    A precision: I never said FDR's economic reform were perfect. However, saying they were all bad has no credibility. It is an opinion based on a vague remark about "credible economists".
    Find me the proof of your scientific CONSENSUS on this. [Hint: don't waste your time: you won't]
    Really you should be more nuanced.
    You've got a one-sided view of the issue.
     
  7. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    Of course, if you judge past leaders through the very contemporary lense of political freedom, not much would appear as great leader.

    However, if you put Augustus' rule in the context of its time (a context where political freedom was not regarded the same way as it is today, a context where many other rulers of this time were much more autocratic, a context where civil wars and dictators had created terror (Sulla) and numerous killings, a context where liberties were already partly destroyed*), Augustus doesn't have a too bad record on liberties compared to other leaders of his time.

    *We also have to remember that the Roman republic was not as great or as free as many would believe it. It has not much to do with today's Democratic republics. The Republic had been malfunctionning and experiencing crisis after crisis since the Gracchus brothers and the land crisis of the 130s and 120s (BC). That was a century before Augustus... What was left of political freedom a century later when political leaders got regularly (for more than a century) killed on the streets or imprisoned for their political stance?
     
  8. Arlborn

    Arlborn Legendary Noob

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,939
    The thing is, for some people any reason is no reason to start nuking...
     
  9. ZB2

    ZB2 New wave Ideology

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    Europe
    Augustus Ceaser, Ghengis Khan and Napoleon.
     
  10. Quueg

    Quueg Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    168
    Understood. And generally they're right. The situation at the end of WWII was unique, however, for a wide variety of reasons.
     
  11. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,533
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    QFT

    And Gandhi, because he is the most brilliant liberator I've ever heard of. No weapons? Nice job.
     
  12. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki will always be a subject of debate. I'm not knowledgeable enough of the situation at the time to pass judgement.
    I recommend the documentary Fog of War: lessons of the life of Robert McNamara.
    It is not really about the bombs, but McNamara (former secretary of defense under Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy) talks about the incendiary bombs that actually destroyed and killed much more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima did (Japans cities were made of wood...).
    He was involved into these operations and he still seems unsure whether this was necessary.
    He is morally ambigous about the whole thing. He seems to think it was useful Yet, he admits that General Curtis Lemay and him are actually war criminals for participating in this and that, had USA lost to the Axis, they would have been prosecuted for these murderous bombings.
    Knowing this that McNamara considers that these were war crimes... what do we make of the A bombs?

    Morality in wartime, I'm not sure this subject will ever be solved.


    On another subject, rock and fascism are antithesis... Putting them in the same expression is an insult to the spirit rock music!
     
  13. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    If we take into account leaders that never actually were rulers of their country, Gandhi is the best by far. No contest. What a man!

    So my choice would be:

    Ruler: Augustus Caesar
    Any kind of leaders: Gandhi
     
  14. Quueg

    Quueg Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    168
    For of War is a brilliant documentary. And McNamara's viewpoint is certainly compelling. But I do think there's more than a little bit of old guy revisionism in his thinking. As food for thought, it's very interesting. As gospel, though, it falls short. Even old guys can fall into the trap of 20/20 hindsight.
     
  15. UnspokenRequest

    UnspokenRequest Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    328
    I totally agree.
    Fog of war is food for thought.
    Yet, I think most of his revisionist tendencies are related to Vietnam. It shows in the way he's more closed on the subject.
    On WW2, he was really open to discussion, which leads me to believe that this part is more accurate than the parts on Vietnam.
     
  16. Arlborn

    Arlborn Legendary Noob

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,939
    That my friend, I completely agree with!

    He should be ashamed... :rolleyes:
     
  17. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    that is judeo-christian propaganda, nothing more.
    Pyramids were not built by slaves, pyramids were built by contracted workers. yes, some died, but back in those days, we didn't exactly have scaffolding or netting to catch the workers falling off the building. This is a known fact in egyptology because there were tablets discovered in Memphis not so long ago where payment details of the artisans and workers were written.
    You see, it is MUCH cheaper to actually EMPLOY people to build stuff than get it built by slaves, since involving slaves mean you must also have hundreds and hundreds of military present in the scene, to prevent the slaves from rebelling/rioting/escaping and that costs a $hitload of money.

    Doesn't change the fact that all that you've heard are just american sources.

    Again, this is a categoric falsehood. Go to freedom of information act related websites and it is underlined that MOST of the thinktank rejected the nuclear option.

    When your intelligence agency is propping up the despotic and unpopular govt, when your military presence and sales are propping up that govt, it meets every single definition of a puppet regime, not an 'alliance' as your government likes to put it.

    That is because Israel also MAKES a lot of their own military hardware and their military hardware is NOT exclusively US made. When your army is exclusively dependent on a foreign power, it is a puppet army. Its just that simple.

    Err no, nobody but a few middle-eastern puppet regimes and a few tinpot dictators in Africa buy exclusively from one supplier.

    Sorry but that doesn't fly. When your intelligence operatives are crawling all over the countryside as in Nicaragua, you know what is going on.

    There is a big difference reading news on the internet and actually living in a different country and experiencing their perspective.
    To put it crudely, it is the difference between sex with condoms and without condoms.

    Funny to an American, offensive to everyone else.

    Type in Tuskagee experiments in google.

    Yes, when it is backed by live testimonies of former US soldiers and is picked up and broadcasted by other news networks as well.
     
  18. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Sorry but i disagree. I've experienced Public schooling in England, i have experienced American schooling system too (through international schools) and i have experienced Canadian higher education systems.
    The word 'brainwashing' is more apt in the case of US education than any of the nations you've mentioned, including Russia.

    Eh ? The logic behind this is what ? Neutrality is to do with allegience. I am not American, i have nothing to gain by being pro-american. I am not exactly a terrorist crackpot intent on blowing stuff up and neither am i poor exactly.
    So i have nothing to gain by being anti-american either. I don't exclusively watch America programming so i have no idea where you pulled that out of.

    Wiki isn't the only source- but it is the easiest source to quote. Most of my sources are unquotable really because most of my sources are professors/teachers i interact with personally.

    Again, i don't see how you are comming to this conclusion.
    No, i havn't lived in the US ( i don't consider 'living' somewhere unless i've spent atleast the better part of a year there continuously or its nothing more than 'extended transit') but i have visited the US several times.

    Well from the philosophical background i come from, Pride(ego) is the fundamental shortcomming of mankind. So in short, forget being prideful of their homes, any sort of pride is unjustified.

    I didn't ask you to stop loving your country- just stop letting your love blind you towards facts and reason.

    I am not saying Fox is conservative-biased. I am saying that Fox is a joke with zero idea and credibility about journalistic integrity.I find Al-Jazeera to be a more neutral source than Fox and AJ isnt exactly high on neutrality stakes either.
     
  19. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    <edit: wrong thread>
     
  20. Peng Qi

    Peng Qi Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,431
    Location:
    Irrelevant.
    I actually said I have read non-American sources that all agree with me, including the majority of Japanese sources I have read.
    Thinktanks are not the commanders on the ground. Usually they aren't even the commanders in charge of operations.
    Except that we have no control over their actions, which is the defining element of a puppet government.
    So Iran is a puppet.
    So Iran's almost exclusively Russian arsenal doesn't count?
    Give me proof of this "crawling all over the countryside."
    So it's the difference between being intelligent, responsible, and far-thinking and being impulsive, irresponsible, and stupid?
    After reading about the study, I have come to the conclusion that it was the fault of the institute that conducted the study and the shady practices were not endorsed by the United States government.
    Nonsense. We broadcast bullcrap all the time. Everyone does.
     

Share This Page