Who are the best leaders

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.
 
My leader: Augustus Caesar...He brought order where there was chaos, without reducing liberties much compared to what was there before him.

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.
 
No, America just nuke cities for no reason ( Hiroshima & Nagasaki- Trueman ordered nukage despite categoric advice against it from the Military commanders, who were far more qualified than Trueman to determine the necessity of using the nuclear alternative) and massacre cities indiscriminately like no other ( Dresden massacre) just for a show of power.

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.
 
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.

lol I thought the exact same thing when I read that one, I skipped it. I was like wow. COME ON
 
Feel free to oppose it all you want, but if you ask any credible economist they'll tell you that every single measure that FDR passed will hurt a country that's in recession and can only help one that's experiencing a boom.

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.
 
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.
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?
 
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.

The thing is, for some people any reason is no reason to start nuking...
 
The thing is, for some people any reason is no reason to start nuking...

Understood. And generally they're right. The situation at the end of WWII was unique, however, for a wide variety of reasons.
 
Justinian was the man who very nearly reunited the Roman Empire, after Western Rome crumbled, he used the forces of Eastern Rome to reconquer the west. It didn't last much beyond his death, though.
But for all the pretenders and supposed successors to Rome, Justinian is the only one who came close to making a new Rome.

Shaka and his forces resisted the full brunt of the most advanced nation on the planet, the British Empire. They may have eventually fallen, but it was still impressive leadership.

FDR used the events around him to turn a spineless, xenophobic nation into an economic and military superpower.

QFT

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

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

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
 
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?

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

That my friend, I completely agree with!

He should be ashamed... :rolleyes:
 
Thousands upon thousands of Slaves died during production.

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.

Opposite of what every single piece of credible evidence I have ever heard, from texts, from experts, and from non-school books.

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

and that most non-top tier American commanders were in favor of dropping the bomb.

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.

We're allies with that despotism. That means we help them when they have difficulty, even against people trying to overthrow them.

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.

Israel buys US hardware almost exclusively and they aren't a puppet.

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.

Basically, anyone who can afford new jets and tanks buys American.

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

I just don't see enough evidence to believe that Reagen knew about atrocities going on.

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.

I can read, and therefore have access to as many perspectives as you do. I just look at the same information and come to a different conclusion.

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.

and half of the things she says are just to be funny

Funny to an American, offensive to everyone else.

Care to clarify when this happened?

Type in Tuskagee experiments in google.

So one documentary on one news station that has a history of running anti-American programs and stories is proof enough for you?

Yes, when it is backed by live testimonies of former US soldiers and is picked up and broadcasted by other news networks as well.
 
The Public Schools in Canada BRAIN WASH YOU, the public Schools in England BRAIN WASH you, The public Schools in France BRAIN WASH YOU, the Public Schools in Russia BRAINWASH YOU.

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.

First and formost, If you're just watching Movies about America, or even the news about America, then You can not claim to be a neutral Observer.

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.

If the only source I can find your information from is Wiki, then I definately can't buy it.

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.

So, you've never lived in or been in the US? I'll find it hard to believe you live in Canada and haven't visited the United States, especially when 90% of the Population lives near the border,

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.

And you can't say people shouldn't be prideful of their home.
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.

Fact is, I like my country, I love my Home, and if you got a problem then deal with it, cause that won't change.

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

If you compare Fox news to CNN, CBS, and MSNBC, then ofcourse you'll say Fox has a conservative biased, because these 3 stations have a liberal biased, so because Fox isnt as liberal as them it means Fox is conservative.
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.
 
Doesn't change the fact that all that you've heard are just american sources.
I actually said I have read non-American sources that all agree with me, including the majority of Japanese sources I have read.
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.
Thinktanks are not the commanders on the ground. Usually they aren't even the commanders in charge of operations.
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.
Except that we have no control over their actions, which is the defining element of a puppet government.
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.
So Iran is a puppet.
Err no, nobody but a few middle-eastern puppet regimes and a few tinpot dictators in Africa buy exclusively from one supplier.
So Iran's almost exclusively Russian arsenal doesn't count?
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.
Give me proof of this "crawling all over the countryside."
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.
So it's the difference between being intelligent, responsible, and far-thinking and being impulsive, irresponsible, and stupid?
Type in Tuskagee experiments in google.
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.
Yes, when it is backed by live testimonies of former US soldiers and is picked up and broadcasted by other news networks as well.
Nonsense. We broadcast bullcrap all the time. Everyone does.
 
Top Bottom