Who's the worst leader?

[Spuzzell]

There's a poll about independence for S.America that's turned into a Bush-bashing thread in about 3 posts (and, btw, bush-bashing is TOTALLY a metaphor for female masturbation) and it got me thinking.

Is G.W. Bush the most despised leader on the globe?

The field is wide open, when you think about it.

England: Tony Blair. A pathetic poodle of a man, owned by Bush and opinion polls. A triumph of style over substance, the international leader equivalent of the skinny kid who hangs around behind the big bully in the playground, occasionally leaning out from behind his back and going "Yeah!"

North Korea: Kim Jong Il. Pro-terrorist, pro-nuclear insane tiny nutjob. Wants to nuke South Korea, where Samsung make those lovely sexy phones and TVs. Git. The last proper Communist leader, has life and death powers over his entire country, and executes any opposition.

Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe. Christ, what a mentalist. Kills people for telling jokes about himself, while presiding over a country that has inflation running at 1000%. A DAY. Is busy destroying what should be one of the richest countries in Africa, and is unashamedly racist towards whites. Has rigged two elections, and now gets around his political opposition (this is genius) by shooting them in the head. Don't see that on Capitol Beat or Question Time, huh.

Iran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad / Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Where to start.. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, is supporting the insurgency in Iraq, believes women are subhuman and that if raped should be stoned and wants to develop nuclear weapons. He is basically just the mouthpiece of Khamenei, the religious leader of Iran and the real power in the country, who is, in my opinion, the second most dangerous man in the world. He intends to see the destruction of Israel in his lifetime, believes that the world must be Islamic or destroyed, and his attitudes towards freedom of speech, freedom for women and religious tolerance can be summed up in one word. Death.

USA: Bush. Trying his best to provoke war on all continents. Unbelievably short-sighted, stunningly insular and spectacularly crass, he is the greatest threat to the worlds existence in living memory, and that includes the whole of the Cold War. He seems determined to set Islam against the West, his wars and his economic policy could at any moment tip the world into the greatest recession we have ever known and he refuses to accept that the US is by far the worlds greatest polluter. In the illegal imprisonment of detainees he has ignored the Constitution, the one thing the world respected about the US, and has set back the cause of world peace by decades. That's not even talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. Has completely alienated the US's traditional allies. A fool of a man, the best thing he could do is sleep till his term ends.

All of the above is my opinion only... so who's it gonna be? Who's the worst leader in the world?

[Anarkistsdream]

Kim Jong Il is definately the worst, but he is a GOOD leader... He is just a terribly evil man... I believe Bush is just stupid, so I voted for him as the worst...

[flashleg8]

I voted Bush. Mugabie's regime is disgusting, but it is tolerated and perpetrated out of misguided loyalty by the surrounding African nations (especially South Africa). It is difficult for us (in Britain, to have any influence in the region (due to our colonial past) to get an African consensus that Mugabie is hampering economic growth and stability.
But Bush...he poses at the moment the greatest threat to world stability with his gung-ho attitude to foreign policy. I don't personally blame the man himself - he is merely a figure head for the cartel of big business that elected and puppet him. The hawkish advisors that develop and implement policy are the ones to blame.

[Stopper]

If by "worst leader" you mean, those on your list who are, or are likely to cause, the greatest unhappiness for the greatest number of people, it has to be Bush. Even if his treatment of his own citizens is far better than that of the other leaders listed (except Blair), the fact is, the US's maltreatment of people abroad is second to none of those on your list. Their influence is global, while all the other leaders above are merely regional (or even less than that.)

Incidentally, why

England: Tony Blair.

The man himself isn't even English.

[Mjolnirs]

Bush bashing is a popular sport nowadays, but by starving his own people and threatening his neighbors with nuclear attacks makes Kim the winner here.

[hecter]

Bush bashing is a popular sport nowadays, but by starving his own people and threatening his neighbors with nuclear attacks makes Kim the winner here.

And bush doesn't do that?

[Mjolnirs]

Bush bashing is a popular sport nowadays, but by starving his own people and threatening his neighbors with nuclear attacks makes Kim the winner here.

And bush doesn't do that?

When have you heard Bush threaten to nuke anyone? (let alone Canada and Mexico, our neighbors.) Ahmadinejad and Kim throw around the Nuke threat with no problem.

[hecter]

It's called the cold war. You know, the russians, nuclear bombs, covert operations, ect.

[Mjolnirs]

It's called the cold war. You know, the russians, nuclear bombs, covert operations, ect.

Bush wasn't even governor of Texas yet when the Cold War actually ended. Try again.

[hecter]

It's called the cold war. You know, the russians, nuclear bombs, covert operations, ect.

Bush wasn't even governor of Texas yet when the Cold War actually ended. Try again.

DAMN YOU! Okay, try this whole Iraq, Iran thing. I imagine WHEN Bush attacks Iran, there will be nukes involved.

[Blueoctober]

i voted for bush not because hes stupid or anything but because the questionw as who is the worst leader and thats bush. hes lost his support but lacks the power to do anything against a democtratic congress. hes not a strong leader basically

[Machiavelli]

It's called the cold war. You know, the russians, nuclear , covert operations, ect.

Bush wasn't even governor of Texas yet when the Cold War actually ended. Try again.

[s.xkitten]

look...if you hate bush, you can get an add on for how much longer he's in office (firefox only)

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3792/

[flashleg8]

Bush bashing is a popular sport nowadays, but by starving his own people and threatening his neighbors with nuclear attacks makes Kim the winner here.

And bush doesn't do that?

When have you heard Bush threaten to nuke anyone? (let alone Canada and Mexico, our neighbors.) Ahmadinejad and Kim throw around the Nuke threat with no problem.

A story in the March 10 edition (2002) of The Los Angeles Times revealed that the Pentagon has drawn up a list of seven countries who are prime targets for U.S. nuclear weapons in the event of undefined “surprising military developments.”

The report, titled “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) and signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, and delivered to Congress on January 8, is already being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to develop a new generation of low-yield bunker-busting min-nukes and other nuclear weapons and to prepare a plan for their use.

The NPR, which outlines several situations where the use of nuclear weapons could be “justified,” offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear war-planners who, with a Strangelovian genius, cover every conceivable circumstance.

Although there have always been nuclear hawks in the Pentagon, the review reverses the a decades-long policy that saw the use of nuclear weapons only in situations when the nation’s most basic interest or national survival is at risk.

Until now, behavior of the most hawkish military planners has been tempered by the belief, shared by most thoughtful Americans, that the unrestrained use of nuclear weapons in war could end life on Earth as we know it.

The NPR says the U.S. should develop plans to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan or in a conflict between the two Koreas and lists seven countries – Russia, China, North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran and Syria – as targets against which nuclear weapons might be used.

Although the Pentagon has admitted having a detailed plan for an attack on Russia in the past, the NPR marks the first time an official list of potential targets has come to light.

Hmm...pretty threatening I'd say.

[hecter]

Thank you flashleg, I was just to lazy to do the whole quote thing.

[Mjolnirs]

A story in the March 10 edition (2002) of The Los Angeles Times revealed that the Pentagon has drawn up a list of seven countries who are prime targets for U.S. nuclear weapons in the event of undefined “surprising military developments.”

The report, titled “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) and signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield,
.
.
.

Hmm...pretty threatening I'd say.

Really? You see having a plan in case we need it to be threatening? Maybe you think it would be better for the military and government to not have a strategy. Oh wait, I thought that was part of the problem with Iraq. Besides, I still didn’t see a reference to Bush in that article.

DAMN YOU! Okay, try this whole Iraq, Iran thing. I imagine WHEN Bush attacks Iran, there will be nukes involved.

Miss Cleo is that you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Cleo

[Master Bush]

Bush is great.

[hecter]

Bush is great.

We are talking about George Bush, not you.

[flashleg8]

A story in the March 10 edition (2002) of The Los Angeles Times revealed that the Pentagon has drawn up a list of seven countries who are prime targets for U.S. nuclear weapons in the event of undefined “surprising military developments.”

The report, titled “Nuclear Posture Review” (NPR) and signed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield,
.
.
.

Hmm...pretty threatening I'd say.

Really? You see having a plan in case we need it to be threatening? Maybe you think it would be better for the military and government to not have a strategy. Oh wait, I thought that was part of the problem with Iraq. Besides, I still didn’t see a reference to Bush in that article.

In my previous post in this topic I presented my view that I believe the senior advisors around him are responsible for the hard-line foreign policy not particularly the man himself who is merely a puppet. It is in my opinion better to talk about the "Bush regime" rather than Bush himself - who clearly doesn't have a clue. Rumsfeld's clearly instrumental in manipulating Bush's regime.

[Mjolnirs]

In my previous post in this topic I presented my view that I believe the senior advisors around him are responsible for the hard-line foreign policy not particularly the man himself who is merely a puppet. It is in my opinion better to talk about the "Bush regime" rather than Bush himself - who clearly doesn't have a clue. Rumsfeld's clearly instrumental in manipulating Bush's regime.

I went back and read it, and you are correct in the respect that every president is a composite of the people around him. Some presidents are more influenced by their staff and some influence the staff around them. I don't think any president is a puppet. I feel that Bush strongly believes in what he is doing and that is not an influence of the people around him.

I seriously doubt he could get re-elected now, but I can't understand thinking he is a worse leader than Ahmadinejad and Kim. Because of the power and influence of the USA Bush does have a larger impact, but the other two are by far worse for their country and if they had the power Bush has I would firmly believe they would be worse for the world. Actually I think they are worse for the world as it is.

[flashleg8]

In my previous post in this topic I presented my view that I believe the senior advisors around him are responsible for the hard-line foreign policy not particularly the man himself who is merely a puppet. It is in my opinion better to talk about the "Bush regime" rather than Bush himself - who clearly doesn't have a clue. Rumsfeld's clearly instrumental in manipulating Bush's regime.

I went back and read it, and you are correct in the respect that every president is a composite of the people around him. Some presidents are more influenced by their staff and some influence the staff around them. I don't think any president is a puppet. I feel that Bush strongly believes in what he is doing and that is not an influence of the people around him.

I seriously doubt he could get re-elected now, but I can't understand thinking he is a worse leader than Ahmadinejad and Kim. Because of the power and influence of the USA Bush does have a larger impact, but the other two are by far worse for their country and if they had the power Bush has I would firmly believe they would be worse for the world. Actually I think they are worse for the world as it is.

I take it you mean if it were possible.
As for the other point you raised re Bush vs Kim and Ahmadinejad, North Koera has lost its way for some time becoming increasingly isolationist and Kim is without a doubt perpetuating the suffering of the North Korean people, Iran too is severing relations with the west - but I blame US foreign policy for both these effects.
When Clinton was in power US sponsored peace talks between South Korea and North Korea and for the first time in decades it looked possible that a meaningful dialogue would open up between these countries - there was even talk at one point of playing a united football team in the 2000 world cup held there. Once the Bush regime took over he immediately took the hard line with North Korea threatening them with increased sanctions if they didn't begin disarming and letting weapons inspectors in. Kim must have felt betrayed by the U turn in policy from the US after he must have made serious concessions in "face" to even consider talks with South Korea.
As for Iran, pre-bush Iran was going through an economic resurgence with the beginnings of a larger more affluent educated liberal middle class emerging. What does Bush do? "Axis of Evil" speech. Of course the people will rally towards a radical leader if he promises to defend them against an aggressor. Put yourself in an Iranians shoes right now. You know you are next on the list. Your neighbour has been illegally invaded, your only hope is to gain a nuclear missile program as quick as possible to give you something to forestall the US invasion.
Bush should have worked more to induce these countries into mainstream international community rather than force them to become more radical with his aggressive stance.

[strike wolf]

Id say Kim is the worst with dubbya a close second.

[Mjolnirs]

I take it you mean if it were possible.

Of course.

Kim continues the policies of his father and Ahmadinejad is reverting to more hardline Iranian stances. I'm sure both countries began to worry because of Bush. The fact that someone was talking about holding countries accountable to UN sanctions/resolutions would worry both countries and lead to fear of the US.

I do remember talks about the Koreas fielding 1 team for the Cup, but I don't remember the specifics as to why that broke down. I know that NK had to try and do something in the 90s to better their situation after the USSR went away and Communist China improved relations with SK. With both of their big backers moving away they had to try and play nice. I do recall Kim working out some agreement regarding a Nuke freeze with the Clinton administration, but I also recall him admitting later that they never really honored it.

Regarding Iran, I know that it has been a problem since the Shah was overthrown. I really don't know what kind of progress there was there in recent years prior to Bush coming to office. I do have a co-worker whose husband is Iranian and has not been there since around 78-79. He has family there and they have met him once in Turkey and told him to never come back. Sounds like a wonderful place. I really cannot imagine his situation.

I've enjoyed this little discussion. It seems like so many people nowadays just want to bash each other rather than discuss the topics.

[flashleg8]

I've enjoyed this little discussion. It seems like so many people nowadays just want to bash each other rather than discuss the topics.

I have also
As for your Iranian exile acquaintance, I've no doubt he enjoys a better life in the States than his native Iran, but I just feel that with Americas great power and status in the world she could be such a force for good. I always wonder how a nation that prides itself on freedom and liberty cannot see itself as others see it, a bully and a tyrant.
I'm really not anti-American, I have great respect for some American values and the work some of your citizens have contributed to mankind benefit us all. But I am constantly disappointed in the current administration's actions in nearly every aspect of its international affairs.
You need to get shot of that lot before you loose all the credit you have left with the rest of nations of the world.

[Mjolnirs]

Because of the great influence the US has on all world affairs, every bit of the international moves of our government will always be scrutenized and someone will always compain about whatever is happening.

Everyone agrees mistakes have been made in past administrations and with the current one. This is human nature. But, I never will understand the general dislike for the states around the globe. The amount of money (private and government) and aid that comes from this country is astounding. I alway chuckle at the kid in _name and 3rd world country_ that is seen on TV protesting the USA while wearing his Levi jeans, Nike shoes and a T-shirt with the Washington Redskins logo.

Because of the current situation I'm sure there will be many people in the world that will get a great civic lesson on how the US government workd during the upcoming presidential election process.