Discussion: Who do YOU think was/is the worst world leader?

[Horse with no Name]

Hitler
Mussolini
Bush
Diaz
Castro

Whose regime has/had the worst short-term consequences?
Whose regime will have/had the worst long-term consequences?

[NYCGirl]

1. Hitler, no doubt. NT

[Mz Pip]

2. Hitler

Long and short term.

On edit: I'd stick Stalin in there, too.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Horse with no Name]

10. What about Diaz and what he did to generations of Mexicans?

Directly because of his dictatorship, many Mexicans still cannot find work in their home country creating devastating long-term effects on our Southern neighbor. I really think Mexico's history is important and we need to pay more attention to it.
Bush has borrowed a few pages from Diaz's playbook--namely concentrating power (money) into the hands of a very select few:
>>>>>snip
The Mexican Revolution was brought on by, among other factors, tremendous disagreement among the Mexican people over the dictatorship of President Porfirio Diaz , who, all told, stayed in office for thirty one years. During that span, power was concentrated in the hands of a select few; the people had no power to express their opinions or select their public officials. Wealth was likewise concentrated in the hands of the few, and injustice was everywhere, in the cities and the countryside alike.

Early in the 20th Century, a new generation of young leaders arose who wanted to participate in the political life of their country, but they were denied the opportunity by the officials who were already entrenched in power and who were not about to give it up. This group of young leaders believed that they could assume their proper role in Mexican politics once President Diaz announced publicly that Mexico was ready for democracy. Although the Mexican Constitution called for public election and other institutions of democracy, Diaz and his supporters used their political and economic resources to stay in power indefinitely.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Horse%20with%20no%20Name/1

[Yupster]

22. Hitler wins

He got the exact opposite of everything he wanted.

He wanted Lebensraum, he got his country cut by a third and the remainder of it cut up into four parts.

He wanted more Germans and got a horribly reduced population due to the war which is still dropping today.

He wanted to eliminate the Soviet Union and he ended up giving the USSR controll ver Eastern Europe and half his own country.

He wanted to eliminate the Jews and ended up with the first Jewish nation created.

Can't beat him for a loser.

For current day, I'll go with Robert Mugabe who has used despotism and racism to turn the breadbasket of Africa into a starving destitute nation in a decade.

[BurtWorm]

39. Other awful leaders would include Mao and Pol Pot

Caligula is a golden oldy.

[tocqueville]

3. Bush since Attila the Hun nt

[NYCGirl]

4. You should probably put Pol Pot in there, too. NT

[spag68]

5. worst

Hitler was bad but his damage was limited by his small population Mussolini was a small time chump Diaz? Castro has only hurt a small island of people Bush leads both category's, but the real damage will not play out until we get new supreme court judges

[NYCGirl]

6. Hitler exterminated 12 million people. Damage was limited??? NT

[Yupster]

23. And 20 millions Russians died

beating him.

Now if it had been 25 million, then he'd be a problem.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. Hitler's damage was limited by his small population?

Over twenty million people died!

[novalib]

8. George W. Bush

Followed by:

George H.W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon

[bryant69]

9. Where do you put Hitler on your list?

Just out of curiousity?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Yupster]

25. You seen to have an ethno-centric view

of world history.

[Tyler Durden]

11. Stalin. No Doubt

Estimates are that Stalin was responsible for the death of close to 20 million in Russia.

Almost twice as many as Hitler, but then again, he was slower and less efficient.

[deaniac21]

19. Seconded.

[pacalo]

12. Bush, hands down. Hitler & Mussolini showed their cards,

but what makes Bush worse is the fact that he has misrepresented himself & has stealthily performed as a tyrant & dictator. He has ruined the reputation of the U.S. as a beacon of freedom & democracy.

The list of his crimes are too numerous to mention.

[Ready4Change]

13. Hitler. For now.

Bush still has 3 more years. (If nothing drastic happens)

Actually, if you're talking LEADERSHIP, Hitler was pretty good. Got a nation crippled by an economic depression back on its feet. However, the end result of the directions in which he lead his country were devastating.

Bush is a crappy leader, surrounded by a remarkably effective PR staff. And his directions, while undoubtably destructive in many ways, have yet to equal the appalling nature of a Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin.

In terms of US presidents, however, I feel he is already the absolute worst.

[Virginia Dare]

14. We can't judge Bush he's not done yet, unfortunately...n/t

[butterfly77]

15. Even they all are the same

Bush is trying his best to jump ahead of the crowd.

[wuushew]

16. The Pope

church dogma over hundreds of years has done immeasurable damage to human liberty and progress of science.

[cali]

17. If ignorance is bliss

there are a lot of happy people on this thread. Personally, I find such ignorance loathsome. Hitler plunged the world in a war that cost some 48,000,000 deaths. Count those zeros, folks. That's right, 48 million people perished. Under Stalin millions and millions died. I'm not sure of the exact number but it was over 20 million.

You all who think bushco is worse than those two, need your heads examined.

http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. I have a name for this particular type of behaviour.

Pessimistic self-centrism.

[cali]

28. Not bad because

stupidity doesn't begin to cover it. I have nothing but disgust for people like the many on this thread who have so little regard for human life that they'd name bush or the Pope. To stick to that in the face of facts is a perversion of truth.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Right.

The pope. That's why I used self-centrism instead of ethno-centrism. People who think of themselves as victims will tend to puff up the credentials of their tormentors.

[NoPasaran]

32. No kidding!

And I can't even imagine why someone would put GHW Bush on that list. Bush pere was certainly not my favorite President, but I give him some credit for presiding while first the Soviet bloc freed itself and then the USSR itself broke up without World War Three breaking out. Also, he had the brains not to go to Baghdad and break Iraq apart.

[Nicole]

18. Hitler n/t

[KAT119]

20. Bush-he wants to use nukes in Middle East=WWIII=planetcide!! If so...n/t

[cali]

21. Thanks for playing

but you're in the wrong game. It's not what someone purportedly wants to do, it's what they have done. Seriously, how can you compare Hitler who started a war that cost 48 million lives with bushco whose actions to date have caused approximately 100,000 lives?

[titoresque]

44. Well if that's so Bush shouldn't

even be on the list. He's not finished yet. I hope I'm wrong but
I think we'll soon all agree; Bush will be considered the worst.

[BooScout]

24. Hitler........

With Bush running a close 2nd.

[lpbk2713]

27. Tossup between Boosh and Idi Amin

Idi Amin's impact was more immediate I suppose.

Boosh took a country that was a world leader with a huge budgetary surplus and turned it into a diplomatic embarrassment that would no longer care for its needy even if it wanted to.

[Minnesota Libra]

29. Narrowing my response to our lifetime I'll say Stalin and Bush because....

....of the millions of his own countrymen Stalin had killed and then lied about it. Bush because our kids and grandkids will be paying for his endless list of ..uck ups longer than any of us will be alive.:cry:

[cali]

30. And you know that because

of your trusty crystal ball? At least at this point, it's ridiculous to compare bush to Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or......

[Minnesota Libra]

40. At the very least I did give my reasons for.............

...my claims which I noticed is more than you did.:shrug:

[Onlooker]

33. Let's not forget King Leopold of Belgium

He may have been worse than Hitler, but doesn't get much attention because he killed Africans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Leopold.27s_rule

But, of that list you Boston, Hitler is certainly the worst. He not only killed and brutalized millions, but he erased lives, destroying private possessions, individuality, and the works of artists.

[TahitiNut]

34. How is that to be measured?

It seems to me that the power to do harm, including the projection of conventional military force or nuclear weapons, and the scope (global or regional) of that power must factor into any such assessment. It's not reasonable to compare Genghis Khan to Kim Jung Il, for example, since the scope of their impact (historical vs. potential) differs so greatly.

[cali]

35. Nope.

Factoring potential in is off topic. Any President has the potential to end civilization. This is simply about world leaders who have inflicted the most suffering and death.

[TahitiNut]

38. Then the discussion is pointless. Moot. Of interest to historians only.

The entire point of LEARNING from history is to preclude the repetition of the abominations of the past.

[Horse with no Name]

45. It's very hard to measure

In fact, I don't think Bush can even be considered short-term right now because he isn't "finished" yet :scared:.

[DrDebug]

36. Hitler

The most efficient dictator. Even though Stalin and Mao killed more it was the result of civil wars. Also the speeches of Hitler are completely repulsive and you can feel and taste the hate and anger in that man. Bush sometimes can make you feel sick as well during his speeches, but not like on that level.

Another point is the extreme effect he had on people. He has described as magnetic, as irresistible and that people froze when he was near them. Stalin, Mao and Göring have been described in the same manner, but Hitler could do it to complete audiences. Just look at the faces and you'll notice that they are all enchanted which cannot be explained rationally. He was pure evil.

[SidDithers]

37. Hey, wait, shouldn't Chavez be on that list?...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[Bassic]

41. I think Kim Jong Il is worse than Castro. nt

[Horse with no Name]

42. I think you are right

However, just threw in the names that crop up all of the time.

[titoresque]

43. Bush...he's not finished yet. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

46. I can come up with a few nominees not named above

Each of these people would be considered "bad" for at least slightly different reasons:

Shih Huang-ti (First emperor of China)
Caligula (Roman Emperor)
Commodus (Roman Emperor whose reign makes the beginning of the end of the empire in the West)
Tamerlane (Tartar ruler, sixteenth century)
Aurangzeb (Moghul emperor of India, seventeenth century)
Louis XV (King of France; this fellow, IMHO, very much resembles Bush)
Nicholas I (Russian czar)

Nero (Roman emperor) almost makes the list, although his sins are greatly exaggerated. Attila the Hun could actually be generous to people who sought his protection. He doesn't compare to Tamerlane.

I'm sure if I tried, I could come up with a few more. Fundamentally, one is looking for those who were extravagant and wasteful, cruel conquerers or intolerant rulers.

A few other late twentieth century/early twenty-first century candidates not named, in no particular order:

Pol Pot (Cambodian dictator)
Nicolae Ceaucescu (Romanian Communist dictator)
Idi Amin Dada (Ugandan dictator)
Saddam Hussein (enough said)
Charles Taylor (Liberia)
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, started genocidal wars)
Théoneste Bagosora and André Ntagerura (Rwandan leaders largely responsible for the Rwandan genocide of 1994)
Leonid Brezhnev (incompetent Soviet leader)
Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir (Current president of Sudan)
Francois Duvalier (Haiti)
Augusto Pinochet (Chile)

[Horse with no Name]

47. Good list

Going to have to research a few of them.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. I just edited it to add Commodus, Duvalier and Pinochet

and to explain why I left Nero and Attila off the list.

Brezhnev almost doesn't seem nasty enough, but what kind of incompetence does it take to almost single handedly destroy a modern superpower from within? That has got to be monumental. We should be concerned about whether the US will long survive the beating we are taking from the Bush regime.

[DrDebug]

49. As mentioned above: King Leopold of Belgium

That's a real bastard as well. The reason why hardly anybody knows about him is because the Belgians were very glad that he was terrorizing Congo since it meant that he was occupied with something else, but his private piece of property of almost one million square miles was the scene of the most brutal regimes the world has ever seen. It's no wonder that Congo/Zaire/Rwanda has been unstable ever since.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Thank you

I was just thinking of editing again to add him.

Also from the nineteenth century France, Louis Napoleon deserves a mention.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Of that list, I find him most like Brezhnev,

but without the charisma.

[Uncle Joe]

51. Idi Amin

If I remember correctly, he ate his own people, now you know it's got to suck to be eaten by your leaders.

[Rex]

52. Worst leader as in death count, ruined empire, loathsome govt?

IMO, Genghis Khan is the worst leader ever as far as rampaging across the globe goes. He wiped a region of China out of the history books by using civilians as fodder. His methods were brutal and cold with no mercy given. I doubt anyone has gone on a wholesale slaughter as massive as his campaign from China to Poland.