Simfan's top 5 vs. Snowstalker's top 5

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The first five are Simfan's five best world leaders of the 20th century, 6 through 10 are mine.

[Gamecock]

Even if you thought replacing him with Pinochet was bad, how can you think Allende was one of the world's greatest leaders?

[Goldwater]

Dwight Eisenhower
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi
Konrad Adenauer
Lee Kwan Yew
Franklin Roosevelt

[traininthedistance]

Ike, Adenauer, Gandhi, Roosevelt, Attlee.

Has Simfan ever explained why he likes Franco?  It really seems to me it would take a stunted morality to actively admire the guy- "opposition to socialism" should not be carte blanche for supporting repression and dictatorship, even if one is opposed to socialism!

[traininthedistance]

FWIW, here's my actual top five, in order.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Mikhail Gorbachev
Mustafa Ataturk
Nelson Mandela
Lester Pearson

Not entirely sure about Mandela and Pearson, but I'm pretty confident about the top three.

[Napoleon]

None of those guys should be top five.

[Dr. Cynic]

I voted for FDR and Attlee.

[TNF]

Franklin Roosevelt
Clement Attlee
Willy Brandt
Konrad Adenauer
Dwight Eisenhower

The rest are all dictators or douchebags.

[Simfan34]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apliuWdj8bs

[Leftbehind]

Even if you thought replacing him with Pinochet was bad, how can you think Allende was one of the world's greatest leaders?

Because he fought for (in many cases won) what his voters and supporters wanted - and was prepared to give his life for it; he can't be faulted for his perennial undermining.

[Simfan34]

Indira Gandhi wasn't any good- she turned the country into a mire of violence and strife- it's very likely if she was not assassinated or if she had survived, an outright civil war would have broken out. Gorbachev led his nation to collapse, so no. Brandt was good, but not great. Allende was an incompetent. And Attlee was Attlee, so no to him as well.

[opebo]

Indira Gandhi wasn't any good- she turned the country into a mire of violence and strife- it's very likely if she was not assassinated or if she had survived, an outright civil war would have broken out. Gorbachev led his nation to collapse, so no. Brandt was good, but not great. Allende was an incompetent. And Attlee was Attlee, so no to him as well.

The point wasn't if those choices of Snowfield were actually great leaders or not, just if they were better than all your right wingers.. and, they were, all.. better.

[traininthedistance]

Gorbachev led his nation to collapse, so no.

Given that the nation in question was the USSR, how is this a bad thing?

He saw the desperate need for reform, and implemented reform over the objections of the hard-liners and apparatchniks.  But, more important and far greater than that, was his gracious reaction to the tumult in the Eastern Bloc and eventually within Mother Russia itself: scant years previous, letting go or even loosening up would have been unthinkable.  It would have been met with redoubled repression, and backed up with nukes.

Gorby let go, and he kept those nukes ensiloed.  With every breath we take we ought to be thanking him.

[Simfan34]

Gorbachev led his nation to collapse, so no.

Given that the nation in question was the USSR, how is this a bad thing?

He saw the desperate need for reform, and implemented reform over the objections of the hard-liners and apparatchniks.  But, more important and far greater than that, was his gracious reaction to the tumult in the Eastern Bloc and eventually within Mother Russia itself: scant years previous, letting go or even loosening up would have been unthinkable.  It would have been met with redoubled repression, and backed up with nukes.

Gorby let go, and he kept those nukes ensiloed.  With every breath we take we ought to be thanking him.

It's a good thing, but it was neither a goal nor a mark of competence, much less greatness.

[traininthedistance]

Gorbachev led his nation to collapse, so no.

Given that the nation in question was the USSR, how is this a bad thing?

He saw the desperate need for reform, and implemented reform over the objections of the hard-liners and apparatchniks.  But, more important and far greater than that, was his gracious reaction to the tumult in the Eastern Bloc and eventually within Mother Russia itself: scant years previous, letting go or even loosening up would have been unthinkable.  It would have been met with redoubled repression, and backed up with nukes.

Gorby let go, and he kept those nukes ensiloed.  With every breath we take we ought to be thanking him.

It's a good thing, but it was neither a goal nor a mark of competence, much less greatness.

Greatness should not be merely measured as a surfeit of competence, it is something else entirely.  Neither should it necessarily be pegged to "meeting one's goals"; what Gorby achieved was far better, and far FAR more fraught with mortal danger, than his mere goals.  Ergo, greatness.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Adenauer, LKY, Brandt, FDR, Attlee.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ike, Adenauer, Gandhi, FDR, Attlee