World Leaders Survivor -Stage Three - Complete

[Gustaf]

Dean Barrow is probably the least deserving leader on the list. So he gets my vote. Though I must say it is saddening to think what this list could have been with Bachelet and Obama on it. And even sadder to think what it will be once Merkel is voted off.

[Gustaf]

Zapatero isn't a very good leader and not particularly deserving of going so far.

EDIT: so I vote for him!

[Gustaf]

Well, it is with a heavy heart I vote for Merkel this round. I prefer anglo-saxon social democrats over continental Christian Democrats in general and Rudd over Merkel in particular.

Though obviously there are a ton of more deserving leaders in the mix than those two. But I guess I must vote tactically.

[Gustaf]

Again Tusk

I can't vote him out of office right now, but I can try to eliminate him there

Help with Merkel, and we might go after him next.

I don't get why people always seem to pick vendettas against the people I'd like to keep. I mean, Tusk and Merkel of all people. I think the Balkans is overrepresented right now, for instance. Cvetkovic might be good for a Serbian leader, but he's still not good.

[Gustaf]

Time to get the ball rolling on Cvetkovic. He may be good for a Serb but due to the workings of Serbian politics he is still associated with some pretty bad parties. I don't think he deserves to be on this long.

[Gustaf]

Oh, in case it was unclear my post was a vote for Cvetkovic as well.

And this slavic nationalism is getting old (and decidedly weird from BRTD - "this is Serb land"? What kind of militant, nationalistic old-fashioned fascist mind do you have? It is amusing how obviously easy it would have been to made you a fervent supporter of a fascist government with just the tiniest bit of propaganda).

Even if he's the least fascist of the leading Serb politicians the fascist nature of Serb politics still makes him uncomfortably close to it. He certainly does not deserve to be on the list anymore.

[Gustaf]

Stoltenberg

[Gustaf]

Oh, you're another one those people who think they can read my mind. Great. I love those people.

Haha, yes, it's ironic that I come from a country which did this and that. So what?

It was just a guess. Sorry if it was incorrect.

Serbophobia is voting for the Serb leader in round... 53 ??

I wouldn't say Francophobia consists in ousting Sarkozy and/or ousting him very early , but maybe I'm wrong !

Voting for him only because he's against your favourite political project as are 90% of Serbs and practically all politicians seems rather unfair (even if serbophobe was perhaps too strong a word).

Oh, in case it was unclear my post was a vote for Cvetkovic as well.

And this slavic nationalism is getting old (and decidedly weird from BRTD - "this is Serb land"? What kind of militant, nationalistic old-fashioned fascist mind do you have? It is amusing how obviously easy it would have been to made you a fervent supporter of a fascist government with just the tiniest bit of propaganda).

Even if he's the least fascist of the leading Serb politicians the fascist nature of Serb politics still makes him uncomfortably close to it. He certainly does not deserve to be on the list anymore.

How is Cvetcovic or Serb politics fascist? You know, fascist has a definition. It isn't just what you don't like.
[/quote]

The idea that your country has an inherent right to geographical areas for historical reasons and the readiness to back that idea by going to war. Serbia certainly seems to have a quite aggressive stance towards the rest of the world. Their attitude to their nation, its history, their neighbours and their minority populations seems closer to fascist than anything else. If you want to call it conservative, nationalist backwards militarism I guess I'm cool with that too. Note also that in the context of this thread, where Rudd, Harper and Sarkozy all have been labelled as fascists, I believe Serb politics cuts it closer. Or do you disagree?

[Gustaf]

The idea that your country has an inherent right to geographical areas for historical reasons and the readiness to back that idea by going to war.

I don't think anyone but a radical fringe is ready to go to war in Serbia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's untrue. They have bad relations with countries with which they have had territorial disputes and those that have bombed them. Do you find this surprising?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that Rudd, Harper and Sarkozy are fascist and Serb politics also isn't fascist. You still haven't given any evidence that they are fascist. Again, you don't like their foreign policy but that doesn't make them fascist.

Eh...did you miss the fact that they actually did? Like, only a decade ago...

And they have had territorial disputes or wars with every country in their continent except Russia (slight exaggeration). That merely underpins my point. This is an imperialistic country which tried to gain control of most of the Balkans during the last century. Despite them resorting even to attempts at genocide to uphold this empire it finally fell and now they spend a lot of their political energy lamenting this fact and scheming to get it back. I don't think fascist is that far off. But we shouldn't clutter the thread.

[Gustaf]

The idea that your country has an inherent right to geographical areas for historical reasons and the readiness to back that idea by going to war.

Don't you support Israel?

I don't support Israel's claim to the West Bank or Gaza. See, I try to follow principles rather than blind emotion based on bigotry or prejudice against certain groups.

[Gustaf]

The idea that your country has an inherent right to geographical areas for historical reasons and the readiness to back that idea by going to war.

I don't think anyone but a radical fringe is ready to go to war in Serbia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's untrue. They have bad relations with countries with which they have had territorial disputes and those that have bombed them. Do you find this surprising?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that Rudd, Harper and Sarkozy are fascist and Serb politics also isn't fascist. You still haven't given any evidence that they are fascist. Again, you don't like their foreign policy but that doesn't make them fascist.

Eh...did you miss the fact that they actually did? Like, only a decade ago...

And they have had territorial disputes or wars with every country in their continent except Russia (slight exaggeration). That merely underpins my point. This is an imperialistic country which tried to gain control of most of the Balkans during the last century. Despite them resorting even to attempts at genocide to uphold this empire it finally fell and now they spend a lot of their political energy lamenting this fact and scheming to get it back. I don't think fascist is that far off. But we shouldn't clutter the thread.

That is true. However, they are past this stage now. They are trying to get into the EU and have reformed to a graet degree. I would say that relations with their minorities are among the better ones in the Balkans.
But I suppose that when the evil Serbs are involved nothing and no time can remove their fascist nature.

You make it sound like they weren't gunning down thousands of civilians and throwing them into massgraves in my life-time. About 15 years ago. I'm not talking about "no time." It's not ancient history. I know things are better now and I hope it will get even more towards the right direction. But given what I see in Serbian politics today it does not appear to me that they have shrugged off the past. The decent political bloc, which Cvetkovic belongs to, seems to have a hard time in Serb politics (yes I know they're in power now, but they always seem to be on the defensive to me, similar to the Swedish right or the American Democrats during the 90s).

[Gustaf]

The idea that your country has an inherent right to geographical areas for historical reasons and the readiness to back that idea by going to war.

Don't you support Israel?

I don't support Israel's claim to the West Bank or Gaza. See, I try to follow principles rather than blind emotion based on bigotry or prejudice against certain groups.

But the very existence of the state of Israel and Zionism is based upon what you said above.

No, it's not. In fact, it is the exact opposite. You seem to think that if people happen to live on a land they have a rightful claim to it for all eternity regardless of what happens. The Jews moving into Israel is completely in-line with my reasoning. The Arabs wanting to throw them out is not.

Israel didn't even exist as a state before the Jews moved there so it isn't a parallell at all.

[Gustaf]

The Zionists claimed the land of current Israel and threw out many Arabs, like some of StatesRights' ancestors. Also they engaged in terrorism against the current rulers (the British) on the basis of that ancient claim.

Also the Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovar Albanians were also mass-murdering people 15 years ago as well, yet you have defended them as non-fascist. Plus how would you respond to someone in 1960 referring to Germany and Japan as murderous fascist countries?

I don't think I used the term murderous. And had Germany given the Nazis 40-50% of the vote in the elections around 1960, celebrated their military victories and protested the Nuremberg trials as conspiracies, etc. I may have referred to them as fascist, yes. That didn't happen. They moved on. They didn't try to murder all the Jews a second time or reconquer the Rhineland in the 50s, for instance.

The Serbs did most of the mass-murdering in the Balkans war. I understand that it doesn't sit well with your prejudices, but the Muslims were mostly victims in that war. The Albanians were hardly at the centre of it at all. The Croats, sure. They have a long history of fascism. It just seems to me that they moved on after the war a lot better than the Serbs did. You also seem to forget that the Serbs were the imperialists here. They were forcing all the others to live under their rule against their will.

You seem to think that my defence of Israel necessarily means that I support Zionism. It doesn't. I don't want to turn this into a debate thread on Israel and Palestine, so I think you should move it somewhere else. My view is simply that telling people who live somewhere that they don't have a right because they don't belong there is wrong. Saying that Israelis have a right to live where they live now in the state of Israel, that Palestinians have a right to the West Bank and Gaza where they live now and that Albanians have a right to Kosovo where they live now is all in analogy with this. You are claiming that people can forever claim land which is theirs by ancient history, as in Kosovo. This should logically make you support Israel's claim not just to Gaza or the West Bank but to all of Jordan. Of course, lots of people could then claim different lands and everything gets pretty confused.

[Gustaf]

I don't really think you are getting my point. Telling the Israelis in 1931 that they had no right to move to Israel because it is Arab land would be opposed to my position. Telling the Arabs that they should get out because it was once Jewish land would also be opposed to my position. It isn't really a very difficult position to comprehend. I also consider it more logical, since you end up in a contradiction otherwise, given that several peoples' have inhabited any given piece of land over the centuries. I mean, why don't you get the hell out of the Indians' land? (or Native American if you prefer that term).

Now, not much of what you are saying in your post actually contradicts what I said. You seem to assume that I am as single-minded and obsessive in my opinions as you are, but such is not the case. I never claimed Muslims and Croatians did not commit atrocities. They certainly did, especially the Croatians. And, as I said, Croatia clearly has a quite fascist past. Repeating those things, which I already stated myself, does not contradict my point that the Muslims largely were victims in the war and that the Serbs were generally worse. Of course, this was largely due to superior resources. The Muslims were caught in the middle and didn't much in terms of regular troops, etc when the war started. You claimed that the Muslims were "also mass-murdering" and I think that is at the best a misleading statement.

I'm aware Croatia is not entirely out of it. But the anecdotes you're telling (what sources do those come from?) do not really impress me that much. I'm pretty certain similar ones could be dug up on Serbia.

Serbia's biggest party is led by a man who was on trial for war-crimes. The party's official policy is to create a Great Serbia encompassing areas lost in the Balkans war. Their leader has defined the idology of the party as "Serbian nationalism, antiglobalism and Russophilia"

Let's compare this to HDZ, the largest party in Croatia. Granted, this party was just as bad during the 90s under the leadership of Franco Tudjman. But after they lost power in 2000  they have ousted the hard-liners and moved to the centre. They now advocate membership in the EU and are, among other things, working to improve minority rights in order to fulfill the criteria for joining.

It just appears to me that Croatia is a lot more on the right track than Serbia is, basically. There does not seem to be a huge movement in Croatia to go to war or massacre minorities anymore, whereas in Serbia it seems to do.

Also, look at the number of high-ranking politicians who have been murdered in Serbia. That also is a sign of a country not really comfortable with democracy yet.

P.S. Your cute little map is a little misguided. I said the Serbs were the imperialists, and I was clearly referring to the pre-war era. The fact that some Serbs ended up in Croatian or Bosnian territory in the aftermath of the war is another issue, really. The Serbs have acted imperialist for at least a century on the Balkans.

Also, since Hughento has paused the competition I figure this might be bumped by these posts as well as antyhing else. But I won't complain if it is moved and I will cease posting here once the vote resumes.

[Gustaf]

Vasquez.

Why did he make it this far? He's allright for a Latin American leader, but the arms-smuggling, Castro-loving, anti-abortionist protectionist deserves to go now. 

[Gustaf]

Vasquez.

Why did he make it this far? He's allright for a Latin American leader, but the arms-smuggling, Castro-loving, anti-abortionist protectionist deserves to go now. 

Yes, the only good Latin American leaders are the slavishly pro-American ones.

I suppose someone who thinks Milosevic, Putin and Lukashenko are unfairly criticized would think it is a good idea to act with open hostility towards other countries in the world. The funny thing is that there is no mention of America in my criticism of Vasquez, nor do I believe I have emphasized that very much in general when discussing foreign leaders. But, yeah, I don't think a dictatorship like Cuba is the best role-model in the world. Do you?

You seem to be making BRTD's classic mistake - assuming that other people are as one-sided as yourself. I like Arias quite a bit and I intended to keep Silva and Kirchner alive for some time until too many rightists were voted off. And I was very upset when Bachelet, one of my favourites for the overall win, was voted off earlier.

[Gustaf]

Stoltenberg

[Gustaf]

Wow, 3 votes apiece now for all four leaders. Pretty cool...

[Gustaf]

It looks like the left is back in charge and is using it to vote off the best remaining leaders. Oh, well.

Gusmao gets my vote this round.

[Gustaf]

It looks like the left is back in charge and is using it to vote off the best remaining leaders. Oh, well.

I don't see how Tusk is any better than those you voted for in the recent rounds.
Donald Tusk

Who do you refer to? Vazquez, Cvetkovic, Gusmao, Stoltenberg, Zapatero, Merkel and Barrow are my most recent votes, I think. Merkel is better than Tusk, but that was a tactical vote. Norway is better than Poland, of course, but I thought you were all for juding leaders in relation to their country and Stoltenberg is one of my least favourite Norwegian politicians.

Oh, and speaking of Stoltenberg, he just strikes me as one of those slimy Social Democrats, in the mould of Gerhard Schröder (or Tony Blair if you're of one of those people).

[Gustaf]

Gusmao

[Gustaf]

Well, this is pretty much destroyed by now.

Anyway, I guess I vote Stoltenberg again. Time to get rid of him.

[Gustaf]

And I would like to add that removing Toure, one of the best African leaders to save Stoltenberg, a rather doubtful leader, is pretty low.

First time in a long while where we seem to agree.

Gusmao

[Gustaf]

There are really only four leaders left that I think deserve to win.

I'm going to vote for Tarja Halonen this round. She doesn't have any actual power, since the presidential position in Finland is really just a figurehead position. She is popular but she hasn't really done anything that I'm aware of to deserve it.

[Gustaf]

Halonen