Worst Dictator Ever

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I thought this might be funny

[Beigeen]

It's sad because I can tell whoever did that is seriously believes Bush is a dictator.

[Ragnell]

I thought this might be funny

For the last time, Bush has never lead a genocide of any kind, and has let the people of America maintain more freedoms than just about any other president during a time of war. He cannot even be compared to Hitler. Bush is a decent person who was tasked with tough decisions and failed sometimes. That's life, you win some and you lose some. And he might actually get something done if he wasn't fought every step of the way by people who want to not fight at all. And things in Iraq are not as god awful as the left-wing media potrays them. Not every Iraqi thinks Bush is the devil, just the ones interviewed to further promote the idea that Bush is an idiot. Now I don't know if you personally think this, so this isn't directed at you, Namie. It just bothers me that everyone mocks Bush and compares him to the worst people they can find in history. It's like what happened to Pres. Hoover all over again.

And I still think Hitler was the worst for the rest of humanity because he was able to keep pushing the limits of the other European nations until he thought he was ready to fight them head on. He broke the Treaty of Versailles several times before he was stopped by France/Britain. He was able to get away with a lot of stuff without being caught (for a while anyways).

[Herr Wozzeck]

It's sad because I can tell whoever did that is seriously believes Bush is a dictator.

Well, not just that, but he's not even American. Pay attention to the public transportation signs above that banner: the public transportation is in some Scandinavian language, so it's probably people who don't really understand our government that well.

Now I don't know if you personally think this, so this isn't directed at you, Namie. It just bothers me that everyone mocks Bush and compares him to the worst people they can find in history. It's like what happened to Pres. Hoover all over again.

I see your point, but I think comparing Bush to Hoover is a bit much.

The thing about Hoover is that the reasons why his presidency sucked so hard were all reasons that didn't really have too much impact on the global scale. Sure, he didn't do much in the way of helping people when the Great Depression set in and that drew quite a bit of criticism from everybody, but back then America didn't have the standing in world politics that it has now. Thus, Hoover didn't really have to face the kinds of decisions and scrutiny that Bush had to. (Plus, we have the Hoover Dam thanks to him, so it's not like Hoover's presidency was totally screwing America over.)

Bush, meanwhile, is drawing fire from the entire world for what he's done with his handling of the war on terror and his disastrous foreign policy. I think with all of this (and the media being the way it is), it's easy for people to have such strong anti-Bush statements, especially since his foreign policy mistakes made the Middle East a somewhat more violent place, among other things.

[YokaiKnight]

Relax, Ragnell. He's a wartime president: Lincoln and FDR were pretty unpopular in their time, too, but see how most people look at them now. 50 or 60 years down the road there's a good chance Bush will be thought of as a pretty cool guy.

[Ragnell]

Relax, Ragnell. He's a wartime president: Lincoln and FDR were pretty unpopular in their time, too, but see how most people look at them now. 50 or 60 years down the road there's a good chance Bush will be thought of as a pretty cool guy.

Hah, I wasn't angry at all, but I do sound pretty mad the way I wrote it, don't I?

Anyways, I also think Bush will be looked upon about neutrally in the future. And while he does have pretty much the whole world after him right now, no one else is helping, so he's going to stay in control of the war for another month or so. Then Obama gets in, and it looks like he might keep troops there a little while longer as well. Pretty much if we leave right this minute, the entire Middle East (Iraq especially) is gonna plunge into war and we're just going to be dragged back in in a couple more years.

So Bush isn't a dictator, he's just disliked. And I can see why some people dislike him, the whole Iraq war didn't turn out how we wanted it to. But he's still not even on the same level as Hitler, Mussolini, etc.

[burning_phoneix]

Relax, Ragnell. He's a wartime president: Lincoln and FDR were pretty unpopular in their time, too, but see how most people look at them now. 50 or 60 years down the road there's a good chance Bush will be thought of as a pretty cool guy.

FDR was thought to be a pretty cool guy when he died. Not 50 or so years later.

Also, Lincoln was fighting a civil war so that kinda does make him unpopular with a large amount of people.

I took this to mean "most incompetent dictator" and chose Mussolini.

While all the other dictators (not counting Bush because he isn't) had done some pretty amazing things, Hitler reversed Germany for complete defeat to a major war machine again (and drove it to the ground again sure), Stalin managed to control one of the largest nations on Earth while keeping almost complete control of any scheming plots behind him, Mao guided the small defeated Communist Chinese party to destroy every other major competitor on mainland china and Napoleon is fucking Napoleon! one of the greatest generals to ever live.

But in a most horrendous dictator scale. I can't choose between Stalin,Hitler or Mao. Once you start counting the death toll of their genocides/mass killings in the millions...that's it, don't bother counting anymore and place them all in same shitty hellhole category.

can we get some AFRICA UP IN THIS BITCH?

can we get some SOUTH AMERICA UP IN THIS BITCH?

[Fox]

I thought this might be funny

Too bad that's hilariously wrong.

[Der Kommissar]

50 or 60 years down the road there's a good chance Bush will be thought of as a pretty cool guy.

That will be because Americans are history-illiterate morons, not because Bush was a competent president.

[YokaiKnight]

That will be because Americans are history-illiterate morons, not because Bush was a competent president.

I wasn't trying to imply he was, just what people might think. :3

Edited December 18, 2008 by YokaiKnight

[General Spoon]

So, I'm the only one who voted Mao? Does nobody else remember him declaring war on you because you won't give him the (blank) tech?

[Seph]

Voting for Bush is just plain stupid and nothing more, seriously, while people like Hitler and Stalin are there. They each killed 43 million people and 20 million people respectively.

Don't you guys know anything about History?

Edited December 18, 2008 by Julius

[bunny: spider bitten]

That will be because Americans are history-illiterate morons, not because Bush was a competent president.

Doesn't hurt that he's done nothing note-worthy. There was a recession in the early ninties and no one remembers that. So Bush has a war against a nameless enemy and the loss of two tall buildings. And dodging a shoe.

And FDR wasn't really that unpopular. It was more how he planned on getting things done that bothered politicians and Supreme Court members. Basically by stacking the vote in his favor.

Had he not been dying, he'd have probably been president for another term or two. And Hiroshima would have lower radiation levels.

[Beigeen]

So, I'm the only one who voted Mao? Does nobody else remember him declaring war on you because you won't give him the (blank) tech?

I would have voted Mao but I refuse to reply to an erroneous poll.

[burning_phoneix]

Had he not been dying, he'd have probably been president for another term or two. And Hiroshima would have lower radiation levels.

Any proof that FDR wouldn't do what Truman did?

[California Mountain Snake]

Doesn't hurt that he's done nothing note-worthy. There was a recession in the early ninties and no one remembers that. So Bush has a war against a nameless enemy and the loss of two tall buildings. And dodging a shoe.

- The World Trade Center buildings were destroyed during his presidency (not something he "did", but it will be remembered)

- He started a war in Iraq that's lasted 8 years and is most likely going one for another 1 or 2.

- Our involvement in Afghanistan is probably going to be increasing in the next few years, a war born out of president Bush's terms in office.

- Whether it's his fault or not (irrelevant), the biggest economic downturn since the great depression started out of his presidency.

- You're also forgetting that he also choked on a pretzel

There are plenty of other noteworthy things that happened/were done during Bush's presidency, and he will be most likely quite well remembered. Also, dismissing the September 11th attacks as a day when "we lost two tall buildings" severly downplays its importance, as it will probably be an event remembered and commemorated for a very long time (think Pearl Harbor), and probably like other events in the past, be viewed as a "catalyst", which had sparked a massive increase in US interest in the Middle-East, in the previous years and probably for years to come.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Black Knight

[Blacken]

And also, what about Guantanamo Bay? Giving prisoners of war no habeus corpus doesn't exactly sound like a Democratic ideal; even if they're not from the US, they should at least be granted a fair trial (and at the very least, in their own homeland)

I'm quoting this just to make sure that you all reflect on the utter insanity of this statement.

Thank you for your time.

[Lord Raven]

... I still find it hard to believe people find Bush to be a dictator in relative terms to Hitler and Stalin.

[Leonri]

... I still find it hard to believe people find Bush to be a dictator in relative terms to Hitler and Stalin.

"Worst" can be interpretated two ways. ;)

I'm quoting this just to make sure that you all reflect on the utter insanity of this statement.

Thank you for your time.

If you don't agree with someone, point out how they are wrong. Doing this kind of thing is stupid. Use actual facts to back answers. -_-

I voted Stalin.

[Kintenbo]

Hitler and Stalin both are tough choices. Hitler killed folks based on religion, while Stalin killed many that he thought would be threats, which if I know things right, consisted of millions of people. It's a tough choice, but I chose Hitler, at least Stalin wasn't literally trying to take over the world.

The Bush bashing is getting seriously old. Yeah, he wasn't that bright, but he still tried his best. *insert the "I'd like to see you do better" defense here*

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I'm surprise no one voted for Napoleon as he is consider to be the first dictator in the modern century.

[Fox]

I'm surprise no one voted for Napoleon as he is consider to be the first dictator in the modern century.

First doesn't necessarily equal worst. At all.

[California Mountain Snake]

Hitler killed folks based on religion

If you think "Hitler" killed the Jews "because of their religion", you need to do a lot more research on the subject (as well as just understand that being Jewish is an ethnic identity that encompasses religion among many other factors). It's a subject a lot deeper than one man's random prejudices, and in reality spans back centuries in Europe (and even longer globally).

at least Stalin wasn't literally trying to take over the world.

I know some people from eastern Europe that would very much disagree with this statement.

Use actual facts to back answers. -_-

"Worst" can be interpreted two ways. ;)

Put these quotes together for the delicious irony. Let me understand this, so you're going to call Blacken out for making a perfectly understandable rhetorical statement pointing out the obvious contradictions someone presented, that just requires you utilize that walnut sized bundle of nerves between your ears for maybe 15 seconds to understand, and yet after calling him out you make an even more vague and unsupported statement within the same breath?

I'm surprise no one voted for Napoleon as he is consider to be the first dictator in the modern century.

Considered by who? You? Napoleon was not a dictator any more than Loise Quatorze (XIV, if you don't know French [14, if you didn't get past 3rd grade]) or any of the kings and queens from centuries before him. Calling Napoleon a dictator, of all rulers, especially since he was (and still is) so loved and was so popularly supported by his people, is idiotic. I'm also noticing a certain Japanese ruler missing from your list, little miss Okinawa.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Black Knight

[Lord Raven]

"Worst" can be interpretated two ways. ;)

Except... the word "worst" or anything synonymous wasn't even in my post.

[bunny: spider bitten]

Any proof that FDR wouldn't do what Truman did?

None. But I'd be willing to bet that most people would have picked a non-civilian drop zone for a nuke and most would have never dropped the second.

And for what it's worth, every new president of anything generally has an urge to one up his predecessor. How the hell do you one up the man that put the country on the high road and was basically winning a war from the start?

You take out two cities in a week.

Edited December 20, 2008 by bunny