Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

dda · 20 Jun 2005, 22:33

To be any kind of leader you have to inspire people to follow you. Abraham Lincoln said that the prime requisite for being a statesman is to be elected.

If you have a following then if you lead that following in a direction which winds up to be of a benifit to them you are a pretty good leader. If you can also find ways to benefit your followers and others as well then you are an even better leader. However, if you lose the backing of your followers by trying too hard to benefit others, you cease to be any kind of leader. Thus the whole thing gets very complicated.

The other primary complication is that what may seem to be the best for a group at a particular time may in fact be bad for it in the long run. Only time will tell wheter the correct decisions were made or not.

Is Bush on the right track? Is he decreasing or increasing terrorism? There are bright people on both sides of the issue. 50 years from now, barring a complete calamity or a total miricale, historians will probably still be debating the issue.

Was Regan the man who defeated the USSR and ended the cold war or just a narrow minded bastard who got lucky but caused a lot of other trouble and misery? Who knows?

Did Churchill save the Western Democracies in WWII? Or did he cause more problems than he was worth but was in the right place at the right time?

Hitler was an evil man that brought very little good to very few people but I once had a neighbor who was a German national in the Ukarine who still refered to Hitler as a liberator.

In a Democracy we all have to make the best decision we can based on the available knowledge.

Someone once said "every people gets the govenment that it deserves." So I guess that if all of our leaders are f***ed up, who's fault is that?

20 Jun 2005, 22:33	#75
dda USS Oklahoma Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,500	Re: World Leaders That Don't Suck To be any kind of leader you have to inspire people to follow you. Abraham Lincoln said that the prime requisite for being a statesman is to be elected. If you have a following then if you lead that following in a direction which winds up to be of a benifit to them you are a pretty good leader. If you can also find ways to benefit your followers and others as well then you are an even better leader. However, if you lose the backing of your followers by trying too hard to benefit others, you cease to be any kind of leader. Thus the whole thing gets very complicated. The other primary complication is that what may seem to be the best for a group at a particular time may in fact be bad for it in the long run. Only time will tell wheter the correct decisions were made or not. Is Bush on the right track? Is he decreasing or increasing terrorism? There are bright people on both sides of the issue. 50 years from now, barring a complete calamity or a total miricale, historians will probably still be debating the issue. Was Regan the man who defeated the USSR and ended the cold war or just a narrow minded bastard who got lucky but caused a lot of other trouble and misery? Who knows? Did Churchill save the Western Democracies in WWII? Or did he cause more problems than he was worth but was in the right place at the right time? Hitler was an evil man that brought very little good to very few people but I once had a neighbor who was a German national in the Ukarine who still refered to Hitler as a liberator. In a Democracy we all have to make the best decision we can based on the available knowledge. Someone once said "every people gets the govenment that it deserves." So I guess that if all of our leaders are f***ed up, who's fault is that? __________________ Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.