Who do you think has done the most for thier country, listened to the people, and greatly improved their country's econmy? My say would have to be Vladimir Putin, even though he overrode Russa's democracy, he did it to save the country. And he still has an approval rating of 80-85%.
http://itstillnews.com/Articles/March07/Images/putin.jpg

Oh, and the leaders have to at least have been in the 20th century. This is mostly modern leaders.

Who do you think has done the most for thier country, listened to the people, and greatly improved their country's econmy? My say would have to be Vladimir Putin, even though he overrode Russa's democracy, he did it to save the country. And he still has an approval rating of 80-85%.
http://itstillnews.com/Articles/March07/Images/putin.jpg

Ofcourse he does, those who don't agree with Putin end up like this guy here. I suprised it's not 99.9%. How many reporters critical of his admin have turned up dead now? Man I've lost count to be honest.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Putin1.jpg

What about the 15%? :shrug: They are not dead, and that is proof enough.

With continued growth, I'd pick the Chinese leadership. The grandparents have seen their children walking behind a water buffalo in the rice fields to their grandchildren jamming with Guitar Hero.

I would, however, also rank Putin high on the list.

Ofcourse he does, those who don't agree with Putin end up like this guy here. I suprised it's not 99.9%. How many reporters critical of his admin have turned up dead now? Man I've lost count to be honest.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/Putin1.jpg

What you show was an act of UK agency and has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin.

That ex-FSB agent sold his soul to M15 and than he was betrayed by them as well. I spit into his face and on his grace. he is Scum.

I was going to say Hu Jintao.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Hu_Jintao_during_a_defense_meeting_held_at_the_Pen tagon,_May_2002,_cropped.jpg/482px-Hu_Jintao_during_a_defense_meeting_held_at_the_Pen tagon,_May_2002,_cropped.jpg

http://www.yuga.ru/media/putin01.jpg

My president.

Those of us a bit older would see the irony of a Russian and Chinese leader high on our list and the leader of the USA as dead last. Fortunately the USA has some potentially positive leaders from both parties ready to take the reigns this time next year.

What you show was an act of UK agency and has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin.

That ex-FSB agent sold his soul to M15 and than he was betrayed by them as well. I spit into his face and on his grace. he is Scum.

Ok, now what about this guy here? Putin sure does a fetish for poisin doesn't he?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/RUSSIA.jpg

Ok, now what about this guy here? Putin sure does a fetish for poisin doesn't he?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/RUSSIA.jpg

their own Ukrainian politics' scratching.

Good leaders don't necessarily have to be good people.

Putin is, indeed, good for Russia (or at least, he has been), but even Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Junichiro Koizumi was probably the best modern day PM of Japan (and he held the government together for record time). Tony Blair was great: but that's an American perspective. He is more well-liked here than in the UK-- and could PROBABLY give any American presidential candidate a run for their money (if, somehow, permitted to run). Lastly, Angela Merkel seems to be a shewed and talented politician. She's deftly pulled Germany closer to the USA while not budging one bit on Germany's steadfast positions on the environment and global conflict(s).

Not sure about anybody else.

~String

Putin is, indeed, good for Russia (or at least, he has been), but even Mussolini made the trains run on time. Maybe.

Mussolini imposed severe penalties for reports of late trains, causing an immediate reduction in reported late trains.

Not quite the same thing. People who have estimated the ontime performance of Italian trains during the Mussolini era by other means than reading the official reports, have ended up with rather different estimates of Fascist efficiency, at least in that arena.

Putin? My guess is that history will once again show that putting a former commander of one's thuggish and corrupt Secret Police in charge of the whole country is not the wisest of courses, for the ordinary citizen. But maybe they had little choice.

Meanwhile, whoever's been running Norway and Denmark and the like hasn't done a bad job. And Cuba, compared with its neighbors and considering its handicaps, seems to have been reasonably well managed. Vietnam, as well. Costa Rica ?

Leaders today come and go very quickly in many instances so whatever they might do it could take awhile for what they did to germanate. Many times good leaders implement changes that are only seen years down the road. Many people don't like to wait today and usually vote new leaders into office even before the changes really take hold.

Putin? My guess is that history will once again show that putting a former commander of one's thuggish and corrupt Secret Police in charge of the whole country is not the wisest of courses, for the ordinary citizen. But maybe they had little choice.


you speak of corruption, if there is any corruption its in the M15 sector of UK. KGB and now FSB is the world finely tuned government agencies that follow the law because the LAW IS ABOVE ALL.

Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifah of Bahrain. As soon as he became leader, he granted amnesty to political prisoners, gave women the right to vote, and he held elections. He also has only 1 wife.

Considering the world he lives in and all the traditions he's going up against, I think he is amazing. (as was his father)

you speak of corruption, if there is any corruption its in the M15 sector of UK. KGB and now FSB is the world finely tuned government agencies that follow the law because the LAW IS ABOVE ALL.

You mean Mi5 not M15, right?

~String

You mean Mi5 not M15, right?

~String

well whatever the enemy's insignia is...I dont want to allocate memory on such.

There are of world leaders and there are toy country leaders. World leaders are those of China, Russia, the USA, Brazil, Japan. Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico and one can debate to include a few others like Malaysia, Bangladesh, and so on.

Leaders from less influenctial countries (the UK, Canada, France etc.) can say and preach all the right things without much impact or consequences. They don't lead but look around the room and mouth what is expected. Leaders of lesser countries (Denmark, Bolivia, etc) are inconsequential on a world leader scale. The exception is Chavez who has created a following beyond his country's size.

well whatever the enemy's insignia is...I dont want to allocate memory on such.

Well, not to detract from the debate: but don't you think it's kind of silly lobbing accusations of corruption (as if you were such an erudite person), but didn't even know the name of said organization, and then fall back on the excuse, "Well, I don't want to allocate memory on such."

If that's the case, how do you know anything at all about this topic, besides an OBVIOUS bias towards the nation of your ancestors? I mean, let's admit the obvious: Russia can do no wrong in your eyes. That certainly puts your (as you admit) ignorant suggestions in perspective.

Here's a suggestions: provide us with some real credible evidence that the FSB is the paradigm of wholesome lawfulness and the Mi5 it's moral antipode... beyond your lofty claims.

Oh... and try to get the names right. That kinda' helps.

~String

There are of world leaders and there are toy country leaders. World leaders are those of China, Russia, the USA, Brazil, Japan. Germany, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico and one can debate to include a few others like Malaysia, Bangladesh, and so on.

Leaders from less influenctial countries (the UK, Canada, France etc.) can say and preach all the right things without much impact or consequences. They don't lead but look around the room and mouth what is expected. Leaders of lesser countries (Denmark, Bolivia, etc) are inconsequential on a world leader scale. The exception is Chavez who has created a following beyond his country's size.

You put Nigeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia above Britain and France. Huh?

Bangladesh's international reputation, industrial output and political influence isn't a fraction of the UK's or France's.

Influence is best measured by: economic power, political power (exluding military) and military power.

For better or worse, France and the UK are still substantial players in those areas.

~String

well whatever the enemy's insignia is...I dont want to allocate memory on such.

What a miserable reply. Why don't you join the CIA and help undermine a few democratically elected leaders ?

You put Nigeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia above Britain and France. Huh?

Bangladesh's international reputation, industrial output and political influence isn't a fraction of the UK's or France's.

Influence is best measured by: economic power, political power (exluding military) and military power.

For better or worse, France and the UK are still substantial players in those areas.

~String

No they aren't. Their leaders are more or less clones of each other...mouthing platitudes and not of a lot of importance. The UK changes leadership...and a hundred million...two hundred million..three hundred million...people are impacted how? almost zip even within Britain. How does the UK having nukes impact much of anything anywhere and what does it matter if Blair or Brown controls those nukes?

In contrast, a leader in Indonesia has a big influence on a population of a couple hundred million. More than some leader in the UK tweaking tax policy to promote cheese production. Ladership in many countries has big impact on the daily lives of hundreds of millions...ethnic relations...refugee issues...strategic alliances and so on.

I fail to understand what leader that resides at 10 Downing Street matters in substance to the world. Perhaps the price of cheese in the UK will go up or down a penny or two. It has no impact on the lives of 99% of the world's people and little or any on the lives of Brits.

No they aren't. Their leaders are more or less clones of each other...mouthing platitudes and not of a lot of importance. The UK changes leadership...and a hundred million...two hundred million..three hundred million...people are impacted how? almost zip even within Britain. How does the UK having nukes impact much of anything anywhere and what does it matter if Blair or Brown controls those nukes?

In contrast, a leader in Indonesia has a big influence on a population of a couple hundred million. More than some leader in the UK tweaking tax policy to promote cheese production. Leadership in many countries has big impact on the daily lives of hundreds of millions...ethnic relations...refugee issues...strategic alliances and so on.

I fail to understand what leader that resides at 10 Downing Street matters in substance to the world. Perhaps the price of cheese in the UK will go up or down a penny or two. It has no impact on the lives of 99% of the world's people and little or any on the lives of Brits.

Well, for example: the UK has the world's second largest navy, the world's seventh largest economy, the world's third most traded currency, a vote on the UN security council, it's tugging influence through the Commonwealth... oh, and it's rich as hell via the fact that the British, as a nation, (corporately) own more land worldwide than anybody but the USA. So, yeah, Indonesia has a lot of people, but they have no influence beyond what they say and do in the region. Indonesia is also teetering on losing it's place in OPEC because it now imports more oil than it exports, and its economy doesn't pump out much more than the state of Ohio.

And then there's your totally ridiculous claim about Bengladesh which is one of the poorest nations on Earth who's number one export is Jute! Wow. There's influence.

One day, Indonesia might overtake the UK... but not today.

~String

That's ridiculous. The UK can be number in in the world's economy and it's nothing to do with who is PM or the influence Those dollars are internationally controlled and a shirt manufacturer can be in Bangladesh or Southhampton....it's nothing to do with 'leadership'. A few decisions by a businesman in Hong Kong and another in New York and it's zero shirt production in the UK. (hint: Panama and Libya really aren't the most powerful nations in sea transportation:rolleyes:)

And yes, the actions of a leader in Bangladsh or Indonesia has far more consequencs outside their borders thn that of a PM of the UK. It can impact the daily lives of millions in East timor or elsewhere. It influences the global influence of ideologies from socialism to Islamic fundamentalism. It's a heck more influential what leader runs Pakistan than the UK or France. The philosophy of a leader in Mexico can impact future Latin American relations and economic develpment.

Your head is in the clouds. The world is about bread and butter and who controls a street or ploughs a field, the place of a woman in the family, a child's access to education. British nukes have zero influence on the IT revolution in Bombay or the building of skyscrapers in China. French nukes don't ease the violence for millions in the Congo or build irrigation sytems for farmers in Bolivia.

Never said anything about nukes, Jack!

I was talking about monetary, military (mostly naval) and political influences, none of which Bangladesh and Indonesia have outside their borders, the UK does on a global scale. You're delusional if you think that the plows and wombs of those countries effect more than the British PM does.

Who's head is in the clouds? Mine for pointing out the obvious facts about British influence, or yours for fruitlessly trying to paint a third world nation as some global powerhouse. Good luck!

~String

who ever leads estonia

Never said anything about nukes, Jack!

I was talking about monetary, military (mostly naval) and political influences, none of which Bangladesh and Indonesia have outside their borders, the UK does on a global scale. You're delusional if you think that the plows and wombs of those countries effect more than the British PM does.

Who's head is in the clouds? Mine for pointing out the obvious facts about British influence, or yours for fruitlessly trying to paint a third world nation as some global powerhouse. Good luck!

~String

Get over your illusions of grandeur. :rolleyes: The British PM doesn't even have control of wine consumption in the UK... it's more controlled by bureaucrats in Brussels. Iran's tinpot navy can humiliate the British navy and the British PM couldn't fire a pea shooter without a nod from his boss in Washington. The UK is like one of those sidekicks in western movies.... a gummy old gimp standing behind John Wayne and telling the bad guy how the two of them are going to give him a licking. :D

98% of folks asked randomly in even the former colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand couldn't name the British Prime Minister. "Thatcher? Hmmm? Well it used to be Churchill but he must be dead. what about that other fellow. What's his name? You know, Bush's friend? :shrug:

Iran's tinpot navy can humiliate the British navy and the British PM couldn't fire a pea shooter without a nod from his boss in Washington.

Really? Can you back this up. What is the British navy's firepower and tonnage? Don't real facts matter to you; just the imagined scenarios that you invent to exaggerate the point (Iran doesn't really have a navy to speak of)?

98% of folks asked randomly in even the former colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand couldn't name the British Prime Minister.

You posted a statistic. Care to back that up with where you got it, or did you make it up? But, I'll take the bait: Let's apply your litmus test to the PM of Bangladesh or the president of Nigeria. You think that they could name any of them? But lemme guess: that doesn't really matter, only the things that support your nonsensical claims.

Sure... so the PM of Bangladesh is more influential. Oreodont, you need to realize that this isn't a "notion of grandeur" much as you'd like to twist it: this is a statement of reality. Britain and the British PM are far more influential than Bangladesh or Nigeria. Influence is measured by the ability of a person or entity to impose their will on others. You're attempting to delude us with the notion that Bangladesh and it's PM outstrip Britain? I'm the one with delusions of grandeur.

How about you ask someone with some education or experience in this matter, see what answer they give. But, I'm sure that won't matter either: you've already convinced yourself. I sense from your writing an overriding desire to diminish British & French influence because of a distaste for those countries, while touting the nonexistent "influence" of others.

Influence can be measured in two ways: direct influence and indirect influence.

When measuring the direct influence of Britain and Bangladesh, one has to look at the obvious facts:

Military power: what is Britain's ability to project its military might overseas and what is Bangladesh's? When thinking of military activity over the last 20 years, have you seen much of Bangladesh? Britain?

Political power: what is Britain's solo influence via political bodies Vs. Bangladesh's? Can Bangladesh hold up international debate or influence it as well as or better than Britain's in the UN? When the British PM goes somewhere, does it garner the same buzz as when the Bangladeshi PM does? Can you name even one political figure from Bangladesh, Nigeria or Mexico in the last 20 years? How many British ones can you name?

Economic power: what is Britain's import/export/purchasing power Vs. Bangladesh's on a global scale? What does Bangladesh produce that is vital or even important to world trade? How many brands and or products can you name from Bangladesh? How many British corporations, or economic institutions that are run from Britain, can you name Vs. Bangladesh?

Cultural power: what does Bangladesh produce on a global cultural level and outstrips Britain? How many cultural contributions can you identify from Britain in the past 20 years? How many are from Bangladesh or Nigeria?

When measuring indirect influence, one has to look at the connections that Britain has and the ability to influence through other nations/institutions:

As you pointed out, Britain takes its "cues" from the USA. This may be, in part true, but as a trade off for the whole Iraq thing, Britain was able to influence Bush to begin taking a more active roll in Mideast peace... something he didn't give a damn about before Blair made the trade. It was because of Blair's and Brown's influence that the USA forgave billions in third world debt (something the US is never willing to do)-- that alone is significantly more than anything Bangladesh or Nigeria could accomplish since they were the nations that directly benefited from the debt forgiveness, a feat they couldn't accomplish on no matter how much the begged. It took sympathetic Britain to nudge the US's hand.
By being the most influential nation in terms of US politics, it also has leverage through American power, and for better or worse, the USA is the most influential nation. As a general rule: what's important to the British somehow ends up being important to the USA and there's a reason for this, the British (and British PM) know exactly how to influence the USA, it's a magic trick they've been perfecting for about a century.
Lastly: If someone invaded Bangladesh, do you see France and the USA preparing for war in the same way as you would if someone invaded Britain?

When looking at Britain's alliances, one needs to look at the power block that Britain influences through it's position in NATO and the EU. What power blocks are Nigeria or Bangladesh a part of that carries the same influence as NATO or the EU? Though these institutions water down British influence, they also re-project that power through its allies. Can Bangladesh or Nigeria claim the same or similar thing? Is there anything of significance that Nigeria or Bangladesh are a part of that overwhelmingly influences the world on the same level as Britain? What can Bangladesh and it's allies accomplish that Britain and it's allies cannot.

I think if you took a step back and looked at this subject a little more objectively, you'd see that despite it's shrinking power: Britain and the British PM as yet still hold enormous world influence, certainly more than any SINGLE on of the nations you mentioned. This may not be true 100 years from now, but it is certainly true now.

~String

Britain project its military power? What a friggin joke. No wonder you are so self-delusional. The British PM couldn't hiccup without first getting the nod from the puppet masters in Washington.The only function of the British miliary is to fly the flag when Uncle Sam looks around and demands a presence to add legitimacy to it's own policy. The Brits are faithful puppies lined up along side the Ukbekis.

The last time the British had any military integrity was almost 3 decades ago. Today it's a gimpy U.S. sidekick. The US Presient pats the British PM on the top of his head, tells him he's a good boy, and sends him off to the toy box to play Rule Britannia.

Britain project its military power? What a friggin joke. No wonder you are so self-delusional. The British PM couldn't hiccup without first getting the nod from the puppet masters in Washington.The only function of the British military is to fly the flag when Uncle Sam looks around and demands a presence to add legitimacy to it's own policy. The Brits are faithful puppies lined up along side the Ukbekis.

I see you avoided my question and focused on one small factor in the entire argument. This is typical of people with little information and who are self deluded to the point where they need to avoid facts. I can also sense your hatred of Britain, so you must feel some wrongdoing on their part and are now engaged in a desperate one-man-mission to make a statement: Britain sucks! They are puppets and are weak.

Well, great. They are weak then. So, again, how are they less influential than Bangladesh or Nigeria. In geopolitics, how does Bangladesh have more pull over Europe and America (the two most influential blocks) than Britain? I can answer for you: they don't. The issue is, you just can't bear to admit it, and barring that, cannot provide a scintilla of evidence to support your points; just impassioned and personal jeremiads on how Britain is weak, how they take their cues from Washington and how they are puppets of the American president. Nice talking points... little substance, but then, you're not big on substance are you?

I asked you specific questions and you gave me a moan-fest of how I'm delusional (I also never denied American influence over British policy-- I see you overlooked that fact as well). We're talking facts, not emotions. If you can't come up with them exit the conversation. I demonstrated British influence through two specific methods and you say something about [sic] Ukbekis (Uzbeks?-- there's no "i" and you forgot a "z").

I can point out British military actions (not that, that was the bedrock of my argument, but since you focused on it) in the past 20 years if you'd like. Can you come up with some from Bangladesh or Nigeria (just a hint: That was a direct question, and it begs and answer... but lemme guess, you'll avoid it and post some sardonic diatribe with lots of opinion and little reference facts).

Please: you mentioned several points, which I responded to, and I asked several questions, if you do not have answers and cannot provide any, that's fair, but you're looking like a premenstrual teenager with this constant irrational banter.

Facts Oreodont. That's what we're talking about. Refute mine... but I'm betting you can't.

~String

I've given you facts and you present what? Nuclear weapons.:bugeye: That mean what? Ludicrous. give me the scenario where the UK is going to use a nuke? Who the friggin heck is going to attack Britain? The USA? Togo? Get real. nobody is going to attack the Netherlands and guess what? they don't have nukes. the UK having nukes means squat.

Economic might? Sorry, the British government, let alone it's leader, does not sit in a room pulling economic strings. This isn't the Elizabethan age with a queen opening her jewellry box and bestowing favours. Power is even more removed from any British leader via restraints of the EU. The British leader doesn't even have the clout to control cheese imports. He's handcuffed by domestic and EU laws.

You need to get your ignorant ass out of the heady days of the Empire when the British navy sailed into ports and monopolized the tea trade. Britain is a rump nation not even fully governed anymore by Brits. Military decisions are made in Washington and economic decisions made by bureacucrats in Brussels and bankers in Shanghai and New York. Even acording to your silly crieria even in Europe Britain is a distant second banana to the Germans in economy and in the junior leagues compared to the Russians militarily.

(thanks for pointing out my mistake in spelling Uzbeckis. After all, Brits see their name next to the Uzbckis and are more used to the correct spelling. "United States supported by the Uzbeckis and British..."

I've given you facts and you present what? Nuclear weapons.:bugeye: That mean what? Ludicrous. give me the scenario where the UK is going to use a nuke? Who the friggin heck is going to attack Britain? The USA? Togo? Get real. nobody is going to attack the Netherlands and guess what? they don't have nukes. the UK having nukes means squat.

Um... you need to go back and read, Oreodont: you brought up nukes, would you like me to tell you exactly where? (Your post: "How does the UK having nukes impact much of anything anywhere and what does it matter if Blair or Brown controls those nukes?" (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1732298&postcount=23) Post #23) The fact is: I avoided, for the most part, even bringing nukes into the debate. Though having them does buy a great deal of prestige (just look at Pakistan), I do think that there are other more important issues of influence, thus the seven or so other pertinent points I mentioned... which... erm... you have yet to refute. So, yeah, nukes don't matter, you've got me there smarty! Whew... I feel whooped! You invented a contrasting point and then argued against it all on your own. Brilliant tactic!

Economic might? Sorry, the British government, let alone it's leader, does not sit in a room pulling economic strings.

Never said they did. Never implied they did. Nor have I attempted to paint Britain as a "powerhouse" (which I could do, but that's another debate) or anything like that: the only thing I've said is that Britain is MORE influential than Bangladesh or Nigeria. That's it. Nothing more. See, what you're doing here is avoiding facts I posited by attempting to exaggerate, twist and even invent [remember the nukes?] various points in my argument. Sorry, that just doesn't hold water.

I asked you to demonstrate how Bangladesh has more global influence than Britain and you tell me to pull my ignorant ass out of the past.

The British leader doesn't even have the clout to control cheese imports. He's handcuffed by domestic and EU laws.

Sure. Your right. You bring up cheese to counter my arguments. Again (and this is a question, and I know how much you hate having to answer them), how does Britain not INFLUENCE (remember-- the key word here is influence, think hard about this, the word isn't CONTROL it's INFLUENCE) "cheese imports." You stated a fact: back that up. But allow me to predict your answer: "Pull your head out of your ass... this isn't Elizabethan England blah blah blah."

Britain is a rump nation not even fully governed anymore by Brits.

Okay... another "fact". What is your source?

Military decisions are made in Washington and economic decisions made by bureaucrats in Brussels and bankers in Shanghai and New York. Even according to your silly criteria even in Europe Britain is a distant second banana to the Germans in economy and in the junior leagues compared to the Russians militarily.

You're right: Britain is second fiddle to Germany and Russia (I never said it wasn't), but THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE HERE. We're comparing Britain to Bangladesh and Nigeria. I'm not saying that Britain isn't a pawn of the USA or of Europe-- those are two distinct possibilities that can be supported by some logical arguments. YOU, however, stated that BANGLADESH and NIGERIA are more influential. Those are your statements, you made them, so as things go around here, you bear the burden of proof.

My ridiculous criteria are factual criteria, influence is effected both directly and indirectly. That's not some imaginative daydream, it's a fact. So, please tell me how Bangladesh and Nigeria are MORE influential as per your criteria than Britain. Please refrain from personal attacks or nonsensical ("Britain is a puppet of .... blah... blah.... blah"). List facts: Remember, that's what we're dealing in here. And thus far, you've provided none.

thanks for pointing out my mistake in spelling Uzbeckis. After all, Brits see their name next to the Uzbckis and are more used to the correct spelling. "United States supported by the Uzbeckis and British..."

It's "Uzbeks" no "i". You're talking about my "ignorant ass"? Huh, and you can't even get the spelling right after it was provided for you. Nice. As if to prove my point: you're high on emotional insults and low on real facts.

~String

Moderator Note: I see you avoided all my points and made it personal. Usually the recourse of someone who cannot back up their claims. I love when people do this: when intellect fails: start thowing mud. Thus, I deleted your comments.

This is about logical debate: If you didn't have something invested in it you wouldn't have participated up till now so don't pretend like your last comment was some sort of logical clincher. If you can't participate in good faith and back up any claims you make, please know that your comments will be deleted. End note.

I'll take your response as acknowledging that the points I made are beyond your ability to refute.

~String