Joined: 30-Mar-2012
Location: Russia Perm
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
QuoteReplyTopic: What personality type is the best in policy? Posted: 12-May-2012 at 23:14
I have formulated the
theory on the basis of Carl Jung's theory about personality types. There are
four types of personality of people: technician, psychologist, speaker and
theorist. These types differ from each other that personality types have different developed functions of a brain.
Technician has technical abilities, psychologist has developed intuition, speakerhas developed oral speech, theorist has developed abstract thinking. The share of speakers
makes 46 %, technicians – 32 %, psychologists – 20 %, theorists – 2 % in the
Ural population.
Such politicians as Yeltsin, Bill Clinton,
Churchill, de Gaulle, Sarkozy, Ronald Reagan, Romney, Gorbachev, Zhirinovsky, Alexander the
Great, Julius Caesar, Lenin, Khrushchev,Margaret
Thatcher, Cromwell, Mussolini were speakers.For
example, Lenin had the following tendencies of the speaker: correspondence
education, oratorical talent, success in the armed October revolution, tendency
to plagiarism in philosophy. Khrushchev had the following tendencies of the speaker: the lowest education level,
oratorical talent, ability to organize the armed revolution and Beria's arrest,
crudity of reforms and adventurism in foreign and domestic policy. Yeltsin had
the following tendencies of the speaker:
tendency to alcoholism and adventurism, oratorical talent, ability to win in
general presidential election, ability to suppress the armed putsches in 1991
and 1993 by means of military force or by means of the organization of armed
resistance of simple citizens at the White house, aspiration to carry out
reform not on the basis of own plans, but on the basis of recipes of the
western advisers and councils of theorists of Sobchak and Gaidar.
The speaker
leans on group of adherents all life,
for example, Lenin leaned on «Lenin
guard» always. Many governors-speakers are excellent commanders, as Julius
Caesar, Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon 1 Bonaparte. Alexander the Great rushed on the enemy in fights the first.
Speakers perish not in fights but in
summary secret plots and political murders often, for example, speakers Philippe Makedonsky, Julius Caesar
and, probably, Alexander the Great were lost from hands of conspirators.
Gorbachev and Khrushchev lost the power as a result of secret plot of the
former colleagues. Speaker Khrushchev lost in secret fight from psychologist
Brezhnev.
Speakers
are all leaders of country revolts – S. Razin, E.Pugachyov, I.Bolotnikov,
K.Bulavin.
Such politicians as Marx, Brezhnev, Bin
Laden, the U.S. President Barack Obama, François Olland are psychologists.
Psychologists - tyrants were Neron, Kaligula, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin and Hitler.Signs of the
psychologist are the hobby for religion, poetry and social utopias, existence
of the long periods of unemployment during life, poverty and humiliating tendency
for men to live at the expense of friends or women, a large number of wives and
mistresses, skill in fight behind
scenes.
For
example, Stalin had the following tendencies of the psychologist: incomplete
spiritual education, hobby for writing of verses in youth, skill in intrigues
and fight behind scenes, lack of a profession in the youth, two wives and a
large number of the mistresses, total absence of talent of a military leader.
Hitler had the following tendencies of the psychologist: dream of a profession
of the artist and position of the homeless tramp in youth, refusal to become
the official contrary to a father's advice because of hostility to routine
work, literary talent, mysticism, hobby for vegetarianism and east cults, love
to an astrology, a favourite role of the prophet during a public statement,
high extent of possession of methods of
fight behind scenes, absence of talent of a military leader, low success
on elections (nazis received 43,9 % of voices on elections of 1933 only).
Tsar Ivan the Terrible had the following tendencies of the psychologist:
literary talent, faith in Got before
fanaticism, skill in the intrigues, six lawful wives and a large number of
mistresses. Marx had the following tendencies of the psychologist: position of
the unemployed during almost all life, hobby for poetry in youth, fanatical
obsession utopian ideas and unrealizable dream to become the marshal at the
head of revolutionary armies of the proletariat, poverty and readiness to live
on money of the friend – speaker Engels,
existence of a large family, too large volume of compositions.
Situation
becomes absolutely intolerable in the country and at court of the
governor in that case when the tyrant-psychologist has mental deviations from
norm. Many tyrants had strangenesses in behavior, for example, people began to
notice strangenesses in behavior of the
Roman emperor Kaligula after the disease suffered by him, Kaligula began to
consider himself by Got. The Roman emperor Neron considered itself as the great
poet and the singer, hearings went about Neron what Rome was set on fire on Neron's order that Neron could be inspired by a fire
picture for poem writing about death of Troy. Some researchers tried to explain
senseless executions as paranoia symptoms at tsar Ivan 4 the Terrible and
Joseph Stalin. World famous psychiatrist Bekhterev was called to the Kremlin in
1927 for treatment of the Soviet dictator Stalin about which said that
Stalin tests the depression periods.
Bekhterev diagnosed that Stalin suffers a heavy form of paranoia. After that
Bekhterev died suspiciously quickly – in the same evening. Opening was not made
for clarification of a cause of death by Bekhterev, a body by Bekhterev
was cremated. There is an opinion that
Bekhterev was poisoned by order of Stalin in revenge for the terrible
diagnosis. Khrushchev disgraced a cult of personality of Stalin and Khrushchev
called by Stalin «the madman on a throne».
There
are many methods of fight behind scenes.
Stalin used such methods of fight behind scenes, as "cleaning" of
bureucratic apparatus and inspiration of conflicts between own supporters who
were compelled to inform by tyrant Stalin at each other. Stalin achieved before solving fight at
congress of Communist's party, that a majority of heads of an average link in
the party's apparatus was on side Stalin. According to Stalin, it is necessary to achieve support from the
majority of "officers"for a victory over "generals", Stalin's opponents underestimated this
support from heads of an average link.
Stalin's supporters, using the majority, simply didn't let Trotsky speak
from a tribune at congress of party, Stalin's supporters muffled words byTrotsky by whistle and a cry. «The
Leningrad business» is an example kindling of the conflicts between Stalin's
deputies. Stalin fell ill and left to be treated on the resort, Zhdanov directed by Russia instead of Stalin some months. Zhdanov managed to put at the head of many
regional party organizations during this time of Zhdanov's friends – Leningrad
residents, Zhdanov prepared for power
capture in case of Stalin's death in such a way but Zhdanov too hastened. When
Stalin returned to Moscow, Beria informed by Stalin about Zhdanov's activity. As a result, Zhdanov died
under strange circumstances, 2 thousand people were executed on the
"Leningrad" business, many of which were ministers and the
high-ranking officials.Psychologist Bin Laden had applied global terror in fight against the
USA for the first time in history.
Such politicians, as tsar Nikolay 1, tsar Nikolay 2, tsar Alexander 3,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Molotov, U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush, Angela Merkel, president Putin,
president Medvedev, British prince Charles, British queen Elisabeth 2 are technicians. All these technicians are
born conservatives and creators of an order after the period of reforms or
after revolution in policy. Technicians
approach for a role of the official well , but technicians approach
approach for a role of the politician badly. Technicians find oneself to policy casually - on a
patronage from the executive device or inherit a throne. Technicians own all ways of political struggle badly –
technicians aren't able to win in elections,
technicians own receptions of fight behind scenes badly and technicians
aren't able to arrange the armed revolutions. Technicians are born performers, technicians have low leader abilities and technicians
prefer not to risk. Technicians don't have enough such qualities of character,
as cunning and insidiousness for successful conducting fight behind scenes.
Technicians don't have enough oratorical
abilities and ability to be pleasant to public for a victory on elections.
Technicians prefer to speak from a
tribune on a piece of paper and technicians
aren't able to speak from a tribune in free style. Speeches by
technicians is boring, too long and
deprived of emotions as it is possible
to influence to subconsciousness of the
person in crowd by means of expression of emotions only. Speeches by technicians
aren't pleasant to crowd on meeting. Signs of the technician in policy are a
profession of the official in antecedents, conservatism and aspiration to put
things in order in the country, gray appearance, a manner of a public speach in
the form of performance on a piece of paper. For example, Tsar Nikolay 2 had
the following tendencies of the technician: conservatism of political views and
aspiration to keep an absolute monarchy by all means, speaker Vitte had written manifesto on October 1905 for Nikolay 2, Nikolay 2 signed by Manifesto, but Nikolay 2
couldn't finish democratic reforms. J. Bush Jr.
won the first presidential election with great difficulty, it was necessary to recalculate votes several times even.
Psychologist
Bin Laden had applied global terror in fight against the USA for the first time
in history.
Such
politicians, as tsar Nikolay 1, tsar Nikolay 2, tsar Alexander 3, Minister of
Foreign Affairs Molotov, U.S. Presidents of J. Bush Jr. and J. Bush Sr., Angela
Merkel, president Putin, president Medvedev, British prince Charles, Dritish
queen Elisabeth 2 are technicians. All
these technicians are born conservatives and creators of an order after the
period of reforms or after revolution in policy. Technicians approach for a role of the official well ,
but technicians approach approach for a role of the politician
badly.Technicians find oneself to policy
casually - on a patronage from the executive device or inherit a throne.
Technicians own all ways of political
struggle badly – technicians aren't able to win in elections, technicians own receptions of fight behind
scenes badly and technicians aren't able to arrange the armed revolutions.
Technicians are born performers,
technicians have low leader abilities
and technicians prefer not to risk. Technicians don't have enough such
qualities of character, as cunning and insidiousness for successful conducting
fight behind scenes. Technicians don't
have enough oratorical abilities and ability to be pleasant to public for a victory
on elections. Technicians prefer to
speak from a tribune on a piece of paper and technicians aren't able to speak from a tribune in free
style. Speeches by technicians is
boring, too long and deprived of emotions as it is possible to influence to subconsciousness of the person in crowd by
means of expression of emotions only. Speeches by technicians aren't pleasant
to crowd on meeting. Signs of the technician in policy are a profession of the
official in antecedents, conservatism and aspiration to put things in order in
the country, gray appearance, a manner of a public speach in the form of
performance on a piece of paper. For example, Tsar Nikolay 2 had the following
tendencies of the technician: conservatism of political views and aspiration to
keep an absolute monarchy by all means,
speaker Vitte had written manifesto
on October 1905 for Nikolay 2,
Nikolay 2 signed by Manifesto, but Nikolay 2 couldn't finish democratic
reforms. J. Bush Jr. won the first
presidential election with great difficulty, it was necessary to recalculate votes several times even.
J.
Bush Jr became puzzled a little during
the first moment during attack of the international terrorists to America, but
then J. Bush Jr started to put things in order and to struggle with terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq
successfully.
Such
politicians as sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, Valeria Novodvorskaya, Sobchak,
Anatoly Gaidar and Sakharov were theorists. The most successful role of the
theorist in policy is a role of the adviser at the governor-reformer. the
speaker is reformer usually. This speaker carries out reforms according to
councils of the theorist. Sorokin was the personal secretary of prime-minister
Kerensky in Russia in 1917. Sobchak, Sakharov and Anatoly Gaidar were Yeltsin's
advisers. Attempt of the theorist to play an independent role in policy leads
to failure without a support on the speaker always.
Signs
of the theorist in policy are the profession of the university teacher and a
scientific degree, panic fear before a public speech, originality and a
categoriality conclusions, some strangeness and appearance, promotion of offers
on political reforms. All theorists were supporters of democratic reforms. For
example, Sobchak was the professor of the right and Sobchak had a scientific
degree. Gaidar was the professor of economy, as the prime-minister Gaidar entered the market in Russia, Gaidar was afraid of a public speech in panic and Gaidar
was not able to be pleasant to crowd. Novodvorsky has the strangest
appearance ,Novodvorsky does the most original and categorical conclusions.
Sakharov became thecreator of a hydrogen
bomb and Sakharov had a rank of the
academician, Sakharov was afraid
in panic to speak before public, the public prevented to speak by Sakharov at congress of the
Supreme Council by means of a false applause.
Sociologist
Pitirim Sorokin named eight lifts of vertical mobility on which people move up
or down on steps of a social pyramid in
the course of the personal career:
•
army,
•
church,
•
school and science,
politics,
•
art,
•
press, television, radio,
•
business,
•
successful marriage.
the speaker is the first grade on degree of
success in policy, the the psychologist
is second grade on degree of success in policy,
the technician is the third grade
on degree of success in policy, the theorist is the fourth grade on
degree of success in policy. Speakers are able to win in such types of a
political conflict, as elections, revolt and civil war. Speakers are able to
operate political party and speakers are able to order the armed group. The
psychologist possesses the highest level of skill under the organization of
plots, political murders, acts of terrorism,
fight of bureaucratic cliques behind scenes. The role of the tyrant is
intended for the psychologist. The technician is capable to inherit the power
only or on a patronage. The role of the official is intended for the
technician. The role of the adviser of the governor is intended for the
theorist. Speakers are "lions"
in policy, psychologists are
"foxes", technicians – conservatives, theorists – reformers.
The profession of the politician most is suitable today for speakers since speakers are able to win in elections and
speakers are the best orators. Elections are the only lawful way of fight for
the political power today. Application of the armed capture of the power,
terror and political murders is today under a legislative prohibition.
Much of it depends on the country's condition at the time. A weakened, fragmented state needs a Stalin or Ivan the Terrible to restore order and begin rebuilding. A developed, stable modern state can function under one-party rule but is better off as a liberal democracy
The rulling of tyrants Stalin and Ivan 4 Terrible had led to death of citizens of Russia from the state terror not less, than people was lost because of civil war. Therefore I don't know, what is worse? Or civil war is worse, or the rulling of the tyrant is worse?
There has never been a recorded from of government in history..that has not had difficulties in formation...expansion...or defense of its body politic-citizens...classes if they were there....and geophysical integrity. Having said that then one understands the personality types perse that lead or led the aforementioned have varied widely. And the successful models are well represented in the study of governmental development and the historic leaders associated with them.
What works in one historical context and era will not necessarily work in another or for a different ethnic cultural background given it's peculiar development. Or it will ultimately change in form to a greater or lesser degree.
Bonaparte was an exceptionally brilliant military leader but poor ruler for example. Washington was a mediocre military leader but an exceptionally outstanding personality type necessary for the moment and the conditions of his newly established nation. Many more examples exist.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
There has never been a recorded from of government in history..that has not had difficulties in formation...expansion...or defense of its body politic-citizens...classes if they were there....and geophysical integrity. Having said that then one understands the personality types perse that lead or led the aforementioned have varied widely. And the successful models are well represented in the study of governmental development and the historic leaders associated with them.
What works in one historical context and era will not necessarily work in another or for a different ethnic cultural background given it's peculiar development. Or it will ultimately change in form to a greater or lesser degree.
Bonaparte was an exceptionally brilliant military leader but poor ruler for example. Washington was a mediocre military leader but an exceptionally outstanding personality type necessary for the moment and the conditions of his newly established nation. Many more examples exist.
George Washington was a speaker as the personality type too. As the proof I can give the following signs of the speaker at Washington:
• He was a self-educated person and had no systematic education.
• He was the successful military leader and he had won war of the USA against Britain.
• He was the successful politician and the successful U.S. President. It had unconditional victories on presidential election.
• He was the fine orator. He had high leader qualities and high organizing abilities.
• He was the successful businessman and the successful planter.
For example, if the government appoints by technician to commander-in-chief, this commander-in-chief can lose fight. Technician Paulyus ordered the German armies near Stalingrad therefore the German armies got to an environment near Stalingrad and the German armies were given in captivity. Speaker Zhukov ordered Russian armies near Stalingrad and Moscow therefore speaker Zhukov managed to crush Germen. Paulyus should not wait, and Paulyus should conduct the German armies on break from an environment, but loser Paulyus preferred to fulfil Hitler's silly order and to wait. Hitler was a psychologist as the personality type therefore Hitler was the bad commander. Many Germen consider Hitler guilty of defeat of Germany in the Second World War. This opinion of Germen is the correct.
Speaker Napoleon as the good governor entered in France the new code of laws which became an example for imitation for the whole world. Napoleon's mistake consists that Napoleon entered war against Russia. Still it was possible to nobody to win Russia in big war. It was possible to opponents to win Russia on suburbs of the Russian Empire only, for example, Japan managed to win Russia in Manchzhury in 1905, Britain and France managed to win Russia in the Crimea in 1853-1856. But Napoleon had intruded deep into Russia and lost war. Napoleon tried to achieve world supremacy, but nobody could achieve it. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hitler tried to achieve world supremacy, but they failed in achievement of this purpose.
The rulling of tyrants Stalin and Ivan 4 Terrible had led to death of citizens of Russia from the state terror not less, than people was lost because of civil war. Therefore I don't know, what is worse? Or civil war is worse, or the rulling of the tyrant is worse?
Tyrants are bad, but the anarchy of civil war is much worse. In a lawless society the strong will prey upon the weak, leading to endless violence, famine and disease
The rulling of tyrants Stalin and Ivan 4 Terrible had led to death of citizens of Russia from the state terror not less, than people was lost because of civil war. Therefore I don't know, what is worse? Or civil war is worse, or the rulling of the tyrant is worse?
Tyrants are bad, but the anarchy of civil war is much worse. In a lawless society the strong will prey upon the weak, leading to endless violence, famine and disease
I read about it in work Thomas Gobbs "Leviathan" and in work of the Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin «Sociology of revolution». I agree with this your opinion completely. The governor should put things in order in the country with the help of «An iron fist» after reforms, revolution or civil war, but the governor shouldn't use the state terror against innocent citizens. President Putin is much better, than Stalin and Ivan the Terrible as the creator of an order. President Putin «kills in a toilet» all Chechen terrorists today, but Putin restores Chechnya and Putin pays pensions to the Chechen old men. Putin doesn't execute Russian opposition. Therefore the majority of voters votes for Putin in Russia today.
Besides, I don't condemn by ancient tyrants until, such form of government, as representative democracy wasn't invented yet. The tyrant was a successful governor in the ancient time, especially in the backward Ancient East and even in Italy by era of Machiavelli, but the tyrant should be sent to prison or is executed today after the invention of representative democracy, as Saddam Hussein. I am going to publish at this forum the article about the classification of 5 forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy, polisny democracy, hereditary monarchy and representative democracy). But I have one technical problem, I don't know how to place the table
Try making the table in Word, then copy from Word and paste here with the 4th icon from left to right, it says "Paste from Word". Hitting the icon will give you a window to paste what you copied from Word.
The rulling of tyrants Stalin and Ivan 4 Terrible had led to death of citizens of Russia from the state terror not less, than people was lost because of civil war. Therefore I don't know, what is worse? Or civil war is worse, or the rulling of the tyrant is worse?
Tyrants are bad, but the anarchy of civil war is much worse. In a lawless society the strong will prey upon the weak, leading to endless violence, famine and disease
What Stalin did wasn't to stop anarchy of civil war, the civil war was over at that point. The cleansings and Golodomor that claimed 23,000,000 people were done for political reasons, and not to prevent anarchy. Stalin didn't have one measly excuse to point to for the said deeds, besides the saving the power for the communists, the so called "Dictatorship for the Proletarians". It was all political game, like imagine a random political party winning the elections in Britain and then it's leader killing all people that voted from the other parties, this is what essentially Stalin did.
The Golodomor was artifically created because the Ukrainian peasants didn't want to part with their private property - like if someone comes and gets all that your family owns, down to your spare pants. Those people weren;t creating anarchy, they just wanted to have a little bit of control over their own lives and property, that's why they were starved to death. So, the crimes of Stalin has no excuse, not in my book.
The civil war may have been over, but there was always the risk of someone else trying to seize power. Had Stalin not ruthlessly crushed all his opponents and their potential supporters Russia might have ended up like Afghanistan or prewar China, with rival warlords perpetually fighting for control. I'm not justifying his crimes, but without him things would have been much worse
I disagree with that - after the Russian Civil war all Whites emigrated, and there was no one left to make anarchy. If one is to excuse such political behavior,like wiping out all possible political opposition, then Hitler was doing just great. Those 23 million Russian people were killed for nothing, to ensure that a ruthless political regime, that was not even wanted /communists never came to power through election, always through a coup/ will have the power for their own usage. This is most unacceptable, if such behavior is to be excused, this will open the door for excusing all possible genocides; because anyone can always say "someone may want to seize power, and make anarchy, so lets kill half of our population.
Do you know what people were killed and exiled for - for telling to a friend a political joke, or because their distant relative happen to have studied in a western country. Does this sound like anarchism to you? Or seizing of power? Besides, no one can say what may have been - history is about what was, not what could happen, because we don't know it.
Anyway, this thread is not about Stalin, so I'm going to stop. My opinion is that no tyranical political regime can possibly be excused, no matter what; the state has no right to kill it's citizens, no matter what, let alone with millions. The notion that a state can kill it's citizens is a very dangerous one, and inherently immoral, not to say how much it gives ground to horrific abuse of power.
The civil war may have been over, but there was always the risk of someone else trying to seize power. Had Stalin not ruthlessly crushed all his opponents and their potential supporters Russia might have ended up like Afghanistan or prewar China, with rival warlords perpetually fighting for control. I'm not justifying his crimes, but without him things would have been much worse
The governor, for example Stalin, becomes by tyrant just because this governor has seized power together with colleagues. At first this tyrant should protect seized power from the people indignant with this lawlessness. At first this usurper (Bolsheviks) had applied the state terror against the indignant people and people robbery. Bolsheviks yad created the All-Russia Extreme Commission (VChC) led by Dzerzhinsky for carrying out policy of the state terror against own people. Hitler created Gestapo for carrying out terror. Then civil war begins. Usurpers were at war against own people and Bolsheviks could win this war though Bolsheviks had to go on temporary concessions to peasants and businessmen in form the New Economic Policy (1921-1928) for a victory in civil war. Then Stalin decided to reconstruct oligarchy to tyranny. Stalin had executed all own colleagues-oligarchs, members of «Lenin guard» in 1937-1938. These rats gnawed through each other and them it is not a pity for me. Many members of «Lenin guard» were executioners, they took part in terror against own people in 1918-1921. Trotsky was Stalin's main enemy. The Soviet spy Merkader killed Trotsky in Mexico in 1940. But it is a pity for me those marshals and generals of Red Army, for example, Tukhachevsky which, though were at war against own people in 1918-1921, but these marshals and generals could be useful in war against fashist Germany in 1941. When Stalin executed these marshals and generals, as a result, Stalin decapitated Red Army before the war with fascist Germany. Collectivization and terror against peasants is Stalin's silly campaign. Collectivization led to hunger in Russia. Other Stalin's silly campaign is an industrialization and inefficient building of channels and plants by means of work of prisoners. VChK exhausted people in prison camp by means of terror.
The conclusion consists that the police and army should isolate to prison in time of those people which try to seize power, otherwise these usurpers become tyrants and these tyrants will spill the blood rivers by means of terror against own people. It also happened in Russia in the 20th century.
I disagree with that - after the Russian Civil war all Whites emigrated, and there was no one left to make anarchy. If one is to excuse such political behavior,like wiping out all possible political opposition, then Hitler was doing just great. Those 23 million Russian people were killed for nothing, to ensure that a ruthless political regime, that was not even wanted /communists never came to power through election, always through a coup/ will have the power for their own usage. This is most unacceptable, if such behavior is to be excused, this will open the door for excusing all possible genocides; because anyone can always say "someone may want to seize power, and make anarchy, so lets kill half of our population.
Do you know what people were killed and exiled for - for telling to a friend a political joke, or because their distant relative happen to have studied in a western country. Does this sound like anarchism to you? Or seizing of power? Besides, no one can say what may have been - history is about what was, not what could happen, because we don't know it.
Anyway, this thread is not about Stalin, so I'm going to stop. My opinion is that no tyranical political regime can possibly be excused, no matter what; the state has no right to kill it's citizens, no matter what, let alone with millions. The notion that a state can kill it's citizens is a very dangerous one, and inherently immoral, not to say how much it gives ground to horrific abuse of power.
Yes....so it is. But tis the record...no matter the ideaology.. the developement of the nation state....they have all done it from the dawn of time till now. Reject it? Absolutely. But yours is a lonely path when it comes to survival as a slave of any system or rejection of it...no matter the degree. You will survive...and do what's necessary... if only to opine your rejection.
The ultimate question is whether or not you have yet reached that stage... where fear for your life... has been replaced by advocation of your cause.
When you have recognized and accepted that....then the Llano has another warrior and the ghosts will indeed sing.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
In regards of war - I believe General Sherman's "Total war" personality is the best type.
During The Soviet War in Afghanistan in the 1980's, Russian troops would invade small towns where they believe Islamic fanatics were hiding, and they would destory the whole town, and kill everyone in sight. They also use to rape and kill the Afghan women, and take the Afghan babies and children, and would throw them into fires because they knew by doing that, they would not have to deal with another generation of Afghan rebels in the future. The Russians also use to poison the water in Afghanistan, blown up mosques, and run over Afghan civilians in tanks. Now that is some disturbing stuff, but sometimes, it's needed to win a war, and keep in mind - Islamic fanatics would gladly do the same things to anyone else who is against their views if they were given a chance.
During the U.S.'s war with the Taliban, American troops deliberately avoided any civilian attacks, refused to attack any mosques - even when the Taliban would hide in them - and made it point to drop ethnically correct food supplies to help feed the Afghans who were being hurt by the fighting. No wonder it took the troops so long to find Bin Laden.
If you would like to win a war against a bunch of savages, you have to be more cruel then they are, and because we're such a nice little country, it took over ten years, a lot of money, and more importantly - a WHOLE lot of dead American troops to get this job done when it could have been done a lot sooner if the U.S. troops would have went in there and made at least a half-butt effort to make General Sherman proud!
Speaking pragmatically, the type of leader that is "best" depends on what the goals of the government and nation are at the time.
Lenin, for example, was well suited for a citizenry looking to revolt, but not at all suited to lead his creation.
Obama is a lot like Lenin, good at public rhetoric and lofty ideals but incapable of leading a parade of two, let alone administering a complex national government.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum