My country is Turkey, which is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire. Although we never had a scarcity of bad leaders, I'd say the worst ever were the Ittihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Comittee of Union and Progress-CUP) triumvirate (Jemal, Talat, Enver Pashas) that ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 to 1918.

In just 10 years, they oppressed the people, tried to Turkify the Arabs and other minorities, ethnically cleansed the Armenians, caused the Empire to join the World War on the German side after Germany was engaged in two-front war (which according to the German high command meant no chance of victory). They were also tyrannical governors and incompetitive military leaders, when they took the matters directly in their hands. Enver's disregard for logistics caused the non-combat loss of 90000 troops in a counter-offensive in the mountains of Eastern Turkey (they came from the desert, equipped for desert warfare and froze to death at -30 degrees celcius). In the end the 600-year-old Empire collapsed and partitioned between the Allies, and Istanbul and Anatolia were under occupation. The peoples of Turkey (mainly Turks and Kurds), already devastated by numerous wars, had to fight yet another war- and this time for independence- because of that.

Not that I'd like to have the OE live to this day, but the events of the early 20th century left Turkey devastated, Middle East Arabs divided and colonised. Turkey was spared colonial rule, partly due to the actions of the Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal, and partly due to the fact that there is no oil to speak of in Turkey. The Empire could have been dismantled in a better way, and the good aspects (tolerance for minorities) could have been retained for the new Turkish nation-state, but unfortunately many negative aspects of the CUP rule were continued to this day in Turkish political life.

Canada:

Defenbaker (1950's,1960's I think). He never had good relations with America and the economy wasn't doing too good either.

Chretian(sp?) (1992-2003). He was a wimp on the Quebec issue giving the province special rights and status. IMHO, this will cause more autonomy problems, because Quebecers now see themselves as more special than before. He also alienated the west.

bah my post died ! I have to re-post!

ok I had two

Andrew Jackson= abloished bank of America, genocide against Native Americans, massive tariffs.

George Bush II= cut troop pay while sending them into combat, uses terrorists and fear for political gain, is a religious extremist who shares more in common with Osama than myself and lotsa corruption.  The decline and fall of America has begun.

Other crappy rulers are Franklin Pierce, James Buchana, Warren G Harding, and of course George III king of England.

Somehow I know I am going to get yelled at for this but oh well....

Lyndon Johnson.  The man could not make a decision in Vietnam and probably killed more Americans than necesary because of indecision.

İsmet İn�n� was a type of dictator, his succesors, the DP headed by Adnan Menderes was too corrupted (and too American-oriented).

Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk was also a dictator. In�n� had bad aspects (minority policy, authoritarian inner politics, as said) but was good at investment (developing the industry and the infrastructure), continuing the modernisation and westernisation(spreading the education to people) and keeping the country independent- which was a great achievement during WW2. Later right-wing leaders like Menderes, Demirel and especially �zal failed at these.

But İn�n� and his Post-Atat�rk CHP was quiet corrupted.

Yet, I can say the most corrupted governments in Turkey were those coalitions in the last decade

Oh Tobodai, you beat me. I was gonna say Jackson.

Anyway I don't think Dubya's that bad of a leader in fact his politics further my personal agenda.

I'm gonna say either Jimmy carter (proof that good men make bad presidents) or pres. George II (proof that warmongering morons make bad presidents)

On a sidse note, I am actually a distant relative of Johnson so i take personal offense to attacks on his presidency(just kidding I really dont care)

Buchanan. James Buchanan. He just sat on his behind while the Southern states seceded and dumped the problem on Lincoln. This alone would make him worst.

Jackson was one of the best U.S. Presidents. At least he had guts to stand up to South Carolina when it attempted nullification. He was a strong president, and compared to other 19th century mediocrities, he was one of the best.

At least Carter and Bush didn't just make the U.S. weak like Buchanan.

As for Bush, you have to wait for a period of time to past to heap judgement on him. It's too early. Wait 20 years or so after his death to see if he really is the worst U. S. President (I don't think he is one of the worst, but I'm still reserving judgement).  Remember, in his time, Warren Harding in his time as president was considered one of the best Presidents, and Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lincoln at the height of the Civil War was considered by many as one of the worst.

It is not good to talk so much.

My country did not have a good ruler since 1950.

İsmet İn�n� was a good leader I think.He was a bit mean,because in his period,the world lived its second war and Turkish Republic was only 16 years old. 

I can't say he was particulairly bad.  Far worst was Molroony - High deficits and GST need I say more. As to alinating the west no one did more than Tredeau with the National energy program.

no, judgement can be heaped on Bush because of the goof ups.  Never in US history before now have we pre emptively invaded a natio on flase pretences.  We already know it was qrong, that the reasons were lies, we already know we have more enemies now then we did before.  Hosni Mubarak said if we invade Iraq there will be a thousand Bin Ladens created, he was wrong though, its more like 1 million.  I believe as time goes on Bush will only continue to look worse, unles the theocracy gets power and makes him their patron saint that is.

ANd how possibly Janus, could he further your personal agenda? Unless of course you mean make the US government easier to overthrow?

What do you mean?

The only good thing he did was to prevent Turkey from entering WWII. Apart from that, what good did he do really?

(Though I'm not interested in Recent Turkish History...)

I think Mulrooney was the worst, he's the reason why we have a high debt and he wasn't very competent.

I'll be nice and reserve judgement, although I definitely think he's going to be in the running.

I'll offically say Hoover.  When the stock market collapsed and put millions out of work, he did almost nothing.

Passions! Passions! How many history figures have been reviled and insulted and such during their time? And proven wrong when time passed?

How many historical figures have been admired and flattered during their time? And when time passed happened that those admiration was undeserved?

His term isn't even over!

You have made an elementary mistake by making a judgement too early. Historical judgements on contemporaries should be witheld.

Besides, doing what somebody didn't do before isn't necessarily bad. We have to wait until his term ends, and wait another few years because at this point, partisan passions ran too high.

We must wait for a few years to see the effects of Bush's foreign policy on the Middle East and the world. Preemptive strike may not necessarily bad for the United States interests as some people say. We'll see.

Sorry for double posting.

But there was not precident.  Many presidents beofre had done nothing in times of economic crisis, in fact Hoover was probably the first to ever try to do anything period!  He normalized relations with the Latin American world as well as is a great humanitarian from the post WW1 era.  Hes stupidity is nothing compared to Jackson, or Buchanan, or Pierce or any of those other horrible 19th century trolls.

But for example, Tobodai, Caesar's conquest of Gaul's importance to the development of Western Civilization was only realized centuries after the death of Caesar himself!

Or Jackson's stand of nullification stand more in contrast to Buchanan's inactivity twenty years later.

Or Athenian democracy deemed more a force of good in the present times than in times of absolute monarchy.

Besides, Jackson is not a bad president. In fact Jackson was one of the greatest 19th century presidents!

Ccertianly Trudeau is responsible for the debt his cabinet invented deficit financing. IMO he was actually the worst prime minister we ever had. Mulroney is just hated because all of a sudden you see the extra tax you are paying. It really created a sore spot for those of us from Alberta. we never have had a sales tax and then all of a sudden boom.  

Benito Mussolini of course (and also King Victor Emmanuel III). His over-imperialistic and arrogant bravado caused the death of thousands of people in Ethiopia and Libya. Not to mention, it dragged Italy in the worst war in her history, and let's not forget, it caused the dissolution of the Italian Empire.

I dont see why, sure he did reign in South Carolina, but he got rid of the bank of the US, was duped by a political conspiracy to raise the tariff, and of course is the most genocidal of any US president, trail of tears anyone?

Guess I'll have to defend the seventh president of the United States!!

Anyway, here's the one I did for heavengames, and here's the http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi? action=ct&f=10,320090,0,10 - link .

As for the tariffs, you write that it is actually a bad thing. Remember, early 19th century United States was not an industrial country, and the industrial country at that time was Britain.

It is common knowledge that American industry sprang during the turmoil of the Embargo, the Non-Importation Acts, and the War of 1812, when imports from Britain were cut off. After the war, British goods returned for a vengeance, and threatened to smother all those infant industries.

And so what do you do to protect those industries? You raise the tariff! Hence the 1816 tariff, which is 20-25% on the value of imports!

And there was the tariff of 1824, which is 35%. Plus the 1828 tariff (45% on manufactured goods, and just as heavy on raw materials), the so-called tariffs of abomination, which was made during J.Q. Adams' administration, and the 1832 tariffs (35%), which Jackson signed, which lowered the 1828 so called tarrifs of abomination, the tariff whom you say was manipulative. And he further signed a compromise tariff in 1833 (which lowered, over a period of ten years, the tariff to 20-25%).

Plus there was the 1842 tariff, the 1846 one, the 1862, and all of those in the late nineteenth century.

Still, all these tariffs protected American infant industry from foreign competition, and ensured that these infants will become giants in the period after the Civil War. IT's imports were negligible, since most of the raw materials needed by the industries were in the United States itself.

Tarrifs enabled the United States to become the richest most industrialized country in the world.

And tariffs is the source of revenue for the government during this time. Besides, the debts of the American revolution, both foreign and domestic, was paid for by tariff duties. And the final installment of foreign debt was paid for by Jackson, again using tariff duties.

Without tariffs, the government of the United States in the 19th century would be deprived of revenue.

As for the trail of tears, yeah, its deplorable and reprehensible, but to say that makes him the worst is just not fair.

To quote myself again from heavengames:

and

So there. Jackson can't be considered the worst U.S. president and must be ranked among the greats!!!!!!!!

NOpe, you have failed to convince me.  His economic policies were failures, the tariff if you want to argue it as a good thing was not his doing but congresses, it was however, by his intervention that corrupt opportunists used him to increase it to  levels that are way to high.

I am a proponent of free trade and the British EMpire may have had a head start in the industrial revolution, but they continued to develop by pursuing lazziez faire policies and their industries thrived without a tariff!

I'll go with Abe Lincoln, for the killing of hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen.

But seriously, I would say Andrew Jackson.  Mainly for hus authorization of one of the most tragic events in US History(the Indian Removal Act), and for his quick temper(going so far as to duel people on a few occassions).

Ah, an Albertan. Well I'm from Saskatchewan, as I told you in another thread, so we just love taxes! Though really, I dont think Saskatchewan liked him that much. I myself only like Trudeau's non-economic policies.

Completely disagree with you pal!

My personal agenda is totally absent of the US gov't.

That said I prefer slash and burn farming techniques.

To Tonifranz: I would like to apologize for saying that Andrew Jackson was a horrible president. He was a horrible person, but his leadership skills were some of the best (Nat'l bank thing still ticks me off, but then again I'm a fan of Alexander Hamilton).

Heh!  I agree.  Abe Lincoln, for his destruction of the constitution.  He revoked the writ of habeas corpus, even!  I think the South was right, constitutionally, and that he forced the war upon them.

And on Andrew Jackson, too, for the reasons you state and for his handling of the nullification crisis of South Carolina

hey he killed less than Napoelon, and he was successfull in the end

Then you should all say Peter the Great was a horrible leader for killing so many of his fellow Russians, not to mention killing a lot of Swedes and Turks.

Or Julius Caesar the worst Roman leader for killing so many Gauls.

Or James Polk the worst U.S. President for killing so many Mexicans.

Or Bismarck the worst German chancellor for killing so many French, Austrians, Danes, not to mention his own soldiers in three wars.

Or Frederick the Great the worst Prussian king for killing so many Russians, Austrians, Frenchmen, and his fellow Germans.

Or Shi Huandi the worst Chinese Emperor for killing so many scholars.

Or Napoleon I the worst French leader for killing so many Europeans and Frenchmen.

Or Louis XIV the worst French king for killing so many Dutch, Spaniards, Austrians, and his own soldiers in four wars.

Or Charlemagne the worst Frankish Emperor for killing so many Saxons.

Or Diocletian the Worst Roman emperor for killing Christians.

Or Andrew Jackson the worst U.S. President for killing many Indians.

Or Richelieu the worst French statesman for killing so many nobles and Spaniards and prolonging the Thiry Years War resulting in many more deaths.

Or Philip II the worst king of Spain for killing so many Dutchmen, English sailors, Turks, and his fellow Spaniards.

Or Hannibal the worst Carthaginian leader for killing so many Romans and Italians.

Really, killing people makes one a horrible person, but it does not mean that you're a horrible or worst leader because of it. Just because you're a saint doesn't mean you're a great leader, or the best leader.

The winking smilie I put was supposed to denote that I wasn't being serious...

"killing people makes one a horrible person"

Not necessarily if it's in a war and must be done, or if you need to kill them to prevent a war.

Sorry about that, he he. I misread it.

No I agree killing people isnt all that bad in the right circumstances, hell alot of my heroes are mass murderes, there just needs to be a good reason, and when there isnt one, its an argument that doesnt work very well.

And I think yours is pretty much on the "official" side, Diplomat.

I'll only reply to your post very briefly. Before the previous AE went down you had sent me a message on the same topic and I had replied, and rather lengthily at that, so I assume you already know where I stand.

Ah, but that was only in the beginning, for a brief period of time. Ittihat ve Terakki, or the CUP, cannot be studied in only one period for their official policy changed drastically form their beginning towards the end. As you should be aware, Mustafa Kemal was once a member of the CUP himself and it was him who afterwards criticised them bitterly for their deeds himself mentioning the deportations in the east:

"These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule." -The Los Angeles Examiner, August 1926.

note: this one is quoted on many resources even though I haven't seen the original copy of the LAE myself. However, I'm almost certain that I can access the archives from NYPL.

''And I think yours is pretty much on the "official" side, Diplomat. ''

A-haa.thats the tactic critic of those who have a bias towards The Turkish History,when they see a person with high-level information and detailed info about the Turkish history!

Sorry to diopponting you Colchis.Now i am gonna prove my resources while you cant rpove anything once again.
My resources:

*Feroz Ahmad(the indian author)-İttihat ve Terakki

*Cemal Paşa'nın Anılari-Turkiye İs Bankasi Yayinlari

*İbrahim Termo'nun Anilari

*Sina Aksin(neednt to say who he is,should i? )

Colchis wrote:

''I'll only reply to your post very briefly. Before the previous AE went down you had sent me a message on the same topic and I had replied, and rather lengthily at that, so I assume you already know where I stand.''

no i never got a PM from you??

colchis wrote:

''note: this one is quoted on many resources even though I haven't seen the original copy of the LAE myself. However, I'm almost certain that I can access the archives from NYPL. ''

such statement is a product of propaganda without doubt/das ist keine frage/kan'esh'na.Ataturk never made an interview with a person called emile hildebrand.Now i am gonna prove:

The document stating the fact that as simple workers not enough to go out of Zurich,grandfa and father of Emile hildebrand,born in 1941 never set foot on Turkiye in 1926

The document of Switzerland National Library stating the fact no any journalist under the name of Emile hildebrand found.

the article written by James Tashcian and published by the Armenian Weekly in 1982 stating the fact that Ataturk never made such a statement .The author James Tasican,after exposing the armenian propaganda of 1926,was sacked from the Armenian Weekly.

Not suprising isnt it?

Dear colchis,

now will you  still believe that Emile hildebrand,born in 1941,could make an interview with Ataturk in 1926?Now will you still believe that a newspaper is a document of truth history?

The choice depends on you!!!

As for your comments on Enver Pasa:

Do you really think that enver pasa was a moron as a politician to make that statement?ıttihat ve terakki wanted toweaken russia.therefore they felt they had to join the war.after the war,they knew that whole world would not be theirs.but they just hıoed to survive by beating english-french and russian imperialistic alliance

I mean I will not write our worst rulers.I used a shprt sentence.

He collected tons of gold in Turkish Treasure.It was a bout 150 tons.But Adnan Menderes and his government spent all the gold.Our peopl don't know this,and they say Adnan Menderes fed them.

Well many of his policies did good things for Canada well others not so much. IIRC he was resonsible for Bi-Lingual labels which costs this country a fortune every year. Many of his policies that deal with Quebec are good for Quebec but not so good for the rest of us.

I have to say.....George III. YOu know, that whole revolution thing. There is someone who trumps even him though: John Kerry. Althugh I hate to say it, hes probably the next worst ruler.

One a bipolar madman, One an opportunistic gold digger. These guys are in a class all their own.

I've read enough sources on Ittihat ve Terakki, both Turkish and independent. It is true that they were formed to save the Empire but they failed miserably at that task, and caused vast human suffering. After their experiment at free elections and pan-ottoman ideology in 1908 failed they quickly seized power and resorted  to tyranny. 

Their pan-Turkish streak or Turkish nationalism developed in time. They tried to force Turkish-language education on Arabs and other muslims, which is hardly 'Turks opening their own schools'. They suppressed Arab protests with violent means. In the end these policies supplied the likes of Lawrence the leverage they needed to pit the Arabs against the Turks. Also, after the war Enver was raising an Army in Turkestan dreaming of Turan- a pan-Turkic empire!

Also, the Armenians were ethnically cleansed from Ottoman Armenia, under direct orders from the Ittihat ve Terakki. No amount of spin can hide this obvious fact. They were primarily responsible for that disaster.

Ummm, technically, Kerry can't be included, because he's not a ruler yet.  And even then, how the heck can you judge him before he did anything at all?  I even admitted it's too soon to truly judge Bush (although I think I know where he'll be).  Bush CAN'T be worse than Kerry!

USA Lyndon Bailes Johnson: For getting involved in Kennedy's assasination and for continuing the Vietnam War

United Kingdom Tony Blair: For destroying the respect and reputation of a nation which was the empire the sun never faded.

Turkey: The list would go a looong way but here is one person I will never forget Necmettin Erbakan

Italy: Silvio Berlusconi; Forza Italia? 

Germany: No need: Adolf Hitler

Soviet Union: Leonid Brejhnev

boody4 i was making a satirical comment on the influence he as on the current Australian government  (nudge nudge wink wink)

It will have to be the stupid invader ������ (Jiang Kai-Shek) hands down.

This guy murders at 20,000 Taiwanese people, arrested and executed them with out a property trial and oppressed the people of Taiwan for 40 years.

If you would have cared to notice whilst you were reading my post, you would have seen the word NEXT, preceeding worst president.  How can I judge him? well firstly by his past record: 1) The official military record that Kerry is hell bent on keeping private.  2) Senetorial record, when he actually gets around to showing up to vote, he always votes hard-core liberal, such as voting against the "lacy peterson law".  3)His libertarian-liberal  positions, by his own admission, aren't even what he believes in!  He said that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.Ok, thats all well and good, so do I BUT,  he also "believes" that woman should have the right to choose. This is tantamount to saying woman have the right to choose murder!       

     As far as judging Bush, Im not a bug fan of him either. But your statement "Bush Can't be worse than Kerry", is simply a personal value judgement, and I myself believe that he could, and probably will be worse that Bush.

empress dongwer cixi (can't spelll) of china in the late 19th century till her death 190i think)

she stopped modernization for the country wasted resources for her own personal use and luxary she sold out CHINA!!!!

she was probably in my eyes the worst ruler and ultimately destroyed the ching dynasty.

The mad cow disease herself, Margaret Thatcher.

She destroy every social gain people had fought generations to achieve, all in the name of a quick profit.

For Canada: Mulroney (the idiot...)

I like Carter. He was one of the very few politicians who tried to make his policies morally right. Another example is Robert Kennedy but then he got shot.

Good men cannot lead while they are drowned in a sea of liars and thieves.

Totally agreed.

Dief the Chief probablly mismanaged some sectors of the economy (ie. Aero jets), but I like him resisting the American nuclear warheads. Funny thing is that everyone in Canada at the time insulted him for doing this because he was ugly, while the US president who offered the warheads was  the "handsome" JFK (although I personally find him ugly).

Ptolemy, you said Chretien was giving excessively many rights to Quebecois. That is a totally unrealistic statement. Chretien was one of those Trudeau-following hard liners who fought the separatists on the use of the phrase "distinct society" to describe Quebec. It was actually Malrouny who agreed to give them this special status in Meech Lake Accord, but the plan got scrapped because of opposition from the natives, Manitoba and Newfoundland.

Mulroney was ready to part with Quebec because there were practically no Progressive Conservative ridings in the province, while Chretien had everything to lose if Quebec separated, considering a whole lot of ridings voted liberal in national elections. Plus he was an ultra-federalist.

Thus Chretien was a hard-liner in the issue of Quebec. His Quebecois origins might be decieving, but the truth is that he was about to invade Quebec with the military if the "Oui" (separatists) won in the referendum.

Mao. I'm Chinese-American, China is somewhat 'my' country.

Why Mao? I'd say the cultural revolution specifically. The robbing of land from landowners too.

Mauk:

1. What do you mean by "private military records"?

2. What's really wrong with voting "ultra liberal"? You should pinpoint the details.

3. A president should not rule by his own belifs but in accordance to the will of his people. (A governmnent for the people, by the people - Lincoln) Plus, note that Kerry is not running by himself but following the agenda of his party.

I agree with Pikachu. Plus Mao starved millions to death during Great Leap Fowards... that is to say Backward.

Well... I'd say Germany and America are both 'my' countries, so... I can't simply pick one.

Germany:

Kaiser von Wilhelm II. Without him leading the second reich into war, we would never have felt the sting of World War I on our economy, population, or pride. Not to mention there'd be no Versailles (Oh god, I butchered that one, didn't I?), and, therefore, no real basis for Hitler to start.

America:

George W. Bush. Hands down. Largest debt in human history, anyone?

You need to get your facts strait before you jump on the anti-bush wagon.  You've been sucking on John Kerrys' ass a bit too much.  Bush constructed a bill to increase military spending, fags like Kerry declined it.  Why would it then be Bush's fault.

I hope we invade Australia next.

They you can really make that statement with truth!

It's not spam.

Everyone always berates our president without ever putting down a good reason.  They hear what others think and adopt that as their own thinking.  If a news org badmouths GW then we all will I guess.

And let us not forget that we were all behind GW for the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq until we actually got there.  It seems like American spine has turned into American jello.  War causes casualties.  Do we think Americans have robo-troopers who are immune to bullets and schrapnel?

If you want a better America let Bush finish the job so a Screwed up dictator won't come in and fill the void left by Saddam.

start another topic if you want to debate about the US president

Starlin - i don't think i need to state much... that guy should have never being let out of Georgia

Although i wouldnt go so far as to call him the worst for Russia, but Yeltsin was an absolute idiot - - - but he can dance well

A Presidential candidates' beliefs usually consist of "what will get me the most vote and money" in almost all instances. Carter was a partial exception I would say. But the turth is, most politicans are without the least prinicipal - their usual "beliefs" are formed in order to appeal to a section of society so that they can get more votes! For example, Bush may not even believe in War Against Terror - he may just be doing it to be popular. Kerry, although a Catholic supports abortion because it is popular.

Americans are too idealistic about their presidents.  Adapt the French proverb "Is the President a Pope?"  

Evildoer, ya, i agree with you in that most presidents just try to do stuff that will get them more popularity, but i don't think that's the way that it should be.  If someone says that they belief something, then they should actually act upon that belief.  And i don't see how Kerry can possibly say that he beliefs life begans at conception, but then also be pro abortion.  Sure it may be the more popular thing to do, but that doesn't make it right.  He's pretty much condoning murder by saying those two things.

Oh, and to go back to the topic of worst leaders, i would have to go with Bill Clinton, he

    a)committed adultery while in office

    b)lied about it while under oath in court

    c)completely vandalized the white house and Air Force 1 upon the ending of his term(removed all "w"s from keyboards, stole furniture, etc.)

    d)sold secrets to the Chinese that resulted in them being able to build nuclear missles with intercontinental targetting devices. (he shut down the organization that was responsible for checking our exports to make sure that they didn't compromise our nation's defense, and then a U.S. guy actually went over into China and showed them how to use the weaponry.  And coincidentally, the Chinese gave huge sums of money to Clinton's campaign fund.)

    e)he distorted the numbers to make it look like the economy was doing better than it really was(there are two reports, one hypothesis and then a later revised one.  The first one gets all the publicity, and some of his "estimates" were over 30% off from the real numbers.)

    f)on the day that his scandal was released, he had a building in the middle east bombed to distract people from his scandal.  It was later relized that this building was actually a factory producing asprin. (and people question Bush's motives for war.)

I think he is largely responsible for the widespread corruption of morals in U. S. society.

Bah I don't believe it. It all began before that - and who the devil looks to Presdidents for moral values? Its like expecting captialists of late 20th century to have good relationship with workers. Look to M.Chretien for moral values and you will end up beating up people for insulting you...

Every president does those things. Is adultry a crime?  Of all American presidents, my teacher said that only 2 were faithful to their wives.  

Nickson blew up his own warships in Tongkin to start Vietnam War.

Plus Lincoln had siphilis - not passed down. Meaning that he likely went to a prostitute, wether before or after marriage I have no idea.

Well, Bush also lied about WMD's. He said they existed in Iraq (as if he knew!) and then could not find any. Even Colin Powell said they didn't exist. So did CIA and Rumsfeld. A lie to begin a war and cause the deaths of ten thousands is definately worse than a lie about ones' sexual life.

hmm...well, i agree that we shouldn't look to our president's for moral values, but you have to admit that they are very influential, and something like adultery cetaintly does have negative effects on society.  And how can we possibly trust someone who lies.  And about Bush, i'm not going to say that there weren't any WMD's, even tho none have been discovered yet, because why would Hussein not let the weapon inspectors in if he didn't have anything to hide? but even if there weren't any, it wasn't a lie that started a war, there were other reasons to go and Bush wasn't the only one who thought that there were WMD's.  Plus, if it was Bush's lie that bagan the war, as you claim, why did KERRY vote in support of the war?

P.S. I don't know, but i really hope that more than 2 presidents were faithful to their wifes, that would be a very sad thing indeed if what you said was true, but there really is no way of knowing. 

He has the recepit.

Clinton isn't that bad... I mean, look at JFK. How many girls did he have? (Clinton Adultery wise, nothing else.)

Speaking of the rurels - the worst (in my opinion) in Poland was Stanislaw August Poniatowski..He destroyed our country and by "flirting" with Russia he gave us so called - rozbiory

3 rulers from 3 eras for Russia

Era of Czars: Nicholai II: went to war with a coalition much better prepared for war than Russia to protect criminals and revolutionaries in Serbia.

Era of Socialism: Gorbachev: Led to loss of Soviet influence around the world bringing about total collapse.

Era of the Republic: Yeltsin: Supported the Oligarchy and made Chechnya the hell it is today. Also there is a good chance he is the last leader of the Republic with Putin growing more authoritarian.

The worst? Nicholai because if it wasn't for him the other two wouldn't have been around to impose tehir idiocy upon Russia.

Fila, a few months ago I would have agreed with your statement about Poniatowski, but if you studied his life and reign as I have done recently for a huge project I'm doing on him, you'd pick someone else.

He reformed a country that was already in decline because of the liberum veto and swedish and saxon kings who cared more about their native lands than Poland. He created the first Constitution of the World, abolished the veto(when it was too late), tried to centralize his powers when they REALLY needed to be centralized but it was too late in the end. He was brilliant and a genius, the only thing he lacked is military victories. I'd say my vote now for worst "ruler" of Poland would be for the King who let the liberum veto be introduced(i forgot who it was ), which eventually led to no progress in the government and then the vanishing of Poland from the map for nearly 2 centuries, and also all the rulers during the comunist era.

Originally posted by babyblue    Mao Tse-Tung...'cause the guys ugly....he doesn't even look like a military man...

That is one of many reasons.

Well, I consider China my land. I live in America, but my culture and identity is tied to the history of that place.

Anyone who ever could turn their back on that history and culture with a 'cultural revolution' is just... disgusting.

Worst ruler of my country? Gotta be Kublai Khan. Because he caused so much division amongst Mongols.

Portugal had its fair share of schmucks in power, but there are two who I consider the worst.

The first is king Sebastian. This guy takes a large army into Morroco (where we, for the first time, outnumber an enemy) and actually manages to botch the whole thing. Not only does he lose his life, the sword of Afonso Henriques (an important heirloom), but he also manages to have Portugal lose its independence!

The second, surprisingly enough (for those of you who know Portuguese history), is king Manuel the first. Some might think that he's the king of the golden age, but the subsequent rot begins with him (boy, did Portugal have an incredible bad luck with this one!). The guy only spent, spent, spent. He did nothing to further his kingdom. king John the second should have survived to execute this guy! 

The OTTOMAN rulers behaved even better than your princes during the bzynthine rule to greeks. Your greedy princes were burning your greek villages which didn't accept to give tributes to them. But the Ottomans let you believe what you want to, speak in your language and be free...

I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY AND GREATEST MISTAKE OF MY ANCESTORS!

Also I think the worst rulers of my country in chronological order are:

1.II. Selim

2.II.Mustafa

3.II.Mahmut

4.V.Murat

5.Abd�lmecit

6.�smet �n�n�

7.Turgut �zal

8.Tansu �iller

9.B�lent Ecevit

10.Erdo�an

Ok, lets put down that Turkish history book and read internation books. Who made up the turkish jannisaries? Young Christian boys who were brought to study, converted, and fought against there own people. Lets not forget about the Armenian/Greek Genocide either, not very fun..