What makes a leader (1 Viewer)

[thorrnydevil]

I went to the National Young Leaders Conference today. If anyone has the chance to go next year I'd reccommend it. The speakers were: Bob Carr (suprisingly good), some investment banker (ok), Matthew Riley (absolute legand), Kelly Potharst (ok) and John Couter (one of the most inspirational people I have ever heard talk...I will remember his talk forever).

 

[Generator]

Howard may not be what I prefer in a leader, but nobody can deny that he has achieved (for better or worse) quite a bit through leading the Coalition.

As for a possible draft... No (I will not touch a gun, and see my signature, too).

 

[thorrnydevil]

A good leader would be Adolf Hitler. He created a vision and he knew how to achieve it. Also a good leader knows how to communicate his vision, like hitler-he spoke with emotional language to appeal to the germans (or aryans) his concept of 'struggle' The final solution and all, tho i dont support his policies and thinking...

I actually agree, hitler was a good leader, and so was Stalin. Even though they were evil the had the support of the their respective nations to the end.

If a war did break out tomorrow, and they brought in the draft, I would freely volunteer.

 

[Nick]

I actually agree, hitler was a good leader, and so was Stalin. Even though they were evil the had the support of the their respective nations to the end.

If a war did break out tomorrow, and they brought in the draft, I would freely volunteer.

that really depends on your criteria for a "good" leader

 

[thorrnydevil]

Support of the people, made tough decisions, ruled for ages, etc.

 

[ohne]

<SCOFF> .

I suppose many people share your views in Mudgee do they?

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/PollingPlaceResults-12246-276.htm

 

[mr EaZy]

i dont know why people base their definitions on military exp, let us look at who has military ex: SHARON (i dunno his rank) , GEN Musharraf, , George W (national guard with a shaky record , and Kerry (in Vietnam).............. also , colonel Guadaffi.
and the late Yasser arafat ( i think).......

 

[mr EaZy]

a good political leader is a good politician and a tactitian. Free from corruption, able to unite their people ideologically and emotionally for a purpose dispite their differences. lol a good leader is sometimes admired by his/her enemies. (like that US general who praised bin Laden as a leader ),

 

[mr EaZy]

i once read up on "what makes a good leader". A guy once published the top 100 leaders ever in history (Michael H HART).

A jewish historian once classified Hitler as a good leader. Well at least he's honest! only he made a few bad decisions (like taking on the BARBARIC Russians alongside Britian. The guy was too confident)

btw the top leaders in Michael. H.Hart's book of 100 top leaders (based on criteria ofcourse) turned out to be the prophet Muhammad. Im happy, coz im a muslim

 

[Generator]

a good political leader is a good politician and a tactitian. Free from corruption, able to unite their people ideologically and emotionally for a purpose dispite their differences.

Strong political opposition is such a bitch, don't you think?

 

[mr EaZy]

i only call the russians barbaric coz, i like to judge how civilised a group of people are based on how they behave in battle. And i dont like em!

this (rather limited) criteria puts Australia somewhat at or near the top! (thats why i like history, coz i get to make my own covictions based on historical evidence and inferences )

 

[mr EaZy]

Strong political opposition is such a bitch, don't you think?

yeah, thats why it might pay off to have a dictator to kick start a country (like soharto)

Edit: but a good leader can deal with opposition intelligently

 

[thorrnydevil]

i only call the russians barbaric coz, i like to judge how civilised a group of people are based on how they behave in battle. And i dont like em!

this (rather limited) criteria puts Australia somewhat at or near the top! (thats why i like history, coz i get to make my own covictions based on historical evidence and inferences )

How civilised a group is based on how they behave in battle.

You're a muslim, right?

 

[mr EaZy]

lol, i thought someone was going to find and use that link against me. let me clarify, my position on this is that: on the battlefield people express their true nature. some are inclined to act on instincts ( be they rational or otherwise). Whenever i get into a fight, i always make sure that my anger does not overrule my ability to think and that helps me heaps so i judge a group of people based on their ability to control themselves in their struggles, thats all.

 

[Generator]

Must all struggles take place on the violent battlefield?

 

[mr EaZy]

How civilised a group is based on how they behave in battle.

You're a muslim, right?

now let me clear up some other things. "group of people", hmmmm.... well, all i said was that im a muslim, not an AL-Qaeda agent or the likes...

a muslim is not a race or nationality, as u r probably aware.... but it is a state of existance (anyone or anything who willingly submits to the will of god)!
(dont worry i wont go into religon in this forum)

but for ur sake ill show u how civilised true muslims have presented themselves in the field .

 

[mr EaZy]

Must all struggles take place on the violent battlefield?

id hope not.
but turning to what i think thorny devil may have been implying, i admit that muslims have done things they shouldnt have, the truth is that the nature of is that the islam being followed today is not exactly the same as it were in the good old days.

here's a speech by DR.Mahathir which explains this point (really hits the spot):

http://www.oicsummit2003.org.my/speech_03.php

to defend the conduct of what muslims have done (under a legit caliph) here's a few things:

-compensated the families of killed civilians
-captured samarakand, but the king of the city protested to the caliph and the caliph retreated his forces. The inhabitants of that city were then puzzled, asked a few questions and then submitted to the caliph (became muslims)

 

[joujou_84]

i once read up on "what makes a good leader". A guy once published the top 100 leaders ever in history (Michael H HART).

A jewish historian once classified Hitler as a good leader. Well at least he's honest! only he made a few bad decisions (like taking on the BARBARIC Russians alongside Britian. The guy was too confident)

btw the top leaders in Michael. H.Hart's book of 100 top leaders (based on criteria ofcourse) turned out to be the prophet Muhammad. Im happy, coz im a muslim

yeh i read that too.........yay

 

[Generator]

i only call the russians barbaric coz, i like to judge how civilised a group of people are based on how they behave in battle. And i dont like em!

this (rather limited) criteria puts Australia somewhat at or near the top! (thats why i like history, coz i get to make my own covictions based on historical evidence and inferences )

As you said, that view is 'rather limited'.

 

[mr EaZy]

yeh, coz many nations were smart enough to avoid war in the first place