| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
The Makings Of A Third
World Leader
by Saad Anis Before I delve into the dynamics of the attributes of a leader, let me make certain clarifications. This is the real world. In the real world, there is no absolute right and wrong, all is dependent upon perception. In the real world, there is no black or white, but all gray. As much as one would want to envisage a leader as someone who is always humble, honest and truthful, it is impractical and one would be dwelling in a Fools' Haven for imagining so. My perception of a leader might seem to the reader, cynical and rather Machiavellian. However, I would request the indignant reader to wake up, look around and observe for himself, the veracity of my assertions. One other thing to be kept in mind is that the attributes highlighted here suit leaders of developing third world banana republics. The following, in my view, are the indispensable qualities which a leader must possess. 1. Assertiveness Sagacious decision making is a gift conferred upon a chosen few. It is what separates a mere administrator from a true leader. There are innumerable instances during the governance of a country when a leader needs to make a tough decision, which may be in the form of a choice between two or more seemingly equally feasible alternatives. In such times, not only is the arrival upon a concrete decision important, but also vital is the authority with which that decision is enforced. It ascertains the respect, or lack thereof, of the leader in the regard of his followers. In fact, often it is the emphatic authority with which a decision is taken and then trumpeted which leads to swift and desirable results. 2. Manipulation The public never wants to hear the truth. They only wish to hear what appeases them, and enables them to sleep fitfully at night. A good leader must realize the limited intellect of the governed, and thus must filter out what need be told from what need not. Information that should be conveyed to the people includes intelligence indicating a prosperous future, affirmation of the naïve public belief that their stance on all issues is the righteous one and that no injustice is being meted out to any other nation or country on account of their own vested interests. What the masses must never behold is the true bleak picture, the duplicity of the state on internal and external for the mere procurement of benefit, be it social, political or economic, and the barbarism which the state has to resort to at times to achieve the desired ends. The reader must realize that all this is in the best interests of the country, and thus the masses. The impetus behind such a policy is the pragmatic belief that people are akin to cattle (a euphemism for stupid) and need to be tended to. Man is blissful in his ignorance. He does not want brotherhood, but leadership. People despise having to make choices, especially between right and wrong, good and evil. What the public wants is a leader, a quasi-messiah who puts food in their hands and assures them of "All God's Plenty". The masses do not want to be entangled in complicated affairs and the scruples involved therein. A prudent leader must realize this, and present the brighter side of the picture, so to speak. He must learn to exhibit half-truths. 3. Ruthlessness Many heads need to be crushed and many bodies trampled in a leader's rise to power. All this cannot be accomplished without a certain degree of heartlessness. Nonetheless, it is justified given the belief of the quarry that he is the one best suited to lead his country to the dizzying heights of glory. If a few hurdles need to be cleared to initiate this prosperity, so be it. Aurangzeb Alamgir could only embark upon his Golden Rule of the sub-continent, once he had completely vitiated all opposition to his crown by having his brothers beheaded and his father thrown in the dungeons. Moreover, once the leader has assumed his position, he must be wary of any direct or indirect challenge to his authority. This is important, not only for the integrity of the government, but also for the preservation of the reverential trust which the leader enjoys amongst the people. In order to consolidate his reverential stature in the masses, the leader must exhibit both his benevolence and his wrath from time to time. Ideal targets, out of which examples can be made, are seditionists and other elements looking to create unrest in the name of free speech. Needless to say, the persecution of such parties must appear to the public as perfectly lawful. 4. Devotion Despite things he may have to say and actions he may have to perpetrate, a leader in the heart of hearts, must be unselfishly devoted to the people and the country. All his actions, whether appearing pious or evil to the observer, must be in the supreme national interest. Nothing and nobody is above the coveted national interest. History often unjustly consigns men to eternal vilification by taking a singular view of their actions. People known as blood-thirsty savages to the world are revered by their own, for the simple fact that their deeds were always for the betterment of their own country. Men like Ariel Sharon and Moshe Diyan may be remembered as maniacs by the Arab world, but the patent reality is that the measures taken by them, albeit inhuman, were for the protection of their motherland at a time when she was in danger of being run over by half a dozen Arab States. Moral of the story: national interest prevails over all other considerations, even those of humanity. All shrewd leaders realize this and adhere to it. 5. Humble Background It is said:- Greatness is nurtured in the cradle of poverty. A majority of the population of developing nations belongs to the lower class. The pain and misery of these people is all the more tangible to a leader who has risen from amongst them. The sufferance of the underprivileged is palpable to a ruler who has lived a life of deprivation himself. It is contended that a good leader has his roots in poverty, and overcomes the privations encountered therein to attain the position of power. The hardships faced while growing up in adverse circumstances inculcates mental toughness in an individual. This renders him more capable of handling the immense pressure that comes with power, than another individual possessing similar attributes, but born with a silver spoon in mouth. Moreover, a leader from the masses understands the thoughts, ideas and aspirations of the common man. He is cognizant of the dynamics of the lower class, what instigates them into passionate devotion and subdues them into timorous subservience. In addition, simple as they are, trust one who shares their roots more implicitly, and regard him as one of their own. A blue-blooded leader, on the other hand, is viewed by them with suspicion as an outsider who is looking to fulfill the vested interests of "his own kind". If we look into the orals of history, we shall find that the major upheavals, such as the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, were brought about owing primarily to a lack of comprehension of the affairs of the affairs of the masses by an oblivious aristocracy. On contraire, leaders like Hitler ascended from among the people and engendered in them, a frenetic commitment for them. Such are my views regarding the essential attributes of the leader of a developing nation in these times. These views are prompted not by cynicism or bitter experience, but through a logical and dispassionate observation of our environs and the driving force behind them. Indeed, we live in the real world and sadly, innocence is not the norm here. by Sophia Barkat re: Saad's post Saad wrote: "2. Manipulation The public never wants to hear the truth. They only wish to hear what appeases them, and enables them to sleep fitfully at night. A good leader must realize the limited intellect of the governed, and thus must filter out what need be told from what need not. Information that should be conveyed to the people includes intelligence indicating a prosperous future, affirmation of the naïve public belief that their stance on all issues is the righteous one and that no injustice is being meted out to any other nation or country on account of their own vested interests." In America, most people I spoke to who supported the war said "Oil is good. And American Supremacy is good." It would appear that the public is well aware of what the US Govt. does outside of the US. One would more easily point the finger at Rulers than condemn a whole nation for going along with it -- people are afraid to label groups. Look at the French Revolution for e.g. What a horrible incident! The public shows its ugly face. And again in Nazi Germany. The public is no naive child. They welcome people like Hitler and Bush Jr. and Sharon to do their dirty work. In my ideal world, for e.g. racist people, greedy war-mongers, and religious fanatics would live together in Guantanamo Bay! We all want some group or another put away for life. Should I be termed naive if some "good" American President came along and hauled these idiots off to jail? Hell No! I'd be throwing a party, celebrating a new world order. I'd say those who don't respect the rights of others should not be protected by some Geneva Convention -- though I would be accusing them of the saame thing I am doing, namely, not respecting their rights. We are not naive. Nor are our leaders. We just have an idea that some ideals are better than others. To go to war for oil is not one of my ideals. To trust Presidents who are servants of weapons makers is not one of my ideals. To label people good because of their skin is not my ideal, though if someone pushes a religious book in my face I'm going to throw them out of my house. To call people naive is like saying, we never learnt anything in our lives. Our knowledge and decision is worth nothing. I can understand why people are tired of Arabs in America but I also know why the world is tired of America. Is my knowledge not worth anything? Saad wrote: "What the masses must never behold is the true bleak picture, the duplicity of the state on internal and external for the mere procurement of benefit, be it social, political or economic, and the barbarism which the state has to resort to at times to achieve the desired ends." In a democracy -- Nazi Germany and Bush Jr.'s America -- people elect leaders. Saad wrote: "....to be crushed and many bodies trampled in a leader's rise to power. All this cannot be accomplished without a certain degree of heartlessness. Nonetheless, it is justified given the belief of the quarry that he is the one best suited to lead his country to the dizzying heights of glory. If a few hurdles need to be cleared to initiate this prosperity, so be it." Yes. The Public sit it out and wait for the "official story". Saad wrote: "Aurangzeb Alamgir could only embark upon his Golden Rule of the sub continent, once he had completely vitiated all opposition to his crown by having his brothers beheaded and his father thrown in the dungeons. Moreover, once the leader has assumed his position, he must be wary of any direct or indirect challenge to his authority. This is important, not only for the integrity of the government, but also for the preservation of the reverential trust which the leader enjoys amongst the people." Right. After Election 2000, once Bush Jr. became President there was a sudden rush to "declare him leader" in the US Media, as though it was some God-given right that presidents be treated as statesmen. Only religions and cults ask for this much humility of their believers. It easy to forget one lives in a democratic society when this happens. Saad wrote: "In order to consolidate his reverential stature in the masses, the leader must exhibit both his benevolence and his wrath from time to time. Ideal targets, out of which examples can be made, are seditionists and other elements looking to create unrest in the name of free speech. Needless to say, the persecution of such parties must appear to the public as perfectly lawful." Yeah. The wrath of Bush Jr. on innocent people. Good Presidents rebuild nations and do not bomb them. Saad wrote: "Men like Ariel Sharon and Moshe Diyan may be remembered as maniacs by the Arab world, but the patent reality is that the measures taken by them, albeit inhuman, were for the protection of their motherland at a time when she was in danger of being run over by half a dozen Arab States. Moral of the story: national interest prevails over all other considerations, even those of humanity. All shrewd leaders realize this and adhere to it." I disagree. Sharon's upping the violence in West Bank only created more violence in Israel. Before he came to power, Barak and Arafat had achieved some level of peace. Sharon ruined it on purpose to start the Attack on Arabs, as we saw. What he didn't know is that the US -- no matter what it's policies in the Middle East -- wants to use a Palestinian State as a carrot to wave over Arab States every time they want to occupy another Arab land. Saad wrote: "5. Humble Background It is said:- Greatness is nurtured in the cradle of poverty. A majority of the population of developing nations belongs to the lower class. The pain and misery of these people is all the more tangible to a leader who has risen from amongst them. The sufferance of the underprivileged is palpable to a ruler who has lived a life of deprivation himself. It is contended that a good leader has his roots in poverty, and overcomes the privations encountered therein to attain the position of power. The hardships faced while growing up in adverse circumstances inculcates mental toughness in an individual. This renders him more capable of handling the immense pressure that comes with power, than another individual possessing similar attributes, but born with a silver spoon in mouth." Queen Elizabeth I was a good queen. She was born to wealth. However, her reign in England is known to be a time of Enlightenment. Her reign gave England theater, literature and peace. Poverty itself is not a criteria for character. I don't think hardship is necessary to make people kind, fair, brave, honest. People are just born that way. Saad wrote: "Moreover, a leader from the masses understands the thoughts, ideas and aspirations of the common man. He is cognizant of the dynamics of the lower class, what instigates them into passionate devotion and subdues them into timorous subservience." Yes. I agree. I wouldn't call such a person a leader though. Perhaps a good psychologist. A leader should inspire people to achieve happiness not exploit their trust. Saad wrote: "In addition, simple as they are, trust one who shares their roots more implicitly, and regard him as one of their own. A blue-blooded leader, on the other hand, is viewed by them with suspicion as an outsider who is looking to fulfill the vested interests of "his own kind". Saad wrote: "If we look into the orals of history, we shall find that the major upheavals, such as the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, were brought about owing primarily to a lack of comprehension of the affairs of the affairs of the masses by an oblivious aristocracy. On contraire, leaders like Hitler ascended from among the people and engendered in them, a frenetic commitment for them." Such are my views regarding the essential attributes of the leader of a developing nation in these times. These views are prompted not by cynicism or bitter experience, but through a logical and dispassionate observation of our environs and the driving force behind them. Right. Politicians exploit your fears, trust and your income. Saad wrote: "Indeed, we live in the real world and sadly, innocence is not the norm here." So, you agree that the public is not naive. by Saad Anis re: Sophia's post Just to answer a few questions raised by Ms. Barkat. First of all, it is clearly mentioned here that the qualities of leadership described herein target third world under-developed and developing countries. I agree that the people of developed democracies are not naive (although they too, can be fooled quite easily. Case in point, the US invasion of Afghanistan.). However, dwellers of the third world are predominantly gullible, impulsive and imprudent. I do not contend that they do not know their interests, but that more often than not, their judgement and practicality is clouded by misplaced trust in a leader whom they start worshipping as a demi-god. When I referred to Ariel Sharon being a hero to his people, I was alluding to the atrocities perpetrated by him during the Arab-Israel wars of 1967 and '73 (He was a general in the Israeli Army, and was nicknamed "The Lion Of Israel"). For that, his own people revere him(and looked up to him as a leader even then), and the Arab world despises him. There are anomalies everywhere. It is not surprising that in the 1000 years that England has been ruled by aristocrats, you were able to come up with one example of a good leader. In the developing nations of the world today, mental toughness is a rare and an extremely precious attribute. I still contend that a leader with a humble background will prove to be just that bit better in a tight situation than his blue-blooded counterpart. True, honesty and fairness can be nurtured anywhere, but mental clarity cannot. by Sophia Barkat re: Saad's post Saad wrote: "However, dwellers of the third world are predominantly gullible, impulsive and imprudent. I do not contend that they do not know their interests, but that more often than not, their judgement and practicality is clouded by misplaced trust in a leader whom they start worshipping as a demi-god." Yes. I agree. I think there is a common worldwide gullibility when it comes to voting. If you think people have a clue what issues their candidates stand for in the US you'd be mistaken. Many have minimal awareness of who is President now, Bush Jr. or Bush Sr. I guess people like to be ignorant all over the world -- dunno why. As for why do we vote the way we do? We all vote for the candidate who can further our interest -- whether in the villages in Bangladesh or America -- and we all have the illusion they care. MMore so, when our leaders declare war on each other -- as they do in the third world as much as in the First -- we immediately buy into this cheap displaay of nationalism and find ourselves dying for our country. We also favor some parties over another for some odd reason. Politicians are useless in most places. But, demi-god status is given to no-good politicians in America as well as home. It's ridiculous that people are so easily willing to re-elect Senate members who have curtailed people's rights, or that the wife of a slain military general finds herself as his successor in Bangladesh. Saad wrote: "When I referred to Ariel Sharon being a hero to his people, I was alluding to the atrocities perpetrated by him during the Arab-Israel wars of 1967 and '73 (He was a general in the Israeli Army, and was nicknamed "The Lion Of Israel"). For that, his own people revere him(and looked up to him as a leader even then), and the Arab world despises him." Yes. You're right. I understand it completely. I don't know if every Israeli looks up to him, but I know he was a succesful General. Saad wrote: "There are anomalies everywhere. It is not surprising that in the 1000 years that England has been ruled by aristocrats, you were able to come up with one example of a good leader. In the developing nations of the world today, mental toughness is a rare and an extremely precious attribute. I still contend that a leader with a humble background will prove to be just that bit better in a tight situation than his blue-blooded counterpart. True, honesty and fairness can be nurtured anywhere, but mental clarity cannot." Well, in those days Rulers were informed by their Courts. They had no media nor direct contact with people, living in Palaces and wondering how to run a country. In many cases, Queens and Kings were ineffective due to who helped them run the country, often taking a back-seat. It's the same back home. We can say, there was a lot of suffering in "this kings time or that kings time", but it would be wrong to blame the kings for everything perpetrated in their names. Nowadays, I wonder what the excuse is. Elected officials should be in contact with the people more than Monarchs, I suppose. Your belief in humble backgrounds suggests that people who are rich are not always humble, though poverty might make one humble. In my opinion a person is humble if they don't think they are better than others or do not feel the need to make this comparison. I've seen poor people I wouldn't call humble. No one with a thinking mind is truly humble. We all have some idea of being superior to some people. Otherwise we'd be content with life and never complain about anyone not living up to our ideals. by Carl Gauss re: Saad's post I laugh at the assumption that the third world populations worship their leaders like a demi-god. No people are more suspicious of their leaders than the developing nations. They can easily see that nothing is being done for them, unlike in the US and UK where even if your real income falls for 30 years you don't notice. Look around the world at the percentage of people who vote in elections and compare them to the US. These people vote in spite of being cynical, because they are desperate for change (and rare chances to vote in fair elections). All the qualities mentioned as those of a great leader would quite surely get a bastard in office. These views are the result of cynicism and hopelessness. Who is the great leader that you are pointing to, who has all these qualities? I would like to see what happened to the people of his nation and the world at that time. It's quite easy to see who the great leaders are. Just look at what is happening to his people. Any other criteria is for armchair philosophers. Please do not take offense at my words. I have myself come close to thinking like this. But I realized I am not looking for a good King, but a leader who works for his people. by Sophia Barkat re: Carl's post Well, maybe not demi-god but we always fall for it -- poor country or rich. We are all swayed by reason and emotion. But our awareness is lacking. by Saad Anis re: Carl's post Carl wrote: "I laugh at the assumption that the third world populations worship their leaders like a demi-god. No people are more suspicious of their leaders than the developing nations. They can easily see that nothing is being done for them, unlike in the US and UK..." I beg to disagree. Perhaps you have never witnessed the reception of a leader in the third world. I shall use examples. Saddam Hussain is a hero in the Muslim World today, thanks to the US government. People have his photographs framed in the walls of their houses as a mark of respect. According to a prudent estimate, 80% of the votes cast in the third world are out of reverence of personalities. The greatest testimony of leader-worship in the third world is the fact that even in the times of today, elections are decided not on issues and policies, but on who is running for office. Being a citizen of the third world, I have witnessed the election process first-hand. There are no televised debates between the leading candidates, nor are there chalked out policies for the economy by the contending parties. All is dependent upon which leader the public worships more. By the way, that comment regarding demi-gods was figurative, but there are instances when political leaders have been construed to be messiahs and demi-gods by the public. Carl wrote: " Look around the world at the percentage of people who vote in elections and compare them to the US. These people vote in spite of being cynical, because they are desperate for change (and rare chances to vote in fair elections)." I am afraid you have got your figures all wrong. Let me sway you by examples once again. 50% of the US population voted in the 2000 elections, despite the fact that neither of the parties had anything remarkable to sell in terms of policy. By contrast, the turnout for the 2002 elections in Pakistan, a third world Asian country, was less than 35%. A majority of these votes came from the illiterate rural population, where the leader-worshipping factor kicks in. Carl wrote: "All the qualities mentioned as those of a great leader would quite surely get a bastard in office. These views are the result of cynicism and hopelessness. Who is the great leader that you are pointing to, who has all these qualities? I would like to see what happened to the people of his nation and the world at that time." Maybe that is what you would deign such a person to be. However, the fact is that such a person would be ideal in office. You asked who the great leader was that I was pointing to. My answer is : look around you in the developed world. All the leaders that you will see, will have one trait or the other out of the ones described. Let us not stray far from home. President Bush has the uncanny trait of manipulation. An example is the War on Iraq, where the US president warned of a "Mushroom Cloud over Washington" if Iraq was not invaded. The result: the American public (illiterate with regard to foreign policy) panicked and supported the war(though some of them might have known it was for oil, the majority thought it was for the 'noble' purpose of 'liberating' Iraq). To date, the US forces have been unable to find even a single canister of Mustard gas, let alone a nuclear weapon. Analysis: an ingenious use of public ignorance to achieve the required end. Carl wrote: "It's quite easy to see who the great leaders are. Just look at what is happening to his people. Any other criteria is for armchair philosophers." I agree that the state of the people is the best judgement of a leader. However, if one looks well enough, one can discern the above-mentioned characteristics in any "great" leader. Perhaps the world should pay more head to "arm-chair philosophers." by Carl Gauss re: Saad's post I doubt very much that a dictator who came to power by a coup, would hold a fair election, and the people of Pakistan must have known that. Unfair elections will get you a low turnout. Also more than 35% of Pakistan is from the "illiterate rural" class, so I bet most these people boycotted the election. What were the voting rates before Musharraf? Is it your philosophy that the powerful or the victorious are the great leaders. I guess all the stupid history books teach us that from day one. But I really have to use for such definitions. The nuclear bomb can make a great explosion, but I am not going to be cheering at how great the explosion was. If Pakistan gains America's power one day, and turns America into Afghanistan (in a century or two), you will have had many new great leaders, and much misery in the lives of people along the way. Nothing great will have happened to their lives. Most leaders who come to power in the Third World also have these great qualities you are talking about. It's just a 100 times harder to win from where they are standing. by Saad Anis re: Carl's post Carl wrote: "Also more than 35% of Pakistan is from the "illiterate rural" class, so I bet most these people boycotted the election." Actually, most of the voting was polled from the rural areas. Thus the "illiterate rural" class, strongly endorsed the elections in the stead of boycotting them. It was the "literate urbanities" who did not turn up at all. Carl wrote: "What were the voting rates before Musharraf?" Funny that you should mention that. The turnout for the 1997 elections, which were held under a civilian government, by the way, was 22%. In fact, the turnout for the 2002 elections was the largest for almost 2 decades. So your argument that people boycotted the elections with the knowledge that they were rigged, falls flat there. Carl wrote: "Is it your philosophy that the powerful or the victorious are the great leaders?" I believe that strong leader can make their nations "strong and victorious". One can bury one's head in the sand, call history "stupid" and defy the orals of history altogether, but that will not change reality. It would only help you live comfortably in Utopia. Carl wrote: "If Pakistan gains America's power one day, and turns America into Afghanistan (in a century or two), you will have had many new great leaders, and much misery in the lives of people along the way. Nothing great will have happened to their lives." If attacking and bombing another nation is in the best interest of his nation, I believe that a good leader should not refrain from that. Humane considerations are secondary to those of one's own nation. Believe me, the US government never thought twice before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for they knew that this would win the war for them. The bombing of Afghanistan has brought a lot of misery to a lot of people from Afghanistan and thereabouts. However, from the perception of the US, it has only brought political and strategic advantage, and has consequently benefited their people by providing them with a sense of potency and security, no matter how elusive in actuality. by Carl Gauss re: Saad's post Hmmm, I admit those numbers are unusually low. Voting turnout in Bangladesh was roughly 70% after the fall of the dictator, Ershad. Saad wrote: "If Pakistan gains America's power one day, and turns America into Afghanistan (in a century or two), you will have had many new great leaders, and much misery in the lives of people along the way. Nothing great will have happened to their lives." "If attacking and bombing another nation is in the best interest of his nation, I believe that a good leader should not refrain from that. Humane considerations are secondary to those of one's own nation. Believe me, the US government never thought twice before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for they knew that this would win the war for them." Yes, you can continue along this line and say a great leader will impoverish his people, so that the rich ruling class can gain more power. He will send the masses to die in war so that a few can amass larger amounts of wealth. You can say what matters is the peoples perception, or only the perception of the people who gained, or their perception for the leader's term, etc, etc. You do not attempt to measure his record on what he has done for his people, and you can do this quite easily. Surely, that is the most important thing! Why bet on some psycho character analysis? Saad wrote: "The bombing of Afghanistan has brought a lot of misery to a lot of people from Afghanistan and thereabouts. However, from the perception of the US, it has only brought political and strategic advantage, and has consequently benefited their people by providing them with a sense of potency and security, no matter how elusive in actuality." I heard Truman had a 2nd opportunity to nuke, Korea this time during the Korean war. Apparently, MacArthy and the Chiefs-of-Staff of the Army, Navy and Airforce were agreed and asked Truman for permission to use 30 nukes! Truman disagreed. Did Truman act as a great leader ? Do you need to add other "great leader" qualities to your list ? |
Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |