This is thread about the leaders who once ruled your country at one point that you feel had a major influence on your country or were just generally cool. I'll start off with Pierre Trudeau, a liberal Prime Minister who established the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, opposed Quebec separatists, implemented official bilingualism and was popular with young women (a lady's man ).
So DakkaDakka what national bad-asses do you have?
I think I'll do the obvious one for the UK. Winston Churchill, Not sure we could have asked for a better "war" time Prime Minister. Notice I say wartime, as he didn't do so well during peacetime, apparently. Hence why I say wartime as all the knowledge I have on the guy is based on this era and not after. Pre-war he was actually quite unpopular in many area's.
Dubyuh, for all of his faults, did not give a damn what the rest of the world thought. I can objectively think that's kind of cool while I wish that we hadn't blown so much money and so many lives in what I feel is the mismanagement of a couple of wars.
Churchill...
Most politicians at the time would have either sued for peace or simply surrendered to the Nazis. Churchill decided to do neither and stuck it out. Good speeches as well.
Andrew Motherfething Jackson, the man who was nearly assassinated, survived when both guns misfired (allegedly, the guns were afraid of Andrew Jackson), and then beat the would-be assassin nearly half to death. With his cane. While pushing 70.
Of course, he was also a huge feminine hygiene product to the natives. . . he was a badass, not a good man :(
Personal hero. Man gets shot but says "meh" and goes ahead and gives his speech. Also:
Andrew "Don't make me hang you" Jackson
Harry "Don't make me nuke you"Truman
Ulizes "don't make me wipe you out, hey where's my whisky!" Grant
Dwight "Call me Ike again and I'll shove this Sherman tank up your ass" Eisenhower
Richard "Darth Vader" Nixon
During the 2004 election, we were discussing the possiblity of electing a US President that had killed enemies in a firefight, which led to a discussion of presidents that had actually killed men.
We got around around to Jackson, and somebody joked that "Jackson shot a man just to watch him die."
Frazzled wrote:Whats operation Flavius? Some sort of giant pizza takeout?
I'm not sure but i have a feeling it involved using the SAS to counter a domestic disupte...
Dear God you sent the SAS to get pizza? Thats hard core. No wonder the Argentinians were afraid of you.
I see now. SAS after IRA plot.
Operation Flavius was the name given to an operation by a Special Air Service (SAS) team in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988 tasked with preventing a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb plot. The IRA Active Service Unit's (ASU) members, Danny McCann, Seán Savage and Mairéad Farrell, conspired to detonate a car bomb where a military band assembled for the weekly changing of the guard at the governor’s residence. Although the operation was meant to be an arrest operation,[1] it ended with all three members of the ASU dead.
Well i know a fair few people were pissed off that Thatcher used the army to solve a domestic dispute... the SAS no less.
Lets not get into that know...
Frazzled wrote:Whats operation Flavius? Some sort of giant pizza takeout?
I'm not sure but i have a feeling it involved using the SAS to counter a domestic disupte...
Dear God you sent the SAS to get pizza? Thats hard core. No wonder the Argentinians were afraid of you.
I see now. SAS after IRA plot.
Operation Flavius was the name given to an operation by a Special Air Service (SAS) team in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988 tasked with preventing a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb plot. The IRA Active Service Unit's (ASU) members, Danny McCann, Seán Savage and Mairéad Farrell, conspired to detonate a car bomb where a military band assembled for the weekly changing of the guard at the governor’s residence. Although the operation was meant to be an arrest operation,[1] it ended with all three members of the ASU dead.
Looks like that part worked out for the best.
It was a pretty botched op but a nice message came out of it.
Polonius wrote:During the 2004 election, we were discussing the possiblity of electing a US President that had killed enemies in a firefight, which led to a discussion of presidents that had actually killed men.
We got around around to Jackson, and somebody joked that "Jackson shot a man just to watch him die."
Polonius wrote:During the 2004 election, we were discussing the possiblity of electing a US President that had killed enemies in a firefight, which led to a discussion of presidents that had actually killed men.
We got around around to Jackson, and somebody joked that "Jackson shot a man just to watch him die."
To which my friend added: "at a state dinner."
Lots of presidents or candidates have killed others, you don't need to go as far back as Jackson.
McCain, George H.W. Bush, Dole, Ted Kennedy...
Although Ike would probably take the cake for most deaths, even if he wasn't the trigger man.
My nation has not had many bad ass leaders, more's the pity. (not counting the 800 years of british rule, where we had all the badass leaders they did. I'm thinking more homegrown)
Winston Churchill > Teddy Roosevelt > anyone else from the last 200 years
Roosevelt was impressive, but if anyone stated up Churchill's character sheet changing a name or two to disguise him they would be reviled as a munchkin powergamer with no sense of proportion.
.
King Canute. He got so fed up with his sycophantic advisors he banned the tide from coming in and wetting him in order to prove that no man, even a king, is infallible.
yani wrote:King Canute. He got so fed up with his sycophantic advisors he banned the tide from coming in and wetting him in order to prove that no man, even a king, is infallible.
Azza007 wrote:What about Arthur. If you believe the stories were true. Also Lionheart and Robin Hood.
...Robin Hood was a character created to sell clothes and make their manufacture's guild famous, as is Arthur fictional (or if he did exist he was just a warlord that fought the saxons). Richard was only in England for six monthes of his life, spoke French and levied heavy taxes for his self indulgent crusades (yup royalty are gits). ^^
Azza007 wrote:What about Arthur. If you believe the stories were true. Also Lionheart and Robin Hood.
...Robin Hood was a character created to sell clothes and make their manufacture's guild famous, as is Arthur fictional (or if he did exist he was just a warlord that fought the saxons). Richard was only in England for six monthes of his life, spoke French and levied heavy taxes for his self indulgent crusades (yup royalty are gits). ^^
Richard was a crap king...
Good general, but a crap king.
Azza007 wrote:What about Arthur. If you believe the stories were true. Also Lionheart and Robin Hood.
...Robin Hood was a character created to sell clothes and make their manufacture's guild famous, as is Arthur fictional (or if he did exist he was just a warlord that fought the saxons). Richard was only in England for six monthes of his life, spoke French and levied heavy taxes for his self indulgent crusades (yup royalty are gits). ^^
Richard was a crap king...
Good general, but a crap king.
Yup, spoilt git by any standard (and known as Richard the Bast*rd amongst those he invaded).
Yup. There was already a thread concerning the issue and it just ended up with people bashing the Scots-without any actual scots contributing to it by my recollection. Heh, anyway, I vote Alex Salmond for his epic national television presenting skills alongside the fat ginger bird. ^^
biccat wrote:
McCain, George H.W. Bush, Dole, Ted Kennedy...
Say what?
Presidential candidates who have killed people. Obviously McCain and Bush would be by aircraft rather than during a firefight, but Dole killed people in combat (before getting a grenade to the shoulder). Kennedy is more "vehicular manslaughter" than "combat veteran," but he fits in the list.
Also I know McGovern was a vet, but I don't think he personally killed anyone.
i remember the thread but not its demise...
Ahh well...
What happens will happen i suppose.
That said Wales Scotland and Ireland really should have had their freedom after WWII if they had wanted it back then.
biccat wrote:
McCain, George H.W. Bush, Dole, Ted Kennedy...
Say what?
Presidential candidates who have killed people. Obviously McCain and Bush would be by aircraft rather than during a firefight, but Dole killed people in combat (before getting a grenade to the shoulder). Kennedy is more "vehicular manslaughter" than "combat veteran," but he fits in the list.
Also I know McGovern was a vet, but I don't think he personally killed anyone.
Heh, and thus continues the list of American politicians that are packing. ^^
biccat wrote:
Presidential candidates who have killed people. Obviously McCain and Bush would be by aircraft rather than during a firefight, but Dole killed people in combat (before getting a grenade to the shoulder). Kennedy is more "vehicular manslaughter" than "combat veteran," but he fits in the list.
Also I know McGovern was a vet, but I don't think he personally killed anyone.
I though McCain never actually killed anyone, or at least was never confirmed to have done so, I though the elder Bush was the same.
biccat wrote:
Presidential candidates who have killed people. Obviously McCain and Bush would be by aircraft rather than during a firefight, but Dole killed people in combat (before getting a grenade to the shoulder). Kennedy is more "vehicular manslaughter" than "combat veteran," but he fits in the list.
Also I know McGovern was a vet, but I don't think he personally killed anyone.
I though McCain never actually killed anyone, or at least was never confirmed to have done so, I though the elder Bush was the same.
Both of their military histories indicate that they were involved in successful bombing campaigns. I'd put the odds on them killing someone at around 90%.
It's going to take a seriously bad-ass leader to beat Boudicca. Tens of thousands of Romans are estimated to have been killed in the Iceni uprising that she lead. Go deep enough into the archaeology of Colchester, and you just find a layer of ash. She burned the city to the ground.
Albatross wrote: I'll take my thread 'to go', I think.
It's going to take a seriously bad-ass leader to beat Boudicca. Tens of thousands of Romans are estimated to have been killed in the Iceni uprising that she lead. Go deep enough into the archaeology of Colchester, and you just find a layer of ash. She burned the city to the ground.
Bad fething ass.
Is that a bunch of topless women on her chariot? That's bad-ass!
micheal colins, the guy practically invented guriella warfare. pity the IRA went on to become a group of feth heads with no real goals and the courage of a dead sheep....
assultmarine wrote:micheal colins, the guy practically invented guriella warfare.
/pedant
Without commenting on Michael Collins, the notion of guerilla warfare stems from the Peninsula War where Spanish Partisans carried on a campaign of harassment against occupying French, hence the term 'Guerilla' which means little war.
assultmarine wrote:micheal colins, the guy practically invented guriella warfare.
/pedant
Without commenting on Michael Collins, the notion of guerilla warfare stems from the Peninsula War where Spanish Partisans carried on a campaign of harassment against occupying French, hence the term 'Guerilla' which means little war.
assultmarine wrote:micheal colins, the guy practically invented guriella warfare.
/pedant
Without commenting on Michael Collins, the notion of guerilla warfare stems from the Peninsula War where Spanish Partisans carried on a campaign of harassment against occupying French, hence the term 'Guerilla' which means little war.
assultmarine wrote:micheal colins, the guy practically invented guriella warfare. pity the IRA went on to become a group of feth heads with no real goals and the courage of a dead sheep....
assultmarine wrote:micheal colins, the guy practically invented guriella warfare.
/pedant
Without commenting on Michael Collins, the notion of guerilla warfare stems from the Peninsula War where Spanish Partisans carried on a campaign of harassment against occupying French, hence the term 'Guerilla' which means little war.
Americans were shooting at British officers back in the 1770s. Evidently we were quite good at it.
Actually, you sucked at it. Still, the French were good at having a Navy, so alas, the end result is the same.
You''re just jealous because we don't have to eat haggis.
The Battle of Saratoga was a turning point in the Revolutionary War. And one of the major turning points in the battle was when sniper Timothy Murphy shot and killed Gen. Simon Fraser of the British army on Oct. 7, 1777.
Murphy, a rifleman in Morgan's Kentucky Riflemen, hit Gen. Fraser at a distance of about 500 yards using one of the famous long-barreled Kentucky rifles.
Nixon was a crook, but he certainly had that bad-ass "IDGAF what you think. I'll send more troops into the jungle if I feel like it"-kind of attitude. Totally bad-ass.
How come we've got no Aussies in here? We've got plenty of Bad-ass Leaders! Just to sta-wait, no. Well there's, hmmmm, no not him either. ...What about he guy who held the topped that Drinking Record, Bob Hawk? Hmmm, well I'm stumped.
Emperors Faithful wrote:How come we've got no Aussies in here? We've got plenty of Bad-ass Leaders! Just to sta-wait, no. Well there's, hmmmm, no not him either. ...What about he guy who held the topped that Drinking Record, Bob Hawk? Hmmm, well I'm stumped.
Emperors Faithful wrote:How come we've got no Aussies in here? We've got plenty of Bad-ass Leaders! Just to sta-wait, no. Well there's, hmmmm, no not him either. ...What about he guy who held the topped that Drinking Record, Bob Hawk? Hmmm, well I'm stumped.
what... what did i just watch
An amazing moment of Youtube Nostradamus. Australian politics basically went down like that. Minus the hamster.
Azza007 wrote:
HudsonD wrote:
Azza007 wrote:Duke 'Nosey' Wellington. Anyone who could thrash Napoleon so badly with such a small army.
The Prussians would like to have a word with you.
I was more thinking the Peninsular war mostly, where the numbers were against the British.
Wellington never faced Napolean in the Peninsular war, Napoleon was too busy tearing up the Eastern powers.
Emperors Faithful wrote:How come we've got no Aussies in here? We've got plenty of Bad-ass Leaders! Just to sta-wait, no. Well there's, hmmmm, no not him either. ...What about he guy who held the topped that Drinking Record, Bob Hawk? Hmmm, well I'm stumped.
Azza007 wrote:OK fine the French. Who was ruled over by Napoleon. He still kicked ass.
Who Napoleon? Yeah, he brought the war-torn French nation out of a deep gak-hole and managed to conquer/liberate () most of Europe. Twice. He was so good that "the French decided to call it a day and never contribute anything to society ever again. And they never have." -TMP
Puts him a step above Wellington as a leader, methinks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:How come we've got no Aussies in here? We've got plenty of Bad-ass Leaders! Just to sta-wait, no. Well there's, hmmmm, no not him either. ...What about he guy who held the topped that Drinking Record, Bob Hawk? Hmmm, well I'm stumped.
What about Sir Les Patterson?
I jumped back from the screen when I saw that image. *shudder*
Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.
Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.
Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.
Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.
Uh, yeah, actually all of that is pretty bad ass, if you were being sarcastic. Thread ain't about who's the most noble, kind or generous leader.
Azza007 wrote:OK fine the French. Who was ruled over by Napoleon. He still kicked ass.
Who Napoleon? Yeah, he brought the war-torn French nation out of a deep gak-hole and managed to conquer/liberate () most of Europe. Twice. He was so good that "the French decided to call it a day and never contribute anything to society ever again. And they never have." -TMP
Puts him a step above Wellington as a leader, methinks.
What, the guy who beat him? Twice?
Also, India. He was pretty awesome there, too. The Empire never would have conquered the place if it wasn't for Wellington.
Azza007 wrote:OK fine the French. Who was ruled over by Napoleon. He still kicked ass.
Who Napoleon? Yeah, he brought the war-torn French nation out of a deep gak-hole and managed to conquer/liberate () most of Europe. Twice. He was so good that "the French decided to call it a day and never contribute anything to society ever again. And they never have." -TMP
Puts him a step above Wellington as a leader, methinks.
What, the guy who beat him? Twice?
Also, India. He was pretty awesome there, too. The Empire never would have conquered the place if it wasn't for Wellington.
Only beat him once (Waterloo was the only time the two generals clashed with one another) and he needed the Prussians help for that.
Though his campaign in India was pretty awesome. I'm shocked at how the Indian opposition melted away in these engagements, though I don't think the conquering of India can be claimed by (at the time) Wellesly alone.
Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.
Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.
Uh, yeah, actually all of that is pretty bad ass, if you were being sarcastic. Thread ain't about who's the most noble, kind or generous leader.
I think you are confusing being an ass with being a bad ass. Compare his exploits to that of Teddy Roosevelt and he is essentially a child throwing a temper tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants.
Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.
Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.
Uh, yeah, actually all of that is pretty bad ass, if you were being sarcastic. Thread ain't about who's the most noble, kind or generous leader.
I think you are confusing being an ass with being a bad ass. Compare his exploits to that of Teddy Roosevelt and he is essentially a child throwing a temper tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants.
To many quotes of quotes. Which leader are you referring to Ahtman?
-Jackson kicked the crap out multiple Seminole tribes.
-Jackson delayed the Civil War by threateneing to hang any politician who spoke of such.
-Jackson kicked the gak out of the British army with a polyglot of Cajuns, pirates, local natives, and a few regulars. Lets restate. Under Jackson the French actually won a battle. I know I know its just crazy talk but yea the French actually did win a battle.
Teddy (also known as Mr. Concentrated Awesome):
-charge that hill and Bully!
-crushed the trusts
-did the first national land set asides
-Great White Fleet
-wacked him some fearsome beasts with mighty American made riflery
-Rose from physical handicaps to being a pugiliist.
-That whole "so what if you shot me, I'm going to finish my ing speech."
-had the Teddy Bear made after him.
-scared Chuck Norris.
-Jackson kicked the crap out multiple Seminole tribes.
-Jackson delayed the Civil War by threateneing to hang any politician who spoke of such.
-Jackson kicked the gak out of the British army with a polyglot of Cajuns, pirates, local natives, and a few regulars. Lets restate. Under Jackson the French actually won a battle. I know I know its just crazy talk but yea the French actually did win a battle.
That is a wonderful example of what is called spin. One mans bad-ass is any reasonable persons jack ass. Having had to study that time period fairly in depth, I came to dislike him quite a bit for the petty tyrant he was. Winning battles from already over wars, forcing men, women, and children out of their homes and to their deaths to steal their land and ignoring the law to do so doesn't make him any more bad ass then Hitler was a bad ass because he got people to do some pretty horrendous gak. I am well aware of what he did, what people think he did, and I don't care for the man.
-Jackson kicked the crap out multiple Seminole tribes.
-Jackson delayed the Civil War by threateneing to hang any politician who spoke of such.
-Jackson kicked the gak out of the British army with a polyglot of Cajuns, pirates, local natives, and a few regulars. Lets restate. Under Jackson the French actually won a battle. I know I know its just crazy talk but yea the French actually did win a battle.
That is a wonderful example of what is called spin. One mans bad-ass is any reasonable persons jack ass. Having had to study that time period fairly in depth, I came to dislike him quite a bit for the petty tyrant he was. Winning battles from already over wars, forcing men, women, and children out of their homes and to their deaths to steal their land and ignoring the law to do so doesn't make him any more bad ass then Hitler was a bad ass because he got people to do some pretty horrendous gak. I am well aware of what he did, what people think he did, and I don't care for the man.
The British were on our land. They died. Thats not being an ass, thats being a hero.
Fighting the Seminoles ( I may be wrong I forget if this was Georgia or Florida). You're putting 21st century PC standards on an early 19th century situation. The Indian wars were a real event, with tragedies on all sides. Besides now we have a cool mascot.
Frazzled wrote:You're putting 21st century PC standards on an early 19th century situation.
Not really, perhaps if you were delve more into the subject beyond a cursory "RAH RAH USA" sort of attitude toward the subject you'd find he had quite a large pool of dissenters even (if not especially) in his time. You might start by looking up Henry Clay. He had solid backing from the illiterate, but once you started moving beyond that he his base is less stable.
Frazzled wrote:The Indian wars were a real event, with tragedies on all sides. Besides now we have a cool mascot.
And more evidence you don;t actually know wtf you are talking about. The Trail of Tears targeted the Natives that lived in houses and alongside other Americans in peace for a long time and were his allies in the previous conflict. We were not at war with these Indians. These were not the Plains Wars you seem to be thinking of but good decent people that had worked on assimilating and getting along with their neighbors. We had treaties with these people and they were good neighbors and Jackson took everything they had at gunpoint after they helped us. Instead of becoming violent they took their case to the Supreme Court which ruled in their favor (considering the time period that is fairly amazing) and said that Jackson was both subverting the constitution as well as breaking treaty agreements and he ignored the ruling. A man who attacks and torments his own people and allies is not someone to be admired.
Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.
Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"
Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.
Bromsy wrote:Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.
Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"
Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.
Usually when I hear someone referred to as bad-ass they are meaning that something is cool becuase of how hard as nails the thing is. If using it in this context I will concede the point.
Bromsy wrote:Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.
Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"
Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.
Usually when I hear someone referred to as bad-ass they are meaning that something is cool becuase of how hard as nails the thing is. If using it in this context I will concede the point.
Well, at least we can put Hitler and Pol Pot up there now.
EDIT: Actually, if we're using "uncooperative" as the definition now, the meaning becomes so broad in the political hemisphere it's essentially useless.
@Ahtman: So how was he able to ignore the Supreme Court ruling?
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Hey, come on. Ataturk was a pretty cool guy.
So was Nasser. It wasn't a list of bad political leaders who were also badass, it was a list of badass political leaders that certain segments of the posters on this board (namely the ones who like Andrew Jackson) probably don't like.
Nasser, in particular, did many thing which would be regarded as similar to those done by Jackson, especially The Trail of Tears vs. no Muslim organizations allowed.
Bromsy wrote:Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.
Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"
Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.
Usually when I hear someone referred to as bad-ass they are meaning that something is cool becuase of how hard as nails the thing is. If using it in this context I will concede the point.
Which means that, in the context of this thread, while he was never a president, he was a leader of many people: General George S. Patton. He was brought low because he thought Eisenhower was a pansy, and made sure to let everyone know that, not only did he think so, but he KNEW this was true.
Robert Napier. Responsible for an extraordinary feat of bad-assery, the rescue of a group of missionaries at Magdala, in what is now Ethiopia:
...Napier's troops reached the foot of Magdala on 9 April and the next day, Good Friday, where they defeated the 9,000 troops still loyal to Tewodros at the Battle of Magdala for the loss of only 2 British lives. Although Emperor Tewodros surrendered his hostages and made repeated efforts for a negotiated surrender, Napier pressed on and ordered an assault on the mountain redoubt 13 April. The British captured Magdala, and Emperor Tewodros took his own life, preferring to "fall into the hands of God, rather than man. Napier then ordered the destruction of Tewodros' artillery and the burning of Magdala. The expedition and its troops looted many historical and religious artifacts, which they took back to Britain. The looted artifacts still reside in collections in the UK, despite representations by various parties for their return.
Also, Lord Kitchener was very bad-ass. He was in charge at Omdurman, one of the most one-sided battles in history.
).
