quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

Iraqis were better-off before the war.

What a moron. I guess you only care about rape and genocide when it happens to black Africans. Very good.

That's mature. And no, I care about rape and genocide wherever and however it happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
By the way, most of your links are uncredible.

1. They're links, instead of "I read somewheres."
2. Because they're not CNN? Oh do explain.

So I see Canvas is also denying that President George W Bush invaded and overthrew the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interesting, do any of you actually read previous posts or do you just start responding when you see key words like Bush and Iraq? Freemarket and I are in the process of debating whether or not President Bush should be in the category of conquerer, not the merits of the War in Iraq.

Why aren't you making a moral argument against all of the other conquers that have been discussed? It is probably because you only know what the media tells you, and your media probably doesn't talk about Napoleon and Alexander the Great.

Canvas is simply trying to distort this issue about conquers in an attempt to made up facts (in 3 or 4 children are malnourished, which is not said anywhere in the source) or alarmist rarities to serve his ultimate goal of trying to convince people that President Bush is a terrible person. Let's try to stick to the topic. If you want to debate the merits of the war in Iraq go to a board that has already been started (there are probably over 20 of them).

By Canvas' logic any person that has done anything bad can not be a great conquerer. Thus, Canvas probably believes this debate should be ended so he can declare Dennis Kucinich the greatest conquerer of all time.

quote:

Iraqis were better-off before the war.

What a moron. I guess you only care about rape and genocide when it happens to black Africans. Very good.

By the way, most of your links are uncredible.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
My bad, I'm interested in your thoughts on how President George W. Bush did not invade and overthrow the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the future, be more observant before you begin your high and mighty intellectual-more-smarter than you posts. Thoughts?

You should heed your own advice.

Let's look at Iraq - and, before all that - let's forget they never bloody called for the US - or anyone - to help them.

Today,three in four children are malnourished, with the percentages increasing eveyrwhere. Okay, fine, so the kids are hungry, who cares? Except, that, well Iraq’s mortality rate for children under five rose from 5 percent in 1990 to 12.5 percent in one year, and continues to increase. Ah, so what, the parents can make more little children. Except that the war - and that's the war, not the aftermath - has caused anything from 946 000 deaths to 1 120 000 deaths alone. That's just the war. The average daily death in Iraq is 100 people. 4 000 000 struggle for food. The list goes on and on and on. Just keep on strolling. Don't forget to read one of the reported murders committed by the US Army. That's just one. They "accidentally" killed some civilians the other day. The great United States of America can't tell between a little girl holding a teddy bear and Big Ugly Osama with a bomb. I'll bet you that Santa's probably been leaving toys for Osama under his Christmas tree all these years. (Hint from some US soldiers: you can rape Iraqi girls - and hell let's do the children and men too). Who cares? They even made a film about it (well, two). Bush was being himself about it anyways. Oh, heard of Manadel al-Jamadi?

Yes, I know this doesn't translate to all US soldiers. But you get reports of this stuff every day in the independent and Arabic media. But it gets better.

Everything was wrong with this war, from Bush's false reasons (should we lead to his impeachment?) to the New York Times issuing a statement that some of their articles were exaggerated to the US media's knack of going pro-war, making Americans go pro-war as well. Oh, yeah: Iraq wasn't linked to Al-Qaeda after all.

They never screamed it from the rooftops, but they have said that Iraq was also for the oil. Why, the US deputy defense secretary has said so himself.

The war in Iraq is costing, exactly: I dare you to write down a number fast enought. The situation, really, could not be worse.

The US FREED the Iraqis, man! The US caused civil war. Surely that's better than Saddam?

Iraqis were better-off before the war.

Should I do the Afghanistan thing as well? You can start by watching Taxi to the Dark Side, or I could point-out the evils of that war as well. Or we could argue about this one. Your call.

Edit: I should probably point-out that, with that in mind, it doesn't count as a victory because of the non-existant Nuclear technology the war started over anyways. Also, this isn't the thread for a discussion - but point me to the right place if you're going to rebuttle.

My bad, I'm interested in your thoughts on how President George W. Bush did not invade and overthrow the repressive governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
If you would take the time to read the post that started this thread you will find no criteria for candidates. In fact, Eutrepe includes Hilter as a possible alternative who died during World War II while his wartime efforts were still going on.

In the future, be more observant before you begin your high and mighty intellectual-more-smarter than you posts. Thoughts?

quote:

Why doesn't the poll include President George W. Bush

Because he hasn't finished either of those wars yet. The Taleban and Saddam aren't exactly Wellington and Darius either.

Why doesn't the poll include President George W. Bush for invading and overthrowing the repressive governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Thoughts?

quote:

Tamerlane.

Who is this?

well i love france

quote:

Another reason to admire him, is his approach to keeping control over conquered land. His method of assimilating his men into his new territory meant that he wasnt a foreign tyrant. He was accepted by the conquered lands

You'll notice though that his empire barely lasted beyond his death, so it may have looked good during his life but as soon as he passed it broke down in to either a quick vanishing act from the area in question from imperial rolls or an subcommander's attempt at taking what was left of the empire (not much).

So Alexander lacked staying power as well as legacy in comparison to many of the world's great warriors he really was "Alexander-The-Pretty-Good"

First off, how do you measure greatness? You can measure it in land conquered, achievements... I prefer to look at the person. My vote goes to Alexander. And not soley because of his achievements. His methods were quite unlike other great conquerors. The biggest stand out here was the fact that he fought alongside his men, rather than directed them from the rear. Another reason to admire him, is his approach to keeping control over conquered land. His method of assimilating his men into his new territory meant that he wasnt a foreign tyrant. He was accepted by the conquered lands, as he and his men married into their culture.

quote:

Just use wiki and find out what military leader managed to take control of the largest ammount of land

Then Ghenghis Khan takes it. He conquered all of Asia, including the nasty bits that chewed up Alexander and spit him out. He then headed west and conqured everything that way to the persian gulf and medd. He also had all of what is known as russia undercontrol and likely would have moved on europe had he felt like it.

He created the first international mail route, imported the modern idea of banks (as well as more mundane things like pants) and he just plain dominated.

quote:

Conquering implies taking possesion of land that is not yours through the use of force, there are no great conquerors.

I like this point...

However I have long been a fan of Napoleon.

Conquering implies taking possesion of land that is not yours through the use of force, there are no great conquerors.

Just use wiki and find out what military leader managed to take control of the largest ammount of land.

It's a toss up, but I voted Alexander.

Not only did he conquer nearly half of the known world, he was graceful about it. He made trade routes, which increased trade, which made the economies flourish in a lot of countries.

He also created a massive amount of cultural diffusion.

So basically, the world wouldn't be what it is today without him, as it wouldn't without any of these conquerers. They all have assets that they gave to the world.

I am seeing a lot of educated answers here...

People usually have decent supporting evidence...But truthfully I believe Alexander has the most votes because his story has been etched deeper into our minds and quite glamourized. A great man, indeed.But heres the real deal. Genghis Khan's empire was twice as large as Alexander the Great's at his time of death, and then his son, Ogedei, expanded it to the borders of Moscow, Russia!!!...So as a conquistador, he is checked off for me. Military wisdom, his ...understanding of traditional tactics being not only important in war brought him new innovations he was ready to accept from others. Other conquerors had pride management issues. Mongol archers by the way were skilled, so traditional warfare was also important. As for actually contributing to the modern world in one way or another. The Mongol empire united Asia like it had never been united before, and created the nation of MOngolia, the empire capital. Genghis Khan has my vote, he was brilliant, a person like that...As are all conquerors...but man, he was incredible.

This guy and this guy.

Although I agree and voted in favor of Alexander the Great as the greatest conqueror I don't know how well you can justify his success past his initial battles. He never transformed or instated any structure to the majority of what he conquered. He would roll in ensure that the people would be now known as greek or macedonian, grab a few to strengthen his forces and continue on. The natives' lives were no different beyond just being now known as macedonian. Do these sporatic and unorganized acquirements make him a conqueror. Let his triumphs over Persia define him not the length of land that he took over.

quote:

Jesus Christ
He concuered many things death, sin, sickness, demons, & the devil.

I think we're going historical here rather than religious. Having said that, I like geraldines post. Very Buddhist\Taoist.

Those who have conquered themselves