• @VeryVito@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    323 months ago

    I understand the point, but as an exercise, try to find four historical figures without glaring character defects. Eventually, I figure we’ll all be either judged or forgotten in time.

    • @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      173 months ago

      Yeah every political leader have little oopsies like being called “town destroyer” by the people which land they invaded and towns they destroyed. They also were proud of it, used it to invade even more land, and their grandpas were also called that because it’s their family and nation thing to do for generations.

    • TacoButtPlug
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      Obama bombed a wedding of civilians not to mention hid Afghanistan casualty reports, was a part of the death of half a million Iraqi casualties, was part of the Syrian hell that targeted mainly children with fatalities at 191,000 by 2014, then there was Yemen and saber rattling on Iran and full support of Israel. Carter sadly oversaw the East Timor genocide at 25% of the population or 170,000 killed.

    • acargitz
      link
      fedilink
      -8
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I dunno Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, seem to have been personally good people. That’s two recent US presidents. Then I guess I would add some super low hanging fruit like Nelson Mandela, Frederick the Great, John II Komnenos, any of the Five Good Emperors, Cyrus the Great, Ashoka, and one could keep going.

      EDIT: To all those pestering me about how US presidents presided over criminal imperialist policies, here is my answer from down below:

      OP talked about “glaring character defects”.

      These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.

      You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.

      I’m not here to defend US imperialism, don’t @ me.

        • @Zerush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          103 months ago

          Without the US, the world would be much more peaceful today, most of the current wars and terrorisms are caused by US interventions, directly and indirectly.

        • @CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          43 months ago

          That is an incredible list. Did a find for a few things I personally knew about and have always been disappointed in Obama for… and sure enough found them. First one I searched, was extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I remember Bill O’Reilly saying “Oh, if I have to pay taxes, I’m going to have to fire people, and that’s on Obama, so tax cuts means less jobs!” (so glad Bill got canned) and Obama just fucking caved like a spineless coward.

      • @Packet@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        17
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Obama?? Obama??? The Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya Obama? You must be joking, right?

        • acargitz
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          OP talked about “glaring character defects”.

          These are policy failures and state crimes, arguably attributed to the American state as a whole, and the long term US imperialist policies, rather to the singular person of the president.

          You might have noticed that I added Frederick the Great in the list, which tells you exactly what my understanding of the challenge was.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        123 months ago

        Carter supported Pol Pot and Obama was a monster to people in the Middle East, neither can be considered to be “good people.”

        • @Wilco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -53 months ago

          Yes! Buying dentures made from slave teeth is overshadowed by the fact this man did what very few would have done by setting power aside.

          Would we get labeled by history as evil because we might have bought a product from China made in a work camp?

          • Dessalines
            link
            fedilink
            11
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Washington was the richest man in the US at the time, and had the most to gain from indigenous eviction. The Iroquios named him “the town destroyer”, for burning down dozens of their cities. He also owned slaves and supported the institution just like most presidents after him (I think 10 presidents in a row were southern slave-holders like himself).

            And also, its the US, not China, that has slave labor camps. Just because an anti-semitic evangelical christian (adrian zenz) who works for the US government claims that China has forced labor, doesn’t make it so. These claims have been debunked over and over.

          • @pebbles@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            43 months ago

            Fr, like look into the companies that get you your fruits and vegetables. You can’t escape unethical consumption.

      • @jacksilver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        53 months ago

        I mean we absolutely could call out their flaws too, someone with that much power/responsibility is going to do abhorrent things (drone strikes with Obama being an easy one to bring up). Just like the four on Mount Rushmore these things aren’t what we typically call out because they either were “of the times” or not on the same scale as their accomplishments.

        • Stern
          link
          fedilink
          63 months ago

          They called Obama the Deporter in Chief. Trump wishes he could get a nickname like that. Carter himself was a nice guy but his below average presidency led to Reagan.

        • @bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -23 months ago

          The drone strikes thing is a bad example. If he didn’t touch it, individual combat units could use drones with impunity. He required drone strikes to be approved by his office.

          Tell me if you had the choice between sending in boots to kill a guy, or drone strike, would you really ever risk your guys getting shot?

          He added red tape, the minimum thing he could do. I’ll agree with criticism that he did the bare minimum, but all these comments about this frame it like he was horny for drones. That’s reductive and misleading.

          • @jacksilver@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            Your comment is exactly the point I was trying to make. The world is complex and imperfect, so anyone with the power/responsibility of a president is going to do controversial things.

            • @bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 months ago

              Oh I get it.

              Yeah running countries is a series of shitty compromises, unless you are small enough to gain consensus.