was pres. alejandro toledo manrique of peru good or bad?
412337
Tough question, in macroeconomic terms you could say he was one of the best presidents Peru has had in the last 20-30 years. However, in micro economic terms, the situation seem to have gotten worse than in the previous government of Fujimori. \n\nHis government was also plagued with scandals and corruptions at many different levels, an will be remembered for having one of the lower approval ratings ever, as low as 6%.  \n\nHowever, he also restored a high degree of democracy and respect for human rights which was lost during the government of Fujimori.\n\nI think if you asked the majority of the population, they will tell you it was bad. If you ask the business people involved in exports, they will tell you it was quite good.
356202
Al Gore was pretty good but the first vice president, John Adams who became the 2nd president of the US was a noble and compassionate man who helped form this country.  so i think he was the best.
842859
From the point of view of those of us here in Europe, he executed a lot of bad guys. So that's an accomplishment. Good or bad depends on your politics.
96700
He was God in the flesh. He was a good leader because of that. Not because of something he did.
409678
Not many think he is good. \n\nHe isn't malicious he is just stupid.
974965
Best Dictator? Bit of an oxymoron don't you think?
778632
I think the US generals disliked him a lot. He ignored everything that was reported about Iraq, and politically didn't act properly. He was an arrogant leader. Many liberals and democrats have called for his resignation. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the man. After all, he did supply Saddam with all those weird weapons.
191205
Some things I agree on, others I disagree. Other than that, I don't really care. People in power can try to please everyone, but that rarely works. Plus, I don't think he's that bad. Blame the media for all the negative news since its usually "the juicy stuff is the bad news".
583289
GWB may be really in a sense "evil" in your POV but he is still a human capable of mistakes. Death is not an option for him. With all the things that are happening in America today, I'm sure he is as stressed as hell.\n\nAs, for the president of the Philippines, well, the Philippines suffered from corruption and all that sh*t. And I'm sure there will be a lot more. Death is not also the option for her, but she does has the guts, after all that she did, she still can stand tall (even though she's short) and look at the Filipinos even though her countrymen wants her out of the office. It's something.\n\nAnd also, if they by any chance die, what will happen to the countries they left hanging in jeopardy? More people will suffer from it, especially here in the Phils. Who will take their place? A more "evil" leader?\n\nLet's just hope for the best. \n\nPS:\n\nI don't admire any of those two, but I'm sure they are doing what thet can if not their very best for their countries. Let's just hope that the things that they are doing won't hurt anymore of their countrymen.
123665
Important good or important bad?  Let's go for one of each:\n\nImportant bad changes were wrought by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the father of the beaurocracy.  He use the excuse of recovery from the great depression to create an alphabet soup of government programs, all funded by taxpayers, which were supposedly combating poverty.  It is true that a lot of unemployed people got jobs with the government, and as a temporary measure it might not have been all that bad.  Such things are alway vulnerable to favoritism and various forms of corruption, of course, but at least people who had been hungry started bringing home a paycheck.  But those programs, and the precedent they set, are mostly still in place, getting larger and more expensive and less effective all the time, and the taxpayers are paying for it all.\n\nTherefore, the president who made the most valuable changes, or at least tried to, or pehaps started to, was Ronald Reagan.  He vowed to disassemble the beaurocracy, reduce taxes, and deregulate industry.  He did his best, but the job was too big for him.  However, he was largely instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union, mostly by scaring them into spending so much more than they could afford on their military.  The Soviet Union, as a communist country, was strangled by its beaurocracy.  It was therefore enormously inefficient.  The money it spent on the military, and on the space program once Reagan warned them that space programs had an obvious military purpose, was more than it could afford, and it went belly-up.  Also, you may recall that there were a group of hostages which the Democrats did not have what it took to get released, who were handed over when the kidnappers realized Ronald Reagan was indeed being sworn in as president.  They did not want to deal with him, because he had guts, and gave back the hostages.
165916
I did a report on Ulysses and he seemed to be a better general than a president. I can only assume FDR was better.
527287
Chávez is known for his democratic socialist governance, his promotion of Latin American integration, and his criticism, which he terms anti-imperialism, of neoliberal globalization and United States foreign policy.\n\nHe has been severely criticized, mostly by Venezuela's middle and upper classes. He has been accused of electoral fraud, severe human rights violations, assaulting democracy in favor of dictatorship, and political repression, and has survived both a brief 2002 coup and a failed 2004 recall referendum.\n\nEvil dictator? One would have to really read up on him and decide individually.
368688
He was able to create a revolution, so yes - but at the same time, his revolution was completely immoral, inhuman, and did not succeed. He was defeated, however, through his leadership, dictatorship, and manipulative skills he was able to create a revolution.
234033
HW had a bad public image (perceived as a wimp); he attempted to carry on the Reagan era without establishing any needful agenda.  Ignored the economy which resulted in a tax program he promised would not be instituted (essentially sided with the Democrats in a spending deal that made many Republicans unhappy).  Wasted foreign policy initiatives e.g. invasion of Panama on the theory that getting rid of Noriega would stem the drug trade (obviously did not work); NAFTA (depending on your opinion of NAFTA.
504236
Washington takes into account what is good for the country, I'm posting some facts here and as you can see, if we were to take harsh measures, many U.S. companies would suffer retaliation and there is a great economic factor that people fail to realize. There has to be more enforcement on illegal immigration but we can't make it a witch hunt without getting into a situation that will affect our economic interests abroad. \n\nLaboring in Mexican factories, they receive a little over $3.00 a day, not nearly enough to maintain an adequate living standard. This alone may not surprise people. What is surprising is that more likely than not, these workers are employed by United States' companies! U.S. and European corporations now have the permission and the technology to locate factories throughout the third world. There they do not have to abide by the wage, safety, or environmental standards that are in effect here. Consequently, people in Mexico and Central America are receiving slave wages to manufacture products such as clothing or automobiles that will be profitably sold in the U.S.\n\nA critic might respond, "True, U.S. companies do pay low wages in Latin American nations. But if those companies were not there, the people would have no jobs, no wages. Therefore, those people should be grateful to have the opportunity to make at least some money." This argument sounds persuasive, but is born from ignorance of the history and extent of U.S. involvement in Latin America. As we shall see, the location of U.S. factories there is only the tip of the iceberg. The story of United States' engagement in Latin America is a long and complicated one.\n\nUntil the 1930s, the Latin American economy was based primarily on exporting raw materials to the industrial nations. But in 1929 the stock market crashed, and the ensuing depression spread to Latin America, which no longer had a strong market for its products. Many Latin American governments therefore embarked on a new economic course, one which seemed the most sensible at the time. Because exportation had proven too fraught with danger, these governments tried to achieve self-sufficiency under an economic plan called import substitution. This involved a state-led effort at economic growth, comprising nationalization of industries, tariffs to protect domestic products, and government investment in infrastructure (Green, Duncan. Silent Revolution: The Rise of Market Economics in Latin America. London: Casell, 1985. ps.15-17). By the 1960s, domestic industry supplied 95% of Mexico's consumer goods.\n\nThe decisive event leading to the current situation originated not in Latin America, however, but in the global community: the oil boom of the early 1970s. With so much new money pouring into the West, banks recklessly gave loans to third world nations, "believing,"in the words of Citicorp chairman Walter Wriston, that "'a country does not go bankrupt' as a private company could" (Green 21).\n\nLatin American nations gladly accepted these loans at good interest rates. Although their program of import substitution had prompted much development, it had also caused lasting inflation, inefficient business practices, and high unemployment. But the loans which seemed like a blessing quickly turned into a burden. At the end of the 1970s the U.S. raised interest rates from the traditional level of between 4 and 6% to over 20% ("Foreign Debt Tribunal - Verdict." Third World Resurgence 107 (July 1999) ps.19-21.) This forced Latin American nations to take out new loans just to pay the interest on the old ones. Something had to give, and in 1982 Mexico announced that it could no longer meet its debt repayments. Other nations followed suit.\n\nLatin America was now broken and vulnerable. Irrevocably in debt to the U.S. and Europe, it needed debt renegotiation and further loans. But with no bargaining power, it was forced to accept the ter
401070
Why? Because the country that installed it was and still is corrupt. America created the Philippine government after the Spanish-American War. Therefor the Philippine government picked up it's bad habits. You know the old saying the apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Well there you go.
650279
Bush - bad. People- pretty good.