Who is the world’s worst dictator?

[Sonthert]

I was reading (surprising, eh?) and I came across an interesting segment in the national circular supplement "The Parade" in the Jan. 22, 2006 edition. A writer gave his opinion as to the worst 20 dictators in the world. His list follows (in order from worst to least worst):1. Omar Al-Bashir-Sudan2. Kim Jong-il-North Korea3. Than Shwe-Myanmar (Burma)4. Robert Mugabe-Zimbabwe5. Islam Karimov-Uzbekistan6. Hu Jintao-China7. King Abdullah-Saudi Arabia8. Sapamurat Niyazov-Turkmenistan9. Seyed Ali Khamane'i-Iran10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema-Equitorial Guinea11. Muammar al-Qaddafi-Libya12. King Mswati III-Swaziland13. Isayas Afewerki-Eritrea14. Aleksandr Lukashenko-Belarus15. Fidel Castro-Cuba16. Bashar al-Assad-Syria17. Pervez Musharraf-Pakistan18. Meles Zenawi-Ethiopia19. Boungnang Vorachith-Laos20. Tran Duc Luong-VietnamWho do you think is the worst (most horrible) dictator in the world and why?

[sheeshabum]

Worst Dictator?
No question about it,
The owner of the New York Yankees baseball team,George Steinbrenner orwhat ever his name is.
He made  Johnny Damn cut his hair and beard off as a condition to joining the NY Yankees.
He buys the best players with the most money and the biggest budget.
They are known as the "Evil Empire", but this will be the first time in 47 years that I'm finally giving up on the Detroit Tigers, sitting back with my trusty hookah and root root root for the New York Yankees this year!

[Soup]

I had to pull the Canadian vote and go for GWB

[PipeSmokeMcGee]

Personally, I don't know too much about any of these dictators, but I think that Mugabe from Zimbabwe is the worst.  Reason being, I know a man who had to evacuate the country (now lives in America) because Mugabe has started another genocide to purge all whites from the country.  His house was torched by members of the Zimbabwean military and his family was threatened at gunpoint and forced to leave.  Pretty brutal.
Anyway, thats my two cents
BEN

[Sonthert]

In terms of human suffering, Pol-Pot is the worst, but Than Shwe isn't far behind and Pol-Pot isn't in power anymore.

[surfpico]

Bush... and we all know why.

[Lakemonster]

Wow....
My vote for current dictaors is Jong-Il and then the Laotian Regime.... but then I have a liking for the Hmong cause.. thats why they are on the list.
Pol-Pot had to be the worst givin the #'s and the small size of his country.
Im' afraid some of the young uns here today have little idea what a real dictator is like.
There were people like Stalin... in this world at one time
 

[yashman19]

I remember seeing this same article in Parade Magazine a couple years
ago, and Kim Jong-Il was number one at that point. Pretty interesting
read.

[r money]

I cannot believe that any US citizen would say that Bush is a dictator, o wait, thats because liberals do not like our country.

[Hookah_Bob]

I, personally, cannot understand the blatant disrespect that George Walker Bush receives. It boggles my mind how any citizen of the United States can so oppose his or her own nation. Does the United States not provide you with freedom, protection, and the opportunities for you to take advantage of?It is one thing to disagree with a leader's decisions and actions, it is quite another to so blatantly ridicule one, and not only in private conversations, but on public medians such as this forum and even mass media. What does it show other countries? That we are weak and that we do not support ourselves.As for the war, no one can say that Saddam Hussein did not need to be removed from power. He murdered over 182,000 people in his tenure as dictator of Iraq. He has not changed his personality. He would have kept murdering innocent his citizens.I agree that our reasoning for going to Iraq were flawed and that Saddam may not have had WMDs, but every other leader and governments of our allies had access to the very same information that Bush had access to, and they all agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq. It was not just Bush's opinion on that matter.

[Lakemonster]

I fully agree with the sentiment that GWB is not a dictator.
A dictator oppresses his own countrymen. He has not done this.
Now, if you want to take the stance... one could call him a tyrant... that is someone who oppresses others. So if you can connect the dots however you see them.. then I suppose you could end up calling him that.
I will say that there have been some policy and law made that are the straw and mud that makes bricks for the building of a "Police State", during Bush's admin. But, hell.... Presidents have been doing that since the late 20's.
Heres an idea. VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT. GET THE "IN's", OUT!

[Sonthert]

Yeah, sorry I put that as a choice...it was kind of a off-color joke...to compare G.W. with Than Shwe, Kim Jong ar Mugabe...wow, overstatement!

[Buford]

I really wonder how future generations will view GWB. While I do not agree with GWB's political stances, he is not a dictator nor the worst president in US history by far. One I consider far worse - FDR - is regarded as great president or hero today. Go figure.With the stroke of a pen, he singlehandedly made gold coin and bullion ownership illegal for US citizens and forbade gold's use as a monetary instrument in contracts in 1933 by Executive Order 6102, a right not restored by Congress until 1974 (which only re-legalized gold ownership, not its use as a monetary instrument). The gold standard was still in effect on paper until 1971, but it was of no consequence to citizens who could not own gold legally or use gold as a monetary instrument. His New Deal, of which a few remnants are still with us today, was the start of socialist programs in the US. One remnant that we're still saddled with is Social Security (government pension plan), which is a big issue today. The "alphabet agencies" created by the New Deal, run by unelected bureaucrats, were another way of sidestepping the legislative process by giving many of their administrative decisions the weight of law. Many of the programs created do not look all that dissimilar from the Soviet Communist "5-year plans", and we were concerned with Communist encroachment in the 50s - we already had some courtesy of good old FDR back in the 30s! In case you can't tell, I'm for a weak Federal, strong State government system. Local governments are more responsive to citizens' needs. A large overreaching Federal can not do that, especially considering the size of the US. Federal income tax is a waste, as much of the Federal government's budget is wasted on programs that it has no Constitutional authority to create or maintain. The Federal government exists to only provide for the common defense and is given the power to declare war, promote the useful arts by way of copyright and patents, to enter into treaties, negotiations, and commerce with foreign powers, establish Post Offices and post roads, to coin money (in only gold or silver - States were forbidden to accept anything else as legal tender), to maintain free untariffed trade among the States, and to arbitrate disagreements among the States via Federal courts. All powers afforded to the Federal government were forbidden to the States, but all other powers of governance were delegated to them. The States are in effect, overseen by the Federal, which was to act as an umbrella government, but the Federal should have little to do with the individual citizens of the States. The popular election of Senators is a good example of how this relationship has changed, as originally the Senate was meant to represent the interests of the various State governments (they were appointed by the legislatures of the States), wheras the House was representing the People. By making Senate elections popular vote the interests of the State governments was made practically irrelevant. However, this was done through Constitutional amendment, so it is valid.I'm rambling and have gotten a bit off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

[Sonthert]

Yes, the framers also recognized two distinctions of "laws" that made up the US Constitution. One were laws that were wisdom to be passed down. The other were rules that were the best way to conduct business at the the time, but were subject to change. The constitution, itself, for the most part, is just a convenient instrument to come up with rules of operation. The Bill of Rights, that took more time, constituted the wisdom that took longer to agree on. Is it possible we could erase the sixth amendment? Sure. Who cares if people who are obviously guilty are denied trial? ISn;t that what those suspected terrorists being held in Cuba are all about? Of course not, to erase or ignore the sixth amendment would be unwise. The framers knew the consequences of actions that were in contradiction to the Bill of Rights, thats why they had to adopt them separately in the first place! Some crackpot probably went around saying "I think we should dispense with a trial, when we know they're guilty." Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the constitution specifically says "The Congress shall have the power to:...To coin money, regulate the value therof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." It doesn't say anywhere that coinnage has to be in gold or silver. The states were prohibited from further issuing "State script" which was just legal tender issued by states. More to the Point, you forgot that the constitution, from A. 1, S.8 also allows The Congress to:Lay and Collect taxes (P.1)Borrow Money (P.2)To establish rules of nationalization (P.4)To establish rules of bankruptcy (P.4)To provide for the punishment of counterfeiters (P.6)To promote the progress of science (P.8)Establish lower federal courts (P.9) At least to try the counterfeiters, if nothing else.The real screw in the tire of your points is paragraph 18, "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers [referring to Article 1, Section 8] and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer therof." This effectively justifies anything which, in the eyes of the government, is required to meet the aims of the constitution. Further, as far as "Social Security" is concerned, you very generally lumped five or six of the government's provinces into "Provide for the common defense". There is nothing more destablizing or corrosive to a society or government as poverty. Communist or capitalist, rich countries endure, poor countries perish. More to the point, the most important and sustaining industries to the economy are those industries which deliver or produce necessities. By giving the severely indigent some measure of money, you go a long way to supporting those industries. In the depths of the depression, it was important to foster and nourish those industries. If they failed, anarchy would follow. If the people can;t even get food because everything is bankrupt...where's the government? Overthrown. If the severely impovrished were given food, it would be OK...so we simplify things by sending them money...money the government invented iteself, that doesn't really exist, because there is no gold standard. The FCC doesn't seem to fall under the powers entrusted to the government, but its necessary. We wouldn't have distinct TV or radio stations, without the FCC. The government has to be able to grow and change. That's what many of the amendments to the constiution are about...the constitution didn't say blacks couldn't be slaves...so the 13th amendment came along. Originally, as you pointed out, the senators were elected by the state legislatures, but so was the president of the United States. I think popular election of both are fine ideas, it brings us a little closer to true democracy, participitory democracy. This country has to keep evolving, we can't stop and stick to two hundred year old platitudes, everything would be lost. Thomas Jefferson, one of the biggest advocates of state's rights, pulled off the Louisana Purchase, which was a grab for more federal power. He lamented about it and it cost him the support of many of his peers. Your ad hominem attack on President Roosevelt is a little pointed. It is standard practice to make economic plans, whether five years or not. Your statement makes about as much sense as saying "The communists have armies, so anyone that proposes we have an army must be a lot like a communist!" Well, OK, maybe I'm overstating that point, but just a little. Don;t get me wrong, I agree that the federal government has exploded out of control in alot of ways. For one, the creation of agencies that violate the separation of powers, that simultaneously create laws and enforce them.

[Buford]

I was typing up a much longer response to the thread earlier when my browser exploded and I didn't really feel like going through typing it all up again, so I condensed some of my thoughts into smaller chunks which, upon reading your response, pretty much diluted my argument. Yes, the Constitution does state all that you listed, so I can't really rebut any of that.One thing about poverty, though. What are the root causes of it? That is what should be addressed, not putting a band-aid on the problem through handouts. Do I have a solution? No. I've not exactly qualified to come up with one, never having researched it extensively. Still, I think the handout approach is the wrong course of action.On FDR and Communism: I could flat-out say that FDR was a Communist, but that's conspiracy theory and frankly I don't have any proof of it. All I can go on are what he pushed for. He did institute a *lot* of social programs, but if anything that makes him a socialist, not a totalitarian (which historically the name "communism" has been associated with along with socialist programs, although the basic idea of communism is simply an economic plan). Socialists aren't necessarily bad people - I just find their political ideology misguided. It could be said that he was a product of his times, and in order to save the nation he pushed social programs to dig us out of the trenches of the Depression, but I still find it to be a bad political/economic philosophy overall - and the results of which we are still living with today.On gold and silver: Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states in part, "No State shall.. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts." If this was to be true, and the Federal government were to coin money, how could the money not be gold or silver coin? The United States Code, Title 12, Section 152, states: “Lawful money shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." Fiat currency, of which all nations' curriencies are today, is nothing more than a representation of debt backed by the power of a nation's ability to enforce its value. It's entirely based on faith in the system rather than real, hard goods. Sure, the government can print more if it needs it, but that devalues the entire stock of it in circulation due to more being pumped into circulation. Inflation is really a kind of backdoor theft through devaluation of savings. Hard goods backed currencies have their own host of problems, but devaluation over time isn't really one of them. Here's an example, using silver. If you put $1 in paper money and $1 in silver halves in a box in 1964, what would be the value today? Adjusting for inflation, it would take $5.96 to buy the same amount of goods today as $1 did in 1964, so that paper dollar lost about 4/5 of its buying power. However, those two silver halves would be worth about $8.67 total today - an increase in buying power. Which option provides the better benefit for savings? On States Rights: apropos of nothing, but I really dislike that term. States do not have rights. People have rights. States have powers. There is a clear distinction in law. The term has just been used so long that it's ingrained.Wow, I've really derailed this thread.

[Sonthert]

Basic economics shows one way to get the economy moving when its stagnant is to increase government spending, yes? So, in the face of the depression, Roosevelt worked that theory and the US began to move out of the depression. Call him a communist, a democrat, a dictator or a rosy boa, his plans were successful. In terms of mastering and implementing grand plans successfully, he was #1 in the 20th century. He saw us through a depression, he commanded in a time of the greatest war humanity has ever seen, skillfully. His track record is impeccable. Its easy to look back and question his decisions. It is far harder to look at the context of what he did and his success, bearing in mind the man could barely walk from polio. Moreover, whatg grand plan could anybody else have come up with that was better? The US was dying, economy first and he saved it, well prolonged the death until later, anyways. Pick on his methods, but not his accumen.OK, lets say FDR WAS a Communist. A Leninist, Stalinist, Marxist, Trotsky-loving, pinko, commie-queer. He screwed his cousin, she stayed with them at the White House. Eleanor was a dyke and had girlfriends living at the White House. He talked frequently with Stalin and secretly hated Churchill AND Chamberlain. He wanted everyone in the US to be card-carrying members of the Central Committee. So what? He was one of the most successful presidents since Washington and Jefferson in terms what he accomplished for this country. Smearing him just tries to sidestep his accompishments. Its real easy to smear Wilson. Wilson was a terrible president. He shouldn't have been trusted with the cash box at the local church bazaar. See? When a president is crummy its real easy to tell. As far as your gold and silver reference, it is true, the STATES were required to use gold and silver in payment of debts, that doesn't change the fact that the federal government does not. Yes, using legal wording, Federal Reserve notes are not lawful money, but if you read on the front of them, they are legal tender. A slight distinction. Dating back to the 1800s in this country, when Jefferson and Adams were still kicking around, the US started making money out of things other than gold or silver. If it really was against their intentions, don't you think they would have objected? Your rebuke of inflation is...bizarre to say the least. Inflation is a necessary part of growth. If the economy grows, in real terms of goods and services, the same amount of money must be worth less, no? Inflation isn't some conspiracy...its basic economics. If I were to say Carbon Dioxide is a British conspiracy, you would say I was crazy. In fact, you are wrong, as an economy grows, a "Generic fixed set of goods" well devaluate in terms of its trading power because all goods and services are becoming more prevalent, so scarcity is going down. That is, you put away one of 1000 widgets in the year 1990. In 2005, you remove your widget from its carefully constructed carrying case and check the market...there are now 1100 widgets out there...your widget has devalued. Your entire argument is predicated on the fact that there will be no new gold or silver or widgets added to the economy. Then, inflation would be a conspiracy. As long as new goods and services enter the market, there is a real, very high probability that widget scarcity will go down and relatively speaking will purchase less in trade unless, again, they stop making widgets in 1991. You hit on the exact reason we can't have a gold standard.  Inflation continues, so the price of precious metals relatively changes, so a silver half dollar is worth approximately 2.8x face value currently. As inflation occurs, we can either reissue money (moving the decimal point) and resetting the metal standard our we can create ever-decreasing valued money. In the US we have chosen the latter, because it gives our currency a perceived stability. A $20 bill from 1924 is still legal tender, and it is unlawful to refuse it. Name another country in the world that can make that claim. Your argument, granted, is the harder one, I can poke a big dent in your argument by saying "Its legal, the government is doing it right now." Ultimately, whatever the government is doing is always legal, even though it may be wrong. Ultimately, anyone who is doing something in opposition to the government is a felon. Thats a hard fact that has to be accepted.

[Ravon and The Doctor]

[quote name='Hookah_Bob']I, personally, cannot understand the blatant disrespect that George Walker Bush receives.  It boggles my mind how any citizen of the United States can so oppose his or her own nation.  Does the United States not provide you with freedom, protection, and the opportunities for you to take advantage of?

It is one thing to disagree with a leader's decisions and actions, it is quite another to so blatantly ridicule one, and not only in private conversations, but on public medians such as this forum and even mass media.  What does it show other countries?  That we are weak and that we do not support ourselves.

As for the war, no one can say that Saddam Hussein did not need to be removed from power.  He murdered over 182,000 people in his tenure as dictator of Iraq.  He has not changed his personality.  He would have kept murdering innocent his citizens.

I agree that our reasoning for going to Iraq were flawed and that Saddam may not have had WMDs, but every other leader and governments of our allies had access to the very same information that Bush had access to, and they all agreed that there were WMDs in Iraq.  It was not just Bush's opinion on that matter.[/quote]Now I am not a US citizen but the American people's right to free speech is important to me, consequently I would look down upon the grand old USA if its people adamantly believed that they were incapable of making mistakes, unable to admit any mistake or unable to take a look at their situation and find the humour in it.  The USA, like the UK, has a person in power who does not perform actions that represent the views of the majority.  As point of fact Blair got his 3rd term with backing from only 22% of the electorate.George Bush Jr doesn't appear to have been gifted with intelligence, a good grasp of basic English, or an ability to stand up to his father.  To date George Bush Jr has merely followed in his fathers' footsteps; has spent his days in power under the watchful supervision of what is essentially the same staff line-up that his father chose; claimed a book published whilst he was in college was his favourite childhood book; has been filmed appearing to read a book whilst it was upside down; makes really stupid statements 'I think we can all agree the past is over', 'it's clearly a budget- it's got lots of numbers in it' etc...;  and regularly makes gross grammatical mistakes despite having a speech writer.  This site might be of interest to any patriotic American: [url="http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtmlWhen"]http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtmlWhen[/url] a nation's leader is being ridiculed it does not automatically imply the nation is being ridiculed.I do not condone the war on Iraq and whilst in Suddam Hussein instigated the deaths of 182,000 (citation?) extrapolated data indicates the removal of Saddam Hussein will cost Iraq citizens 285,888 of its people if the current situation persists for the same length of time as Saddam Hssein spent in power.[From [url="http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx"]http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx[/url] it is found that in the year 2005 11,912 civilians and Iraqi Security Force members were killed.  Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) thus using the death toll in 2005 the cost of the removal of Hussein will likely cause 42% more Iraqi deaths overall.]

[Sonthert]

Statistics really weaken George Bush's case. That's why his platform in 2004 was "Stay the Course."

[coolaskimdeal]

all i'm saying is that i am AMAZED that GWB got 8 votes when so many of
the other men in this list are completely ruthless.  i think some
of us might need to expand our global understanding to include what's
going on outside of the USA.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='coolaskimdeal']all i'm saying is that i am AMAZED that GWB got 8 votes when so many of
the other men in this list are completely ruthless.  i think some
of us might need to expand our global understanding to include what's
going on outside of the USA.[/quote]I'll just say it. I like this guy!

[coolaskimdeal]

i prefer the term lady, but thank you Tangiers.

[SanguineSolitude]

fidel castro? cubans love him. doesnt seem like hes even on the level of any of the rest of the dictators, except gwb, who isnt a dictator just a tremendous sack of corporately owned douche.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='coolaskimdeal']i prefer the term lady, but thank you Tangiers.[/quote]The name Morgan threw me...kinda like Carol...it could have been worse...I almost called you captain.

[gunsboy]

Dictators are not the worst thing that happened to us ... They are more like natural selection.
They are usually from the same nation they control, so just a sample of it.  A good nations cannot be ruled by suck dictators.  Because people would fight to the last of them to get rid of them.
Hafiz Asad is a syrian.
Saddam Hussein is an iraqi.
The only way they made it is because people let them there.  If 100% of Iraqis did not want Saddam, they would have got rid of him no US help needed.  But dirty politics and a sector of society are benefiting of those dictators kept them in power.  Thats why nations with corruption get plagued by dictators ...
 

[Lakemonster]

[quote]....except gwb, who isnt a dictator just a tremendous sack of corporately owned douche.....[/quote]
 
LOL... I love it.