NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's Castro.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

In terms of body count, Elian Rios Montt. However, at least he confined his barbarity to Guatemala. Castro, on the other hand, has helped scores of other bloody-handed dictators and Third World thugs come to power.

So, Castro gets my vote.

Pinochet? Whether he killed 3,000 people or not (I have yet to see a source), Ortega killed just as many people in one year as Pinochet is accused of killing in seventeen.

Alfredo Stroessner

Pinochet, after being confronted with evidence showing that the corpses of thousands of tortured and murdered 'dissidents' (mostly just peasants) were taken out to sea on helicopters and unceremoniously dumped over the water, commented, 'Whoever did has served the Fatherland well, by saving us the cost of nails for their coffins.'
Castro's got NOTHING on that, whiny Cuban expats notwithstanding.

Pinochet, after being confronted with evidence showing that the corpses of thousands of tortured and murdered 'dissidents' (mostly just peasants) were taken out to sea on helicopters and unceremoniously dumped over the water, commented, 'Whoever did has served the Fatherland well, by saving us the cost of nails for their coffins.'
Castro's got NOTHING on that, whiny Cuban expats notwithstanding.

Castro killed way more people than Pinochet.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

Omar Torrijos

I think it's Castro

why castro?

You forgot to mention Samosa of Nicaragua, but Pinochet is a good second choice.

What about Noriega?

You forgot to mention Samosa of Nicaragua, but Pinochet is a good second choice.

What about Noriega?

Dude, which Somoza? There are three.

Anastasio Somoza Garcia
Luis Somoza
Anastasio Somoza Debayle

You forgot to mention Samosa of Nicaragua, but Pinochet is a good second choice.

What about Noriega?

I'm assuming you mean Anastasio Somoza Debayle (the one who was overthrown by the Sandinistas), but he wasn't evil, contrary to what the Human Rights Hypocrites would have you believe.

Wow, no one's voted for Ortega yet? :eek:

Pinochet, after being confronted with evidence showing that the corpses of thousands of tortured and murdered 'dissidents' (mostly just peasants) were taken out to sea on helicopters and unceremoniously dumped over the water, commented, 'Whoever did has served the Fatherland well, by saving us the cost of nails for their coffins.'
Castro's got NOTHING on that, whiny Cuban expats notwithstanding.

Source?

Fidel Castro is one of the most democratic leader today. The rest is rightwing dictators and american lovers.

Fidel Castro is one of the most democratic leader today. The rest is rightwing dictators and american lovers.

Lol, Castro, democratic? Read, for example, Against All Hope, Into the Lion's Den, etc.

Castro

I'd have to say Trujillo. Read "La fiesta del chivo" by Mario Vargas Llosa. Fidel and Pinochet are both very far from him in terms of evilness.

Fidel is not nearly as bad as most people would have you believe. Those who accuse him of enabling revolutions in other places then should be aware that the US has killed many many many more people. Batista alone was much worse than Fidel.

And Pinochet wasn't that bad either, but he was meaner than Fidel. They both are very levelled. The Argentinian dictatorships also deserve a good mention, although it was more like team work.

Porfirio Diaz was also evil, but further in history.

Batista alone was much worse than Fidel.

That's absurd. Castro's killed far more people than Batista, and at least Batista confined his terror to Cuba. Moreover, Batista was forced to adopt authoritarian measures in response to terrorism, subversion, etc.

I voted Pinochet... and just for the record: Peron was quite the fascist, but he wasn't a dictator; he was elected every time he was in power. To put someone from Argentina you could have chosen any of the military dictators from the '76 coup.

No Pinochet sources? :confused:

That's absurd. Castro's killed far more people than Batista, and at least Batista confined his terror to Cuba. Moreover, Batista was forced to adopt authoritarian measures in response to terrorism, subversion, etc.
Yeah, right. I'm sure that all the peasants that were routinely rounded up by Batista's forces were all terrorists and subversive. I'm also sure they didn't have anything to subvert against, since Cuba was such a paradise under Batista. Poor Batista.

I doubt Castro has killed as many as Batista and his mobsters. Most of those that were killed under Castro were tried by the revolutionary tribunals first. Only those who were found guilty of abuses against the people were sentenced to death. Most were just thrown in prison, almost all of them deservedly so.

Batista was much worse than Castro. Not even those who oppose Castro would take Batista over him.

Lol, Castro, democratic? Read, for example, Against All Hope, Into the Lion's Den, etc.

if someoe isnt democratic does that make then evil?

Papa Doc! :D

Actually, he wouldn't be classified as "Latin" would he? eh.

Yeah, right. I'm sure that all the peasants that were routinely rounded up by Batista's forces were all terrorists and subversive. I'm also sure they didn't have anything to subvert against, since Cuba was such a paradise under Batista. Poor Batista.

I doubt Castro has killed as many as Batista and his mobsters. Most of those that were killed under Castro were tried by the revolutionary tribunals first. Only those who were found guilty of abuses against the people were sentenced to death. Most were just thrown in prison, almost all of them deservedly so.

Batista was much worse than Castro. Not even those who oppose Castro would take Batista over him.

A)I wasn't defending Batista
B)Source?
C)Cuba didn't even have a death penalty under Batista

A)I wasn't defending Batista
B)Source?
C)Cuba didn't even have a death penalty under Batista
a) Perhaps, but still saying that he was better than Castro is quite a statement.
b) Unfortunately most of my sources are in Spanish, but here is a good site, if a bit Fidel-leaning, that also cites many other sources: http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm
c) Death penalty was not necessary under Batista. You would just get killed or disappeared. There were very few laws under Batista and most of those useless.

a) Perhaps, but still saying that he was better than Castro is quite a statement.
b) Unfortunately most of my sources are in Spanish, but here is a good site, if a bit Fidel-leaning, that also cites many other sources: http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm
c) Death penalty was not necessary under Batista. You would just get killed or disappeared. There were very few laws under Batista and most of those useless.

b)Thanks :)

Also: Thanks for not flaming. :)

We must stop this thread trend now before every country/nation/region has a thread like this. Who the hell wants another "Ask a" type thread developing?

Castro, on the other hand, has helped scores of other bloody-handed dictators and Third World thugs come to power.

So, Castro gets my vote.

Like who, for instance? Most of the most brutal dictators in Latin America were backed by the U.S simply because they weren't communist. So who exactly did Castro back that slaughtered thousands of his own people??

Castro killed way more people than Pinochet.

Sources? Or is that just what you THINK having been brainwashed by the Miami contingent?

Castro has my vote, and it looks like a close race to Most Evil Latin American Dictator, who will win the title?! ;)

I don't get why so many of you are voting Castro. He may be a dictator, and yes that is a flawed system, but not immoral in itself (unless you reject consequentialist ethics for some crazy deontology, in which case I can't be bothered to argue with you.) Castro's problems were unfair treatment of subversives in the prison system, but the killings under his regime were almost entirely (as has been said) through public tribunals, hence he cannot be blamed. He may not be democratic, but his valiant struggles in the revolution cannot be seen as the act of a malign, selfish bastard.

My question is, who cares about most evil Latin Americans? We should all recognise the real enemy in the world: capitalism. 40000 people die per day from starvation while the USA can spend $400 000 000 000 per year on the military. This is the real public enemy no. 1.

Like who, for instance? Most of the most brutal dictators in Latin America were backed by the U.S simply because they weren't communist. So who exactly did Castro back that slaughtered thousands of his own people??

He helped many African dictators (in Angola, South Africa, etc.) come to power.

That's absurd. Castro's killed far more people than Batista, and at least Batista confined his terror to Cuba. Moreover, Batista was forced to adopt authoritarian measures in response to terrorism, subversion, etc.

So it's only justified to revert to force for non-communists? Fidel had the Bay of Pigs, and repeated assassination attempts to contend with as well, and despite his poor record regarding freedom of speech (jailed journalists), there are no records of state extra-judicial killings since immediately after the revolution.

Sources? Or is that just what you THINK having been brainwashed by the Miami contingent?

Pinochet: Around 3,000

Castro: 30,000-50,000

(And that's not including the people killed by terrorists in Africa who were aided by Cuban troops)

So it's only justified to revert to force for non-communists? Fidel had the Bay of Pigs, and repeated assassination attempts to contend with as well, and despite his poor record regarding freedom of speech (jailed journalists), there are no records of state extra-judicial killings since immediately after the revolution.

No, it's only okay to resort to force when the enemy is using force against you and you are left with no alternative.

Pinochet: Around 3,000

Castro: 30,000-50,000

(And that's not including the people killed by terrorists in Africa who were aided by Cuban troops)

First you say:

Pinochet? Whether he killed 3,000 people or not (I have yet to see a source)

because you want sources quoted, then you give numbers without quoting YOUR sources....30,000-50,000? Who is saying this?

Damn, no one voted for Elian Rios Montt? :eek: The SOB killed over 200,000 people!

First you say:



because you want sources quoted, then you give numbers without quoting YOUR sources....30,000-50,000? Who is saying this?

A)Thanks for not flaming.

B)In all honesty, I don't have a source with me that can list that death toll, but I do have sources which provide examples of the hell Cubans live through under Castro.

No, it's only okay to resort to force when the enemy is using force against you and you are left with no alternative.

So it's only justified to revert to force for non-communists? Fidel had the Bay of Pigs, and repeated assassination attempts to contend with as well, and despite his poor record regarding freedom of speech (jailed journalists), there are no records of state extra-judicial killings since immediately after the revolution.

The Bay of Pigs was launched from the U.S, and many of the assassination attempts I refer to were back by the U.S as well, through the Miami exiles. Yet Fidel did not resort to force in terms of slaughtering innocent people (even though you would have to say it would be justified, by your definition). Or does that justification only extend to people you support?

I'd vote Kennedy, Carter, or Reagan.
How come they weren't listed?

A)Thanks for not flaming.

B)In all honesty, I don't have a source with me that can list that death toll, but I do have sources which provide examples of the hell Cubans live through under Castro.

Emphasis on the LIVE through.

And please, please don't give numbers like that without proof. I'm sure I've talked with you about this before, but I'll reiterate that I don't necessarily supoprt Castro's dictatorship, but I do not think he deserves to be so villified. He is not a mass murderer (like Pinochet, various Guatemalan, Argentine, Uruguayan, and Paraguyan generals), or a thief (like Peru's Fugimori) or even a particular virulent communist. He IS a dictator, no doubt, but saying he has committed so many heinous crimes, without providing proof and sources, is just so much name calling. Unfortunately, many people simply choose to believe these things about him, without checking out the facts. I think this draws attention away from more heinous criminals (like Pinochet, who has lost his immunity to prosecution in Chile, gracias a Dios!).

I'd vote Kennedy, Carter, or Reagan.
How come they weren't listed?

Because they weren't Latin American dictators...

Damn, no one voted for Elian Rios Montt? :eek: The SOB killed over 200,000 people!
I was divided between him and Trujillo, but I think Trujillo was worse by a hair. By the way, if Rios Montt was so bad, surely this means that Reagan, his supporter, was even worse?

I mean, if Castro should be judged by the actions of some governments he contributed to put in power, then so should everyone else; and, let's see, who has supported the most brutal dictatorships in Latin America? Where was the School of the Americas located?

You also mentioned that violence is ok if the other side is using violence against you. Have you checked the situation in Angola and other southern African countries? Colonialism and opression are a form of violence too, you know.

I forgot the United Fruit Company.
I mean, they might be the best vote just because it's still around, is protected by the government of every country they are in, those governments were frequently established at least indirectly for their benefit, the company has more political power than any Western European/North American citizen (i.e. "Can't die," for starters), etc., etc.

Because they weren't Latin American dictators...

Define "Latin American Dictator."

Papa Doc! :D

Actually, he wouldn't be classified as "Latin" would he? eh.I classify him as Latin, that's why I vote other. The real question for me is Papa Doc eviler than Baby Doc? Sure Baby Doc wasn't arround for as long as his father, but man was he getting into some wierd stuff. His father actually managed not to be deposed, he was so bad the long suffering Hatians actually did depose him.

My question is, who cares about most evil Latin Americans? We should all recognise the real enemy in the world: capitalism. 40000 people die per day from starvation while the USA can spend $400 000 000 000 per year on the military. This is the real public enemy no. 1.

So? Are you suggesting that it is the Capitalist USA's obligation to bankrupt our economy to feed millions of starving people in Communist & Socialist shitholes?

Your atitude is really pathetic. The reason the USA can spend that much money on our military and still not be starving like N. Korea and other socialist shitholes is because we are Capitalist, and they are not.

Define "Latin American Dictator."

:) Latin American: being born in or naturalized to the geographic area known as "Latin America"

Dictator: un-elected head of state.

I forgot the United Fruit Company.
I mean, they might be the best vote just because it's still around, is protected by the government of every country they are in, those governments were frequently established at least indirectly for their benefit, the company has more political power than any Western European/North American citizen (i.e. "Can't die," for starters), etc., etc.

Just remember that every time you eat a Dole banana or pineapple, that you are supporting the United Fruite Company...'el pulpo'. Eat FAIR TRADE food!

Tough decision-- Pinochet. Cuba's people support Castro (Mostly cus all the dissidents are either dead or migrated, but still), so I picked the one who is the most corrupt, self-serving, and undemocratic. My real annoyance with Fidel is that he claims to be a communist, even though he is obviously just an anti-capitalist megalomaniac instead of a proper real communist.

So? Are you suggesting that it is the Capitalist USA's obligation to bankrupt our economy to feed millions of starving people in Communist & Socialist shitholes?

Your atitude is really pathetic. The reason the USA can spend that much money on our military and still not be starving like N. Korea and other socialist shitholes is because we are Capitalist, and they are not.

Funny, according the United Nations, these are the poorest countries on earth. I am fairly certain that each one of them is capitalist. So capitalism does not guarantee wealth.

1 Sierra Leone
2 Tanzania
3 Ethiopia
4 Somalia
5 Cambodia
5 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
7 Rwanda
8 Comoros
9 Burundi
10 Eritrea

I'm just really disturbed that Castro seems to be winning in terms of most evil dictator...what are you people using as criteria when dissapearances and murders aren't enough to sway you to vote for more heinous criminals?

Funny, according the United Nations, these are the poorest countries on earth. I am fairly certain that each one of them is capitalist. So capitalism does not guarantee wealth.

1 Sierra Leone
2 Tanzania
3 Ethiopia
4 Somalia
5 Cambodia
5 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
7 Rwanda
8 Comoros
9 Burundi
10 EritreaI'm not certain what you're using as a defintion of capitalist. Let's use a simple standard to distingush capitalist from non-capitalist, which countries have private land ownership. Of the 10 listed: Sierra Leone begining reforms to allow private land ownership, although one is not free to sell one's land, and this is a recent inovation where it was previously claimed by the government; Tanzania, no private land ownership allowed, some tenure rights allowed; Eithiopia, no private land ownership, land tenure granted to farmers according to thier need (and the availibity to the state); Somalia, land owned by the state, allocated according to a system of croneyism; Cambodia, begining to recognize private ownership of land, technically does recognize it but the reform is only 3 years old; Congo, split system, one where the government owns the land and grant rights to it according to need and one where the government officials own the land and grant the rights to it by whim - no private ownership; RWanda, land owned by the state and distributed by the state, this may have changed in the past few months but was valid as of March 1st (big reform of land laws was in the works; Comoros, I'll accept this as allowing private land ownership - there are a few odd ball rules regarding land ownership but nothing outrageous; Burundi, private ownership allowed but not supported by the government, in form capitalist in practice quitee different; Eritrea, all land owned by the state. Hmm, of the ten only 3 could be said to have a capitalist form of land ownership. How do you define a capitalist nation?

Pinochet makes Castro look like a creampuff. How brainwashed we are.

Far worse than Castro was Fulgencio Battista. He has many Republican voters in Miami longing for a chance to return and establish the good old days again: e.g., prositution, drug trade, and organized crime. All of which Castro has clamped down on tightly.

Other forgotten bums:

Perez Jimenez
Humberto Braco
Jorge Rafael Videla
Alfredo stroessner
Maximilian Hernandez Martinez
Anastazio Samoza, Sr. and Jr.
Roberto Suazo Cordova
Vinicio Cerezo
Alfredo Cristiani

What is a dictator: One who wil send another into war.

What is the warrior: One who will go into war.

Hmm, of the ten only 3 could be said to have a capitalist form of land ownership. How do you define a capitalist nation?

Nice try. Here is a definition of capitalism for you:

Main Entry: cap•i•tal•ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

You spoke ONLY of land ownership. Land ownership does not guarantee capitalism. Capitalism is the wider economic system, and there are many forms of blended capitalist economies. Let me give you another definition:

Main Entry: free market
Function: noun
: an economic market operating by free competition

Free competition means completely unfettered free competition, which NO nation on earth has. Capitalism, like all isms, are ideals, not realities. The countries I listed are indeed capitalist countries, though each one is a varying degree of capitalism...as the U.S and Canada also are. Canada incorporates more socialism into its economic planning than the U.S, but you do not say that WE are not capitalists.

Getting back to your original assertation, So? Are you suggesting that it is the Capitalist USA's obligation to bankrupt our economy to feed millions of starving people in Communist & Socialist shitholes?

Your atitude is really pathetic. The reason the USA can spend that much money on our military and still not be starving like N. Korea and other socialist shitholes is because we are Capitalist, and they are not.

You said that the reason the U.S is so rich is because you are capitalists. You are assuming that capitalism alone creates wealth, which is patently false. The U.S got where it was today because of protectionist policies that allowed your industry to flourish. Now you charge around the world encouraging everyone to do as you say and not as you do...open up to the free market, get rid of protectionism and thus shall ye reap the benefits. Again, false.


My question is, who cares about most evil Latin Americans? We should all recognise the real enemy in the world: capitalism. 40000 people die per day from starvation while the USA can spend $400 000 000 000 per year on the military. This is the real public enemy no. 1.

I don't agree with the above statement either. It isn't capitalism per se that is the problem. It is the governments that use the idea of capitalism as a carrot, while wielding the stick of international trade agreements which allow corporations to sue governments if they dare act in the best interests of their populace. It is the same kind of attitude the U.S took during the Cold War...Latin America was your back yard, and you weren't going to let any other world power (the Soviets) get in there and take the resources that belonged to YOU. Those resources don't and never will belong to you...nor will the resources of the rest of the world. That won't stop economic colonialism, however, just as it didn't stop Operation Condor...the plan that installed right wing dictatorships throughout the southern cone.

So keep your brand of capitalism. It benefits only those who are already wealthy.

*c-r-e-e-eeeeak*

*the crypt door opens*

* a strangled scream is heard*

Return of the Undead Threads.
Coming to a computer screen in front of you...

In Latin American Dictatorvision.

A)Thanks for not flaming.

B)In all honesty, I don't have a source with me that can list that death toll, but I do have sources which provide examples of the hell Cubans live through under Castro.

How about I give you a source to the contrary. Myself. Ever lived in Cuba? It isn't the hell-hole people make it out to be. A bit heavy on the beaurocracy maybe, but they're very cheerful.

Lol, Castro, democratic? Read, for example, Against All Hope, Into the Lion's Den, etc.

Yeh I know, American records in Latin America are so spotless right?

Lets not even go there.

Oh and the thread maker didn't even mention Somoza, what kind of American idiot is this indoctrinated clown?

Oh and the thread maker didn't even mention Somoza, what kind of American idiot is this indoctrinated clown?
It is a sad function of the education received by people in the West (and by that I do not solely point the finger at Americans, because I know plenty of Canadians who are just as uninformed) that we simply accept the opinions of a few, very vocal groups of people. The Miami Cubans are masters of political lobbying and of getting their cause public attention. Other groups are not nearly so hungry for publicity. My own husband's uncle was disappeared in 74, six months after the coup led by Pinochet. Hardly a North American had even heard of Pinochet until his was detained in London in an attempt to hold him accountable for his crimes. Most North Americans STILL could not list more than three or four Latin American dictators (outside of Castro, Pinochet and perhaps Manuel Noriega). Castro receives the attention he does not because of a record of unending atrocities, but because he is the leader of a militarily insignificant nation that nonetheless manages to be a constant thorn in the side of the U.S.

*c-r-e-e-eeeeak*

*the crypt door opens*

* a strangled scream is heard*

Return of the Undead Threads.
Coming to a computer screen in front of you...

In Latin American Dictatorvision.

Sorry...I was bored and happened to find this thread in my bookmarks:)

Pinochet.
Castro is actually a pretty decent leader.

This poll is pretty much trying to find which degree of black is blacker...all of them are disgusting representations of sicked human behavior. Yet, I prefer those idiots who kill for ridiculous ideologis to those creeps who kill to prevent the aforementioned from going into power...Pinochet was my choice.


Now, regarding Cuba, figuring out whether it´s a good place to live or not is basically a matter of logic:

If Cuba is a good place to live, its inhabitants will prefer living in it than outside it;
If Cuba is not a good place to live, its inhabitants will prefer living outside it than inside it.

Every week dozens try to escape the island. What can we conclude from that? That they are a bunch of traitors who want to undermine the perfect system that provides them unmatched welfare? I think not.


:headbang:

Now, regarding Cuba, figuring out whether it´s a good place to live or not is basically a matter of logic:

If Cuba is a good place to live, its inhabitants will prefer living in it than outside it;
If Cuba is not a good place to live, its inhabitants will prefer living outside it than inside it.

Every week dozens try to escape the island. What can we conclude from that? That they are a bunch of traitors who want to undermine the perfect system that provides them unmatched welfare? I think not.



These are rather simplistic criteria. Every day dozens of people leave countries all over the world. EVERY country, EVERY day has someone who wants to leave. The reasons for this are legion. Some seek economic betterment, hoping they will 'make it' somewhere else. Some move to be with family. Some flee repression. Some just hate who got elected as President:) You can not judge a country solely on those who leave it. Better, one should look at those who choose to stay. Why are they still there? Is it because they are afraid to leave? Or do they not have a good enough reason to leave?

People who leave Cuba often complain that they can never go back. Why is this? Will they face repression and torture? No, but what they WILL face is a community that rejects them, just as they rejected that community by leaving. Cuba is in a unique situation in that it has existed under embargo for more than 50 years now. That creates a certain amount of solidarity among a populace when they are made to feel under siege. It certainly can feel like a betrayal when others choose to leave, looking for a 'better life'. When that life fails to materialise, and they try to slink back, a certain amount of scorn is normal. They DO NOT, however, face execution, nor are they exiled.

It is a sad function of the education received by people in the West (and by that I do not solely point the finger at Americans, because I know plenty of Canadians who are just as uninformed) that we simply accept the opinions of a few, very vocal groups of people. The Miami Cubans are masters of political lobbying and of getting their cause public attention. Other groups are not nearly so hungry for publicity. My own husband's uncle was disappeared in 74, six months after the coup led by Pinochet. Hardly a North American had even heard of Pinochet until his was detained in London in an attempt to hold him accountable for his crimes. Most North Americans STILL could not list more than three or four Latin American dictators (outside of Castro, Pinochet and perhaps Manuel Noriega). Castro receives the attention he does not because of a record of unending atrocities, but because he is the leader of a militarily insignificant nation that nonetheless manages to be a constant thorn in the side of the U.S.

You put it better than I could of, and I agree, History in American classrooms, and most Western Classrooms is so selectively taught its ridiculous. I wonder if the World will ever exact a 'big' enough revenge on the US.

id have to say george bus... oh you said LATIN american heheh nm... :p