NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think and why? (Stay within a ten period time-frame for other dictators, please.)

Note: Saparmurat Niyazovm, NOT Separmurat Niyazovm.

I think we'd need a definition of dictator... but Kim Jong Il is pretty bad. Robert Mugabe and that guy in the Belarus (Lukashenko) aren't exactly angels, either...

I chose "Other" because they all suck.

I personally don't think Fidel's that bad at all, but he's on there anyway...

Göran Persson is as cruel as he is ruthless. His thirst for blood and power is truly horrible.

It depends on what kind of worse, worse as in really bad at it or worse as in really evil and cruel?


If it was worse as in really bad it, I would pick George Bush since he rarely makes any of his own decisions.

Göran Persson is as cruel as he is ruthless. His thirst for blood and power is truly horrible.

Oh dear, you actually tricked someone into getting Sweden's PM on a list over dictators. That's silly funny!

Evil. Like James Bond villian evil. ;)

Oh dear, you actually tricked someone into getting Sweden's PM on a list over dictators. That's silly funny!

LOL. I just took suggestions for the new list because I screwed up the first poll! I never looked up who he was!

Oh dear, you actually tricked someone into getting Sweden's PM on a list over dictators. That's silly funny!

And right now he's winning!

He did visit North Korea, though:
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/wikman_materials1.htm

And right now he's winning!

I guess that says a lot about the political knowledge on this board...

He did visit North Korea, though:
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/wikman_materials1.htm

That ruthless bastard!!!

What's the Swedish PM doing in North Korea with the North Korean military saluting him?:

http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/wikman_materials1_files/image004.jpg

What's the Swedish PM doing in North Korea with the North Korean military saluting him?

"Sweden is the only country that is represented in the DPRK. The UN have since 1995 launced five appeals about humanitary aid, that Sweden and the European Union have contributed to. UN organs and individual organisations from for example Sweden have therefore started to play a more active role in the country."

It was a diplomatic state visit while he was chairman of the EU's council of ministers (during Sweden's term at the presidency) meant to support talks between North and South Korea. Those pictures are funny out of context, though.

Kim Jong Il, without a doubt. His people starve and are forced to eat bamboo bark, except on his birthday when they get rice. He is pursuing nuclear weapons with the clear intent to hold the world hostage. If you look at the differances between North and South Korea it is just sickening.

Yeah, if you've seen that map that shows the the amount of visible light at night South Korea is lit up and North Korea is almost completely dark except for the capital Pyongyang or however it's spelled. Really sad for the North Koreans.

Vote for Göran Persson! ;)

Note: Nobody voted for Suddam yet. Why?

*sigh*
and you STILL leave Bush in there.
Seriously, its fairly obvious that he ISNT a dictator, because he is going to be out of office permenantly in a short time. He doesnt get his way with everything, another 'obvious' I would think, and he doesnt have random people executed for little/no reason.
If your going to include Bush in the poll, why dont you put in Putin and Blair? How 'bout Chirac? Oh, oh, I know! Put Bob, lord of Apartment 2 in! That bastard plays loud music all the time!
Whats really bad about it is that I dont even LIVE in an apartment.

I can't vote for Saddam Hussain because he's not dictatoring.

I can't vote for George Bush because he was elected fairly, and America still has free speech, and all that stuff...

I can't vote for Myrth--- although he has the coolest name, I have no idea who he is.

So, I have to vote for Kim Jung Il, who only cares about himself and his communist government's hold on power, and will do absolute anything to hold it--- including blowing up Japan, China, and California.

Note: Nobody voted for Suddam yet. Why?

Nobody has voted for Sadam because in all likeliness he won't be dictating any time soon. :)

*sigh*
If your going to include Bush in the poll, why dont you put in Putin and Blair?
Actually, Putin would be a decent addition. He's screwing up his own country more and more every month. "Patriot Act"? Screw that. In Russia, they don't even have full freedom of the press any more.

*sigh*
and you STILL leave Bush in there.
Seriously, its fairly obvious that he ISNT a dictator, because he is going to be out of office permenantly in a short time. He doesnt get his way with everything, another 'obvious' I would think, and he doesnt have random people executed for little/no reason.
If your going to include Bush in the poll, why dont you put in Putin and Blair? How 'bout Chirac? Oh, oh, I know! Put Bob, lord of Apartment 2 in! That bastard plays loud music all the time!
Whats really bad about it is that I dont even LIVE in an apartment.

Your blasting a Republican for putting Bush on the list to see how many Europeans vote for him? Come on! And if you actually thought about your question, you should of realized the answer: I used 10 out of 10 choices. Couldn't fit Chirac or Blair on there as much as I wanted!

Actually, Putin would be a decent addition. He's screwing up his own country more and more every month. "Patriot Act"? Screw that. In Russia, they don't even have full freedom of the press any more.

Yea, but there's no more room. ;) (If you want to vote for him, vote for "Other")

Read a rare inside account from a S. Korean journalist who was allowed to visit family in Pyongyang...awful, absolutely awful. She described the capitol as grim and grey, with the only bits of color red banners hanging from every light pole and power line, with the character for "We are happy" on them...

I voted for Mugabe anyway. It's the difference between a tale of abuse and a tragedy. A tale of abuse only becomes gripping when there is a conflict, or chance for reversal, Nowhere near that in N Korea, where Ill Jong has shown that one CAN, indeed, completely and totally pwn a nation.

A tragedy has emotional weight from the moment the wrong course or action is taken, and the tragic path ordained. And Mugabe's country HAD something, an economy, some wealth, infrastructure, investments...now gone...

Guess "Which is the saddest story?" is not a very good criteria for "worst dictator", is it?

Read a rare inside account from a S. Korean journalist who was allowed to visit family in Pyongyang...awful, absolutely awful. She described the capitol as grim and grey, with the only bits of color red banners hanging from every light pole and power line, with the character for "We are happy" on them...

I voted for Mugabe anyway. It's the difference between a tale of abuse and a tragedy. A tale of abuse only becomes gripping when there is a conflict, or chance for reversal, Nowhere near that in N Korea, where Ill Jong has shown that one CAN, indeed, completely and totally pwn a nation.

A tragedy has emotional weight from the moment the wrong course or action is taken, and the tragic path ordained. And Mugabe's country HAD something, an economy, some wealth, infrastructure, investments...now gone...

Guess "Which is the saddest story?" is not a very good criteria for "worst dictator", is it?

Evil Dictators tend to punish and hope their people live in poverty. Keep that in mind.

heres (http://www.lindqvist.com/kitSiPub/bilder/20030505005055.jpg) Göran Persson for ya

Your blasting a Republican for putting Bush on the list to see how many Europeans vote for him? Come on! And if you actually thought about your question, you should of realized the answer: I used 10 out of 10 choices. Couldn't fit Chirac or Blair on there as much as I wanted!
Because it throws off your poll quite alot.
As I said in the last topic, lots of people see 'Bush' and click on that, without so much as looking at the other options. Or were you just making a topic to satisfy your own sick desire to see the NS nutters who think that Bush is worse than Saddam vote?

Because it throws off your poll quite alot.
As I said in the last topic, lots of people see 'Bush' and click on that, without so much as looking at the other options. Or were you just making a topic to satisfy your own sick desire to see the NS nutters who think that Bush is worse than Saddam vote?

I put Bush on the bottom of the list for a reason...

Who's the leader of Uzbekhistan? I hear he's a terror... torturing people for intelligence to give to America. Boiling people to death, throwing them onto beds made of razor blades and so on...

And why aren't the Chinese state capitalists on the list?

Evil Dictators tend to punish and hope their people live in poverty. Keep that in mind.

Oh, Kim Il be bad, yo. A couple years ago, when faced with food shortages (again), he had 'scientists' announce that pine needles were nutritious, and had restorative powers.

You can dictate that it be said, you cannot dictate that it be so.

Another criteria might be "How bad off will the people be after he's gone?"

N Korea just MAY have mechanisms in place to perpetuate the totalitarianism, with some absolute ruler-Kim's 2nd cousin, or a golden statue embued with Kim's posthumous 'spirit', in either case to be trotted out for affirmation by the guys who run the army and security forces.

How bad off will Zimbabwe be when Mugabe dies? Bad. I'm guessing war, pestilence, famine and death bad, and since it's Africa, I'd probably have to give long odds to get any bets against.

Dunno which is worse-perpetual gray domination or violent conflict with a CHANCE of change?

Göran Persson, are you kidding me?
How can you put him on the same list as the rest of those scum bags?

Göran Persson, are you kidding me?
How can you put him on the same list as the rest of those scum bags?

Look above.

LOL. I just took suggestions for the new list because I screwed up the first poll! I never looked up who he was!

To me, it was a toss up between Mugabe and Kim. I ended up voting Kim in the end, but what Mugabe has done to his own country makes me ill as well.

Evilest? Hmm. Kim isn't really evil, I'm just not sure he's entirely sane and at best his values are skewed, but not evil. Sure there is (again) starvation and deprivation in North Korea, but Kim doesn't seem to believe that his people should be starving or deprived. Kim seems to consider the alternatives to be worse for his people than the situation, but he doesn't seem to think it is right, and he actually seems to be thinking in terms of the needs of the people. A Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Hitler would be thinking it would be the right thing to do to starve people or kill them or work them to death, now that's evil.

Of the list I have to go with Mugumbe, but it is hard to be sure how much of his evil is the result of personal choice and how much is the "ride the tiger" phenomena he seems to be stuck with.

Currently, dictatorship is not working at all. But i believe that if the world were ruled by 1 NON-RELIGIOUS leader, then all problems with war would end. Since the world answered to only 1 person, they could not justify a war with itself. Crime would be less, due to the iron fist rule. There would be no poverty because all the money would be shared equally over the whole world.

Even though we veiw dictatorship as a bad thing, i think it would solve all the worlds problems (eg. George W Bush, no offence, but u spend way too much time on holidays).

And thats my 2 cents on dictatorship.

Tony Blair

Everybody on the list and more except Castro, and Myrth, who is a moderator I believe, and not a dictator of a RL nation.

The leader of Uzbekistan is Islam Karimov, crushing all opposition by claiming he is battling Islamic extremists. He enjoys seeing political opponents boiled in hot water or acid, whatever takes his fancy at the time.

Backed by America both militarily and financially, Mr Karimov rules with brutality and shows the hypocritical and horrific nature of successive US Administration's foreign policy. He is Saddam Hussein of 20 years ago, history repeating.

There is another leader, I think of Turkmenistan. He has had statues built of himself and palaces while oppressing opposition. (sound familiar?) He demands to be called 'Leader of all Turkmens' and a few years ago made a new law that bread can no longer be called bread, but is to be renamed after his deceased mother, so you have to say "I would like a loaf/slice of -insert his mother's name- please" when asking for bread. To say 'bread' is seen as an affront to his parentage and is liable to see you suffer a most unpleasant death.

Well, aside from Göran Persson who is of course terrorising millions of helpless people by torture every second, I would say that Alexander Lukasjenko (President of White Russia) is the worst dictator (and prob the last remaining if you discount the way that Putin is taking Russia) in Europe.

I am sure there are worse further away though.

I do like it that Myrth's coming third. No-one said the dictator had to be the leader of a country!

Göran Persson? George W. Bush? Whoever voted for them deserves a smack on the head. At least those guys don't ban freedom of speech, democracy, starve their people and shut them in concentation camps.

Bush does to have the audacity to be dictator. But I would carefully watch the Rumsfeld-Cheney Monster, as it may suddenly fuse and begin to grow into a Mecha-Rumsfeld-Cheney. Then only a precise hit on the surface vent could cause a chain reaction to kill it. The vent is ray-shielded so we'll have to use proton torpedoes.

Myrth, I tell you - MYRTH!

Bush does to have the audacity to be dictator. But I would carefully watch the Rumsfeld-Cheney Monster, as it may suddenly fuse and begin to grow into a Mecha-Rumsfeld-Cheney. Then only a precise hit on the surface vent could cause a chain reaction to kill it. The vent is ray-shielded so we'll have to use proton torpedoes.
All wings report in!
Red 2....7....5.... standing by
Lock S-foils in attack positions!

Currently, dictatorship is not working at all. But i believe that if the world were ruled by 1 NON-RELIGIOUS leader, then all problems with war would end. Since the world answered to only 1 person, they could not justify a war with itself. Crime would be less, due to the iron fist rule. There would be no poverty because all the money would be shared equally over the whole world.

Even though we veiw dictatorship as a bad thing, i think it would solve all the worlds problems (eg. George W Bush, no offence, but u spend way too much time on holidays).

And thats my 2 cents on dictatorship.

Well, of course the state of a dictatorship depends on the dictator. There are maybe a few hundred out of the 6.45 billion humans who could dictate the world to the best of everyone, and not get corrupted by their power.

To this date, I would say Castro is the most successful dictator. The worst, Kim Jong Il. The worst national leader, regardless of ideology, George W. Bush.

george bush isn't a dictator.

Who do you think and why? (Stay within a ten period time-frame for other dictators, please.)

out of those leaders i'm in support of all of them. they aren't bad dictators unless they fail to control the population. i'd have to say kim was one of the best ones on that list. they revolutionized north korea pretty much! probably bush, he's a horrible leader, he nearly lets anyone do whatever they want nomatter how damaging to society!

It's a tough choice between Kim and Mugabe...

Göran Persson? George W. Bush? Whoever voted for them deserves a smack on the head. At least those guys don't ban freedom of speech, democracy, starve their people and shut them in concentation camps.
And yet George Bush is in second place, only four votes behind Kim Jong Il.

To this date, I would say Castro is the most successful dictator.
If you mean "secreting away 500 million of the 'people's' money while the people are forced to eat onion skin soup to survive" when you say "successful"... then yeah... I guess he's a successful dictator.

Kim Jong Il - the guy is a creepy looking alien.

If you mean "secreting away 500 million of the 'people's' money while the people are forced to eat onion skin soup to survive" when you say "successful"... then yeah... I guess he's a successful dictator.

"Most successful" doesn't necessarily mean successful, but the closest one to it. There are many things wrong in Cuba, but also many things right.

And some reasons to that Cuba isn't doing as good as it could, are the restrictions imposed by the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._embargo_against_Cuba

If you mean "secreting away 500 million of the 'people's' money while the people are forced to eat onion skin soup to survive" when you say "successful"... then yeah... I guess he's a successful dictator.
I personaly think that Castro is my 'favorite' dictator, since he doesnt really qualify as 'evil'. People in Cuba dont get executed for saying, "Maybe, y'know, Communism isnt so great...", or for standing in the wrong spot.
I think its just possible that Castro actually did have good intentions at some point, but things sort of fell apart when the Soviets backed out after the Missile Crisis.

22 people think that George Bush is a dictator, and that he's worse than Kim Jong Il. You know, it's a pretty depressing thought that there are 22 people in the whole world who are this stupid, but if we assume that NS is a very vaguely stratified sample of the world's population (it probably isn't, but oh well), then there are plenty more retards out there who would agree with the 22 people.

Seriously, why is it cool to say that George Bush is worse than Kim Jong Il? Can any one of the 22 people who chose George Bush post a rough comparison of the political track record of the two leaders and explain to me by what phantasmal logical journey Bush is either of the following: A dictator, or worse than Kim Jong Il?

I would actually really appreciate an explanation by one of those 22 people, because if George Bush is worse than Kim Jong Il, I must have missed some terrible crime against humanity he's commited which outweighs Kim's various atrocities. Please enlighten me.

I personaly think that Castro is my 'favorite' dictator, since he doesnt really qualify as 'evil'. People in Cuba dont get executed for saying, "Maybe, y'know, Communism isnt so great...", or for standing in the wrong spot.

Castro routinely jails and executes dissenters actually.

And yet George Bush is in second place, only four votes behind Kim Jong Il.

That is because a large percentage of NS posters are basically brainwashed morons with no clue of reality or history. Many are 12 year old wanna be rebels who barely understand any concept beyond "America is teh sucXors"(I am too old to get the lingo right).

the rest are euros on the dole(or the endless free education equivelent of the dole) with too much time on their hands.

and a few, very few, are responsible hard working productive people who might have differing opinions on a variety of topics.

Productive people with jobs work. The layabouts with too much time hang around and post and whine about companies that are exploitive because they wont hire layabouts.

Separmurat Niyazov

That should be Saparmurat. And you'd better change it, or you'll be thrown in prison... ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

That is because a large percentage of NS posters are basically brainwashed morons with no clue of reality or history. Many are 12 year old wanna be rebels who barely understand any concept beyond "America is teh sucXors"(I am too old to get the lingo right).

the rest are euros on the dole(or the endless free education equivelent of the dole) with too much time on their hands.

and a few, very few, are responsible hard working productive people who might have differing opinions on a variety of topics.

Productive people with jobs work. The layabouts with too much time hang around and post and whine about companies that are exploitive because they wont hire layabouts.Many American NSers are uneducated and not very smart. In that case, though, why did they all vote for Bush? Answer: because they are uneducated and not very smart. Please don't indirectly flame anyone.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

(no, I'm not a dictator! I'm a benevolent ruler! YES I AM! KILL THEM!)

Whenit comes to causing vast numbers of deaths without concience I'd say the pope (last or this - whatever).
By stopping condom use in Africa millions are dying of AIDS and all for dogma.
It's no different to a bullet in the head.

the rest are euros on the dole(or the endless free education equivelent of the dole) with too much time on their hands.

and a few, very few, are responsible hard working productive people who might have differing opinions on a variety of topics.

Productive people with jobs work. The layabouts with too much time hang around and post and whine about companies that are exploitive because they wont hire layabouts.
What has any of this got to do with voting Bush as a dictator?

Niyazov is definately the looniest.

That being said, I voted for Myrth. All Hail Myrth!

That should be Saparmurat. And you'd better change it, or you'll be thrown in prison... ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Ja wolt!

Niyazov is definately the looniest.

That being said, I voted for Myrth. All Hail Myrth!(to Myrth) Wow, and so far no-one's noticed that I actually appointed you to the position of High Dictator of the Earth. Or have they?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Whenit comes to causing vast numbers of deaths without concience I'd say the pope (last or this - whatever).
By stopping condom use in Africa millions are dying of AIDS and all for dogma.
It's no different to a bullet in the head.

But Benedict XVI just took office!

Ja wolt!Well, don't you see? I'm Saparmurat Niyazov! ALL HAIL ME!

*a friend says, "I thought you were Kim Jong-il."
I answer, "No, that was yesterday." :D*

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

But Benedict VI just took office!Benedict XVI.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Can any one of the 22 people who chose George Bush post a rough comparison of the political track record of the two leaders and explain to me by what phantasmal logical journey Bush is either of the following: A dictator, or worse than Kim Jong Il?


Sorry to bump up old threads, but I really would like someone to explain this to me. Surely one of the 27 people who voted Bush is reading this post and will explain by what process they arrived at a conclusion. Please tell me.

One day doesn't count as old. ;)

The following people voted for George W. Bush:
Bloodthirsty squirrels, Bramia, Chellis, CrossFire Land, Diamond Realms, Godnose, Gooooold, Great Pirate Nations, Hirvia, Iustinia, Johnnycashland, Kerlapa, Mythotic Kelkia, New Dobbs Town, Nova Castlemilk, Pullenstein, Pyro Kittens, Rudabaga, Sovietius, Tenarius, The Viking Wenches, Thuusland, Tograna, Vaitupu, Vas Pokhoronim, WadeGabriel, [NS]New Watenho

The following people voted for George W. Bush:
Bloodthirsty squirrels, Bramia, Chellis, CrossFire Land, Diamond Realms, Godnose, Gooooold, Great Pirate Nations, Hirvia, Iustinia, Johnnycashland, Kerlapa, Mythotic Kelkia, New Dobbs Town, Nova Castlemilk, Pullenstein, Pyro Kittens, Rudabaga, Sovietius, Tenarius, The Viking Wenches, Thuusland, Tograna, Vaitupu, Vas Pokhoronim, WadeGabriel, [NS]New Watenho

Well then, I demand an explanation from one of these people.

Sorry to bump up old threads, but I really would like someone to explain this to me. Surely one of the 27 people who voted Bush is reading this post and will explain by what process they arrived at a conclusion. Please tell me.

Well, if you look at it on a global scale and check the dammage being done at the moment, Bush does qualify with two wars and preparing a third.
As for dictator, ok, this time maybe he really was democratically elected, but to be honest his actions in office show an eerie similarity to Hitler's actions in his first years as German leader...

Why did I expect to find George Bush on the list? Why don't you put every leader on the list. He was voted into office. If he decides to stay beyond what the constitution allows, he would be a dictator. But a few infractions of liberty do not classify him as a dictator. Anyways FDR did the same thing. People in power hate the constitution because it limits thier power.

Kim, for starving his people for power and isolation. I seen a documentory by a Chinese group that showed people in the country subsisting on rice and clay. Hell, satellite show it all, it is light in the south and dark in the north.

There is another leader, I think of Turkmenistan. He has had statues built of himself and palaces while oppressing opposition. (sound familiar?) He demands to be called 'Leader of all Turkmens' and a few years ago made a new law that bread can no longer be called bread, but is to be renamed after his deceased mother, so you have to say "I would like a loaf/slice of -insert his mother's name- please" when asking for bread. To say 'bread' is seen as an affront to his parentage and is liable to see you suffer a most unpleasant death.

that sounds like the most evil dictator(though dictators tend to be good), he seems not even to care about the people in the country. and naming bread after his mother? he's really selfish, and most probably insane. i would hate to live in that country. why isn't there a country that's been able to impose communism and fascism without having opposition. must be all those greedy capitalists who refuse to allow the government to run their stuff cause they just want money. :mad: :headbang:

The following people voted for Göran Persson . I demand an explanation from them:

Dutchlande, Gartref, Ohwowabox, Red East, Rubber Piggy

So many too choose I don't know which one is worse, but Magaube and Il Jong come pretty high up.

Any leader who has a large picture of himself in most major cities is a dictator. Also, people must parade around with his big picture.

Well, if you look at it on a global scale and check the dammage being done at the moment, Bush does qualify with two wars and preparing a third.
As for dictator, ok, this time maybe he really was democratically elected, but to be honest his actions in office show an eerie similarity to Hitler's actions in his first years as German leader...

Explain the parts in bold.

Explain the parts in bold.

First : http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040921-023519-2683r.htm


Second : http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/a/as_unit6/gleich.htm

And third : Try to be a bit more polite when asking for information.

there are now 32 tards that voted for Bush.

Well, if you look at it on a global scale and check the dammage being done at the moment, Bush does qualify with two wars and preparing a third.
As for dictator, ok, this time maybe he really was democratically elected, but to be honest his actions in office show an eerie similarity to Hitler's actions in his first years as German leader...

Ok, so we've established that he's not a dictator by any stretch of the imagination, excluding him from the list. However, even if we just take it to mean "worst leader", how do Bush's actions possibly make him a more terrible man than Kim Jong Il?

Ok, so we've established that he's not a dictator by any stretch of the imagination, excluding him from the list. However, even if we just take it to mean "worst leader", how do Bush's actions possibly make him a more terrible man than Kim Jong Il?

Way more influence, way more weapons of mass destruction, way bigger country and way bigger army.

Kim Jong Il may have nuclear weapons, but I doubt they are nearly as sophisticated as those at the disposal of the US, North Korea is not a large country, it doesn't have many resources and it may have an overproportionately large army, but it still is no rival for the US.

You can take that as a compliment if you feel like it...

What I'm trying to say : To me as an European, Budh is the bigger threat to world peace. Biggest, actually.

I see there are at least 32 ignorant souls on this thread. Those are the ones that ranked GWB as a terrible dictator. Too bad government education has failed you.

I see there are at least 32 ignorant souls on this thread. Those are the ones that ranked GWB as a terrible dictator. Too bad government education has failed you.

Ignorance is bliss... :rolleyes:

You can take that as a compliment if you feel like it...


I'm English and live in the United Kingdom.

Back on track though, who cares whose army is bigger? Bush doesn't slay his politcal opposition or outlaw private media.

I'm English and live in the United Kingdom.

Back on track though, who cares whose army is bigger? Bush doesn't slay his politcal opposition or outlaw private media.

Speaking about outlawing private media, Silvio Berlusconi is missing from the poll...

What I'm trying to say : To me as an European, Budh is the bigger threat to world peace. Biggest, actually.


Ok-you have done a poor job even trying to prove this statement.

Start a 'threat to world peace" thread and try this out there.

This one is more about the modern world's worst dictator.

Well then, I demand an explanation from one of these people.

Well, it was a mistake. I just think he's the worst leader overall. ;)

To this date, I would say Castro is the most successful dictator. The worst, Kim Jong Il. The worst national leader, regardless of ideology, George W. Bush.

Ok-you have done a poor job even trying to prove this statement.

Start a 'threat to world peace" thread and try this out there.

This one is more about the modern world's worst dictator.

Did you actually read this?

http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/a/as_unit6/gleich.htm

I agree that he is not a fully qualified dictator yet, but he is one in training...

Where is Ayatollah Khameini of Iran? He'd get my vote; his country has far more potential than any of the others listed, and is certainly the one most likely to result in violence after the end of dictatorship (66% of the population is below 21 and there is no freedom of speech). Otherwise, it's Jong-Il all the way.

Did you actually read this?

http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/a/as_unit6/gleich.htm

I agree that he is not a fully qualified dictator yet, but he is one in training...
I guess that since I'm a product of a government school, myself, I'm going to need the dots connected. The only similarity I see is the election by a slim margin. Pray tell, what makes the other cases valid?

Why did I expect to find George Bush on the list? Why don't you put every leader on the list.
Why do you not read the thread before posting? I already answered this at least once (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8879891&postcount=23). There is only ten available slots. I put Bush in there because at moment, Europeans and liberal Americans like to call him "dictator". The other world leaders arn't as common, and I couldn't fit them in anyway: I used all ten slots.

there are now 32 tards that voted for Bush.37.


But that's irrelevant. Bush is a dictator trying to disguise his suppression of civil rights and political freedoms. According to many articles I've seen, Bush has been giving funds to churches (New York Times), attempting to make abortions more difficult (BBC), and accepting bribes in the form of campaign money (online article somewhere - do a search for it). And haven't you ever heard of the Patriot Act?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Didn't read all of the posts, so sorry if I'm repeating someone:

George W. Bush iis the worst dictator. He may have been elected fairly (let's not start that election rigging theory up again) yet he has all the characteristics of a dictator:
1. He invades other countries to impose his beliefs (i.e democracy).
2. He practises doublethink* (Nuclear weapons are desired by terrorist nations. Lets build some more nukes).
3. U.S civil liberties are decreasing (people are being arrested for protest marches against him).
4. He forgets his own ideas to suit himself (see point 1, then look at point 3. Democracy is more than voting for a leader. It's about freedom of speech. It's about censorship and the lack of it. Voting is merely the tip of the iceberg)

*Doublethink: Having 2 conflicting ideas, and accepting them both to be true. 1984 - George Orwell

At least he isn't Pat Robertson!

Speaking about outlawing private media, Silvio Berlusconi is missing from the poll...
A hell yeah to that. :) George W Bush is on there, and i thought the people on here had sense ;)

eh.. Do you guys even know anything about Kim Jung Il? I mean other than the fact that Bush wants to invade North Korea just because they are exercising their soverign right to own nukes. I doubt very much he has had people tortured unlike certain other world leaders.

I doubt very much he has had people tortured unlike certain other world leaders.

Riiiiiiiiight....... You really doubt he has tortured? What other world leaders do you think have?

I doubt very much he has had people tortured unlike certain other world leaders.

Kim doesn't need to have just certain people tortured. He tortures his entire country.

Come ON people. You disgust me- you're discrediting millions of in the poorer parts of the world, putting their suffering on the back burner and ignoring it, just because you feel like ranting about Bush. Maybe you don't like Bush. I don't like him at all. Maybe you hate him with a passion. But he is NOT the world's worst dictator. He does not torture and kill his own people by the thousands, does not use an iron fist to oppress his people. Before you start spouting your ignorance, take an actual look at the third world, countries like North Korea (2 million dead from famine alone in the last decade), Zimbabwe (Whose economy is shrinking at 3% a year), or Iraq (where Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds to death), and then tell me with a straight face that Bush has topped these atocities.
Even if every story you ever heard about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were true, it would not even BEGIN to compare to the stories behind other dictators. Not even begin.
Think, and look at the actual story behind some of these countries, before you voice your opinion.

Who the hell is the third guy on the list? :confused:

Who the hell is the third guy on the list? :confused:

Dunno. I've heard he's from Sweden. But I'm not sure.

Khomeini isn't on the list because he is dead. All of the others (to the best of my knowledge) are still living. Castro is an odd case though, this is his third cloned body that they have stuck his brain into. So technically his body died, but he didn't go brain dead and they put him another body. I hear he has hundreds of them.

If Khomeini went on, then the Shah has to go as well. He was far worse. Plus, American media plays up on Iran's evilness, because we are still sore about the whole Embassy thing. But the Iranian people were pretty pissed off about us training Savak and giving aid to the Shah to keep him in power, so it is pretty much even.

And an odd thing (odder than Castro III): Iranians don't hate Americans, they just hate the American government and it's hypocracy. Current Uzbek situation a case in point (i.e. we preach equality and civil rights, yet we support people who abuse both. You would think after supporting bad people and having thier populations rise up against them TIME after TIME we would get the hint, but hey). Going to Iran as an American is really neat, people are great to you and really go out of thier way to be nice. It's like being a minor celebrity. I can't wait to go back!

I think we'd need a definition of dictator... but Kim Jong Il is pretty bad. Robert Mugabe and that guy in the Belarus (Lukashenko) aren't exactly angels, either...

well dictator or not belarus is the only former ussr republick to exced the standard of living the ussr had in 1989..

So look how good ppl he control have it, and look how fucked the rest are ;)

Kim doesn't need to have just certain people tortured. He tortures his entire country.

Well i guess they would be better of under us rule, look at iraq before and after :confused:

Actually, the most recent public opinion polls in Iraq show that by far the majority of Iraqis report that they consider themselves better off now than they were before the war (>65%). Also, 90% report that they are "Optimistic about the future of their country".
Source: The Economist (A well-reputed British newsmagazine, for those of you who don't know).

Actually, the most recent public opinion polls in Iraq show that by far the majority of Iraqis report that they consider themselves better off now than they were before the war (>65%). Also, 90% report that they are "Optimistic about the future of their country".
Source: The Economist (A well-reputed British newsmagazine, for those of you who don't know).
You are cluttering the discussion with facts. Shame on you. You really should be quoting Newsweek. I think they are running the real dirt about the reconstruction in Iraq. Something about Bibles in Flushing?

Didn't read all of the posts, so sorry if I'm repeating someone:

George W. Bush iis the worst dictator. He may have been elected fairly (let's not start that election rigging theory up again) yet he has all the characteristics of a dictator:
1. He invades other countries to impose his beliefs (i.e democracy).

Not a characteristic limited to dictators.

2. He practises doublethink* (Nuclear weapons are desired by terrorist nations. Lets build some more nukes).

This double standard is not limited to George W. Bush or the United States, and has existed in some form at least as long as there's been a Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thanks for the completely gratuitous Orwell reference, though.

3. U.S civil liberties are decreasing (people are being arrested for protest marches against him).

Democracies all over the world have varying levels of civil liberties. That civil liberties in the U.S. have experienced a decline is hardly proof of dictatorship. There are still many democracies in which people are less free than they are here.

Also, I am very doubtful that anyone has been arrested for participating in protest marches. They may very well have been arrested for actual criminal offenses related to the protest marches (of which they may or may not be guilty) but it's disingenuous to suggest that protesting itself has become a crime in America.

4. He forgets his own ideas to suit himself (see point 1, then look at point 3. Democracy is more than voting for a leader. It's about freedom of speech. It's about censorship and the lack of it. Voting is merely the tip of the iceberg)

Again, some dictatorships have historically allowed a certain amount of free speech and a free press. There are also democracies that place restrictions on these freedoms, and the U.S. is just one of them. Other examples include Canada with its hate speech laws and Germany with its ban on Nazi symbols. I'm also having trouble understanding why "forget[ting] his own ideas to suit himself" is a basic characteristic of a dictator.

First : http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040921-023519-2683r.htm

You said preparing a third war. If the fight against the insurgency in Iraq can properly be termed a separate war from the invasion of Iraq proper (and I don't believe it can), he's not preparing it, he's already in it.

Second : http://www.kdhs.org.uk/history/v2/a/as_unit6/gleich.htm

Noticeably absent from this source are any comparisons whatsoever to Bush's presidency. Do you want me to figure it out myself? Because I'll I've come up with off the top of my head are the following:

1) Both Bush and Hitler were elected.
2) Both Bush and Hitler were in charge of a country during a war.

And third : Try to be a bit more polite when asking for information.

I'm sorry you misunderstood. I wasn't asking you for information. I was asking you to back up your claims, something you should have done when you made them. And as far as politeness is concerned, I fail to see how my previous post could be considered impolite.

Is the left trying not to get into power? Really Bush is Hitler because he was elected at a time of war. Oh no! I want to be the first one to laugh when he declares himself emperor. I'll be the first to skull fuck him.

...Because I'll I've come up with off the top of my head are the following:

1) Both Bush and Hitler were elected.
2) Both Bush and Hitler were in charge of a country during a war.


3)They were both drug addicts with abnormally tiny reproductive organs.

I must be the worst dictator in moder history because I can't get anyone to do anything. That sucks!

Khomeini isn't on the list because he is dead. All of the others (to the best of my knowledge) are still living. Castro is an odd case though, this is his third cloned body that they have stuck his brain into. So technically his body died, but he didn't go brain dead and they put him another body. I hear he has hundreds of them.

If Khomeini went on, then the Shah has to go as well. He was far worse. Plus, American media plays up on Iran's evilness, because we are still sore about the whole Embassy thing. But the Iranian people were pretty pissed off about us training Savak and giving aid to the Shah to keep him in power, so it is pretty much even.

And an odd thing (odder than Castro III): Iranians don't hate Americans, they just hate the American government and it's hypocracy. Current Uzbek situation a case in point (i.e. we preach equality and civil rights, yet we support people who abuse both. You would think after supporting bad people and having thier populations rise up against them TIME after TIME we would get the hint, but hey). Going to Iran as an American is really neat, people are great to you and really go out of thier way to be nice. It's like being a minor celebrity. I can't wait to go back!

It's a common misconception, but Khameini, the current theocrat, is the son of Khomeini, the old theocrat from the '70s. They sound so alike it's ridiculous. Anyway, I suppose Jong-Il is a better choice anyway...he could be more brutal, but he couldn't be any more ineffectual.

Hey, you need to include Jean Chretien in your poll, Mr. Sponsorship himself

Well i guess they would be better of under us rule, look at iraq before and after :confused:

They would be better off under US rule. The United States would probably legalize at the very least a few basics (the right to an independant media, the right not to be slaughtered if you're the political opposition) which North Koreans currently lack.

I wouldn't call Persson a dictator but I voted for him anyway 'cause he's a swede.

If Khomeini went on, then the Shah has to go as well. He was far worse. Plus, American media plays up on Iran's evilness, because we are still sore about the whole Embassy thing. But the Iranian people were pretty pissed off about us training Savak and giving aid to the Shah to keep him in power, so it is pretty much even.

And an odd thing (odder than Castro III): Iranians don't hate Americans, they just hate the American government and it's hypocracy. Current Uzbek situation a case in point (i.e. we preach equality and civil rights, yet we support people who abuse both. You would think after supporting bad people and having thier populations rise up against them TIME after TIME we would get the hint, but hey). Going to Iran as an American is really neat, people are great to you and really go out of thier way to be nice. It's like being a minor celebrity. I can't wait to go back!

Excuse me, how was the Shah worse than Khomeini? If you are Iranian, maybe one like myself who was born overseas, then I don't think you can understand how great the Shah was for Iran. He modernized the nation, before the Shah we had nothing, Reza Shah did some things, but his son did far more. Iran would still be a highly underdeveloped nation today if the Shah hadn't modernized the nation. How is a man who gave people the right to live freely as long as they didn't oppose him politically better than a government which restricts personal freedoms too. According to records provided by the Shah, defending himself in his autobiography, The Shah's Story, between 1968-1978 SAVAK arrested a bit over 3,000 people, most of whom were religious extremists or members of Tudeh. I really don't see what's wrong with governments even if you are not given political freedom as long as personal freedom still exists. I mean, if he's doing everything good, why oppose him just because you can't say no even though you don't want to? Religious extremists and Tudeh were a real threat to the Iranian state and wanted to destroy the Shah's hard work. Sometimes, to defend this work in a nation still not ready for democracy (which only works, albeit poorly in first world nations) authoritarian measures must be used so the ruler can put the nation on that path.

Edit: I'm not worried too much about the people as the government, my family fled back in '78 because they were strong supporters of the Shah and saw the nation was falling apart. I'm sort of worried about danger to me of Mullahs running the government, not the people.

Bush is not a dictator, and therefor your entire poll becomes void

Myrth.

I mean, seriously, the guy thinks that since he's a mod on a forum, he can boss everyone around. And on the forums, he does. And he's down-right eviiiiillll....

Those other guys just starve people, kill people, etc.

No, I am not Persian. I did happen to grow up with many of them. Iranians too, and I as I got older, I spent quite a bit of time talking to their parents as well. Of course, thier experiences are in no way mine, but perhaps i can relay some of it to you.
Some of the kids think like you, that the Shah did wonderful things and never did wrong. The parents see the problems with both, but were far more put off by the Shah and Savak. Let me share from Geraldine Brooks and Nine Parts of Desire "Marziyeh Dabbagh, one of four women elected to Iran's first postrevolutionary Parliament, is typical of politicians likely to succeed in the Iranian system. With a hunched asymmetry caused by severe beatings, she looks much older than her fifty-three years. Her wrists bear a bracelet of scars from cigarrette burns, inflicted in the jails of the shah's secret police. Before the revolution Marziyeh used her father's book business as a front for arms smuggling and bomb making. When the police tracked her down and tried to torture information from her, they forced electrodes into her vagine, causing an infection so severe, she says, that 'the Savak chief wouldn't come into my cell for the smell.' In a final effort to extract a confession, the police tortured her twelve-year-old daughter. But even that failed. 'When I heard my daughter screaming,' she said, 'I recited the Koran.'"
So, you can easily make a case that because she was smuggling arms and making bombs, the police could torture her. But to torture her daughter in order to extract a confession?
My friend Shiva told me that her mother was raped by a half dozen Savak while they forced her father, brother and husband to watch, because they had been tipped to them being against the Shah.
My friend Arash has a story of his mother being beaten by Savak. But more noticably, the man's ring fingers are missing, from both hands.
Has Khomeini done bad things too? Well most certainly. But the people never got to the point of tossing him or his government. Having visited there, I do not feel that they will, because they don't want to. It is not that bad there, not as bad as our media tells us it is.
Plus, there is far more democracy in Iran now than there ever was under the Shah. But, perhaps like you said, the people were not ready for it under him. But instead of letting them choose that, he chose it for them.