NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the most evil dictator currently in power?

Vote now and decide.

Who is the most evil dictator currently in power?

Vote now and decide.

I'll vote for Kim Jong Il. Simply because he is entirely willing to starve his own people to the brink of death(And make them love him for it!) just to maintain a military equilibrium with South Korea that frankly, doesn't need to be maintained anymore.

I'll vote for Kim Jong Il.
Seconded.

*chants* Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll!!!

Robert Mugabe. Isn't fit to be classed as human. His treatment of his country's poorest and most vulnerable is despicable. He's completely crippled Zimbabwe and doesn't care how many homes, businesses and crops he has to destroy to eliminate all opposition. It is left to the Church to speak out. The whole situation is totally appalling. It should end now but the world is too indifferent.

*chants* Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll...Poll!!!

Look above you. ^

I guess the pope won't be a poll option?

/I kid, I kid. Partially.

I'm having a hard time choosing between Kim and al-Bashir.

Khadafy. Quiet lately but not forgotten. After that, Kim Jong Il.

Khadafy. Quiet lately but not forgotten. After that, Kim Jong Il.

Oops, forgot about him. I'll agree he's bad, but he's a saint compared to Kim.

I don't think Jintao is really a dictator. I would have to go with Kimmy and then Mugabe.

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.

I'd say Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. Hes willing to starve his own people and kills caucasians (not to mention native Zimbabweans).

Only Sudan has an organized policy of raping the women and killing the men of a certain region of their country, and ,to my knowledge, only Sudan still has slaves, so I vote for Bashir.

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.

I sincerely hope you're joking. Does Bush commit genocide against his people (al-Bashir), control every aspect of his peoples' lives (everyone on the list), starve his people while enriching himself (pretty much everyone on the list), etc.?

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.

12th post. Just about on average.

I'd say Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. Hes willing to starve his own people and kills caucasians (not to mention native Zimbabweans).

Yeah, how dare he kill white people!

Blair. He drinks blood. I've seen him.

Only Sudan has an organized policy of raping the women and killing the men of a certain region of their country, and ,to my knowledge, only Sudan still has slaves, so I vote for Bashir.

Mauritania still has slavery, too.

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.
As much as I hate the man myself, I am forced to admit that upon processing these words I rolled my eyes with such intensity that the optic nerves severed, causing my eyes to pop out and roll around on the floor. If I owned
a dog I'd be rather upset right now.

But anyway, say what you will about Bush, but he simply doesnt wield enough power to be labelled as a dictator. I'd imagine he'd even have a hard time getting his party behind him anymore, with approval ratings being where they are.

Yeah, how dare he kill white people!

Killing anyone is wrong, regardless of color. If Mugabe killed only black people or only white people, he'd be just as evil. Killing is wrong no matter what (unless you're killing, say, Hitler or a child molester).

Mauritania still has slavery, too.
How the hell does that practice continue into the 21st century? We need to bomb some modernity into them.

As much as I hate the man myself, I am forced to admit that upon processing these words I rolled my eyes with such intensity that the optic nerves severed, causing my eyes to pop out and roll around on the floor. If I owned
a dog I'd be rather upset right now.

But anyway, say what you will about Bush, but he simply doesnt wield enough power to be labelled as a dictator. I'd imagine he'd even have a hard time getting his party behind him anymore, with approval ratings being where they are.

Exactly.

God. Do I have to pick between Mugabe and Bashir?

Kim Jong Il is more crazy than evil.

How the hell does that practice continue into the 21st century? We need to bomb some modernity into them.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/mauritania.htm

Mugabe:mad:

God. Do I have to pick between Mugabe and Bashir?

Kim Jong Il is more crazy than evil.

Bashir's killed many times more people than Mugabe, although they're both evil incarnate.

Kim is 100% evil and 100% crazy.

Me.

Killing anyone is wrong, regardless of color.

Gee, you don't say.

Me.

You know, my first response to this thread was going to be Czardas, but I thought better of it.

King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,

There is a reason why there are no Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia

Personally I do NOT bleieve in the concept of 'evil'.

I would have rephased the question like who is the most oppurtunitic of homocidal dictator.

Anyways, Mugabe is shit, no debate there, but he is not as bad as others on that list, say the leader of Sudan.

Sudan is the dictatorship that probably kills the most on that list, Mugabe is mor one of those dictators who rigs elections and plunders government finances to his many offshore bank accounts, bad, but at least he is not on some genocidal frenzy, unlike Omar is in Sudan.

As for Slavery in Mauritania, up until August 2005, that nation was ruled by a pro-US/Israeli dictator, who despite his slavery and abuse of human rights, suffered no real pressure from the international community due to the fact he was ony of two Arab leaders to officially reconise Isreal and supported the US led 'war on terrorism'.

However, this August he was deposed in a coup and the new military regime has promised elections in 2007 as part of a restoration towards democracy.

If the new authorities are true to their word, no need to bomb or do anything to them.

However Im voting other, as I would like to see the bastard Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan on this list.

Remeber his mini genocide of May this year???

Personally I do NOT bleieve in the concept of 'evil'.

I would have rephased the question like who is the most opportunistic or homicidal dictator.


Seconded, with the typos fixed.


However Im voting other, as I would like to see the bastard Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan on this list.


Ah, but until recently he was a good friend of the US, remember? And one simply does not include friends of the US in polls like this. :p

For those of you tempted to say Bush: Gain a sense of perspective. I thoroughly despise the man, I think he's one of the worse things to have happened to his country in a long time, but there's far worse than him out there. You only undermine your own point by denying it.

Gee, you don't say.

Please, don't post in my threads anymore. Good day.

Ah, but until recently he was a good friend of the US, remember? And one simply does not include friends of the US in polls like this. :p

Damn, I knew I was forgetting someone (on second thought, Turkmenistan's dictator should have been included, too).

Please, don't post in my threads anymore. Good day.

I decline to honour that request. Thread ownership does not exist in General.

I sincerely hope you're joking. Does Bush commit genocide against his people (al-Bashir), control every aspect of his peoples' lives (everyone on the list), starve his people while enriching himself (pretty much everyone on the list), etc.?

Yeah, yeah, Bush isn't a REAL dictator. He was elected. Not protecting his own people (New Orleans), stealing from the poor (No child left behind...) and giving to the rich (corporate tax breaks), occupying countries, and going off on illegal wars... he's not a dictator, because he had democratic backing. He's just a monster.

Yeah, yeah, Bush isn't a REAL dictator. He was elected. Not protecting his own people (New Orleans), stealing from the poor (No child left behind...) and giving to the rich (corporate tax breaks), occupying countries, and going off on illegal wars... he's not a dictator, because he had democratic backing. He's just a monster.

Mugabe steals from the poor and gives to the rich. He went off on an illegal war (he got his country entangled in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, merely so he could plunder its resources). He blatantly rigs elections, beats, kills, and harasses opposition opponents, lives like a sultan while his people starve, and flagrantly violates virtually every concept of human rights imaginable.

I chose Mugabe because he's not well known.

Yeah, yeah, Bush isn't a REAL dictator. He was elected. Not protecting his own people (New Orleans), stealing from the poor (No child left behind...) and giving to the rich (corporate tax breaks), occupying countries, and going off on illegal wars... he's not a dictator, because he had democratic backing. He's just a monster.

Honestly, comparing Bush to any of the other leaders in the poll is just...well, stupid.

Oh yes!

How can we forget that guy in Turkmenistan.

However he is NOT a big killer like Islam Karmiov across the border in Uzbeksitan.

If anything, I find the Turkmenistani guy a comical joke.

He made a national holiday for melons, as he himself likes growing them.

He also has a very unhealthy fixation with his mother, he has named months of the year with her name and her statues are as numerous as his ones are.

Sounds a bit 'incestous' to me.

He would have been a great case to study if Sigmund Frued were still around today.

Mugabe steals from the poor and gives to the rich. He went off on an illegal war (he got his country entangled in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, merely so he could plunder its resources). He blatantly rigs elections, beats, kills, and harasses opposition opponents, lives like a sultan while his people starve, and flagrantly violates virtually every concept of human rights imaginable.

So... Bush isn't a monster because Mugabe is?
I'm not saying those guys aren't evil.
I'm saying Bush is. That's all. You can throw all kinds of examples of horrible attrocities those others committed, but that doesn't mean Bush hasn't done horrible things. It just means he's in bad company.

So... Bush isn't a monster because Mugabe is?
I'm not saying those guys aren't evil.
I'm saying Bush is. That's all. You can throw all kinds of examples of horrible attrocities those others committed, but that doesn't mean Bush hasn't done horrible things. It just means he's in bad company.

Bush is evil, but he's an angel compared to the dudes on my list.

Hoever he is NOT a big killer like Islam Karmiov across the border in Uzbeksitan.

Agreed. The fucker boils people alive. You don't get much more evil than that. Alas, I unfortunately forgot both him and Turkmenistan's president when I made the poll, for which I must do this: :headbang:.

Why is Musharraf not on the list?

He is a dictator and he is evil.

His list of achievements are no less impressive than the other luminaries in the poll..gilgit shia massacres, kargil war, continued aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir and Afghanistan, suppression of Baloch nationalistic movements, continued Punjabi/mohajir chauvinism and denial of water to Sindh province, continued militarisation..recently signed a billion dollar deal with sweden for aircraft while simultaneously asking the world for more aid for earthquake victimes.

For goodness sake, he said women in his country get raped in order to get canadian visas and become millionaires..:mad:

Why is Musharraf not on the list?

He is a dictator and he is evil.

His list of achievements are no less impressive than the other luminaries in the poll..gilgit shia massacres, kargil war, continued aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir and Afghanistan, suppression of Baloch nationalistic movements, continued Punjabi/mohajir chauvinism and denial of water to Sindh province, continued militarisation..recently signed a billion dollar deal with sweden for aircraft while simultaneously asking the world for more aid for earthquake victimes.

For goodness sake, he said women in his country get raped in order to get canadian visas and become millionaires..:mad:

I've never heard of Musharraf.

Who is the most evil dictator currently in power?

Vote now and decide.


George W. Bush hands down!

Honestly, comparing Bush to any of the other leaders in the poll is just...well, stupid.


No it's the truth! George W. Bush is worse than all the rest put together. That's my opinion and I stand by it.

General Prevez Musharraf is the military President of Pakistan.

Took power in a military coup in October 1999, had a 'referendum' in 2002 to give his rule and dictatorship power until 2007, and surprise surprise, he won with a 80% majority or so.

General Prevez Musharraf is the military President of Pakistan.

Took power in a military coup in October 1999, had a 'referendum' in 2002 to give his rule and dictatorship power until 2007, and surprise surprise, he won with a 80% majority or so.

Sounds like an asshole, but he probably pales in comparison to al-Bashir, Kim, Mugabe, et. al.

Why is Musharraf not on the list?

He is a dictator and he is evil.

His list of achievements are no less impressive than the other luminaries in the poll..gilgit shia massacres, kargil war, continued aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir and Afghanistan, suppression of Baloch nationalistic movements, continued Punjabi/mohajir chauvinism and denial of water to Sindh province, continued militarisation..recently signed a billion dollar deal with sweden for aircraft while simultaneously asking the world for more aid for earthquake victimes.

For goodness sake, he said women in his country get raped in order to get canadian visas and become millionaires..:mad:
Maybe because Musharraf is one of Bush's pet dictators.

General Prevez Musharraf is the military President of Pakistan.

Took power in a military coup in October 1999, had a 'referendum' in 2002 to give his rule and dictatorship power until 2007, and surprise surprise, he won with a 80% majority or so.

Not to mention, he stands in power mainly because of the support of US of A. Beeing the loyal puppet of it.

Maybe because Musharraf is one of Bush's pet dictators.

As I said, the reason he wasn't on the poll is because I genuinely had no idea who he was.

Took power in a military coup in October 1999, had a 'referendum' in 2002 to give his rule and dictatorship power until 2007, and surprise surprise, he won with a 80% majority or so.

96%.

The funny thing is that in certain constituencies he got more than 100% votes. Musharraf is no less evil than the other worthies in the list.

But he is projected as some sort of "changed man" who is "with us" because the American policy is currently in keeping him in power.

As I said, the reason he wasn't on the poll is because I genuinely had no idea who he was.
Sorry. I didn't see that post until after I responded. Do you want me to delete it?

Sorry. I didn't see that post until after I responded. Do you want me to delete it?

No, it's okay. No harm done.

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.

i voted other due to there being no bush.

Damn, I knew I was forgetting someone (on second thought, Turkmenistan's dictator should have been included, too).

Niyazov. You could try Mbasogo, too.


i voted other due to there being no bush

Oh, for goodness' sake, knock it off! Bush is despicable, not to mention a disaster in every possible way, but those on that list (with the exception of Castro) are far worse. This is just making you look ignorant and out of touch with reality.

I don't know who to choose.

To those who want Bush added, remember:
Bush is not a dictator. He doesn't hold absolute power.
Bush isn't evil. Sure, New Orleans was a disaster. How could it not? CONGRESS approved Bush's budget plans. Plus, the "damaged" parts of the levies that "needed" repairs suffered the least damage. Most of the town was dangerously below sea level. Not a good thing when you live that close to a huge body of water. Most New Orleans citizens were poor and many refused to leave. It was Bush who ordered the mandatory evacuation. Not the mayor. Not the governor. Big, evil Bush, under the guidense of Satan and Hitler, ordered people to get the hell out of the disaster zone while the good mayor and governor had to be told to get their people out of the way of the hurricane.
Bush invaded nations. So what? I'm sure you would rather get shot and die on the spot than be tortured to death by a paranoid dictator. Then again, maybe having your toungue cut out and your privates electrocuted must sound fun to you. Face it. Sadaam needed to go. He was the one thing keeping Iraq stable and he wanted it that way. If he had a heart attack and died, Iraq would be alot worse than it is now. Sure, there was the whole "wmd" thing, but many of the clames against him was that he "tried" to get yellow cakes, not that he succeeded. Plus, when you violate treaties, you're just asking for it. Afghanistan was obvious. They attack US. US bombs them. Anyone saying that we shouldn't have gone there oviously is either stupid or hasn't heard of that special day in 2001 when the US dicided that someone hated Americans.
Yeah, Bush gave the rich money. They helped him get into office. It's called "you scratch my back and I scratch yours". How many of you never rewarded anyone?

That's why Bush is not on the list.

Niyazov. You could try Mbasogo, too.

Equatorial Guinea, right?

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Poll option #10

Oh, for goodness' sake, knock it off! Bush is despicable, not to mention a disaster in every possible way, but those on that list (with the exception of Castro) are far worse. This is just making you look ignorant and out of touch with reality.

the likely fact is that if bush has not killed more people than all of the rest of them combined the numbers are very close.

bush isn't just worse than all of the people on that list. he's a LOT worse than all of the people on that list.

Only Sudan has an organized policy of raping the women and killing the men of a certain region of their country, and ,to my knowledge, only Sudan still has slaves, so I vote for Bashir.

Millions 'Live in Modern Slavery' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4534393.stm) - intriguing figures.

Yeah, how dare he kill white people!

Ignorant.

Mugabe has murdered, and tortured far more blacks than whites, even when he was nothing more than a communist terrorist in the bush.

http://africancrisis.org/photos8.asp

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=MUGRAMP

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=ZC

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=HB

Look at the piccies (Be warned, they are greusome)

Turkmen-Bashi.

No wait. I forgot. He isn't evil, he's FLIPPIN MENTAL!

Go to the Turkmenistan website (http://www.turkmen-bashi,com). This guy has a HUGE ego.

This guy needs a visit from the Men in White (coats).

Let's not forget the military junta in Myanmar.

Oh, and regarding slavery, I have an answer:

Kill the slaveowners. Kill them ALL. Exterminate them from the face of the earth. Shoot them, stab them, hang them, decapitate them, run them through with chainsaws, beat them to death with crowbars, dunk them in acid, set them on fire. I don't care, just kill them.

Oh, and throw their corpses in the sea. And divide their money among their former slaves.

the likely fact is that if bush has not killed more people than all of the rest of them combined the numbers are very close.

bush isn't just worse than all of the people on that list. he's a LOT worse than all of the people on that list.

Wow...just...wow...

Let's not forget the military junta in Myanmar.

True, but a junta is more than one person.

Ignorant.

Mugabe has murdered, and tortured far more blacks than whites, even when he was nothing more than a communist terrorist in the bush.

http://africancrisis.org/photos8.asp

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=MUGRAMP

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=ZC

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=HB

Look at the piccies (Be warned, they are greusome)

I saw those pics. Nasty stuff.

How the hell does that practice continue into the 21st century? We need to bomb some modernity into them.

Congratulations. You've just made my signature.

Ignorant.

Mugabe has murdered, and tortured far more blacks than whites, even when he was nothing more than a communist terrorist in the bush.

http://africancrisis.org/photos8.asp

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=MUGRAMP

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=ZC

http://africancrisis.org/Photo.asp?Subject=HB

Look at the piccies (Be warned, they are greusome)

I believe Fass's comment was meant more to mock the casual way the previous poster mentioned black deaths but emphasized the white deaths.

But anyway, say what you will about Bush, but he simply doesnt wield enough power to be labelled as a dictator. I'd imagine he'd even have a hard time getting his party behind him anymore, with approval ratings being where they are.

I agree, but I think the same goes with Hu Jintao. I don't think Bush should be up on the list, but I seriously think he should be included if Jintao is.

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.
Only 12 posts until Bush is mentioned? It's a miracle!
I hate Kimmie the most.

I deny the objective existance of evil.

George bush. Dispicable person. im ashamed of america :( but realistically mugabe. is an ARGHHH!!! :sniper: killitkillitkillit.

Ps. Kim jung il is DEAD. (silly poll pershon) he is simply been crowned the life-president. so he isnt REALLY in power and as such cannot be a current dictator rendering people who voted for him obsolete voters ;)

I sincerely hope you're joking. Does Bush commit genocide against his people (al-Bashir), control every aspect of his peoples' lives (everyone on the list), starve his people while enriching himself (pretty much everyone on the list), etc.?

Bush is just a boob, not a dick-tater! (a Bushism, heh) :rolleyes:

Other: every individual human being on the face of the planet.

Ps. Kim jung il is DEAD. (silly poll pershon) he is simply been crowned the life-president. so he isnt REALLY in power and as such cannot be a current dictator rendering people who voted for him obsolete voters ;)

I think you mean Kim Il-sung.

they are both dead. check it out.

Kim Il-Sung had a university named after him.

Quite ironic.

they are both dead. check it out.

No, Kim Jong-Il is quite alive.

I went with "King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (Saudi Arabia) " mostly because it takes a special kind of evil to go under the radar as long as The House of Saud has managed and still have a "good" relationship with the west despite their totally cruel and inhuman ways they deal with their population. The lack of freedoms and or rights, especially for women. They should be added to countries that support terrorism, in fact 16 of the 19 dudes who did 9/11 were Saudi's, yet they get a free pass. We all know that the others are bad people, it's the ones you call friend that I think you need to watch out for. It's all about oil I guess.

I believe Fass's comment was meant more to mock the casual way the previous poster mentioned black deaths but emphasized the white deaths.

Thank you for giving me renewed hope in literacy.

I went with "King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud (Saudi Arabia) " mostly because it takes a special kind of evil to go under the radar as long as The House of Saud has managed and still have a "good" relationship with the west despite their totally cruel and inhuman ways they deal with their population. The lack of freedoms and or rights, especially for women. They should be added to countries that support terrorism, in fact 16 of the 19 dudes who did 9/11 were Saudi's, yet they get a free pass. We all know that the others are bad people, it's the ones you call friend that I think you need to watch out for. It's all about oil I guess.

Agreed. Few countries on Earth are more totalitarian than Saudi Arabia.

Where's Bush? I wanted Bush on that list.
Without him, I put Kim Jong Il on my ballot.

Bush was elected, and he can't even get his own first-choice supreme court nominee confirmed. Plus, whether he likes it or not, he'll be out of office come January 20, 2009.

That, to me, just doesn't fit the description of dictator. And no, I don't like him and didn't vote for him. But a dictator he is not.

I decline to honour that request. Thread ownership does not exist in General.

I could always report you to the mods for trolling. It seems like every time you post in a thread, you have nothing relevant to say. It seems like virtually all you do on NS is try to piss people off.

they are both dead. check it out.

Unless he's died in the last hour or so, Kim Jong-Il, last I heard, is still very much alive.

Unless he's died in the last hour or so, Kim Jong-Il, last I heard, is still very much alive.

Unless he's undead... ;)

I could always report you to the mods for trolling. It seems like every time you post in a thread, you have nothing relevant to say. It seems like virtually all you do on NS is try to piss people off.

Go ahead. You'll find out yourself that mods don't take kindly to these sorts of mod action threats, and I do not bow down to threats, ever.

I'm surprised al-Bashir has so few votes. :confused:

Kim Jong-Il is completely mad.
His father Kim Il-Sung is dead and still eternal president...:rolleyes:
When he died, statues cried, rivers went dry, etc.
Mad...

Wow...just...wow...

do you not realize that bush has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in absolue cold blood? lots of asshole leaders kill hundreds or even thousands of people. how many have (over the last fifty years) killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people? how many people did milosevic kill? how many did even saddam kill?

justify it or negate it anyway you want. the numbers stand.

do you not realize that bush has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in absolue cold blood? lots of asshole leaders kill hundreds or even thousands of people. how many have (over the last fifty years) killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent people? how many people did milosevic kill? how many did even saddam kill?

justify it or negate it anyway you want. the numbers stand.

:rolleyes: This is the kind of blind hatred for Bush/the U.S. that I have come to expect from this forum.

The numbers stand? I can't wait to hear this one... where do you get hundreds of thousands killed from?

Bush was elected, and he can't even get his own first-choice supreme court nominee confirmed. Plus, whether he likes it or not, he'll be out of office come January 20, 2009.

That, to me, just doesn't fit the description of dictator. And no, I don't like him and didn't vote for him. But a dictator he is not.

that's a semantic point in my view. whether bush is a technically a dictator in the political sense of the word or not, he's still a murderous lunatic bent on world domination who has no interest in the general well-being of his own people.

so, if you wish to determine a dictator by how he got into power, then bush is arguably not a dictator [one may claim he was put into power by the courts].....but then neither was hitler. i think it better to determine who is a dictator and who is not based on whether they actually act like a dictator or not, ie. the whole world domination/social ambivalence thing. under this criteria, bush is certainly a dictator.

of course i recognize that the man george w. bush is simply a titular head. when i say "bush is a dictator" what i really mean is "the bush administration has acted mostly as though it was running a dictatorship, overtly and unjustifiably acting hostilely towards other nations and shwing little to no interest in the general well-being of it's own (non-uber-wealthy) people.".

so, if you wish to determine a dictator by how he got into power, then bush is arguably not a dictator (one may claim he was put into power by the courts)...

Um...you're an entire election too late for that comment.

Are you sure you aren't a Swilatia puppet?

:rolleyes: This is the kind of blind hatred for Bush/the U.S. that I have come to expect from this forum.

The numbers stand? I can't wait to hear this one... where do you get hundreds of thousands killed from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

that's just iraq.

Um...you're an entire election too late for that comment.

Are you sure you aren't a Swilatia puppet?

i suppose the hundreds of voting irregularities during the last election don't count....

i can't claim factually that bush rigged his "re-election". however, i can tell you that there is certainly a substantial pile of evidence that points in that direction. if i was the democrats, i'd be asking for international observers next time around....and some way to get a paper trail worked into those electronic voting booths.

~snip~


1. The Post. Yeah, that's a reliable source. They would print an article if it said Bush ate dead aborted black babies for breakfast.

2. The article's estimates are based on door-to door survey of 988 IRAQI households. Please tell me I don't have to explain what that means.

3. In the very article, Marc Galasco (senior analyst for Human Rights Watch, a human rights organization) says "These numbers seem to be inflated."....and "I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach."

Try again, buddy.

Kim Jong Il isnt evil.
That list dosent have the Uzbek guy mind you he a'int evil.
Heren Crark should be up there.

1. The Post. Yeah, that's a reliable source. They would print an article if it said Bush ate dead aborted black babies for breakfast.


hrmmn. last time i checked, the washington post was a fairly reputable source. i'm not quite sure what reason you may have for saying otherwise.


2. The article's estimates are based on door-to door survey of 988 IRAQI households. Please tell me I don't have to explain what that means.


you certainly don't. i'm a math student.

seeming as the us military does not "do body counts", there is no official way to figure out how many people have been killed. there is not even an official estimate; they really do not care, not even remotely. in these unfortunate circumstances, taking a small sample size and extrapolating it is a perfectly reasonable way to statistically infer how many people have been killed. you may want to note that they actually did not include areas with abnormally high casualties like fallujah because they knew it would skew the results improperly.

i haven't actually seen the statistical tests that they used, and i can certainly recommend caution as some statistical tests may certainly intentionally skew the results, but i do not see a motive for doing this. if the researchers intended to do this properly, they would have used the proper procedures.

under this assumption, the method is perfectly sound.


3. In the very article, Marc Galasco (senior analyst for Human Rights Watch, a human rights organization) says "These numbers seem to be inflated."....and "I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach."


"The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine."

do you want to know the major discrepency? human rights watch has only attempted to document the number of casualties due to the ground war and has more or less ignored the aerial bombardments, which has a much higher death rate. The Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, on the other hand, has taken into account deaths due both due to the army and the air force.

that's why they disagree.

attempts to actually count the number of deaths (which is a futile task) put the death toll around 30, 000....this only tells me that for every documented death, two go undocumented.

You forgot to mention bush. Ok so he is not a compleat dictator but his ten thousand times eviler then these people and as close to being one as posible in the us

Piekrom']You forgot to mention bush. Ok so he is not a compleat dictator but his ten thousand times eviler then these people and as close to being one as posible in the us
I was so waiting for this.

Robert Mugabe. Isn't fit to be classed as human. His treatment of his country's poorest and most vulnerable is despicable. He's completely crippled Zimbabwe and doesn't care how many homes, businesses and crops he has to destroy to eliminate all opposition. It is left to the Church to speak out. The whole situation is totally appalling. It should end now but the world is too indifferent.
Cry me a fucking river. When black workers are being fead to lions in South Africa, I fail to feel sorry for white farmers who loose land they stole from and murdered the inhabitants of.

Cry me a fucking river. When black workers are being fead to lions in South Africa, I fail to feel sorry for white farmers who loose land they stole from and murdered the inhabitants of.
Are you claiming a Worker is equal to a Farmer?

go ahead and disagree with me and i will us my stubborn democratic views to keep me going without thought of anything else. technically we as in the us have caused many of these nations to not have any food or anything simply because we did not like their government being towards communism or what ever else we were fighting when we sealed them off then they got crazy trying to release their nation from us sanctions and other stuff.

Cry me a fucking river. When black workers are being fead to lions in South Africa, I fail to feel sorry for white farmers who loose land they stole from and murdered the inhabitants of.


Yar!

http://s47.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1I0TEY0SCLX8L1WYJMO05J86IO

Saddam also murdered HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. Given the time he was in office, I would put the Saddam death toll at around 500,000.

Mao probably killed millions. Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il killed many. The Khmer Rouge... I don't want to go there. It was like they were attempting to exterminate their own country.

*squints* I don't see George Bush among the options. :D

*squints* I don't see George Bush among the options. :D
I really love this sentiment

It makes me laugh, even though it should make me cry

Even more, it makes me glad he was elected (yes! elected! XD)

I really love this sentiment

It makes me laugh, even though it should make me cry

Oh, sorry for using humor in relation to politics. How foolish of me to think that mocking a politician in a humorous way would ever be considered an acceptable practice. :rolleyes:

Oh, sorry for using humor in relation to politics. How foolish of me to think that mocking a politician in a humorous way would ever be considered an acceptable practice. :rolleyes:
humorous?

sorry

more like dull, predictable, and completely innapropriate given the subject of the thread :P

Oh, sorry for using humor in relation to politics. How foolish of me to think that mocking a politician in a humorous way would ever be considered an acceptable practice. :rolleyes:

It's not that. I personally, don't like Bush and didn't vote for him. However, there are just way too many people on this forum who are SERIOUS when they claim Bush is worse than Hitler or whomever. Read back through the thread.

*squints* I don't see George Bush among the options. :Dpoll option #10

I wouldn't classify any of them as evil. Ruthless, idiotic, greedy, etc all fit, but evil? Not with intent. Even to the extent of say saddam, I would say greedy(the sick pleasures he got out of what he did).

But then again, I am very against the concept of good and evil, so...

I said mugabe, anyways. Kim Il-jong may be crazy, but he knows how to play the international community like a finely stringed banjo.

Cry me a fucking river. When black workers are being fead to lions in South Africa, I fail to feel sorry for white farmers who loose land they stole from and murdered the inhabitants of.

More than half of the white-owned land was bought- yes, bought- with government approval, after Mugabe came to power.

Blah, I voted for Jong-Il simply because he's nuts.

I recently found out. My estimate of Saddam's death toll was wrong. The actual number is 2,000,000. TWO MILLION PEOPLE.

Go (quietly into the unmarked vehicle) Bashir!

It's not that. I personally, don't like Bush and didn't vote for him. However, there are just way too many people on this forum who are SERIOUS when they claim Bush is worse than Hitler or whomever. Read back through the thread.

Agreed, it's quite sickinging to realize how mindlessly they are devoted to hating Bush as to put him on the same list as Mugabe and Kim.

I voted for Kim btw, the crazy bastard could definitly use a cure for his insanity: two taps to the chest, one to the head if you know what I mean

Omar al-Bashir (Sudan)

Darfur. Enough said.

Well, not quite. Amazing that the US attacks Hussein over his human rights violations 18 years after they occurred, yet does nothing against a guy carrying out an active campaign of genocide. Or will we invade Sudan in 18 years, too?

It's gotta be Kim Jong-Il.

Didn't vote in the poll because I don't know enough about most of the people there (never even heard of most of them), but based on what I do know: Kim

I don't think some of these people are dictators. Mugabe, for example, does not control the courts in Zimbabwe, and so isn't really a dictator. Similarly Hu Jintao doesn't have full control of China, a lot of it is distributed to lower officials.

But yeah, Kim Jong Il would appear to be the worst. Many more people have died under is regime than any of the others. It seems he has very little interest in the well being of any of his citizens.

Khadafy. Quiet lately but not forgotten. After that, Kim Jong Il.

nahh... he's alright these days, given up his biological weapons programme and hosting all sorts of peace summits etc... at least he's making an effort! There are far worse dictators