This is a list of the most evil currently reigning dictators in the world. It is amazing that these people continue to rule while we busy ourselves fighting in places that are ruled by far less dangerous men.
1. Kim Jong Il, North Korea (in power since 1994)
The amount of debate over the recent nuclear weapons development in North Korea has managed to deflect people from the fact that Kim’s government represses its people more completely than any other living dictator. North Korea has, for the last 31 years, been at the bottom of the Freedom House ranking for political rights and civil liberties. It is also ranks last in the Reporters without Borders ranking of press freedom. The US committee for Human Rights estimates that there are approximately 150,000 Koreans performing forced labour in prison camps for political dissenters and their families.
Contrary to popular belief, Kim Jong Il is actually a very clever and efficient manipulator of his people. He is also the author of the books On the Art of the Cinema, and On the Art of Opera.
2. Than Shwe, Burma (in power since 1992)
General Than Shwe has survived a power struggle to emerge as the sole leader of Burma’s military dictatorship. Because of his hard-line views, he has taken an already bad human rights situation to an even worse level. Burma has more child soldiers than any country in the world and the Burmese regime continues to kidnap citizens to force them to serve as porters for the military in conflicts against non-Burmese ethnic groups.
In 1990 the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi won 80% of the vote in an open election. The military cancelled the results. Suu Kyi has spent most of the years since then under house arrest. On May 31, 2003 hired thugs attacked Suu Kyi’s motorcade, killing several of her supporters and arresting dozens of others including Suu Kyi herself.
Shwe is a very private figure, preferring to work behind the scenes. Consequently, even the Burmese people know very little about him.
3. Hu Jintao, China (in power since 2002)
Trained as a hydrolic engineer, Hu Jintao joined the Communist Party in 1964 and spent the next 38 years working his way up the hierarchy. While serving as Party Secretary of Tibet, he did not hesitate to administer martial law and to oversee the killing of unarmed demonstrators. Now that he is General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, Hu, although not all-powerful, is the leader of an unusually repressive regime. The communist party still controls all media, and uses 40,000 internet security agents to monitor online use. More than 200,000 Chinese are serving re-education sentences in labour camps and China performs more than 4,000 executions every year, more than all of the other nations of the world combined, and many of them are for non-violent crimes.
4. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe (in power since 1980)
Mugabe began his reign with widespread international and national support. After leading a successful anti-colonial war of liberation, he was elected independent Zimbabwe’s first president. But over the years he has displayed increasingly dictatorial tendencies. According to Amnesty International, in 2002 alone, Mugabe’s government killed or tortured 70,000 people. Unemployment is above 70% and inflation 500%.
Mugabe has been accused of blocking the delivery of food aid to groups and areas that support the main opposition party. He has continued to hold elections, but has restricted the opposition’s ability to campaign and has shut down media that do not support him. When opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai won 42% of the vote, Mugabe had him arrested and charged with treason. Mugabe has also confiscated farms owned by white people and turned them over to his supporters.
5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia (in power since 1995)
Crown Prince Abdullah has been the acting leader of Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, King Fahd, suffered a stroke in 1995. Saudi Arabia is one of the only nations that holds no elections whatsoever. The royal family has promised municipal elections soon but has not announced whether women will be allowed to vote. In fact, it is forbidden for unrelated Saudis of the opposite sex to appear in public together, even inside a taxi. Women are not allowed to testify on their own behalf in divorce proceedings and, in all court cases, the testimony of a man is equal to that of two women.
According to the US State Department, Saudi Arabia continues to engage in arbitrary arrest and torture. During a human rights conference in 1995, Saudi authorities arrested non-violent protesters who were calling for freedom of expression. Some were later flogged, the usual punishment for alleged political and religious offenses.
In a very unusual show of power, the religious forbade children from playing with Barbie dolls, which they dubbed ‘Jewish dolls’ that are ‘symbols of decadence of the perverted West’.
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (in power since 1979)
This small West African nation (population 500,000) was a forgotten dictatorship until major reserves of oil were found in 1995. Since then, US oil companies have poured billions of dollars into the country. Although the per capital annual income is $4,472, 60% of Equatoguineans live on less than $1 a day. The bulk of the oil income goes directly to President Obiang, who has declared that there is no poverty in Guinea, rather that the people are used to living in a different way. In July, state radio announced that Obiang is “in permanent contact with the Almighty,” and that “He can decide to kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to Hell.”
There is no public transport, no newspapers, and only 1% of government spending goes to health care. When asked why so much of his nation’s oil money is deposited into his personal account at the Riggs Bank in Washington, DC, Obiang explained that he keeps total control of the money in order to ‘avoid corruption’.
7. Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan (in power since 1989)
Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is in the midst of a complex 20 year civil war that has claimed the lives of 2 million and uprooted another 4 million. Al-Bashir seized power in a military coup and immediately suspended the constitution, abolished the legislature, and banned political parties and unions. He has tried to negotiate a peace agreement with the main rebel group, but he insists that the nation be ruled according to Islamic Shari’a law, even in southern Sudan, where the people are Christian and animist.
His army has routinely bombed civilians and tortured and massacred non-Arabs, particularly in the oil-producing areas in the south. He has a long history of providing sanctuary for a wide range of terrorists, only to turn against them. He turned over the notorious Carlos the Jackal to France in exchange for financial and military aid and, in 1996, he tried unsuccessfully to sell Osama bin Laden to the US government.
8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan (in power since 1990)
Since taking charge of this former Soviet republic in central Asia, Niyazov has developed the world’s most extreme personality cult, challenged only by that of Kim Jong Il. Niyazov’s picture appears on all Turkmen money, there are statues of him everywhere, and he renamed the month of January after himself. His book, Book of the Soul, is required reading in all schools at all levels, and all government employees must memorize sections of it in order to keep their jobs.
Niyazov rules without opposition. As he put it, ‘There are no opposition parties, so how can we grant them freedom?’. In recent years Niyazov has cracked down on religious and ethnic minorities, including Russians, and has refused to grant exit visas for families for women under the age of 35. He has imprisoned political dissidents and subjected them to Stalinist-style show trials and public confessions.
The Turkmen constitution requires retirement at the age of 70, but Niyazov has ensured his own rule by creating a 2,507-member People’s Council which unanimously elected him Lifetime Chairman.
9. Fidel Castro, Cuba (in power since 1959)
The longest reigning dictator, Castro took advantage of the world’s preoccupation with the Iraq war in March and April of 2003 to carry out his biggest round-up of non-violent dissidents in more than a decade. He arrested 75 human rights activists, journalists, and academics, and sent them to jail for an average of 19 years.
Cuba remains a one party state with all of the power in the hands of Castro. The courts are controlled by the executive branch (in other words, Castro). He traditionally blames all of his country’s problems on the USA.
10. King Mswati III, Swaziland (in power since 1986)
Swaziland (population 1.2 million) is the last remaining absolute monarchy in Africa. Mswati III ascended to the throne when he turned 18, four years after the death of his father. Because he had been educated in England it was thought that he would modernize his kingdom. However, he has shown a liking for certain Swazi traditions. On September 15, 2002, he watched thousands of girls and young women dance bare-breasted in the annual Reed Dance and then chose one of be his tenth wife (his father had 100 wives). The girl’s mother filed a lawsuit against the king, charging him with abducting her daughter. Mswati, who rules by decree, then announced that the Swazi courts were forbidden from issuing rulings that limited the king’s power.
In an attempt to appease international opinion, Mswati approved the drafting of a new constitution to replace the one that his father had suspended 30 years earlier. However the new constitution bans political parties, allows the death penalty for any criminal offense, and provides for the reintroduction of debtors’ prisons.
Technorati Tags: Dictators, Politics, Top 10 list
Hobolad:
Ever see the Simpsons episode where Homer tells Marge that anyone can just make up a statistic and it’s true? 44.9% of experts say so…
I started the smoking debate here, and I apologized, and I’m not even about to get into gun debate, except to say that a warning shot from a 9mm handgun saved a buddy of mine’s wife from rape a couple months ago. (in her home, no less…)
The problem with partisan politics is that most, if not all politicians are corrupt or at least corruptable. The difference is only their constituencies.
Think about it: Democrats are suposed to be all “green” and “Tolerant” and “Diverse”. They’re not. They are simply suits and talking heads that appeal to a section of the population to vote for them. They would no more invite you to a party at their house than the man in the moon. And, if you were to show up to one of their fundraisers, you better hope you have ample cash to donate, or you can be on your way.
Republicans are no different. They at least are forthcoming with their elitism. Do you think Hilary REALLY cares about your health? Or is she merely trying to set up a platform that might eventually be called a “Legacy” of her time in office.
I do not like Bush/Cheney AT ALL!!! But, it is what it is, and it’s almost over. I might vote republican if there’s a viable candidate, but like in the last election, Kerry was bad, Bush just as bad… I left it alone. I am not the type to just shrug it off and go for one of two bad choices.
Conservatism is not about ME MONEY ME MONEY ME MONEY!!! Though it sometimes seems that way. For me, it is about leading life without the government arbitrarily telling me what to do. I do not mind paying taxes. What I do mind is the government raising taxes on me, telling me it’s for something and then spending it on something else. (Not to get into the smoking thing again, but here’s an example- The state raised taxes on cigarettes by $1 a pack, to go to schools. They were adamant that it was going directly into the education system to buy books and computers for inner-city schools. OK, fine. Schools are good. OOPS!!! Now it’s in a ‘General Fund’- a fund that can be used on anything. Schools still don’t have books. The general fund decision was proposed and passed by Democratic lawmakers!) Why you gotta lie, bro?
As I grow older, I become more conservative. I think it’s a natural progression. Once I hit the 25% tax bracket and bought a house, I started paying much more attention. Now I just have to say to the government,”Leave Me The ***** Alone!!!”
Unfortunately, Liberals say, “Oh, him? He’s got over an 80K income. Sure, he’s already paying income, property, and sales tax, and surely he didn’t work 80 hours a week for years to get to the position to earn that kind of money; he’s ‘rich’ so let’s soak him!”
its like the saying Yarr, if youre not a liberal before your 30, you have no heart, if you not a conservative after youre 30, you have no brains
speaking of Hilterly Clinton, has anyone seen that hillary exposed video? caught on tape commiting a felony crime on campaign fund raising. How they got the case thrown out is pretty scary too. I forget the website that hosts it, its like hillary-exposed.com or something. its a two part video that can be found on youtube as well. Not saying repubs havent done this kind of stuff, but this is big because shes caught on tape admitting full knowledge of the fund raising.
Yarr: Not seen it but I know what you mean- you can make up statistics/find statistics to support whatever you want. But that goes both ways- weren’t liberals just criticised here for not being rational and fact-based (a generalisation as bad as my Righties and money one- which I used to make a point about such generalisations, sorry that I wasn’t clear) and when they supply statistics they’re dismissed because it’s liberals giving these statistics. But then again, I’m equally distrusting of Righty-supplied statistics.
I think *all* politicians are ME ME ME, MONEY MONEY MONEY- left and right, they’ve all got their own agenda. I’d class myself as very left, but I don’t support any particular party or ideology. If I thought a right-wing party would do the least harm then I’d vote for them, but the Righties over here are all motivated by greed and getting the rich richer, or else they’re unashamedly racist (in the case of the BNP).
Having said that, our so called “left” parties are pretty much the same.
EDIT: Hillary exposed? I’m kinda unwilling to search for it, just in case I get results I don’t want (REALLY REALLY don’t want
)
lol hobolad, yea searching for that might come up with some very scary results
Hobolad:
You see, folks like you and me are representative of the majority of people. We have ideas and opinions based on our experiences and education. I hold no ill view of liberals, in fact, I used to be one. However, time and experience has led me to see that a lot of so-called ‘liberal’ politicians are actually socialists and are pushing this whole “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” doctrine, which is the slippery slope to communism. It scares the hell out of me.
And, though politicians make it seem so sometimes, I, as a conservative am neither racist nor bigoted. I have many friends and acquaintences of different ethnic backgrounds, as well as different *****ual orientations. Nobody cares. And the people I hang out with are secure enough in their personalities that we can laugh and joke and make fun of each other (like friends do) without anyone being offended. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was this way?
I tell you- most people are this way. The problems come from media-*****s trying (and succeeding) to stir up trouble for ratings.
Anyway, it’s Friday afternoon and there’s beer that needs my attention. You guys have a good weekend!
And I’m not going to look up Hilary Exposed either. She’s scary enough without seeing if the curtains match the carpet!
I cannot stand George Bush. I feel that he’s lied to us since he began campaigning. No, I don’t think he’s a dictator (yet), but we’ll see what happens in 2008. But here’s excerpts from a party platform I could agree with – does this make me a loony liberal? If you read to the end you can find out just which party it is.
“Citizens must have the confidence that their personal privacy will be respected in the use of technology by both business and government. That privacy is an essential part of our personal freedom and our family life, and it must not be sacrificed…”
“We will reopen Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House as a symbolic expression of our confidence in the restoration of the rule of law.”
“An administration that lives by evasion, coverup, stonewalling, and duplicity has given us a totally discredited Department of Justice.”
“Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness.”
“Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments.”
“The United States seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. America can use its prestige to encourage discussions and negotiations. But peace must be negotiated between the parties themselves. We will not impose our view or an artificial timetable. At the heart of the peace process is the commitment to resolve all issues through negotiation.”
“Environmental regulations should be based upon the best science, peer-reviewed, and available for public consideration.”
“As we strive to forge a national consensus on the crucial issues of our time, we call on all Americans to reject the forces of hatred and bigotry.”
Did you figure it out? It is the Republican Platform from 2000
Doesn’t quite seem to be the way things worked out, does it? Do not make the mistake of being so quick to conclude that everyone who detests Bush is a liberal. Some of us are conservatives or moderates who are not very happy with having been so blatantly lied to.
I don’t like Bush. He’s corrupt, and pushes an agenda I find antithetical with the American value system of liberty for all humans. But he’s not a dictator. Unfortunately, our country has been set up to protect the rich and powerful, which is similar to other countries that do in fact have dictators. However, we are at least lucky enough to be able to rotate our leadership within reasonable time periods. We do have a pretty messed up country though.
Evan: “The difference between “liberals” and “conservatives” , again generally speaking in my personal experience talking to the bunch, is simple. Conservatives are generally more rational, are realists, fact based, and business-like individuals, while the liberals come off as emotional, irrational, feelings based cliques. “I (more accurately the govt) knows how you should live you life better than you do” types.” A few things here. First off, you say conservatives “are” one way, while liberals “come off as” a different way. So I have to assume you are part of the former group, since you can only make an assumption about the cause of the latter’s behavior. It also seems strange that conservatives are described as rational and fact-based, when they’re the ones pushing a religious agenda (not always considered rational or fact-based, in fact I think its usually called Faith Based). And why are you saying only the liberals think the government knows better than “you” how to live your life? Are the conservatives not part of the government that is always making laws about how we are all supposed to live our lives? Aren’t the conservatives the ones pushing for a constitutional amendment saying two men or two women can’t get married because they are evil sinners? Isn’t that the government telling people how they should live their lives?
Loose Cannon: “The ‘looney-left’ in this nation are emo pussies. They don’t posses the emotional maturity and logical intelligence to sort through their feelings and express them rationally, hence you get such statements that ‘Stalin is Bambi compared to Cheney’.” Why is it that if a conservative has a point, its logical. But if a liberal makes a comparison, its “looney” and emo? And you have stated a few times you don’t respond to name calling. Why the name calling? Also, we do have Americans serving prison terms for political reasons. They just aren’t as obvious as “I don’t like the government so now I’m in prison.” They are more about the politics of our corrupt and dysfunctional prison systems.
Bush is a Benedict Arnold on the war on terrorism, he supports an Arabian terrorist group abreviated M.E.K. and his terrorist group, Blackwater.
The patriot act is a step to fascism cause it’s unconstitutional, I cant say what I want to say or write what I wanna write cause I’ll dissapear or the brutal cops will kill me. If we’re not toward fascist, then how come our police brutality rate is higher than ever? cops getta kill people who run away and get away with raping 14 year old girls, how come? Thats what the soviet union and nazi germany dit! Bush is a dictator! There might as well be annother American Revolution to take back America, cause President Bush !! ain’t cuttin it! once he’s outa office, I’ll enjoy watching Bush and company get tried for treason, abuse of power, and war crimes, then publicly hung! he’s so worried about spreading “Democracy” when ours is under fire, and fighting terrorism when theres terrorism going on in our own back yard! And as far as bin laden goes, papa bush made him as well as sadam. Soon he’ll pull a fast one and invade Iran and/or issue a draft. Why do we continue to listen to the bastard? Pick up guns and march on Washington and restore our country! Bush calls himself “The Decider” and that seems equivelant to “Il Duce”
“Dur Furer” We need a revolution to rid tyrany cause we’re back were we began, under tyrany.
Join The Revolution!
Mathilda – I cannot stand George Bush. I feel that he’s lied to us since he began campaigning. No, I don’t think he’s a dictator (yet), but we’ll see what happens in 2008. But here’s excerpts from a party platform I could agree with – does this make me a loony liberal?
No, you’re preceding statement that he isn’t a dictator *yet*, and we should wait til 2008 to find out makes you a *looney liberal*.
There is absolutely no rational evidence to suggest that Bush/Cheney/Rove or anyone else, are planning on anything but leaving office after their tenure.
aplspudWhy is it that if a conservative has a point, its logical. But if a liberal makes a comparison, its “looney” and emo?
It’s not a ‘point’ if you call Bush/Cheney one of the worst dictators to have ever lived or compare him to Stalin or Hitler. *THAT’S THE POINT!*
The comparison is emotional, unrealistic, and hysterical. As I said previously, it’s like a teenage girl calling her father a Nazi for grounding her.
Also, we do have Americans serving prison terms for political reasons.
No, we don’t, but don’t let reality encroach on your daydreams.
Loose_Cannon – If you had read my post carefully you should have realized that I am not anyone’s idea of a liberal. To make it quite clear to you, there are many, many conservatives who do not feel that George W. Bush represents their values; the fact that he is a Republican does not require anyone to assume that he is infallible. Why exactly would you presume to know my political ideology based on the fact that I think he is a terrible President?
By the way, Karl Rove has already left office, in August 2007. Did it not make FOX News, perhaps?
Once again guys, you shouldn’t be getting angry at each other for opposing views. Anyone here that is completely on one side or the other is either uneducated or stupid. There are some of you (most in fact) that are what you are because of one or two prevailing issues that you believe strongly. There are very few far left or right-wing people. Most are just a little left or right of center. The problem is partisan politicians and polarizing issues that they use to get your vote.
Aplspud: The potential marraige ammendment is not because gays are sinners or God will get angry. It’s because enough people are making a big enough noise against it that the politicians have no choice but to pay attention.
Senator Suk T. Nutz: Democrat-Ohio does not give a ***** if two dudes love each other. All he cares about is winning the next election. His polling center has told him that 80% of people polled are against gay marraige. How do you think he going to vote?
I don’t think that republicans are pushing a religious agenda. I think that they pay attention to potential votes and attempt to please that base. Say that there’s a candidate that is perfectly conservative in every way except for the fact that he’s pro-choice. He will have to answer to that one issue, and his stance could cost him the election. It might just be that he keeps that little secret to himself, or he might just jump on the wagon to make his constiuents happy. I don’t see an agenda there, just playing to win.
Mathilda- To make it quite clear to you, there are many, many conservatives who do not feel that George W. Bush represents their values..
True, but are they also speculating that Bush won’t leave office in 2008, as you did?
See, that’s what makes you sound like a member of the *looney left*. It’s not that you have to agree with Bush, or love him. When you cross the line from disagreement to lunacy is when speculated that he might not leave office in 2008. See?
There is absolutely no rational, logical reason to believe he won’t. You might as well speculate that he’ll commit suicide or do some time-traveling.
*You* asked if you sound like a member of the ‘looney left’. I didn’t accuse you being anything. I simply answered your question.
Loose_Cannon – Are you suggesting that the possibility of someone becoming a dictator (which has actually happened before, although obviously not in the case of Bush) is somehow akin to the possibility of someone time-traveling, which, to the best of my knowledge, has not? I would suggest with all due respect that you might want to carefully consider before you start stating that others sound like lunatics.
Mathilda-Are you suggesting that the possibility of someone becoming a dictator (which has actually happened before, although obviously not in the case of Bush) is somehow akin to the possibility of someone time-traveling
In this nation, at this time? Yes, I am. Our nation is over 225 years old, we have one of the most stable, liberal societies on the face of the Earth, and our Constitution has faced civil war and survived.
Again, there is not a shred of evidence that Bush or Cheney intend to stay after their term, except emotional, hysterical, politically-based bias.
I kinda like how Bush is defended ’cause he ain’t as bad as some of the others… I mean, should we tolerate a serial killer who’s killed five people ’cause others have killed more?
A serial killer is pretty much what Bush is- though I agree he’s not a dictator- doesn’t mean someone who was democratically elected (Does that include Bush? I dunno) can’t be evil.
Hobolad – A serial killer is pretty much what Bush is …. doesn’t mean someone who was democratically elected (Does that include Bush? I dunno)
This is exactly what I mean when I say the *looney left*. Emotional, unrealistic, illogical and hysterical.
Thank you for a perfect example, Hobolad.
I can say I’m glad to be counted among the “looney left.”
Definition: “an individual (or conspiracy), operating with or without governmental authority, who directly, or by directive, is responsible for the deaths of 3 or more persons in separate incidents for unjust reasons.”
I would count Bush as a serial killer.
EDIT: Sorry for the childish comment but:
“emotional, unrealistic, illogical and hysterical.”
Needless name calling without any actual refutation is none of these things?
Hobolad – I would count Bush as a serial killer.
Well, then I guess you would have to include Tony Blair, John Howard, and a host of other national leaders, huh? If you’re assuming it was for ‘unjust reasons’.
That doesn’t seem a bit nutty to you? To put these men in the same league as Ted Bundy?
Needless name calling without any actual refutation is none of these things.
I was referring to your comments.
Yes, calling Bush a ‘Serial Killer’ is a bit off the deep end. It’s not based on logic and reason, but rather emotion and hysteria.
Our congress approved the use of force in Iraq. Does that make them all accessories to murder? What about the British parliament, are they also accessories to murder?
By extension, what about those of us who elected Bush and support the war, aren’t we, likewise, accessories to murder?
Do you see how illogical and irrational your argument gets when you try to extend it?
You’re the one saying to extend it.
The voters shouldn’t be held accountable- if they were told that it would lead to an unjust war with thousands upon thousands of innocents losing their lives to make the top brass richer then they would be.
I would also class Blair as a serial killer.
The victims tally of these two is much higher than Ted Bundy’s.
What exactly is irrational about it?
“an individual (or conspiracy), operating with or without governmental authority, who directly, or by directive, is responsible for the deaths of 3 or more persons in separate incidents for unjust reasons.”
Bush fits that description- so doesn’t logic dictate that that is what he is? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck?
So do many others- but the discussion I joined was about Bush.
EDIT: Can you give me any reason why these people aren’t serial killers? Or is your whole argument just to describe it as illogical and irrational without ever coming close to a reason why that would be?
Hobolad – The voters shouldn’t be held accountable- if they were told that it would lead to an unjust war with thousands upon thousands of innocents losing their lives to make the top brass richer then they would be.
This is exactly what’s wrong with your argument.
Who gave Bush, Blair, Howard, and other leaders the authority to conduct such a war? Congress and the respectful parliaments.
Congress held their own inquiry into the Iraqi intelligence. So, shouldn’t the killers accomplices also be called serial killers? And since Bush didn’t actually do the killing, aren’t the members of the military who actually followed these orders, also serial killers?
Your argument falls apart into shreds because if Bush is a serial killer and he didn’t act alone, then everyone associated with the war is a serial killer.
My question to you is simple: Since Congress gave Bush the authority to conduct war in Iraq, are they, like-wise, serial killers? And are the other 21 national leaders, who conducted operations in Iraq during the war, also serial murderers?
One other question: Since Saddam H. had killed thousands and thousands of people unjustly by invading Kuwait, conducting war against Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia, is he also a ‘Serial Killer’? Doesn’t stopping a serial killer, by your definition, mean it was justified?
Hobolad – Bush fits that description- so doesn’t logic dictate that that is what he is?
Also, since former Pres. Clinton used missiles on Baghdad to “..attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors” presumably killing more then 3 Iraqi’s, and we assume now that they didn’t exist, does that make him *ALSO* a ‘SERIAL KILLER’?
Congress + National leaders – I would say yes. Saddam was also a serial killer- he died, yes- but so did tens of thousands of others, needlessly. Saddam wasn’t the reason for the war- we’ve proven ourselves not a bit squeamish about dealing with such evil people so long as we’re getting money from them (And by “we” I mean our leaders- the voters really don’t have a say).
I’ve said it before- the voters weren’t told that Bush would lead us to this war, and then afterwards they were given false reasons. You’re making too many assumptions (Dare I say- acting illogically and unrealistically?) about who I deem responsible, I’ve never said once that I blame the voters, they didn’t know.
And I don’t know much about the Clinton situation- but if he caused the killing of innocents for unjust reasons then yes I would class him also as a serial killer.
These people are just Ted Bundy with suits, PR, connections and money.
EDIT: About “Congress”- I really don’t know how it works- were they as decieved as the rest of us or what?
Before this gets mentioned- for the record, I consider the soldiers as victims. Y’know, they’re willing to put their lives at risk to help their country and protect innocents yet lots are getting used to further the causes of the higher ups.
There are gonna be some bloodthirsty ones who just want to kill (That guy giving the interview in the British papers a few weeks ago, that nutter in the Fahrenheit 9/11 war footage, etc.) but it seems like they’re a minority, and you’re gonna get nutters in any large group of people.
The leaders are the ones who should be held accountable, I reckon. These people who send these lads and lasses off to get killed and kill and then abandon them as soon as they’re no longer useful.
Hobolad – Congress + National leaders – I would say yes. Saddam was also a serial killer
So, all the members of our congress who voted to go to war, Clinton and his staff, Bush and his staff, Tony Blair, John Howard, plus the leaders of the other 19 countries and their staff, parliament, etc. and Saddam were all serial killers? And you don’t think this sounds a bit loopy?
However, the actual people doing the killing are not ‘serial killers’? You used the definition:
“an individual (or conspiracy), operating with or without governmental authority, who directly, or by directive, is responsible for the deaths of 3 or more persons in separate incidents for unjust reasons.”
By your own logic, this would include every solider who fought in Iraq, since they committed the ‘unjust’ killings, directly and indirectly.
WOW, so now every member of congress that voted for the war now a serial killer? Man, im glad ill be voting for Ron Paul now, seesh as if i needed another reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton, now shes a serial killer too. lol
*cough* looney left *cough*
Aplspud, it seems you only read post 117 and not my post 120. Where I said some of the corruptions and shortcoming of the “right”.
I wouldnt consider the religous right true republicans, which is why I said “Not to mention the religious right, bah i dont even want to get started about them.” In my mind they are as bad as the socialist left. People such as Hillary Clinton.
“We just can’t trust the American people with this kind of decision… the government must make it for them.” -Clinton on health care.
thats the type of “we know better than you do” stuff im refering to.
I would say Im a Republic/Libertarian, I would hesitate to say conservative because of such groups like the “religious right” who get lumped in with us. I would say im conservative in the notion that I want the govt to be limited to what the constitution layed out.
Great way to twist my words guys! I said at the end I don’t know how “congress” works, I’m a foreigner- I don’t know how much they’re told, how much power they have etc.
The soldiers are doing it under orders, for them it’s kill or be killed. They shouldn’t be put in the situation where the killing of innocents is likely, but thanks to the powers that be they are.
I’ve not said to extend it, that’s entirely Loose_Cannon. I mean, do you extend it with, for example, Ted Bundy? Is it his parent’s fault for bringing him into the world? Is it the hospital’s fault? Is it the people who sold him his food so that he didn’t starve to death? No, but it is Ted Bundy’s.
Im not sure how we twisted your words. Loose_cannon asked you…
“My question to you is simple: Since Congress gave Bush the authority to conduct war in Iraq, are they, like-wise, serial killers? And are the other 21 national leaders, who conducted operations in Iraq during the war, also serial murderers?”
and you replied…
“Congress + National leaders – I would say yes. ”
how did we mis-interupt that?
You took it out of context (It was a throwaway remark, rectified at the bottom of the comment- I made an assumption of how much power and knowledge of the war your congress as but then realised I know nothing about it, so put in the EDIT.)
“EDIT: About “Congress”- I really don’t know how it works- were they as decieved as the rest of us or what?”
If I’d have put that edit in and deleted the original comment I would have probably been called up on that, so I chose to keep it in, then add in my mistake at the bottom.
And the twisting of words I’m most annoyed about is the extension thing, which seems to be staple of Loose_Cannon’s argument, which he himself conjured out of thin air. If that isn’t a “twist of words” then whatever, but you know what I mean.
I also don’t appreciate being called a “looney liberal” or whatever when I’m trying to civilly discuss a point. It’s unneeded.
alrighty then, to a person reading your post, it’s not as clearly stated and as easy to determine your meaning as you may think in your head when you wrote your post.
To say one thing very clearly, yes they are serial killers and then supposedly make that a throwaway comment in jest or something by saying EDIT: About “Congress”- I really don’t know how it works- were they as decieved as the rest of us or what? isn’t exactly clear.
But to answer your question (it was already answered by Cannon in a previous post), Congress held their own investigations and then voted to invade iraq.
Out of edit time
@evan: I agree with you about the controlling lefties (though there are righties who are as bad). Most schools of liberalism tend towards freedom though- according to wikipedia at any rate!
EDIT: Yeah, it’s a tone of voice thing really. I say we introduce a colour coding/tone of voice system (Am I being serious? Impossible to tell!
)
Held their own investigations… hmm, I dunno. Did these investigations say that all these innocents would end up being blown up for no good cause?
If I wanna start arguing about whether your Congress are to blame I should probably do some research and actually know what I’m talking about before I start talking! So I’m gonna reserve judgement ’til I do
EDIT: Saying they voted to go to war is hardly explaining though. Was the war that actually ended up happening the one they voted for?
“Held their own investigations… hmm, I dunno. Did these investigations say that all these innocents would end up being blown up for no good cause? ”
OK, um is this a comment a joke? cause…
1. No one can see the future. So there was no direct mention to my knowledge that “all these innocents would end up being blown up” even for a good cause but..
2. All modern wars (with possible exceptions from jfraters shortest wars post) have collateral damage and innocent people end up killed. So by default, anyone voting for any war at any time in any country is in essence voting with knowledge that innocent people will die.
That does not mean they want the innocent people to die, but aware it’s a consequence of war itself.
They voted for, after conducting their own investigation, The invasion of Iraq, the removal of Saddam from power, and the search for NBCs and WMADs. Which is what has been done. The US did not set out with the plan to simply kill a bunch of iraq’s people. But that is the answer to your voting question.
The current situation in Iraq is the aftermath. Cause=Reaction. Whether the members of Congress were too shortsighted to see they had no viable exit plan and still voted for the war is anyones guess.
But that hardly qualifies as serial killers or evil people. More along the lines of shortsighted, naive, or possibly people with good intensions but poor plans. But not evil serial killers.
It all kinda sounds like incompetence from the Congress rather than intentional deception and use of the unstable times for personal gain (a la Bush and his use of 9/11).
Y’know, the war they voted for was the one where we went in, got Saddam, got a hold of the WMDs, liberated, etc. Some civilian casualties maybe but the end would justify the means, as the people of Iraq would be safe from Saddam. In others words- a regrettable but *just* war.
The one we got was (still is?) a long, drawn out thing, no WMDs, got Saddam after a while, Bush and his oil magnate buddies get even richer, stirs up the hornets nest, promotes even more bad feeling towards the West, lots and lots of civilian casualties, and lots of military deaths, leaves the country a smoking ruin. A war that, if handled right, could have been just but was handled more with monetary gain in mind and screw the people.
Seems, from what I can gather, that these chaps and chapettes were decieved as much as the rest of us.
Wait a second… what the hell am I doing defending politicians!
so even if all you say on here is true (which I would say isn’t), that Bush acted alone to start a war for the sole, and only reason to somehow “get rich” from it (I fail to see how he is personally getting more income from this, he was making much more as a private citizen), you believe he is MORE “evil” than the people on this list?
let me just say, Im not a Bush fan by any means, i too believe this war was handled incredibly bad by all members, not just Bush and his inner circle, and Bush was not exactly truthful for his reasons for war (which to me, was not to get rich btw).
@evan: I’ve never said he’s more evil than these people, I’ve just said that he is evil. That’s my fault though, what with the topic being Worst Living Dictators and stuff- sorry!
And he has made lots of money- and more to the point, the oil people who financed his bid for presidency have made a lot of money. Whether it was solely for the money, for religious reasons or to try and get a place in history or whatever, it’s still unjust.
Ah, I’d said that I think Bush to be evil but not as evil as the ones in the list on the “Most Evil Men” list, and then got this list mixed up with it. Sorry, thought I’d written it here!
“Yeah, the radicals who actively try to kill innocents deserve all they get.
WW2, yeah something needed to be done- but war? Like in Iraq, it’s not the “bad guys” who take the brunt of the war, it’s the people. Y’know, WW2 was still just some blokes given guns and told to fight against another load of blokes given guns and told to fight.
Maybe it was necessary, I can’t pretend to have all the answers (I say there should be an alternative yet I can’t think of a viable alternative, so I dunno), but it was still pretty bad.”
Damn, I got a -1 for that
Are we meant to minus them if we disagree or if it’s offensive or what?
At least I know where all my bad karma is coming from though
is that what those +/- things are for? karma? huh, never clicked on one.
ugh, with soooo many comments on several similar threads, it is getting hard to follow exactly who is saying what and why.
I guess we can leave it at that, you feel Bush is evil, but not necessarily worse than the listed dictators above. I mean no matter how i fee, based on my research and conclusions about it, and all the figures and the stats and arguements loose_cannon has put forth, probably isnt going to change the way you feel based on your research, conclusion, etc. so, i think its one of those agree to disagree things.
I haven’t seen any of Loose_Cannon’s statistics (Except the “our nation is over 225 years old”) and the arguments seem to be “stop being hysterical you looney liberal!!!” (Not an exact quote, before anyone says anythng
)
I would’ve probably ignored this thread long ago if you hadn’t been so civil evan (Y’know, actually reading my comments before disagreeing with them!) so thanks for humouring me and my dirty hippy ways
hobolad: I see an error on your previous comment – did you try to delete it?
evan: you can up vote or down vote for whatever reason you please – it is completely anonymous (even I don’t know who is up voting or down voting)
Loose Cannon: you know who John Howard is? Are you Australian or just well read?
“hobolad: I see an error on your previous comment – did you try to delete it?”
Nah, maybe it’s been voted down too many times for the internet to handle
Dunno what’s going on- the arrows are lit up for me though, which is pretty wierd.
Hobolad: for me too – though when I try to up vote it says the comment doesn’t exist – I can’t even begin to imagine where in the quagmire of the SQL database I might look for a solution – and, frankly, I am not sober enough to give it a rough guess
Would it be easier to just delete it? It’s hardly a poetic masterpiece that needs to be conserved for all to see- if it’s causing trouble, get rid
Hobolad: nah – no need to delete it – tomorrow I might be sober enough to figure it out
In the meantime it adds an air of mystique 
hmm wow – this list is somehow making Google think it should advertise the Spice Girls concert – I can’t even begin to fathom how it has figured that out
Hobolad: just out of curiosity, what part of the UK are you in?
Two entries for the Top Ten Bizarre Listverse Mysteries possibly?
EDIT: The North of England, near Liverpool.
jfrater – you know who John Howard is? Are you Australian or just well read?
Very well read and well traveled.
“Remember, Remember the 5th of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I know of no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.”
My friends in Lewes will no doubt be enjoying themselves tonight!
Loose_Cannon: meh! Poor Saint Guy!
Anybody who says that Bush is the “world’s worst dictator”….and is still ALIVE…has lost their sense of irony.
anyone who says bush is as bad as any of these *****ers should have thier skin peeled off. These people send thier citizens to work camps, tortures thousands, killls thousands…ect, anyone who makes the comparison is just showing why they should be sent to a camp themselves.
Bush isn’t a dictator, thats being idiotic. Go and live in any of these countries for a while and you’ll come back to the U.S. loving whoever is in charge.
For those of you calling Bush a dictator, please, pick up a dictionary and actually learn the meaning of the word before you spout off. He might not be popular or well liked, and his actions may be highly controversial, but that does not put im on par with Hitler. I do not agree with alot of what Bush or our governemt does, but as long as they continue to allow me to live a life of comfort (im lower-middle class but have nothing to complain about) with a wide range of freedom, I will support them unconditionally.
For those of you with nothing of complaints, please try living in one of the countries listed above.
Cheers!
Chavez in Venezuela isn’t so bad today but he is like a boil that is waiting to be lanced. Bay of Pigs anyone?
All I can say is whatever money our Govt. (not only Bush, its the whole system) spent on war (especially Iraq war), could have been used for country’s well being. Man, think of all the positive results we would’ve gotten if we had spent money on discoveries scientists are making these days. For ex: the new stem cell research. We won’t even need oil, which is what U.S. Govt. aim is at Iraq war, if we gave money to the scientists and acted on their discoveries. And hey, the environment would’ve been a happier place if we had electric cars, which were demolished by the big oil companies in U.S., back in 80′s (I think).
deep – And hey, the environment would’ve been a happier place if we had electric cars, which were demolished by the big oil companies in U.S., back in 80’s (I think).
They were ‘demolished’? Really?
http://www.toyota.com/prius/
Someone should tell Toyota!
Beth – Bay of Pigs anyone?
No, thanks. I’m still trying to finish my MK Ultra.
as much as I hate Bush and everything he and his pals stand for , he is NOT a dictator . Definition of a dictator as found in most dictionaries is as follows : “A RULER WHO IS NOT RESTRICTED BY LAWS , CONSTITUTION OR OPPOSITION” . Although alot of what Bush and co have done is morally repugnant and deceptive , they have more often than not operated within the framework of the constitution. But I guess this shows that the constituiton is a crock of ***** huh? …….
Right. So, definitely do not consider Bush a dictator. History books may not be kind to him in fifty years, but there will be nothing in print associating him with a dictatorship, unless they drastically change the definition of “dictator” between now and then.
And Loose_Cannon, I’m really not trying to be offensive, but I think it’s time you stop harassing people about their spelling or capitalization, when you yourself cannot use your/you’re properly. Really now. Quit it. It only discredits your arguments further. Make fun of them for what they say, it’s your right, but don’t be a hypocrite.