There was recent discussion in another thread that Kim Jong Il was the worst dictator of all time.

Falling from the #1 spot last year, Parade magazine now has him in the #3 spot behind Robert Mugabe and Omar Al-Bashir. Coming in 5th is the first US ally on the list, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Last year, he was ranked #4.

http://www.parade.com/dictators/2009/

Discuss.

Meh. Articles with numbered lists are always fun, but this one seems more pointless than usual. Sure it's loads of fun to catologue atrocities by dictators but I just don't feel very compelled by this list.

EDIT: Also, worst dictator of all time needs historical dictators, such as everyone's favorite, Hitler.

i would love to repress religion thou... -_-"

Bah, if he were that bad he'd not be in power. Now Gorbachev, he was a bad dictator.

You mean GWB didnt make the top 3? Pshaw. Must be a crap list then.

i would love to repress religion thou... -_-"

:confused:

Bah, if he were that bad he'd not be in power. Now Gorbachev, he was a bad dictator.

That was my first thought. He may be a bad head of state, but as a dictator he is top-notch.

Falling from the #1 spot last year, Parade magazine now has him in the #3 spot behind Robert Mugabe and Omar Al-Bashir. Coming in 5th is the first US ally on the list, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Last year, he was ranked #4.

Are we going for currently in power (Parade article) or of all time (as your comment about Lil Kim indicated)?

If it is all time Mugabee and Abdullah don't even register.

:confused:


im athiest... -_-"

im athiest... -_-"

Well, yeah, but the comment was a bit of a non-sequiter. I didn't think this thread was "What would you do if you were a dictator?"

Are we going for currently in power (Parade article) or of all time (as your comment about Lil Kim indicated)?

If it is all time Mugabee and Abdullah don't even register.Sorry. That is misleading. I should have been clearer. Personally, I really don't care which list people want to discuss, but the intent was a discussion of the current worst dictators.

Where is Mahmoud Ahmajinejad? :dunno:

You might want to look under Sayyid Ali Khamenei, who dropped from #4 to #7.

Well, yeah, but the comment was a bit of a non-sequiter. I didn't think this thread was "What would you do if you were a dictator?"
That's a good idea for a thread though.

How do you mean 'worst'? evil, or ineffective and imcopetent?

Where is Mahmoud Ahmajinejad? :dunno:

Is that a post a parody?

How do you mean 'worst'? evil, or ineffective and imcopetent?Since Parade seems to flip-flop back and forth on that particular issue, I'd say it is fair for you to do so as well.

You guys sure do seem to like to have a lot of rules about what is being discussed...:lol:

Since Parade seems to flip-flop back and forth on that particular issue, I'd say it is fair for you to do so as well.

You guys sure do seem to like to have a lot of rules about what is being discussed...:lol:
It gives us guidelines, so we know when we're off-topic.

Kim Jong Il is certaintly the most dictatorial leader on Earth today, without a doubt. If there was a Morgan Tsvangirai equivalent in DPRK he would already be dead, and they wouldnt evebn bother to pretend it was an accident.

Is that a post a parody?

It is if you want it to be. :dunno:

I cannot believe that Hu Jintao is so low, considering the recent events around the Olympics. He should be one below the Sudanese dictator since his country is encouraging that genocide.

I also cannot believe that Iran is even on the list. It may have an authoritarian regime which is repressive and somewhat brutal, but that is also true for most countries in the world.

Where is Bush?

I also cannot believe that Iran is even on the list. It may have an authoritarian regime which is repressive and somewhat brutal, but that is also true for most countries in the world.

Yeah. I agree. I also think Cuba shouldn't be on it as well.

Where is Bush?

I think he gets a pass because the US is ostensibly not authoritarian enough (or one year too late...). The same logic could easily be applied to Iran and Cuba though...

Meh. Articles with numbered lists are always fun, but this one seems more pointless than usual. Sure it's loads of fun to catologue atrocities by dictators but I just don't feel very compelled by this list.
Hey, look, my sentiments in a nutshell. They're all just competition anyway.

So, who would say are the worlds best dictators?

Basileus kai Autokrator ton Romaion Dachs.

So, who would say are the worlds best dictators?

I'd have to go with Albert II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_II,_Prince_of_Monaco

In January 2009, Prince Albert left for a month-long expedition to Antarctica, where he will visit 26 scientific outposts and meet with climate-change experts in an attempt to learn more about the impact of global warming on the continent.[14]

Most people would read a book or google...

It's good to be the prince, but you can call him "your serene highness" if you ever get the chance to chat.

Nah the King of Bhutan is better. He has a really funny name. Wang something. He gave up power willingly and turned Bhutan into a republic.

Nah the King of Bhutan is better. He has a really funny name. Wang something. He gave up power willingly and turned Bhutan into a republic.
JIGME KHESAR NAMGYEL WANGCHUCK

Holy crap I did that off the top of my head. His dad, JIGME SINGYE WANGCHUCK is better though because of the concept of Gross National Happiness which is the best pseudoeconomic measure of anything ever. Also Bhutan is still technically a monarchy, it's just not absolutist anymore.

I think he gets a pass because the US is ostensibly not authoritarian enough (or one year too late...). The same logic could easily be applied to Iran and Cuba though...

You think a head of state titled the Supreme Leader isn't authoritarian enough? :p

Iran isn't all that much of a dictatorship when its president is worrying about being reelected

It's President technically doesn't even have any power. The power lies with the Supreme Council (or is it Grand Council?) basically the clerics lead by Khameni.

Iran isn't all that much of a dictatorship when its president is worrying about being reelected

It is when its President is little more then a Punch and Judy puppet.

As opposed to our own fascist puppet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

I would also contend the current scheme is a heck of a lot better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

At least power is divested to a number of different people, the President is elected, and the "Supreme Leader" can ostensibly be removed from power by the same council that appointed him.

?, The Shah was the leader of Iran. The current President of Iran can really only do what he is told.

As opposed to our own fascist puppet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Monarchs can't be fascists, they're just monarchs.

As opposed to our own fascist puppet?
He wasn't really a fascist. Mostly just authoritarian.

My only mitigating thought with Kim Jong Il is that he didn't create the present state, merely inherit it. North Korea's looneyness comes from far wider than just his person.

He wasn't really a fascist. Mostly just authoritarian.

Pfft. was ultra-right wing, he assumed power through a CIA-led coup, and he used the military of his own country and the US to keep that power. Not only that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

"If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized”.[21]

However, by 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The Shah’s own words on its justification was; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t.... A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.[22] In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz.[23].

In October 1971, the Shah celebrated the twenty-five-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian monarchy. The New York Times reported that $100 million was spent.[24] Next to the ruins of Persepolis, the Shah gave orders to build a tent city covering 160 acres (0.65 km2), studded with three huge royal tents and fifty-nine lesser ones arranged in a star-shaped design. French chefs from Maxim’s of Paris prepared breast of peacock for royalty and dignitaries around the world, the buildings were decorated by Maison Jansen (the same firm that helped Jacqueline Kennedy redecorate the White House), the guests ate off Limoges porcelain china and drank from Baccarat crystal glasses. This became a major scandal as the contrast between the dazzling elegance of celebration and the misery of the nearby villages was so dramatic that no one could ignore it. Months before the festivities, university students struck in protest. Indeed, the cost was so sufficiently impressive that the Shah forbade his associates to discuss the actual figures.[25][26]

However the Shah and the supporters of the Shah argue that the celebrations opened new investments in Iran, improved relationships with the other leaders and nations of the world, provided greater recognition of Iran, and kept the history of Iran alive among other different arguments.

Cottam has argued that the longevity of the Shah’s rule was due largely to his success in balancing his security chiefs against each other.

On January 16, 1979, he and his wife left Iran at the behest of Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar (a long time opposition leader himself), who sought to calm the situation.[27] Bakhtiar dissolved SAVAK, freed all political prisoners, and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran after years in exile. He asked Khomeini to create a Vatican-like state in Qom, promised free elections and called upon the opposition to help preserve the constitution, proposing a 'national unity' government including Khomeini's followers. Khomeini fiercely rejected Dr. Bakhtiar's demands and appointed his own interim government, with Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister, demanding "since I have appointed him he must be obeyed." In February, pro-Khomeini Revolutionary guerrilla and rebel soldiers gained the upper hand in street fighting and the military announced their neutrality. On the evening of February 11 the dissolution of the monarchy was complete.

The US created the situation in Iraq by overthrowing the legitimately elected government after the oil indunstry was nationalized in the best interests of the country instead of the imperialists. That has always been the only truly unpardonable sin which a foreign democracy can do. The US will always try to install their own puppet government if that ever occurs. Just ask Chile or Cuba.

You can't very well blame the people of Iran for eventually rising up and stripping someone like that of his powers if they possibly can. After all, given the same circumstances, we would all likely do the same thing regardless of how much power was given to a religious leader in the process. It is still preferable to a right-wing dictatorship where countless more were tortured and murdered.

Where is Mahmoud Ahmajinejad? :dunno:

He was busy running for re-election so he forgot to apply. :mischief:

Pfft. He was ultra-right wing, he assumed power through a CIA-led coup, and he used the military of his own country and the US to keep that power. Not only that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
Single-party state doesn't prescribe fascism, neither does the CIA, or the military. Please clarify your characterization of 'ultra right wing'. Alternatively, read about the White Revolution. I'm pretty sure fascism implies corporatism which is a lulzy way to describe Pahlavi Iran.

Yeah. I agree. I also think Cuba shouldn't be on it as well.

You are a dictator because of how you achieve and maintain power, not because of what they do while in power.

Cuba is unquestionable a dictatorship, Iran is not. It is something just as bad though.

Cuba is unquestionable a dictatorship, Iran is not..

Only in the sense that it just has a single political party instead of two. But yeah. I'd agree it should be considered to be a dictatorship.

It is something just as bad though.

Heh. Compared to the US? Neither country has even hinted at illegally invading and occupying a sovereign country based on lies.

While neither country is a bastion of human rights, I simply don't think they are really all that bad in the grand scheme of things. There are plenty worse countries in the world today, and many of them are our allies. Their great crimes appear to be that they nationalized industries which were literally destroying their countries while keeping them effective prisoners in their own countries. Iran did it in 1948 under a democratically elected government, and Cuba did it after overthrowing Batista, whom the US government should have never let overthrow the legitimate Cuban government in 1956 in the first place.

I would personally describe Iran as an illiberal democracy.

I would personally describe Iran as an illiberal democracy.
Sounds good to me. For whatever reason I keep thinking of the UK before the Reform Acts, since both are essentially controlled by notables (in Britain, it was the aristocracy and richer oligarchs, while in Iran it is the religious nobility).

Moved to World History

How does this qualify as history? It's about current dictators.

We've already done this subject to death a dozen times already fr memory. :p

Closed.