The World's Worst Dictators

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom