-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Worst Dictators Ever?
- Thread starter Amenhotep7
- Start date
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Can some1 plz clarify. Is this the worst leader aka moronic and did nothing benefical or the most evil and worst to his people?
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
^What he said
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
As there is no such thing as evil one could simply define that as "the rainbow", "my wallet" or "George W. Bush".
In that context Stefan's post makes even more sense.
In that context Stefan's post makes even more sense.
Stefan Haertel
Title
Well, if rmsharpe is allowed to say Castro, I think I'm allowed to say Bush, am I not?
You can of course say what you like but answer me this, are you really comparing Bush to Stalin? Or is this another lame excouse to bash Bush. Not that I'm a fan of Bush but it got old a long time ago. If you want to critise Bush on policies or Ideology, go ahead but do it in a thread about him, don't drag him into everything OK?
Sorry but I'm tired of the 'everything is Bush's/Americas fault' mentality. It said nothing serious/new/clever about bush and brought nothing to the discussion about Dictators it was just a cheap shot.
Sorry but I'm tired of the 'everything is Bush's/Americas fault' mentality. It said nothing serious/new/clever about bush and brought nothing to the discussion about Dictators it was just a cheap shot.
jroa99
Warlord
Castro may be one of the "least bad", but that doesn't make him "good", IMHO. Nor does it make him any less of a dictator.
Now, Bush, despite his many prejudices, questionable policies and personal failings, isn't even in the same category (dictator) as most of these people (2000 mess aside, he hasn't shown such inclinations or comparable contempt for legality as most of the others have, nor are his actions "dictatorial" per se). Still, that would be a topic best left for another thread....
As for the "worst" dictator....hard to decide, but perhaps one of those (arguably) mad, egoistic or just plain weird roman emperors....not necessarily Nero since there were plenty of other contenders (Caligula? Commodus? and probably more I don't remember right now...).
Now, Bush, despite his many prejudices, questionable policies and personal failings, isn't even in the same category (dictator) as most of these people (2000 mess aside, he hasn't shown such inclinations or comparable contempt for legality as most of the others have, nor are his actions "dictatorial" per se). Still, that would be a topic best left for another thread....
As for the "worst" dictator....hard to decide, but perhaps one of those (arguably) mad, egoistic or just plain weird roman emperors....not necessarily Nero since there were plenty of other contenders (Caligula? Commodus? and probably more I don't remember right now...).
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
Commodus hands down. Brought the Roman Golden Age to an end...COMMODVS DELENDA EST!
Stefan Haertel
Title
Well, I am not really comparing him to Stalin or Hitler- yet. I'm somehow going to expect that there are going to be more votes for Bush in this election than there are people who voted him, but that's a speculation.
I don't know what it is like in America, but in Germany, at times you really did feel that Bush was trying to take over everything. To quote myself from those days, which were before and during the latest war (the early stages at least), "I wouldn't give a **** about the Americans if they weren't so omnipresent".
I don't think an American can really understand that, though.
Well, he was responsible for a civil war that cost the lives of some 30 million people, both direct and indirect. His cultural revolution also wasn't that nice to the people.
According to a Spanish friend of mine whom I asked precisely the same question, "Nothing. If you can't be free, nothing else matters."
Killing an estimated 35 million people is not bad, NOOOO. You'd better read up on history, my friend, and search for something that is sometimes called "the wrath of the Khan" (and which is not a Star Trek film), particularily what happened after a failed siege on Peking (IIRC).
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
I believe vietcong was sarcastic about the Khan.
Even if he does, and even if you accept that he got less votes than Gore, which I do, how does that possibly equate to the holocaust? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you really think electoral fraud equals genocide?
[/QUOTE] I don't know what it is like in America, but in Germany, at times you really did feel that Bush was trying to take over everything. To quote myself from those days, which were before and during the latest war (the early stages at least), "I wouldn't give a **** about the Americans if they weren't so omnipresent".[/QUOTE]
If America truely wanted to control everything, you'd know about it. American isolationism has been blamed for the failure of the league of nations, and hense in part for WW2. American intervention helped librate Germany from Nazi oppression and protected west Germany from Soviet invasion. German interfearence in Croatia helped start the Yugoslav civil war.
Let he who is without sin...
[/QUOTE] I don't think an American can really understand that, though.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes we're into the realms of patronisation and racial bigotry are we. Fair enough. However. First off, I'm not American, Ta me Eireinacht. Secondly, (this is the bigoted comeback..), A German realy should know better the difference between a bad ruler and a Dictator.....
If you want to argue against the evils of Bush, either by presenting valid arguements or by trading racial slurrs, then by all means do so. In another thread.
This one is about evil Dictators....
(ps the slurr above is mearly to illustrate a point, not to insult Germans)
Stefan Haertel
Title
First of all: You seem to be suggesting that I was some sort of pre-pubescent nationalist, racist German without a life. Read my posts in other threads and you'll get an idea of how I feel about Germany. In a nutshell, I wish it was closed down, I do not identify myself with this country or its people, nor anything it/they has/have done in the past. I wish I could leave, but I can't, currently.
Now, onto what I really want to say.
Maybe Bush is not one of the worst dictators in the world, but he does one thing that is not only incredibly dangerous, but outright criminal in our post-modern world. He is supporting the image of nationalism*. He lives in a world where people are rated by where they're from instead of what they've done.
Bush is not the only, and not the first to do this, but he is devoted to this idea, and that is where it turns dangerous. The USA were on the right track before, by liberating fascist-occupied countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan, and setting up the United Nations. But since the Soviet Union fell, and they are without a counterpart of the world, all this seems to have become worthless. If a good man became president of the USA, a man with good intentions and the belief that the world must work together for peace , that would be the best thing that could happen. But Bush is the exact opposite. He believes the world must work for America, and when the single people aren't able to work for America, they should work for their nation, their country instead of peace, or harmony, or any other of that crazy ideas. Maybe right now, the consequences of this way of thinking can only be seen at Ground Zero in New York, or in the crumbling ruins of Baghdad, but in very few generations, mankind will hopefully recognize what harm this way of thinking has done to the world (as if we hadn't had enough lessons already).
To be fair, I might have exaggarated when I put Bush on the list, and it is certainly not fair to name him the only representative of this way of thinking, but he is the most prominent one right now.
Now, for some clarifications:
I was not saying this because I wanted to do America-bashing. This is, very honestly, not my way of thinking. I was actually trying to make an objective statement, because very few Americans do get the chance to see what this is like outside of the USA. I'm sorry if this lead to any misconception.
I personally don't think that this kind of "discussion" ("election" fits better) is of any significance the way you are suggesting it. There simply is no use to it. I admit, I only wanted to provoke discussion with my inclusion of Bush, but I think that is what it really should be about. What is an "evil Dictator"? Where are the limits? I'm sorry if this attempt at more subtle discussion has failed, I did not want to offend anybody.
*sometimes called 'patriotism', there is no difference though.
If I should have offended anybody with what I wrote, in this posts or one of those preceeding it, I am sorry, for this was not my intention.
Now, onto what I really want to say.
Maybe Bush is not one of the worst dictators in the world, but he does one thing that is not only incredibly dangerous, but outright criminal in our post-modern world. He is supporting the image of nationalism*. He lives in a world where people are rated by where they're from instead of what they've done.
Bush is not the only, and not the first to do this, but he is devoted to this idea, and that is where it turns dangerous. The USA were on the right track before, by liberating fascist-occupied countries such as Germany, Italy and Japan, and setting up the United Nations. But since the Soviet Union fell, and they are without a counterpart of the world, all this seems to have become worthless. If a good man became president of the USA, a man with good intentions and the belief that the world must work together for peace , that would be the best thing that could happen. But Bush is the exact opposite. He believes the world must work for America, and when the single people aren't able to work for America, they should work for their nation, their country instead of peace, or harmony, or any other of that crazy ideas. Maybe right now, the consequences of this way of thinking can only be seen at Ground Zero in New York, or in the crumbling ruins of Baghdad, but in very few generations, mankind will hopefully recognize what harm this way of thinking has done to the world (as if we hadn't had enough lessons already).
To be fair, I might have exaggarated when I put Bush on the list, and it is certainly not fair to name him the only representative of this way of thinking, but he is the most prominent one right now.
Now, for some clarifications:
I was not saying this because I wanted to do America-bashing. This is, very honestly, not my way of thinking. I was actually trying to make an objective statement, because very few Americans do get the chance to see what this is like outside of the USA. I'm sorry if this lead to any misconception.
I personally don't think that this kind of "discussion" ("election" fits better) is of any significance the way you are suggesting it. There simply is no use to it. I admit, I only wanted to provoke discussion with my inclusion of Bush, but I think that is what it really should be about. What is an "evil Dictator"? Where are the limits? I'm sorry if this attempt at more subtle discussion has failed, I did not want to offend anybody.
*sometimes called 'patriotism', there is no difference though.
If I should have offended anybody with what I wrote, in this posts or one of those preceeding it, I am sorry, for this was not my intention.
Nah, I'm not suggesting that you're a Racist German, merely that comparing Bush to Stalin or Hitler is extreme and inapropriate. But as you just said you were trying to promote discussion. Your clarifications do, well, clarify your thinking.
I actually do agree with your negative attitude about Bush but stand by my opinion that discussion of his faults belongs in another thread. This thread was meant to be a poll of who was the worst out of a list of people who are widely accepted as being Evil Dictators. People who it is uncontrovercial to have a go at...
Now that I know your arguements are not based on simple anti-american bigotry, I look forward to discussing matters such as these in any thread where we meet....just dont think this is the right thread
Freinds?
Tathy.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Well but...
...why oh why?
What have I done to you?
Seriously though you raise quite a few good points and I couldn't agree more that the very idea of a "worst dictator" is absurd.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Okay in that case my vote goes for Joesph Stalin, all of his people that he killed was just pure evil.
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
So Joseph Stalin only killed evil people?
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
Pol Pot, he didn't kill as many as some of the others but that's only because he didn't have as many people to work with.
Similar threads
