Top 10 Tyrants That Have Gotta Go

  • News
  • Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date
  • #26
Alias
*deleted because of Physics Forums Guideline violations*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
N_Quire
Alias, get a grip please. I'm a crypto pinko lefty liberal and I don't mind your right wing rants. You and I even agree on the war in Iraq.
 
  • #28
Alias
Were you able to read the post before it was deleted?

I think it was some of my best work.

Anyway, he deserved it, and we're even now. I'm okay with it.
 
  • #29
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
Originally posted by Sting


Never heard of the Turkey Missle Crisis? It's probably in Soviet-era textbooks.

The solution to the Cuban missile crisis involved removal of American missiles based in Turkey. It was kept quiet for political reasons. Kennedy could not tolerate a public concession. Kruschev needed something to show the Politburo. While the removal of the Turkish missiles was not publicized, it was observed by the KGB. Both leaders got what they thought they needed. Kruschev was wrong, though. He was ousted by the Politburo shortly after the crisis.

Njorl
 
  • #30
BoulderHead
Originally posted by Njorl
The solution to the Cuban missile crisis involved removal of American missiles based in Turkey. It was kept quiet for political reasons. Kennedy could not tolerate a public concession. Kruschev needed something to show the Politburo. While the removal of the Turkish missiles was not publicized, it was observed by the KGB. Both leaders got what they thought they needed. Kruschev was wrong, though. He was ousted by the Politburo shortly after the crisis.

Njorl
That's interesting. In America the Cuban episode gets played up like a rooster strutting his stuff while the events in Turkey are largely ignored by the media. It looks like both sides are busy playing angles to their own people. Just another reason to not trust the bassers?

I wonder if Kruschev banged his shoe at the Politburo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
Originally posted by damgo

Like FZ noted, as far as Third World countries go, Cuba is actually fairly well-off; there is a reason all the people there love Castro so much. For an autocratic dictator, he's one of the better ones.
Twenty years ago, Latin America was ruled by dictators. While most murdered their enemies, Castro usually just imprisoned them forever. While most of these countries had oppressive poverty for all but the elite few, Cuba had better than a subsistance existance for its people. These things, plus his charm earned him some measure of respect.

The rest of Latin America has changed for the better, but Cuba has changed for the worse. The Cuban people are becoming physically smaller due to widespread malnutrition, which is also causing blindness in many. The growing discontent as their neighbors become free is spurring more protests, and more repression.

While this poverty is partially due to the unfair embargo placed upon it, most of the blame goes to Castro, and the inept management of the Cuban economy. With the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba is no longer strategically significant. Hopefully, the embargo will end soon. Maybe then the people of Cuba can taste a little prosperity before Castro dies. I think that if they are still completely indigent, Castro's successor will find it easier to keep absolute control.


Njorl
 
  • #32
Nicool003
Even though I put Fidel on my list, I'd agree with FZ and others. As dictators go, Fidel is not so awful and is nowhere near as bad as Saddam

Nquire.... I was the one that made that statement...
 
  • #33
kat
26
0
BH-Can you explain this term "Bassers"?
 
  • #34
Zero
Originally posted by kat
BH-Can you explain this term "Bassers"?
People who fish for sea bass?
 
  • #35
damgo
I think it's some of that crazy UK slang... like "pulling birds" and stuff.
 
  • #36
156
2
Were you able to read the post before it was deleted?
I wasn't able to. Was it directed towards me?
 
  • #37
Alias
Nope.

Maybe next time.:wink:
 
  • #38
BoulderHead
Originally posted by kat
BH-Can you explain this term "Bassers"?
I think it's spelled with an 'a' not an e. I've been using it for so many years that I don't know where I got it from, but from somewhere I'm sure I got it. I use it as a substitute for 'bastards' and interestingly only found one example using google;

"Waaagh cumm ere ya bassar!!"

I guess I'm further over the hill than I had imagined. Has no one heard this before?
 
  • #39
kat
26
0
Ahhh ya Bassar!

Lol, it's a new one to me
Maybe, It'll make a comeback though
haha
 
  • #40
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Originally posted by Nicool003
Well Castro WAS their leader when they began building and buying and Getting free missles from the russians. The missles could hit almost anywhere in the U.S and they would not hesitate to use them. They had them pointed at us and ready to fire! Are you implying he is a good leader or that he is not bad? Or even worse are you defending him? He could have killed thousands! Good thing Kenedy was in office when that happened, he was a great president. His diplomatic and military plans worked wonders.
Where are you getting this from ?
Castro was hardly involved in the descision making
proccess I think. The USSR saw US missiles
in Turkey and decided that they will do the
same in Cuba in order to balance the shifted
"balance of terror".
(Great ST episode btw !)
 
  • #41
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
*Deleted personal attack*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/march03/iraq6.html [Broken]

I read the original article and was shocked to find Castro on the list. I mean, I don't like the guy, but I can't see how anyone can justify putting him on a top ten list....even ahead of Mugabe! (who was on the runners-up list...there were like 2 runners-up)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
53
0
Ians fachist regime must go. He has been a tyrant to the people of horncastle for 16 years. He was born in germany for god sake. No Ian I did not meen it arghhhh...........(conversation terminated)
 
  • #44
drag
Science Advisor
1,062
0
Greetings !

So, my message was a "personal attack" Zero ?
I thought it was far from it, it was relativly
polite and to the point considering your
messages.

But, I will rephrase myseld if you wish:
To declare about a democratic leader of a
democratic country that "His power is based soley
on fear and terror.", that he is "a tyrant" and
that "he's got to go" is not something that
one is supposed to be ABLE to do here. Aspecialy
if one uses his athority as a mentor to write it.

If I were to say that about Bush or Blair or Shiraq
then my messages will surely be dealt with
appropriately as I would also expect them too
(in the Bush and Blair case I guess it won't
be you doing the edits). But being a mentor
your messages can not be dealt with by other
mentors.

Now, all I'm asking for - politely for now, is that
you refrain from posting this garbage about Sharon
or Bush or any other democratic leader of a democratic
country.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #45
FZ+
1,561
3
I wouldn't really get into an argument about this, but in some ways Bush and Blair are moving in that direction. Think Orwell's perpetual war, for a clue. It's not a matter of personally terrorising the nation, but creating a visage of terror and offering themselves, and whatever restrictive policies they support as a tempting solution. Sharon for example arguablly does use the idea of suicide bombers menacing Israel to maintain his hold on power. Whether this would qualify for tyrant is another question.

Then again, with the majority of nations listed, the terror they have themselves is only a minor part of their rule. Any tyrant cannot rule purely by terror. The terror is always reserved for the resistant minority. For the majority, there is the fear of the "enemy", "terrorists" or "infidels", and the use of disinformation to spread the lies. The population chooses the dictator because they feel, are made to feel, he is for the best. Even Hitler only gassed the few.
 
  • #46
Njorl
Science Advisor
258
10
To call Bush, Blair and Sharon tyrants is to change the word tyrant so that it means "a leader of a nation whom you do not like".

The two definitions of tyrant are a leader who has no check on his power, whose every word is law, or (less accurately), a leader who comes to power through non-democratic means.

None of these describe the leaders mentioned. I don't like Bush, and I think Sharon is a war criminal, but none of them are tyrants.

Njorl
 
  • #47
FZ+
1,561
3
Objections about the legitimacy of Bush's election aside....

By that definition, how many real tyrants are there?
Non-democratic can cover any king, but doesn't cover Hitler, Lenin etc.
No check on his power doesn't cover Castro (he still has his advisors), most soviet union leaders (the politburo restricted them) and many more....
 
  • #48
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
Originally posted by FZ+
By that definition, how many real tyrants are there?
Non-democratic can cover any king, but doesn't cover Hitler, Lenin etc.
No check on his power doesn't cover Castro (he still has his advisors), most soviet union leaders (the politburo restricted them) and many more....
We've been over this one before, FZ+. Hitler was elected CHANCELLOR. He SIEZED dictatorial power. And Castro's adivsors? They are advisors. That should be self-explanatory.

And as njorl said, thats the WEAKER of the two definitions. It really doesn't matter how you become a tyrant. Just that you become one.
 
  • #49
damgo
Hitler was still elected, and he was (shamefully) incredible popular in Germany as long as he was winning. Most of his maneuvering was simply usurping traditional powers from other institutions and groups in Germany... the Wehrmacht for example.
I could have had Hitler arrested easily. I had enough officers loyal to me to carry out his arrest. But that was not the problem. Why should I have taken such action? It would have been an action against the German people. I was was well-informed, through my son and others. The German people were all for Hitler. And they had good reason to be...
Field Marshall Brauchistch, John Memorandum
 
  • #50
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
Originally posted by damgo
Hitler was still elected, and he was (shamefully) incredible popular in Germany as long as he was winning. Most of his maneuvering was simply usurping traditional powers from other institutions and groups in Germany... the Wehrmacht for example.
Key phrase: "usurping traditional powers."
 

Related Threads on Top 10 Tyrants That Have Gotta Go

  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
86
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
660
Replies
7
Views
818
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
Top