News Top 10 Tyrants That Have Gotta Go

  • Thread starter Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around identifying top tyrants who should be removed, ideally through peaceful means like UN intervention, but also considers military action if necessary. Participants mention various dictators, including Kim Jong Il, Osama bin Laden, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Bashar al-Assad, and others from countries like North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Cuba. There is a debate about the nature of tyranny, with some arguing that leaders like Ariel Sharon and George Bush Jr. should also be included in discussions about tyrants, though others contest this view, asserting that they are democratically elected and not tyrants in the traditional sense. The conversation touches on historical contexts, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the complexities of leadership in countries with oppressive regimes. Participants express differing opinions on the effectiveness and morality of military interventions, the legitimacy of various leaders, and the conditions under which regime change is justified. Overall, the thread highlights the contentious nature of defining tyranny and the challenges of addressing it globally.
  • #51
Which he was given by the people.

Think enabling act for example.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Where are you getting this from ?
Castro was hardly involved in the descision making
process 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".QUOTE]




You have got to be kidding. Everyone knows about the Cuban Missel Chrisis! He was the leader of the country and dislikes or disliked (god knows what the old coot thinks now) the US and since the US has some small control on Cuba because the once were owned by spain who lost them to us, he wanted the missels. The soviets had to ask permission and I notice you said "I think" well here I KNOW that as a fact he had decisions and choices.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by FZ+
Which he was given by the people.

Think enabling act for example.
Well after reading that other thread, FZ+, it is clear to me that you make up your own definitions to conveniently fit your views. I can't argue against that. I won't even try (anymore). All I can suggest is you invest in a dictionary and apply it consistently. Well hey, waddaya know, here's a free one: www.dictionary.com
 
  • #55
Well after reading that other thread, FZ+, it is clear to me that you make up your own definitions to conveniently fit your views. I can't argue against that. I won't even try (anymore). All I can suggest is you invest in a dictionary and apply it consistently. Well hey, waddaya know, here's a free one: www.dictionary.com
Er... I do not think I made any statement on definition here. Merely that the power of Hitler was more or less given to him by the people, however misguided he may be. But he still fits in with the first definition of "tyrant". I think we are tackling different parts of the problem here.
 
  • #56
In addentum, Njorl's definition disagrees with that of dictionary.com's...

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
 
  • #57
"An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions."

"a leader who has no check on his power, whose every word is law"

Not a lot of difference in the principle definitions as far as I can tell.

Njorl
 
  • #58
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.
Ooh... it doesn't ?!
Well, aren't you just twisting historical facts
"JUST A BIT" ?! :wink:

P.S. Don't answer that, it was a rethoric question.:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #59
Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
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.
Like you said - "arguably".:wink: Despite some questionable
acts of Sharon in the conflict with Lybia - where
a few hundred people got slaughtered by Lybians
who supported Israel in villages that did not
(which is the primary reason for how the whole "war
criminal" story came to exist, despite the fact that
he was cleared of these charges), Sharon currently
really represents the center of the Israely political
"map", had Benjamin Netaniahu been chosen as
a prime minister again his views and actions
towards the Palestinian authority would probably
be slightly more serious.

The current view of the majority of Israelis is
that a complete separation must exist between
Israel and Palestine in the form of an unpenetrable
border so that the Palestinians will be left to
bother and kill nobody else but themselves,
this complete border is now in the process of
construction.

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Ooh... it doesn't ?!
Well, aren't you just twisting historical facts
"JUST A BIT" ?!
They were both elected leaders of some form or description.

P.S. Don't answer that, it was a rethoric question.
Oops.

Besides, they are covered now by clauses 2 and 3 of the newer definition. (And the democracy definition has seemingly disappeared.)
 
  • #61
Originally posted by FZ+
They were both elected leaders of some form or description.
Lenin was NEVER elected !
Hitler was elected but then he used violence
and intimifation to get rid of opposition and
eventually declared a totalitarian rule.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #62
The more we are finding out about Saddam and his extreme nepotism and cronyism, the more vomit-inducing is the entire episode. Why was this guy allowed to go on for so long? The man was a thug, a tyrant, a despot, a thief, a murderer. Thanks George Bush and co for a new foreign policy which aims to end such madness.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by drag
Lenin was NEVER elected !
Hitler was elected but then he used violence
and intimifation to get rid of opposition and
eventually declared a totalitarian rule.

Live long and prosper.
Lenin's group, the bolsheviks, were elected over the mansheviks a fews years before a russian revolution. Even during the revolution, they eventually gained the support of the majority.

Hitler was elected to power. What he did later is insignificant. But really, this is an argument in technicalities. Besides, by the second definition, there isn't really much point whether they are democratically elected or not.
 
  • #64
I think the biggest tyrant is GWB. Let's impeach!

sidenote: comebackalive.com is great! Robert Young Pelton's latest edition of The World's Most Dangerous Places just came out. Its a fabulous read! I highly recommend it!
 
  • #65
Originally posted by GlamGein
I think the biggest tyrant is GWB. Let's impeach!
I think you should be banned from this forum !
Let's ban you !
(Ooh... I forgot about the biased mentors...)

FZ+,
I guess you studied different history than the
one I did...:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #66
I probably did.
 
  • #67
Ban ME?! I am not the one controlling your future.
 
  • #68
That is correct! It is me, the Evil One, George Bush. I have your destiny in my claws. Do my bidding or I will crush you and your little world!

Worship me! For I am the Evil One George Bush! All hail George Bush!
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Alias
That is correct! It is me, the Evil One, George Bush. I have your destiny in my claws. Do my bidding or I will crush you and your little world!

Worship me! For I am the Evil One George Bush! All hail George Bush!
Yes my master !
 

Similar threads

News China Occupies Florida: What is American Resistance?
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Is Gaddafi Truly Trustworthy After Disarmament Claims?
Replies
12
Views
4K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
Replies
3
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top