News Top 10 Tyrants That Have Gotta Go

[N_Quire]

Can anyone think of a list of top 10 Tyrants that should be removed by whatever means, hopefully peacefully, ie by the all-action and effective United Nations. Failing that, special ops by the CIA and others or direct military action by the United States.

I can think of a few dictators we could do without:
1) Kim Jong II of North Korea
2) Osama bin Laden (ok, not a leader of a country but still a tyrant and a terrorist)
3) President Mugabe of Zimbabwe
4) Fidel Castro, Cuba
5) President Bashar al-Assad of Syria
6) King Faisal, Saudi Arabia (though he's our friend, so we can give hima bit longer to go)
7) The dictator of Burma, Hakka Ne Win

 

[Zero]

Ariel Sharon, anyone?

 

[damgo]

^^^ I hate Sharon, but that's going too far...

-North Korea
-Sierra Leone
-Congo
-Tajikstan
-Uzbekistan
-Libya
-Algeria
-Burma
-Zimbabwe

Whatever you may think of Castro, he's been pretty damn good for Cuba.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by damgo
^^^ I hate Sharon, but that's going too far...

If you want peace, you've got to get rid of Sharon, period.

 

[damgo]

Or just move out, and let the far right establish Greater Israel.

I agree, but that doesn't make him one of the worst dictators in the world; far from it. The Israelis did even elect the guy, G-d have mercy on them.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure who (if anyone) is in control in Yemen, but that one needs fixing.

 

[damgo]

Today's quiz: how many of the above countries are in the Coalition of the Willing? I honestly don't know and am curious.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Congo doesn't pose any threats beyond it's borders, but inside it is pandemonium.

Here is a list of dangerous places:
http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces.htm

Interesting how the USA is on it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
Today's quiz: how many of the above countries are in the Coalition of the Willing? I honestly don't know and am curious.

I'll see if I can find a list.

 

[Turtle]

One for the list would have to be George Bush Jr.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Ariel Sharon, anyone?

Get a grip...

Originally posted by Zero
The Israelis did even elect the guy,
G-d have mercy on them.

There is no God, there's only reality.
But if there was one - may it have mercy on the
cowards and fools that will be slaughtered in
their beds because they refused to see it coming.

How about libarating France from Shiraq...
Clearly the French are fine and educated
people and are themselves surprised at their
country's positions because of all the muslim
arabs flooding it.

Live long and prosper (most of you ).

 

[kyleb]

wow, i don't know that he makes the top 10; but drag is defiantly tyrannical.

 

[Nicool003]

Whatever you may think of Castro, he's been pretty damn good for Cuba.

On what planet? He is no Bin Laden or saddam but have you ever heard of the Cuban Missle Chrisis?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Nicool003
On what planet? He is no Bin Laden or saddam but
have you ever heard of the Cuban Missle Chrisis?

And ?

 

[kyleb]

i am curious where he is going with this one as well.

 

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Zero
Ariel Sharon, anyone?

Yasser Arafat without doubt aswell.

Pretty much agree with the rest of your list N_Quire. Anyone saying George Bush is pathetic.

 

[Nicool003]

i am curious where he is going with this one as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nicool003
On what planet? He is no Bin Laden or saddam but
have you ever heard of the Cuban Missle Chrisis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And ?

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.

 

[Zero]

As long as Sharon is in power, there will be no peace. His power is based soley on fear and terror.

 

[Nicool003]

There is no God, there's only reality.

I would argue against that and I would ask things like "WHAT IS YOUR PROOF?!" or "SAYS WHO" but I guess that could be saved for the religion or philosophy forum.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Turtle
One for the list would have to be George Bush Jr.

I guess we were all counting down the seconds before someone says that...

Lemme see:
N Korea
Pakistan and India
Israel and Palestine : yep, Arafat and Sharon, together
Iran

But not really got to go. More go as soon as safely possible. If all of the above went suddenly, we might be in a worse state than we started.

Good thing Kenedy was in office when that happened, he was a great president. His diplomatic and military plans worked wonders.

His military advisors actually told him to shoot first. He had to expressed order them not to open fire. The real hero of the show was perhaps Krushchev, for being a coward. And thus, saving the world.
Not often you hear that, do you?

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?

Nah... not really. They were short ranged missiles that can hit Florida. The longer ranged missiles the soviets had could already hit all of the US. And not hesitating to use is the basis of MAD. The US would not have hesitated to use their missiles either - and we had a massive advantage in weapon numbers and type.
They weren't quite ready to fire either. They were dismantled before then. The army plan was to invade Cuba before they became ready to fire. Good thing they didn't.

Castro, to the cubans was not all that bad a leader. At least as the soviets go, he wasn't bad. There is no doubting that his country is better off today than it was under the dictator Batista. Still not that good, but not in the same league as north korea etc. Castro actually offered an alliance with the US, but was forced into a binding trade agreement with Russia.

 

[Zero]

Arafat isn't an evil dictator...he's pretty useless, all in all, but no tyrant. Him and Sharon should go 'Celebrity Deathmatch' style on each other...and then we exile the 'winner'.

 

[damgo]

^^^ Yup.

Hmm... I'm just not seeing how the CMC makes Castro that evil. It is no problem when the USA aims nuclear missiles at the USSR, say putting them in Turkey, but it is evil when the USSR aims missiles at the USA? MacArthur wanted to nuke China; does that make him equally evil? Personally I am rather glad for Mutually Assured Destruction; it kept us all from doing something really, really stupid.

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.

 

[Nicool003]

His military advisors actually told him to shoot first. He had to expressed order them not to open fire.

That is what I mean by his military plan? Don't you get it? He avoided war AND the cubans backed down. I don't get how you figure Krushchev is a hero!


Damgo the people there don't love him that much! How about that rebellion that broke out a few years ago?! Not everyone likes him. And why do you think many cubans try to escape to America? And many succede?

 

[N_Quire]

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. In the beginning, Fidel might even have been ok and popular. Now, he's bad, stale and going nowhere and needs to hand over power.

 

[Sting]

Pakistan and India

I wouldn't necessarily say "tyrants" but both are trigger-happy so yes, a regime change would be beneficial.

Although it's not the only reason, Kashmir plays a role.

Pakistan wants it because of the sweaters and India wants it because they're all Led Zeppelin fans (at least that's my theory).

It is no problem when the USA aims nuclear missiles at the USSR, say putting them in Turkey, but it is evil when the USSR aims missiles at the USA?

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

 

[Alias]

*deleted because of Physics Forums Guideline violations*

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[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.

 

[Njorl]

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 existence 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

 

[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...

 

[kat]

BH-Can you explain this term "Bassers"?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
BH-Can you explain this term "Bassers"?

People who fish for sea bass?

 

[damgo]

I think it's some of that crazy UK slang... like "pulling birds" and stuff.

 

[Sting]

Were you able to read the post before it was deleted?

I wasn't able to. Was it directed towards me?

 

[Alias]

Nope.

Maybe next time.

 

[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 you bassar!"

I guess I'm further over the hill than I had imagined. Has no one heard this before?

 

[kat]

Ahhh you Bassar!

Lol, it's a new one to me
Maybe, It'll make a comeback though
haha

 

[drag]

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
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".
(Great ST episode btw !)

 

[drag]

*Deleted personal attack*

 

[Dissident Dan]

http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/march03/iraq6.html

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)

 

[Viper]

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)

 

[drag]

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.

 

[FZ+]

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.

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[FZ+]

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...

 

[russ_watters]

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, that's the WEAKER of the two definitions. It really doesn't matter how you become a tyrant. Just that you become one.

 

[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

 

[russ_watters]

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."