The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

[AGENDA21]

A “dictator” is a head of state who exercises arbitrary authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power through legal means. The worst commit terrible human-rights abuses. This present list draws in part on reports by global human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International. While the three worst from 2005 have retained their places, two on last year’s list (Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan) have slipped out of the Top 10—not because their conduct has improved but because other dictators have gotten worse.

1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 62. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 1

2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea. Age 63. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 2

3) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar). Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 3

4) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 81. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 9

5) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan. Age 67. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 15

6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

7) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 82. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5

8) Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 65. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8

9) Seyed Ali Khamane’i, Iran. Age 66. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 18

10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

11-20 in link below:

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Notice a commonality? n/t

[Skidmore]

3. Actually, I don't.

I see a listing of men from all continents and various religious backgrounds. What they have in common is their ham handed control of their countrymen.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Look again. n/t

Actually, only TWO continents are represented...Asia and Africa. So, look harder....

[Skittles]

50. they're all old men?

?

[mandyky]

5. Most are in their sixties and

except for 1 came in during Reagan or Bush1.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. that's one commanility...

on edit: I should have said "any" not "a."

[Skidmore]

7. Care to clue us in? Some of us haven't had our coffee yet.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Half have something in common.

Of course... on a deeper look, I am sure there would be even more in common.

[FSogol]

9. Most are or were clients of Henry Kissinger? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

13. :)

I am sure there are many that would LOVE that....but, that ain't it.

[LostinVA]

40. All are men

[Skidmore]

12. *Smacking my forehead* Oh, golly, gee, wow. Why didn't

I just look at that list and see all the big bad Muslims on it? I just saw a crew of bad actors in Third World countries who have chosen to oppress their peoples.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Good for you...

...let's see how many more will see it too.

I think it is funny you diminish the connection. Even more amusing, that you'd assume that they are all the same way. (I use 'funny' and 'amusing' in the ironic sense.) If half were Christian or JEWISH or atheist, very few here would have an issue pointing that out!

Do you not see the real problem? I am guessing you don't.

Fundamentalism!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. Yeah, it's a good thing Secularism defeated church power in the West.

Let's not let them try to get it back. They sure are trying.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. How about oil?

That's an interesting avenue of thought, as well.

[400Years]

24. so the north koreans, chinese, burmese, ec. guinea are now muslim?

hmmm.....your trying a little too hard

[Zynx]

32. Off hand I would say a majority are not Muslim.

I counted a couple Christians and a couple Atheists in there.

[LostinVA]

41. All are also men

[Strelnikov_]

35. Most Are Existing Or Potential Trading Partners Of The Party Of Davos?

Sources of 'raw materials'. Oil, labor, metals.


The 'Party of Davos'.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/faux

Americans are of course prominent members of this "Party of Davos," which relies on the financial and military might of the US superpower to support its agenda. In exchange, the American members of the Party of Davos get a privileged place for their projects--and themselves. Whether it's at Davos, at NATO headquarters or in the boardroom of the International Monetary Fund, heads turn and people listen more carefully when the American speaks.

. . .

That the global economy is developing a global ruling class should come as no shock. All markets generate economic class differences. In stable, self-contained national economies, where capital and labor need each other, political bargaining produces a social contract that allows enough wealth to trickle down from the top to keep the majority loyal. "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Dwight Eisenhower's Defense Secretary famously said in the 1950s. The United Auto Workers agreed, which at the time seemed to toss the notion of class warfare into the dustbin of history. But as domestic markets become global, investors increasingly find workers, customers and business partners almost anywhere. Not surprisingly, they have come to share more economic interests with their peers in other countries than with people who simply have the same nationality. They also share a common interest in escaping the restrictions of their domestic social contracts.

The class politics of this new world economic order is obscured by the confused language that filters the globalization debate from talk radio to Congressional hearings to university seminars. On the one hand, we are told that the flow of money and goods across borders is making nation-states obsolete. On the other, global economic competition is almost always defined as conflict among national interests. Thus, for example, the US press warns us of a dire economic threat from China. Yet much of the "Chinese" menace is a business partnership between China's commissars, who supply the cheap labor, and America's (and Japan's and Europe's) capitalists, who supply the technology and capital. "World poverty" is likewise framed as an issue of the distribution of wealth between rich and poor countries, ignoring the existence of rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries.

. . .

The conventional wisdom makes globalization synonymous with "free trade" among autonomous nations. Yet as Renato Ruggiero, the first director-general of the World Trade Organization, noted in a rare moment of candor, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy."

[Just Me]

49. Most do business with U.S. multi-national corporations?

:shrug:

[Robeson]

2. It would be hard to put Bush on that list, because he's just a puppet...

...of the puppet-masters. But shouldn't there be a list for World's Worst Plutocracy? I think we'd have that one, hands down.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Let's play "Find the American allies" n/t

[AGENDA21]

18. Only 1...thats Saudi Arabia.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Hmm...

I guess we're not friends with Uzbekistan any more. Think I read something about that a while back.

[400Years]

23. The Bush gang loves that asshole from Uzbekistan

[Zynx]

28. They love him to bits as a matter of fact.

[rman]

11. all worse than Saddam, yet no need for "liberation"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. "and who cannot be removed from power through legal means?" But but but

That would mean Chavez ISN'T one! IT CAN'T BE!!1!!!!!11sin(pi/2)1!@!11!!

[merbex]

16. I see this is the 2006 edition - when Saddam was in power I used to hear

that he didn't even make the top 20

I used to tell my repug friends that and they refused to believe me

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. In 2003, Saddam was #3.

Interestingly enough, Abdullah was #2.

[Radio_Guy]

22. Take note, rethugs

Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are nowhere in that list. In fact, if you were to rank the top 30, you still wouldn't find them on any unbiased lists.

[Zynx]

30. They have Castro as #15, but Chavez is not on there.

[Clara T]

25. Where does capitalism fit in there?

Seems it should be number ONE with a bullet.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

26. Only one is known to boil people alive as a form of torture

whilst another has gotten so demented that he's renamed a month after himself (and another after his mother). Both however are allies in the "War on Terror" so they're a-OK.

[Zynx]

33. Which one was that?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

39. Karimov (Uzbekistan) is the boiler, Niyazov (aka

"Great Leader of the Turkmens") is the cult of personality psychopath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov

[Zynx]

34. Which one was that?

[mvd]

27. Bush must have been secretly looking at this list..

with envy.

It is a nice surprise that they put the Saudi ruler in, since Parade leans conservative.

[Zynx]

29. That's quite a crowd.

All of them are sacks of shit.

[porphyrian]

31. At first, I thought you meant the top ten worst at being dictators...

I'd like to see that list.

[ryan_cats]

36. Hmmm, who is missing from that list?

Hmmm, who is missing from that list? Is it our own supreme maximum leader?

[Clark2008]

37. How come Bush isn't on this list?

Technically, though, I guess he COULD be removed from power by legal means, but, realistically, those who write the laws don't have to guts enough to legally remove his sorry ass.

However, he fits the bill on most of the other issues: perceived arbitrary power and human-rights abuses.

[varun]

38. #17. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators_11_to_20

Thats why Dubya is gonna meet him today.

[Initech]

42. Couldnt Bush be added to the list by that definition?

"A “dictator” is a head of state who exercises arbitrary authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power through legal means. "

Excercises arbitrary authority over the lives of citizens? Check.

Cannot be removed from power through legal means? Check.

[AGENDA21]

43. Bush not a dictator but a warmonger...might

be the reason hes not on the list

[Initech]

45. Another way you could look at it:

Look at how much propaganda the W administration has administered since 2001. Through churches, through television advertisements, through the talking heads on AM radio and Fox News... no one has seen this level of propaganda since the days of Josef Stalin.

Also add into the fact that we have an administration that actively supports prison torture, declares war on smaller countries with no evidence to back it up, and dismisses dissenters as terrorists, you basically have all the makings of a dictator.

[BushOut06]

44. Wrong, we can remove * from power through legal means

Now whether or not Congress has the "intestinal fortitude" to do so is another matter.

As much as I despise *, these other guys are definitely worse. But it is worth noticing how conveniently * overlooked these guys in his zeal to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Guess these other people must not have really wanted to be liberated.

[Initech]

46. We could... but has anyone yet?

People are scared shitless of the W cabal. I'm sure that's the main reason no one has even attempted to bring impeachment and/or treason charges against them yet.

[BushOut06]

47. Sure - who is it in Congress who drew up the articles?

Shame on me for not remembering this off the top of my head, but I'm sure that other DUers can help out here. There are plenty of Dems who would love to toss his ass out of office. But right now, it's just not feasible, because we don't control Congress.

[Initech]

48. I've seen several drafts of impeachment articles...

And you're right on that, but we also dont control Congress yet.

[f-bush]

51. What about GWB?