World’s Worst Dictators for 2004

World’s Worst Dictators for 2004 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14576256&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=the-world-s-worst-dictators-name_page.html)
Here is a list of the world’s 10 worst living dictators as compiled by dictator-watcher David Wallechinsky in collaboration with Amnesty International, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders.

[1.] KIM JONG IL (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=KIM JONG IL)
Country: North Korea
Age: 63 In power: 10 yrs
Last year’s rank: 1
THE only nation to earn the worst possible score for political rights and civil liberties for 31 straight years. An estimated 150,000 prisoners do forced labour. . . .

[2.] THAN SHWE (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=THAN SHWE)
Country: Burma
Age: 71 In power: 13 yrs
Last year’s rank: 5
GENERAL Than is sole leader of Burma’s military dictatorship. . . .

[3.] HU JINTAO (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=HU JINTAO)
Country: China
Age: 61 In power: 2 yrs
Last year’s rank: Dishonourable mention
HU Jintao is Communist Party president and general secretary. China executes more people than the rest of the world put together - Amnesty International estimates 2,500 a year, others say 15,000. The party controls all media and uses 30,000 "internet security agents" to monitor online use.
Don’t forget the forced abortions and infanticides to enforce the "one child" policy, or the suppression of organized religion and the Falun Gong.

[4.] ROBERT MUGABE (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=ROBERT MUGABE)
Country: Zimbabwe
Age: 80 In power: 24 yrs
Last year’s rank: Dishonourable mention
Once the darling of the West,
. . . and still the darling of the Western Left . . .
Robert Mugabe has become increasingly dictatorial. His government has killed or tortured and displaced more than 70,000 people. The Supreme Court has carried out the dictator’s strategy of silencing criticism and stamping on human rights, and has just blocked an official report on the massacre of 20,000 civilians.
And then there’s the famine.

[5.] CROWN PRINCE ABDULLAH (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=PRINCE ABDULLAH)
Country: Saudi Arabia
Age: 80 In power: 9 yrs
Last year’s rank: 2
Abdullah has been acting leader since his half-brother, King Fahd, had a stroke in 1995. The country holds no elections whatsoever. Human Rights Watch has reported "slavery-like conditions" for the 8.8 million foreign workers in the Kingdom, and Saudi women are second-class citizens.

[6.] TEODORO OBIANG NGUEMA (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=NGUEMA)
Country: Equatorial Guinea
Age: 61 In power: 25 yrs
Last year’s rank: 6
Although oil-rich, 60 per cent of the people in this tiny West African nation live on 60p a day. Obiang is believed to have a £500 million fortune and is in "permanent contact with the Almighty", according to state radio. He "can decide to kill without being called to account".
Of course, everyone on this list can decide to kill without being called to account.

[7.] OMAR AL-BASHIR (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=OMAR AL-BASHIR)
Country: Sudan
Age: 59 In power: 15 yrs
Last year’s rank: Dishonourable mention
Al-Bashir seized power by military force. The country is in the grip of a 20-year civil war that has killed 2 million and made 4 million homeless. Al-Bashir’s army routinely bombs civilians and tortures and massacres non-Muslims. He has also been accused of "engineering famine" in the regions that oppose him.

[8.] SAPARMURAT NIYAZOV (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=SAPARMURAT NIYAZOV)
Country: Turkmenistan
Age: 64 In power: 14 yrs
Last year’s rank: Dishonourable mention
All government workers must memorize passages of Niyazov’s book to keep their jobs. He’s banned beards, gold teeth and circuses, renamed months of the year after his mum and created a public holiday to celebrate melons.
So he’s on the list for comic relief?
Last year he cracked down on religious and ethnic minorities.
Still think he’s overrated as a tyrant.

[9.] FIDEL CASTRO (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=FIDEL CASTRO)
Country: Cuba
Age: 77 In power: 45 yrs
Last year’s rank: 9
The world’s longest-surviving dictator has in the last few years carried out the biggest round-up of non-violent dissidents in more than a decade. He arrested 75 human-rights activists, journalists and academics, sentencing them to 19 years’ jail on average. In the last six months he put a blind lawyer and nine activists on trial. Cuba is a one-party state and Castro runs the courts.
Think he should be a few places higher on the list.

[10.] KING MSWATI (http://rantburg.com/qsearch.asp?S=KING MSWATI) III
Country: Swaziland
Age: 35 In power: 18 yrs
Last year’s rank: Not listed
Educated in England, he has a reputation for lavish living with a fleet of BMWs, a host of palaces and a love of foreign trips, which contrasts with the plight of Swaziland’s 300,000 drought-stricken farmers.

What about monkey boy?

What about monkey boy?

Bush isnt a dictator yet.

As for Saddam, the one who was such a threat to the world? Not even on the list? Huh...

Note the surprised look on my face...

but no... Bush is the worst leader in the world :rolleyes:

I suspect this list may have been posted in part to provoke that very response, Kaz. Nothing pleases a right-winger more than a bitching liberal. It's fun to poke the lion from outside the cage. But remember, although W may hang with the best of them...sadly, HE WAS ELECTED. And many folks are happy as strawberries going to hell in a handbasket with the fool. Dictator by strictest definition- no. But he gets an honorable mention in my book.

I suspect this list may have been posted in part to provoke that very response, Kaz. Nothing pleases a right-winger more than a bitching liberal. It's fun to poke the lion from outside the cage. But remember, although W may hang with the best of them...sadly, HE WAS ELECTED. And many folks are happy as strawberries going to hell in a handbasket with the fool. Dictator by strictest definition- no. But he gets an honorable mention in my book.


He was most certainly elected to run the USA...but most definitely not elected to run Iraq.And Saddam didn't make the list because he had already been booted out of office by foreign intervention.

Interesting to see the Saudis at number two though.If I recall correctly, the US had bases there right up until after they stole Iraq.Now given that Saudi has an apalling human rights record, and the terrorists who brought down the WTC were mostly Suadis ,led by a Saudi, and the US already had a secure foothold imn the country.......one would think that they would have been the logical first target in a campaign of anti - terrorism and enforced democracy?

But no,it'll never happen because the Bush family and the Saudi royal family have been one big happy hog wallow for years.

He was most certainly elected to run the USA...but most definitely not elected to run Iraq.And Saddam didn't make the list because he had already been booted out of office by foreign intervention.


Oh woops. I thought he was captured in 04. After furtehr research, I prove myself incorrect.

Anyhooooo

but no... Bush is the worst leader in the world :rolleyes:

Thats quite a statement!!

I wouldnt say he's close to the best or worst. All I know is that I still have the right to oppose anything that man says.

He was most certainly elected to run the USA...but most definitely not elected to run Iraq.

Good point.

Interesting to see the Saudis at number two though.If I recall correctly, the US had bases there right up until after they stole Iraq.Now given that Saudi has an apalling human rights record, and the terrorists who brought down the WTC were mostly Suadis ,led by a Saudi, and the US already had a secure foothold imn the country.......one would think that they would have been the logical first target in a campaign of anti - terrorism and enforced democracy?


Also interesting that the U.S. swept the majority of Libyan oil and gas contracts. Dictatorships and terrorist nations are OK as long as they have something we want- and are willing to give it to us.

And Kurt, I have that right too. Look what good it's done me for the second time.

I believe Saddam had been rated sixth (or was it third? - he's never been first) in the initial version of this list - which appeared five or so years ago. It's good to see that all those who are far - far - far - worse than Saddam are still happily in power, Bush supporters can proudly say their man has served justice to the world. :grinno:

Good point.
And Kurt, I have that right too. Look what good it's done me for the second time.

I would of thought that after reading this post, that right should mean everything to you. Things may not always turn out in your particular favor, but at least you have a voice.

Bush did win the election so that could point to endless possible explanations of why. I don't however think that it was due to the ignorance of the majorities decision, rather; the lack of confidence in Kerry's leadership.

Interesting to see the Saudis at number two though.If I recall correctly, the US had bases there right up until after they stole Iraq.Now given that Saudi has an apalling human rights record, and the terrorists who brought down the WTC were mostly Suadis ,led by a Saudi, and the US already had a secure foothold imn the country.......one would think that they would have been the logical first target in a campaign of anti - terrorism and enforced democracy?

But no,it'll never happen because the Bush family and the Saudi royal family have been one big happy hog wallow for years.

Nope, I don't think it has to do with the Bush family and Saudi royal ties. The thing is where does/has/will America get most of its oil? The answer is Saudi Arabia of course. The U.S. wouldn't dare start making claims against them because of the fear another 1970's oil embargo would happen. The U.S. may hate the terrorist that come from the country but love the oil enough to not make a move against them. It's really a sad thing once you think about it.

Bush did win the election so that could point to endless possible explanations of why. I don't however think that it was due to the ignorance of the majorities decision, rather; the lack of confidence in Kerry's leadership.

I didn't say that I wasn't also disgusted by the party system that ultimately led to the choice between shit and turds in addition to the results of the majority vote.

I suspect this list may have been posted in part to provoke that very response, Kaz. Nothing pleases a right-winger more than a bitching liberal. It's fun to poke the lion from outside the cage. But remember, although W may hang with the best of them...sadly, HE WAS ELECTED. And many folks are happy as strawberries going to hell in a handbasket with the fool. Dictator by strictest definition- no. But he gets an honorable mention in my book.


You suspect wrong, this list wasn't posted to provoke anyone the left or the right. There is more going on iin the world then George Bush why does every topic have to end up being a slam fest of Bush and the US?

I was searching for something and I ran across this topic. I was suprised by some of the names on the list. I figured why not post this here so we could discuss it hoping maybe it wouldn't digress into a bitch fest between the right and left.

There is more going on iin the world then George Bush...

Not when he's trying to run the whole world

There is more going on iin the world then George Bush why does every topic have to end up being a slam fest of Bush and the US?


There was a lot more going on in the world in 1939 than Hitler, but its what people remember.

Bush is without doubt the most influential man in the world today.He is also the most visible.And when your decisions are held up to such intense scrutiny, and found to be inadequate, cruel and incompetent by so many, he is going to got criticised.

What amuses me is the number of Bush supporters who try to tie a very fair and justified dislike of a bad President to an unfair and unproven dislike of the United States.Having complete contemp for the POTUS does not equate to having any form of contempt for the wider population and customs of America.

The Bush brownnosers will try to argue that because Bush was elected, he represents the American people,and that to insult Bush is to insult America.I would point out two things.More people chose not to vote for Bush than chose to back him, and the election was not about whether Bush was right for the job,rather it was about whether Bush could do it better than Kerry.
The American public chose Bush,which was a shame.While he may be the better man for the job,the shitbags, racists, neocons and oil companies that put him there ultimately dictate which direction he has to take.And he doesn't have the balls,the brains, or the conscience to stand up to them and say that they are wrong.The rest of the world was telling him so,but as is his duty to his Republican backers, he was compelled to try and sell his war to America and the world. He failed, because it is groundless, absurd and unwinnable. The only benefit has come to the Republican party, which has used this conflict shamelessly to bluff their way into a second term.

While GW has been discussed ad nauseum, he's not a dictator - at least to his own people. He may eventually make the list, but if he does, we here in the US likely won't be able to hear about it or discuss it openly.

It's shame that the worst leaders, scratch that, worst power hungry evil people in the world, have done so much to the people of their own countries, and are still in power. However bad things are in some places, that doesn't give the right to any other country to invade to make things right.