Worst World Leaders
- Thread starter Beffudled Sheep
- Start date
Since you don
If you actually seriously READ my post, I made it quite clear that I am not a supporter of Chavez or claim that he is blameless or whatever.
As for the troops and the embassy, I made it quite clear - " Moving troops to the border is INVADING a country? Setting aside the reasons for such an act, MOVING TROOPS is NOT The same as INVADING." There is a clear distinction.
Oh and before you bring up Venezuela and its combined operations with Russia, lets not forget the operations conducted by the US with Taiwan, or the operations conducted with NATO forces in the gulf. We do have such a *selective* interpretation of the world dont we?
Its like saying "we dont Torture"
why?
"because we are the US and by definition we are the good guys, so whatever we do in Guantanamo or Abu Gharib is not torture."
Ahh I see. You would like everything in bite sized little pieces as they do in the news so that you never get the context and the full picture? Attempts at overload notwithstanding *rolls eyes* you really have not challenged the central point of my argument - The claim that Chavez is *The most evil leader Evah!* or that perhaps its not a good idea to tar everyone with the same brush.AceDiamond said:
If you actually seriously READ my post, I made it quite clear that I am not a supporter of Chavez or claim that he is blameless or whatever.
As for the troops and the embassy, I made it quite clear - " Moving troops to the border is INVADING a country? Setting aside the reasons for such an act, MOVING TROOPS is NOT The same as INVADING." There is a clear distinction.
Oh and before you bring up Venezuela and its combined operations with Russia, lets not forget the operations conducted by the US with Taiwan, or the operations conducted with NATO forces in the gulf. We do have such a *selective* interpretation of the world dont we?
Its like saying "we dont Torture"
why?
"because we are the US and by definition we are the good guys, so whatever we do in Guantanamo or Abu Gharib is not torture."
Perhaps you should actually state where you get these figures from:unquenchablefire said:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm
you really don't have to insult me for expressing an opinionYouGetWhatsGiven said:
But yeah, after a while they had the majorities "vote" if you wish to put it. Riots are very good things that can overthrow small amounts of people
specially in Russia (bloody sunday was a fluke they could of easily won, 2 thousand civilians vs 150 guards)
Bah! An example of the propaganda modern schools teach the wee impressionable young ones. Lenin failed in some aspects, as do all leaders, but it was the first time this political system had ever been used. Capitalism has existed for over thousands of years, while communism has never even truly existed. Surely you can't expect it to work immediately?Samirat said:
Robert Mugabe. In fact, most of the African heads of state cause they are mostly driven by greed. And please people, Stalin was not mad, he was shrewd, street-savvy and intelligent, and all this, combined with his excessive paranoia, is what mad him last so damn long. Do you really think a mad man would have been able to out-manoeuver all off his opponents to take over the USSR? It was only once he got mad that he became paranoid but still mostly lucid. If you want madness, think about Rasputin and the effect he had on people.
Oh well
Chaves actually does stuff to help FARC anyways. IF you don't believe that FARC does atrocities (you sound a bit skeptical), take the word from me, they have done horrible things all for money, not ideas or religion. Hey i lived most of my life in Colombia, that where i was born, that's where all my family is, and i hear what they all tell me.
Hard to judge if you have not been affected by anything from the topic
A shred of evidence? Laptops found in the "temporary" camp or Raul Reyes showed information on money being payed from FARC to Chaves, and other Latin leaders. Interpol proved the validity of them.Raven_Letters said:
Chaves actually does stuff to help FARC anyways. IF you don't believe that FARC does atrocities (you sound a bit skeptical), take the word from me, they have done horrible things all for money, not ideas or religion. Hey i lived most of my life in Colombia, that where i was born, that's where all my family is, and i hear what they all tell me.
Hard to judge if you have not been affected by anything from the topic
hitler shouldn't the worst. he pulled his country out of the gutter a made it world leading power. take any other leader from any other time and i doubt they would of had the courage, tenacity, or charisma to do what he did. sure he was an evil fuck that killed millions? but that doesn't make him a bad leader that makes him an evil fuck.Jester Lord said:
Well now I did some research (Not to hard, just googled it) and found the following information:LCP said:
1. INTERPOL Clarifies it Never Determined Authenticity of Laptops that Implicate Venezuela [http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3547]
Representatives of the International Police Organization (Interpol) told Ecuadorian Presidential Adviser Fernando Bustamante in a meeting last week that its investigation of laptop computers which Colombia claims belonged to the FARC ?does not determine if the computers provided were found in the guerrilla camp of the FARC during the incursion on March 1st, if they effectively belonged to Raúl Reyes, and even less so their contents,? according to a recent missive released by the Ecuadorian Foreign Relations Ministry.
Bustamante, the chief advisor to Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, met with INTERPOL representatives last Tuesday during a United Nations conference in New York. At the meeting, INTERPOL ?confirmed that their forensic informational analysis does not imply the validity or the exactitude of the user files that [the computers] contain,? the Ecuadorian government disclosed."
2. José Miguel Insulza the Secretary General of the Organization of American States Appeared before at the USA House Subcommittee on Western Hemispheric Affairs and it was reported that: there was "no evidence" linking Venezuela to the Colombian rebels. [http://www.incakolanews.blogspot.com/2008/05/interpolfarc-laptop-non-event-now.html]
also see: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720012,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
and http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3547. also http://www.telesurtv.net/noticias/afondo/nota.php?ckl=27796&cc=78
In effect:
1. The Computers were siezed by Columbian government forces, as it well known that there is no love lost there, the question of tainted evidence comes up.
2. If there was a serious link between Chavez and FARC, this matter would have been brought up at the UN, since the US is no friend of Chavez and would have demanded a resolution branding him and Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism. The US itself doesn't believe the information given to them by the Colombians, if one goes by the testimony of the OAS and Interpol.
3. Whatever evidence provided is purely circumstantial at best, even if the question of tainted evidence does not come up, and therefore would not hold up in a court of law.
Bottom line: The laptop fiasco has more in common with a Woody Allen movie than an actual Case of Criminal Intent.
======================================================
Side note: FARC.
As for FARC. Probably did commit atrocities, dont know. I am skeptical of governments and those who use violence against them. I prefer to just doubt everyone till they prove their virtue. To paraphrase Yatzhee - I call this the Guantanamo Bay approach to relationships.
What IS relevant here is Chavez: he called on FARC to Disarm. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia#Hugo_Chavez.27s_call_to_disarm]
This is all belaboring the point though - My issue with your post was not whether Chavez is or isnt the devil incarnate, but your view that ANY even tangential (i.e nothing to do with Chavez) support for him by anyone means that those people are the scum of the earth as well.
Dang, all this railing on George Bush for things he didn't even DO.Mayotard94 said:
Heck, sending troops to Iraq was hardly his decision. It was the UN's decision.
And, in fact, Iraq has so far been a successful mission.
Of the 11 objectives they had in Iraq, 10 were accomplished.
The only objective that wasn't met was finding nuclear weapons.
However, we DO have satellite images of missile-transporting trucks fleeing Iraq...
Showing they may have escaped with their experimental nuclear weapons technology.
Frankly, I think he deserves more than people give him credit for.
And I'm almost positive someone will COMPLETELY disregard this comment...
With a simple remark of "Shut up, Republican."
Go ahead and do it. Just know that I was expecting it.
Anyway... back to the topic at hand.
Saddam Hussein was pretty brutal. He sliced people's faces with razor blades.
But I'd say that Stalin would take the cake as worst world leader.
Zeke... s leader shows some moral fibre, old Adolph did some really dirty stuff to come to power.. then he went downhill... he makes the top 5 of evil.
Dubya was an idiot, not evil. does not even make the top 100 of bad (not even evil) leaders
Mugabe is the current #1, despotic, brutal & his putting his own self interest above the suffering of his people
Dubya was an idiot, not evil. does not even make the top 100 of bad (not even evil) leaders
Mugabe is the current #1, despotic, brutal & his putting his own self interest above the suffering of his people
I guess you are right. The blame can't be put entirely on Bush and he's not the only guy at fault here. I was actually arguing with my dad about this. He said pretty much what you said Klagermeister. And yes, Bush has managed to accomplish many things over his presidency but lets face it, its always fun to put the blame on the big guy.Klagermeister said: