Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > PogieAmerican > Pogie's the MAN..... |
|
The World's 10 Worst Dictators compiled by AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.. ******  THE WORLD'S TEN WORST DICTATORS******IT IS said the President of Equatorial Guinea eats the testicles of executed prisoners!  But Sir Mark Thatcher will be pleased to know that the man he is accused of plotting against - and his future host if he is extradited from South Africa - is only the sixth worst living dictator in the world. President Teodoro Obiang Nguema is a very bad man, but he will have to go some to match the level of brutality in North Korea, Burma and China. 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 II 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. And Kim Jong is so obsessed with films that he kidnapped movie director Shin Sang-ok from the South in 1978, force-fed him grass and made him do a Marxist version of Godzilla. 2) 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. Some 140,000 Burmese displaced by decades of conflict and repression live in refugee camps in Bangladesh and Thailand. In 1990, the party of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi won an election. But the regime cancelled the results and put her under house arrest. 3) 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. 4) ROBERT MUGABE Country: Zimbabwe Age: 80 In power: 24 yrs Last year's rank: Dishonourable mention Once the darling of the West, 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. 5) CROWN 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 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 £500million fortune and is in "permanent contact with the Almighty", according to state radio. He "can decide to kill without being called to account". 7) 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 2million and made 4million 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 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. Last year he cracked down on religious and ethnic minorities. 9) 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. 10) 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. The country also has the worst HIV/AIDS infection rate in the world. A third of pregnant mothers have tested positive. 
|
|||
1/23/2006 12:41 am |
THE WORLD'S TEN WORST DICTATORS 1) KIM JONG II - NORTH KOREA 2) THAN SHWE -BURMA 3) HU JINTAO - CHINA 4) ROBERT MUGABE -ZIMBABWE 5) CROWN PRINCE ABDULLAH - SAUDI 6) TEODORO OBIANG NGUEMA - EQUATORIAL GUINEA 7) OMAR AL-BASHIR - SUDAN  SAPARMURAT NIYAZOV - TURMENISTAN9) FIDEL CASTRO - CUBA 10)KING MSWATI III - SWAZILAND NO MORE OH OH SADDAM HUSSAIN NOT ON THE LIST ,,, I KNEW COZ WHEN U LIST SADDAM  NNNNWILL REVERT BACK TO ()WWWWWWWWHITE HAHAHAHAH JOKES .........BEST KILLER HAHAAHHave a nice day ! 
| ||
1/23/2006 12:44 am |
can i withdraw my pst pssst........ Have a nice day !
| ||
|
My personal favorite is Moammar Kadhafi, even though he's not considered so bad since having pled guilty, making restitution for the Lockerbie bombing, and turning evidence against North Korea and Pakistan for helping Libya in it's underground nuclear R&D program. It's just that I really admire the guy for traveling with his stunningly gorgeous entourage of all female body guards, decked out in their perfectly tailored, high fashion, designer striking blue uniforms and AK-47s.
| ||
|
hmmmmmm Moammar Kadhafi BF's of mrs. marcos hehheheh   
| ||
1/23/2006 12:45 pm |
can i withdraw my pst pssst........ 
| ||
1/23/2006 12:48 pm |
can i withdraw my pst pssst........ 
| ||
1/23/2006 1:17 pm |
hmmmmmm Moammar Kadhafi BF's of mrs. marcos hehheheh She's too busy finding a pair of shoe's to wear to Ferdinard's funeral, when the politician's decide to bury him at Malacanang OR the garbage dump in Tondo!
| ||
1/23/2006 6:58 pm |
Former Pres. F. Marcos dead!
| ||
1/23/2006 8:17 pm |
ok come on saddam speak out lets the world knows about america) oh my papa don't be shy. while ur still alive. no matter what i'm in your side hehehheheheh u just look alike my real father...... Have a nice day !
| ||
1/23/2006 8:19 pm |
pogie really once upon a time khafi girlfriends, dance in dining with dimming light...... Have a nice day !
| ||
|
the shoes been over thrown away,, hehhehe tsk tsk at SM malls...
| ||
|
Why don't you fire off an e-mail to Kadhafi and ask him that question for yourself?
| ||
|
If I remember Bro,the NK leader kidnapped also a famous actress,wife I think? And they eventually escaped by pretending to do good films for the party and getting to East Europe where they made their escape. President Suharto is my fav,a report just released and handed to Kofi Aman shows Indonesia's brutality to East Timor since 1975-1999,180,000+ deaths,,torture,chemical weapons,opam(napalm),poisoning etc etc. I worked with FALANTIL the ET resistance for 20yrs,but dictators like him and even the late jerk off Idi Amin(looked after by Saudi Arabia)from Uganda,are always supported by us so called Western Countries who should no better,ie General Pinochet & Margaret Thatcher.. And Burma today is supported by Australia,even though when the Tsunami hit,they blocked out aid. West Papua's atrocities have come to light now here(again)after some refugees escaped to Australia,a big embarrasment for our Indonesia suppoprting Gov now. Thanks for the data,I do appreciate it. And Donald my family is East Timorese also,I am hakiak,adopted,Aussie,yeah I have Aboriginal & Torres Strait Island family also. You misjudged me,a guy protecting women & children for 20+ years against his own Gov,sheesh. Don't strees May & Cez are my friends. ^_* Take care.
| ||
|
Monday, January 29, 2001 The path of corruption By J.R. Nyquist © 2001 WorldNetDaily Recent studies show that unprecedented numbers of students are cheating in school, that stealing has increased 5,000 percent since 1950, that illegitimacy has skyrocketed. In keeping with our nation's ongoing slide into the lower depths, the White House itself was recently vandalized by outgoing staffers of the Clinton administration. The Drudge Report described this vandalism as "widespread sabotage of White House office equipment and lewd messages left behind by [the] previous tenants." Here is a true glimpse of America's cutting-edge liberals: the best and brightest of a rebel generation stripping the letter "W" from office machines, writing dirty epithets on the walls. This venereal vanguard, led by "Twisted Willie" himself, came to the White House in 1993. And now that their time in paradise is over, they have inflicted this last, unprecedented indignity on our nation's administrative center. And worse yet, President George W. Bush is not inclined to apprehend or punish the culprits, who allegedly caused some $200,000 in damage. What else could we have expected? Bad men act with impunity, expecting a weak response from good men. The good men follow the script, like jackasses, guaranteeing further outrages in the future. None of this should surprise us. The country has been ruled by political hooligans for eight dreadful years. The opposition party, in all that time, has been weak and pitiful, perhaps because any hard-fisted response would have been matched by further left-wing outrages, leading to a disruption of the country's all-important prosperity. So the Clinton administration was allowed to do its thing. At the very outset they dismantled White House security. In the words of former White House FBI-man Gary Aldrich, the Clintons appointed people "who previously would have been considered unsuitable and/or security risks." This included persons with histories of drug abuse. According to Aldrich, the Clintons themselves refused to obey the rules and refused to follow the directives of congressional oversight committees. They also subverted the effectiveness of the Secret Service. The most shocking fact, however, is not that the Clinton administration harbored hooligans. The most shocking fact is that the American people elected this Arkansas reprobate and his disgusting entourage not once, but twice. America is in serious trouble, even though we presently enjoy material prosperity. In fact, this prosperity is currently holding us up. But if the economy should sputter, don't count on the result. Bad people are tolerable when they are sated, but notice how their temper changes when things don't go their way. Behind every charming narcissist lies a fuming, murderous incendiary. The recent White House outrage only gives us the smallest glimpse into this mentality. It is only natural that the outgoing crew was unhappy at their departure, and this unhappiness was not simply internal. It was inflicted on the country in general. Some Americans want to know if there is a solution to our present political and social difficulties, which stem from corruption, apathy and widespread ignorance. People want to know how to deal with political hooligans, rebels and saboteurs. Do we turn a blind eye, as President Bush has done? Or do we go after them? It is only natural, given our hedonistic market system, that people want ready-made solutions. They actually become angry when the growing cancer of corruption is brought into the open with no apparent or simple solution at hand. The bad news should be obvious by now. Things will get worse before they get better. The good news is, that all political problems eventually fix themselves. All things contain the seeds of their own destruction. This includes the bad as well as the good. The Italian political thinker, Niccolo Machiavelli, had a few words on the subject of corruption, which might do us good to review. "Those princes and those republics," wrote Machiavelli, "which desire to remain free from corruption, should above all else maintain incorrupt the ceremonies of their religion and should hold them always in veneration; for there can be no surer indication of the decline of a country than to see divine worship neglected." According to Machiavelli, corruption proceeds from a decline in religious observance, and marches forward against liberty itself. Using history as his guide, especially Roman history, the author of "The Discourses" wrote that "a corrupted people, having acquired liberty, can maintain it only with great difficulty." Machiavelli clearly says that legislation is to no avail in states where the citizens themselves are corrupt. Real reform can only be initiated by an "extremely strong individual," wrote Machiavelli, who is determined to eradicate the bad and elevate the good. "If a state is in decline owing to the corruption of its human material a renaissance, if it is possible at all, will be by virtue of some one person." This is a disturbing statement, difficult for Americans to accept. But when society itself is corrupt, history shows that the solution must come from outside the society, through the uprightness of a single person. "Furthermore," says Machiavelli, "institutions and laws made in the early days of a republic when men were good, no longer serve their purpose when men have become bad." Again and again, Machiavelli harped on the necessity of bringing forth "one good man." Such a person is supposedly the only way out. But there is a moral paradox here. "To reconstitute political life in a state," wrote Machiavelli, "presupposes a good man, whereas to have recourse to violence in order to make oneself prince in a republic supposes a bad man." Let us think about this for a moment. In order to save a republic you need a good man who is willing to behave like a bad man (i.e., a dictator). This is very unusual, says Machiavelli. "Very rarely will there be found a good man ready to use bad methods ... with a good end in view." In recent Western history we have an example to draw upon. In the early 1970s Chile's democracy got into trouble under a lamentable Marxist president, Salvador Allende. The resulting anarchy and economic collapse, along with fears of communist dictatorship, led Gen. Augusto Pinochet to intervene. A devout Catholic, Gen. Pinochet followed Machiavelli's model for rescuing a corrupt state. Some observers would say that Pinochet was a good man "willing to behave like a bad man" with a good end in view. Pinochet and his associates knew they could not reason with Marxists, so they murdered them. They decided to round up the leading troublemakers and eliminate them without any judicial proceedings. Thinking of the long-term welfare of the Chilean people, Pinochet's temporary dictatorship thereby brought about economic prosperity and, in the end, a constitutional democracy. Had the communists taken over the country, however, economic stagnation and mass executions on a much larger scale might have followed. In that event, democracy would never have been restored. Given the success of Pinochet's ruthless measures, and the benefits they brought to Chile as a whole, we are left in a horrible moral quandary. Today, ironically, Gen. Augusto Pinochet may be tried and imprisoned for his bad actions. He will be tried chiefly because these bad actions ended in a good result. Here is another paradox: that the savior of Chilean democracy is not honored by that democracy. Instead, he is to be punished. It is disturbing to contemplate, but strict morality obligates us to tolerate hooligans, subversives, wreckers and communists. They are allowed to destroy the Constitution by inches. They are allowed to break down religion, to infiltrate the schools, to manipulate the courts, to slowly erode the economic viability of the nation. We can do nothing against them because their subversion is protected by law. Machiavelli has been decried as a villain for writing: "It is a sound maxim that reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects, and that when the effect is good ... it always justifies the action." This idea has been denounced because, more often than not, evil means go along with evil ends. Communism itself uses this principle, declaring that its ends justify its means. The moral crisis of our time, whether it commences in Vietnam, Chile, China or the United States, is a crisis between contending visions of the future. We are talking about a kind of cultural and political warfare which, inevitably, must escalate from parliamentary politics to radical violence. This is not something anybody can put a stop to. It is built into the pattern of modernity. It is part of the natural degeneration of the human raw material that goes into society. And this is the tragedy of Augusto Pinochet, an 85-year-old retired general who is now one short step from being tried for using bad methods for a good end. If the United States continues with its permissive attitude toward political hooliganism, if serious corruption and abuse of office continues, a solution will eventually present itself. We will end up with a military intervention like that experienced by Chile. And there is no telling whether we will end up with a Pinochet who renews democracy, or a Castro who crushes the very hope of democracy into dust. Taking a longer view, today's corruption might be seen as an intermediary stage between the system we have today and another political system, yet unborn. One might also observe that the solution is built-in to the problem. Of course, it may be a case of one horror following another. This, however, is historically normal. J.R. Nyquist, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, is the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War." Visit his news-analysis and opinion site.
| ||
|
Politics as wish Thursday, February 1, 2001 By J.R. Nyquist © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com In 1943 James Burnham wrote a book entitled "The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom." It was Burnham's thesis that nine-tenths of what is written in the field of politics is dangerous nonsense. He argued that most of the political words we use have nothing to do with political reality. And having nothing to do with reality, they lead us into countless errors, including fatal ones. Take the word "democracy," for example. This word is often understood to mean "rule by the people." Our political system is therefore described as one in which the people decide. This, of course, is supposed to be a good and noble thing. But this, Burnham suggests, is nonsense. Unless the people vote every day, instead of every two years, they can hardly be ruling the country. In fact, most people are too busy to vote on those rare days when they have the opportunity to do so. And what is so noble about the decision of a large mass of persons who don't understand the issues they are voting on? Or do we imagine that the masses, in aggregate, are all-wise and all-knowing? Whether or not the people are wise, grown men nonetheless use the word "democracy" to signify something beneficial and even practical. Therefore we regard polls as divine messages, imperatives from our new god -- the people. It is a glorious system which leads us into many absurdities. Burnham cautions us and reminds us that democracy is largely a myth. As such, it stops political realism from emerging into public discussion. In consequence, when a citizen wakes to find himself living in a peculiar sort of oligarchy he is severely scandalized. The outraged citizen then begins to militate against the system, as if democracy has been stolen from him. But there was nothing to steal. What he lost was the comfort of his own delusions. Democracy, properly understood, is a way of organizing and validating oligarchy, giving it the stamp of public approval and legitimacy. There should be nothing scandalous in this. Oligarchy is not only normal, it is inevitable. In politics, says Burnham, we easily become confused because our formal aims and goals are always dressed up in noble words. We might refer to justice, liberty or equality. We might speak of freedom or human rights. The underlying reality, however, is a competition for power. It is a desire for promotion and office, for privilege and position. The very use of noble terms in this context, says Burnham, often makes it impossible for a political writer to "give a true descriptive account of the way men actually behave." Because of this, the truth is betrayed. Political realism, referred to by Burnham as Machiavellianism, is what we need to protect the imperfect liberties we enjoy. That is one of Burnham's arguments. Since men seek power, then power must be used to check power. This means we have to develop Machiavellian devices to guard against Machiavellian devices. If we delude ourselves with political myth, if we attempt to advance a utopian agenda, we neutralize ourselves. It would be nice if men actually, sincerely, wanted to live in a purely altruistic way. But which men have done this? Saints, perhaps, who never ran for political office. Such are clearly outside the nexus of politics altogether. In politics, wrote Burnham, high-minded words "serve only to arouse passion and prejudice and sentimentality in favor of the disguised real aims." Think of Jesse Jackson's career. By opposing racism he made himself rich. What was his actual intention through it all? Was his intention to get rich or fight racism. No doubt the world is filled with good men who fought racism without making a penny. This is not Jackson. Behind the formal meaning of his words is a simple act of extortion. In other words, he raises millions of dollars by threatening white people with an ugly label. If we look at him closely, his words are one thing but his real purpose is to advance his own personal interests. Besides democracy and the campaign against racism, there is another high-minded word that confuses us. At the time of the L.A. riots we heard mobs chanting: "No justice, no peace." But was the persecution of white police officers, in terms of an incident involving a black criminal, actually justice? No, it was a campaign of resentment and revenge. Time and again, people express outrage that they are no longer living in a democratic utopia. They are outraged that the courts produce dismal results. One only needs to think of the O.J. Simpson case to see how a wealthy murderer can buy his way to freedom with clever lawyers. Consider, as well, the impeachment of President Clinton, where the Republican Senate refused to decide guilt or innocence on the basis of the evidence. There is no utopian system. The very best we can arrive at is checks and balances which do not always check or balance. Even so, it is no mean accomplishment to avoid tyranny. Of course, such a system is going to break down from time to time. This is unavoidable. In Monday's column I described the case of Gen. Pinochet, who intervened when Chile's political system broke down. In response, some readers complained that I had "prescribed" a dictatorial solution. In reality, I did not prescribe anything of the kind. Machiavelli didn't even prescribe it. He merely explained how, historically speaking, declining republics have been salvaged and restored by dictators. In reciting the history of Pinochet in Chile, I merely offered a modern example which agrees with Machiavelli's ancient examples. But people do not hear political facts above the noise of their moralizing. They won't sit still and listen to a little political history, to a simple description. Political children want a political fairy tale. They will accept no realism and are therefore doomed. Political children live in a world of myths: If only we revolt against the state, then we'll be free. If only we adopt socialism, we'll escape the evil ruling class. They want an ideological word to save them from a practical reality. Only an immature mind believes in fairy tales of a perfect society or perfectible human beings. The best society, in reality, is a society in which evils are limited by devices of Machiavellian construction (as opposed to devices of utopian or ideological construction). And in order to make such devices, you have to understand how things work. This is very different from how they "ought" to work. Burnham said that 90 percent of our political thinking has been contaminated by our desires. We wish X, Y and Z. Americans have a peculiar weakness in political thinking because we think that all bad actions, for example, have bad results. We also imagine that all good actions have good results. But when you study politics and history you find something profoundly disturbing. You find that bad actions can sometimes produce good results, as the case of Pinochet in Chile or Franco in Spain. We also find a good action, with the best of intentions, like the prohibition of alcohol in the United States, produced bad results. This is profoundly upsetting to our simplistic sensibilities. Yet this is the chief discovery of Machiavelli. Politics is filled with moral paradoxes. Consider the following: The war to end all wars only gave us a bigger war. The war against poverty only encouraged poverty. The war against drugs has empowered the drug lords. The war against crime coincided with a dramatic increase in criminal activity. President Bush's emphasis on local control and participation means, in fact, more power to the federal government. The reason that things turn out this way has to do with the fact that high-minded political statements do not reflect political reality. War, poverty, drunks and drug addicts will always be with us. As for the federal government, does anyone seriously believe it's going to shrink? The only thing that changes hands in all this is power. "The primary subject-matter of political science," wrote Burnham, "is the struggle for social power in its diverse open and concealed forms." Take whatever slogan from the recent presidential campaign you like. The text was: I am noble and good. The subtext was: Give the power to me! We will never understand politics if we take men's words at face value. Forget about the high-minded words. Look at the deeds! This is why Russia's open declarations of surrender at the end of the Cold War were meaningless. While declaring that Russia had become a democracy, the communists continued to rule the country and to modernize the country's nuclear strike forces. The words meant nothing; the deeds signified everything. There is another point that Burnham brings forward that needs to be mentioned. He wrote that "logical or rational action plays a relatively minor part in political and social change." This statement, no doubt, will shock most American readers. It is widely and erroneously believed that people rationally work out everything they do. But in everyday life this is not so. Look at your own daily life. Rational behavior is only a small part of what you do, though we incorrectly assign it a dominant role. In other words, we flatter ourselves. We imagine that our actions are more rational than they are. "For the most part," wrote Burnham, "it is a delusion to believe that in social life men take deliberate steps to achieve consciously held goals." Burnham's book, "The Machiavellians," should be read by all students of politics. Only by thinking and talking in a realistic way can we safeguard our power, which high-minded citizens prefer to call their "liberty."
|
×
×