History's Most Ruthless Tyrant... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Who Is History's Most Ruthless Tyrant In Disregard For Humanity?

Hitler
28
33%
Stalin
17
20%
Pol Pot
19
22%
Kissinger/Nixon
3
4%
Cheney/ Bush
7
8%
Other
11
13%
#1559863
Who would be your pick for history's most ruthless tyrant in terms of responsibility for raw carnage? Mine is Hitler, so far. But at the rate Bush is moving he could easily set his fate as a later recipient for most bloodshed and misery due to his decisions and actions.
User avatar
By Dr House
#1559864
:roll:

No one's voting for Bush or Nixon, NoRapture. Neither one of them gassed 6 million jews or 7 million Ukranians. At most Bush is in the same league Lincoln would've been had he not been assassinated.

I'm no fan of Bush, mind you, but he's not bad enough to be in this poll. Neither is Nixon.

-Dr House :smokin:
User avatar
By Rancid
#1559867
I voted Hitler.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1559877
No one's voting for Bush or Nixon, NoRapture. Neither one of them gassed 6 million jews or 7 million Ukranians.
The methods for the murder are not part of my poll. It is the number. Without Kissinger and Nixon, Pol Pot would not have existed as a tyrant. His forces were specifically excluded during the years of Cambodia's secret bombings in return for cooperation with Nixon and Kissinger for not targeting our planes and troops in the area. When Ford deserted Saigon, Pol Pot was allowed to run roughshod through Cambodia and Vietnam. Killing millions. Kissinger and Nixon share heavily in his atrocity. This is not tallying the number of dead due to Nixon's political extension of the Vietnam conflict. I don't have the energy right now for the math.

And, of course, Bush/Cheney's numbers continue to skyrocket in the infliction of rampant misery, murder, death, and torture upon the world for no other reason than inflating their stock as political-corporate assholes in arms. Note that the remaining planners, financiers, and perpetrators of 9/11 have never been identified much less caught. The plan was to secretly incarcerate a bunch of poor fuckers at Gitmo, torture them awhile, kill them, and then tell the world that 9/11 has been justifiably avenged. It worked in Iraq with Saddam. It didn't work out that way in the end for Bush/Cheney, the scaredy-piss-pants warriors. So they're busy trying to confuse the issue, drum up more fear of Shiite Muslims in Iraq and Iran, and run away. Personally, I don't think that's going to work out for them either. I predict they'll hang. Nixon/Kissinger escaped their hanging by a hairsbreadth. This pair of cowards may not be so lucky.
User avatar
By Dan
#1559901
Anyway, probably Hitler, followed by Stalin. Stalin did kill more, but then he did have more time and he didn't set out to completely exterminate .
User avatar
By Swagman
#1559913
TYRANT --> an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution.

FRom your list, Hitler closely followed by Stalin.

Hitler's atrocities were only really discovered because invasion brought them into the open whilst Stalin's atrocities in the main were concealed behind the iron curtain and are hard to compare.

Bush, Nixon, etc etc can hardly be Tyrants unless they refused to vacate their democratically elected offices?

If Pol POt only came to power because of Nixon then what of Hitler? He only came to power because of the aftermath of WW1? Why not put Woodrow Wilson on your list then? :roll:
User avatar
By Donna
#1559951
Hitler and Pol Pot.

Man eaters these leaders were.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#1559966
At most Bush is in the same league Lincoln would've been had he not been assassinated.


Am I the only sane person on this board that doesn't see the correlation between a president that was about to be on the ass end of an Anglo-Franco venture to help the thousands of troops about to march on Washington destroy the republic in the name of trafficking human beings as property on one hand; and the bumbling son of an asshole that has failed to conquer a third world nation that posed no threat to the United States in any way whatsoever thousands and thousands of miles away?

Comparing Bush with Polk, fine. Even Ike didn't think anything of invading the third world, though he was good at it.

But fucking Lincoln? Why not just compare Bush to Caesar, Bonaparte, Magic Johnson, Malcolm X, Cleopatra and St. Peter while you're comparing him to historical figures he has absolutely nothing in common with?

Of course since the Libertarians have taken over, I suppose it's no surprise that the popular historical context has been reduced to what Fox News has recently put on television with pretty graphics.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1559981
I voted Pol Pot
As I said, anyone voting Pol Pot votes Kissinger/Nixon automatically. Without them Pol Pot would have been destroyed along with the half million or so innocent farm citizens of Cambodia who died in the three years of relentless, secret, U.S. blanket bombing, either blown to pieces or starved to death in caves waiting for the bombs to stop. Afterward Pol Pot simply walked in, took the country and began his genocide with the blessing of the U.S.. If you're interested read the new revised version of Sideshow by William Shawcross, who was there while the bombing occurred, in DC researching afterward, and updating his material 40 years later. If you're tired of listening to people like PBVBROOK tell you his bizarre, inaccurate versions of events of the 60s and 70s this is an award-winning source for the now hard-to-find truth about America's brutal, fraudulent adventures in empire of the modern past.

If not, continue following the lead of multi-national corporate billionaires and their ignorant base of U.S. broadcasting bigots and shills and their illiterate audiences. At your peril, of course.
User avatar
By Grunch
#1559982
Apparently South Americans, Arabs and Africans did not suffer under the rule of any particularly notorious dictators.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1559984
Apparently South Americans, Arabs and Africans did not suffer under the rule of any particularly notorious dictators.
Apparently no-one associates the crimes of every American president since Carter with those South American, African, and Arab dictators you refer to. Particularly Reagan and Bush I.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1559995
That's pretty weak.
Who do you want to add? Fidel Castro? Che? They're the only ones on this continent who weren't backed by some US President. And we've never stopped hearing about it it either. Hey, I put an Other option. Whaddaya want? Make your case.
User avatar
By Grunch
#1560013
Pinochet
Idi Amin
Gaddafi
Mobutu Sese Seko
Saddam Hussein
Mengistu Haile Mariam
The list goes on and on..

There isn't a lack of vicious dictators, so putting American presidents up there is untenable.
User avatar
By NoRapture
#1560032
There isn't a lack of vicious dictators, so putting American presidents up there is untenable.
Vicious is bad but it doesn't compete with effective. Most of those you named received invaluable cooperation from US presidents and their unfortunate policies. As long as US citizens refuse to see the realities and results of the actions and choices of their own presidents, that compete with the worst the world has had to offer, they will continue their part in creating monstrous, genocidal crimes. Like Vietnam and Iraq.
User avatar
By Grunch
#1560088
So US presidents are more responsible than the dictators themselves?
User avatar
By pikachu
#1560089
I'll have to agree with millie. As far as ruthlessness goes, Khmer Rouge probably earns the first place.

Doesn't he have billions in Truth social (you pos[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]