Favorite Third World dictators

Thug.

In the end that's all it comes down to. They're merely thugs sitting on top of mounds of skulls. The 'respect' they demand is based in murder and terror. Sorry, but that doesn't deserve respect.

The more we look at these pieces of crap, the less there is to them. Take the right wing poster boy, Pinochet.

Sure, he was a pillar of personal moral rectitude, until we find out that he'd salted away millions in swiss bank accounts.

Sure, he managed the economy really well, until we look a the actual record and find wholesale bungling, a failing pyramid scheme pension system, the near dissolution of the small business class and collapse of the middle class, a vast expansion of wealth for the rich and an economic performance that was essentially substandard in the long run.

Sure, he saved Chile from communists, who were winning elections, by throwing schoolteachers out of helicopters and having women raped by dogs.

In the end, the defenders of Pinochet aren't left with much. He didn't steal that much money, he didn't have that many women raped by dogs, his soldiers only set fire to a couple of Indian girls, the didn't kill that many people only a few thousand, he didn't manage the economy that terribly and he did some things right sometime.

Sorry, the guy was a thug, may he rot in hell. And the same with Suharto. And Stroessner, and Galtieri, and Trujillo, and the Ethiopian Dergue, the Burmese junta, Ferdinand Marcos, and every other one of these human smears who murder their way to power and murder to keep it and then murder to satisfy their petty whims.
 
Thug.

In the end that's all it comes down to. They're merely thugs sitting on top of mounds of skulls. The 'respect' they demand is based in murder and terror. Sorry, but that doesn't deserve respect.

The more we look at these pieces of crap, the less there is to them. Take the right wing poster boy, Pinochet.

Sure, he was a pillar of personal moral rectitude, until we find out that he'd salted away millions in swiss bank accounts.

Sure, he managed the economy really well, until we look a the actual record and find wholesale bungling, a failing pyramid scheme pension system, the near dissolution of the small business class and collapse of the middle class, a vast expansion of wealth for the rich and an economic performance that was essentially substandard in the long run.

Sure, he saved Chile from communists, who were winning elections, by throwing schoolteachers out of helicopters and having women raped by dogs.

In the end, the defenders of Pinochet aren't left with much. He didn't steal that much money, he didn't have that many women raped by dogs, his soldiers only set fire to a couple of Indian girls, the didn't kill that many people only a few thousand, he didn't manage the economy that terribly and he did some things right sometime.

Sorry, the guy was a thug, may he rot in hell. And the same with Suharto. And Stroessner, and Galtieri, and Trujillo, and the Ethiopian Dergue, the Burmese junta, Ferdinand Marcos, and every other one of these human smears who murder their way to power and murder to keep it and then murder to satisfy their petty whims.

Of course Suharto is a fucking shit that will be rotting in hell, but I can see you have a different interpretation of "thug" compared to the accurate version.

"Thug" is a criminal grunt, while "Taipan" is the criminal boss.

Suharto could certainly only fit to the second category. If he was a subordinate of someone, it would be only of the President of USA. Even then he wasn't a grunt.

But if you mean "thug" as "assholes of every kind", I see then...... If every rightist we don't like can we call "fascist", then I don't see why your argument can't be holding a ground in this case :)
 
Top