Will Dictatorships of the World be Toppled?

[Freiheit Reich]

I'm going to put this out on the table and then I want to point out that world dictatorships are getting out of control and torture and death runs rampant in the countries. I'm going to list some countries that should be fined for their war crimes.

Uzbekistan
Nepal
Iran
Eritrea
China
Iraq
Myanmar
Fiji (so far no violence against the people is yet documented)
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Russia
Belarus
Zimbabwe


I need more opinions on which dictatorships of the world should be invaded by NATO Forces or the World Powers. Should there be foreign help? Should other governments arm the oppressed?

No, we have no right to disrespect national sovereignty. We should never invade a nation unless they invade us first.

[Kubra]

I'm going to put this out on the table and then I want to point out that world dictatorships are getting out of control and torture and death runs rampant in the countries. I'm going to list some countries that should be fined for their war crimes.

Uzbekistan
Nepal
Iran
Eritrea
China
Iraq
Myanmar
Fiji (so far no violence against the people is yet documented)
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Russia
Belarus
Zimbabwe


I need more opinions on which dictatorships of the world should be invaded by NATO Forces or the World Powers. Should there be foreign help? Should other governments arm the oppressed?

No, we have no right to disrespect national sovereignty. We should never invade a nation unless they invade us first.

you know I'm hoping that the 21st century finally puts the idea of national sovereignty to bed, even if it has to be the US doing it.

[Cedoria]

Oh how cynical of you. Earth is fine. Humanity just has some problems that needs fixing.

Well do you see what people do to each other that's beyond sick!

By posting on NS you're obviously making a good bit of progress in fighting evil and injustice. jk

Of course, if you DO want to overthrow autocracies, by all means, go to Pyonang and try to get the oppressed Norks to rise up against psychopathic Kim, just don't ask the US to bail you out when they sic you in a labour camp

[Freiheit Reich]

No, we have no right to disrespect national sovereignty. We should never invade a nation unless they invade us first.

you know I'm hoping that the 21st century finally puts the idea of national sovereignty to bed, even if it has to be the US doing it.

So you are OK with a nation invading your country? The USA invaded Iraq and this is how much the Iraqis appreciated it:

[Washington Resistance Army]

you know I'm hoping that the 21st century finally puts the idea of national sovereignty to bed, even if it has to be the US doing it.

So you are OK with a nation invading your country? The USA invaded Iraq and this is how much the Iraqis appreciated it:

The Iraqi's welcomed the invasion, we simply fucked it up and stayed way too long without fixing things.

[Cobalt Chloride]

No, we have no right to disrespect national sovereignty. We should never invade a nation unless they invade us first.

you know I'm hoping that the 21st century finally puts the idea of national sovereignty to bed, even if it has to be the US doing it.

What is wrong with national sovereignty? And the US isn't going after all of these tinpot dictatorships just because they are dictatorships. The US has enough problems within their borders.

[Kubra]

you know I'm hoping that the 21st century finally puts the idea of national sovereignty to bed, even if it has to be the US doing it.

So you are OK with a nation invading your country? The USA invaded Iraq and this is how much the Iraqis appreciated it:

depends who's doing the invading, really. o kanada o kanada, I ain't never been your son.

What is wrong with national sovereignty? And the US isn't going after all of these tinpot dictatorships just because they are dictatorships. The US has enough problems within their borders.

Yeah, the US does it out of geopolitical intrigue. Whatever, the end result is the steamrollers of modernity crushing the life that came before it. Or, more simply, I'm cool with anything that further accelerates the end of rural and peasant life.

And that aside, the idea of national sovereignty is just obfuscation of actual relations between nations. I mean, let's take Iraq. The post-invasion sovereignty is the farce to the pre-invasion sovereignty's tragedy, too reliant on international meddling to for it to have had any meaning. an ISIS fighter can rightly see himself fighting western interests by attacking iraqi and peshmerga forces, whatever the state of their sovereignty. A lot of proxy wars and proxy conflicts are fought for ostensibly nationalist reasons for proxy forces.
Shits even worse in Europe, at least in terms of the ridiculousness of it all, although less people die for it there.

[Jute]

Since when has Fiji been ruled by a dictator? Can someone clarify that for me, please?

[Freiheit Reich]

So you are OK with a nation invading your country? The USA invaded Iraq and this is how much the Iraqis appreciated it:

depends who's doing the invading, really. o kanada o kanada, I ain't never been your son.

What is wrong with national sovereignty? And the US isn't going after all of these tinpot dictatorships just because they are dictatorships. The US has enough problems within their borders.

Yeah, the US does it out of geopolitical intrigue. Whatever, the end result is the steamrollers of modernity crushing the life that came before it. Or, more simply, I'm cool with anything that further accelerates the end of rural and peasant life.

And that aside, the idea of national sovereignty is just obfuscation of actual relations between nations. I mean, let's take Iraq. The post-invasion sovereignty is the farce to the pre-invasion sovereignty's tragedy, too reliant on international meddling to for it to have had any meaning. an ISIS fighter can rightly see himself fighting western interests by attacking iraqi and peshmerga forces, whatever the state of their sovereignty. A lot of proxy wars and proxy conflicts are fought for ostensibly nationalist reasons for proxy forces.
Shits even worse in Europe, at least in terms of the ridiculousness of it all, although less people die for it there.

Some people want to be to live an uncivilized lifestyle because that is what the great Muhammad would want. The west fails to understand that many Muslims want to live under a harsh Islamic govt. (ex. the Taliban) because they are following the ways of the faith. They don't want freedom of religion or other evil aspects of western culture. The USA needs to know that not everybody wants to live like Americans.

[Cedoria]

Since when has Fiji been ruled by a dictator? Can someone clarify that for me, please?

August 2006. Coup d'état

There, is that appropriately clarified for you?

[Ariddia]

wait. Nepal, Fiji?

Fiji is currently run by military junta.

Not any more, it isn't. Nine days before the opening post of this thread, Fiji held multi-party democratic elections, which Australian observers on the ground held to be free and (mostly) fair. (With the caveat that the incumbent government had access to greater resources than opposition parties, and that a certain climate of self-censorship persists in the media.)

I happen to have watched the debate, a few days before the election, between coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama and Ro Teimumu Kepa, the woman who now heads the party which he threw out of government eight years ago. Broadcast in the national media to watchers all over the country, she certainly didn't pull her punches. Her party was also holding meetings around the nation openly criticising the military regime, as were the other opposition parties.

You don't see that in many dictatorships.

On the other hand, the OP left out Equatorial Guinea (nasty little dictatorship), Rwanda (where you "disappear" if you criticise Kagame), and the various absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Swaziland, Brunei…).

Since when has Fiji been ruled by a dictator? Can someone clarify that for me, please?

In December 2006, the army overthrew the elected government of indigenous nationalist Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, accusing him of racism. Qarase had come to power explicitly stating that he was going to govern mainly in the interests of the indigenous majority, and to favour them over the large minority of Indian descent. Commodore Bainimara's coup in 2006 presented itself as an "anti-racist" coup. The military regime that followed genuinely tried to foster a common feeling of Fijian citizenship, rather than exacerbate ethnic differences as previous governments had done.

On the other hand, the military government also heavily censored the media, at least during the first few years.

Having imposed a Constitution which abolishes race-based voting and introduces instead a "one person, one vote" method, the coup-born government held and won elections a few days ago.

[Jute]

Since when has Fiji been ruled by a dictator? Can someone clarify that for me, please?

August 2006. Coup d'état

There, is that appropriately clarified for you?

Fiji is currently run by military junta.

Not any more, it isn't. Nine days before the opening post of this thread, Fiji held multi-party democratic elections, which Australian observers on the ground held to be free and (mostly) fair. (With the caveat that the incumbent government had access to greater resources than opposition parties, and that a certain climate of self-censorship persists in the media.)

I happen to have watched the debate, a few days before the election, between coup leader Voreqe Bainimarama and Ro Teimumu Kepa, the woman who now heads the party which he threw out of government eight years ago. Broadcast in the national media to watchers all over the country, she certainly didn't pull her punches. Her party was also holding meetings around the nation openly criticising the military regime, as were the other opposition parties.

You don't see that in many dictatorships.

On the other hand, the OP left out Equatorial Guinea (nasty little dictatorship), Rwanda (where you "disappear" if you criticise Kagame), and the various absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Swaziland, Brunei…).

Since when has Fiji been ruled by a dictator? Can someone clarify that for me, please?

In December 2006, the army overthrew the elected government of indigenous nationalist Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, accusing him of racism. Qarase had come to power explicitly stating that he was going to govern mainly in the interests of the indigenous majority, and to favour them over the large minority of Indian descent. Commodore Bainimara's coup in 2006 presented itself as an "anti-racist" coup. The military regime that followed genuinely tried to foster a common feeling of Fijian citizenship, rather than exacerbate ethnic differences as previous governments had done.

On the other hand, the military government also heavily censored the media, at least during the first few years.

Having imposed a Constitution which abolishes race-based voting and introduces instead a "one person, one vote" method, the coup-born government held and won elections a few days ago.

Thanks to you both! I didn't know that, don't remember reading about that.

[Murkwood]

I'm sure some will, but US help will play a large part in most of them. We really need to intervene in Sudan and North Korea (According to the UN Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, all member states have an obligation to do something). The only thing stopping us in those countries are China, but China seems to be slowly moving away from them, which is good.

We could also go into small dictatorships like Equatorial Guinea and Swaziland liberate the people there with very few troops. To do so we (NATO/US) would wait until the country commits an atrocity, and give the leader 30 days to step down. If they don’t, we come in and liberate the people. Obviously we would need to shore up support with their neighbors, but that wouldn't be too hard.

In other countries we could covertly start and/or back the opposition. And in others, we could just apply political and economic pressure.

[Murkwood]

Also, that list is lacking. Here is a better one:

Algeria
Angola
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Brunei
Cameroon
Chad
China
Congo, Dem. Rep. of
Côte d’Ivoire
Cuba
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Iran
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Laos
Myanmar (Burma)
North Korea
Oman
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

[Freiheit Reich]

Also, that list is lacking. Here is a better one:

Algeria
Angola
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Brunei
Cameroon
Chad
China
Congo, Dem. Rep. of
Côte d’Ivoire
Cuba
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Iran
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Laos
Myanmar (Burma)
North Korea
Oman
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

You are wrong about China. Most people admire Xi Jinping and I never heard negative comments about Hu Jintao either. Deng Xiaoping is highly admired for how he helped China's economic growth. China admits there is a corruption problem but I doubt they want another foreign invasion to 'liberate them.' Putin is also very popular among the Russian people, probably more popular than Obama among the American people. Certain countries want strong leaders that promote national pride and you have to admit that Putin greatly improved the Russian economy since he took over power. Also, Putin and China's govt. seem to be focused more on helping their own nation instead of worrying too much about the interests of countries that hate them (unlike the US leaders).

You need to get your news from other sources. US news sources are often biased-especially when it comes to Russia's side.

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/news ... 832461.cms

[Murkwood]

Also, that list is lacking. Here is a better one:

Algeria
Angola
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Brunei
Cameroon
Chad
China
Congo, Dem. Rep. of
Côte d’Ivoire
Cuba
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Iran
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Laos
Myanmar (Burma)
North Korea
Oman
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

You are wrong about China. Most people admire Xi Jinping and I never heard negative comments about Hu Jintao either. Deng Xiaoping is highly admired for how he helped China's economic growth. China admits there is a corruption problem but I doubt they want another foreign invasion to 'liberate them.' Putin is also very popular among the Russian people, probably more popular than Obama among the American people. Certain countries want strong leaders that promote national pride and you have to admit that Putin greatly improved the Russian economy since he took over power. Also, Putin and China's govt. seem to be focused more on helping their own nation instead of worrying too much about the interests of countries that hate them (unlike the US leaders).

You need to get your news from other sources. US news sources are often biased-especially when it comes to Russia's side.

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/news ... 832461.cms

Popularity doesn't mean someone isn't a tyrant. Hitler was popular.

[Rhodisia]

Singapore anyone?

[Republic of Coldwater]

One day or another, the people from these dictatorships will understand the great benefits of the outside world, they will realize that outside their despotic nation is a richer, wealthier and more prosperous non-dictatorship, and following the rebelliousness of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, these people will overthrow the tyrants and instill a Democratic Republic, one where the rights of men of respected, and again and again, it will be proven that the winds of liberty will crush the evils of tyranny.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Also, that list is lacking. Here is a better one:

Algeria
Angola
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Brunei
Cameroon
Chad
China
Congo, Dem. Rep. of
Côte d’Ivoire
Cuba
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Iran
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Laos
Myanmar (Burma)
North Korea
Oman
Qatar
Russia
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

You are wrong about China. Most people admire Xi Jinping and I never heard negative comments about Hu Jintao either. Deng Xiaoping is highly admired for how he helped China's economic growth. China admits there is a corruption problem but I doubt they want another foreign invasion to 'liberate them.' Putin is also very popular among the Russian people, probably more popular than Obama among the American people. Certain countries want strong leaders that promote national pride and you have to admit that Putin greatly improved the Russian economy since he took over power. Also, Putin and China's govt. seem to be focused more on helping their own nation instead of worrying too much about the interests of countries that hate them (unlike the US leaders).

You need to get your news from other sources. US news sources are often biased-especially when it comes to Russia's side.

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/news ... 832461.cms

Wait so if people admire Premier Xi and Hu Jintao, then China is effectively not a dictatorship, when Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and all sorts of social media outlets are banned, where organized religion is severely curtailed or outright banned, where the government monitors all your internet traffic, where many are executed and wrongly persecuted, tell me how the hell it isn't a dictatorship.

[Murkwood]

Singapore anyone?

Singapore isn't a dictatorship. Sure, it's a one party state, but that's because many in Singapore are apathetic to politics.

[Monkeykind]

Singapore anyone?

Singapore isn't a dictatorship. Sure, it's a one party state, but that's because many in Singapore are apathetic to politics.

Uh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... _Singapore

[Indira]

None. Let them fall under their own steam or for VALID reasons for invading. (Such as invading an allied nation etc)

[Murkwood]

Singapore isn't a dictatorship. Sure, it's a one party state, but that's because many in Singapore are apathetic to politics.

Uh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... _Singapore

Singapore has many political parties, but only one that matters.

[Freiheit Reich]

You are wrong about China. Most people admire Xi Jinping and I never heard negative comments about Hu Jintao either. Deng Xiaoping is highly admired for how he helped China's economic growth. China admits there is a corruption problem but I doubt they want another foreign invasion to 'liberate them.' Putin is also very popular among the Russian people, probably more popular than Obama among the American people. Certain countries want strong leaders that promote national pride and you have to admit that Putin greatly improved the Russian economy since he took over power. Also, Putin and China's govt. seem to be focused more on helping their own nation instead of worrying too much about the interests of countries that hate them (unlike the US leaders).

You need to get your news from other sources. US news sources are often biased-especially when it comes to Russia's side.

http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/news ... 832461.cms

Wait so if people admire Premier Xi and Hu Jintao, then China is effectively not a dictatorship, when Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and all sorts of social media outlets are banned, where organized religion is severely curtailed or outright banned, where the government monitors all your internet traffic, where many are executed and wrongly persecuted, tell me how the hell it isn't a dictatorship.

The USA punishes you for sharing music and movies with friends online, the USA sends you to jail for several years for stealing slices of pizza, and the USA has one of the world's highest prison populations (not to mention we invade nations that never attacked us). Here are more cases of harsh punishments in the USA. Perhaps it is also a dictatorship:

http://www.alternet.org/story/156061/li ... punishment

Here are some ridiculous laws which prove the US govt. oppresses the people (even if the law is rarely enforced, it could be sued against you if a judge and a cop have a grudge against you or they want to be jerks). This is Alabama but every state has to many laws:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/alabama

[Kubra]

depends who's doing the invading, really. o kanada o kanada, I ain't never been your son.

Yeah, the US does it out of geopolitical intrigue. Whatever, the end result is the steamrollers of modernity crushing the life that came before it. Or, more simply, I'm cool with anything that further accelerates the end of rural and peasant life.

And that aside, the idea of national sovereignty is just obfuscation of actual relations between nations. I mean, let's take Iraq. The post-invasion sovereignty is the farce to the pre-invasion sovereignty's tragedy, too reliant on international meddling to for it to have had any meaning. an ISIS fighter can rightly see himself fighting western interests by attacking iraqi and peshmerga forces, whatever the state of their sovereignty. A lot of proxy wars and proxy conflicts are fought for ostensibly nationalist reasons for proxy forces.
Shits even worse in Europe, at least in terms of the ridiculousness of it all, although less people die for it there.

Some people want to be to live an uncivilized lifestyle because that is what the great Muhammad would want. The west fails to understand that many Muslims want to live under a harsh Islamic govt. (ex. the Taliban) because they are following the ways of the faith. They don't want freedom of religion or other evil aspects of western culture. The USA needs to know that not everybody wants to live like Americans.

Yeah, I'm sure they do. And the urban dwellers can continue their urbane life in much the same way, yeah?