16 March in history: First liquid-fuelled rocket, Treaty of Versailles and more!

These men are proof that sometimes with great power comes insane self-indulgence

While the concept of a democratic government is over two centuries old, modern history has witnessed the rise of some of the most oppressive dictators. Self-absorbed and narcissistic, these are the some of the craziest autocrats who implemented bizarre rules under their reign: Saparmurat Niyazov: Turkmenistan’s Niyazov was one of the most self-obsessed dictators of all times. He gave himself the title of Turkmenbashi- meaning Leader of All Ethnic Turkmen and went on to declare himself president of the country for life. Niyazov created a new image for the country, where he named all public spaces, from streets to landmarks, after himself. What’s bizarre: Every clock or watch in Turkmenistan had his face Young men were forbidden to grow long hair and beards Music was banned in the country A statue of Turkmenistan's former President Saparmurad Niyazov in Asghaban (AFP) × Kim Il Sung: Since his appointment as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Kim’s forces took some 200,000 political prisoners, who were kept in concentration camps. North Korea lacked freedom of the press, religion, political opposition and education. Kim lived a life of luxury, while the country faced severe economic sanctions. What’s bizarre: Kim ate sushi, especially flown in from Japan Followers were made to believe that their ‘Dear Leader’ neither urinates nor defecates, and has the power to control the weather North Korean military officers and citizens holding a rally to celebrate the September 9 nuclear warhead test in Kim Il-Sung Square in Pyongyang (AFP) × Idi Amin Dada: Third president of Uganda, Amin led a military coup to gain absolute power after promoting himself as head of the state. He was often perceived as mentally unstable as his regime was characterised with corruption, nepotism, oppression and mass killings. The casualties range between 80,000 and 500,000, with many of them being meted out systematic torture. What’s bizarre: Reports claim that he ate his enemies and even fed them to crocodiles Wrote love letters to Queen Elizabeth Uganda People`s Defence Force (UPDF) march during the celebration to mark the fall of Idi Amin Dada 11 April 2002. (AFP) × Nicolae Ceausescu: Like other self-obsessed dictators of his kind, Nicolae was fond of giving himself titles such as “Conducator” meaning Leader and “Geniul din Carpa?i” meaning The Genius of the Carpathians. He even created an executive presidency and had a scepter made for himself like a king. What’s bizarre: He carried out destruction of 19 churches, six synagogues and 30,000 homes to build a palace for himself. It cost the Romanian treasury a total of $10 billion Gold buttons belonging to Nicolae Ceausescu are exhibited at an auction in Bucharest (AFP) × Mao Zedong: Mao Zedong, the founding father of the People’s Republic of China experimented with China’s economy, resulting in severe financial losses. His policy ‘Great Leap Forward’ shifted the country from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing one, by pulling out farmers from the field and assigning them to mill steel. Millions died after this, due to starvation. What’s bizarre: Launched the Cultural Revolution, which led to the elimination of the country’s intelligentsia and his political opponents Academics suffered and teachers were forced out of schools and colleges Set up the ‘Red Guards’ enlisting youth to correct the bourgeois elements in China’s society Considered himself to be the only genius in the country Cantonese opera actors dressed as Red Guards perform in a show portraying late Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong (AFP) × (Contributed by: Zeba Khan)

Self-obsessed autocrats and their bizarre rules

Britain&#39;s decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003 had a &quot;far from satisfactory&quot; legal basis and ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair&#39;s case for military action was over-hyped, a long-awaited inquiry into the conflict concluded on Wednesday. 
 
The intelligence about Iraq&#39;s alleged weapons of mass destruction which Blair used to justify joining the US-led invasion, which led to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the deaths of 179 British soldiers, was flawed but went unchallenged, inquiry chairman John Chilcot said. 
 
There was no imminent threat from Saddam in March 2003 and the chaos in Iraq and the region which followed should also have been foreseen, he added. 
 
&quot;The inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal,&quot; Chilcot told reporters and relatives of some of the soldiers killed in Iraq. &quot;We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.&quot; 
 
Blair&#39;s statement to parliament in 2002 about the risk posed by Iraq&#39;s alleged weapons of mass destruction and an intelligence dossier to the public that accompanied it were presented with a &quot;certainty that was not justified&quot;, Chilcot said. 
 
(Reuters)

The intelligence about Iraq's alleged WMD, which Blair used to justify joining the US-led invasion, was flawed but went unchallenged

Britain's decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003 had a "far from satisfactory" legal basis and ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair's case for military action was over-hyped, a long-awaited inquiry into the conflict concluded on Wednesday. The intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction which Blair used to justify joining the US-led invasion, which led to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the deaths of 179 British soldiers, was flawed but went unchallenged, inquiry chairman John Chilcot said. There was no imminent threat from Saddam in March 2003 and the chaos in Iraq and the region which followed should also have been foreseen, he added. "The inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal," Chilcot told reporters and relatives of some of the soldiers killed in Iraq. "We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory." Blair's statement to parliament in 2002 about the risk posed by Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and an intelligence dossier to the public that accompanied it were presented with a "certainty that was not justified", Chilcot said. (Reuters)

Legal case for Britain's 2003 invasion of Iraq 'far from satisfactory', finds inquiry

saddam

Saddam, News on Saddam, stories on Saddam, articles on Saddam, Saddam stories at Wion, Saddam news, Saddam latest news