[docbnj]

Actually, the Shah was a monarch, not really a dictator in the modern sense; he was far better than what followed.

Batista was a Cuban politician who operated within constitutional constraints for much of his career. Cuban politics has long been a scene of turmoil, and Batista was probably no worse than other players on that stage, and certainly better than Castro. For one of the few balanced accounts, see: http://geocities.com/pwhce/batista.html

The Somozas were elected presidents, and followed constitutional practice. There last president overthrown by communists. Anastasio Somoza Debayle, American educated and pro-US, was assassinated in exile by Sandinista agents. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Debayle

None of these three were dictators of the type or to the degree of those who followed them.

[LibertarianInExile]

There is no doubt in my mind that you are correct in each instance that the predecessor dictator was better than the successor. But that is not in any way shape or form disputing the fact that they were in fact dictators. Nominal adherence to a constitution doesn't transmute a dictator whose police kill his political opponents into some kindly elected official.

I don't understand why you feel compelled to defend them. Any more than I would feel compelled to defend that bastard in Pakistan. He may be our bastard, but he's still a bastard.

[wagglebee]

My point was that all of these men employed oppressive tactics to varying degrees to retain power. And all of them would certainly be viewed as dictators by the leftists.