@Dr.Cosby What if the one you're stuck with is a nationalist and wills to improve the nation.

Wouldn't exactly look up to him

@Tool He caused the Bengal famine

Exactly

That was... not cool

It was very cool

Killing 2-3 million indians.

Because who gives a shit

Saddam led a genocidal campaign and was a complete maniac

<:PeepoChrist:583237123126329344>

It’s India

Necessary evil for a greater good, do you agree?

If anything, the purge was good for the country because of overpopulation

In the case of the famine? Hell no

@Dr.Cosby His campaign was going to improve Iraq if not for the US.

Been wanting Pakistan to nuke India for awhile now

In ww2 yeah

No WMDS. Only for oil and Israel.

Because India is a shithole

I've never been a fan of the oil justification

Shady reasons sure absolutely

I mean, everyone just laughed at Britain when the people of India started to light themselves on fire and so they decided to give up their shithole

Funny how they attacked Iraq eventhough Kuwait was invading Iraqi oil fields and stealing oil.

Gave them independence

Was fucking hilarious

As usual the Brits did a great job with the borders

<:peepok:583236153852035072>

Oh yeah lol

Brits couldn’t even handle Hillsborough security and you expect them to handle a border? 😂😂😂

We are very good at that <:milady:591248801189330944>

GG @Tool, you just advanced to level 3!

"What if the one you're stuck with is a nationalist and wills to improve the nation." First of all, power corrupts - especially over time. Second, times change - what may have been good leader at one point, may not be good at another - no matter how much he "wills to improve the nation". Third, "WHAT IF" is not good enough - it's rolling the dice (and when you have somebody come into power through military might in some kind of a coup, that dice is LOADED AS HELL)

"absolute power corrupts absolutely"

With smaller governments, especially in times of war, there are some benefits to be had in casting the bureaucracies of democracy aside temporarily.

But in general, it's just not good

@Dr.Cosby How does power corrupt? It didn't happen in the case of Ataturk, Khan, Gaddafi They stayed loyal to their people. Why not? Why can't people adapt? Also, Khan came through military might.

A one party state system has no hindrances or disruptions.

I think I already mentioned that Khan isn't exactly a success story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayub_Khan_(President_of_Pakistan)#1969_nationwide_riots_and_resignation) and Ataturk is a very rare case indeed (besides also not being a "real" dictator and not promoting fascism).

🆙 | **Dr.Gobus leveled up!**

Gaddafi though

He rejected secularism, which alone is a huge red flag