Message from @Tool
Discord ID: 608793716467040286
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
<: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>
"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
A one party system means an authoritative state and thus not a very free one
GG @GoldenGail3, you just advanced to level 18!
@Dr.Cosby Search up what he does for the country. Everyone will tell you he has been the best leader and again, he was forced out over Bangladesh.
Ataturk was by definition a dictator. It's a neutral term.
@Dr.Cosby Yeah, that's why I only nab some of the ideas from fascist schools.