"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.

https://www.haaretz.com/gadhafi-s-crimes-revealed-1.5315653

@Dr.Cosby Yeah, that's why I only nab some of the ideas from fascist schools.

@Dr.Cosby BBC shit source.

Why do you have a soft spot for torturers, sexual deviants, and violent dictators?

I've seen this before and I'm a hard skeptic

I was gonna mention Gaddafi's craziness

That guy was a bit nuts

And a bit of an egomaniac

To say the least

Gaddafi and Saddam were insane. I'm sorry, but if those are two of your big examples of dictators being "good"...

Legit lies.

I'm sorry but the West smear them two.

I've talked to Libyans and Iraqis who agree that these two were good leaders, despite being dictators.

It's like with Assad.

UN never sent their human rights report to the syrian government

Oh please

You can talk to as many people as you want

But like... certain things are hard to cover up

You can't just talk to people in the nice neighbourhoods and conclude everything was amazing

They brought relatively stability those two

Until they didn't

Saddam in particular lost the plot after the invasion

Liking Saddam in particular is mind boggling to me

Fatal miscalculation, perhaps motivated by overconfidence

Saddam's uhh "practices" were well documented

Both of these guys suppressed the shit out of everyone

Gaddafi at least tried to hide his shit under the rug

Killed opponents