Right.

But we're talking about democracy.

People change

That might be the necessary evils of fascism but what about the evils of interventionist USA?

The actions of the British Empire say... 100 years ago would never, ever pass in today's parliament for example

Okay, let me give an example.

Winston Churchill.

Good guy or bad guy?

Times have changed, and part of a democratic government is that your leaders can CHANGE and EVOLVE

Pretty nasty guy by modern standards

But it's kind of ambiguous

With authoritarian dictatorships, you're stuck with what you've got

Good and bad

Necessary evil for greater good, do you agree?

In WW2? sure

But he was a pretty serious racist among other things

@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