Dictators
- Thread starter Wästed The Great
- Start date
Wasted CLV said:
I seem to have missed this one.
Does that mean that being hereditary is not part of the definition of a dictator, or that a dictatorship isn't hereditary by definition?
Many dictatorships have become hereditary. A recent example is Syria. When Hafiz al-Assad kicked the bucket, his son, Bashar al-Assad emerged and became new "President" of Syria.
By the way, a monarchy is not always hereditary. There are in fact many prominent examples in which the king was elected by the princes -ancient Macedon, Holy Roman Empire-, even if the one elected was often the son of the former king.
This is what it said....
here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
I just took it to mean, that by definition, if there is hereditary ascension, it becomes something other than a true 'dictatorship'. My thinking was that meant if there was hereditary ascension it became a monarchy... I don't know if a monarchy is justification for the power grab made?
here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
I just took it to mean, that by definition, if there is hereditary ascension, it becomes something other than a true 'dictatorship'. My thinking was that meant if there was hereditary ascension it became a monarchy... I don't know if a monarchy is justification for the power grab made?
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
That's different too. That is not a "monarchy" as it has no monarch, it has a "president." Presidents rule Modern states. Aside from the Middle East, the few monarchs left don't run the country. They still 'rule', but the running is left to the president/prime minister and other government institutions put in place since the nationalistic movements of the 19th century.
North Korea is a fucking dictatorship, man.
)
What about "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular"?
It's all the same - it's an authoritarian ruler.
It's all the same - it's an authoritarian ruler.
Kopfanatic
Trooper
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't think I would like to live under a dictatorship.They seem to bleed a country dry for their own ends.I'm thinking North Korea, Haiti, Zimbabwe etc.Some of these countries had potential for wealth(Diamonds etc) but its been frittered away
The only one I can see who seems to have done anything remotely positive is Castro, but maybe someone can put me straight on this point.
The only one I can see who seems to have done anything remotely positive is Castro, but maybe someone can put me straight on this point.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I'm with you on that one. People seemed to have ignored that post, but I like what Castro has done in Cuba inspite of the U.S embargo. Critics will point to the fact that people still leave the island for Florida, but frankly, people have left the U.S too, from prominent figures (W.E.B DeBois), to average folk. So that is not a good argument.
Yes, and to wrap it all in, while Castro has made the life for many, maybe even most, Cubans better, he has still repressed, killed, and murdered or tortured thousands who have gone against him.
Kopfanatic
Trooper
LC. If thats the case then is the likes of Castro any worse than our 'respectable' Western leaders.After all Clinton, Blair, Bush etc may not have surpressed their own people (ok, maybe Blair) but they sure as hell helped behind the scenes allowing other people do it to their people such as General Pinochet for instance. Would Bin Laden be as prominent today without Western help in the past?
I remember during the Falklands war, British soldiers being killed by French weapons supplied to an Argentinian 'dictatorship'.Does that make Mitterand a murderer in the same way as Castro etc
I remember during the Falklands war, British soldiers being killed by French weapons supplied to an Argentinian 'dictatorship'.Does that make Mitterand a murderer in the same way as Castro etc
I'm not going to defend many of the Western leaders out there, because you're right, especially when it comes to the United States - supporting violent dictators like...Batista, for instance, has never been a problem politically in the US. But I would submit that it is just as morally wrong to support a known murderer in that act as it is to murder yourself. Again, that doesn't mean we can't say Castro has done bad things - because he has.
I think its a matter of determining if the 'end justifies the means'. I'll admit that some of our elected leaders are fuckers-- how many Americans have been killed by American weapons that we provided to the enemy? But, not all of them are. And, if we, as citizens disagree, we aren't imprisoned, tortured, or killed for it (Jon Stewart still living is proof of this). So, by having a great economy, society, literacy rate and what not-- are the 'means' (wrongful imprisonment, torture and murder) justified by the 'ends' (a great guy that really provides for his people)?
I suppose there is no way to quantify that, really. Some will think that is the case--where having those things are worth it, others will state that nothing is worth having if the price is blood.
I suppose there is no way to quantify that, really. Some will think that is the case--where having those things are worth it, others will state that nothing is worth having if the price is blood.
An interesting point - most US presidents are not dictators by either their actions or facts. No matter how terrible the president, when his time is up, he's handed over power to the next president. Are they murderers in fact or in moral statute? I think that depends on the president. Certainly the USA has killed many millions of people around the world, so in many cases, I'd say the answer is yes.
Nope, he handed over when his time was up. We just kept voting him in 'til he died. Which spurred us into term limitations.