Brutal Dictators?
dic·ta·tor
ˈdikˌtādər
noun
- a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.
Question: if the ruler is not an individual, but another country, could that country be a “dictator”.
For example, the United States invaded Iraq to remove their “dictator” but is now the “dictator” by definition. A dictator does not necessarily do the dirty work himself, but has his henchmen do it for him. When the United States places a person in charge of that country and they go outside of what they U.S. wants they dictate to them that it will be done “our way” or else. For that matter you can call the U.S.A. The dictator or the world. Those who go against its will are embargoed, trade restricted, demonetized, and invaded if necessary.
I may be extreme, but I’m just going by definitions.
I think the invasion of Iraq was foolish.
It appears that Bush was trying to pull of an idea called "Democracy in a Box." The idea was that, if a superpower removed a dictator and gave the people an election; then that country would magically transform into a modern secular democracy in a generation.
The massive killing that took place in Iraq was a somewhat predictable civil war that would occur in a power vacuum in an area like Iraq where there was an intense rivalry of the Sunni and Shiites.
I think Bush was foolish, but your argument that Bush was trying to establish a dictatorship is a bit off.
BTW, if the US really aspired to being an imperial force as people claim, then all the literature would be about the great military exploits of the empire.
A strange thing about the style of insult you are putting forward is that the insult only works if it isn't true. If one tried insulting a true racist by calling him a racist; the guy would respond by saying: But of course I am a racist. Just smell the musk of my racially imperial arm pits!
If you tried to insult a true imperial power by claiming they were imperial, the leaders of the imperial power would say: of course we are imperial. Look at how great our empire is.
Bush was foolish, but the idea that the world needs to put down the United States and end the American Experiment in Self Rule because one president was foolish is equally foolish.
I’m not saying Bush was the dictator, neither Obama, or Trump, or even just the presidency itself. I’m saying that the American Foreign policy is the Dictator. “Do as we say or we put sanctions on you, or invade you if you make us.” This is done through the CIA (the dictator’s henchmen) by insighting regime change, and through the military through supplying their henchmen (foreign leaders like Saudi Arabia) with guns and bombs. So being a dictator to the world is essentially what the US foreign policy has become. It’s pretty much out of one person (the presidents) control.
I agree that American foreign service has a horrible track record. The people attracted to the foreign service tend to have globalist leanings.
American foreign policy tends to work against traditional American ideals.
The reason I responded the way that I did was because I think people have to be careful to separate the negative aspects of our foreign policies from the ideals that we want to preserve.
Imperial ideals are counter to traditional American ideals. They are not counter to tradition Chinese, Persian, Turkish or other great powers. Pushing the idea that the United States needs to be neutered will open up the world for much more oppressive international tyrannies.
For example, one can argue that United Nations and the EU have an impulse to establishing a new world order. If the world heeds the call to neuter the US because our foreign policy is out of kilter with American ideals, then a new superpower will step in. These guys will be worse.
The challenge we face is figuring out how to call out the excesses of American foreign policies without letting this effort being used by the other bad actors of the world.
It is a tough challenge.