Should the 1st world take on all the dictators?

[HEyHEY]

What would you're thoughts be on the U.N. going after every nation that is run by a dictator that tortures and murders it's people. It is a situation that will never happen, but I'm curious to know if you think maybe 10 years of warfare would justify cleansing the earth of every evil warlord.

Afterwords, of course it would be the responsibilty of the the 1st world to ensure the nation gets back on it's feet and then to leave ASAP. (Yeah right but let's just say)

Would this make the world a better place? Would you support it?

Disclaimer : I am not suggesting we do this I am merely putting it up for discussion. I am interested in what DUers will say.

[JanMichael]

1. By the end of that 10 years we'd be the evil dictators.

No doubt about it.

I don't care what many people say about the repressed citizens eventually coming around to us, they won't.

Nobody, I mean nobody, likes being occupied other than collaboraters.

And they get shot once we leave.

[HEyHEY]

3. Yeah, you have to wonder what they would consider worse

Us, or the prick who is currently running their country.

[La_Serpiente]

2. The question is

who would do it???

I don't think we can get rid of all the world's dictators at one time. The only group that could do that is the UN.

But then again, the UN credibility would be at stake also. Many could see it as a imperialistic New World Order trying to attack everyone.

It takes a long time to deal with these things.

[HEyHEY]

5. True

On one hand, we can't go around the world telling people how to live. On the other hand, it's hard to see some of the things that are happening and not do anything.

What if they went nation to nation over time?

[Caution]

4. As long as they start with George W Bush

I'm all for it.

Seriously though, who is to say whether or not someone is a brutal dictator? Additionally, the resources simply don't exist to do something like this and 5 of the worst human rights violators possess nuclear weapons (China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia), 2 more are well on their way (Iran and North Korea).

The ONLY reason the US took out Hussein was for $$$. No matter how much people would like to believe that it had anything to do with removing some brutal dictator, the fact is that that was just a by-product and a convenient excuse.

[HEyHEY]

6. Okay, but what about situations like Cambodia in the 70s

In a situation like that should the UN get involved?

[Aidoneus]

11. and do what?

the relevant American authorities approved of what was going on, because the reactionary Khmer was anti-Vietnam (and beyond that, the Khmer Rouge was backed by US & Thailand after the Vietnamese deposed their awful government). For that matter, bombing the hell out of Cambodia for years previous and deposing the old ruler practically made inevitable Pol Pot's rise.

[JackDragna]

7. I would absolutely oppose it with every fiber of my being.

I cannot even begin to list the reasons why this would be a bad idea, but I'll try. The biggest one, for me, is that there would be slaughter on an unprecedented scale, both of military personnel and civilian targets. What good is democracy if a country lies in ruins? The idea that we can burn the village to save it needs to go out of style.

I am also very much against the mindset that the dichotomy of governments in the world fall neatly along lines of "evil" and "good." There are some that are clearly wicked, but there are many more that are good and evil depending on one's political views. Rightists, for example, think Fidel Castro is the devil, while the rest of the world maintains indifference. There is simply no way we could ever equitably figure out who is "evil" and "good."

We also need to evaluate the priorities of a nation's people before we decide to meddle in their affairs and change their government. The idea that we can go in, bring down a dictator and be rewarded with flowers is idiotic. Take Saddam Hussein, for example. He was a dictator, but many people in Iraq were satisfied with his rule. The country had a higher standard of living than most of its neighbors, with well-maintained public services. The state was secular, meaning that women could hold jobs requiring some education. The people knew not to criticize the Baathists, but if they could do that, the government left them alone.

Flash forward to today. The country is in shambles: utilities are destroyed, there's no police and the medical system is broken. Most people who were middle class are now desperately poor. There's no work anywhere. Radical Islam has taken hold in the cities and imposed sharia law. All of this, because a bumbling, incompetent superpower thought the world existed like it does in "Star Wars," with anyone not "good" representing some menace that must be met with force. We've ruined Iraq's infrastructre to a point where it may never recover.

This scenario would be repeated over and over if we tried to bring "democracy" to the world. Stable countries with autocratic leadership would turn into chaotic countries with no leadership. The only way to have countries become more free is to have the people in the country decide it's time to change. Otherwise, the people will see outsiders as meddlers and revolt against them.

The final reason I post (being that this post is long enough already), is that sometimes, despite what we may believe, people want dictators for a reason. Hussein was a favorite among many Iraqis because he kept out the jihadis and prevented the spread of fundamentalism in Iraq. The idea of westernized democracy and good means little to people who do not share our ethics.

[HEyHEY]

8. Well put

Thanks for your response

[Cat Atomic]

9. Why don't we just stop installing and supporting dictators?

I expect the problem would eventually remedy itself.

[HEyHEY]

10. An ounce of prevention

good call

[sandnsea]

12. How about those with WMD?

Just to add a little substance here.

[Xithras]

13. Here's the problem: Define dictator

Ask 100 people, get 50 different answers. China, for example, falls under many peoples definition of dictatorial. It ruthlessly supresses anyone who opposes it internally, tortures and imprisons its citizens, and its elections are pre-staged undemocratic farces. Would you support invading China and having them unleash their 500 million man army of whoopass on you?

Until you can say yes, then it's a moot point. Any coalition willing to take on the "little" dictators while leaving the big ones in power will only make the world a MORE dangerous place by making the big dictators paranoid.

On the flipside, you have people like Robert Mugabe. To much of the world, Mugabe is a terrible dictator who ruthlessly slaughters his own citizens, strips them of their rights and property, rigs elections, etc. etc. To many others in the world, and a LARGE percentage of his own people, Mugabe is a hero who drove out the white man and raised his middle finger to the world and the powers that be.

Who's right? Who's wrong? With so many Mugabe supporters in a nation like Zimbabwe, what's to stop one of his followers from stepping right into his shoes after he's removed?

There is only ONE way to permanently remove dictators from the world. Create open and free societies of our own with low unemployment, tolerance, diversity, and equality. When we can offer ourselves as an example to the rest of the world, and offer our way as the obviously superior solution, the peoples of those nations will rise on their own and displace their own dictators. I'm not averse to providing the rebellion with the tools to do that job, but it must be the PEOPLE of the nation that topple their own dictators, or nothing will ever change.