A common misconception is that a benevolent dictator is best, but inorder to be a dictator he must payoff various groups, and constiuents. Hitler's dictatorship was far from effeicent everybody had pet projects and each section of government became a fiefdom where that minister ran it with an iron fist. Likwise almost all larger dictatorships still end up with payoffs to friends and enemies alike. The difference is that the dictator can not be voted out of office in 4 years.
Also absolute power curropts absolutely. And as with most dictators that start out good eventually become evil.
All true, but what are the alternatives? Are these alternatives better? Are they 'right'?
America uses neo-Colonialisation to manipulate other countries, both politically and economically (although they are not the only ones they are the 'big dady' and do it far more that other countries). An example of this is 'the golden carrot on a stick' (i.e. Aid), all aid given by the 'rich countries' (the G8 ones especially) has strings attached, such as buying x goods from x country or adopting a pro-x attitude
Another example is that with the UK the amount of aid itself often corrisponds with the amount of weapons a country buys from us, rather than how much they need the aid. This means the onyl 'true' aid, is that given by independant organisations (charities for example).
If I could be bothered I could come up with dozens more examples, but I think I've made my point, America (and many other rich countries, including my own, the UK) can't take the moral high ground when it comes to dictators, not only have they backed and do back some dictators, but, through the subtly intricacies of aid, politics and econimics, they are manipulating other countries themselves.
~MTWC
