• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    54
    ·
    1 month ago

    Oh look at that, the West toppling a dictator and replacing it with something that’s somehow worse. Those elections are never happening and the civil war will continue. It’s Libya all over again.

    • Limitless_screaming@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      something that’s somehow worse

      That’s a very big claim. It’d take more than just a dictatorship to be worse than Ba’thist rule.

    • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      If a country has to live under a dictatorship anyway, I will definitely prefer the dictator in power being toppled even every month, rather than a single dictator being able to consolidate their power and terror.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        This logic only checks out when you have a malevolent dictator in charge (which Assad was). A benevolent or neutral (in the sense that they’ll generally do their job as a ruler) dictator is better than absolute chaos, which is why people like Putin and Xi Jinping are loved by their peoples (as much as we don’t like to admit it, it’s true; they’re both popular in their respective countries). Democracy is nice to have, but people will take a dictator who’ll keep a roof over their heads over a weak or nonexistent government 10 times out of 10.