..if it's not enough, if the interactions with the subjects of a perceived mislead nation can't be reduced to a strict professional minimum ? if we're in front of a mafia or circle of mafias installing themselves at the helmet of the population ? and if we're in front of a megalomaniac dictator falling victim to try the big war instead of scaling back "aspirations" as any decent religion would inspire a leader in front of a pushing population ? instead of engaging in the unforgivable of killing for time and cash in the national interest, as had to come after undermining trust in the institutions, engaging and promoting harassment and torture of the weak, oppressing lives on masses for the lie to continue of the president's action to be inline with the nation's interest. void of legitimacy attacking another country or minority in the own country, deemed disturbing to the harmony ( stability , security ) of the delusional mafia respectively to the nation's aspirations, is just the top of the iceberg, the reason we can to not say have to - as well - assume that it's a whole population's fault for letting such an autocrat positioning himself at the top of the political establishment. It's not just the fault of the delusional dictator himself, because alone you don't get to the top lest can introduce disproportionate chronic state abuse, you need help ( see also my essay corruption makes sense ). Otherwise said, if aiding and abetting for a crime is a crime, so it is, no doubt, not a question of culture or whatever made up loyalties, but coldhearted universal metaphysics to not be ignored, in humanity's interest to not say everybody's interest.
Therefore I have absolutely nothing against declaring war to the whole country and invade it in order to topple the government. A planetary threat that should be known to make sure citizens don't engage in praying for a Jesus just to let him die on the cross anyway. The execution is to punish the nation by installing a collegial council as helmet, so never again one person can rule it all, so it's the end of the dream of a strong leader bringing progress, forever, until the nation is worthy again, can unite again under the rule of one, as clearly never was able to, but always could pretend with today's best international political science available.*
It shouldn't be possible for a dictator to hide behind his population and the people of this world should know it. In theory, as learned from the victory over the Nazis, we're not afraid of them and would always defeat them united should they try to enslave other countries and resort to genocide or ethnocide. The cost of letting a dictator act as if would enjoy impunity is just too big : increased migration fleeing the injustice and torture, economic fall-out due to mismanagement of the economy and corrupt commercial rituals introduced, lost education of a generation and a holyfully destroyed nature to make up for the smallheaded lies.
As of today, always be ready to replace a dictator by war should be the politics of America and Europe and Britain. This could be the politics of my country, as neutral as we are. We should hold ready an army of a million soldiers able to topple any dictator at any time. The question comes up regularly whether the neutrality allows us to deny our attachment to universal human rights and betray our ancestors who let their lives for our freedoms and wealth* ; for our humanistic values, which we deem of superior utility for the peaceful workings of our society, than the theft-allowing logic of authoritarian rulers and their entourage, their weak reasoning, always object to implosion or explosion because not supported by the majority of the people, who usually disdains theft, refusing by experience and reason to believe in their exceptionalism that would prevent them from getting caught.
Where the danger of one-eyed rule in nations based around one ethnicity lies - any nation really, but those especially : the ability of an eloquent leader to persuade the nation to believe in their exceptionalism, able to make up for the corruption permitted to oneself in the relations with others.
.
...
...
* the classic conservatives said since always
that each nation has to learn by itself how to use its freedom in order to stay stable.
thus an intervention is only delaying the solution.
which is true in a certain manner
when you can afford to side with their aristocratic neoliberal < pragmatism >
or when you stay in general in a monopolar presidential way of thinking,
replacing a dictator with the next one,
void of options in front of a hungry and thirsty people
- as the classic progressives might have to admit after Iraq and Afghanistan debacles -
i say since 2o12 to replace a corrupt dictator with a collegial council,
able to find compromises in time
and to rapidly rebuild trust with it,
as well as international and especially commercial one.
22-july-2o2o
