I agree that dictators cause many problems. However, I think it is a far better alternative than allowing a nuclear armed nation to hold an election where an extremist group such as Hamas has the potential to gain power and the button to the nuke.

I am referring to Pakistan.

Yes, dictators have come to power under democratic processes as both Hitler and Chavez illustrate. That being said, it is up to the people of the nation to depose them (with outside support if need be).

Dictators are a necessary evil if a nation, like Afghanistan, is full of religious extremists who hold a distorted view of a peaceful religion have the means and likelihood to gain power through violence.

I would advocate for a dictatorship aimed at annihilating every one of these religious extremists, then giving the power back to the people.

****************I would advocate for a dictatorship aimed at annihilating every one of these religious extremists, then giving the power back to the people.*************************

They would destroy even more the society with their "annihilating" policies than the religous extremist and finally the whole society would turn itself to their extreme side, i would support the whole economic structure to show that "good things comes for good people", something like happened in my country:

I m living in Colombia, and as every war, the guerrilla(extreme left) attacked in most of the cases the civil population in order to damage the the goverment. The attacks done by the guerrilla were awful and, as an answer, the whole society turned into the extreme right and we have the goverment of "Alvaro Uribe". He did pretty good things, in the wrong way(many outlaws things), but he still had the opposition that helped to control the absolute power he had(his best was 84% of the population supporting him).

The same absolute power are held by dictators and i think that's the main reason why those guys got corrupted, i dont really think they wanted to do "mean things" from the very beginning, the mistake was that everyone praised them without telling them the wrong things and we know the result.

The defense budget isn't just military, it also includes homeland security like the police, the investigation agency's etc. Not sure how that's divided.

Yes but Bush failed to add the cost of two wars to the Deficit.  When Obama took office he added the cost of the two wars to the Deficit. 

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/

There is one major difference between the USA and every other empire in history.

If the USA goes under it will take the entire world with it in ways we cannot even contemplate.

There is a novel series written by an Australian author.  They give a highly dramatized account of what would happen if most of America was annihilated (by a sci-fi event in this case).  Nonetheless, it is a seemingly realistic view of just how badly Europe, China, India/Pakistan and the Middle East would go to pieces if the USA's influence was rapidly and dramatically diminished.

The series two books are "Without Warning- America is gone" and "After America."

The chart I linked was government spending. Nothing to do with a budget. The wars are included in Bush's spending, just not in his budget.

I dont really think that's the case, since Spain, the empires are considered for the entire world( Spain, France, U.K., EE.UU), in many cases, when an empire ends, the rest of the world start growing and a new empire is born:

Spain fell after many internal problems (They even exist today, Barcelona wants to be apart from Madrid and start a new state).

France and later U.K. sort of controlled the whole world together, but they fell in the s.XX because of germany, while they were in war, many latinamerican countries and the USA itself got stronger and a new power was born.

After the USA, i would call China, people think that without the USA, China wont survive, but it may be actually the opposite, China buys about 20% of the USA debt, Japan buys like 16%, Korea, etc, etc.

They buy that debt, cause they want a "strong dollar" so they could keep having certain advantage to their economies in a world wide basis and grow faster, but they also trade with themselves and China is about to become the top country for Latinamerica in commercial relationships, it is actually for Brasil, Argentina, Chile, and many more countries.

If those East-Asia-countries wanted to, they could stop their "Buy Dollar" policies and crash the whole financial system, but no one wants that(cause they would grow at a slower rate), that's is why Obama went first to China to tell them "buy our debt", however, it is the USA the one that needs to spend better the money they have.

How the heck do you have the UK as second world power???

Is this graph budget? cause as far as military power goes, Russia, China and France are all three above the UK...just by the meer fact that with relatively equal tech, they have more satelite access and they also have nukes, which the UK gave up on.

Also I don't see switzerland or israel on the chart.... small countries that pack a serious military punch... (one has a militia army: the whole population trains every year till 35, the other already has been in outnumbered wars to prove it and has the army with the most field experience... even more than the US in some aspects).

The difference is that America does not have a military control over the planet, it has an economic hold.  America has a tiny fraction of the world's population, and an ENORMOUS amount of it's consumption base.  Also, much of the wealth that is used by China comes from the fact it owns substantial US debt, debt that would be worthless if America went under.

You have a funny idea of how the spending budget and debt work then. Emergency war fund spending which Bush used is not part of the budget which is how debt is calculated on a yearly basis. That money is put straight into the debt and is not reported. If you look at those years when bush was in power the federal deficit and total amount of debt are not the same. In fact the differences were usually around 500 billion which is about how much each of the emergency war fund was.

So no the wars were not included in the budget or the yearly federal deficit and your link only shows the budget deficit. and not the total federal spending.