<p>Essay Assignment: Dictators of rogue nations often threaten or appeal to the leaders of wealthier, more democratic nations. How should a democratic nation deal with the the dictator of a foreign country? Is it best to give in to some of the dictators’ demands or to take a hard- and -fast "no yielding policy? Cite specific examples from your own knowledge of the world, reading, and personal experience to craft an essay addressing this subject.</p>
<p>Now, here’s the essay…</p>
<pre><code> Power is a possessive force. One who has it will be controlled more by power rather than their brain, that is, they aren’t careful. If one isn’t careful while possessing power, that person could become arrogant. Arrogance leads to actions that are immoral. A person would never commit these actions if he/she didn’t have power. For example, a malevolent dictator, who is arrogant of his power, would go as far as challenging leaders of wealthier nations. Should the wealthier nations tolerate these arrogant behaviors? The answer is that they shouldn’t. They should abide by a strict no yielding policy. This will help prevent a false sense of power, prolonging of war, and harming of innocents. Malevolent behaviors driven by arrogance should never be tolerated.
By adopting a no tolerance policy, arrogant dictators are less likely to get a false sense of security. Usually, power comes with a feeling of security. When King Louis XVI of France ruled over the country, he felt he was indestructible, due to his power. However, his own fellow citizens attacked him. As a result, he had to escape and live the rest of his life on an island. Louis’ false sense of security as King led to the ruining of his entire life. To prevent this from happening to a fellow human being, wealthier nations must prevent the dictator from feeling a false sense of security.
If a dictator is malevolent, then war is inevitable. Agreeing to a dictator’s policies doesn’t result in the avoidance of war. It just prolongs it. War occurs regardless. At the Munich Conference, Britain and the US agreed to let Hitler expand his territories to a certain extent, with an intention of avoiding war. However, World war II occurred anyway. Thus, the US didn’t benefit by agreeing to some of Hitler’s claims.
Finally, by abiding by a no yielding policy, wealthy nations can protect innocent people. By allowing Hitler to expand his boundaries and take over Austria, the US allowed Hitler to execute Jews in Austria as well as Germany, rather than just Germany. By abiding by Hitler’s policies, the US and Britain caused the deaths of millions of additional Jews. Thus, innocents were harmed due to US actions.
All in all, a nation must always abide by a no-yielding policy. that way, a false sense of power, prolonging of war, and murdering of innocents can be avoided. By abiding by a no yielding policy, a nation will do good to itself, as well as others. Thus, a greater percentage of the world’s population will benefit, which is desirable from a moral perspective.
</code></pre>
<p>-----End of Essay---------</p>
<p>Please grade this in all honesty and make me aware of the slightest mistakes. I want to improve my SAT Essay-writing as much as I possibly can. My essay score on the last SAT I took was HORRIBLE (8).</p>