Originally posted by CX:
doesn't that actually suggest that 3rd world tin-pot dictators tends to be from an educated elite with access to western education rather than the fact that the oxford, sandhurst, and other british institutions "trained dictators"?
and to suggest that the brits trained a disproportionate number of dictators is just plain wrong. the notorious School of the Americas trained a lot of latin-american strongmen as well.
By 'trained dictators', I don't mean that they trained them to
be dictators

, but that they accepted them as students / trainees and equipped them with valuable skills which they later put to not-so-good use.
British governments are well known for having a policy of cultivating foreign ties through its institutions of higher learning, i.e. encouraging foreign leaders (and often, their sons and daughters) to attend their universities and training institutes. This policy has also had the additional objective of Anglicising foreign leaders (and often, sons / daughters of leaders) and making them sympathetic to British interests.
You'll notice that a disproportionate number of third world dictators (and their assorted offspring and cronies) with a Western education have been educated in the UK rather than the US. Bashar al-Assad, who's widely suspected of supporting international terrorism, was a student at Oxford just a few years ago. Benazir Bhutto was President of the Oxford Union. Etc etc etc ad nauseam.
As for Sandhurst, that's even worse - that's a military school that provides its students with training in extremely potent techniques that can be employed as tools of oppression. Its intake is directly supervised by the Ministry of Defence. Yet, so many third world tinpot republic strong men have managed to find their way into the academy, and have used (and continue to use) their acquired military skills to maintain a stranglehold over their people.
I'm not sure about your School of the Americas claim - the US did support quite a number of Latin American regimes, but often felt constrained to do so covertly (recall the Iran-Contra scandal, for example). That precluded the US from actually accepting foreign dictators into its universities (where they would probably be lynched on arrival) or supplying them with American arms. Quite often, while the US supplied these regimes with funding, they were required to buy Soviet-made weapons on the black market to hide the fact that their support came from the US.
It's different, you see - while the US supported dictators for strictly political ends, the UK did so for politics as well as to simply drive its arms industry.
Also, even if the US did provide actual training to the Latin American strongmen, I think that, going by the numbers, the Brits still beat their record for the sheer numbers of dictators they educated / trained.