Are the new revolutions in the ME and Africa really in the U.S.'s best interest?

[MrEgo]

...or does this present a perfect opportunity for other extremist leaders to take power? What is your opinion?

 

[Patranus]

Well considering every other country this happens in turns into a shit hole, especially in Africa (see dictator threatening to eat opponent from last elections) it is inevitable that another extremist dictator will roll into power.

The problem is that the US neither supports these revolutions nor does it provide post revolution support in creating a stable government.

The UN is a joke and the US need to take the lead on this.

 

[Infohawk]

In the long run it will be in the interests of the US. True democracies tend not to go to war with each other. Also it will be one less excuse for Islamic apologists and third world glorifiers the Middle East remains a hell hole.

The worst that could happen is that Arab countries elect radical Muslim leaders who declare war on the US and Israel. (Relatively unlikely in my opinion.) They're not going to be able to accomplish anything if they do and it would be clear to the world that the Muslim populations only have themselves and their backwards religions to blame.

More realistically I think the Muslim countries would slowly become more prosperous and less radical under democracies. Their people would become more secular and less radical with something to lose in the case of a war. Right now they have nothing to lose.

 

[chucky2]

The only thing that really needs to come out of these revolutions is that an overwhelming % of the population get to chose their representation. Even if that representation is the Taliban/al-Queda/Liberals(Haha), it doesn't matter, as long as they chose it.

 

[OlafSicky]

There is one thing nobody is talking abut. It's the age of these dictators all of them are 80+ their days are and were numbered. All these guys would have died sooner or later. What would have happened then? Their kids seem to be playboys and good for nothing.
This would have happened eventually. Why we didn't have any plans in case these guys died? What were free world governments planning on?
This whole thing was vary predictable, 70% of the population is in their 20's and they are being run by people in their 80s.


It doesn't matter if it's in US best interest, the US should be prepared for it. The question should be why is the US not prepared for this.

 

[Schadenfroh]

The risk inherent to establishing a true republic is a risk worth taking.

 

[Double Trouble]

My hope is that what we're seeing is an awakening of the normal folks in the middle east who are tired of dictators and other such crap, people who want some form of freedom.

My fear is that generally when there's a power vacuum, especially unexpectedly, it tends to get filled with the group that is most organized and ready to quickly take advantage. In many of these places (like Egypt), it seems like the group most ready and organized are Islamo-wackos like the "muslim brotherhood" and other terrorists.

 

[MovingTarget]

In the short term, it is hard to say. Sure, an extremist might come to power in one or more of these countries. This is natural. Wait a generation or two, rinse, repeat.

Long term, definitely. It is in our best interest to have democratic and prosperous nations in that part of the world. The interests of developed democracies are largely convergent in nature. It will lead to more stability, particularly if our hands stay clean this time. We took the low road once and supported dictators that furthered our short-term interests, and look where that got us.

 

[wuliheron]

Here is a list of just some of the worst dictators the US has supported:

Abacha, General Sani - Nigeria
Amin, Idi - Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo - Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio - Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal - Brunei
Botha, P.W. - South Africa
Branco, General Humberto - Brazil
Cedras, Raoul - Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio - Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek - Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo - Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo - El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn - Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel - Liberia
Duvalier, Francois - Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude - Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King - Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco - Spain
Hitler, Adolf - Germany
Hassan II - Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand - Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano - El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko - Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel - Panama
Ozal, Turgut - Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza - Iran
Papadopoulos, George - Greece
Park Chung Hee - South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto - Chile
Pol Pot - Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni - Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios - Guatemala
Salassie, Halie - Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira - Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. - Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. - Nicaragua
Smith, Ian - Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo - Paraguay
Suharto, General - Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas - Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael - Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed - Pakistan

Do you really think the US would support so many dictators in the third world if it didn't believe that was in their best interest? We don't want these people thinking for themselves whether they be radical extremists or not.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Here is a list of just some of the worst dictators the US has supported

Hitler, Adolf - Germany

Hitler? An American backed dictator? Really?

Pol Pot - Cambodia

He was more of a Chinese lapdog than anything, glad the Vietnamese took him out. But, then the Chinese got angry that their lapdog had been removed, so they attacked North Vietnam.

Chiang Kai-Shek - Taiwan

Him or Chairman Mao, which one would you pick?

 

[wuliheron]

I'll give you Hitler and that sometimes its a choice between the lesser of evils. In the case of Idi Amin "Dada" though its hard to argue there is such a thing as more evil or crazy.

More often the problem with dictators like Saddam Hussein is they turn on you. You just can't trust a dictator to remember his place. Thankfully we now have cheap predator drones that can take out most of these third world dictators if they forget who the top dog is. In Saddam's case, we also needed to establish a military base next door to Iran so he just got the short end of the stick. Aaah, the life of a despot is never easy.

 

[CanOWorms]

Do you really think the US would support so many dictators in the third world if it didn't believe that was in their best interest? We don't want these people thinking for themselves whether they be radical extremists or not.

You must have a very broad definition of supported. By it, I would suggest that the US supports the least number of dictators because it does not have relations with Cuba and Iran.

 

[Infohawk]

You must have a very broad definition of supported. By it, I would suggest that the US supports the least number of dictators because it does not have relations with Cuba and Iran.

Do you deny that the US has supported dozens of dictators since WW2?

 

[shiner]

Here is a list of just some of the worst dictators the US has supported:


Do you really think the US would support so many dictators in the third world if it didn't believe that was in their best interest? We don't want these people thinking for themselves whether they be radical extremists or not.

Yes, yes....we know. The United States is the source and reason for all of the evil in the world. Were it not for those meddling Americans the rest of the world would be all sunshine, roses and big eyed puppy dogs.

 

[CanOWorms]

Do you deny that the US has supported dozens of dictators since WW2?

It depends what your definition of support is.

In my definition, yes. On one end the definition can be propping up a dictator like how the French installed a cannibalistic dictator in Africa. On the other end it's simply having some relations. If it's the latter then Luxembourg supports more dictators than the United States.

There are of course varying levels in between those two levels.

 

[wuliheron]

Yes, yes....we know. The United States is the source and reason for all of the evil in the world. Were it not for those meddling Americans the rest of the world would be all sunshine, roses and big eyed puppy dogs.

The US is merely following in the footsteps of every other empire in history that has taken the expedient course of imposing dictatorial rule whenever possible. The issue is control over resources and strategic locations rather then any particular political ideology. Where we haven't been able to impose dictatorial rule some other form of government and coercion is promoted.

As a result its been said that the US is a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to be our neighbor. Nonetheless, the US has also been called an "enemy you can trust". Unlike many empires there are some things the US just won't do. I would compare it more to a modern corporate business strategy which can certainly be brutal and inhumane, but isn't quite as brutish as organized crime.

At any rate, it answers the original question and that was the point. Ideally the US wants puppet dictators for many third world countries to keep them from getting into too much mischief. In the middle east, that means keeping the locals from attacking Israel and each other too often so the oil keeps flowing and prices don't go crazy. Ancient Rome, also considered to be pretty good as Imperial rulers go, supposedly had Jesus killed for similar reasons. He was troublemaker who threatened to destabilize business as usual and the irony is not lost on some of us.

 

[jackschmittusa]

If you truly believe in freedom and democracy, as long as the people of these countries pick their own governments, it makes no difference whether or not it is in the best interest of the U.S.. There is no moral rule that says the world must act for our benefit.

 

[DesiPower]

No its not, its the end of oil as we know it. Once the terrorist organizations get the full control of these countries, guess hows not getting any more cheap oil!!

 

[Anarchist420]

I'm personally a little worried that these uprisings were secretly started by the CIA and the Mossad, and that something will happen to cause Israel to claim injury, the U.S. gets involved, and then one-third to 90% of the world's population gets wiped out.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm personally a little worried that these uprisings were secretly started by the CIA and the Mossad, and that something will happen to cause Israel to claim injury, the U.S. gets involved, and then one-third to 90% of the world's population gets wiped out.

I knew it, Obama is the anti-christ!

 

[Lemon law]

The way I look at it, the old US foreign policy in the mid-east will be toast. As far as taking advantages of mid-east changes, smart countries adapt to changes in other places and dumb countries try to resist change and lose their butts.

 

[bfdd]

A people's revolution for democracy is always in the best interest of the United States of America, that doesn't always mean it will be beneficial to us. Though we're a land of "innocent until proven guilty" so until aforementioned revolutions and hopeful democracies declare us their enemies we should encourage/promote freedom and liberty by staying out of the revolutions of others.

 

[zinfamous]

Assuming one way or the other is a fool's game right now.

No one even knows if it's in the best in interest of the citizens of these particular countries, right now. Sure, they live in horrible dictatorial regimes, right now. Hard to say, though, what exactly what will come out of it.

Things are looking pretty good for Egypt, I'd say. but Libya....who fucking knows?

 

[zinfamous]

At any rate, it answers the original question and that was the point. Ideally the US wants puppet dictators for many third world countries to keep them from getting into too much mischief. In the middle east, that means keeping the locals from attacking Israel and each other too often so the oil keeps flowing and prices don't go crazy. Ancient Rome, also considered to be pretty good as Imperial rulers go, supposedly had Jesus killed for similar reasons. He was troublemaker who threatened to destabilize business as usual and the irony is not lost on some of us.

Rome executed thousands of Jesus's of his time. The only thing different about that particular Jesus was that he claimed to be the son of God--Caesar, of course, is the son of God. He's on the coins. This is a simple fact of Roman life. what a fool to challenge this reality.

That simply could not be tolerated. It was an expedient and obvious decision on the part of any Caesar, much less the "greatest" of Caesar's: Augustus.

 

[wuliheron]

Rome executed thousands of Jesus's of his time. The only thing different about that particular Jesus was that he claimed to be the son of God--Caesar, of course, is the son of God. He's on the coins. This is a simple fact of Roman life. what a fool to challenge this reality.

That simply could not be tolerated. It was an expedient and obvious decision on the part of any Caesar, much less the "greatest" of Caesar's: Augustus.

Rome was actually quite tolerant of countless religions and Caesar couldn't have cared less about every crazy in the empire claiming to be God. What made Jesus a target was that he was considered a cult leader with a growing following. His whole idea that you could commit any sin and just ask for forgiveness was considered especially crazy and dangerous to society. It was like encouraging people who did evil to feel ok about themselves. Some to this day claim that's why its so compatible with capitalism.