For Israel, better the devil you know, than the one you do not.
So, it's ok to support a dictator and oppose democracy in another country, if it helps you.
Gotcha. Yet another righty who says the pledge of allegiance while fighting democracy.
All these people who throw principles in the trash and grab ahold of whatever seems to serve their short term interest - people under a dictator, sure, fine, they're Muslim.
That's why nukes are fine - for us, no them; being an arms merchant, fine for us, not them; forcing puppets over others, fine for us, not them, and so on.
That's not American - it's a thug in the world who spits in the face of American values wanting to be the latest 'rule with tyranny' force, while pretending otherwise.
Pretty much every tyranny claimed the same justifications - stability, etc.
Edit: I'm not saying we should not dislike if the people of a country choose bad policies/leaders. I am saying that thinking that we have the moral right to deny democracy to them and impose tyranny on them for our benefit is a problem. We have plenty of more moral ways to influence - not to mention how corrupt interests make up 'foreign threats'.
How hysterical did we get about 'threats' to our south - Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, even Grenada - using massive force, tyranny, even terrorism as our policies for what was really the protection of our corporations to exploit the people there, wrapping our own murderous evil in the name of 'liberty' and 'freedom' to hide what we did?
The one real 'threat' that did happen - the near-nuclear war trigger over Soviet missiles in Cuba - was more a result of our policy of massive terrorism against Cuba (while denying it all), even while we were hypocritical about our own missiles on the border of the USSR in Turkey we refused officially to get rid of while demanding the USSR removed theirs.
The US has a bad history of turning nations who just want a little justice and fairness in how they're treated into enemies by insisting on exploiting and tyrannizing. Most of our armed conflicts since WWII - and many earlier like the invasion of the brand new USSR around 1917 - were about 'preventing examples of any country not doing as they're told'.
Read the internal memos around Cuban policy from the moment Batista was overthrown - they justified terrorism, assassination, on the grounds that there was a danger other South American nations' citizens would get the idea they didn't have to put up with extreme oligarchies kept in power serving US corporations. Cuba's threat was not for Castro's army to march and conquer Washington D.C., but for them to even be there as an example for nations to say 'we can have a little justice, too', against very oppresive right-wing regimes and US companies. Same reason we had the left-wing President of Chile replaced by the dictator Pinochet - after the US corporation taking Chile's number one economic resource, their copper, had the government of Chile say 'no more, Chile keeps more of the money from it'; why we did it in Guatemala, and many, many other cases - including Grenada. We'd already declared 'economic war' on Cuba, who was highly dependent on the US trade after 60 years as an effective US colony.
We don't have the right to tell Egypt, 'you have to live under a dictator who represses you, to serve our interests'. It's about time we treat the people of Egypt with a bit of fairness - and watch the situation improve. Or did the English monarchy have the right to tyranny over the US, to serve its foreign policy interests?
Facebook
Twitter