Reply #54: The intention and purpose

[sandnsea]

was not to support regimes for the mere purpose of committing atrocities. Governments have a right to defend themselves against uprisings, or to control riots as we have done on so many occasions in this country.

The US is routinely criticized for supporting the Shah, yet what has taken his place is so much worse. Do you think these atrocities ONLY take place in regimes that have US backing?

Chavez began military attacks in 1992, not becoming President until 1998. Now, he is the one who puts down riots and puts people in prison who challenge him. That's the way it goes.

Sudan, a north/south muslim/christian fight that we poured weapons into, are now being used against the people of Darfur. Was that Bill Clinton's intention?

Indonesia convinced the US they were fighting communist freedom fighters. We supported their fight against supposed communists. Just like we supported the freedom fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan, many of whom transformed into terrorists.

I just posted an article that claims the only reason the west cares about Darfur is because it's interfering with the ability to get the oil out of Sudan. If we don't go in, the left will claim it's because we don't care because there's no oil. If we do, it's because we want to grab the oil.

Kneejerk reaction to anything done by the US government isn't a foreign policy. We are not always wrong. Even when we are, every person doesn't make errors based on pure greed.