Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why does the U.S. always support dictators against the interests

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 08:51 AM
Original message
Why does the U.S. always support dictators against the interests
of people of other nations? Recall its coup in Iran against a democratically elected Mossadegh, against Arbenz in Guatemala, against Allende in Chile, against Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and now against Chavez in Venezuela.It support for the likes of Sadat in Egypt followed by Mubarak, it support for Musharraf against the world's largest Democracy in India and its unsparing support for the cruel Royal Family in Saudi Arabia all say to me that our support of Democracy is a joke on all these peoples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's the corporatists.
NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. If it's a joke, I think it's less a joke on THEM than on US....
the "freedom" and "democracy" verbiage is designed mostly for domestic consumption. I doubt that most Chileans haven't figured out that the US policy is geared toward $$$$$, propaganda to the contrary not withstanding.

Reminds me of "Chinatown" . Faye Dunaway asks Nicholson what's this tangled web really all about. He says something like : "Money. How they expect to make it by emptying reservoirs, I don't know."

Turned out he was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Sort of like Enron, Bush's favorite corporation. make money by
trading power like a commodity.Starve the Californians of power, raise the prices and make a fortune.Shut down power plants on some pretext and make more money. Like you say empty the reservoirs and....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. That's a pretty good parallel, actually....
I wasn't paying that much attention at that time...on the east coast... but there are some alarming similarities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think it began
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 09:09 AM by libhill
During the Cold War years , directly after World War Two ended. At first, The U.S. had a philosophy that European Imperial regimes were better than the alternative, nationalist regimes who leaned toward Marxism and Communism. As the British, French, and Dutch colonial boundaries began to shrink, we took the attitude that a "strong man" dictator could be insinuated into newly independent Third World areas where the U.S. felt that we had strategic or security interests at stake. A dictator could be bent to our will, with the support of dollars and weapons, and assist in keeping the Soviet and Chinese Communist bogey men at bay. We create a lot of our own problems that way - put 'em in, take 'em out. We created Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, even Osama Bin Forgotten. Wasn't so long ago Osama was our buddy, fighting those evil Soviets in Afghanistan with the C.I.A.s blessing - and money, and weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Osama is a gift that keeps on giving.He hasn't Bin forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL
Come to think about it, I believe you are correct in that assessment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. No kidding. One of the worst things that could happen to Bushco
is if somebody screwed up and actually killed the man.

Kind of like, if they actually let RoeVWade be overturned.

"Ohmigod! Whada we do now?!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DistressedAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
7. You Hit The Nail On The Head With The Word "Interests"
Edited on Sat Mar-26-05 09:22 AM by DistressedAmerican
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Expecpted from another recent post of mine (not my text)
Link here:

http://www.web.net/~opirgkin/qcacg/cd.html

"Democracy is not advanced through the actions of politicians. Politicians have only two interests - self-interest and vested interest, the public is not counted as either of these. The public is a bloody nuisance. The only time politicians take an interest in the public, have any contact with the public, is at election time. This is not because politicians have suddenly become interested in the publicthe interest is still, me, me mebut they now need the help of the public to get re-elected, to keep their snouts in the trough; the public is soon to be forgotten until the next election.

Left to their own devices, politicians will always act against democracy and the public interest. "



Blood Relative and Fellow DUer Distressed Sister Hitting The Streets With A Graphic SHE Commissioned:


A bunch of others that are a bit old but still good can be found here:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/saudiman...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gold_bug Donating Member (485 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. stability, for one thing
Dictatorships tend to be more stable than democracies, and the US elite wants stability and compliance in the regions where they get natural resources (oil, minirels, etc.). It seems to me the main danger with democracy in the "Third World" is that it enables the masses to try to force their gov't to use some of their natrual resources for the betterment of the people rather than continue to ship them off to the US while the people become more impoverished. An example would be the democratically elected Arbenz gov't in Guatemala in the early 1950's -- they began to redistribute some of the US fruit company's unused land to the impoverished peasants, and in response to this social program the US overthrew the Arbenz gov't and installed a brutal dictatorship.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Guatemala_KH.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's not about freedom or democracy,
it's about Capitalism. Always has been, always will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flammable Materials Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
12. Apparently you haven't seen the "sticker" in the window of my car:
"A Dictatorship Is A Corporation's Best Friend".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KlatooBNikto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Keep the sticker. It says more better than I could say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-26-05 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
14. It wasn't the fear of communism for the U.S. frequent interventions
in Central America before 1917, before the Bolshevik revolution. How can we explain our taking control of Cuba and Puerto Rico in 1889; our seizure of the Canal Zone in 1903; our dispatch of marines to Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Guatemala in the early 1900's; our bombardment of a Mexican town in 1914; and our long military occupation of Haiti and Dominican republic starting in 1915 and 1916. All this before the Soviet Union existed.

Throughout the periods after WW II our government had supported undemocratic governments, indeed vicious military dictatorships: in Batista's Cuba, Somoza's Nicaragua, Armas's Guatemala, Pinochet's Chile, and Duvalier's Haiti as well as in El Salvador and other counties in South America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 11th 2017, 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC