US/Western support for brutal dictatorships (it's your fault too)

Moonlight Graham · June 27, 2012

“While the U.S. government continues to squawk about the Assad dictatorship’s oppression of the Syrian people, Americans need to constantly keep in mind that the squawking has nothing to do with any principled objection to dictatorship or tyranny. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact that the Assad dictatorship is not a loyal member of the U.S. Empire. Thus, the purpose of the squawking is to not to help the Syrian people escape tyranny but instead simply an effort to bring about a regime change, one in which a new regime, even a dictatorial one, replaces the Assad regime, with the new regime hopefully becoming a loyal pro-U.S. member of the U.S. Empire.”

In response to above by Matthew Good, well said:

The use of the word “Empire” always throws people for a loop – but it’s a basic way to avoid having to delve into numerous complexities. What the United States attempts to accomplish in such situations is to add to their list of client states – as others do. As Hornberger asserted, they’ve no real interest in the true liberty of others, or their right to self determination – though using both as justifications for intervening in foreign matters in hopes of ensnaring new client states is certainly something they’re more than willing to do.

And Hornberger continues, using a popular example:

"Consider Iran. From 1953 to 1979, Iran was governed by a regime headed by the Shah of Iran, one of the cruelest and most brutal dictators in history. That regime thought nothing of rounding up people without trial, torturing them, and even executing them, all in the name of protecting “national security” and maintaining “order and stability.”
"The U.S. Empire loved the Shah’s regime. That’s not too surprising given that the CIA instigated the coup that destroyed Iran’s experiment with democracy and that installed the Shah into power. In fact, the CIA actually helped train the secret domestic intelligence force that the Shah used to terrorize the Iranian people.

"Today, the U.S. Empire hates the Iranian regime. But it hates it not because it is a brutal dictatorship but because it’s not a pro-U.S. dictatorship, like the Shah’s was.”

This is Exhibit A of why even our "favorite" Western leaders, from JFK/Reagan/Clinton/Obama, to Trudeau, de Gaulle etc. are all complete shills. These men aren't significantly "kinder" people than the politicians we despise, like Bush/Nixon/Harper etc., they are just way better at selling the B.S. to us, they do it with a joke and a friendly smile. It's appalling when the US and other Western governments choose to support, or not, brutal dictatorships based on how well they fall in line. Consider also Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria vs Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pinochet's Chile etc.

It's even more appalling that we the citizenry put up with this nonsense. States do as they do in order to secure the "national interest", but what if our citizenry's "national interest" included being interested in basic human rights over oil prices & military bases, and the fate of elections/support in part depended on this? We love our freedom, but won't support yours unless we get something out of it.

So do you support human rights and liberty for all, or "national security" and the "national interests"?

Edited June 27, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

We love our freedom, but won't support yours unless we get something out of it.

I think it comes from the misconception that Big C Capitalism is some how in the export business in the same way as Communism or Islam...ism. It isn't. Capitalism's dogma is the cheeseburger. And not the you try my cheeseburger and I'll try yours biz. That is, unless it can be sold on the menu. Then we have a deal.

eyeball · June 27, 2012

it's your fault too

Bloody hell it's my fault, I'm an Earthling.

I ain't no fortunate son.

bush_cheney2004 · June 27, 2012

.... It's appalling when the US and other Western governments choose to support, or not, brutal dictatorships based on how well they fall in line. Consider also Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria vs Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pinochet's Chile etc.

No it's not...it is logical and quite expected.

It's even more appalling that we the citizenry put up with this nonsense. States do as they do in order to secure the "national interest", but what if our citizenry's "national interest" included being interested in basic human rights over oil prices & military bases, and the fate of elections/support in part depended on this? We love our freedom, but won't support yours unless we get something out of it.

Basic human rights is the cover story...invented by Canada and the "Responsibility to Protect" (while plundering)!

So do you support human rights and liberty for all, or "national security" and the "national interests"?

Nationalist all the way...I got mine...you get yours.

Topaz · June 27, 2012

I heard a guy on the news say he doesn't know why NATO went in to Libya, when it was being reported that the leader was killing its own people and yet, NATO is nowhere, when it comes to Syria. I think he knew but didn't want to say, that NATO went into Libya because of what the leader was trying to do with the price of oil and in Syria, there's no oil. You watch, if Romney get in as Prez, the US military will be in another war in the Middle-East.

GostHacked · June 27, 2012

I heard a guy on the news say he doesn't know why NATO went in to Libya, when it was being reported that the leader was killing its own people and yet, NATO is nowhere, when it comes to Syria. I think he knew but didn't want to say, that NATO went into Libya because of what the leader was trying to do with the price of oil and in Syria, there's no oil. You watch, if Romney get in as Prez, the US military will be in another war in the Middle-East.

You are going to get another war if it's Romney or Obama.

But the real reason I believe why Libya was taken down was their attempted move to a gold dinar currency to trade oil with. Getting away from the US dollar (aka the petrodollar). Many African countries were on board with this move. That was a threat to the US and the current monopoly on the currency in which oil is traded globally.

Shady · June 27, 2012

By Jacob G. Hornberger:

In response to above by Matthew Good, well said:

And Hornberger continues, using a popular example:

This is Exhibit A of why even our "favorite" Western leaders, from JFK/Reagan/Clinton/Obama, to Trudeau, de Gaulle etc. are all complete shills. These men aren't significantly "kinder" people than the politicians we despise, like Bush/Nixon/Harper etc., they are just way better at selling the B.S. to us, they do it with a joke and a friendly smile. It's appalling when the US and other Western governments choose to support, or not, brutal dictatorships based on how well they fall in line. Consider also Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Syria vs Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Pinochet's Chile etc.

It's even more appalling that we the citizenry put up with this nonsense. States do as they do in order to secure the "national interest", but what if our citizenry's "national interest" included being interested in basic human rights over oil prices & military bases, and the fate of elections/support in part depended on this? We love our freedom, but won't support yours unless we get something out of it.

So do you support human rights and liberty for all, or "national security" and the "national interests"?

I had no idea you were a neocon. Which countries governments should we work to overthrow? Which methods should we use? And what about the unintended consequences?

GostHacked · June 27, 2012

I had no idea you were a neocon. Which countries governments should we work to overthrow? Which methods should we use? And what about the unintended consequences?

Bush was a Neo-Con, and we know where you stand with Bush and Cheney.

Shady · June 27, 2012

Bush was a Neo-Con, and we know where you stand with Bush and Cheney.

Not sure what you're talking about. Regardless, my legitimate question to the original poster still applies.

Moonlight Graham · June 27, 2012

I had no idea you were a neocon. Which countries governments should we work to overthrow? Which methods should we use? And what about the unintended consequences?

I never said anything about overthrowing any government. In fact, I'm supporting the criticism in the OP of the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Not supporting a regime is different from overthrowing it.

Tiresome intellectual lightweight.

Shady · June 27, 2012

I never said anything about overthrowing any government. In fact, I'm supporting the criticism in the OP of the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Not supporting a regime is different from overthrowing it.

Tiresome intellectual lightweight.

So what are you saying? A Cuban-like trade policy like in America for every country that has a government that's dictatorial?

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

I heard a guy on the news say he doesn't know why NATO went in to Libya, when it was being reported that the leader was killing its own people and yet, NATO is nowhere, when it comes to Syria. I think he knew but didn't want to say, that NATO went into Libya because of what the leader was trying to do with the price of oil and in Syria, there's no oil. You watch, if Romney get in as Prez, the US military will be in another war in the Middle-East.

Syria has always been Russia's problem. In this situation, the Russians should be putting their boots on the ground to end the fighting. But, the opposite seems to be happening.

Putin: Here...have some weapons. Have at 'er.

bush_cheney2004 · June 27, 2012

So what are you saying? A Cuban-like trade policy like in America for every country that has a government that's dictatorial?

Before the Cuban embargo, the Americans attempted regime change against Fidel in a very violent way. Having failed that, other direct Cold War realities begrudgingly resulted in such trade policies instead.

The USA has/had no qualms about destabilizing other governments in the pursuit of American and/or allied interests, without apology, as it should be. In contrast, Canada will hatch and execute a scheme to overthrow the democratically elected "regime" in Haiti and then pretend it never happened.

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

Before the Cuban embargo, the Americans attempted regime change against Fidel in a very violent way. Having failed that, other direct Cold War realities begrudgingly resulted in such trade policies instead.

The USA has/had no qualms about destabilizing other governments in the pursuit of American and/or allied interests, without apology, as it should be. In contrast, Canada will hatch and execute a scheme to overthrow the democratically elected "regime" in Haiti and then pretend it never happened.

Indeed. We'd also have a conniption if Russia actually tried another Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia in the name of their version of peace. So, it's damned if you do...

bush_cheney2004 · June 27, 2012

Indeed. We'd also have a conniption if Russia actually tried another Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia in the name of their version of peace. So, it's damned if you do...

Right..."you can't please everyone...so... you got to please yourself" - Ricky Nelson

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

Right..."you can't please everyone...so... you got to please yourself" - Ricky Nelson

A few more choice quotes from Assad and Turkey might "solve the problem" NATO or not.

bush_cheney2004 · June 27, 2012

A few more choice quotes from Assad and Turkey might "solve the problem" NATO or not.

Dumb move by Syria....maybe they never heard of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" !

GostHacked · June 27, 2012

Not sure what you're talking about.

No, of course not. Typical.

Regardless, my legitimate question to the original poster still applies.

Actually asking him if he is a Neo-con is irrelevant to the question don't you think?

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

Dumb move by Syria....maybe they never heard of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" !

I've heard rumor of an airlift of Iranian Revolutionary guards to Syria. So, the stage might be set.

GostHacked · June 27, 2012

Dumb move by Syria....maybe they never heard of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" !

That is what I was thinking when Turkey lost their plane. Another false flag to get into another war. Turkey is sure crying foul over it, trying to drag NATO into a conflict.

dre · June 27, 2012

Syria has always been Russia's problem. In this situation, the Russians should be putting their boots on the ground to end the fighting. But, the opposite seems to be happening.

Why should we end the fighting? Are we supposed to panic and spend billions of dollars every time theres an internal conflict?

If spending 20 dollars would end the conflict in Syria Id buy a case of beer instead! Its their civil war, let em fight.

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

Why should we end the fighting? Are we supposed to panic and spend billions of dollars every time theres an internal conflict?

If spending 20 dollars would end the conflict in Syria Id buy a case of beer instead! Its their civil war, let em fight.

I don't think for a second Canada should be involved in Syria. But, you'd be starting a thread about the nasty Russians if they tried anything as well...right?

DogOnPorch · June 27, 2012

That is what I was thinking when Turkey lost their plane. Another false flag to get into another war. Turkey is sure crying foul over it, trying to drag NATO into a conflict.

Really? They lost those pilots. Drowned or something...shark bait. Did they volunteer?

dre · June 27, 2012

I don't think for a second Canada should be involved in Syria. But, you'd be starting a thread about the nasty Russians if they tried anything as well...right?

WTF are you talking about? I didnt start any threads about this what-so-ever. But yeah, if Russia invaded some other country to take sides in a civil war, Id oppose that just like I do when the west does it.