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

[Shady]

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

Well, he sounded like quite the neo-con in his opinion. Like it's our business what other countries governments are set up like. And I'm just trying to figure out from a logistics point of view, what he's prescribing. Sanctions? Embargos? War? Should we be treating every dictatorship like the American treatment of Cuba for the last 50 years? He's been pretty silent about actions.

[carepov]

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.

I more or less agree, and am likewise baffled and disappointed in the public’s apathy. I also agree that our so-called "nice" leaders are no better than the "evil" ones. The one exception is GW Bush - perhaps the worst Administration ever. I would like to add a point however in defence of the USA: In terms of foreign intervention, they seem to be the "least worst" of any major super-power in history. If you can think of a "less-evil" super-power at any point in history please let me know. Similarly their apparent hypocrisy in supporting one oppressive regime and isolating another has been standard practice forever, no?

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

I support both. In most situations it is not an either/or question.

When deciding weather or not to intervene in a country (e.g. ...Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria) the first question must be:

1. Do we have the capacity to achieve our (humanitarian and/or self-interest) objectives ?

Then we should be asking:

2. Will intervention worsen the situation?

IMO, invading Afganistan was probably a good idea but Iraq ruined both campaigns.

Regarding the support of dictators and oppressive regimes, it all depends on the situation. I generally support today's US polcies towards China, Burma, North Korea, the policy on Cuba is stupid but perhaps the Administration "has no choice" if they want to hold onto Florida. I have no idea how I would handle Sudan, Libya, Egypt and Syria. What do you think?

[GostHacked]

Well, he sounded like quite the neo-con in his opinion. Like it's our business what other countries governments are set up like.

Our Canadian government sure seems to care. Haiti is a good example of that 'caring'.

But it's funny that you say this now. You were a staunch defender of the decision to go into Iraq if I recall correctly. The irony of you of spewing the Bush Derangement Syndrome at the same time you complained about Obama continuing much of what Bush had put into place, and even in some cases gone beyond. The NDAA is a perfect example of that.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

Too f__king bad for them. Maybe someone should give Turkey a map!

So, you're going with the 'False Flag' scenario rather than the 'Ooooops, My Bad' scenario? This was some clowns with itchy trigger fingers using AAA rather than some 'high tech' Rooshin SAM.

Sorry. I don't think even Turkey could find volunteers willing to be shot down to further the evil Neocon agenda. Call me mad.

[Shady]

Our Canadian government sure seems to care. Haiti is a good example of that 'caring'.

But it's funny that you say this now. You were a staunch defender of the decision to go into Iraq if I recall correctly. The irony of you of spewing the Bush Derangement Syndrome at the same time you complained about Obama continuing much of what Bush had put into place, and even in some cases gone beyond. The NDAA is a perfect example of that.

Yep, I was and still am a staunch defender of the Iraq decision. But not based on their government being a dictatorship and/or violating human rights.

[Moonlight Graham]

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

No. Sanctions may work in certain situations, but with geopolitics I believe in the saying "keep your friends close and enemies closer. Strong economic trade with ie: Saudi Arabia and China has helped keep their relations with the West stable (more or less), and avoided military friction along the lines of N.Korea & Iran.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be preaching the value of liberty & human rights on one hand, and then turning a blind eye to friendly regimes that brutalize their people & propping them up for our benefit to the detriment of their citizens...while at the same time chastising & forcing regime change on other brutal regimes simply because they don't kiss our feet. It's plain hypocrisy.

We can have trade & diplomatic relations with brutal regimes, but we should use our stable relations with them to advocate for better treatment of their people. And we certainly shouldn't be selling arms to them or helping them build institutional capacities (ie: torture, surveillance) that's used to solidify repression over their people (again, to secure our selfish benefit). Our govs are accessories/accomplices to murder, rape, torture & other wonderful things by definition. This is fact.

Well, he sounded like quite the neo-con in his opinion.

Neocons want to spread democracy (or eliminate security threats) by gun-point. Preventive wars, forced regime changes using military action. I never even gave a hint I'd support this.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Neocons want to spread democracy (or eliminate security threats) by gun-point.

Not really. Neocons have no real interest in spreading democracy. They just have an interest in war, and pursuing democracy is a good excuse to be in a constant state of conflict.

The real driving force behind neocon foreign policy is their belief that liberalism will destroy America from within, and that it lead to the rise of the Nazis in the german weimer republic. They think war against a "formidable and evil enemy" will keep liberalism at bay by galvanizing the population.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Neocons want to spread democracy (or eliminate security threats) by gun-point. Preventive wars, forced regime changes using military action. I never even gave a hint I'd support this.

A quick check of history reveals that is exactly how the United States came to exist. The first regime change...was yours.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not really. Neocons have no real interest in spreading democracy. They just have an interest in war, and pursuing democracy is a good excuse to be in a constant state of conflict.

Neocons didn't replace governments in Afghanistan and Iraq with Communist regimes, did they?

The post-Cold War neocons are foremost interested in retaining American global hegemony. Part of this involves replacing ideologically threatening regimes with friendly democracies. Having an interest in war isn't exclusive to neocons, interest in war is the 200+ y/o American past-time.

The real driving force behind neocon foreign policy is their belief that liberalism will destroy America from within, and that it lead to the rise of the Nazis in the german weimer republic. They think war against a "formidable and evil enemy" will keep liberalism at bay by galvanizing the population.

Where did you get this from? Neoconservatism has virtually always been grounded in liberalism (in the Lockean sense of the term).

[dre]

Where did you get this from?

From reading books by various neoconservative intellectuals like Strauss, Bloom, and Kristol back when I found this interesting. If anything its a reaction to liberalism.. anti liberalism. Like I said Strauss had the profound belief that liberal democracy lead to the rise of the Nazi party and that liberalism would destroy America. NeoCon foreign policy is really domestic policy, and it has nothing to do with spreading democracy. Its a means to a totally different end... stopping the social decay that he thought would result from American liberalism.

Edited June 28, 2012 by dre

[Shady]

The real driving force behind neocon foreign policy is their belief that liberalism will destroy America from within, and that it lead to the rise of the Nazis in the german weimer republic. They think war against a "formidable and evil enemy" will keep liberalism at bay by galvanizing the population.

Wow, that's the most bizarre, tin-foil type nonsense I've read in a long time.

So neocons want to liberate people from dictatorships because they believe that liberalism will destroy America from within? *facepalm*

[Shady]

Where did you get this from?

Good question. Probably from some far-left blog, because it makes absolutely no sense at all.

[dre]

Wow, that's the most bizarre, tin-foil type nonsense I've read in a long time.

So neocons want to liberate people from dictatorships because they believe that liberalism will destroy America from within? *facepalm*

No they could care less about liberating people from dictatorships. What they care about is having wars and enemies. They basically think that a nation at war is less likely to be overcome by nihilism or what they called "permissive egalitarianism".

And they certainly arent fans of democracy.

[bleeding heart]

Where did you get this from? Neoconservatism has virtually always been grounded in liberalism (in the Lockean sense of the term).

Yes, but not in the current sense of "liberalism is decadence" sense.

I don't like to make too much of the "neocon" phenomenon; mostly, I see them as simply a realtively hawkish aspect of the (long-existing) order, as another poster pointed out.

But for what it's worth: the neocons came out of Straussian philosophy...the clearest layman's argument for it comes, I think, from Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind, a preposterous best-seller which attacks "liberalism" wholeheartedly.

In essence, the Straussian/Bloomian argument, derived in part from Platonic teaching, is that, yes, "liberalism" is destroying society, thanks to a decline in important cultural institutions such as religious faith, (young) marriage, and extreme patriotism.

It's not even that the Straussians care much about religion or marriage; hell, Bloom was a promiscuous homosexual, and Strauss was an atheist. They believe that nihilism is the Objective Truth (borrowed quite heavily from Nietzche, by some accounts). However, most poeple cannot handle the truth, cannot gaze into the Abyss; the Straussians, or "neocons" can do so, because they are the Wise Men, the Philosophers. But the rest of the public needs to embrace religion, patriotism, traditional family mores; they need to believe in these things, and part of the way to do this is to keep them in a state of fear...fear of the dangerous Other.

It's not, either, that all "neocons" think this way; even within the strange and airy realm of Straussian philosophy, there are the believers in "surface" truths (the "exoteric"), versus those who understand the "hidden" truths (the "esoteric").

Rather than the Enlightenment value of "invididual freedom," the Straussians believe in the striving for "human excellence" and "political virtue" (which does not denote "honesty," by the way) as the proper direction for society.

Edited June 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Shady]

No they could care less about liberating people from dictatorships. What they care about is having wars and enemies. They basically think that a nation at war is less likely to be overcome by nihilism or what they called "permissive egalitarianism".

And they certainly arent fans of democracy.

More tinfoil.

[bleeding heart]

More tinfoil.

If so, it's tinfoil created by the Straussians and their neocon students themselves.

Here's the late Hitchens--a self-avowed fan of the neocons, admirer of Wolfowitz et al, and staunchest of staunch defenders of the Iraq War (read my comments above, and then read this):

[bolding mine]

Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed. Since Paul Wolfowitz is from the intellectual school of Leo Strauss—and appears in fictional guise as such in Saul Bellow's novel Ravelstein—one may even suppose that he enjoys this arcane and occluded aspect of the debate. For those lacking a similar gift for hidden meanings, the best way to appreciate the unstated case for war may be to examine the criticisms leveled by its opponents.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2002/11/machiavelli_in_mesopotamia.html

That is, even if it's nonsense...you're pointing your finger at the wrong culprit.

[Guest Peeves]

No they could care less about liberating people from dictatorships. What they care about is having wars and enemies. They basically think that a nation at war is less likely to be overcome by nihilism or what they called "permissive egalitarianism".

And they certainly arent fans of democracy.

"They" "THEY" ThEy Just who the &%*! is THEY?

Neocons? Names please. Obama the POTUS ?

The VEEP!

or ....3.1 Executive Branch

Or just that big old rotten USA en toto?

3.1.1 Department of Agriculture (USDA)

3.1.2 Department of Commerce (DOC)

3.1.3 Department of Defense

3.1.3.1 Department of the Army

3.1.3.2 Department of the Navy

3.1.3.3 Department of the Air Force

3.1.4 Department of Education

3.1.5 Department of Energy (DOE)

3.1.6 Department of Health and Human Services

3.1.7 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

3.1.8 Department of Housing and Urban Development

3.1.9 Department of the Interior (USDI)

3.1.10 Department of Justice (USDOJ)

3.1.11 Department of Labor

3.1.12 Department of State (Dos)

3.1.13 Department of Transportation

3.1.14 Department of the Treasury

3.1.15 Department of Veterans Affairs

3.2 Legislative Branch

3.3 Judicial Branch

Edited June 28, 2012 by Peeves

[GostHacked]

Wow, that's the most bizarre, tin-foil type nonsense I've read in a long time.

There is more truth to it than you want to believe. If one takes the time to actually read and understand what these guys are telling us, then people would understand what is going on. But with responses like 'That's complete nonsense.' only hurts you in the long run. What you don't know WILL kill you.

I have not read the books Dre is talking about, but I have read a few others that give pretty much the same picture. America will fall, and it's being gutted from the inside. Some of the gutting is now happening in Canada.

So neocons want to liberate people from dictatorships because they believe that liberalism will destroy America from within? *facepalm*

So how IS America doing these days? If liberalism was the call of the day, you would not see all these reports of the US military doing major drills in heavily populated urban centers. Drills were done in L.A., Denver, Chicago, all in the past 3 months. It's almost like they are gearing up for war inside the USA mainland.

Articles like the PATRIOT Act and now the steroidal version of that which is the NDAA.

[Shady]

There is more truth to it than you want to believe. If one takes the time to actually read and understand what these guys are telling us, then people would understand what is going on. But with responses like 'That's complete nonsense.' only hurts you in the long run. What you don't know WILL kill you.

I have not read the books Dre is talking about, but I have read a few others that give pretty much the same picture. America will fall, and it's being gutted from the inside. Some of the gutting is now happening in Canada.

So how IS America doing these days? If liberalism was the call of the day, you would not see all these reports of the US military doing major drills in heavily populated urban centers. Drills were done in L.A., Denver, Chicago, all in the past 3 months. It's almost like they are gearing up for war inside the USA mainland.

Articles like the PATRIOT Act and now the steroidal version of that which is the NDAA.

Well, you're a 911 truther right? So I'm not surprised you buy into this as well. It's a premise put forth by the same type of people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, you're a 911 truther right? So I'm not surprised you buy into this as well. It's a premise put forth by the same type of people.

Yes....I am still waiting for the FEMA death trains, and more whining about how such death trains will bring FEMA style death trains to Canada.

Dammit....Canada should be able to have Canadian style death trains! LOL!

[DogOnPorch]

Yes....I am still waiting for the FEMA death trains, and more whining about how such death trains will bring FEMA style death trains to Canada.

Dammit....Canada should be able to have Canadian style death trains! LOL!

I found it very amusing when one of these apparent FEMA camps was to be the semi-abandoned* Pine Tree Line base, Baldy Hughs. That place I know very well...lol. It's mostly occupied by black bears. But, I suppose they could be the guards.

* It was given to the Natives or sold for a dollar or something like that.

[dre]

Well, you're a 911 truther right? So I'm not surprised you buy into this as well. It's a premise put forth by the same type of people.

Theres nothing to "buy" into really. This isnt some kind of secret conspircy its a description of exactly what the folks behind the neoconservative movement said, and wrote, and lectured on.

BloodyMinded alluded why you see the movement differently than people that have read about its origions and founders.

It's not, either, that all "neocons" think this way; even within the strange and airy realm of Straussian philosophy, there are the believers in "surface" truths (the "exoteric"), versus those who understand the "hidden" truths (the "esoteric").

[Shady]

Theres nothing to "buy" into really. This isnt some kind of secret conspircy its a description of exactly what the folks behind the neoconservative movement said, and wrote, and lectured on.

BloodyMinded alluded why you see the movement differently than people that have read about its origions and founders.

No. What you're saying just isn't true. It's pure projection.

[GostHacked]

No. What you're saying just isn't true. It's pure projection.

So what part of the Iraq invasion did you support? And why?

[dre]

No. What you're saying just isn't true. It's pure projection.

No it really isnt.