USA, the greatest threat to democracy in the world

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

It's my opinion that since at least World War 2, the United States of America has been the biggest threat to democracy in the world.

How can I say that when it has an imperfect but functional democracy in place which citizens of most countries would be envious of and when many countries suffer under dictatorships?

It is true that the USA promotes democracy within itself relatively well, though many problems exists such as felony disenfranchisement, the First Past the Post system, occasionally restrictive laws on demonstrating and unions, etc. This isn't about that.

This is about the democracies usurped, the juntas empowered and the dictators befriended by the USA for the purpose of maintaining power and hegemony.

This is about Chile, Iran, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Italy, Vietnam, Australia, Nicaragua, Iraq, British Guiana, El Salvador, Haiti, etc, etc ad nauseum.

While Romney complains that Cameron was overly complimentary to Obama several months before a presidential election, the US government has outright bought elections in foreign countries. The Italian elections after WWII when there was worry about a democratically elected Communist government are a wonderful example of the interfering USA propaganda machine in action.

I believe this list here gives a good idea of what I'm talking about:

http://www.flagrancy.net/timeline.html#Truman

If you want to read up about it a bit more, I would recommend Killing Hope by William Blum as a good example of the USA's military and CIA interventions in foreign countries while Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein gives good examples of how it has economically interfered with what are essentially client states. Although I haven't read it, I have also heard good things* about Rogue State, also by William Blum

So come on, does anyone here disagree that the USA is the biggest force for despotism, imperialism and the destruction of democracy

*From Osama Bin Laden.

shit, ignore this

You mean as far as countries go? Well... Yeah, there isn't really much out there at the moment that could pose a threat to democracy, and the USA remains pretty much the only country that actively interferes in its global neighbors on such a hefty scale. But that doesn't really say all that much, because, as said: no real competition. Not to say that this isn't a problem (it is), but still... Now if you were to place it on a stage with ideologies, countries, and all manner of other things, I'd argue that it comes in a distant third to fundamentalist islamism and dominionism, and possibly fourth if you want to count communism.

Stagnant:
You mean as far as countries go? Well... Yeah, there isn't really much out there at the moment that could pose a threat to democracy, and the USA remains pretty much the only country that actively interferes in its global neighbors on such a hefty scale. But that doesn't really say all that much, because, as said: no real competition. Not to say that this isn't a problem (it is), but still... Now if you were to place it on a stage with ideologies, countries, and all manner of other things, I'd argue that it comes in a distant third to fundamentalist islamism and dominionism, and possibly fourth if you want to count communism.

Don't forget good ol' fashioned, tried-and-tested, boots-on-the-ground Imperialism.

Stagnant:
You mean as far as countries go? Well... Yeah, there isn't really much out there at the moment that could pose a threat to democracy,

I think you're you're missing the point, although I'm not 100% sure. The USA is an active threat to democracy as it has completely crushed the democratic process in many countries across the world and done its best to subvert it in others.

You go on to mention the USA interfering, but "interfering" seems to lack the necessary cognition that this interference involves genocide, assassination, election rigging, murder, torture, humans rights violations, rape, subverting entire economies, etc, etc. Due to this I'm really not sure if you get just how much the USA has done to harm democracy worldwide.

But that doesn't really say all that much, because, as said: no real competition.

Yes, it is examination in isolation of the USA's own practices. Just because we're not comparing the USA to the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan doesn't mean we can't judge just how severely it has a harmed the world.

Not to say that this isn't a problem (it is), but still... Now if you were to place it on a stage with ideologies, countries, and all manner of other things, I'd argue that it comes in a distant third to fundamentalist islamism and dominionism, and possibly fourth if you want to count communism.

If you rank them as greater threats to democracy, I'd like to hear your reasoning. Especially as many atrocities linked to those groups will also be partially linked to the USA.

Overhead:
So come on, does anyone here disagree that the USA is the biggest force for despotism, imperialism and the destruction of democracy

I do, yes. I do so because there is no proof that they are.

Anyone trying to present proof: everything from before 1991 doesn't count, because the Cold War was a different times, and over two decades ago.

I think every 1st world power does this to some degree, the US simply has the biggest bank balance and so can afford to do it more often. Look at the UK; Blair signed a deal with Gaddafi for Libyan oil, not to mention all the shit we got up to during the imperial days.

Superpowers have always bought, threatened or befriended foreign powers so that they stabilise a region and make it easier for them to operate there, it's not surprising that the US is continuing the trend.

Actually, since World War 2, America had been hell bent on suppressing Soviet communism throughout the world and staying on top. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the US was still sitting on a bunch of territories throughout the world and was the de-facto world superpower of the nineties.

Besides, it's not like the US is reinventing the wheel when it comes to being a global superpower. Countries have been doing it since the 1500s and compared to other historically imperial countries, the situation could be a whole lot worse. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't justify when the US does shitty things, but you have to accept that every country has done or is doing the same thing.

Blablahb:

Overhead:
So come on, does anyone here disagree that the USA is the biggest force for despotism, imperialism and the destruction of democracy

I do, yes. I do so because there is no proof that they are.[quote]

Are you disputing USA involvement in those or that there has been a larger force?

[quote]Anyone trying to present proof: everything from before 1991 doesn't count, because the Cold War was a different times, and over two decades ago.

I don't see how the Cold War being a 'different time' excuses genocide, torture, assassination, replacing democracies with oppressive military juntas, etc. If you want me to accept that, you'd better back it up.

Also post 1994, burying knowledge of genocide in Rwanda, propping up old Soviet dictatorships, aided Croatia in the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of native Serbs, helping the Mexican government stamp out the Zapistas, the 'reconstruction' of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the phoney excuse for invading Iraq in the first place, massive sanctions on both Cuba and Iran, destabilising Venezuela, drone bombings of Pakistan and other countries, holding people without trial, etc, etc.

This isn't even mentioning general long-standing policies, like leveraging the need of struggling countries for loans to open up their economy to foreign trade and exploitation.

TheTurtleMan:
Actually, since World War 2, America had been hell bent on suppressing Soviet communism throughout the world and staying on top.

Well, that's the thing. The US would switch positions and throw communism on the entire rest of the world if it meant they could stay on top.

OT: There is some truth to what you are saying, but this isn't something done exclusively by the US. A lot of European countries do this kind of stuff too, and have been doing so for a rather long time.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
OT: There is some truth to what you are saying, but this isn't something done exclusively by the US. A lot of European countries do this kind of stuff too, and have been doing so for a rather long time.

The US does happen to be greater in various ways, though.

Karma168:
I think every 1st world power does this to some degree, the US simply has the biggest bank balance and so can afford to do it more often. Look at the UK; Blair signed a deal with Gaddafi for Libyan oil, not to mention all the shit we got up to during the imperial days.

Superpowers have always bought, threatened or befriended foreign powers so that they stabilise a region and make it easier for them to operate there, it's not surprising that the US is continuing the trend.

TheTurtleMan:
Actually, since World War 2, America had been hell bent on suppressing Soviet communism throughout the world and staying on top. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the US was still sitting on a bunch of territories throughout the world and was the de-facto world superpower of the nineties.

Besides, it's not like the US is reinventing the wheel when it comes to being a global superpower. Countries have been doing it since the 1500s and compared to other historically imperial countries, the situation could be a whole lot worse. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't justify when the US does shitty things, but you have to accept that every country has done or is doing the same thing.

Yes, I never meant to imply that this is a modern occurrence. Just take a look at the way European imperialism, slavery and genocide devastated continents.

The reason I highlight the USA is twofold. Although the acts of the past were just as or even more heinous than those carried out by the USA, in this modern era we're expected to hold ourselves to a far higher standard than people born centuries ago as technological and cultural advancement has left us with a greater ability to empathise and recognise these actions as moral. More importantly, the USA is the only power currently exerting this influence on a worldwide scale and have been the only one for decades. We can lament the history of British Imperialism or the conquest of the Americas, but aside from restitution to the descendants of those effected there is little to be done. American imperialism is ongoing. There are people being tortured and bombed today, right now, because of how the pre-eminent world power has decided to act.

That's the why of it.

As for the mention of Communism that you made TheTurtleMan, for me that was always a terribly poor excuse for the USA's unconscionable activities. Under the guise of fighting communism they would try and depose or act against countries which wanted to remain neutral in the cold war rather than picking sides, act against democratically elected communist leaders that wanted friendly relations with the West and would happily paint left-leaning Capitalists as Communist when it suited their economic needs.

I think Blahblah's argument was really just that if you're saying that the US is "the greatest threat to democracy in the world right now", that you need to prove that it is an ongoing threat now, not that it supported un-democratic governments back during the cold war. That's like saying Russia is the biggest threat to democracy in the world right now and then spending the rest of your post quoting Khrushchev.

Overhead:

I don't see how the Cold War being a 'different time' excuses genocide, torture, assassination, replacing democracies with oppressive military juntas, etc. If you want me to accept that, you'd better back it up.

Here's something for YOU to back up. I'm curious as to what genocide the U.S. has perpetrated in the past 100 years. Go ahead. I'm listening.

Is the U.S. perfect? No. Does the U.S. do some shitty shit from time to time? No. Is the U.S. "the biggest threat to democracy in the world"? No, and that's an utterly fucking asinine assertion.

Overhead:
Also post 1994, burying knowledge of genocide in Rwanda

As did pretty much everyone, because nobody could afford to send in a few hundred thousands soldiers to stabilise the situation. By the way, it was Kofi Anan who refused to let UN troops conduct offensive operations.

Overhead:
aided Croatia in the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of native Serbs

Uh? What? Nothing like that ever happened. The Balkan wars were messy on all sides, everybody hated everybody, and if you haven't happened to study it, the Serbs were the main agressors there.

Overhead:
elping the Mexican government stamp out the Zapistas, the 'reconstruction' of Iraq and Afghanistan

It's very honest of you to also mention positive examples of US support. By the way, the Mexican rebels were named Zapatistas. Anyway, it's ridiculous how much space that bunch of idiots were given. For marxist warlords goes: the sooner they're eradicated, the better a country is off.


So basically your proof that the US is the single largest threat to democracy worldwide, is that they didn't want to sacrifice thousands of their troops stabilising a country nobody gives a shit about? That's not exactly compelling evidence, so it may be your claim is wrong.

Overhead:
Australia

Wait wait wait. When did the US establish a dictatorship in Australia exactly? I'm not saying it's never done that kind of thing, but I'm pretty sure Australia has never been anything other than a democracy.

Voter apathy and power-hungry politicians are the greatest threat to democracy, and it's a constant fight to try and keep these two things at bay. In the USA, this seems to have got pretty bad ever since 9/11, and will probably keep getting worse.

Technology is also a pretty big threat. CCTV allows intrusion like never before, and drones are being phased in in America.

Yosarian2:
I think Blahblah's argument was really just that if you're saying that the US is "the greatest threat to democracy in the world right now", that you need to prove that it is an ongoing threat now, not that it supported un-democratic governments back during the cold war. That's like saying Russia is the biggest threat to democracy in the world right now and then spending the rest of your post quoting Khrushchev.

Well I covered some of that a few posts up, so I'll wait on him to expand.

Tyler Perry:

Overhead:

I don't see how the Cold War being a 'different time' excuses genocide, torture, assassination, replacing democracies with oppressive military juntas, etc. If you want me to accept that, you'd better back it up.

Here's something for YOU to back up. I'm curious as to what genocide the U.S. has perpetrated in the past 100 years. Go ahead. I'm listening.

Is the U.S. perfect? No. Does the U.S. do some shitty shit from time to time? No. Is the U.S. "the biggest threat to democracy in the world"? No, and that's an utterly fucking asinine assertion.

Genocide the US was involved in? Off the top of my head:

Destabilised the Indonesian government (Including bombing of civilians). When the military staged a coup, the US then provided intelligence to help the government in massacring half a million+ people. It also likely aided the coup itself or was at least aware of it, but that is only supposition that can be guessed at but not proven.

It then stepped aside to allow Indonesia to invade East Timor, which eventually killed around 200,000 soldiers and civilians throughout the occupation (In a nation of only around 600,000 people) because it needed support in South East Asia because other countries were turning to C-c-c-communism!

The previously mentioned avoidance of involvement in the Rwandan genocide even though years later it was revealed they were sure genocide was occurring whilst they were actively trying to avoid having it labelled as genocide, but that would by law require them to act.

Overthrew the legally elected Guatemalan government, partially funded by United Fruits, and replaced it with a military junta then helped prop up the government and train and equip it's armed forces as they committed atrocities which were described by the UN Truth Commission as genocide.

Probably plenty more they have their fingers in if I wrack my brains and look through my books.

I can agree the jingoistic way we've gone about democracy certainly has not helped democracy in the world. Also, we need to consider that other groups of people may not *want* democracy and because of their culture or society may not function well with democracy.

However, to say the US is the *greatest* threat to democracy in the world is being overdramatic and oversimplifying a very complex world.

Blablahb:
Uh? What? Nothing like that ever happened. The Balkan wars were messy on all sides, everybody hated everybody, and if you haven't happened to study it, the Serbs were the main agressors there.

Actually, contrary to popular belief, it wasn't only the Serbs who committed ethnic cleansing. Yeah, the Serbs were the worst, but denying the crimes of others to single them out is just dishonest.

DJjaffacake:

Overhead:
Australia

Wait wait wait. When did the US establish a dictatorship in Australia exactly? I'm not saying it's never done that kind of thing, but I'm pretty sure Australia has never been anything other than a democracy.

The CIA covertly funded both major opposition parties to Labour and put pressure on John Kerr, the appointed governor general of Australia, to use there never before and never since used power to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam from office.

Blablahb:

Overhead:
Also post 1994, burying knowledge of genocide in Rwanda

As did pretty much everyone, because nobody could afford to send in a few hundred thousands soldiers to stabilise the situation.

Yep.

Uh? What? Nothing like that ever happened. The Balkan wars were messy on all sides, everybody hated everybody, and if you haven't happened to study it, the Serbs were the main agressors there.

Referring to Operation Storm, which Ante Gotovina got convicted for his actions for by the International criminal Tribunial for Yugoslavia.

It's very honest of you to also mention positive examples of US support. By the way, the Mexican rebels were named Zapatistas. Anyway, it's ridiculous how much space that bunch of idiots were given. For marxist warlords goes: the sooner they're eradicated, the better a country is off.

Labeling a mainly nonviolent group of indigenous peasants as warlords, who only resorted to violence in defence? Yeah, that's not stretching. Hey, that reminds me of the infamous Warlord Nelson Mandela, who also was involved in a liberation movement similar way and spouted marxist rhetoric. Pfff, these marxist warlord scum, right?

Good thing the Mexican government regained control by breaching a ceasefire the Zapatistas had stuck to and shooting unarmed civilians and children to death!

So basically your proof that the US is the single largest threat to democracy worldwide, is that they didn't want to sacrifice thousands of their troops stabilising a country nobody gives a shit about? That's not exactly compelling evidence, so it may be your claim is wrong.

Yes, that is exactly what all my proof if you take one thing I say, misinterpret it by stating it is about them not leaping to action rather than covering up that genocide was happening, and then ignore everything else I said.

KittensTiger:
However, to say the US is the *greatest* threat to democracy in the world is being overdramatic and oversimplifying a very complex world.

Well yes, technically Capitalism is the biggest threat to democracy and the USA is only the second biggest, but that goes without saying.

But seriously, in terms of countries can you think of one which has done more to set back world democracy in the modern age?

If you can, elaborate! Let's open this discussion up.

Overhead:
It's my opinion that since at least World War 2, the United States of America has been the biggest threat to democracy in the world.

I fail to see how it's the biggest. I mean after all the Soviet Union outright promised to establish democracy in Eastern Europe, and since the USSR knew that the Communists could not possibly win in any of the conquered countries they established dictatorships instead. France,Britain,Australia and others on the other hand were free to establish parties which weren't always very cooperative with America (like how France recognized the PRC before the US or any other nation in the West did or how Britain and France attacked Egypt in the Suez crisis).

But that was Cold War politics, something that threw out ideologies in favor of realpolitik, so it isn't exactly fair to compare the world of today to the world of then. I mean after all in Iraq that's what America did, overthrow a dictatorship and establish a democracy, now you can point to Afghanistan though and point out the hypocrisy.

If only Kim Il Sung was still around. He would have treated the world right - But fear not fellow citizens of the world, Briliant Comrade Kim Jong-un will liberate us! A free world without any problems is at hand.

im just curious overheard, you are a self described communist. is your own bias coming into this post since the U.S waged a long war against the commies a few decades back?

Overhead:

Genocide the US was involved in? Off the top of my head:

....

No no no. Genocide perpetrated by the U.S., as you claim. If you're going to deem the U.S. responsible for genocides that have occured (such as East Timor or Rwanda), then every other country in the world who did nothing is also responsible.

Istvan:
If only Kim Il Sung was still around. He would have treated the world right - But fear not fellow citizens of the world, Briliant Comrade Kim Jong-un will liberate us! A free world without any problems is at hand.

And while we wait for his brilliance to appear, we can watch one of his lovely cartoons!

I fail to see how it's the biggest. I mean after all the Soviet Union outright promised to establish democracy in Eastern Europe, and since the USSR knew that the Communists could not possibly win in any of the conquered countries they established dictatorships instead.

Yeah, the USSR was freakin' awful at democracy. The thing is, what you're rightly saying it is guilty of is also what the USA is guilty of. The USA is supposed to promote democracy, but time and time again when a government didn't promote it's needs they established dictatorships instead.

Just as far as I can see the USA have done it more often, have a greater influence on the modern day and are also partially responsible for how godawful some of those shitty communists states were. If the USA hadn't invaded Russia along with 13 other civilised western nations to try and put down the democratic uprising in favour of the autocratic regime, that could have lead the USSR to develop into a much more open and democratic society. When you get savaged in a World War and then all your former allies turn on you, that effects the development of a country. Or take Cuba, which when Castro took power included liberal types as well as hard core communists among the regime and tried to stay on good relations with the USA only for that to miserably fail and for them to turn more hardline to maintain power in the face of US aggression.

Istvan:
If only Kim Il Sung was still around. He would have treated the world right - But fear not fellow citizens of the world, Briliant Comrade Kim Jong-un will liberate us! A free world without any problems is at hand.

I prefer Capitalist Dictator Pinochet with his championing of free-market economics, who certainly didn't brutally oppress his country and have its citizens tortured and murdered for years.

keiskay:
im just curious overheard, you are a self described communist. is your own bias coming into this post since the U.S waged a long war against the commies a few decades back?

The Soviets were dicks. Good riddance (In a general sense, not all the shit America did in the name of anti-Communism). The democratic Marxists though, the ones who could have championed communism as it was envisaged but who were deposed in coups or had their elections rigged because capitalism comes before democracy? Yeah, that really gets my goat.

I'm aware that pretty much everyone suffers from bias so I try to rein myself in and look at things sensibly, but yeah, EVERYONE is biased to some extent so it would be silly to say I'm not. I think that's more to do with my frame of mind and education that has made me Communist also making me critical of America, but yeah, I'm a bit pissed at them in general. I mean I haven't even factored in the exploitation the USA causes in all of this, simply because I wanted this to be more general rather than relying on Marxist economics.

I try to reign in any bias in myself that I can spot but obviously that's only going to have so much success due to bias being so subconscious. I would just point out on the other hand, don't you think the vast majority of people will be biased in favour of the USA due to historical revisionism and its control over the media narrative?

No no no. Genocide perpetrated by the U.S., as you claim. If you're going to deem the U.S. responsible for genocides that have occured (such as East Timor or Rwanda), then every other country in the world who did nothing is also responsible.

You seem to be trying to be very specific in your use responsible in that you're using the word, but from your inference I'm guessing you mean "The president ordered a thousand marines to go and murder a few dozen thousand black people" rather than being responsible in any other kind of way, like the aforementioned supplying of information on targets, weapons used to murder people, training in torture tactics and in anti-guerilla tactics used for wiping out indigenous populations, etc.

In case you are confused, it is the latter I am talking about. Also you still don't seem to have understood both situations seeing as you state that they only did nothing with Rwanda and East Timor. With Rwanda the US actually concealed its knowledge of the genocide. With East Timor, Suharto had to get Ford's okay to invade Timor. Ford gave him the okay in a face to face meeting and Suharto invaded the next day.

Also of the levels of involvement, those are the lowest. I see you haven't touched the US arming and training death squads or freely giving intelligence so that people could be hunted down and killed.

Remembered another one too, the genocides of the Indian-Pakistan war which the USA continued to support even after they were specifically told this was happening by the US ambassador to Pakistan.

Overhead:

DJjaffacake:

Overhead:
Australia

Wait wait wait. When did the US establish a dictatorship in Australia exactly? I'm not saying it's never done that kind of thing, but I'm pretty sure Australia has never been anything other than a democracy.

The CIA covertly funded both major opposition parties to Labour and put pressure on John Kerr, the appointed governor general of Australia, to use there never before and never since used power to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam from office.

News to me, and I live in the country. And we don't elect Prime Ministers, we vote for parties and whoever is at the head of the party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister. And he didn't use the power to remove the Prime Minister from office, he dissolved both positions because Whitlam was refusing to budge on a position that would have resulted in the government running out of money. And despite your claims the power had been used once before by the New South Wales Governer to dismiss the NSW Premier.

So it sounds t me you're just spouting conspiracy theoris here.

The CIA pressured the Australian govenor general to sack Gough Whitlam? Are you high? Where are you getitng this information from?

At work ATM.

Just to cut down on what I have to source when I get home, is it just the CIA pressure that you want backed up? The funding of opposition parties by the CIA is a much more commonly known event, so I'm guessing that you're not disputing that as it wasn't really brought up by either of you.

Overhead:
The CIA covertly funded both major opposition parties to Labour and put pressure on John Kerr, the appointed governor general of Australia, to use there never before and never since used power to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam from office.

First hit on google says otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam#Constitutional_crisis

Overhead:
Referring to Operation Storm, which Ante Gotovina got convicted for his actions for by the International criminal Tribunial for Yugoslavia.

Checked on that. No US troops participated. It was purely Croatians vs Serbs.

Overhead:
Labeling a mainly nonviolent group of indigenous peasants as warlords, who only resorted to violence in defence?

If your view of events is so twisted that you can say that, it's likely you'd also see the Colombian FARC as 'justified resistance fighters' and it's likely you can't be reasoned with.

Suffice to say your entire claim about the US was and has been remaining unfounded.

Corax_1990:
The CIA pressured the Australian govenor general to sack Gough Whitlam? Are you high? Where are you getitng this information from?

I'm starting to think along the lines of Alex Jones and Prisonplanet after seeing a few of his posts.

Warforger kind of mentioned it already but...

In the Cold War the USA was more in the business of stopping the spread of Communism than it was spreading democracy. Realism took front seat to idealism because the USA saw the spread of Communism as a massive security threat. That's why it supported dozens if not hundreds of dictators around the world on the condition that they suppress Communism.

I think it might only after the Cold War when the USA starts to take spreading democracy seriously- consider for instance how NATO spread into the former Soviet bloc and encouraged potential members to democratise as a condition to entering NATO. After the Cold War, idealism takes front seat as the USA intervenes in Somalia, Kuwait, and the Balklans on humanitarian grounds. Then 9/11 happened and Neo-Conservativism grips US foreign policy- and it's only then when perhaps we see US conducting wars with the explicit intention of spreading democracy with unnerving religious zeal.

This is of course massively simplifying US foreign policy after the Cold War- but my point is that politics was very different in the Cold War to what it is today, and therefore in deciding wherever the USA is a threat to democracy or not today the OP should be using examples drawn from after the Cold War.

Well, I'm sure the Soviets would've been much kinder overlords...

The US have undoubtedly engaged in questionable things during the cold war (and one or two after), but it's impossible to say things would've turned out for the better if they hadn't. Most of the countries they've interfered with were headed for disaster and dictatorship anyway, perhaps worse than what they ended up with after the US pulled some strings.

And who was ever dumb enough to believe that the motive of US - or any - foreign policy was to spread democracy and love anyway? Foreign policy is inherently based first and foremost on securing advantages for your own nation and its useful allies, anything else is really just collateral gain/damage.

One certainly cannot demand altruism of the US, only that it plays by international law, to the extent such exist at the point in time it did what it did. Things like its invasion of Iraq was quite questionable and begs criticism, but the simple fact that it is using its economic and political leverage to further its own interests is only to be expected. That's what every state does to the best of its ability, the US just outclass most other states in ability.

Of course, since it did its best to sell it as altruism to friend and foe alike, now some people have gotten funny ideas that foreign policy should be altruistic. I'd call it propaganda backfire, but none of the people holding these ideas seem to have any influence, so it matters little in the end.

In the Cold War the USA was more in the business of stopping the spread of Communism than it was spreading democracy. Realism took front seat to idealism because the USA saw the spread of Communism as a massive security threat. That's why it supported dozens if not hundreds of dictators around the world on the condition that they suppress Communism.

I don't agree. Most of the USA's 'realist' practices were frankly, not needed. They were ideologically motivated, almost paranoid responses, rather than a practical response to a problem.

Imperator_DK:
Well, I'm sure the Soviets would've been much kinder overlords...

They would have never tried. The Soviet posture was strategically defensive. They lived in abject terror of American attack. Ironic.

The US have undoubtedly engaged in questionable things during the cold war (and one or two after), but it's impossible to say things would've turned out for the better if they hadn't. Most of the countries they've interfered with were headed for disaster and dictatorship anyway, perhaps worse than what they ended up with after the US pulled some strings.

Conjecture. American intervention tends to make things worse. Most of the countries America intervened in were not headed for dictatorship. How was sparking conflicts in Guatemala, Chile and Nicaragua supposed to help?

Don't whitewash USA foreign policy blunders and atrocities. Just because they were influenced by the Cold War doesn't make them go away, especially for countries that are still feeling the affects, like Iran. That said, I doubt the USA is seriously a threat to western democracies. It gains nothing from loosing its NATO allies and so far it has worked well with other western countries. If anything is going to bring down democracies it would be economic problems, which despite the current recession are really bigger than one country.

While the USA is deserving of some criticism saying it's a threat to democracy is going too far. If anything the USA should be criticised for it's lazy intelligence work and moral high handedness. Even if the USA has the best of intentions this does not absolve it of blunders. But this is not the same thing as being a threat to western democracy.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked