Why do we spend billions to topple one dictatorship, but spend billions to prop up another?

Question

How is anybody to take the U.S. seriously when it claims to support democracy?
Why are weapons hardly part of sanctions? (Shouldn't they be the first things to go if we disapprove of a regime?)
And why is this information hardly ever publicized by news medias within our borders?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22707888-25837,00.html

Answer 1

The claim that America is for democracy and the excuses that it has to do what it does in foreign countries is for the ears of the American people. If the American people knew half of what our Government and CIA does in other countries in our name there would be a total outcry. At least I would like to think that Americans still have a conscience and have a good sense of right an wrong that they would be disgusted with our country's foreign policies past and present. What it comes down too is that the U.S government uses 'democracy' as a buzz word to rally the people of the U.S behind their disgusting policies. The policies themselves are made for the control of other country's natural resources, influence, and cheap labor for our giant national corporations. That's why our soldiers fight. It has nothing to do with freedom and democracy in reality, it has to do with money, power and domination.

Answer 2

Not being particularly politically adept I will only attempt to address one facet of your question: "Why are weapons hardly part of sanctions? (Shouldn't they be the first things to go if we disapprove of a regime?)" I can understand how one would have that view, especially from the outside looking in. People with weapons commit offenses therefore depriving them of weapons deprives them of the ability to do harm. We don't do that on a large scale and this is why: depriving them of weapons also has the residual effect of depriving them of an ability to protect themselves against attack, which could, in turn, represent a destabilization of power in the region ( or the emergence of a despot even worse than the one we sought to sanction.) The United States is not in the business of overtly destabilizing sovereign governments (even ones we disagree with), and up until fairly recently in our history we never undertook actions that even remotely looked like this is what we were doing. (This current administration has changed many American dynamics on many levels so it's difficult to say with certainty what we truly stand for now.) This is at least a partial effort to address the concerns raised in your question.

Answer 3

the thought that one species rework into yet another did no longer initiate with Charles Darwin, yet certainly predates Socrates. Evolution basically seeks to describe existence pointing to mutational differences through environmental and different factors optimum to survival of the "fittest". It for this reason belittles the Genesis account and places faith in Abiogenesis i.e. MINDLESSNESS through fact the reason for existence. have been it no longer for a re-invention of this concept, it might have died a organic death, yet its social build got here upon prefer interior the eyes of bigots and racists interior the 18th to nineteenth century time zone. The philosophy linked with Evolution extremely than uncooked scientific archives is what has given this fallacy mileage over the years. certainty learn, hundreds of persons could be jobless if one brave respected scientist spearheads the revealing of this deception. of course, some could be arranged to kill, to dodge this. In an identical vein, years in the past, there replaced right into a regulation which outlawed people from talking out against yet another fallacy, the Trinity.

Answer 4

It's hard for anyone to seriously take what the U.S. says it will do as long as we the people keep electing "leaders" who keep giving us hype about what they'll do and won't do once elected rather than on past performance. Then once elected they do whatever they darn well please. IE: It all comes down to who can sling the best smelling b.s. and make it stick.

Answer 5

Because Mr. Bush is an idiot.

As for information being publicized, haven't you learned by now that you are only going to know what Big Brother wants you to know, no less and definitely no more.

Answer 6

Are you supporting that Saddam should still be there?

Well, how many people (besides me) do you complain to YAHOO about -- simply because they've described/given Answers that are contrary to your blatant anti-GWB or American drivel? What methods of diplomacy are you backing, or conjuring... beside being a Yahoo typist that snipes at others behind their backs? HOW IS YOUR ATTACKING WRITERS, like a sniveling coward -- and asking Yahoo to remove comments that are contrary to your opinions... something democratic?

Pakitstan helped gather more terrorists & murderers that you can recount -- obviously. While there's something REAL happening right now, in their own sovereign nation -- it doesn't give you any baring to comment (in an inane fashion) about AID given since 2001 vs. today's news.

What would YOU DO, right now.. besides a nasty email?

Answer 7

Well and history shows us that the leader we install isn't exactly the best choice for democracy either. Two examples off of the top of my head would be the US sponsored coups that lead to Pinochet and Mobuto Sese Seko's regimes.

Answer 8

Easy; just follow the money, baby. Human rights and democracy have NOTHING to do with it; profits and power do. And it has always been thus.

Answer 9

The better question is.. why do we spend billions of dollars for war and other countries, when our own country is going down the tubes and there are millions of people like myself who don't even have medical insurance. Not to mention we'd probably have a cure for cancer by now if those billions of dollars were spent here.

Answer 10

Well in this case the guy isnt slaughtering his own people... That kinda counts for something doesnt it?

Be honest, do you support Castro and Chavez?