Bush - democracy and freedom are just smoke screens

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Has the world changed since 9/11 or is it just the same as it ever was? Bush continues to sells arms and support "undemocratic" governments with poor human rights records. Doesn't that mean that to Bush and the neocons democracy is only relelvant if it advances US interests and influence around the world?

Aren't we just continuing to repeat the same mistakes we made when we for example armed, trained and supported Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

Are US business interests and the military industrial complex now so powerful that their needs are more important than America's security and future?

Your sumation of the quote you posted doesn't make sense.
Have you though for a moment that supplying them with arms may promote democracy? Probably not huh?

How does supplying arms and support to human rights abusing undemocratic governments promote democracy? What it actually does is the opposite - it prevents REAL democratic movements from succeeding, especially those democratic movements that for instance threaten US business interests abroad. History is littered with such scenarios. The US helped overthrow the democratic government in Iran in the 50's because they nationalised the oil. Within just two years of the overthrow, the Shah was installed as dictator and American oil companies were back in the country.

Trumpeting democracy is for public consumption, a smoke screen to cover the real foreign policy, which people would naturally object too. It's pure politics, about power and keeping it.

Good point about Iran in 1953, H@ts, when the American and Brit governments helped to overthrow the elected head, Mossadeq. The US did it again in 1973, when the CIA and Kissinger's Forty Committee, helped to overthrow and assassinate president Allende, the democratically elected Chilian leader, all because Allende's government wanted to nationalise foreign copper mines in Chile, and guess what, Anaconda, the USA's largest copper mining business in Chile, complained to Nixon's regime about the nationalisation, which resulted in Allende being overthrown and replaced by a US-backed tyrant, namely, the nice Mr. Pinochet. And surprise, surprise, the current US government is trying to destabilise Chavaz in Venezuela, all because his government is placing levies on exported oil. Yes, democracy in American governments' eyes is a democracy based on shifting scales; the upshot being, if you're a dictator the US government will leave you alone so long as you support US strategic/economic interests.

Just look at the way in which the duplicitious US government backed away from openly condemning the Uzbekistani government when its troops slaughtered those defenceless civilians. The US didn't want to destabilise its relationship with the Karimov regime because the US has militaristic and economic interests in that region.

USA1 has absolutely no knowledge of the meddling in South America and the Middle East that successive US governments have engaged in over the course of the last 60-odd years and more. Action will always be met with re-action.

Preston.

What's worse - the tyrants themselves or the powerful states that help the tyrants into power and then profit from their barbarity and oppression?