Why does the US place dictators in charge of troubled nations?
46- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
The US has a storied past of placing dictators in charge of countries we either overthrow or buy and then have the whole thing thrown back in our faces when it fails. It's not always the norm but with leaders like the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husein and some indicators show Hamid Karzai to be the latest, why do we espouse demoracy and freedom yet place these people in power?
90- Denno66
- 2909 posts
- Joined: 6 weeks ago
- Hubs: 24
- Fans: 54
Because those we call leaders in our government choose the short tearm gains over the long term consequences.
93- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
Because we enjoy coming back to oust them years later in bloody guerrilla wars. It's called job security DUH!!
88- Make Money
- 2264 posts
- Joined: 17 months ago
- Hubs: 9
- Fans: 116
rhamson wrote:
The US has a storied past of placing dictators in charge of countries we either overthrow or buy and then have the whole thing thrown back in our faces when it fails. It's not always the norm but with leaders like the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husein and some indicators show Hamid Karzai to be the latest, why do we espouse demoracy and freedom yet place these people in power?
Good question. It seems to explain a lot of things. See both Obama and Harper congratulated Hamid Karzai on his "win" just the other day.
- 46
- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
I don't know that it is an enjoyable experience but it is getting old. With the Karzai situation and the tainted elections how can we still be involved in defending a corrupted election with American lives? Why isn't the American people more outraged by this recent event? Is it finally come about that war and the threat of war is our solution to political problems overseas? Does it add fuel to the fire for the Taliban to muster up more support and expell the infidels from an illegal occupation?
- 93
- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
Make Money wrote:
rhamson wrote:
The US has a storied past of placing dictators in charge of countries we either overthrow or buy and then have the whole thing thrown back in our faces when it fails. It's not always the norm but with leaders like the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husein and some indicators show Hamid Karzai to be the latest, why do we espouse demoracy and freedom yet place these people in power?
Good question. It seems to explain a lot of things. See both Obama and Harper congratulated Hamid Karzai on his "win" just the other day.
Oh Karzai you mean that guy that Bush put into power against the strong warnings of the northern alliance yeah what was Obama thinking congratulating that crook put into power by another president.
84- A Texan
- 3227 posts
- Joined: 5 months ago
- Hubs: 42
- Fans: 146
Scott.Life wrote:
Make Money wrote:
rhamson wrote:
The US has a storied past of placing dictators in charge of countries we either overthrow or buy and then have the whole thing thrown back in our faces when it fails. It's not always the norm but with leaders like the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husein and some indicators show Hamid Karzai to be the latest, why do we espouse demoracy and freedom yet place these people in power?
Good question. It seems to explain a lot of things. See both Obama and Harper congratulated Hamid Karzai on his "win" just the other day.
Oh Karzai you mean that guy that Bush put into power against the strong warnings of the northern alliance yeah what was Obama thinking congratulating that crook put into power by another president.
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
- 93
- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
A Texan wrote:
Scott.Life wrote:
Make Money wrote:
Good question. It seems to explain a lot of things. See both Obama and Harper congratulated Hamid Karzai on his "win" just the other day.Oh Karzai you mean that guy that Bush put into power against the strong warnings of the northern alliance yeah what was Obama thinking congratulating that crook put into power by another president.
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
Well Yeah he promised us, if you can't trust an American politician who can you trust. Sheeesh what is the world coming to. Next thing you'll be telling me that this recession wasn't a good thing for Americans.
- 84
- A Texan
- 3227 posts
- Joined: 5 months ago
- Hubs: 42
- Fans: 146
Scott.Life wrote:
A Texan wrote:
Scott.Life wrote:
Oh Karzai you mean that guy that Bush put into power against the strong warnings of the northern alliance yeah what was Obama thinking congratulating that crook put into power by another president.
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
Well Yeah he promised us, if you can't trust an American politician who can you trust. Sheeesh what is the world coming to. Next thing you'll be telling me that this recession wasn't a good thing for Americans.
Is there a recession? Obama promised us that it would change after his stimulus passed, gee, I feel betrayed.
- 93
- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
A Texan wrote:
Scott.Life wrote:
A Texan wrote:
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
Well Yeah he promised us, if you can't trust an American politician who can you trust. Sheeesh what is the world coming to. Next thing you'll be telling me that this recession wasn't a good thing for Americans.
Is there a recession? Obama promised us that it would change after his stimulus passed, gee, I feel betrayed.
Don't feel betrayed we probably just imagined the last five years anyway. the government would never take advantage of the citizens in a hungry quest for wealth and power.
- 46
- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
Scott.Life wrote:
A Texan wrote:
Scott.Life wrote:
Oh Karzai you mean that guy that Bush put into power against the strong warnings of the northern alliance yeah what was Obama thinking congratulating that crook put into power by another president.
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
Well Yeah he promised us, if you can't trust an American politician who can you trust. Sheeesh what is the world coming to. Next thing you'll be telling me that this recession wasn't a good thing for Americans.
This sort of situation seems to become a perverted bi-partisan thing and the gains are what? If we wage a war for a corrupt government how can any exit strategy ever develop? The gains are for our national security and how have we ensured that to happen? To continue now with this taint on the authority is an empty promise to the Afgan people and at a terrible expense to us.
- 93
- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
rhamson wrote:
Scott.Life wrote:
A Texan wrote:
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
Well Yeah he promised us, if you can't trust an American politician who can you trust. Sheeesh what is the world coming to. Next thing you'll be telling me that this recession wasn't a good thing for Americans.
This sort of situation seems to become a perverted bi-partisan thing and the gains are what? If we wage a war for a corrupt government how can any exit strategy ever develop? The gains are for our national security and how have we ensured that to happen? To continue now with this taint on the authority is an empty promise to the Afgan people and at a terrible expense to us.
Yeah I know it was in 2001, 2002, 2003, nothing has changed since. That's the real problem we are waging a war for a corrupt government, our own. The only people showing any real concern for the best interests of the Afghan people are the troops on the ground and the Afghan people. This is a continuation of a civil war that has been going on for 40 years now. Unfortunately we as a nation do not seem to understand that we can not put bandages on the world's problems. The only thing this war has ensured is casualties and more headaches for coming administrations.
- 88
- Make Money
- 2264 posts
- Joined: 17 months ago
- Hubs: 9
- Fans: 116
Defence chief plans for 2011 Afghan pullout
November 5, 2009
"The head of the Canadian Armed Forces has issued orders to prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011 in the absence of a clear direction from government on the mission's future shape."
The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. - 46
- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
The American public seems to have such selective reasoning when it comes to these things and the politicians seem to twist and spin the actions. If there was such an outrage voiced through demonstrations and elction results maybe something could be done. But all I see is bickering and finger pointing that gets nothing done. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did the conditions dictate the war or is the war dictating the conditions?
- 46
- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
Make Money wrote:
Defence chief plans for 2011 Afghan pullout
November 5, 2009
"The head of the Canadian Armed Forces has issued orders to prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011 in the absence of a clear direction from government on the mission's future shape."
The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.I guess Canada beat us to the punch again. They are smarter than the US gives them credit for. First health care and now peace. Is anybody out there?
- 93
- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
rhamson wrote:
The American public seems to have such selective reasonong when it comes to these things and the politicians seem to twist and spin the actions. If there was such an outrage voiced through demonstrations and elction results maybe something could be done. But all I see is bickering and finger pointing that gets nothing done. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did the conditions dictate the war or is the war dictating the conditions?
The attack of 9/11 dictated the war, the rest has been profit driven and power plays.
- 46
- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
Scott.Life wrote:
rhamson wrote:
The American public seems to have such selective reasonong when it comes to these things and the politicians seem to twist and spin the actions. If there was such an outrage voiced through demonstrations and elction results maybe something could be done. But all I see is bickering and finger pointing that gets nothing done. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did the conditions dictate the war or is the war dictating the conditions?
The attack of 9/11 dictated the war, the rest has been profit driven and power plays.
It goes a lot farther back than 911 where the conditions dictating began. Remember this is not the only pie we have had our fingers in.
- 93
- Scott.Life
- 1100 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 30
- Fans: 230
rhamson wrote:
Scott.Life wrote:
rhamson wrote:
The American public seems to have such selective reasonong when it comes to these things and the politicians seem to twist and spin the actions. If there was such an outrage voiced through demonstrations and elction results maybe something could be done. But all I see is bickering and finger pointing that gets nothing done. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did the conditions dictate the war or is the war dictating the conditions?
The attack of 9/11 dictated the war, the rest has been profit driven and power plays.
It goes a lot farther back than 911 where the conditions dictating began. Remember this is not the only pie we have had our fingers in.
I agree that we created Bin Laden almost 30 years ago now, but the attacks of 9/11 were the jump off point and excuse to invade. As for Iraq, those problems started in the early 1900's with the British trying to dictate ploicy to the Arabs.
89- Poppa Blues
- 1629 posts
- Joined: 14 months ago
- Hubs: 63
- Fans: 87
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Karzai win the election, twice?
The USA didn't just pick some guy out of a crowd and put him in power, if you can call it that since the Taliban control 80% of the territory there.
Frankly, I'm sick of all the criticism of the USA. If it were up to me, I'd close every single base around the world and close our borders, and tell the rest of the world, hey, protect your won interests! The American people are sick and tired of shelling out money so you can have oil and food and peace!- 46
- rhamson
- 1287 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Fans: 14
Poppa Blues wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Karzai win the election, twice?
The USA didn't just pick some guy out of a crowd and put him in power, if you can call it that since the Taliban control 80% of the territory there.
Frankly, I'm sick of all the criticism of the USA. If it were up to me, I'd close every single base around the world and close our borders, and tell the rest of the world, hey, protect your won interests! The American people are sick and tired of shelling out money so you can have oil and food and peace!No, just once and they tried to ouster him this past election
He was placed in charge temporarily when we first invaded Afganistan. There was an election after that with no real opposition and this last one had massive inconsistancies which were supposed to to be corrected in a run off election. It won't happen because Karzais' opponent can't get any assurance that the same thing won't happen. Do I smell a pay off?
