Why does the US place dictators in charge of troubled nations?
tksensei wrote:
Bovine Currency wrote:
tksensei wrote:
?????????????????"The reality is, public relations is only there to keep the peace with the blind folk."
What exactly do you think the Secret Service does?
I think he means CIA, what do you think they do?
68- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
Make Money wrote:
TimTurner wrote:
rhamson wrote:
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?If we pull out of Afghanistan now, we will be right back there in a couple of years but with a bigger enemy to deal with.
We can't leave now.Why, it's not like the US and NATO troops are there for the original reason anyway, to hunt down al Qaeda. That seems to have been forgotten about years ago.
Canada doesn't care about the proposed oil or gas pipe line through Afghanistan. We have more oil and gas than we'd use in decades, maybe centuries. If the company that wants the pipeline, you know the company Hamid Karzai used to work for, if they want it that bad then let them re-open negotiations with the Taliban like they did in 1997. Who knows, if they up the price enough maybe the Taliban will let them build the pipeline.I agree and if we follow suit as in Iraq we will be paying off the warlords in Afganistan as well.
- 68
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
kephrira wrote:
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA wrote:
A troubled nation always can not be brought in line without dictatorship. It also gathers all powers in one place and make interaction with others easy. Democracy always have different voices. When trouble comes to a dictator ruled country, he can take bold steps and set things right. In a democracy, the trouble will multiply to the whims of ruthless politicians. Moreover, a dictator will cease to be a politician and he has no obligation to be soft on lawless people. That settles everything easily.
I agree completely.
Unfortunately sometimes only dictators can control a chaotic /war torn or highly tribal country. In the past America, Britain and other countries have supported dictators in the hope of bringing stability, and supported other dodgy groups because as bad as they may have been, they were better than the alternative (like supporting the mujahadeen in afghanistan over soviet Russia). It is very cynical to think that these things were done entirely out of self interest.I agree that the short term achievement of obtaining control may be to install a dictator but you have to ask yourself to who he answers and who is used. The appearance of control is at the core of the action but don't kid yourself with the politicians creed of spreading democracy. The action is counter to the dictator and he won't leave without a fight.
If you wish to believe that our backing of the Mujahadeen was to win Afganistans freedom from the invasion of the Soviets you are deluding yourself. The purpose was to get someone else to weaken the Soviets for us. If it was for a moral and just purpose why would we have hidden behind the foreign arms we provided. If you listen to so many speeches of the past and some of the present ones you will hear our politicians say so many times, "our interests" when they tie our actions to the country we are messing with. rhamson wrote:
kephrira wrote:
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA wrote:
A troubled nation always can not be brought in line without dictatorship. It also gathers all powers in one place and make interaction with others easy. Democracy always have different voices. When trouble comes to a dictator ruled country, he can take bold steps and set things right. In a democracy, the trouble will multiply to the whims of ruthless politicians. Moreover, a dictator will cease to be a politician and he has no obligation to be soft on lawless people. That settles everything easily.
I agree completely.
Unfortunately sometimes only dictators can control a chaotic /war torn or highly tribal country. In the past America, Britain and other countries have supported dictators in the hope of bringing stability, and supported other dodgy groups because as bad as they may have been, they were better than the alternative (like supporting the mujahadeen in afghanistan over soviet Russia). It is very cynical to think that these things were done entirely out of self interest.I agree that the short term achievement of obtaining control may be to install a dictator but you have to ask yourself to who he answers and who is used. The appearance of control is at the core of the action but don't kid yourself with the politicians creed of spreading democracy. The action is counter to the dictator and he won't leave without a fight.
If you wish to believe that our backing of the Mujahadeen was to win Afganistans freedom from the invasion of the Soviets you are deluding yourself. The purpose was to get someone else to weaken the Soviets for us. If it was for a moral and just purpose why would we have hidden behind the foreign arms we provided. If you listen to so many speeches of the past and some of the present ones you will hear our politicians say so many times, "our interests" when they tie our actions to the country we are messing with.The purposes of weakening soviet Russia and helping to protect other countries from the tyranny of communism are not mutually exclusive. And the reason we 'hid behind foreign arms' as you say is because during the cold war there was an acronym for what a direct war between Russia and the west would have been like - MAD - which stands for mutually assured destruction.
- 68
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
kephrira wrote:
rhamson wrote:
kephrira wrote:
I agree completely.
Unfortunately sometimes only dictators can control a chaotic /war torn or highly tribal country. In the past America, Britain and other countries have supported dictators in the hope of bringing stability, and supported other dodgy groups because as bad as they may have been, they were better than the alternative (like supporting the mujahadeen in afghanistan over soviet Russia). It is very cynical to think that these things were done entirely out of self interest.I agree that the short term achievement of obtaining control may be to install a dictator but you have to ask yourself to who he answers and who is used. The appearance of control is at the core of the action but don't kid yourself with the politicians creed of spreading democracy. The action is counter to the dictator and he won't leave without a fight.
If you wish to believe that our backing of the Mujahadeen was to win Afganistans freedom from the invasion of the Soviets you are deluding yourself. The purpose was to get someone else to weaken the Soviets for us. If it was for a moral and just purpose why would we have hidden behind the foreign arms we provided. If you listen to so many speeches of the past and some of the present ones you will hear our politicians say so many times, "our interests" when they tie our actions to the country we are messing with.The purposes of weakening soviet Russia and helping to protect other countries from the tyranny of communism are not mutually exclusive. And the reason we 'hid behind foreign arms' as you say is because during the cold war there was an acronym for what a direct war between Russia and the west would have been like - MAD - which stands for mutually assured destruction.
Going with the gist of what you say you enter a very slippery slope. Using instability and corrupt players to further a political agenda by a foreigh power is not the way to install a new political structure because it shows from the outset that the ends justify the means. But American politics have a tendency to show the world this side and then speak out the side of our mouth about how corrupt and immoral they are.
Bottom line is we used a unstable country to justify our war on Russia to further "Our Interests". Then we left them to fend for themselves against a very ruthless bunch of terrorists. Not one of our shinning moments I would offer. 
79- tksensei
- 6471 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 7
- Followers: 229
egiv wrote:
tksensei wrote:
Bovine Currency wrote:
"The reality is, public relations is only there to keep the peace with the blind folk."What exactly do you think the Secret Service does?
I think he means CIA, what do you think they do?
They do a lot of things. He said Secret Service. More than once.
rhamson wrote:
kephrira wrote:
rhamson wrote:
I agree that the short term achievement of obtaining control may be to install a dictator but you have to ask yourself to who he answers and who is used. The appearance of control is at the core of the action but don't kid yourself with the politicians creed of spreading democracy. The action is counter to the dictator and he won't leave without a fight.
If you wish to believe that our backing of the Mujahadeen was to win Afganistans freedom from the invasion of the Soviets you are deluding yourself. The purpose was to get someone else to weaken the Soviets for us. If it was for a moral and just purpose why would we have hidden behind the foreign arms we provided. If you listen to so many speeches of the past and some of the present ones you will hear our politicians say so many times, "our interests" when they tie our actions to the country we are messing with.The purposes of weakening soviet Russia and helping to protect other countries from the tyranny of communism are not mutually exclusive. And the reason we 'hid behind foreign arms' as you say is because during the cold war there was an acronym for what a direct war between Russia and the west would have been like - MAD - which stands for mutually assured destruction.
Going with the gist of what you say you enter a very slippery slope. Using instability and corrupt players to further a political agenda by a foreigh power is not the way to install a new political structure because it shows from the outset that the ends justify the means. But American politics have a tendency to show the world this side and then speak out the side of our mouth about how corrupt and immoral they are.
Bottom line is we used a unstable country to justify our war on Russia to further "Our Interests". Then we left them to fend for themselves against a very ruthless bunch of terrorists. Not one of our shinning moments I would offer.What interest were these? the main interest we had was in stopping the expansion of communism, which was a good thing. And to critise western governments for both abandoning afghanistan to terrorist (not strictly true, but thats another issue) and for trying to free them from the same people is a bit hypocritical. I'm afraid in this case you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I do agree that it can be a slippery slope though, and I'm not saying it's always going to justified, just that people are being far to cynical in thinking that these things have been done primarily for selfish reasons and without caring about what happens.
As for the spreading democracy thing, that only became a buzzword under Bush. Before that spreading democratic government was seen as a bonus not the primary goal of foreign policy. You can't critice pre-Bush governments for not being consistent with their successors.
84- Make Money
- 2497 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 12
- Followers: 140
You might want to read this article by a UK journalist, Christopher King.
Russian gas cuts – a United States and Afghanistan connection?- 84
- Make Money
- 2497 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 12
- Followers: 140
To catch up on this whole pile of crap you might also want to watch this video.
Uzbek terror and the UK/USA
Here's a couple of maps showing the geographical relationship between Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to understand the desire for the pipeline through Afghanistan.
Map Source
Map Source
Map Source - 79
- tksensei
- 6471 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 7
- Followers: 229
Oh great, the pipeline conspiracy thing again...
Good to see the tinfoil hat is still receiving signals... - 84
- Make Money
- 2497 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 12
- Followers: 140
How does being in denial help tksensei?
90- shamelabboush
- 616 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 41
- Followers: 285
US does that to keep people of that country under constant suppression and to prevent them from claiming liberty or rights, thus, it will prevent those people from thinking of attacking US or Israel… It’s very simple. Everyone knows that.
- 79
- tksensei
- 6471 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 7
- Followers: 229
shamelabboush wrote:
US does that to keep people of that country under constant suppression and to prevent them from claiming liberty or rights, thus, it will prevent those people from thinking of attacking US or Israel… It’s very simple. Everyone knows that.
Which countries are you talking about?
- 79
- tksensei
- 6471 posts
- Joined: 8 months ago
- Hubs: 7
- Followers: 229
Make Money wrote:
How does being in denial help tksensei?
So, at your meetings who brings the best snacks, the Moon Landing crowd, the JFK crowd, or the Bush Blew up the World Trade Center crowd?
(I assume you don't have enough members for a Pipeline crowd)
America needs to keep its power and sphere of influence...the easiest way to do that is through backing dictators with lots of money. Its easier to control one person who controls everyone else than to control an entire population.
- 68
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
tksensei wrote:
Make Money wrote:
How does being in denial help tksensei?
So, at your meetings who brings the best snacks, the Moon Landing crowd, the JFK crowd, or the Bush Blew up the World Trade Center crowd?
(I assume you don't have enough members for a Pipeline crowd)
There is a song that describes your views and it parallels your thinking. "For once I was blind, but now can see" from Amazing Grace.
The conspiracy theory defence of a stance is very weak and only exposes the inability of the one offering it to deal with facts. I am sorry you revert to this tactic as it lessens your credibility.
Fact remains that "Our Interests" in the middle east are based on oil and our politicians are bought by the oil companies. - 84
- Make Money
- 2497 posts
- Joined: 2 years ago
- Hubs: 12
- Followers: 140
rhamson wrote:
Fact remains that "Our Interests" in the middle east are based on oil and our politicians are bought by the oil companies.Exactly, that and the Israeli lobby. A wise man just recently posted this as a comment to a Hub that I read "Taking physical land is not New Covenant in nature."
85- Madame X
- 1645 posts
- Joined: 7 months ago
- Hubs: 21
- Followers: 167
thaninja wrote:
America needs to keep its power and sphere of influence...the easiest way to do that is through backing dictators with lots of money. Its easier to control one person who controls everyone else than to control an entire population.
Yeah - Hitler is a good example. Only problem is sometimes they get ahead of themselves.
- 68
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
thaninja wrote:
America needs to keep its power and sphere of influence...the easiest way to do that is through backing dictators with lots of money. Its easier to control one person who controls everyone else than to control an entire population.
How's that working out for us now?
86- Bovine Currency
- 2714 posts
- Joined: 2 months ago
- Hubs: 11
- Followers: 75
Madame X wrote:
thaninja wrote:
America needs to keep its power and sphere of influence...the easiest way to do that is through backing dictators with lots of money. Its easier to control one person who controls everyone else than to control an entire population.
Yeah - Hitler is a good example. Only problem is sometimes they get ahead of themselves.
Reductio ad Hitlerum... Blah
