|
JFairfax posted:quite, I am not sure how much the Spanish would have appreciated having Madrid levelled in an attempt to get rid of him NATO style before he died. So you admit he wasn't overthrown. Like at all. Like he literally died happy that the Spanish monarchy would endure.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States. And yes that's my point, sometimes it is best just to let the dictators expire naturally rather than to violently overthrow them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
And the other point is that there are plenty of dictatorships that the US has supported, continues to support and will support in the future. US opposition to a dictator at any given moment is decided by what best serves the needs of the people calling the shots at that particular time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The best outcomes for overthrowing dictators are usually when the educated population overthrows the leader and the infrastructure of the country is left in place - look at the overthrow of Ceausescu in Romania, Franco in Spain or Salazar in Portugal for good examples. Salazar died of natural causes in 1970. It was his successor Marcelo Caetano who was overthrown in the 1974 Carnation Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I don't think waiting for dictators to die on their own is a good solution. I also don't think violating the sovereignty of independent nations is a good solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States. So the plan for Ghaddafi is "wait till he dies, hope his successor will voluntary give up power, and if that doesn't work welp better try again in 50 years". I guess the French should've just waited for their Monarchy to give up power too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
when will america benevolently overthrow the totalitarian saudi dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So the plan for Ghaddafi is "wait till he dies, hope his successor will voluntary give up power, and if that doesn't work welp better try again in 50 years". The difference with the French revolution is that it was a purely domestic affair, and actually did result in a lot of blood lettering, the original 'Terror'. NATO flew 26,000 sorties over Libya, the French basically used it as a shop window to sell their fighter jets. Destroying the infrastructure of a country to remove a dictator does not traditionally sow the seeds for a stable environment post-dictator. Is this too hard of a concept to grasp? The most stable and successful post-dictatorial regimes are also usually the ones where the local population is in control, and it is not a group of armed rebels that is supported by a superpower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
liberal imperialists: "Okay so we hosed everything up and are murderers, but at least we did something!!!" god i hope no hillarymen are dentists, they'd treat tooth cavities by killing the patient
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:
Oh that's a new one, pretending that Libyans fighting against Ghaddafi didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
List of dictatorships currently supported by the US. 1991–present Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev; Ilham Aliyev 1991–present Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev 1959–present Singapore People's Action Party 1984–present Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah 2011–present Vietnam Trương Tấn Sang 2014–present Thailand Prayut Chan-o-cha 1994–present Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon 2006–present Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow 1945–present Saudi Arabia House of Saud 1999–present Bahrain Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa 1972–present Qatar House of Thani 1970–present Oman Qaboos bin Said al Said 1954–present Jordan Hashemite Dynasty 1971–present United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates 2014–present Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi 1777–present Morocco Alaouite dynasty 1999–present Djibouti Ismaïl Omar Guelleh 1979–present Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo 1982–present Cameroon Paul Biya 1990–present Chad Idriss Déby 1986–present Uganda Yoweri Museveni 2000–present Rwanda Paul Kagame
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh that's a new one, pretending that Libyans fighting against Ghaddafi didn't exist. I am not pretending they didn't exist, but the point is that BOMBING THE gently caress OUT OF THE COUNTRY WITH THOUSANDS OF AIRSTRIKES did not, long term, really aid their quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I am not pretending they didn't exist, Yeah you did, you literally just said that armed rebels are not part of the population of Libya.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh that's a new one, pretending that Libyans fighting against Ghaddafi didn't exist. there was like five of them and they were all al-qaeda also when is america going to benevolently overthrow the totalitarian saudi dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah you did, you literally just said that armed rebels are not part of the population of Libya. I mean it's best when the local populations are able to do that themselves, and not with arbitrary support to certain factions provided by a foreign power, or by the country being destroyed by a foreign power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I mean it's best when the local populations are able to do that themselves, and not with arbitrary support to certain factions provided by a foreign power, or by the country being destroyed by a foreign power. Cause that's worked out so swimmingly in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Cause that's worked out so swimmingly in Syria. Well this is precisely the problem in Syria, and kinda proves my point. The rebels on their own are not that strong - and are actually for the most part Islamic fundamentalists - and if it was not for the support of the US and other western powers are giving to the rebels in Syria the Assad regime would probably be able to defeat them. Also the support that the west is giving to these groups in Syria is aiding ISIS. Assad's Syria would be one of the most effective forces to fight against ISIS / Daesh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:there was like five of them and they were all al-qaeda theres also the impending Filipino drug genocide someone should maybe look into
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:
So the US should support a dictator is what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:there was like five of them and they were all al-qaeda Look at this guy from the original evil world empire acting like he has a moral highground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Here is a list of dictators the US supported in the past, and is part of the reason why many people around the world do not believe anything the US says when it comes to overthrowing dictators for humanitarian reasons. 1876–1911 Mexico Porfirio Díaz 1929–2000 Mexico Institutional Revolutionary Party 1932–1944 El Salvador Maximiliano Hernández Martínez 1933–1949 Honduras Tiburcio Carías Andino 1950–1958 Venezuela Marcos Pérez Jiménez 1908–1935 Venezuela Juan Vicente Gómez 1898–1920 Guatemala Manuel Estrada Cabrera 1931–1944 Guatemala Jorge Ubico 1948–1956 Peru Manuel Odria 1952–1959 Cuba Fulgencio Batista 1930–1961 Dominican Republic Rafael Trujillo[52] Later overthrown with at least some aid from the CIA. 1954–1986 Guatemala Efraín Ríos Montt and other Juntas 1963–1982 Honduras Oswaldo López Arellano and other Juntas 1979–1982 El Salvador Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador 1971–1978 Bolivia Hugo Banzer 1973–1985 Uruguay Civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay 1976–1983 Argentina National Reorganization Process 1964–1985 Brazil Brazilian military government 1936–1979 Nicaragua Somoza family 1957–1971 Haiti François Duvalier 1971–1986 Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier 1968–1981 Panama Omar Torrijos 1983–1989 Panama Manuel Noriega 1954–1989 Paraguay Alfredo Stroessner 1973–1990 Chile Augusto Pinochet 1992–2000 Peru Alberto Fujimori 1948–1960 South Korea Syngman Rhee 1958–1969 Pakistan Ayub Khan 1961–1979 South Korea Park Chung-hee 1979–1988 South Korea Chun Doo-hwan 1955–1963 South Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem 1970–1975 Cambodia Lon Nol 1969–1971 Pakistan Yahya Khan 1941–1979 Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi 1965–1986 Philippines Ferdinand Marcos 1978–1988 Pakistan Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq 1963–1967 Iraq Abdul Salam Arif, Abdul Rahman Arif 1982–1990 Iraq Saddam Hussein 1967–1998 Indonesia Suharto 1949–1953 Syria al-Za'im-Shishkali-al-Hinnawi Junta See: Husni al-Za'im, Adib Shishakli, Sami al-Hinnawi. 1999–2008 Pakistan Pervez Musharraf 1990–2016 Uzbekistan Islam Karimov 1990–2005 Kyrgyzstan Askar Akayev 1990–2012 Yemen Ali Abdullah Saleh 1969–1985 Sudan Gaafar Nimeiry 1978–1991 Somalia Siad Barre 1980–1990 Liberia Samuel Doe 1991–2012 Ethiopia Meles Zenawi 1965–1997 Zaire, Democratic Republic of the Congo Mobutu Sese Seko 1982–1990 Chad Hissène Habré 1981–2011 Egypt Hosni Mubarak 2012–2013 Egypt Mohamed Morsi 1948–1994 South Africa National Party (South Africa) 1987–2011 Tunisia Zine El Abidine Ben Ali 1936–1975 Spain Francisco Franco 1933–1974 Portugal António de Oliveira Salazar 1948–1980 Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito. 1967–1974 Greece Greek military junta 1980–1989 Turkey Turkish military junta 1969–1989 Romania Nicolae Ceaușescu 1941–1975 Republic of China Chiang Kai-Shek 1948–1957 Thailand Plaek Phibunsongkhram 1963–1973 Thailand Thanom Kittikachorn 1958–1963 Thailand Sarit Thanarat
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So the US should support a dictator is what you're saying. it's not exactly a break from policy in the region or around the world, and would probably have a better outcome for the majority of people in the region. as I've said, American opposition to Assad has nothing to do with him being a dictator and is to do with Russia, regional goals and a whole bunch of poo poo that I am not privy to. The USA has no problem supporting dictators when it is in their interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it's not exactly a break from policy in the region or around the world, and would probably have a better outcome for the majority of people in the region. So why are you opposed to them supporting Sisi? After all, he's keeping those dreaded Islamic Fundamentalists out of power too. Hell, lots of those dictators fall under that same designation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:when will america benevolently overthrow the totalitarian saudi dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:that's a sincere offer. couple hundred thousand dollars, somewhere to live and a US visa and i'll absolutely dedicate my life to american revolutionary politics with a party office and political education lessons and serve the people programs and poo poo, because that's a coherent idea, that's a thing that i (or you! you're already in america!) could conceivably do. "PAY FOR PLAY!!! Self-proclaimed socialist revolutionary reveals that he was personally paid hundreds of thousands of 2016 dollars (equivalent to 93 million 2046 ration cards) to crusade against political corruption and push other people's political views" - Supreme Judgebot 9000, 30 years from now, just before sentencing you to the worst and most inhuman punishment available to the judicial system: living the rest of your life in a realistic neural simulation of being Donald Trump's campaign manager Majorian posted:I mean, it seems to me that a lot of people really, genuinely believe that the deck is stacked against progressive Democrats. I'm not sure that anyone is specifically "lying" about any of it. They could be wrong, that's a reasonable thing to assert. There could be some hyperbole in their argument. But it strikes me as unfair of you to immediately leap to, "You're either lying or are making a misogynist argument." And the right believe that the deck is stacked against far-right Republicans and non-establishment candidates, in spite of the fact that the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus have grown enough to become a significant force in Congress and the current R presidential candidate actively sticks his thumb in the establishment's eye at every opportunity. It's just really attractive to believe that the reason the candidate you and all your friends supported lost anyway was because the system was rigged. Some Guy TT posted:So is everyone who sided with Obama over Hillary in 2008 an They didn't care about his qualifications to do the job; they voted Obama because his history was enough of a blank slate and his pronouncements were vague enough that people could project their own progressive opinions onto him and ignore any actions he took that contradicted the 2008 perception of him as a progressive wunderkind. And unfortunately, we've been suffering from that mistake for the past eight years, as a combination of centrist moderation and insufficient ability to keep Congress under control have paralyzed to this country to the point where perpetually teetering on the edge of government shutdown is the new normal and leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for eight months isn't even worth reminding people about. If there's anything we should have learned from the 21st century, it's that we need a LBJ, not a Carter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So why are you opposed to them supporting Sisi? After all, he's keeping those dreaded Islamic Fundamentalists out of power too. Hell, lots of those dictators fall under that same designation. I wouldn't toss the Muslim Brotherhood in the same lot with Al-Nusra or ISIS, unless I was trying really hard to be disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So why are you opposed to them supporting Sisi? After all, he's keeping those dreaded Islamic Fundamentalists out of power too. Hell, lots of those dictators fall under that same designation. The Muslim Brotherhood was the long time opposition in Egypt and was not and is not comparable to ISIS, the west hosed over the people of Egypt. It's a complicated situation, ideally we would have no dictators. I definitely think that the US should not organise coups and install dictators like it has in the past. I also do not think that the US should support dictators, however it is in life often important to interact with people you do not like or support for the benefit of other people. In the UK a good example is the Terrorist organisation the Irish Republican Army being integrated into peace talks and eventual political settlement. ISIS has been forged in the crucible of Western military intervention. If it takes co-operating with Assad to stop them, it is regrettably probably worth it. At the moment the US / UK and a few other countries are supporting islamic extremists and weapons for Syrian rebels are undoubtedly ending up in ISIS' hands. There are no gotchas you can spring here, the West has well and truly hosed up the middle east over the last 15 years and ISIS is entirely our fault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:The Muslim Brotherhood was the long time opposition in Egypt and was not ISIS, the west hosed over the people of Egypt. So why did you list Morsi as a dictator supported by the US?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So why did you list Morsi as a dictator supported by the US? because technically he was, at least after he instituted his increased powers which gave the military an excuse to overthrow him. The US had to be seen to support him, when in reality they were probably very happy that the military overthrew him in short order and got a military dictatorship back in Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Obama didn't give two shits about Islamists in Egypt and did it to suck Israel's dick. Remember all of the vague threats coming from the other side of the Sinai when it happened?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:because technically he was, at least after he instituted his increased powers which gave the military an excuse to overthrow him. The US had to be seen to support him, when in reality they were probably very happy that the military overthrew him in short order and got a military dictatorship back in Egypt. So the Muslim Brotherhood was simultaneously supporting a dictatorship and was the long term opposition of a dictatorship (and by implication "legitimate" in representing the people).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So why did you list Morsi as a dictator supported by the US? He satisfied regional US (Israeli) interests
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So the Muslim Brotherhood was simultaneously supporting a dictatorship and was the long term opposition of a dictatorship (and by implication "legitimate" in representing the people). Yes, this isn't too hard to grasp. Morsi was elected democratically. He then passed legislation granting him dictatorial powers, probably because the country still needed to be purged of the infrastructure of the previous regime which was for the most part still hanging around. After he passed those powers which would have allowed him to get rid of the elements of the previous regime still in positions of power in Egypt, this action was framed as an 'Islamist takeover' and the Egyptian Military organised a coup and took back control of the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
computer "I'm just askin' questions" parts
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
It's a bit circular to cite historical US support for dictatorships as a reason for the US to stop overthrowing dictatorships. Still, the gist we take from this should not be that strongmen like Mubarak or Assad are necessary stabilising forces, but rather the reason these neighbourhoods are so unstable and that such strongmen come to the fore in the firstplace is thanks to the promiscuous and self-interested realpolitik undertaken by successive American governments. If America undertook its interventions out of a sincere desire to foster human rights and democracy it'd be one thing, but the agendas that are and historically have been in play are far murkier than that. It doesn't help that in many cases whatever tentative steps these states have taken towards democracy, modernisation and self-sufficiency have been undermined and deflected by US foreign policy. Dictators are dickholes, most of them were either put there and propped up by the US or rode in after deposing whatever US-backed stooge preceded them. What democratic forces there were presenting alternatives way back when were quashed as threats to the established economic order and whatever forces emerge now to oppose such dictators are either dangerous radicals by most western standards or necessarily pragmatically allied with such forces. Even the most sincere effort to make such things better by now just becomes an exercise in digging oneself deeper into an untenable quagmire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It disarms the "well obviously she's in bed with bankers, look at her voting record" argument. That's the point. Well, it doesn't necessarily if you have no frame of reference. If, for example, 5% of bills were stuff relevant to the financial services industry, she could have a 95% identical voting record to another congressman despite voting differently on most/all bills related to that specific topic. That's a very exaggerated example, but the point is that the statistic is useless unless you know what the bills actually were and how other Democrats voted on them. If the vast majority of bills passed are uncontroversial bills that most Democrats agree about, then you can make literally any member of congress look like his/her political views are the same as another's. Ultimately, if you're trying to determine someone's "left wing credentials", all you should really care about is how someone votes on bills that are actually considered left-wing (or if they're voting against stuff that is notably right-wing). If you give a statistic based on the entire voting record, it just muddies the waters and is not remotely useful unless you also have information about the voting record of other members of congress and which bills people are differing on. All this being said, I guess you could use that statistic against an explicit argument that Clinton usually votes differently than Sanders or something, but that's not usually the context in which I see it used. It is usually used to prove Clinton's liberal/left-wing credentials, when it isn't adequate for doing so (at least by itself).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:List of dictatorships currently supported by the US. truong isn't president of vietnam any more and vietnam isn't a dictatorship
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Dictatorship, one party state - what's the difference between friends?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Dictatorship, one party state - what's the difference between friends? Quite a lot? If we're going to define "democracy" as the act of choosing a political party to rule (rather than something more sensible, like actual participation in the governing process) that would make, for example, the UK a dictatorship in five year chunks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:Quite a lot? If we're going to define "democracy" as the act of choosing a political party to rule (rather than something more sensible, like actual participation in the governing process) that would make, for example, the UK a dictatorship in five year chunks. I'm talking about the sort of one party state where other parties are outlawed. Plus my comment was slightly flippant. although if you're confusing dictatorship with democracy that would make an awful lot of sense for you haha JFairfax fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:09
|
|