How do you figure?
Mossadegh of Iran and Allende of Chile most certainly led democratic governments, until the C.I.A. got involved.
Shortly before the coup that ended in his death, Allende’s party had actually gained seats in Parliament.
Unless your definition of Democracy varies according to what is interesting or not to the USA... seems that the word "Dictatorship" is also flexible with the same criteria.Actually, we’ve recently done something just like this to a number of nations.
Second, is concern over it being seen as imperialism a sufficient objection to prevent whatever’s in our national interests from being done?
Consider it in the context of the International Institute for Strategic annual report, the 2003-2004 edition of the “British-based think-tank’s annual bible for defense analysts”, The Military Balance that I brought up earlier.
This addresses the martial aspect.
adaher,
Does the fact that we’ve cut off the funds for a number of democracies mean that we’ve “abandoned” these countries, or our “unconditional support” for democracies world-wide?
**How do you figure?
**
Whenever we get another country to do something we want that they would not do on our own, accusations of “bullying” and “imperialism” get thrown around.
Now, as for Allende and Mossadegh, they were elected fairly and democratically. The US didn’t get involved in coup attempts until they started throwing out their own constitutions. As I said, there is no way the coups would have happened if not for substantial native support.
**Does the fact that we’ve cut off the funds for a number of democracies mean that we’ve “abandoned” these countries, or our “unconditional support” for democracies world-wide?
**
Are we also funding their enemies?
If we cut off funding for the entire Middle East, that wouldn’t be abandoning Israel. In fact, it would be giving them an edge. Israel is much stronger than its neighbors economically.
OOOOK, so, is there any polling around showing what, actually, really, and factually the average ME native thinks about the USA, terrorism, and all the matters being discused and elaborated, mostly in thin air around here?
I´m honestly asking for cites about that.
If not the debate seems to degenerate into rethorical marshes like “the terrorists hate us for our freedom”, and equivallent sound bites from the opposite side of the argument.
THere was a Pew report survey that showed opinions of the US going negative. That’s about all the hard evidence there is.
Could it be THIS ONE ?
A quick skim over it, doesn´t seem to give the kind of information I was looking for.
Perhaps tomorrow I´ll read it in detail, by now it´s time to hit the sack.
No, it’s not EXACTLY what you’re looking for, but it’s the only evidence there is that isn’t purely anecdotal.
Wow… you guys can justify anything…
Now lets say Gore somehow took over the US govt since he had the majority of the votes. Lets say that the 48% that voted for Bush managed a military coup aided by Mexico soon after… wouldn’t that be a substantial native support too ? Even thou 52% said otherwise ?
So it BS. Most democracies have very close call elections with winner taking at best 60%-65%... most close to 50's. (Bush below 50) So a "substantial" and vocal minority can get there way due to US support ? That is not how democracies work.That’s not comparable.
Let’s say Bush started ordering troops to fire on demonstrators. Then he orders the seizure of all American oil assets and transfers them to Haliburton. No Congressional approval, no court action, he just decrees it. There is a good chance he may cancel elections.
THAT would then be comparable. And a significant number of Americans would support a coup under those circumstances. Possibly a majority.
You are right about Mossadegh making some questionable decisions, adaher, but he hardly threw out the constsition.
If the C.I.A. went in to defend democracy, as you seem to be claiming, why were Mossadegh and Allende replaced with thugs? Did the Shah and General Pinochet bring democracy to their respective nations?
“If the C.I.A. went in to defend democracy, as you seem to be claiming, why were Mossadegh and Allende replaced with thugs? Did the Shah and General Pinochet bring democracy to their respective nations?” - Earl of Sandwhich
Nope, but they brought in anti-communist stable governments. Which was in the strategic interests of the US during the cold war, when we and the USSR (remember them, the guys with something lover 20000 nuclear weapons? Yeah, them.) were using countries as chess pieces in a battle for world domination.
It was done this way because BOTH sides wanted to avoid a direct confrontation which would’ve destroyed europe and possibly the human race. It wasn’t about what was “right” or “wrong”. If you think so then I encourage you to re-read USSR treatment of client states. It was about winning. Socialistic one party states versus democratic multi-party states.
Do I argue the ends justify the means, well, sometimes they do boys and girls. Not always, not everywhere, but sometimes they do. More to the point the US achieved it’s goals of regional stability and curbing socialist expansion.
Pinochet and the Shah were undemocratic despots. OTOH, there was no significant soviet presence in either country nor anything that could be described as a strong relationship with the USSR.
That was the goal.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
True it was the cold war… which kind of justifies some of it. Still your “democratic multi-party states” hardly describes Chile, Iran and most South Americans. In fact the US itself which is more bi-party… 
So change yoru text to:
“…versus rich democratic and poor right wing dictatorships”.