Gator Country

**OaktownGator** · 03-09-2013, 09:34 AM

Over the past several decades in particular (since WWII), our leaders have actively supported brutal murderous dictators around the world, both economically and militarily - overtly and covertly.

Guys like Franco, Suharto, Batista, the Shah, Saddam, Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier, Pinnochet, Noriega and various dictators in most Latin American countries, as well as several in Southeast Asia and Africa.

That our leaders would do this is a perverse malfeasance. An obscene abuse of our money, our name and everything this country purports to stand for.

We've also done a lot of good around the world no doubt, but that in no way excuses any of this horrendous behavior.

At least that's my opinion.

What say the rest of you? When do the desired ends justify the means of using our tax dollars and military might to actively support (and sometimes install) brutal, murderous regimes?

Spurffelbow833 · 03-09-2013, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

What say the rest of you? When do the desired ends justify the means of using our tax dollars and military might to actively support (and sometimes install) brutal, murderous regimes?

At least tax dollars aren't used to install the brutal, murderous regimes in Washington.

**jdrgator** · 03-09-2013, 11:15 AM

We operate in a world as it is, not necessarily how we would like it to be. If there are times in which our political leaders must support, tolerate, or turn a blind eye toward a brutal despot because it's in the best interests of our country, then so be it.

We don't have to necessarily like it and can certainly speak out against it, but then none of us are in a position in which we'd have to make such a decision for the betterment of 300 plus million people.

Gatorrick22 · 03-10-2013, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrgator

We operate in a world as it is, not necessarily how we would like it to be. If there are times in which our political leaders must support, tolerate, or turn a blind eye toward a brutal despot because it's in the best interests of our country, then so be it.

I completely agree with this above, JDR.

**Burke** · 03-10-2013, 10:59 AM

"I must have missed it.... who s lionizing Chavez?"

Leftists everywhere.

Look at my thread on this subject that was closed as "a bait thread."

108 · 03-10-2013, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burke

"I must have missed it.... who s lionizing Chavez?"

Leftists everywhere.

Look at my thread on this subject that was closed as "a bait thread."

was closed because it was a bait thread

that has to do with the way you chose to word it

**harwil** · 03-09-2013, 12:04 PM

Also remember that Pinochet actually turned over power to an elected constitutional authority.He didn't have to take refuge in another place.

gatorev12 · 03-09-2013, 02:19 PM

I'm pretty sure that if you were to add that list up, nearly 100% of the despots were leaders we "supported" during the Cold War.

Now, you can argue that the ends don't justify the means. Or that short-term geopolitical goals have long-term consequences in many instances...and yes, I'd absolutely agree with you. But I think what your post leaves out the context--and the context is important. The Cold War may not have been a shooting war, but it was a war nonetheless--and one that was vitally important for our country to win.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our record has certainly been a lot better in terms of ignoring or opposing rather than supporting dictators/despots.

**Burke** · 03-09-2013, 10:56 PM

Our leaders have to deal with them, a fact most obviously seen when FDR made us allies with Stalin in WWII.

But we don't have to lionize them, as leftists here are doing with Chavez.

We don't hold them up as great men for children to emulate.

**OaktownGator** · 03-10-2013, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burke

Our leaders have to deal with them, a fact most obviously seen when FDR made us allies with Stalin in WWII.

But we don't have to lionize them, as leftists here are doing with Chavez.

We don't hold them up as great men for children to emulate.

I must have missed it.... who is lionizing Chavez?

Aside from that, why must we provide economic and military support to regimes which represent the antithesis of American values?

And I ask this question even in the cold war context that ev12 astutely brought up.

**oragator1** · 03-10-2013, 12:18 AM

The long term risks have proven worse than the short term benefits time and again, but we are still doing it. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia among others.
The reason we have so many problems in the middle east is largely because of our track record there, they don't hate us for our freedoms (possibly the most ignorant thing ever uttered), they hate us because we preach democracy while having a hand in their oppression, and treating their corner of the world like our personal playground to do with as we pleased for decades. And we are still doing it in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia among others. That legacy will last hundreds of years, long after the oil we wanted to safeguard is gone. Arabs still hold a grudge over the crusades and paint things in that light for heaven's sake, and that was a millennium ago. We also are partly to blame for the rise of the very fundamentalism we are now fighting, their governments were seen as corrupt and religion was the alternative.
Whether we learn or not is an open question, but our middle east policy in particular was a long term disaster.

108 · 03-10-2013, 10:57 AM

some of us on the left agree with some things Chavez did with nationalizing oil, we also disagree with some other things he did

**gatorman_07732** · 03-10-2013, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

some of us on the left agree with some things Chavez did with nationalizing oil, we also disagree with some other things he did

get your panties out of a wad about it

Chavez did what he did for Chavez and nobody else, but of course he got some of you to bite on his benevolence.

108 · 03-10-2013, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Chavez did what he did for Chavez and nobody else, but of course we got some of you to bite on his benevolence.

Ok

**jdrgator** · 03-10-2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Chavez did what he did for Chavez and nobody else, ...

...because Chavez was a passionate follower of Ayn Rand

108 · 03-10-2013, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrgator

...because Chavez was a passionate follower of Ayn Rand

Think his head just exploded

**jdrgator** · 03-10-2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

Think his head just exploded

BOOM!

**gatorman_07732** · 03-10-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrgator

...because Chavez was a passionate follower of Ayn Rand

Well that would have made him a confused person

**jdrgator** · 03-10-2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well that would have made him a confused person

Maybe not... though he was certainly bent on consolidating his power, which of course kinda sorta goes along with being a despot.

Since I am not one who generally believes in the existence of pure altruism , except perhaps in some limited circumstances such as a crisis situation or what a parent might do for a child, I do believe that even if what Chavez did was wholly egoistically motivated, his support of the poor with social programs was quite real and quite encompassing, thus perhaps the effects in some ways were altruistic.

And before you get on me about it, I am not judging how good/bad they were or anything else about him as a person/leader.

Dreamliner · 03-10-2013, 12:23 PM

FDR was envious of Hitler and then smitten with Stalin.