And of supporting the overthrow of governments that are elected by their citizens but that don't like the US. The assumption is, of course, that if they oppose America, they could not possibly have been freely elected.
To refuse to support thugs who "like" us (translate: see some advantage in American protection) is not putting one's head in the sand. It's looking the hyenas in the eye and recognizing that they are not friends, nor are they helpful to the principles we claim to stand for.
If we are going to go on about how we conduct our foreign policy on principles, it would be a lot more convincing if we adhered to the principles all the time, and not just when they look good in the papers.
When we stop sending prisoners to nations that practice torture as part of their interrogation style, then you can begin to start to claim that the Bush administration has staked out the higher ground.
Current Events » in reply to "Not invading other countries, but not supporting and arming known tyrants because they were "ours"
We have a history of supporting thugs who support us "strategically" and economically.
The whole thread (24 posts)
- And now for something completely different...
- Fanatics never let reality interfere with their thought processes.
- -sigh-
- Ask Clinton
- re: Mourners
- re: -sigh-
- Lemon Curry?
- re: Lemon Curry? (n/t)
- re: Lemon Curry? (n/t)
- Full frontal nudity
