Why does America seem to (mostly) be on the wrong side of international freedom?

This is a function of a America's size and historical prominence rather than our ideals of freedom and opportunity, which still pay off a little better than all countries in our weight category. Big countries make a bigger mess to keep their people happy and therefore make bigger enemies, moral ambiguity ensues.

 

When you have investments, it makes it easier to side with military dicktatorships, even if they're killing christians.

 

It's a function of a lot of these countries having radical elements within them that we need help dealing with. A dictatorship that we can easily topple are less of a threat to US security than extremists plotting terrorism. Extremists and the circumstances that create them are far more difficult to deal with from the outside. It's not so much being on the wrong side of freedom as much as protecting our own first. This whole freedom crusader thing is extremely naive.

I have to say also that I don't necessarily agree with this approach but I understand it. In the long run if we consistently supported freedom then the people themselves would eventually find their way and deal with extremism on their own terms.

 

Sometimes we are, sometimes we aren't.

Most of the times where we have been supportive of dictatorial regimes the alternative was communist dictatorial regimes or radical Islamic dictatorial regimes. Until recently there have been few indigenous democratic movements you could trust since most 'movements' require an identifiable charismatic leader to carry the message. You might forget that information hasn't been so easily shared even five years ago.

Other times, it's just not in the strategic interests of the United States to let the fate of resources to be left to the political winds. What if Saudi Arabia had a democratic movement that elected a Wahabi cleric who decided he would not continue to support Western consumerism and cut way back on oil exports.Yeah democracy! Gas is $20 and unemployment is 30%.

Sometimes there is just no practical way to support democratic movements. They may just be to isolated to reach or have an entrenched strongman that would take boot on the ground to remove. And if there is no strategic return for then nations investment it's a hard sell even in flush times.

And of course, sometimes we just make the stupid move.

Keep supporting the ideals, but live in the real world.

 

Simplified answer: Capitalism.

 

Why do your threads seem to (mostly) just bash America?

 

Not a terrible answer, but I didn't ask why you post threads in the D&D that are debatable. I said 'why do your threads (mostly) just bash America?'

If your answer is "Because this place is lousy with Americans" that doesn't really get to the heart of my question (though it is telling). If it is "I bash unabashedly about many things" I would say perhaps, but your threads are (mostly) quite anti-America.

I only had to search to get an actual count as I already knew the general ratio, but of the threads you've started in this year only, 9 of 11 threads directly bash something about America. Perhaps you're equally "hard-hitting" on other topics, but it seems you have quite the sore spot for America when it comes to starting your own threads.

That's fine if that's your deal... whatever suits you. I was just wondering... why all the hate? I'm not saying there aren't issues to discuss and debate in this realm, I'm not even saying the issues you've brought up are less than worthy (I often disagree with the slant, but everyone has their methods), it just seems you have a certain skew towards anti-Americanism that is a bit much at times.

I guess if you were American and it seemed as though you were fighting for changes to the problems you see then I might see it differently, but really it seems like you're always just taking a dump on us... which is not especially constructive or endearing.

 

Perhaps it just seems that here you try pretty hard to perceive the wrong in one place, America (so popular these days). The constructive manner is subjective and I suppose debatable by various thread subjects and posts.

No one accused anyone of personal attacks. Just a pattern. I guess your answer is "That is where the audience will be the most uncomfortable." Again, not a terrible answer, but I'm not sure this is necessarily very constructive either. I understand perhaps this is just the side you put forth here. People are complex. Anyway, not even saying I always disagree, just that after a while of hearing songs from a band that (mostly) revolve solely around one theme, you start to wonder if it's really the issues in the songs or just a beef in general.

I apologize for not staying on topic. Pardon my digression. I actually do agree to a lesser extent on your point in this thread, though your angle on it is much more scathing than my own. I agree with this especially:

As for this... well...

these are the generalizations that I don't find particularly productive or constructive.

Lastly, topicwise, I would say that support of a country in power does not always mean one county agrees with their ideals and methods... or that they even want them to stay in power. Just that for now, they are the best option, and it's always best not to show your hand if you don't have to. This is not an excuse for supporting dictators or for those in power to use when lining each others pockets at populous expense... but it often a reality.

 

Economics is a tool to get the most money out of something. Sometimes it promotes efficiency, but always its about the maximum allocation of resources the way the practicer wants it.

We want to be the richest nation in the world. Sometimes it takes shortcuts. Other times, it promotes free trade and open markets to stimulate consumer demand for our products. Always (like 99% with some exceptions), it's about getting money and making our country or interests richer.

The more powerful we are, the more people we affect. And conversely, the more ideological a matter is, the harder it is for larger bodies to consistently conform to it. As other countries grow in stature, they too will share those pains or pass the buck to the bigger and older giant on the block.

So there's many things at play here, and America gets pulled by them at all directions.

 

Repped, IF, that's a really good post.

nahh. just wonderin. do your thing, man. I get ya, we're good.

 

For diplomatic reasons, aren't you always more likely to be dealing with the group that is currently in power in any particular soveriegn nation? Good, bad, or neutral?

When you are a big, powerful nation, you have to deal with whoever is currently in power, and can't blacklist and refuse to deal with EVERYBODY that doesn't fit in the limited scope of your cultural views.

List all the governments that the US does business with that DO support freedom when you make up all your lists of the bad ones.

 

Cause they never care about international freedom.

 

You have to consider America's geopolitical goals to come to any reasonable answer. America will always appear wishy washy or inconsistent because America will act in accordance with the main goal of controlling trade. From that perspective there actually is consistency. America will act or react according to what's in it's best interest. How America handles the situation usually brings a lot of criticism but in the end the outcome usually leans in favor of America's agenda. It's been that way since the end of WWII and it's not changing anytime soon, regardless of the propped up economy of China. America still makes the rules.

 

If a Canadian is going to give America a hard time, I prefer hearing it from Neil Young.