I wouldn't. If I were President of the United States, I'd immediately
break relations with all dictatorships. The United States should help
good people, not bad ones. The argument that they aren't the worst of
the worst seems little consolation to the dead and wounded who fought
to bring democracy to people they couldn't even understand.
Put another way, when everybody except for North Korea is an ally,
doesn't that devalue the meaning and value of an alliance with us?
Why wouldn't we want to support democracies and not support dictators?
I don't mean bomb them, just ignore them. Trade with them, but not
on favored nation terms. When they are nice to their people, we'll be
nice to them.
Foreign policy has nothing to do with anybody being nice to anybody
else. The US's support for Musharraf is simply because he has a large
border with Afghanistan and he's broadly cooperating with the US
there. The money is to keep him in power and to ensure his continuing
US foreign policy is not about supporting democracies unconditionally.
Look at Allende in Chile, and look at Saudi Arabia. How democratic is
the US itself really? You have the Electoral College system precisely
because the Founding Fathers saw a need to have a check on the popular
vote. And when it comes down to casting your vote in the next
presidential election you will realistically have a choice between two
not very nice and not all that dissimilar people.
Is Britain any better? In 2005 Labour won a strong 66 seat majority in
Parliament with 35% of the popular vote on a 61% turnout equating to
about 21% of the electorate.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact