Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Kim Jong-il of N. Korea are both dictators so why aren’t they treated the same like a tyrant?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (22110 points ) January 29th, 2011

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Kim Jong-il of N. Korea both are dictators so why does Egypt get a virtual pass and not rebuked? It is another example of how Uncle Sam coddles dictators he can use, those that are good boot lackeys?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

10 Answers

cazzie's avatar

Um…The US can’t go around ousting other countries governments, how ever they came to power. Remember, they also have a history of getting rid of democratically elected governments they don’t like too. Yes, the US loves to be agreed with. They’re like a know-it-all first year philosophy student. But they don’t really care, regardless of what they say, how the leaders get to their stations of power, as long as they tow the line.

Austinlad's avatar

Absolutely correct, @Hypocrisy_Central, and well stated. Who appointed the U.S. world arbiter of all things right and wrong, good and bad? Our closet is stuffed with some nasty skeletons.

Cruiser's avatar

Last time I looked/heard Hilary has strongly suggested we take a step back and support the will of the people and let history follow it’s natural course. Put a fork in Mubarak he’s done.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Cruiser is correct: the only question left for Mubarak is whether he leaves the country alive or not.

As to the larger issue, however, no country can get away with being the enemy of every other country. As such, we pick our battles. Even if we plan to fight them all eventually, the smart strategist deals with the openly antagonistic before the mildly resentful. Especially if the mildly resentful are willing to help us out in the meantime.

Politics is the art of compromise. Black-and-white thinking can sometimes win elections, but it’s terrible foreign policy.

Mamradpivo's avatar

Mubarak has politically important friends in power in oil-rich countries we rely on, Kim does not. End of story.

Ron_C's avatar

There are different degrees of tyrant. Kim and his ancestors treated their country as their personal property. The even started a system in which they are worshipped as deities.

Mubarak is simply a “strong-man”. He keeps power because he has an overblown sense of his own worth and probably believes that his country would not survive without his “wise leadership and strong hand” This makes him no worse than the average dictator and certainly not in the class of Stalin, Hitler, or Kim.

If we ignored of refused to work with all dictators or strong armed undemocratic leaders, there would be no one to deal with in the middle-east (including Israel, occasionally) or most of the countries in Asia or South America. In fact, we wouldn’t be able to talk to our own president for the previous eight years. Bush and his government are guilty of more war crimes than Mubarak.

IHateMusic's avatar

We are too busy sending them money to notice.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Ron_C Mubarak is simply a “strong-man”. This makes him no worse than the average dictator and certainly not in the class of Stalin, Hitler, or Kim. That is rather a slippery slope. That is almost the same as saying we know _________ is running an illegal drug din and money laundering operation out of that restaurant but since he keeps away the pimps and their hookers and the drug dealers away we won’t make a fuss and tacitly welcome it.

If we ignored of refused to work with all dictators or strong armed undemocratic leaders, there would be no one to deal with in the middle-east (including Israel, occasionally) But it sue doesn’t set a legitimate example. Like someone saying they can’t stand thieves but the guy who sells stolen goods is OK because you can get a cheap big screen from him. And the cowboy President and his cronies have done war crimes and unspeakable evils, but it’s good to be the king because no one can put your head on the block.

Ron_C's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I’m not suggesting that should support any dictator especially ones in the middle east. It comes down to the old CIA saying ____ is a bastard, but he’s our bastard.

Remember, we have been dealing with dictators and kings for the entire history of our country. We got in real trouble by disobeying King George.

Further, we get further when we talk to people instead of attacking them. We have already lost enough of our military developing the “American Empire”. If we can talk one dictator into doing our bidding, we win. Besides there are a lot of dastardly people over there. We supported and instructed the Shah of Iran, former presidents have their pictures taken holding hands and kissing the king of Saudi Arabia. The same king that had the power to summon our vice president with a minutes notice.

The best we can do is support the democratic forces and only give what is absolutely necessary to support the dictators that side with us. Even Israel’s government has been mildly dictatorial at times and they are the best that democracy has produced in that area of the world.

By the way, your statement about the dealer dealing drugs from his restaurant sounds reasonable to me. I don’t see anything wrong with selling drugs to adults. It is the fights between cartels and the exploitation of pimps that bother me much more.

mattbrowne's avatar

There are different levels of tyrannies.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther