Social Question

mazingerz88's avatar

Would it really be bad for America if other nations end up ruled by dictators?

Asked by mazingerz88 (22361points) 3 weeks ago from iPhone

Some Americans don’t want their country to “police” other nations while some think it’s important to stay engaged for a variety of reasons.

How detrimental is it going to be for America’s future IF other countries ended up with dictatorships?

And could this scenario really happen with American disengagement?

Which direction should America really go?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

10 Answers

Kropotkin's avatar

The US not only does not police the world to prevent dictatorships, it actively supports most of them through Foreign Military Financing, and openly trades with even more than those.

Arguably, US foreign policy is one of the most significant factors in exacerbating international terrorism, in increasing insurrectionary violence, and in the increase of dictatorships and authoritarianism.

US disengegement would end in fewer dictatorships, and likely a much more peaceful world.

gorillapaws's avatar

Short of preventing genocide or a direct attack on ourselves or an ally, I think the US should stay the hell out of the internal affairs of foreign countries. We have consistently made things worse when we get involved, and it’s bankrupting our country. Humanitarian aide is fine, but people in other countries have to decide their own future.

elbanditoroso's avatar

So the other countries can be like the US?

kritiper's avatar

Society needs police because some people are too uncivilized. The world needs a police force as well for the same reason. Dictators usually don’t like playing fair to other countries, so they need to be policed. Absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely.

janbb's avatar

I’m actually more concerned that the USA may end up ruled by a dictator.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That answer hangs on just whose America you ha

Darth_Algar's avatar

Well that depends on the dictator in question. How copacetic is he to American business interests?

stanleybmanly's avatar

That answer hangs on just whose America you have in mind. The United States doesn’t really care what form of government other nations possess. A quick overview would indicate that we actually prefer authoritarian dictatorships, because our basic interest is to see to it that whichever country we’re talking about, its people and resources must be open to exploitation, with the profits derived shunted into the vaults of the owners of the United States. Dictators are much better suited to the model, in effect securing the operation for a cut and guarantee of eventual immense personal wealth. Representative governments are messier and more volatile with more hands to grease and therefore more opportunities for disruptions and scandals. However such governments can often be convinced to play ball once they are provided the sham promise of economic wonders to befall “the people”. Examples of this abound within the United States itself in states like West Virginia & Kentucky with supposed representative governments yet billions in treasure have been extracted from beneath the very feet & with the very labor of those allowed to wallow in squalor as their reward. Whatever the regime, those who won’t play ball, for whatever reason, are deemed EVIL dictators or in the case of duly elected representatives —corrupt communists, etc. as a period of intense villification ensues with simultaneous disruption of the economic circulation of the target nation to foment unrest, while replacements with more favorable attitudes are groomed to await the inevitable toppling of the “troublemakers”.

JLeslie's avatar

It depends on the dictator.

Mostly, I think when we interfere in regime change we screw it up. The screw up can be anything from more people suffering and dying to putting in a leader who in the end is worse for the country and the US.

At the same time, I’m glad we did something about Hitler, I wish we had done something sooner than we did. I think Hitler would not have been defeated without US participation.

Cubans today still are angry we made a deal with Castro. That’s how they look at it. Many Cuban-Americans are Republicans, because they feel Kennedy didn’t go in and get rid of Castro. I’m not going to go into the Cuban situation in detail, but let’s just say in all cases of civil unrest within a country, and dictatorship, the situation of course is always much more complicated than it seems.

I’m not in favor of a zero interference policy, nor am I in favor of jumping in to every situation, but I do think the US tends to interfere too often when they/we probably shouldn’t.

The biggest problem is probably that we sometimes interfere for the wrong reasons, and without being realistic about long term consequences. I think we consistently fail to consider the country before the dictator and the attitudes of the people.

flutherother's avatar

The policy at the moment seems to be if the regime is good for business it is good for America. The ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness take a very poor second place. If a “deal” can be struck with the regime then human rights will be ignored. It is bad for America’s reputation if nothing else.

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