Stable democratic governments have less poverty and provide a better life. Why object that the US i

Have you ever noticed that those countries with a stable, democratically elected government are countries with less poverty, more human rights, women rights and one's that provide a better life for their people? Then why do liberals object so much when the US tries to "spread democracy"?

Strategic military expansion; looting and plundering and war profiteering; vendetta; cultural imperialism - whether served up under a banner of "democracy" or a whitewash of lies or anything else - are still what they are.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Have you ever noticed that those countries with a stable, democratically elected government are countries with less poverty, more human rights, women rights and one's that provide a better life for their people? Then why do liberals object so much when the US tries to "spread democracy"?

I have a better question.
If stable, democratically elected government are countries with less poverty, more human rights, women rights and one's that provide a better life for their people then why do republican administrations try to overthrow or undermine the governments of those countries just because they may have socialist ideals or may not be pro-US?

Originally posted by AceOfBase

If stable, democratically elected government are countries with less poverty, more human rights, women rights and one's that provide a better life for their people then why do republican administrations try to overthrow or undermine the governments of those countries just because they may have socialist ideals or may not be pro-US?

The answer to that one may be the same as the answer to "Why do dogs lick their balls?"

Except you add the word, "profitably".

Originally posted by AceOfBase
then why do republican administrations try to overthrow or undermine the governments of those countries just because they may have socialist ideals or may not be pro-US?

First, Republican regimes certainly do not have a monopoly are trying to "overthrow" countries just because they may have socialist ideals....what about Kennedy, a Democrat, who tried to knock off the Castro regime in Cuba? My thread is meant to be non partisan. Both political parties in the US could easily be faulted for trying to overthrow countries that have a COMMUNIST bent. There are plenty of countries with socialist ideals that are stable and are fair with their people and even have a democratic framework but with socialist leanings; Canada, Sweden, Norway, actually much of Europe. The US has no problem with these stable nations. But what about regimes in Africa, for example, that are ruled by despotic leaders. Many of these were never elected but came into power through juntas. If these leaders were overthrown their people would overjoice and then the deposed and their followers start insurgency guerilla type violence. What's wrong with giving the PEOPLE of each country the ability to select their own government in a fair election?

Originally posted by benevolent tyrantBut what about regimes in Africa, for example, that are ruled by despotic leaders. Many of these were never elected but came into power through juntas. If these leaders were overthrown their people would overjoice and then the deposed and their followers start insurgency guerilla type violence. What's wrong with giving the PEOPLE of each country the ability to select their own government in a fair election?

I'm not talking about those regimes.
I'm talking about the types of governments that you mentioned which are democratically elected. The PEOPLE of those countries did select their governments in fair elections but were still overthrown or undermined by the US because they didn't like their policies.

Venezuela and Chile both come to mind.

Why do they object to being invaded? Ahh...soverignity? Being happy just the way they are? Having the jobs and money flow amongst the people of their country rather than being siphoned off by foreign corporations?

Having a real say in their day to day lives? You want more examples?

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

Canada, Sweden, Norway, actually much of Europe. The US has no problem with these stable nations.

Probably because they aren't small, weak, defenseless and have militaries which could knock you on your ass?

But what about regimes in Africa

Yes, indeedy. Why isn't the US shining the beacon of democracy in those countries? Hmmmm.....no resources worth exploiting perhaps?

are ruled by despotic leaders. Many of these were never elected but came into power through juntas.

Sounds kinda familiar...hang on...

What's wrong with giving the PEOPLE of each country the ability to select their own government in a fair election?

Because they might vote for the other guy, who isn't your little puppet. As oppossed to say, recent US elections where BOTH candidates were puppets.

Its like that old saying, Democracies don't go to war with each other and don't have famines. With india being the democracy that breaks those rules.