• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Geopolitical Weaponization of "Democracy"

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Historically, the pretense for multiple wars has been the line that the country or countries waging the wars or participating in them were defending "democracy," "freedom," etc. A notable recent example of this was the Iraq War, where the US claimed to support democracy but left the country in a state of deterioration and ruin. It is an inconsistency also underlined by the historical support from the US for dictatorial regimes that have served its interests, such as those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This trend is further evinced by Biden's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and his meeting with Mohammed bin Salman despite vowing to make him a "pariah." It was only when Saudi Arabia joined other OPEC members in raising oil prices by cutting production that Biden threatened "consequences." As usual, geopolitical interests, not democracy, dictated American foreign policy.

Why, then, is the US continually citing "democracy" as a reason for its opposition to China's designs on Taiwan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? If that were the primary concern of the US, I don't think we would see it supporting dictatorial regimes as it has repeatedly done and still does. It seems to me that this proclaimed support for democracy is either selective and inconsistent or simply a PR-friendly image for furthering geopolitical interests.

What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Of course not. The US has historically supported mostly democratic movements and departments within foreign governments. But occasionally, they have taken the US's own geopolitical motivations into account over the well-being of freedom/liberty/democracy in those nations. Usually, supporting democracies is in our best interest (long term :::: read: over multiple decades), but sometimes we seek a short-term gain by supporting bad-guys over a short-term period of months-to-a-few-years (sometimes over a decade).
I was recently listening to this very good interview by Jon Stewart with two former Secretaries of State - Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, wherein they addressed this ideology throughout. If you have 45 minutes, it is worth a listen.


 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course not. The US has historically supported mostly democratic movements and departments within foreign governments. But occasionally, they have taken the US's own geopolitical motivations into account over the well-being of freedom/liberty/democracy in those nations. Usually, supporting democracies is in our best interest (long term :::: read: over multiple decades), but sometimes we seek a short-term gain by supporting bad-guys over a short-term period of months-to-a-few-years (sometimes over a decade).
I was recently listening to this very good interview by Jon Stewart with two former Secretaries of State - Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, wherein they addressed this ideology throughout. If you have 45 minutes, it is worth a listen.



Thanks for sharing the video.

In my opinion, both of them were hawkish tools of American military aggression. I have great contempt for both of them, but Condoleezza Rice more so than Hillary Clinton.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It goes back to the question of why did America fight to be free from colonial rule only to start immediately imposing it on others?
But even that is limited in scope because the stated goals and values of a state often are not what is practiced.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
I don't believe any global power supports democracy or popular sovereignty abroad. Least of all the one with the most to lose from people in other places deciding what to do with their own resources.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It goes back to the question of why did America fight to be free from colonial rule only to start immediately imposing it on others?
But even that is limited in scope because the stated goals and values of a state often are not what is practiced.

Immediately? Cite examples from the first 50 years of the USA's history.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?

Of course we're imperfect. We totally lived up to that ideal in WWII but supported dictators during the Cold War as the lesser of the evils. Even today, we gave a Saudi murderer a free pass. When idealism meets realpolitik the results are often really ugly and certainly imperfect.

But being imperfect is no reason to throw every positive impulse and action into a trash heap. Students of history should acknowledge and comment on the bad and support the positive things we do.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course we're imperfect. We totally lived up to that ideal in WWII but supported dictators during the Cold War as the lesser of the evils. Even today, we gave a Saudi murderer a free pass. When idealism meets realpolitik the results are often really ugly and certainly imperfect.

But being imperfect is no reason to throw every positive impulse and action into a trash heap. Students of history should acknowledge and comment on the bad and support the positive things we do.

"Imperfect" doesn't begin to describe the scope of atrocities committed by American regimes against people in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the multiple other countries where the US has propped up abusive dictatorships to maximize its geopolitical interests.

I would call the US "imperfect" if I believed it often had good intentions but failed to perfectly put them into practice. But as far as I can see, the US has been a self-serving actor more often than not even when that has meant abusing other countries or their people; it often seems to selectively support democracy only when that works to its benefit. The US has done good things, like all other countries have, but its foreign policy since at least as far back as the Vietnam War has been markedly more inclined toward the negative and destructive.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Historically, the pretense for multiple wars has been the line that the country or countries waging the wars or participating in them were defending "democracy," "freedom," etc. A notable recent example of this was the Iraq War, where the US claimed to support democracy but left the country in a state of deterioration and ruin. It is an inconsistency also underlined by the historical support from the US for dictatorial regimes that have served its interests, such as those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This trend is further evinced by Biden's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and his meeting with Mohammed bin Salman despite vowing to make him a "pariah." It was only when Saudi Arabia joined other OPEC members in raising oil prices by cutting production that Biden threatened "consequences." As usual, geopolitical interests, not democracy, dictated American foreign policy.

Why, then, is the US continually citing "democracy" as a reason for its opposition to China's designs on Taiwan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? If that were the primary concern of the US, I don't think we would see it supporting dictatorial regimes as it has repeatedly done and still does. It seems to me that this proclaimed support for democracy is either selective and inconsistent or simply a PR-friendly image for furthering geopolitical interests.

What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?
Governments, as this is not unique to the U.S., use the whatever works method when trying to rally support for achieving goals. Inevitably you will find that those goals are self serving and often specifically so not just for the country, but the individuals in power. Popular support is very important. And, large philosophical principles can play a huge role in getting that.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Historically, the pretense for multiple wars has been the line that the country or countries waging the wars or participating in them were defending "democracy," "freedom," etc. A notable recent example of this was the Iraq War, where the US claimed to support democracy but left the country in a state of deterioration and ruin. It is an inconsistency also underlined by the historical support from the US for dictatorial regimes that have served its interests, such as those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This trend is further evinced by Biden's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and his meeting with Mohammed bin Salman despite vowing to make him a "pariah." It was only when Saudi Arabia joined other OPEC members in raising oil prices by cutting production that Biden threatened "consequences." As usual, geopolitical interests, not democracy, dictated American foreign policy.

Why, then, is the US continually citing "democracy" as a reason for its opposition to China's designs on Taiwan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? If that were the primary concern of the US, I don't think we would see it supporting dictatorial regimes as it has repeatedly done and still does. It seems to me that this proclaimed support for democracy is either selective and inconsistent or simply a PR-friendly image for furthering geopolitical interests.

What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?
Honestly the US is seen as (admittedly jokingly) as a war hungry nation who may or may not cover us in nuclear weaponry lol

As much as I try to give them the benefit of the doubt it’s hard not to see them as “Team America World Police” lol
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Why, then, is the US continually citing "democracy" as a reason for its opposition to China's designs on Taiwan
Taiwan is a democracy, but China only allows one political party. Its strange that it also wants to export single party government, as if this were some new clever thing. That country is falling into chaos directly because of its single party system, yet it continually claims that democracies are inherently unstable. Its puppet state N Korea is like a prison, and it looks like the whole of China could be headed into the same hellish condition. We see what China is doing in Hong Kong, its fear of free speech and democratic processes. I think we genuinely do not like this.

and the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
We say its about democracy, but I think what we mean in this case is its two things: first about proving USA does not want to invade Russia and second about Ukraine's democracy. Russia considers an America-friendly democracy on its northern border to be too unpredictable. The complication is two fold: nuclear weapons on both sides of the ocean and Russia's identity crisis. There are treatises on why Russia feels lost or like a runaway carriage, uncertain about what it is and what it ought to be. The main thing is that because they don't know themselves they don't understand us. This causes them to be paranoid about our intentions. They worry that we might be wanting to invade, but we don't want to. When we talk about democracy they think of it as a weapon. They also don't trust democratic methods as evidenced by the last twenty years of Russian politics. It is about democracy.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Historically, the pretense for multiple wars has been the line that the country or countries waging the wars or participating in them were defending "democracy," "freedom," etc. A notable recent example of this was the Iraq War, where the US claimed to support democracy but left the country in a state of deterioration and ruin. It is an inconsistency also underlined by the historical support from the US for dictatorial regimes that have served its interests, such as those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This trend is further evinced by Biden's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and his meeting with Mohammed bin Salman despite vowing to make him a "pariah." It was only when Saudi Arabia joined other OPEC members in raising oil prices by cutting production that Biden threatened "consequences." As usual, geopolitical interests, not democracy, dictated American foreign policy.

Why, then, is the US continually citing "democracy" as a reason for its opposition to China's designs on Taiwan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? If that were the primary concern of the US, I don't think we would see it supporting dictatorial regimes as it has repeatedly done and still does. It seems to me that this proclaimed support for democracy is either selective and inconsistent or simply a PR-friendly image for furthering geopolitical interests.

What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?
US and any country in general only acts in her own geopolitical interests and try to make it appear as if the action is motivated by principles.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
The U.S. has backed coups to remove democratically elected figures they didn't like and has backed brutal dictators in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I get the impression that many want put
USA in a neat little box with a simple label.
Either "greatest ever" or "great Satan".
Policies both domestic & foreign are either
noble or evil.
Better to consider each policy independently.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Historically, the pretense for multiple wars has been the line that the country or countries waging the wars or participating in them were defending "democracy," "freedom," etc. A notable recent example of this was the Iraq War, where the US claimed to support democracy but left the country in a state of deterioration and ruin. It is an inconsistency also underlined by the historical support from the US for dictatorial regimes that have served its interests, such as those in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

This trend is further evinced by Biden's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and his meeting with Mohammed bin Salman despite vowing to make him a "pariah." It was only when Saudi Arabia joined other OPEC members in raising oil prices by cutting production that Biden threatened "consequences." As usual, geopolitical interests, not democracy, dictated American foreign policy.

Why, then, is the US continually citing "democracy" as a reason for its opposition to China's designs on Taiwan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? If that were the primary concern of the US, I don't think we would see it supporting dictatorial regimes as it has repeatedly done and still does. It seems to me that this proclaimed support for democracy is either selective and inconsistent or simply a PR-friendly image for furthering geopolitical interests.

What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?
We are selfish and dishonest as a nation. Always have been.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What are your thoughts? Does the US consistently support democracy in other countries or not?
If you see "democracy" as code for "friendly to the US ...
Western democracies tend to fear communism and are thus more likely to support the US. But that is were the love of democracy ends. And woe to those who democratically elect a socialist government.
 
Top