Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Why does the US get criticized for supporting dictators
    In my personal opinion, the US should be criticised for supporting dictators simply because it champions itself as the defender of liberty and democracy. Other countries do not do that, however that is not to say they should be ignored.

    Is this because Europeans care more about making money in China than they do about China's authoritarian government and its support for other authoritarian regimes?
    Last time I checked, the US didn't have a problem with China either.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    In my personal opinion, the US should be criticised for supporting dictators simply because it champions itself as the defender of liberty and democracy. Other countries do not do that, however that is not to say they should be ignored.
    So if America was a dictatorship like China and claimed to care only about its own interests, more Europeans would have a favorable view of it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    So if America was a dictatorship like China and claimed to care only about its own interests, more Europeans would have a favorable view of it?
    I can only speak for myself, not for the whole of Europe. If America said it supported its national interest with no reservations (as it should), instead of trying to gloss it over as democracy and freedom, then at least America could be respected for sticking to its guns rather than pretending that it is in Iraq to liberate the people, while supporting other undemocratic regimes around the world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    I can only speak for myself, not for the whole of Europe. If America said it supported its national interest with no reservations (as it should), instead of trying to gloss it over as democracy and freedom, then at least America could be respected for sticking to its guns rather than pretending that it is in Iraq to liberate the people, while supporting other undemocratic regimes around the world.
    Do you hold a more favorable view of China than you do of the US?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Do you hold a more favorable view of China than you do of the US?
    I don't particularly favour either.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Greater familiarity with the US as a result of their global mass media reach, the hypocrisy of posing as 'champions of democracy' which China and Russia don't do, leftist resentment of US bellicosity, rightist resentment at neocon appropriation of the conservative agenda, the greater validity of Chinese and Russian interest in the region - US interest being only to control oil and gas supply, but the main reason is people don't like big bullies.

    A more diplomatic approach would work wonders, especially with the over-sensitive French.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is the same Karimov whose government receives millions in military aid from the US, whose repressive totalitarian army is trained by US soldiers and who is, if I remember rightly, an ally in the war on terror? And yet it's China and Russia who are supporting him by receiving his state visits even though he's the internationally recognised head of state and being part of a group of which his government is also part that has called for a timetable on the desertion of temporary US military bases?

    Pointing out that other governments act even worse than your own hardly vindicates the US government. We know there are oppressive regimes in the world. We know there is very little democracy to be found. We don't forfeit our right to criticise the US government if we aren't criticising the governments of other countries even more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    In my personal opinion, the US should be criticised for supporting dictators simply because it champions itself as the defender of liberty and democracy. Other countries do not do that, however that is not to say they should be ignored.


    Last time I checked, the US didn't have a problem with China either.
    :dito:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    This is the same Karimov whose government receives millions in military aid from the US, whose repressive totalitarian army is trained by US soldiers and who is, if I remember rightly, an ally in the war on terror? And yet it's China and Russia who are supporting him by receiving his state visits even though he's the internationally recognised head of state and being part of a group of which his government is also part that has called for a timetable on the desertion of temporary US military bases?
    No, this is the Karimov whose anti-terrorism task force is trained by the US, who was always pushed to reform his country's economic and political system by the US, and who broke off contructive relations with the US after it voiced support for the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. It's also the same Karimov who China and Russia call a democrat who only oppresses terrorists and who has received massive military aid from Russia for the purpose of regime survival.

    Pointing out that other governments act even worse than your own hardly vindicates the US government. We know there are oppressive regimes in the world. We know there is very little democracy to be found. We don't forfeit our right to criticise the US government if we aren't criticising the governments of other countries even more.
    Do you hold a more favorable view of China than of the US?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Greater familiarity with the US as a result of their global mass media reach, the hypocrisy of posing as 'champions of democracy' which China and Russia don't do, leftist resentment of US bellicosity, rightist resentment at neocon appropriation of the conservative agenda, the greater validity of Chinese and Russian interest in the region - US interest being only to control oil and gas supply, but the main reason is people don't like big bullies.

    A more diplomatic approach would work wonders, especially with the over-sensitive French.
    Actually, China is involved in Central Asia for only two reasons, one of which is access to oil and natural gas. Similarly, Russia is involved in the region for a similar two reasons, with monopoly over the region's oil and gas supplies being one of them. Furthermore, America is not the one who's forcing the Central Asian states to give up aspects of their sovereignty in exchange for military support for the current regimes (not countries). And Russia and China have claimed on numerous occassions that the Central Asian states are democratic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Do you hold a more favorable view of China than of the US?
    I much prefer China as a nation. Beautiful scenery, fascinating history and culture, incredible catalogue in the arts and brilliant philosophy.

    The Chinese government, like anyone else, I find reprehensible. The US government less so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Islam karimov is ****ing idiot. His country is like North Korea. There is no democracy there. I visited it 4 years ago and saw that people dont have freedom at all. This ****ing hypocrat should be assasinated. In fact I dont like the policy of Russia towards this situation at all. They wanted stabilize the situation by supporting this ****ing new 'uzbek bashi'. USA tries to spread more freedom. China's policy towards Central Asian republics is disgrace. They just want to spread their influence there and just dominate there. They dont care about people's content and freedom.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How sincere the hostility expressed for the USA and the fondness expressed for Russia and China are we don't know. People taking an opinion poll are not under oath nor are they encouraged to weigh deeply the pros and cons of partciular countries or governments. I think that much of the dislike for the USA expressed in Europe- and the rest of the world- is inspired by envy and a certain self-hatred for the extent to which Americanisation has affected every culture. One of my fellow-students expressed his hatred for the USA as decadent, materialistic, imperialistic and greedy. "And"- he added "the *******s won't even give me a green card." I think that typifies the psychology of many people.
    One obvious reason is that at the moment China and Russia are only immediately dangerous to their own citizens and subjects, who not many people in Europe much identify with, and their more repellent activities aren't shown on television. Another is that people expect the USA to live up to the high moral standards it claims- and sometimes tries- to follow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People tend to criticise the US for its support for dictators because it is the world's only superpower and such people wish to drag its name through the dirt. There are some people who are genuinely concerned at the USA's support for these regimes, but many lambast the USA for other reasons. Much of the time it is the USA's only option, as the things that could replace it may be much worse for US interests and indeed Western interests ie Islamic fundementalists. In my view the best approach that the US can make and this is one that is is doing, is trying to persuade these regimes to democratise from the inside and step down their brutal repression of the people.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    They should both be criticised. Left wing demonstraters protest when both leaders come to our country. We protested against Saddam and Sharon, Bush and Khomeini.

    But at the end of the day, the USA has supported more dictators. The USA has invaded more countries. The USA spends FAR more on arms. The USA bills itself as the defender of freedom and Democracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    They should both be criticised. Left wing demonstraters protest when both leaders come to our country. We protested against Saddam and Sharon, Bush and Khomeini.

    But at the end of the day, the USA has supported more dictators. The USA has invaded more countries. The USA spends FAR more on arms. The USA bills itself as the defender of freedom and Democracy.
    so?If it wasnt for USA, we would be all living in some communist state with no freedom or anything.If it wasnt for USA's huge arms spendings China would invade Taiwan and hence cause WW3. USA are doing more benefit that harm to this world and we should be happy for it. Without USA, UK would be some mediocare european country with not much power.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Without USA, UK would be some mediocare european country with not much power.
    We have no power anyway. We blindly follow the USA. I'd rather have 100 000 Iraqis alive and the UK to be a mediocre European country to be honest.

    so?If it wasnt for USA, we would be all living in some communist state with no freedom or anything.
    What do you base this on?

    If it wasnt for USA's huge arms spendings China would invade Taiwan and hence cause WW3.
    So you're spending so much on war to avoid war, I get it :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What are you on about, guys? If it wasn't for the USA, we'd still have our Empire, and all the worlds dictators would have names like "Smith" and "Rhodes", except for the German ones who rule the rest of Europe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We have no power anyway. We blindly follow the USA. I'd rather have 100 000 Iraqis alive and the UK to be a mediocre European country to be honest. [/B]
    So would you rather prefer all the other countries to stay authorative with political oppression?
    Do we?I dont think so. At the moment, UK is proposing to scrap all the depts.Currently UK has a quite respectable position on a global level.
    What do you base this on?
    Communistic and authorative countries such as USSR and CHina would be now more dominant. Isnt it a common sense for such smart person as you are.

    So you're spending so much on war to avoid war, I get it :rolleyes:
    Do they really spend on war?Spending on arms and fighting terrorism is completely different to spending on war. We need high military expenditures to preserve peace and limit the agression from other countries. China would otherwise invade Taiwan or other neighbouring countries, like it is done with Tibet.Would you rather prefer to live in China than in USA or UK?

    USA is responsible for most of the economic growth, technological advances and etc. Nowadays we need a global power to preserve a peace. Without such superpower all the other small mediocre countries would go to war against each other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    What are you on about, guys? If it wasn't for the USA, we'd still have our Empire, and all the worlds dictators would have names like "Smith" and "Rhodes", except for the German ones who rule the rest of Europe.
    if it wasnt for USA, we would be enslaved by ****ing Nazi Germany!!!Common sense, dont you think so?
 
 
 

1,857

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.