Hells to the yeah, yeah! I care.
Do some reading, General Smedley Butler. Invaded and helped install most of the despots in Latin America, in the early 1900's only to come to the realization that his government sent him to all these exotic places, like Panama and Guatemala, at the behest of U.S. company's with interest in those countries. In his book "War is a Racket", he lambasted our political system and it's being at the beck and call of companies who got us into, what he called, The Banana Wars.
My argument, in my previous post, was not to lob praise on our countries military exploits in other countries but to demolish the argument that several thousand or even several tens of thousands, armed with AR-15's against our standing Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, etc, do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting their way.
My argument is not to destroy the 2nd Ammendment to the constitution. The same way we regulate medicine, which can be deadly, regulating plutonium, regulating most crap that kills us; we should at least know who the fuck the asshole was that bought that Bushmaster, with the 1,000 round clip, and forgot to report it stolen after it was used to kill several hundred people at a movie theater, or a school, or an old folks home…. To those who feel that owning an assault rifle is the best thing since, well apple pie, I gotta' ask, what's next? Grenade launchers?, guided missile battery's? F/A-18's? How about a few Howitzers on our front lawns? The argument that regulation is imposing on gun owners freedoms is pathetic when some gun owners care more about hoarding arms than of mine and my children's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I'm shot dead their argument is "he should have had a gun". If I'm shout dead and had a gun their argument is, "he should have spent more time at the range". When the argument should be, "Why was he shot dead?" Without all the circular nonsense.
But how long do most of these installed dictatorships stay in power. Rarely do they last for very long. How many can you name?
Husni al-Za'im's reign was short lived-lived, but subsequent coups learned the lesson and let the Trans Arabian Pipeline be - Syria has never regained stability and as I understand it is still somewhat of a problem.
The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53 - which at least 'un-nationalized' the petrol resources for 25 years. With democracy gone, they eventually turned to theocracy and, well, they are somewhat of a problem today as well.
Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala - again, may not have ruled long, but commercial goals were achieved.
I have about 20 of them - do you really want me to type them all out?
Yes, I do.
Well the US failed in 1958 in Indonesia - but actually got caught covertly dropping bombs on behalf of rebels. Kennedy later got what he wanted anyway by simply offering billions in 'foreign aid'.
They failed at the Bay of Pigs too I guess.
Mobutu in Zaire/Congo
João Goulart, overthrown in 64
Nkruma was financially undermined - and Ghana brought to ruin.
Let's not forget Afghanistan - first putting warlords in power, leading the the Taliban to become their supreme court, then putting Karzai in there now - so that's one country that's been flipped twice, both times for the sake of keeping markets open.
There was the contras fiasco, Iraq has been flipped again, this time to a puppet government rather than a dictatorship - but still not a government formed by the people.
I wouldn't mind if y'all would go in and flip North Korea - but I imagine you'll choose Iran and fabricate bullshit evidence to flip that one instead.
Did I hit 20 yet? (counting Iraq and Afghanistan twice each)
Looks more like 10 - seemed like I was typing for longer.
Those look more like administrations overthrown and not dictators installed who have survived long term.
Ok, how was the longevity of the new government (often dictators) relevant here? The point was that the US military is overthrowing governments and behalf of corporate America. Even if the dictator/new regime doesn't last long - the economic changes stay in place because the succeeding governments know touching those changes will just bring the US back.
That's one of the perquisites of being a very powerful nation, though, isn't it? The way it's always been and always will be. I'm sure that if Canada had equivalent power, it would be throwing its weight around on behalf of its wood products, oil and mining, and fishing industries as well, though in that case you'd probably be defending your government and I'd be the one harping about how nasty it is of the Canadian government to be assisting Canadian business interests.
Well, the Canadian government is currently spending money to promote oil sands development and I'm vocally opposed - not because I'm opposed to oil sands development but because I feel it is a violation of free market economics when a government uses my tax dollars to advertise on behalf of corporate interests.
I'm opposed to them advertising - now imagine how I would feel if they were assassinating people, ruining foreign countries, and starting wars on behalf of those companies?
So, unlike you, no - I wouldn't defend my government going abroad and killing people and destroying lives to make my corporate masters richer. Why do you?
"That's one of the perquisites of being a very powerful nation, though, isn't it? The way it's always been and always will be."
I do not accept that might makes right.
And never will.
"Might makes right"? No.
Right isn't in the picture.
It does get results, though.
I'm not someone who believes in metaphysical ethics.