Not an expert on it, but the U.S. government having supported dictatorships throughout the history of the Cold War doesn't bother me a whole lot, because in quite a few instances, that was about blocking communism. Democracy is often looked upon as a high ideal, and something no free nation should seek to influence or block in another nation, but it really isn't when in its pure form. If the people literally do not know what they are voting for and are thus very likely to vote in a Lenin or Mao Zedong or Fidel Castro versus a George Washington, then the democracy is really no good. It will lead to another people falling to a brutal dictator, communism further encroaching around the world, and also a system that will likely be very oppressive to certain sub-groups of people (as it isn't a liberal democracy).
For example, the initial U.S. involvement in Vietnam involved stopping democratic elections there. But that was because the number of people in the North outnumbered the South and also the fear was that the Communist North would rig the elections anyhow. Sometimes support for a dictator was just the lesser of two evils. If you had a country that was a region of the world that strategically absolutely could not be allowed to fall to the Communists, and elections are supposed to occur, but if they occur, the people will likely vote in the communist leader (who themself will probably assume dictatorial powers, only this time he'll be allied with the Soviet Union), then do you continue to support the dictator who is friendly to the United States or allow the elections?
I think this is a more complicated subject then some people realize. Remember, communism was a real threat at the time, and unless people wanted the United States to try building liberal democracies throughout the entire world, supporting dictators was often the only alternative option. A lot of this never would have been required had the Soviets not been trying to spread their empire and communism all over the world at the time.
Bobbywhy said:
The outrage among American citizens is barely audible when our government is found to have lied, created misleading propaganda, and committed immoral (“false flag”, for example) activities abroad.
I think today if there is real hard evidence that the government lied flat-out, then there is a concern, but the thing is that usually the claims of lying seem to be political. Ask a Republican and they can point out lots of ways they think Obama is a liar that many Democrats will counter is either nonsense or nitpicking. And the same with Bush. A lot of people will say Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, but others can argue that greatly. The last incidence where a politician got caught really lying was Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky, and that was more laughable to many people then something to be outraged about.
The infamous Military-Industrial Complex, with the cooperation of some mass media interests, will stop at nothing in their efforts to sway public opinion to be more sympathetic with their murderous goals.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the MIC has murderous goals. Not saying they are a bunch of saints either though.
One typical method is to try to instill fear in the population by exaggerating some threat to our homeland. In the sixties it was the “Domino Effect”: the threat that a communist victory in one country would lead to many more countries to topple from the feared “communism”.
Two things:
1) How do you know the Domino Effect wasn't real? The U.S. fought a sustained war in Vietnam at the time which may have prevented the Domino Effect from occurring.
2) Why do you put "communism" into quotes? Communism was a real system and one that constituted a major threat the free world at the time.
Saddam Hussein’s WMDs in Iraq is a recent example: in the twelve months leading up to the invasion the Bush administration raised the threat of WMDs hundreds of times in public statements and speeches.
The administration did, but I don't know if that constitues the MIC.
The staggering resources we spend on the production of armaments to increase our military’s strength, to support a world-wide empire of bases, hugely expensive fighter aircraft, and maintain a massive Naval Fleet has not increased our national security. These activities have only increased criticisms that the USA wants hegemony and intends to create a global empire for its corporate and military interests, and not for the self-defense of our nation. The process of global expansion continues today using the catchphrase “in our strategic interest”.
The massive military spending is because the United States is the nation that underwrites global trade and security and I would say it very much contributes to our national security. The claims about hegemony are baseless and mostly rhetoric. If the U.S. truly wanted hegemony, we were in a perfect position to acquire it at the end of World War II. Instead, we poured lots of funds into helping the European nations rebuild themselves and also protected them from the Soviets. In Iraq, so many called the invasion "imperialism" for the oil and so forth, yet there was nothing imperialist about it. The U.S. didn't set up any kind of colonial government to govern the place for itself and give itself sole access to the oil there (to the contrary, Iraq has been auctioning off its oil to non-U.S companies). A major benefit of the U.S. military is that it is able to send relief to areas of the world that have suffered disaster as well.
.
