Has America often sided with the wrong doers in non-american conflicts/global affairs ?

Question

Besides ww2 and the Arab-Isreali conflicts (two places where I feel they are on the RIGHT side) America has had this uncanny knack of siding with wrong doers to ensure they put pressure on the nation who they felt posed a potential threat to their own economic/military stature and might. Be it when they opted to side with Pakistan during the Indo-Pak wars (and not India) or be it when they decided to supply stinger missiles and financial/military/strategic aid to the Muhahidin forces of Afghanistan, when they fought Russia...

It just seems to me that a Leapord can't change his spots, and his true intentions. He wants to undermine his closest rival - in the latest scenario this is Russia.

So in the long run, will America actualy become a fully fledged ally of Russia ? or is this a scenario where these two military world mights will simply never accord on terms as simple as 'lets have common understanding, goals and brotherhood friendship' ? hmm.

Post 9/11 we had the USA urging the world to fight a war on terrorism, fine - no problem with that, anything to kick the butts of Islamic Fundamentalists and terrorists I say, but once again their sly cunning hidden agendas of remaining the true global surpreme super power looms - anything, anything where Russia and conflict occurs, the US wants to step back and delay a response or most appropriately side with Russias opponent.

Could then, going back to the original question of mine - Has America often sided with the wrong doers in non-american conflicts/global affairs - be Americas downfall ?

Answer 1

There is a window between 1917 and 1975 where they got it right(just)

WW1 (Late)

WW2(Late)

Korea (Drew)

Vietnam(Lost)

The Cold War(Late Kick Off/Match abandoned)

Not great form, so they decided to pick on people that couldn't make them look stupid again.

Needless to say>this plan hasn't worked either lol x

Answer 2

USA involvement in Vietnam War, based on the flawed Domino Theory:

As dictated by the Geneva Conference of 1954, the agreement stipulated that the two military zones were to be separated by a temporary demarcation line (known as the Demilitarized Zone or DMZ). The United States, alone among the great powers, refused to sign the Geneva agreement. The president of South Vietnam declined to hold elections. This called into question the United States' commitment to democracy in the region, but also raised questions about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North. President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed U.S. fears when he wrote that, “80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh” over Emperor Bao Dai.

The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil.

Yes, in the case of Vietnam, USA prolonged the war in Vietnam by another 20 years, and thus wrecking the whole country.  Furthermore, from above, USA's commitment to democracy in the region was questioned.

Answer 3

First you seem to know more about this than I do

Second, look at South America, the US has been supporting the conservative governments there and I really don't think that's a good thing. Look at what happened in Chile when Salvador Allande came into power. I could be mistaken but the coup which killed a lot of people was helped by the US. The fighting in Colombia was also influenced by the US but that is a lot more ambiguous.

Answer 4

If you check your history you will find that the US installed most of the worlds dictators and despots and as long as they were acting in Americas best interest were left to get on with their dictatorships.

Answer 5

First off, 'wrong-doers' is a matter of opinion.  The Afghans were not pleased with the Russians occupying their country as the Iraqis are getting tired of the US occupation.  It's a matter of perspective.  Why would the US ally itself with Russia?  Why would you think that the Russians would want the US as an ally?  ALL countries have sneaky agendas, not just the US.  Pay a little more attention to what the Russians and Chinese are up to.  

Answer 6

Afghanistan they armed and supported osama bin laden

suppoted and armed Saddam's Iraq in the iran iraq war.They have supported and armed most dictators in south america.The CIA (under G.Bush senior)murdered chile's elected president and installed Pinochet.

But the worst of al is arming and supporting Isreal who forced themselves onto the map in !947

Answer 7

It seems to me that it doesn't matter about 'right' or 'wrong', but who can further the economic interests of the US.

For example, why did the US intervene in Iran and place in power the much-hated Shah of Iran?  They needed a puppet leader in their control in an oil rich country.  They were so upset when the people of Iran revolted and put their own leaders in power.  This country and culture has been enjoying an extremely bad press ever since.    

Why did they put Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq?  Same reason.

Why did the CIA found and fund Al Qaeda?  They needed locals to pass themselves off as 'terrorists' and carry out operations for the US government.  

Why do they do nothing about a regime that has one of the worst human rights records in the world?  Could it be they need something from Saudi Arabia? Oh, that's right, in the 1930's the Americans and the Saud family created Saudi Arabia pretty much as an American colony.  Justice in Saudi Arabia consists of limbs being amputated and public executions, with no real trial system and very little chance of the defendants being able to defend themselves.  Saudi Arabia is one of the most opressive states on earth, with no freedom of expression and discrimination against women.  America and Britian, who claim to be horrified by discrimination against women in Afgahnistan and Iraq, are perfectly happy to support and defend the despotic rulers in Saudi Arabia, where 25%of the GDP goes to the support of the royal family and where a secret poll showed that half the population supports Osama Bin Laden.  

And now they are talking about the conflict in South Ossetia as if Russia has invaded Georgia for no good reason.  South Ossetians have been enduring persecution from the Georgians for decades.  Since the 1990's there has been a peacekeeping force in the region, made up of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians.  It is when the Georgians started killing civilians and firing on the peackeepers that Russia felt compelled to act.  The deaths of over 2,000 Ossetians, mostly innocent civilians murdered in their own homes or shot, or run down in front of tanks is the direct responsibility of the Georgians and the Americans sent there to assist them in the planning of the invasion into South Ossetia.

Ossetians have lived in the region for 30 centuries.  They have a language and culture of their own, which the Georgians have been trying to destroy, insisting that Ossetians speak Georgian, not thier native Latin, and use the complicated Georgian alphabet.  Most of them have Russian passports.  They welcomed the Russian troops with gratitude and relief.  I've yet to hear from a western news reporter that has spoken to a South Ossetian.  They are all reporting from Georgia.  The US is supporting the Georgian president, Saakashvili, but he is a dictator on a Facist regime, and quite apart from being very unpopular with the people, is also guilty of genocide.  He has been no more or less of a despot than Sadam Hussien.  

The American government (and I make a clear distinction here between them and the American people) seem to pick and choose whether some country is an agressor or defending themselves, (look at Palestine and Isreal), and wouldn't care a jot about Georgia if it didn't have an oil pipeline running through the country.  America wanted Georgia to join NATO, but the rules for joining exclude any country that has unresolved soveriegnty issues within it's borders, like the pesky little problem of South Ossetians wanting to break away from Georgia.  The US has put Saakashvili under pressure to 'clean up' the region of South Ossetia, and this conflict is the result.  The whole thing has backfired, and the chances of Georgia joining NATO within the next decade are remote. There is also the problem of Abkashia, another region with ties to Russia, and a claim to independence.  America has shot itself in the foot as it didn't feel it necessary to consult the UN before intervening in Kosovo, so it can hardly point at Russia and condemn it for doing the same in South Ossetia.

The list of countries affected by the American foriegn policy of slavery and genocide goes on and on and on.  I am ashamed of Britian being a party to some of these efforts, although the British government has managed to perform some of the worst crimes in history all by itself.  If you ever want to explore th real history of what American Governments have done in the name of its people, read Carolyn Baker's book 'American History - Uncensored.'  You can find it on the 'Truth to Power - News Stories from Carolyn Baker' website.  

As to your question 'Could siding with the wrongdoers be America's downfall?', I would say that as more and more Americans realise how corrupt and untrustworthy their Government is, they will revolt against what is being done in their name, and the amounts of money that are being robbed from them will no longer be tolerated.  How is it that billions of dollars in defence spending is unaccounted for?  Although having said that, it would depend on the American people actually having a free press and media, one that did not spout the propaganda that the government feeds it.  If you want to know who is controlling the media, look into the Council for Foriegn Relations, there are some excellent videos on youtube that regularly get removed and reinstated.

The American government's obession with maintaining the status quo and it's attempts to keep the oil flowing into America at all costs means that it will do nothing to prepare it's people for a resource that will begin to deplete in around 2012.  They seem to forget that if you don't reduce you dependancy on foreign oil you have to buy vast amounts of it from other countries.  That means that you are pouring billions of dollars into the GDP of other countries and depleteing further and further the wealth of your own country.  The miltary depends on huge amounts of oil.  America's borrowing is pretty much out of control.  As America's debts grow, it will find itself increasingly unable to sustain it's military superiority.  As it's already pi55ed off most of Europe, it won't find any support there.

I suspect the downfall of America will come when oil is no longer purchased in dollars, and as its value keeps falling (because it will insist on bailing out failing banks and institutions with public money), the world abandons the dollar for the Euro, or a basket of currencies in which to make it's purchases for oil.  That's when the s**t will hit the proverbial fan.  At the moment, having lots of countries holding dollars to make their oil purchases is like having lots of uncashed cheques against the American economy's bank account.  If the US loses it's hedgmoney on oil purchases being made in dollars......  

In the words of Robert Louis Stevenson, 'Sooner or later we sit down to a banquet of consequences.'

Answer 8

Not against its discipline. USA had a more  issue to communist state or government or groups rather that rebels, monarchy, dictator or very corrupt democratic government.  

Answer 9

this link will help

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...