• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When should the US support authoritarian governments?

When should the US support authoritarianism?


  • Total voters
    26
And a Monarchy is not a form of Authoritarianism?

This is not like the old European monarchies.

The king of KSA has to have a consensus of the Merchants, Technocrats, the family and the clergy.

They still hold majlis all over the country every week... so citizens can access the leadership.
 
This is not like the old European monarchies.

The king of KSA has to have a consensus of the Merchants, Technocrats, the family and the clergy.

They still hold majlis all over the country every week... so citizens can access the leadership.

So it's a combination of a transparent monarchy and a parliamentary system?
 
We should never support authoritarianism. Look at Iran, we supported an authoritarian regime at a point after being involved in overthrowing a democratic elected government and look how that turned out. We should never support authoritarianism, especially if we wanna be that "shining light on the hill" or seen as a good example for other governments. The support of authoritarianism also leads to people around the world not viewing the US in a favorable light...
 
This is not like the old European monarchies.

The king of KSA has to have a consensus of the Merchants, Technocrats, the family and the clergy.

They still hold majlis all over the country every week... so citizens can access the leadership.

That's pretty much how pre-enlightenment European absolute monarchies worked.
 
In my opinion, 57% are wrong, here at this poll.
Its obvious that many people on this planet need an authoritarian government...the "Arab Spring " is proof of this...and Africa.
A one-man rule need not be despotic, mean, and cruel..Husiane of Iraq had to be hard, but he went to extremes..
So, YES, we should support "selected" kingdoms, as we have in the past and today.
 
I don't think you understand the meaning of authoritarianism. I'm referring to a non-democratic regime, possibly one that doesn't respect civil liberties or human rights, but one that benefits the interests of the United States. I'm not talking about a government that enforces any laws at all. Western liberal democratic authoritarianism is oxymoronic.


So you didn't see a positive side to Savak?
 
When I mention authoritarianism, I'm not talking about rule of law. I'm talking about what you might consider totalitarianism, or dictatorship, etc.

Ponder this: we put tremdous political pressure on South Africa, based on only letting some people (whites) vote, yet grant most favorable nation status to China where no people vote. We are at war in Afghanistan while basically ignoring their neighbor Pakistan yet both harbor the same terrorist organizations. Hmm...
 
There is an inherent contradiction in our ideals of promotion of freedom, and our support of autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and South Vietnam. When is such support justified?

I say never....but the majority of the dictatorships we supported were supported during the Cold War. If you have the thinking of a zero sum game world where a country that falls to Soviet Style Dictatorship is a loss for your side you get stuck supporting bad people so that the other side doesn't add another country to it's column.

Hopefully now that the world is no longer operating in a two super power zero sum game atmostphere our foriegn policy can reflect our values...and hopefully those values are to spread the rule of law and representative forms of government.
 
And there is a difference, Mr hahahaha.

Not in the real world, just in fantasy land where space cadets apologize for tyranny.
 
There is an inherent contradiction in our ideals of promotion of freedom, and our support of autocracies such as Saudi Arabia and South Vietnam. When is such support justified?
Man must prove to his government that he can handle freedom and liberty.
I wonder, at times, if our people can do the right thing with these things which the conservatives love so..
Justification ?
The people under a fairly benevolent government living in peace and harmony....more or less.....our national interests have to be secondary to the people....this could be, oddly enough, where Russia is ahead of us...
 
I say that we should support authoritarian regimes if the alternative regime is also bound to be authoritarian. If our enemies in the country are truly democratic then we should not intervene or even reconsider who our enemies are. Communism has fallen, so any true democratic movements are less likely to be anti-US in nature. However, if it is a war between two dictators then we should support the one that is the most friendly to us if that is the most feasible solution. We should only stop support in that situation if human rights violations start to take place under our ally.
 
Democratic does not equal uno governmento bueno. Rather than worrying about what type of government it is, let's worry about the human rights. Saudi Arabia has very poor human rights, while South Korea isn't wonderful, but workable.

But, basing alliances solely on human rights isn't really practical. SA controls a lot of the world's oil and SK is a strategic partner in Asia. Some times you choose your allies based on what they can do for you and then you use those alliances to slowly push them in the right direction. Or as Marge Simpson would say: "I prefer gentle nagging to affect change."
 
Authoritarianism is the opposite of liberty, therefore I'm against it.
 
Back
Top Bottom