I saw him today in Lebanon, and he promised to cut US support for the country if the Opposition won.
Isn't this a little ridiculous? Why should the US State Department dictate the sovereignty of other sovereign nations with relatively (but in no way truly) democratic elections? There seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World countries only if they elect a pro-US or a US-backed government, and promising to cut support to these countries if they elect a government perceived by the US to be anti-American (which the Opposition is not -- their leading member did condemn 9/11).
Originally posted by scherzo I saw him today in Lebanon, and he promised to cut US support for the country if the Opposition won.
Isn't this a little ridiculous? Why should the US State Department dictate the sovereignty of other sovereign nations with relatively (but in no way truly) democratic elections? There seems to be a trend of American leaders promising to support Third World ...[text shortened]... -- their leading member did condemn 9/11).
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I guess the US should just refuse aid only after the election then.
Yup. If they so choose.
I'm not entirely certain what a country's regime has got to do with giving aid to though.
Or are you suggesting that "aid" is not actually aid, but a method of control?