• Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, because no population on this planet ever acts against their dictators without the U.S. forcing them to do so.

    • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, because no population on this planet ever acts against their dictators without the U.S. funding them

      FTFY

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That explains the Chinese revolution, the Mexican revolution, hell the French revolution too :)

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Plenty of revolutions have happened, before, during, and after the Cold War without U.S. support, the U.S. actively opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union for example, and yet it happened, and several democracies were created from it’s downfall, with little influence from the U.S.

        dictators without the U.S. funding them FTFY

        Even if the U.S. government did regularly fund protests/resistance against dictatorships, why would that be a bad thing? As long as it’s not singlehandedly deciding on regime change like in Iraq, I don’t see anything morally wrong with supporting pro-democracy causes within dictatorships.