Embed Notice

We will use a generally held belief, such as being against dictators, yet only act on it selectively, when in reality what truly determines our dislike of a nation, its ideology, and its people, is when it's a threat to our geopolitical interests, in other words, our profit motive.

How vile to be the main nation behind couping democratically elected leaders and installing military dictators in the Middle East, South America, and Asia, to have build and defended slave colonies, apartheid, as well as orchestrated genocides, only to then use criticism of a nation and leader to justify its bombing. It's called the manufacturing of consent for our war efforts, it doesn't get more complex than that.

Interesting how the United States of America built and backed Cuba as a slave colony, yet nobody ever heard Batista be called a dictator, or that fact be seen as an issue worrying enough to start a war, to infiltrate, or sanction. So when the topic of discussion is the blockade against Cuba, the bombing and current war efforts against Venezuela, or any nation the US is meddling in, is it fair to begin speaking of the legitimacy of that nation's government, or is that a derailment of the conversation?

The bombs will hit more silently, when the people think they're aimed at a dictator, and nobody will care to ask whether life improves after the bombs, and nobody will raise the point that bombs have never been the path to peace. After all, why are you supporting a dictator?