The US has shown itself to be detrimental to third world democracies

I agree to your definition of the third world.1. U.S. Primacy/Hegemony maximizes the spread of democracyCon claims that US primacy was necessary for the wave of democracy seen in the 1970s. This is false, and many of the examples that he cited only serve to undermine his case. Con also claims that the US reversed it's previously held policy of supporting dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s. This is also false.Grenada: In return for his generous concession on 2 of my examples, I will give Con this example.Dominican Republic: The US acted only in order to prevent communists and/or communist sympathisers from being elected, legitmately or otherwise. Concern for the integrity of the Domincan Republic's democracy was not the driving force behind the intervention, anti-communism was. The US also supported an oppresive dictatorship there from 1930 to 1961. Philippines: The US has done much more to prevent the Philippines from becoming a true democracy than they have done to promote it as such. When the US gained the Philippines as a result of the Spanish-American war, they fought so viciously to prevent the country from becoming independant that as many as 1.4 million Philippine citicens were murdered by American soldiers. From 1902 until shortly after the Second World War the United States controlled the Philippines, and thus the country was a protectorate and not a true democracy. Even today the country, although it is democratic, is very corrupt, something which the US government does not see as a major problem because as long as the government cooperates there is no reason to pursue reform. Panama : While the US did push for true democracy in 1989, before then Noriega had been employed by the CIA and had been a good friend of the US. The US government supported him up until his corruption became known in the US. The actions taken against Noriega's rule do not make up for the US's prior and long lived support of him. Honduras: The US gave significant aid to both the democratic government and the brutal military which committed many human rights abuses. The US actually worked to cover up such abuses and discredited human rights watch groups that tried to expose them, not only in Honduras but in El Slavador, Chile, Nicarauga, and Guatemala as well. I do not deny that the US supported the country's elected government, but it is important to note that the Honduran military did not yeild to democratic constraints, and that the US was instrumental in allowing them to operate in such a way. The US used Honduras and the Honduran army to aid right wing narco terrorists in Nicarauga. In that respect, the US put pressure on the democratic government by ecouraging it's military to act outside of it's government's control. Bolivia: The government of Bolivia was a military dictatorship, not a democracy. The US helped them suppress popular revolutions. El Salvador: The government of El Salvador was a military dictatorship that committed countless atrocities and murdered 75,000 innocent people, which the United States government blatantly condoned. This was evident in the US government's choice to continue to train and arm the Salvadoran military, which made great use of death squads and assasinations, even after the US government became fully aware of what the army was doing. The US as previously stated, ignored and/or covering up human rights abuses. Haiti: The US tried to fix the election in Haiti in 1988, but failed. The CIA was involved in the 1991 military coup that overthrew Haiti's democracy. After attemping to prevent Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the rightfully elected leader of Haiti, from taking office two times, the US decided to restore his government in 1995. However, the US government continued to work with those who participated in the coup even after 1995, and in 2004 the US was likely involved in yet another Haitian coup. Egypt: The fact that the US government went along with the extremely popular sentiment vocalized by most other first world powers does not even begin to make up for the US's 29 year long support of Mubarak's regime. If anything this is yet another example of a US supported dictatorship that the US only renounced because it would have looked bad not to do so. Lybia: As with Egypt, the US played only a small and reluctant role. The US government was no more helpful than they felt they needed to be to satisfy the expectations of it's allies.http://listverse.com...Over all Con's examples only serve to undermine his case. 2. Authoritarian Expansionism: The detrimental effects of China and Russia on third world democracies may be kept from their full potential by the US, however the process through which the US combats China and Russia in the third world is equally detrimental. The US has done just as much as China if not more to support dictatorships in Africa, such as Swaziland, Congo, Cameroon, Togo, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Rwanda, Gabon, Egypt, and Tunisia . North Korea is not a third world country. During the Vietnam war, South Vietnam was a dictatorship backed by the United States. In Laos the US has done nothing to push for democracy. http://www.theatlanticwire.com... http://www.antiwar.com... Neither Syria nor any former Soviet satellites are third world countries. The Arab Spring is not dependant on the US. The movement represents a push for independance and nationalism. Such traits usually antagonize the US government because countries that adopt them are not cooperative and are more likely to refuse to accept protectorate-like conditions asserted by the US.1st: Neoconservative foreign policy implemented by the US has directly produced very few democracies. US actions in the Middle East have caused destruction and instability in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The current governments there are corrupt and unstable. Blowback, although it may begin to appear in the short term, is generally a long term occurence. No matter how pure the US's intentions may have been when invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the civilian populations there who had to endure the wars will harbor anger which will inevitably result in blowback even after stability returns. The Clinton Administration's actions in the Balkans did more harm than good. Indirect participation in Northern Africa aided in the overthrow of 2 dictators, one of which the US supported for 29 years. Both of these regimes were condoned by the US until the international community decided to take action, and the US aided in these actions simply to appear cooperative. http://www.cato.org...2nd: Many of the governments that the US overthrew in Latin America were democracies. When a Marxist or socialist leader is elected, that does not equate to a Soviet takeover. Saying that the alternative to US backed right wing dictatorships would have been worse is based purely on conjecture. Cuba, which has murdered up to 17,000 people, is not nearly as oppresive or violent as the US backed governments of Guatemala (200,000 murdered) or El Salvador (75,000 murdered) were. If such camparisons were used as the basis for claims regarding whether US backed Latin American governments or Soviet backed Latin American governments have been more oppressive, then it would appear that US backed governments have behaved much worse. 3rd: Not only are none of the specific examples third world countries, but the US has supported dicatatorships in both Indonesia and Turkey. The other examples are not enough to disprove the resolution.http://www.military-veterans-for-justice.com...