<p>Calmom, You’ve misunderstood my point (due to my poor syntax). What I meant is that I can’t think of any instance of a democratically elected government that proved to be a problem for the US to the extent that the US was unable to work with the bonafide government. I don’t mean squabbles like our current relationship with France, I mean real hostility, which was what TheDad was talking about.</p>
<p>Historically, the US has opposed democratically elected leaders where the leaders themselves had socialist or communist leanings. In fact, America’s involvement in Vietnam started with the US opposing democratic elections that would have yielded a result the US didn’t like. The French had withdrawn from Vietnam as part of a peace agreement reached in Geneva in 1954 that required internationally supervised elections to re-unify Vietnam under a single government. In 1956, when the elections were supposed to be held, South Vietnam refused (with US backing) to participate because it was clear that Ho Chi Minh would have won.</p>
<p>Okay, that may have happened in Viet Nam 50 years ago. I agree mistakes were made in Viet Nam that we’re still paying for.</p>
<p>What I’m looking for is a recent (let’s say 10 years) case in which a democratically elected government was hostile to the US to the point that the US severed relationships with that government (or in any way was unable or unwilling to work with that government).</p>
<p>Yes, it could conceivably happen in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Iran, e.g., an Islamic fundamentalist government COULD be elected. But given the demographics of these countries – a large proportion of people under 30, 50% female – I think it is highly unlikely in an open, direct election that the people would choose a government that sent them back to the 7th Century. Democracy and Islam are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>To Momrath. Your view of “history” is a little different than mine, but I shall take you up on the challenge. </p>
<p>Haiti</p>
<p>May 2000, Levalas party of Aristade sweeps parlimentary elections, winning 80% of seats; Aristade subsequently re-elected with more than 70% of the popular vote. Through Congressional act, US funds opposition party, urges boycott of the election, and US blocks $150 million humanitarian Inter-American Development Bank loan to Haiti. In 2004, US supports armed insurrection leading to overthrow of Aristade. Aristade ultimately exiled after US demands his resignation; Aristade claims he was forcibly kidnapped & removed from country by US forces.</p>
<p>I concede that Aristade was corrupt – but that doesn’t change the fact that he was democratically elected & that the US supported non-democratic means to get rid of him.</p>
<p>This is from PBS: "Many Haitians hoped that Aristide, a former priest, would end the painful cycle when he became Haiti’s first democratically elected president in 1990. However, he was only in the presidential palace for several months before a military coup forced him into exile. U.S. troops reinstated him in 1994 and he finished the end of his five-year term. He returned to power in 2000, but many of his critics believe that the elections were marred by corruption. A coalition of political parties, civil societies, trade unions and business associations boycotted the Congress, and refused to cooperate in any government initiatives until he resigned. At the same time, armed rebel groups – not linked to the political opposition groups – began violent clashes with government supporters especially in the North. "</p>
<p>I’m definitely not an expert on Haiti, but I wouldn’t say that the US was responsible for Aristide losing his job.</p>
<p>Momrath - the point is that well before Aristade was in trouble, US policy toward Haiti was to support the opposition. The opposition was funded largely with US tax dollars, and the US used its clout to prevent about $500 million of humanitarian aid going to Haiti… why? because the US didn’t like the way the election came out. </p>
<p>The difference between the forced “regime change” that took place in Haiti and the one in Iraq is that economic pressures worked to bring down the Aristade regime, whereas they didn’t work in Iraq. Obviously the US is going to start with diplomatic and economic pressures before launching an all out invasion - but the goals are essentially the same. The US goal in Haiti was to support the opposition coalition with dollars (and probably training & weapons, though that part is merely an unproven allegation) --and that included support for an armed insurrection.</p>