[vertline3]

So what it is speaking to me is

It seems there is a war against Radical religious terrorists which is stateless and more regional, and stopping dictators.

[zanny]

As long as Saudi Arabia is one of Americas "greatest" allies there is no leg to stand on arguing any aspect of US foreign policy involves a moral war against totalitarianism.

[vertline3]

Unlike software, the world is not binary.

[Jerry2]

>and stopping dictators

If the US cared about stopping "dictators", why are there so many dictators allies of the US?

[azinman2]

Because politics and circumstance.

[andrepd]

Which implies that they do not care about "dictatorships".

[azinman2]

I think that there are strong tendencies and actions towards democracies where convienent and possible.

Unfortunately the world is a messy place — ideological purity gets you no where.

[lucisferre]

> ideological purity gets you no where.

While I also disagree with the parent, these facts are not in evidence.

[lucisferre]

That is a bit of a simplistic conclusion.

The hypocrisy is clear, but hypocrisy is not sufficient to prove that one does not care at all.

What is pretty clear is that the USA takes a strategic and occasionally very partisan view when making their choices of alliances as well as their use of power and force. I'm not sure they are very unique in this respect though.

[ekianjo]

Even if they genuinely cared about it, 90 percents of regimes worldwide are dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. So you can not work with anyone if you have very strong principles.

[raprp]

You mean war against radical religious terrorists and dictators that are not allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and etc?

Countries which support the Al-Nusra front, which was affiliated to Al-Qaeda, which masterminded 9/11 an event which 90% of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia or other gulf countries and 0 from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Iran.

The concept of righteous crusades has been around forever and it's stunning that it still works.