Why don't the dictator regimes be punished by the west?

[Rev. Rye]

These words were supposedly said by FDR about Anastasio Somoza Garcia, president of Nicaragua between 1937 and 1956, one of many dictators in Latin America during that era and beyond. While there's no real evidence that FDR actually said those words, it's actually a pretty succinct summation of America's stance towards despots who actually have something that Americans actually want. In 1954, Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown as president of Guatemala for, more or less, daring to be something more than a mid-level executive for Chiquita Banana. You might think I'm exaggerating, but, at that time, Guatemala was more or less a colony for banana and coffee corporations, and, yes, the UFC actually had enough pull with Eisenhower to convince him to pull off a coup.

Now, imagine that, instead of bananas, these dictators have petroleum, which creates, among many other things, the energy that fuels the modern world. And that the supply is dwindling and that even the most optimistic estimates say that we're a few decades away from having used up half of the world's supply. And that alternative forms of energy aren't being adopted fast enough. Then you start to understand how much the West can become complicit with these dictatorial regimes. And if you think we can still get what we want with more decent people in charge, well, I would refer you to the history of Iraq since 2000 or so. No matter what you think of Saddam Hussein (and he had an alarming laundry list of crimes against humanity), he was at least a stabilising influence in the area. Do you really think ISIS would exist if Dubya didn't take him out? Why, yes, that does suck.