Grrrrr

>>I'm thinking a lot more recent than that. Starting from the Rusk-Thanat agreement until the late 1970s, Thailand repeatedly relied on US military support, most particularly during the carryings-on in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Worth getting a map and imagining being in Thailand while all that was going on. ;-) It could have been very different. ;-)
>
>I think it could be easily argued that American heavy-handedness and French Colonialism made South-east asian the non-democratic region that it is today.
>
>Vietnam: Communist
>Laos: Communist
>Myanmar: Dictatorship
>Thailand: an iffy democracy
>Cambodia: an iffy democracy

French colonialism, yes. American heavy-handedness, no....to a point. Once we got into the Vietnam War cycle you are correct. However, beforehand, I think a lot of opportunities to transform the region were lost.


>Looking at all of Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia#Territories_and_regions
>It it a pretty messed up place, emocracy wise. Slam dunk.
>
>>How about the Suez Canal? ;-)
>
>Jimmy Carter the US's most under appreciated 20th century president.

C'mon Evan. Jimmy Carter was an unmitigatable disaster. He operated on the principle that all of the worlds ills were our fault. They weren't. He showed strength when diplomacy would have worked and he showed diplomacy when strength was important. As time goes on it becomes more apparent what a problem this guy was.

I will say, however, that Carter had and has a good heart. Unfortunately, that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee.