SNIP
>This problem has plagued many attempts to overthrow governments seen as corrupt, tyrannical, etc. There is no warranty that the replacement is any better. I understand many countries have had this sort of problem in the past.
>
>Hilmar.

Yes it has, Hilmar.

But it sure looks like there are usually other factors involved than overthowing tyranny and/or corruption, at least where the U.S. has been involved.

When there was a USSR it was by default that the U.S. would take the other side. This was the case with the first round with Afghanistan. Also with Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba. Nicaragua?...Chile?...Granada?
Other countries played them against each other. Middle Eastern and African countries did this frequently, accepting munitions "aid" from one side while taking humanitarian aid from the other.

Now there didn't seem to be much U.S. involvement in Angola or Mozambique or East Timor or Slovenia or Somalia or Rwanda or.... Could it be because there was no oil or strategic transport route or other thing of commercial value to the U.S.?

The U.S. has long been known to support leaders with a dictatorial bent when those leaders opposed Communism or had control of resources of commercial value. Iran, Haiti, some African countries, some Asian countries and some Central/South American countries fit this description. Several of the countries that played the USSR against the U.S. fit the category too. Tyranny and corruption were/are standard operating practise in those areas yet they were overlooked in favour of some control of resources.

China, the present world leader for tyranny and corruption, presented a different situation given its size and location. But ways were found to take advantage of the cheap resources (material and people) for profits even larger than were traditionally achievable. [By the way, Canada is every bit as guilty in this case]

The U.S. "foreign policy" is confusing at best. As you can see, I personally boil it down to commercial profit, especially now that Communism is not a threat. They only seem to find excuses to operate in a country when commerce is involved.
It is true that the U.S. spreads humanitarian aid far and wide, but that which reaches the 'enemy' is sparse and done through NGOs (which I understand). And the humanitarian aid done by the U.S. government often ends up in the hands of corrupt officials who sell it on their black markets. And of course this aid is expected to deliver some 'return' regardless.

It is a complicated world, that's for sure. And I personally don't think any country has the "right" to overthrow a country's leadership because of cultural issues like genital mutilation or slavery or child labor or the denigration of women or .... I doubt that different leadership would change these things substantially. We have every right to tell immigrants that our culture outlaws these things and that they must respect our laws. We should pressure these countries to promote change within their culture, but it can hardly be called "pressure" to continue commercial exploitation while talking about change of this nature. Why should any change happen under such circumstances?
Apparently the women of Saudi Arabia have similar rights to those under the Taliban. Where's the outcry?

Jim