Why is it till now people fully condemn and rebuke leaders like Castro, Mugabe etc while the likes of Reagan (who is one of the most popular former presidents) and the Bushes are not treated with the same condemnation amount of condemnation given the evil things they did?

Reagan and Bush were not dictators. I mean, close this ****.

I don't get it

This is a very complex question with no simple of straight answer but to grossly oversimplify my reasons would be that dictators in other countries often committed atrocities against their own people/in their own country, whereas Reagan/Bush committed atrocities against people in other countries. When its against your own people its oppression, when its against others its war. It's a mixture of patriotism, xenophobia, ignorance, anti-communism, value of freedom, that makes people want to support America. I don't know, this is just an estimate of one reason. But there would be a lot of factors, it would be interesting to investigate.

They were considering they quite literally invaded countries caused wars/coup d'etats etc so no

I don't think you know what a dictator is.

Do you people not have an idea of the things these people did or are you just joking?

Because Bush doing 9/11 is just a conspiracy theory and all of American wars have carefully thought out justifications (even though a notable amount are ********). Most importantly, the West runs under a democracy. The president doesn't have the sole power, many appointed leaders do.

The reason why Castro is hated is because his atrocities were done so under a communist dictatorship. The people didn't have a say in anything, Castro did. And so all fingers will be pointed towards him. That is why communism doesn't work and communist societies are prone to revolution.

Do you even know and understand what the word dictator actually mean?

I get your point but warmonger =/= dictator.

Title has been changed, satisfied?

I don't think anyone refutes people like Castro did horrible things, however the question why leaders like Reagan who supported merciless and horrific rebels in Guetamala and Nicaragua etc where people were killed, raped and tortured aren't criticized as though nothing happened.

Right?!
They were quite literally supporting financially and militarily regimes that did things they accuse these dictators of doing and worse yet they're saints?

I wonder how much more the numbers go up when you add the backing they gave to dictatorships in Zaire, Chad and other countries worldwide, genuinely surprised by the ignorance some on here have. The thread being actually reported

And by the way, they supported and even placed in some instances dictators so they as well can be called dictators (democratically elected overseas dictators) so y'all can miss me with that "don't know the meaning of the word" nonsense.

I'm not surprised

And of course they never teach this in schools, not high schools at least. The perfect democracy image must be maintained, then they don't understand when these other countries point out double standards when they are criticizing "undemocratic" countries. It's also to blame for the current situation with "making America great again" and all that mess that's happening, feeding a non-existent image of perfect leadership and policies fostered by some factions of the media for all these years so that they think that people telling them this is a lie

Well now that the title makes sense. Its because the atrocities Western leaders commit aren't against their own people, and the people it usually is against being non white can't hurt either. The media doesn't do much to help matters and other things like Obama getting a peace prize just add to that.

I mean, this.