Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive

From the Official Embassy of Uzbekistan to the United States web site:

Source:

http://www.uzbekistan.org/social_issues/

 

Thank you, Poncho. Of course, you probably already know, we needed to use Uzbekistan as US military bases to launch the war in Afghanistan. Plus, there is the oil and the Baltic Sea business. Yesterday's enemy is today's friend and tomorrow's enemy, etc., as per usual US Foreign Policy. We will certainly have a lot to be judged for as a nation one day.

 

If the United States would form a manhattan
style project before we lose all our best and
brightest because of the race to the bottom.
We could solve our energy woes...and not have
to make deals with the devils and put lipstick
on those pigs.

Perhaps this guy in Uzbekistan has reached the
Saddam threshold and now we can invade him...
not!

 

I wonder what the pastor in NC would say about voting for Bush if he read this article?

 

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to explore the necessity and limits of strategic alliances for various reasons. They are a fact of life, even in our lives, where we accept certain things we don't like because of the necessity of it. For instance, late on a Friday night, we will buy a 2 liter of Sprite at a very high price at a nearby convenience store because one in our family is sick to their stomach, even though we would never buy it there under normal circumstances. Their selling of alcohol and pornography make it distasteful to shop there, but the need of the moment demands a "strategic alliance." We make these kinds of choices every day.

How do those kinds of choices play out in international politics where the stakes are much higher?

 

So should we not "befriend" Musharref in Pakistan because he can help us get Bin Laden? Why can we not, to use your words, "choose to walk past the alcohol and pornograhy (or other human rights violations as in the case of international relations) and not spend my money on it"? Why can we not be "there to buy a bottle of soda (or an international benefit)" (again using your words). Why is it acceptable to do business in the community with someone who degrades women and endangers families by selling pornography and enslaves and endangers people and families by selling alcohol because you are "buying a soda," but in the international world where things are much complex it is wrong to overlook human rights violations (that often aren't as bad or dangerous as porn or alcohol)? Can you help me understand your reasoning there?

To me, international relations are not always black and white, nor are they consistent. Someone who might serve our interest in one period might harm them in another. Consider WWII, where Russia fought with us, and indeed had they not, the Allies would have lost the war. But as soon as the war was over, they turned against us and started a 45 year cold war. Did not the best interests of the US and the world at large demand cooperation with the Soviets, even to the extent of backing off outside of Berlin so they could be the first to enter?

To be honest, I am not sure how that all works out. Far brighter people than you or I have to make these decisions. It just seems to be a little less than cut and dried.

Thanks for your congratulations ... I have been a moderator for several years however. Perhaps the label just changed under my name.

 

But Poncho, isn't "doublethink" exactly what you do when you walk in a store, go past the porn and alcohol, to buy your soda? You are supporting a guy who does something you don't like (I presume you don't like porn and alcohol) because he has something you do like. How is that different than when it is done internationally? It seems to me that you are admitting that buying something does not imply support or total endorsement. I would say the same thing about many international relationships. Why wouldn't you?

 

Actually, I don't think we necessarily need to stay out of the store. If I were, it would be because of 1) high prices relative to convenience and 2) if the store was known primarily as a porn or liquor store. Most convenience stores are not that. I actually believe that one can have a profitable relationship with someone or some country who is not perfect, but who can serve a need ... for instance, Pakistan. The fact that we use them, or build a relationship in one area, does not mean that we endorse other areas.

For instance, the fact that some voted for Bush doesn't mean they agree with him on everything. Nor is it likely that Kerry voters agreed with him on everything. Nor it is likely that Peroutka voters agreed with him on everything. What it means is that there was sufficient similarities given the current state of affairs to make a working relationship beneficial.

I think we do this every day and in fact, I think it is impossible to avoid it.

I think "doublethink" sounds very Orwellian, and is about as useful ...

 

The Guardian and Amnesty International can not be considered to have the best interests of this country at heart.

 

Maybe we can go and have a war to remove him from power some day, after he out lives his usefulness to us?