Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, May 10, 2005.
From the Official Embassy of Uzbekistan to the United States web site:
U.S. Dept Of State
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch
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...
Always gotta be on the lookout for another good boogeyman. Besides dictatorship's and Communist countries make better business partners. Just look at all China has done for us.
I wonder what the pastor in NC would say about voting for Bush if he read this article?
What's his email address?
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?
Whose reasons, the American citizens or the globalists?
I don't think I'm ready to accept what I see as hipocracy on the part of "our leaders" that send our best and bravest men and women to die fighting to remove one tyrant they coddled for years while their kissing up to yet another tyrant.
This may be true but, it's been normal operating procedure for our government to align themselves and our money with tyrants for quite some time now.
I have a choice when I walk into the store and buy and bottle of soda pop. I can choose to walk past the alcohol and pornograhy and not spend my money on it. I'm there to buy a bottle of soda. Not to befriend the guy selling pornography and alcohol.
So far the choices our courageous leaders have made in international politics have been to befriend tyrants, give them cash money, look the other way while the commit atrocities on their own people, then wage war against them when the political timing is right. There is a pattern.
Set em up and knock em down.
BTW, congrats on your moderatorship Pastor Larry.
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.
Of course, it is in our national best interest to "befriend" dictators and terrorists. They make for great assets when we are fighting against dictators and terrorists.
Apologies, I never have been able to understand doublethink. Maybe it's just me.
WWII is a favorite example of those defending internationalism. Perhaps one should study WWI first. If it wasn't for the international treaty system in place at that time the war would not have become global and Hitler would not have had a "reason" (treaty of Versailles) to start WWII. Hitler's Third Reich was by the way financed by European banks and some American as well. There again, settin em up and knockin em down. Who really benefits?
I assume Satan benefits, he gets what he wants, death and destruction and another step closer to world government. I assume the finaciers benefit, they get to keep the spoils of war and tighten control of the monetary system. I assume our government and others benefit because they can increase their power and control over the citizens, not to mention increased funding.
But how do the citizens benefit?
How can we as a nation tell the world we will not stand for tyranny and abuse while the record shows that we have time and time again supported it in the name of liberty and "democracy" no less?
We wave our flags and support our leaders. Send our children of to war to die and be mangled while our leaders are selling our national sovereignty and surrendering our constitution to unelected global bureaucracies in one "agreement" after another.
And here we set. Defending their actions with doublethink.
I just noticed it. Congrats just the same.
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?
Source Of Quote
I think I agree with you on this one Pastor Larry. Best to stay out of the store all together than to make up excuses as to why one went in there in the first place.
I admit I'm guilty of holding two or even more contradictory beliefs in my mind. This isn't hard to do in todays society, I reckon. I've been working to correct this for sometime now however.
I believe I've made some positive steps in this direction, it wasn't to awful long ago that I wouldn't have even considered questioning our leaders motives at all!
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 ...
Okay I think I get it now!
So what your saying is that just because we disagree with the practices of a cruel dictator or a terrorist oraganization that has a record of abuse, torture and murder. That we should be able to overlook these traits because the big picture tells us we really need those bases in order to launch attacks against another cruel dictator that has a record of abuse, torture and murder because we found it easy to overlook his record of abuse, torture and murder becasue we really needed his help in fighting against another cruel regime that had a record of abuse, torture and murder because we outsmarted ourselves by replacing a cruel dictatorial regime that had a record of abuse, torture and murder with a puppet regime and the people gave them the boot and replaced the puppet government we installed with a cruel dictatorial regime and cut the supply of oil to our friends. Is that about right?
Massacre in Uzbekistan
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?