onetime2

So, who do you believe will change this situation SB? Personally, I think the US should become more of a world policeman. The kind of shit that goes on in probably a quarter of the countries on earth should be stopped. Of course, the first outcry will be from liberal activists claiming that the US is trying to take over the world, bend others to their will, impose western ideologies in otherwise wonderful societies, etc.

In reality, where will the support come from for this? Let's say Bush turned around tomorrow and said "This is unacceptable, we will liberate the people of Uzbekistan." What would our "allies" have to say about it? Will France, Germany, and the UN stand behind the decision? More importantly, will they get off their asses and supply troops?

Where is the oh so wonderful UN in this situation? Haven't you decried Bush for not allowing the UN to tackle the situation in Iraq? Why should it fall on Bush alone now to do it? Is it mostly because you like to target Bush's policies or is it because you would sincerely like to see the situation changed? If it's the latter, stop primarily bashing Bush and discuss the merits of the situation.

I am not familiar enough with our relationship or the stability of the Uzbekistan government to say we should have no dealings at all with them. Perhaps it's a case where we can use a carrot to initiate change rather than the big stick? I don't know. But I do know that just blaming Bush and his contemporaries is counterproductive and ingenuine. After all, weren't there Democrats who also condoned our relationship with Iraq?

And, on a final note, what do you think about the need to continue to dismantle the nuclear weapons within that country? Is that not an environmental and security risk that needs to be addressed? Perhaps that takes a bit more precedence than the human rights abuses. This in no way is to minimize the abuse, but simply to put it in perspective.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.