Superbelt

They don't learn/want to learn.

Article out of the DailyKOS

Uzbekistan, Bush ally, boils dissidents

Even as the Bushies and their allies ranted against Saddam's brutality, torture victims, human rights violations, etc., I ranted about the same from some of Bush's closest allies. I particularly focused on Uzbekistan -- the world's most repressive regime post-Taliban, and a beneficiary of Bush's hugs and kisses (to the tune of hundreds of millions in military aid).

You can read about it here, here, here and here.

Well, it seems that at least some are waking up to the brutal regime Bush considers a friend -- a regime that makes Saddam look like a teddy bear:

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death [...]

Hakimjon Noredinov ... became a human rights activist after a morgue attendant brought him his eldest son, Nozemjon. He had been left for dead by the security service but was still alive despite having his skull fractured. Nozemjon is now 33, but screamed all night since they split his skull open. He is now in an asylum, Mr Noredinov said. "People's lives here are no better for US involvement," he said.

"Because of the US help, Karimov is getting richer and stronger."

Richer to the tune of $500 million last year, including $79 million to the torturing security forces themselves.

And ironically enough, all of those wingnuts and chickenhawks -- the same people that were oh-so-concerned about Saddam's brutality -- can't bother themselves with caring about the suffering of the Uzbeki people.

But just watch -- 10-20 years from now, when we suffer the inevitable blowback and have to go to war against Uzbekistan, those same wingnuts and chickenhawks will accuse the Left of "coddling" the Karimov dictatorship. We'll be "objectively pro-Karimov".

Funny how things always work out that way.

--------------------
So what did Bush learn from what his daddy and daddy's Mentor created in Iraq? Nothing. Does he really care about human rights? About the plight of the oppressed muslim? Nah doesn't look like it from here. You know he has this information.

Here is the source for alot of that stuff: State Dept on Uzbekistan


_______________________________
Rumsfeld Shakes Uzbekistan Dictator Karimov's hand (very big pic)

Reminds me so much of this one

It's eerie isn't it?

I think we will be bringing this reenactment of the original several years down the line when we go into "liberate" this brutal regime. Just for a little context.

Dragonlich

Not trying to dispute the horror that is Uzbekistan or anything... but saying the regime there makes "saddam look like a teddybear" is just silly. 600 politically motivated arrests compared to the thousands murdered each year under Saddam... Uzbekistan's regime doesn't even stand a chance of getting close.

Superbelt

I wonder if Saddam boiled his dissidents to death....

Mojo_PeiPei

Actually yes, he was extremely fond of acid baths. Or right before he went to war with Iran, he captured a shiite cleric. They set his beard on fire, nailed nails into his head, and made him watch while they rapped his sister.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Arc101

Any oil is Uzbekistan ? That is the most important question !

Mojo_PeiPei

No Arabs.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Superbelt

Actually they have alot of oil, though not dominant in their economy as it is in Iraq.

And the nation is primarially Muslim.

smooth

my goodness, do you only pay attention to things when they hit FOX?

-- http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/uzbekistan.htm

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Zeld2.0

Wowowowow Mojo no arabs rofl wowowowow

So you're saying our war was against arabs only?

Only confirms my own suspicious sire!

Asshole Lover

OOOoOooOOOo

i think it was not as easy as it looks. the gov. ain't giving us all the details. so i dont always believe the play by play from the journalism.

__________________
smells like ass, tastes like _______.

Mojo_PeiPei

Actually it was one of the major reasons for the war in Iraq. Bush was sending a message to the Arabs also referred to as the "kick the Arabs in the ass domino effect".

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

ctembreull

Sure. The first domino was the utter rejection of U.S. policy by pretty much the entire civilized world. The second domino was the utter and laughable failure to eliminate Saddam Hussein. The third domino was the ridiculous aircraft-carrier declaration of victory, proving to the universe that George W. Bush is a stupid fuckhead. The fourth domino was the continued attacks on U.S. troops, causing casualties that have exceeded those suffered by our troops before that flight-deck ego masturbation exercise. The fifth domino was Colin Powell going to the United Nations with his hat in his hand, begging for troops and money from the very nations we so spectacularly dissed a few months ago (and continue to disrespect even today!). The next domino is anyone's guess.

Some domino effect, huh?

(Btw, Mojo, thanks for fixing your sig. I was wondering how long that one would take...)

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah someone pointed it out... hehe boy was my face red.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

1) Oh you mean the EU? Cause it wasn't in their interest to keep the status quo in Iraq, I mean France's Oil firm TotalFinaElf didn't have a 60 billion dollar oil contract. Besides the fact that the EU has openly admitted one of its purpose is to curb the American geo-political influence.
Oh you mean that diposed ex-dictator that is stuck in hiding? Oh ok.

Yeah well no arguing with that....

Did you expect it to be a cake walk? Besides Aslong as governments of Jordan, Syria, and Iran are doing nothing to curb the flow of insurgents we are stuck to deal with them on our own.

The nations that we disrespected???? This whole ordeal showed us who our real friends were, it revealed the French and Germans for the true thankless cowards that they are. Three times this last century we bailed out France. And what the fuck were we doing in Germany for the last half of the 20th century? Were we there for shits and giggles? The war in Iraq was all about agenda's we had our's, they had their's. Don't think that they were on some morally rightous crusade, they were self serving their own interests.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

Mojo wrong wrong wrong.

The EU countries are the same ones laughing at us now because we need the UN when we said "fuck the UN."

See what hte short term does? The country that is crawling back on their knees right now is the U.S.

The U.S. even said it would be willing to REVISE its plans just so France and Germany would accept!

Oh man where did all that honor we said - oh wait it went out the door.

Mojo if you want to read a book on why shit like this happens, read some histories on why World War I started. Its a good idea and shows how the balance of power in the world works.

The key is to stay in the majority or later you will get bent over.


--

Oh and I'd like to point out that it was the repub's who said Iraq would be the cakewalk. The "haha i told you so war is over" is now the "so what it was supposed to be hard."

yeah right, if the board wasn't reset, you could see when the other convo's were going on over the issues and the ones who warned of it happened to be "those damned liberals"

'i told you so?'

Mojo_PeiPei

I realize the after the fact situation Zeld, I am not refuting that. I was merely talking about the situation leading up to the war.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Nitro

That was exactly the reason why so many people in europe rejected the idea of helping in this war.
They thought the US was just in iraq for their own agenda and not WMD, anit-terror or liberation of the iraqi people.

Yes of course they were serving their interests just like the US was.
All the moral justifications of the US have melted down to nothing. Moral was not so much cited by the europeans before the war. For the people on the street it was more like we don't buy the story like the US tells it.
Europeans saw their continent in pieces through wars twice in the 20th century because of mistakes they made. Families wiped out and homes destroyed. You don't go to war lightly if you have gone through this.

Superbelt

Torture increasing in Uzbekistan
US keeps Military programs in Uzbekistan.

Support Bush, you support this.

Mojo_PeiPei

Or if you have illegal weapons-for-oil deals, lucrative pending contracts, and a wish to curb U.S. global influence. So basically you have the frogs and the crouts enabling an evil despot and further perpetuating said evil.

Back on Topic Superbelt is right about all this Uzbekistan drama. America both democrat and republican alike has a horrible track record in regards to getting into bed with dirty tramp nations. However putting it all on Bush is just ridiculous and only goes to show that you are so blind and bloodlusted in your hatred of Bush that you will throw anything you can at him.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Sparhawk

I think what Superbelt is trying to show is that these things have consequences.

Eisenhower's policy in the 50's led to the Iran problems we faced in 1979-81.

Reagan's policy in the 80's led to the Iraq problems we face today.

I don't know what the world of the 20's is going to be like, but thanks to policies like Bush's Uzbekistan policy, I'm guessing it isn't going to be pretty.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Mojo_PeiPei

Uzbekistan is not going to be anything Iran/Iraq/<insert S. American dirthole country>/<insert random shithole African country>. The biggest reason is because the Soviets are gone, thats not to say that were the sole root of our problems, they were basically the main reason we were getting in bed with people like the Shah and later (in a different context) Saddam. Uzbekistan doesn't really have anything that we need or want. We take about 4.2% (2002) of their total exports, and we only account for 6.9% (2002) of their total imports. I'm sure people might throw out oil or pipelines, but I don't buy it.

Here is the factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/uz.html

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Endymon32

Yes it has lots of oil actually. So if we do do anything you can watch as people shout its all about oil.

Superbelt

There are several things we need and want from Uzbekistan. The first is use of their land for military operations and flyovers. Others are speculation; possible oil pipelines that would go through their territory and oil extraction from their nation itself.

Also, to Mojo, Clinton had a previous relationship with Karimov himself. He had met with the man as well and was giving him about 5 million dollars a year. Mostly for the same reasons that Bush wants to be there. Bill wanted a military presence close to Afghanistan because of the threats from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

And if I had that knowledge going into '96 I wouldn't have voted for the man either.

I have three big issues. Environment, promoting a fiscally sound national budget (including real paying down of the debt) and admittedly my mew in the past year issue, Staying away from supporting and creating these monsters. Yes I am an idealist. I won't vote for a man who does this no matter the reason.

You need to be reconciled with me on all three to get/keep my vote.
To me Bush has failed at it all.

Dragonlich

Superbelt: What do you see as "supporting ... these monsters"?

For example, would investing in China support their (evil-ish) government? How about Russia, with their internal war against seperatists/terrorists? What about buying oil from dictators in the middle-east?

I think that although your principle is good, the reality is that it's simply impossible to stay 100% pure in this matter. And don't forget: even Saddam seemed to be a good guy at first.

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.

Superbelt

I see China and Russia in a different light. Trade and support for nations like those can be done if we at the same time are putting pressures on them for improvements for continued or increased levels of support. But it has to be real pressures.

Giving 500 million to the nation and 79 million to the torturing agencies themselves and at the same time waiving the rules that required improvements in the country's human rights record falls squarely in the definition of: "supporting ... these monsters", and helping them become more of a monster.

Saddam never seemed to be a good guy. He started his career as an assassin and kicked off his first day as president by executing dozens of members of the Iraqi Parliament who opposed him, and video taped it for the world to see.

It is possible to stay 100% pure. You can give out some select money to people with questionable rights with the understanding that it comes with human rights, or other important issue strings. You don't give it to people who are Saddam/Hitler brutal and waive rules for human rights improvements.
You also build an international coalition (with a president who hasn't pissed off most of the developed world) of industrialized nations who will draft rules and regulations to further this goal along and ostracise any industrialized nation that does not follow suit.

When you do something like this, and I firmly believe most of the civilized world would want something like this, then no one is burdened by going it alone. This way one nation couldn't skip a handicap and deal with a repressive regime to enrich themselves at the expense of people

onetime2

The problem is, that without this "support" you will have a rogue nation with nuclear weapons looking for money that has cultural/physical links with nations that, if not directly supporting terrorists, have underlying popular support for attacks against the US.

The deal with China is far more economic in nature and I see that as being worse. Basically, we will look the other way based on economic interests. With Uzbekistan it seems to be more of a we'll look the other way for security reasons.

Let's say worst came to worst and the world community decided that Uzbekistan had to be invaded to remove the leaders from power. Certainly we have learned that the borders could not be adequately secured to prevent the movement of people or weapons. This would mean that world safety could be compromised as nukes are transported out of the country. I'm not so sure other countries would accept this risk.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

I'm sure your position would change if you were a Uzbek refugee who saw his whole family boiled alive for dissent.

Uzbek is a hard up country. Money does a lot of things for them. The money being used to disable their nukes should come with the requirements for human rights improvements. Not a waiver. At the same time this Islam Karimov gets cocky much the way Iraq and Kuwait have been knowing that they can do anything they want because they know they have Americas support behind them. They know we will provide cover for their operations.

This is the same situation as Iraq, from when we were friends.
We funded Iraq because they were a stated policy goal for our national security. And look what happened, they became much more dangerous to the world than Iran ever was and we had to put them down numerous times.

Without concrete improvements for human rights, we are still creating monsters, and history shows, that never has turned out well. I swear to God, we continue on this path with Uzbek, we will regret it one day.

onetime2

And I'm pretty sure your position would change if a dozen warheads started floating around terrorist circles after the Uzbekistan invasion. Or if one of those warheads destroys a city (whether in Uzbekistan or elsewhere).

Sometimes there is no way to change a situation in the short term and you need to make concessions with hopes/plans on how to change things when possible.

As far as Iraq, as pointed out many times before, it wasn't just the US who helped enable Hussein. In fact, it's quite possible he would have been able to build his army without the aid of the US. Having a big stockpile of oil to trade for weapons or cash to buy weapons is a pretty big enabler as well.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

Saddam did have a powerful friend on the UN Security Council in the USA to keep him free of any official sanctions. Plus we provided him with banking needs when the rest of the world cut him off for his abuses.

I think the situation with Karimov can be summed up as catching a kid running with his pockets full of knives. You pay him off to take them away from him. Maybe he keeps one or two you don't know about. He knows they are valuable to other people too. Shouldn't get rid of all your cards in one game you know. But because you refused to teach him a lesson to make him a better person, he instead learned the lesson that there are rewards for his behavior and he can basically run around doing whatever he wants. And big brother America will be there to back him up.... So, why not invade and claim the wealth and resources of their neighbors Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan? He, in some warped ways feels he deserves it. [Repeat Gulf War I]

Now, don't get me wrong. I think it's admirable to buy up these weapons. But don't sacrifice the ideals of this country, don't sacrifice the lives of real people to do it. There are ways to do both, and keep your soul.

onetime2

I just don't know that there are ways to do both right now. Do you think the US (and others) aren't pressuring them to change their activities? I'm sure they are. So, in a sense, they are doing both. It may not be the fastest route to ending the abuse but it may be the best route to accomplish both.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Sparhawk

Your idealism inspires me, Superbelt. Thanks for your posts in this thread - way too often politics sacrifices long-term safety over short-term policy. Hopefully we won't have to here...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Superbelt

Hmm, you may have missed the paragraphs in the article I posted earlier that states that we are not pressuring them to change. In fact, we are giving them a pass on improving their human rights record based on national security grounds.

There ya go. No pressure. Do as you please with you people.

onetime2

Yes, I'm sure that because it wasn't in the article it isn't happening. Every situation has public and behind the scenes actions this is no different.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

If he won't fix the human rights problems in his country with the human rights rules for our money in place, the ones that threaten to take the money away from him, what incentive will he have to improve after we give him a waiver on national security grounds?

He knows he has something we want, (military uses and nuke collections (And I wouldn't rule out oil securing, but that's minor)) and now he knows we want it enough not to care about how he runs his country.

Bush doesn't care. He waived the rules. He didn't give him an extension, he waived the rules.

onetime2

He waved the rules to allow for the payments to get rid of the nukes. The very fact that there is the ability to wave the human rights abuse rules shows that there are no teeth to the requirement of improving human rights. If you put conditions on supplying the money to destroy these weapons, what do you think will happen? Do you think they'll continue to destroy the weapons out of the goodness of their hearts? Nuclear warheads on the black market is a greater threat to the world than the human rights violations occuring in Uzbekistan. And before you go back to your standard response of "you'd think differently if it were your family being boiled alive", of course I don't want to see anyone boiled alive. But I also don't want to see a city obliterated by a nuke either.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

Resurrecting this topic to continue to show just how fucked up our leaders are to maintain favorable relations with Uzbekistan.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/21/uzbeki8604.htm

reconmike

Thousands demand end to NYC police brutality
by Daniel Vila
This article was reprinted from the Sept. 6, 1997 issue of the People's Weekly World. For subscription information see below. All rights reserved - may be used with PWW credits.


NEW YORK - This city witnessed the largest demonstration against police brutality in many years as thousands marched to City Hall Aug. 29.

On what was called a Day of Outrage Against Police Brutality and Harassment, the protesters were demanding justice in the case of Abner Louima, the Haitian immigrant who was savagely beaten and sodomized with a bathroom plunger by officers of the 70th Precinct in Flatbush, Brooklyn.

Demonstrators marched over the Brooklyn Bridge waving signs which read, "It's justice time, no bargain." At one point demonstrators covered the entire length of the bridge, three miles, while thousands gathered around City Hall. One march organizer estimated the crowd at 15,000 but many considered it was much larger.

George Ledoux marched the distance with his 2-year old son on his back. He said he was there so that his son will not have to face abusive cops when he grows up.

A woman who identified herself simply as Sandra told the World, "I live in Flatbush and am sick of all these murders and beatings which the police have subjected our people to for so many years. Something has to be done to stop those criminals dressed in blue."

The rally in front of City Hall began as marchers were still coming off the bridge. Speakers included a member of the Haitian American Alliance, which was one the organizers of the event, political candidates and relatives of victims of police brutality. Samuel Nicholas, Louima's cousin, said, "We could be looking at another murder statistic. But Abner Louima refused to die. He refused to die."

The president of the National Congress on Puerto Rican Rights, Richie Perez, in a voice choked with agony, read a list of the names of victims over the last five years. He said that in addition to voting and setting up an independent civilian controlled police review board, New Yorkers should organize another massive march to "shut down this city" and force authorities to eliminate police brutality.

The crowd covered City Hall Park and the avenues on both sides of the park. The demonstrators were peaceful but angry. The only incident occurred when cops began pushing and hitting a group which was performing street theater. Assemblyman Nick Perry witnessed the violent cops who were pulled back by other officers.

Louima is still hospitalized. The day before the march, his condition was critical due to an intestinal obstruction which resulted from his injuries, he underwent a second operation. His 7-year old daughter, who arrived from Haiti last week, was able to visit him on Sunday.

So far, four police officers have been arrested and indicted on charges of sexual assault and assault with a deadly weapon. They are all out on bail. Federal prosecutors are expected to take over the case, which would mean that federal civil rights charges could spread to other police officers who tried to cover up the case.

Since the assault on Louima, others have declared that they too have been victims of police torture at the 70th Precinct. Caribbean immigrant taxi drivers, who for years have claimed they were sodomized by cops in the borough of Queens, but were not believed, are now being listened to.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


link



Here is an artical that shows that Slick Willie had the NYC police beat, and sodomize this poor person.

See how absurd it is trying to blame leaders for acts of people in law enforcement.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Superbelt

Well thanks for that non sequitur.

I already know that there are some Bush supporters on this board who think it's alright to support another country busting some heads wide open to the semblance of some measure of increased national security. This thread is no longer for you. It is for people who care about american money and governmental support going into this abomination.

roachboy

take a look at michael klare's book "resource wars" for a good historical overview of the changes in american geopolitics with reference to energy supplies. it is interesting. with reference to iraq, i don't think this level of explanation adequate, but as a view of how things could well go in future adventures of american colonial warfare, check it out.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite