Superbelt

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl...asp?reg=AFRICA

This president had his opponents imprisoned and tortured, had his presidential predecessor executed by firing squad, helped himself to the state treasury at will. State radio recently declared him ''like God.''

And we open up our Embassy for him.

Remind me again why I can't catch a flight into cuba...


What happened to fighting for democracy worldwide? Like Bush said we were going to do last week? Wy reward something like this with recognition? Why have diplomatic ties? Why not invade to give these opressed people democracy like we did for Iraq?
I guess "change governmental behavior with direct contacts" means 2000 lb laser guided munitions for Saddam.

Why are we acting the same way with this guy as we are with Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan?


The lesson I learn from this is: It is not dangerous to be a horrible, human rights abusing dictator with oil. It is only bad if you don't allow America a piece of the action. Then we'll bust your ass open.

State/resource/relation

Iraq/oil/bad - bust his ass.
Guinea/oil/good - leave em be
Uzbekistan/oil/good - leave em be
Saudi Arabia/oil/good - leave em be
North Korea/none/bad - ignore

I see the pattern, can you?

Stare At The Sun

^ Yeah, the pattern is..."Politics" thats all it is. I don't even care anymore, i used to be so into it, now im just like "meh" this kinda shit doesnt suprise me at all.

j8ear

While I'm not totally sure whether the current North Korean/none/bad-ignore posture is the right one to have...the others definately show a pattern, that is:

Doing what's in the best interest of the US first, the world second. Sounds very reasonable to me. Very.

It also seems you learned a very important lesson.



over,

bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Superbelt

And that lesson also shows that Bush is a hypocrite. We build these relationships with clearly horrible regimes, yet Bush talks about wanting to nurture and build democracy across the world.
But what his actions show is he doesn't care for delivering democracy to the world. He says it to gain points with the voters. He turns around and supports the kind of situation that the Iranian islamic government was born out of. Supports the kind of thing that Saddams government was built on, supports the kind of thing that Osama Bin Ladin was built up by.

Bush is a danger to peace, world stability and goodness J8ear. Can you vote for him like that?
Bush IS an "evildoer."

It kills me to see him make the same damned mistakes (and clearly evident ones at that, even to him) that presidents before him have done.

apechild

Superbelt,
What would you say if Bush did pursue a policy of imposing democracy in every nation that has not yet embraced it?

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

That is an arrogant, stupid idea. We aren't the worlds police. And I would oppose it.

But we shouldn't be supporting these people by giving them aid (500 mil to uzbekistan) and national recognition by opening an embassy in their country.

But the point is, Bush said he wants to do that. And has flipped his reasoning for the Iraq war from WMD to freedom for the Iraqi's. But will still not do the same thing for the many other nations in a similar to worse situation. And in fact support them.

That's all Bush is about, hypocracy and/or lying.

apechild

You have the floor, Superbelt. What should we do?

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

The first one was me following Bush's stated endeavors to the people. Bush is saying now that Iraq was justified because we are giving them democracy (against most of their will). So, what I am saying, is if he would do that for Iraq, the non-hypocritical thing would be to do it for the Guinea's and Uzbek's as well.
I don't agree with it, I am just using it to show how Bush is, at best, inconsistent.

What we should do: Not recognize them, not give them money. sorting out nations leadership problems is not a job for any one nation. That is arrogant. The UN's charter is set up for just that purpose.

onetime2

You seem to imply that the hunt for WMDs was the only reason given by the Bush administration for the Iraq invasion. That's far from the case. Throughout the build up to the Iraq invasion, Bush pointed to several reasons why we needed to go in. As far as I can remember he never said that WMDs were the ONLY reason to oust Saddam. It was an oft repeated one but there were many others. Non compliance with the weapons agreements, firing at our planes, terrorist training camps, human rights abuses, etc were all mentioned repeatedly as well.

As far as the inconsistencies with regard to foreign relations, can you point to a single President who had a unilateral policy for all countries we have relationships with? Of course not. That's because not all regimes are the same and the way to deal with each is unique.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

apechild

I'll take this piece by piece.

First off, the stated objectives in Iraq were to remove a threat to the US. One of many secondary benefits in doing so was to introduce democracy to an oppressed people. This was one part of a much larger justification for war, and never has this stood on its own, as an exclusive objective of Bush's foreign policy.

As such, the hypocrisy argument does not work.

Nice try though.

Next, you claim we're giving the Iraqi's democracy "against their will." Is that so? While there is a violent and vocal minority that remains opposed to US intervention, I will submit that the vast majority of the 20+ million Iraqis that survived Hussein's murderous reign are generally fairly pleased with the alternative the US has shown them.

I agree that the US should take a more proactive approach in addressing other nations' human rights problems through diplomatic channels, and I agree that "sorting out nations leadership problems is not a job for any one nation," but, as I already mentioned, that is not something we have ever espoused.

So, unless you can show me where Bush has stated that he wants to go around toppling dictators just for the sake of toppling dictators, I'll assume you've got this crucial premise of your criticism dead wrong.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

Ooh you're right. The way to deal with a man who killed all his political opponents and uses the nations treasury as his own personal bank account is to open up an embassy in his borders.

While the way to deal with Saddam, who did the same things is to bomb him.

Superbelt

Seeing as how most of Iraq is inhabited by Shi'ites. (69%) A fundamentalist people who follow their clerics rigidly, I can tell you that isn't the case.

These people, the majority, want an islamic state on the level of Iran. That is far from a democracy.

apechild

Indeed, many do, but they would choose self-leadership over Hussein's murderous, "secular" regime any day.

That said, you're either missing or ignoring my main point. Care to address it?

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

He makes general aspersions to wanting to spread democracy around the world. But he doesn't make it a mission to topple every dictator.
But the comments he has made, from all the things he has said as president to date, especially his "War on Terror" would preclude him from ever entering a diplomatic relationship with either Uzbek or Guinea. That's what I am angry about. He is dealing with a butcher, an evil government.

apechild

So you're saying he appears to be inconsistent?

Fair criticism. That, we can discuss.

But next time, try not to get too cute with reckless innuendo and over-the-top rhetoric. It weakens your point.

Now, President Bush has emphasized repeatedly, both in regards to Iraq and North Korea, that he would never pursue any course of action until all diplomatic means have been exhausted. Tell me, how would his comments "preclude him from ever entering a diplomatic relationship with either Uzbek or Guinea?"

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

j8ear

I respectfully disagree. I do not believe that Bush is an Evil Doer by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is he in any way a danger to peace. What peace do you speak of btw?

I think it very possible that fostering cooperation between a repressive regime, enriching it and it's population, can result in a great democrativ civilization, IF you bring it beyond oil. Different situations call for different solutions. It also calls for being able to change courses should your solution fail.

bear

SLM3

Has that ever actually happened in the history of man? Since when have the people actually seriously benefitted from such an arrangement? These are top-down arrangements, always have been. The US would never allow a bottom-up arrangement, as they could never control it. Iraq would be the most pertinent example today.

You spout the effectiveness of real politik, but when has that ever created a democracy for the sake of creating a democracy?



SLM3

j8ear

Isreal. South Korea. Japan. Great Britian for goodness sakes. All of them have been effected by the US brand of democracy. Russia is coming along. Slowly but surely. Most of the Eastern Bloc of Europe is well along the way. There is progress still to be realized, but make no mistake, progress has been made. Democracies are emerging ALL OVER THE WORLD as a direct result of US involvement.

I am very serious though about bringing it (them, us, the world) past oil. Everyone must realize this. As our dependancy on it increases, its abundance decreases. Doesn't anyone else see this as dangerous? Those we (the US) interact with must also realize this and move themselves beyond OIL as a profitable source of domestic product.

I'm not sure what creating a democracy for the sake of creating a democracy means. Nor frankly do I understand the comment about real politik? (is that some veiled allusion to a communist state)

To me Sparhawk (or is that Superbelt?) is up in arms because the US gets in bed (again ~sigh~) with despotic regimes in the hopes of oil. Rightfully so. I'm kind of up in arms myself. But what the fuzuck...it happens. It will happen. This is because of the US first, world second mentality that exists from the US. Hopefully EVERY country has their own version of this exact same foriegn policy. Use your might, if you have any, to do good things. I think, by and large, the US, GWB included are doing good things. Improving the world.

GWB has his own demons elsewhere. Domestically. He is busting the treasury big time, and eroding the very liberties he swears to expose the world to. This will ultimately prove his achilles heel.

over,

bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Sparhawk

There's going to be a lot of waiting and seeing in the coming months to see if Bush follows up his pro-democracy speech with deeds. He's not off to a good start with this.

__________________
"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."

SLM3

Here's my concern with what you're proposing.

Basically, real politik is the practical implementation of realism. It's how states who subscribe to realist principles practice politics. You're obviously a believer because your comments on "US first, World second" is exactly what realism is all about. A state's interests are of paramount importance, and whatever means is necessary to meet those interests is justified.

With this in mind, you can see how I'm skeptical about the good deeds the US touts it's doing. This is because there's no room for allocating resources to something that isn't going to further their interests. That's what I mean "democracy for the sake of democracy". The US couldn't care less about nations being democratic, as long as the current government (whatever it is) stays in line with US interests. Saddam stayed in line for a long time, and as soon as he stepped too far he was eliminated. Now, he could have been taken out after the first Gulf War, when his own people were rising up, but the US left them to be slaughtered. Why? Because, as I said earlier, the US couldn't control a bottom-up reformatting of the Iraqi political system. It wasn't in its interests.

Realism is pretty much the rule of the day at this point. Democracies are created by accident as the side-effect of something else, or because they'd be more compliant than what is currently in power.

SLM3