Reassess, yes, always reassessing. Still reading your anthology of information. Thanks for fulfilling my request.

The problem is deciding who is best at deciding what monsters cost more to support and what monsters cost more to ignore. Its not black and white, and it isn't very easy.

I saw this quote today when I was reading recent things about Bush. This is a little anger rant by me.

Utter, stinking, lies. Unless he stopped supporting the torturous regimes in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

God I want to punch a hole in the wall when I think of what a two faced -evil- person. Such a blatant hypocrite.

Unless as a President you stick to those ideals the best you can, and he didn't, you CANNOT claim them and try to pass it off to the american people as your values.

Do you hate FDR for the alliance with Stalin? Did you hate Clinton for enabling North Korea ablity to developing Nukes?

FDR did a wartime alliance with Stalin. We were both at war with the same man already, trying to keep the entirety of europe being overrun by Hitler.

That is completely differenty than allying with someone by giving them 500 million in aid a year.

So we were not at war this past year?:rolleyes:

Was Uzbekistan helping us get rid of Saddam?

Would we have been unable to do so without Uzbekistan's help?

Would Bush have cancelled his support of the regimes in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea if there had been no war?

That is the difference between FDR and Bush.

I see what you're saying superbelt. You can't make all these swell sounding endorsements of support for fundamental human rights while helping despots who regularly commit crimes against humanity.
That is one of the reasons that the humanitarian justification for the iraqi war doesn't hold water. You can pretend that america is all about the proliferation of democracy and the protection of human rights, but unless you tack the phrase "when it suits america's strategic and economic goals" on the end of those ideas your being deceptive by way of omission. America is a fair-weather friend to democracy and human rights.

Well said...

So you are saying that the solution to "American interference with national sovegerinty" is to invade MORE nations? How very unleft of you?

That is an excellent thing to say. I am going to pay a lot more attention to your posts henceforth.

Umm, somebody check Hannity's room for pods. Clinton did not "enable" North Korea to build nukes. Clinton, if he did anything, kept the North Korean nuclear program at a research level while he talked with them. Only after Bush gave the Kirk vs Klingons speech did they produce any nuclear weapons. That would be when they had a demonstrably hostile overwhelming force, given to preemptive action, but largely deterrable with nuclear weapons making threats.

Harry Truman screwed these guys after WWII and screwed them again in their own back yard. They are about 25 years behind the rest of the world ideologically and technologically, and have a justified xenophobia. One of Truman's successors starts making noises that might lead to fighting? They aren't going to get screwed twice the same way.

Now, that isn't to say that they're not screwing their own people, just that there are better ways to tell them not to do that than, "Knock it off or we're gonna clobber you again," as Bush seemed to be gettin to. Like how Clinton did it.

<b>Superbelt</b>, Great posts! Sorry for the digression.

Clinton TWICE told them to knock off nuke production, while giving them more money. Twice they ignored the terms of the deal and used that money not to feed their nation, but to build weapons. This was done in 94, and 98. Getting nukes and building plants didnt just happen with Bush. Nice revisonist history there.

You got us Endy, That should teach us for trying to convince people NK built a nuclear reactor AND created a nuclear bomb in under 3 years.

Lets get back to our revisionizing Liberals!

This is just another one of Moore's sad attemts to discredit Bush in any way possible

Yeah, but you guys would have screamed bloody murder if we decided to take on NK anyways. We've been using words for 11 years with Iraq about their WMD's and the left still bitched about not giving diplomacy a chance. Imagine what they'd do if we were in a situation where that was actually true.

It would be something if not the inability to find the actual weapons or not giving diplomacy a chance, there's never a shortage of something to bitch about in politics.

That said, Iraq was probably the path of least resistance. Both militarily and politically.

Anyone with half a brain would scream bloody murder if bush chose to take on north korea. Anyone who would label iraq a quagmire would have a field day with nk. Maybe nbc could revive M.A.S.H. for a whole new generation. Might make for some compelling tv.

There were plenty of righties who complained about bush's plans in iraq, including i believe the elder bush. You can pretend that it was only the left who complained, but then you couldn't accuse anybody of revisionism without being a hypocrite.

I agree that there is never a shortage of things for people to bitch about in politics, but you must realize that nitpicking is always a bipartisan affair. Don't try to claim that it is only a function of the left.

The invasion of iraq is only the path of least resistance if it turns out that iraq actually posed a threat to america. Hardly seems that way to me. Though i was under the impression that we(america) aren't in it for ourselves, we're in it to liberate the oppressed peoples of iraq. ;)

NK a quagmire? You think they would fair better then Iraq? The only problem now as then would be china, and even china can't stand up to us right now.

N. Korea has one of the largest standing armies in the world.
I think they rival our own in ability. No way in hell does N Korea go down the way the pathetic army that was Iraq did.

They have a large unfed and ill-equiped army, like Iraq 11 years ago. We would crush them, and then question their sexuality as a nation.

Seems familiar.

I seem to remember a large modern army getting stuck in a quagmire fighting a large, unfed and ill-equiped army through the jungles in recent history.

And there are 1 million standing men and women in N Koreas army. And many more able to be conscripted at a moments notice.

We are strained just trying to send 120k troops to Iraq.

40 years ago isn't recent, I don't know of any jungles in Korea either.

Well said...it's too bad more people don't realize this fact.

What are you saying, NK was making plants and researching bombs for the whole time Clinton was funding them? Are you denying this?

It's mostly mountains actually.
Anyway, I'm sure we would be kicking their ass up and down the Korean peninsula, but I am also sure we would be inflicted with enough casualties on our own side to serve as the death knell for Bush.
The war would not be easy, and would not end for a very long time.

And too bad for the liberals that most Iraqis see the war as a means to a better life, a means to a better future. So I guess you cant argue with results, unless you are a democrat.

I don't understand, what does that have to do with anything? Oh, i see, it is just one of those offhand-irrelevant comments meant to incite anger in the other side. FEL, is that you?

I'm confused. Are you agreeing that america's interest in democracy and human rights is mainly a superficial, convenient one?
-or-
Are you somehow trying to argue for people to ignore america's lack of a serious interest in human rights because it allows another, convenient, reason to justify a questionable(by both conservatives and liberals) military action after the fact?
-or-
What?


Maybe i am confused, but it seems to me that the conservative ideology is very focused on the individual's ability to determine their own fate. Social welfare and assistance are frowned upon. Its either help yourself or go fuck yourself. Because of this whole "i gots to gets mine" attitude, i find it extremely ironic that it is mainly those of conservative slant who claim to care the most about the welfare of those poor oppressed iraqis. Then, many of these same people, after shedding many a tear and braving many a sleepless night in quiet contemplation of the oppressed iraqi go on to justify the U.S. endorsement of other despots(uzbekistan, equatorial guinea) because it is more convenient right now to ally ourselves with despots.

Nope I am saying that we did what we had to do, and we did it in a well planed and well thought out way. And in the amount of time we have seen enourmous results. And yet the American liberal and democrat still can not see the forest for the trees, and chooses to spit out nonsense.

The plain truth is that poll after poll has shown that the average Iraqi now sees Iraq as a place of hope, and the American liberal refuses to acknowlegde that we did a good thing.

The forest: Massive suffering in Uzbekistan, 'justified' and assisted with Bush money.

The trees: An Uzbek who gets boiled alive, the Uzbek who gets beat to death the day he was supposed to be released from prison.

Superbelt can not win the "Iraq was Wrong" argument so he commits the fallacy of changing the subject.

You should run for office as a democrate, you would fit in with the rest of the canidates.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1108-02.htm

Published on Thursday, November 8, 2001
Uzbekistan: Bush's New Best Friend
by Frida Berrigan


I found this article to be typical of the " Uzbekistan is our best friend argument that Superbelt spits out every time he looses an argument.

I would say that in America's best interestests, we are doing what needs to be done. Considering this nation's location, and the fact that this article show that we are giving them ( gasp) almost 5 million dollars! So we can put troops their to look for taliban terrorits, this is clear proof that Bush is evil!

Read this artical and notice is left slant. Even with a pro left slant the writer has no leg to stand on. 5 million a year so we can have green berets carry out missions that will hopefully bag some escapped Taliban, while allowing us airspace to conduct our management of Iraq.
Superbelt needs a few lessons in global politics and I assume he never heard the phrase " politics brings strangbedfellows" or is it war brings strange bedfellows?
Either applies.

I could pick any cesspool nation that America has given a dollar to and use it as "proof" that Bush is evil, but all that would do is show my ignorance.

Excuse me? The subject of this thread is us making monsters and has been about Uzbekistan as well since the first page.

I have also said, what we did just now, was right. How we did it, was wrong.

That article is two years old. We are giving them 500 million dollars now. That is substantially different, though neither can be defensible.

Ok, think about it this way. Lets say we didn't invade Iraq this year. Saddam is still in power. We are having "problems" with Iran. So we start giving Saddam 500 million dollars a year to train and equip his military and generally do whatever he sees fit with that money. He is still torturing and killing and "ethnic cleansing" his country. And starts using the brutal mustard gas on the Iranians again, with invoice slips that came from us, again.

Can you support that? Cause it's the same exact fucking thing.
Saddam and Karimov don't have a whit of difference between them.

How is that for your strange bedfellows and doing what is in Americas best interest? Where is your vaunted care for the welfare of the Iraqi people now?

Perhaps, if I need a lesson in global politics and am ignorant. You need a lesson in morality, human rights, and human decency.

One of the greatest minds of our time.

Human decency? If you had your way, Saddam would still be killing "theives and cowards".

The world is not black and white. To catch the greater evil, sometimes we need to make deals with the lesser evil. Is it right? No, its not. It plain sucks. But we do what we have to do to solve the problem at hand. I assume you would be happier ishould we make things harder for us to solve our problems? Had we not gone about this with the minimal losses that we did. you would be happier?

In a few years when Iraq, Afganistan, Libya ( hopefully Iran too, as they are talking with us now about inspections) Then we can deal with Uzbekistan.

Too bad we can not solve all the world's problems at once. But then if we did, wouldnt you and others scream that we are interfering?

We pick our battles, and solve them and move on. No one nation can do it all at once.

But that is not your argument, you know that. You just dont like the success Bush is having and want to malign it at any and every opportinity.

If I could, I would let you experience a Uzbek prison for a month. Maybe your icy heart would melt a little after you get electric shock torture a few times a week.

LOL is that what you are reduced too?

Endymon cannot win the "uzbek is right argument" so he commits the fallacy of changing the subject. You should run for office as a republican. You would fit in with the rest of the candidates.

The important thing to remember is that whenever faced with criticism from someone you don't agree with, call them a liberal and put words into their mouth.

Endy, how can you pretend to care about human rights and democracy on one hand and then turn around and express casual justification for the u.s. support of saddam juniors. If we were in some bizarro world where saddam was our friend of convenience(like the bizarro world of a couple of decades ago) you would be justifying our friendship to saddam because "politics make strange bedfellows". Do you realize that? Maybe i'm putting words in your mouth, but explain to me how that interpretation of your argument is wrong. Man, if i had a dime for every time i was labeled an "appeaser" by someone talking out of the right side of their mouth... Is it humid in here or is that just the irony?

Explain to me how anyone who shares your opinion on this matter can even pretend to put the spread of democracy and human rights ahead of political convenience?

Please don't bring up anything about the happy, newly liberated iraqi. I think we can all agree that they are better off. I 'm more concerned with your lack of concern about the hypothetical newly liberated uzbekistanian.

I guess you didnt read what I posted. I guess you two would be happy if liberating Iraq cost more human lives? The sad fact of this gray world is that you have to pick your battles and make deals. Its called politics. And democrates made deals with North Koreans and, Cubans and Chinese, that sucks too.
To make this war run as well as it did, we needed to deal with the lesser of two evils.
Like I Said before, and you two choose to ignore, is that once this mess is cleaned we can move to the next mess.
I like how people like Superbelt complain that we did this alone, which we didnt, and from the other side of their mouths complain that we made deals with other nations so we could do this?

So what is it? Should we do it alone or with someone ? Damned if you do, damned if you dont?

I say that the BUsh Adm is talking care of the biggest threats to Americans. So far, Uzbekistan is not a threat to us, or its neigbhors and a US backed invasion is not a reality. We needed access to its airspace, and land to stop a greater threat.
Its ugly, but its the way the world works.

Sorry everything is not simple, like you wish, ( and I wish too) it to be.
War is ugly, but sometimes its nessasary. And now, it looks like, and the people of America and Iraq agree ( if you believe the polls) that the world is now indeed a safer place. And part of making the world safer was dealing with Uzbekistan. Sucks, thats why being the President is a hard job. You have to choose the hard choices.

I guess you didn't read my posts.
Let me paraphrase: It is hypocritical for america to claim that civil rights and the spread of democracy are high priorities. Anyone trying to claim that our little excursion in iraq was more than just accidentally humanitarian is trying to sell you something. America, as evidenced by our foreign policy in uzbek and guinea and china and a whole slew of other nations, doesn't really give two shits about the spread of democracy and human rights for all.
You haven't really argued against this so i guess you agree.

I agree with you that many iraqis are better off, but i don't think you should pretend that "liberation" was any more than a positive side effect of our war. A convenient way to sell the war to the masses. "Operation iraqi freedom" is an easier sell than "operation put small, militarily insignificant, rogue nations on notice." I don't think that we are one bit safer, since al quaeda is the real threat, and as of late the only connection between obl and saddam is of the conspiracy theory sort.

I know nothing is simple, that politics is a dirty game, that is why i cringe when i hear the president claim that he is greatly concerned with the well being of foreigners, because he is not. He is concerned with protecting his vision of america's long term goals. Nowhere significant on that list is democracy and human rights for all. America may claim to be all for the spread of democracy, but america is only for america.

You are deluded if you think that the world is not a safer place. Saddam, a documented supporter of terrorism and invader, as well as mass murderer is gone. The man who controled the third largest oil reserves and all the power that comes with it is not in power.
Libya is playing ball, but its too early to see if they are for real. Iran is talking and looks to be willing to allow unannounced inspections. That leaves Syria and Pakistan to deal with.
Ask anyone, Bush said this was a long deal, and so far its paying off.
The world is safer. When fighting terrorsits, you take out the suppling nations. What is left is underfunded, undersupplied, un organised cells. This is Bush's plan and its an amazing success so far.
You are right, America is in it for America. Thats undenialble. And its in America's best interests to have the Middle East as stable, peace loving and democratic as possible. To sit there and think that taking out Saddam did nothing for America, and world peace is ignorant.
Untill Uzbek invades a neighbor, or sponcers terrorism, the United States will do nothing, as there is no threat to us, or to the region.
As long as Uzbek stays were it is geographically, it will be in the greater interest to deal with them as to make OUR job easier.
Like it or not, any president with a commitment to make the world safer will have to treat Uzbek this way, thats the sorry state of politics.
Same thing with Turkey, a nation that didnt treat the Kurds very well. They have something we need, we deal with them. Do I agree that it stinks? Hell yes. But to do nothing since we cant not do it all stinks even more.

Lets look at it this way. Should we not clean up our back yard if we can not clean the whole neighborhood? Can I not walk through my neighboor's dirty yard if it makes my cleaning job easier?
Does paying my neighboor for the use of his yard, to make my job easier, even though his yard is still dirty make my cleaning job less valid?
My yard is still clean at the end of the day, and there is one less yard that needs cleaning. Then we can move on to the next yard.


So you are saying that we should not clean any yard or clean them all at once. The first is unacceptable, the second is impossible. The realistic answer, do what we can now.

Sorry you think creating a hopefilled, stable, safe democratic nation is such a shitty thing.

Let me ask you since you care, do you toss out food when someone in the world is starving? Does that make you a hypocrite? Of course not.

America is dealing with the rouge nations, a job other well off nations are ignoring. We are dealing with Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afganishtan, and N Korea. And we are sucseeding. You can take no joy or happiness in this cause one nation is not being forced to comply. Thats pretty crumby. I tend to be glad that a difference is being made, bit by bit, by a President that has the balls to stand up and do something while others scorn and laugh while doing nothing about anything. Is he solving all the worlds problems? Nope, not even close. Not even Superman could do that. Is he making the world safer? Ask the Iraqis, ask the majority of Americans, ask anyone but Howard Dean and his shrinking minority of supporters. Hell even the other democratic canidates think Dean was wrong about this one.