Michael Moore - We Finally Got Our Frankenstein - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Conclamo Ludus · 12-15-2003, 02:01 PM

Thank you Superbelt. I'll read up.

About Rummy and Cheney:

How much of our policies do they actually dictate within their positions in the administrations they've served? Is this possible to know?

I know that the president is ultimately responsible for their actions, but I'm curious about how much they may or may not do on their own.

This type of stuff honestly pisses me off. I'm glad I am not in charge of international relations and have to decide who gets what and why from our country. It seems like a losing situation in many ways. Isolationism doesn't seem to work because as our countries move towards globalization, the problems of other countries eventually become our problems too, i.e. AIDS.

The propping up of dictators is a good way to get derailed later on. Like I said about Hussein ealier, I know its our mess, its unfortunate that it is our mess, but I'm glad that we are cleaning it up.

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 02:02 PM

little bit more,
All with independent sources.
http://www.rehberg.net/arming-iraq.html

Quote:

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)

Quote:

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15)

Quote:

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

[quot]March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10) [/quote]

Quote:

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

Quote:

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

Quote:

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

MUSTARD GAS. The same stuff they had been using for over a decade already to kill tens of thousands of their own people and Iranians!

Quote:

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 02:04 PM

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Quote:

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

Yet once they go into kuwait and start slaughtering people, and the UN threatens to go in... WE become the Knight in shining armor saving the poor Kuwaiti's from that evil man who we have but a passing relationship with.....

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

The propping up of dictators is a good way to get derailed later on. Like I said about Hussein ealier, I know its our mess, its unfortunate that it is our mess, but I'm glad that we are cleaning it up.

I really don't know how much they have to do policy wise, but they have held high level policy positions for a long time now. Reports on Bush are that he relies very heavily on his advisors. So things that we are doing in Uzbekistan and EG, I think they are almost entirely the product of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I agree that Saddam is our mess to clean up. We have to fix the problems those who came before us created. I agree with the action, but not the execution and reasons stated for doing it. I also don't agree with the leaders we have trying to take the "high road" on Iraq but still being scum regarding other countries.

And that is why this stuff pisses me off so much because I want to see us STOP creating these problems. I don't want my kids having to go into Uzbekistan and depose Islam Karimov 20 some years from now because we had a president who made the same bad decisions as his father. I want to show people why Bush must not be elected again, for this exact reason.

And hopefully, through the message boards I go to I can sway a few more people away from Bush.

Mehoni · 12-15-2003, 04:21 PM

Thanks Superbelt, great post.. and these were not as biased as the one I found.

Liquor Dealer · 12-15-2003, 05:59 PM

I've waded through most of this trying to figure out what many of you seem to see as being the your solution to the problem. What seems to come from this is that we should elect the ex-governor of the most rural state in the U.S. (http://www.vtchamber.com/about_vt/106.html) to the presidency. You and he tout his claim to experience and ability to govern to the fact that he was once the Governor of the State of Vermont. Not attempting to belittle the state of Vermont in the least, because about all I know about it is that maple syrup is produced there, but I don't see how governing a huge population such as this - approx. 600,000 people (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html) gives him anything approaching the ability to head the government of the most powerful nation on earth. His expression of his ability to deal with foreign policy, as was expressed today, might hint that a return to Vermont might be best for all concerned.

Sparhawk · 12-15-2003, 06:06 PM

The same was said about a governor from Texas, and a governor from Arkansas. I personally think that as long as the candidate has some executive experience, he'll do alright.

archer2371 · 12-15-2003, 06:23 PM

Hindsight is 20/20, none of us thought that the Soviet Union would fall as soon as it did. Not a single country, intelligence service, or newspaper did. So we saw Hussein, bin Laden and others as way to kill the Bear. We didn't create the Ayatollah of Iran, while we may have ignored the warning signs because we were focused on not glowing in the dark, we didn't create him. Like it or not, politicians in general take a very Machiavellian approach in dealing with affairs. They're more interested in getting things done now and the aftershocks be damned, we're the United Fucking States of America, we can handle anything. Well unfortunately when you cut back you're military and Human Intelligence you essentially tie your National Security hands behind your back. I can see where Moore is coming from, but on the other hand, he's a nut like Ann Coulter who is just out to make a buck and I hope people realize that.

Liquor Dealer · 12-15-2003, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
The same was said about a governor from Texas, and a governor from Arkansas. I personally think that as long as the candidate has some executive experience, he'll do alright.

Being Gov of Texas is a bit different from being Gov of Vermont - The city of Houston has four times the population of the state of Vermont - Then there's the other twenty or so million....

Superbelt · 12-15-2003, 11:50 PM

And see how Bush handled that state?

Houston passed Los Angeles as the most polluted city in the union.

And the school system of Texas has been abysmal.

The difference between Texas and Vermont may be large, but when you jump to the scale of the entire country, there is no experience that can compensate for that. The population differences between Texas and Vermont become moot at the Presidential level.

irateplatypus · 12-16-2003, 03:21 AM

i'm not certain that population levels are neccesarily a good meter for executive experience either, but...

most pollution regulations that effect particular cities are handled at the municipal level. the mayor of Houston for the past 6 years is a former Clinton administration cabinet member, and a staunch liberal.

http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/citygovt...biography.html

Also, I agree that Texas schools have their problems, but I believe that education standards improved during the then Gov. Bush's tenure from where they were when he took over. Yay Ann Richards! So yes, the system is still struggling, but at least it was improving.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 05:18 AM

How about some alternatives Mr. Moore? How do you (or your supporters here) propose that we deal with countries that we NEED to deal with that have "inappropriate" leadership? Shall we go in and "liberate" them militarily? Should we send cards encouraging them to give up their evil ways? Shall we simply cut them off from the rest of the world via embargoes as we did with Iraq for a decade?

Let's see, can't intervene militarily because then you'd label us bullies. Can't embargo them because then we're killing the innocent civilians. They aren't going to be swayed by pleas of "doing what's right". So, come on, enlighten us neanderthals about the proper way to deal with such countries.

Oh wait, I know, if it was a Democrat in the White House, those protests wouldn't exist.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 06:18 AM

We aren't the parent to the world. We can't just go change things because we see them as wrong.
That is why the UN is important because, flawed and political as it is, it is the necessary channel to do anything. Otherwise we become the planet dictator.

The solution to the problem is, we have enabled enough dictators already to rise to power and oppress their people, we need to stop. The best thing we can do is to stop aiding and abetting people we know are violating the ideal human rights we have for the people of the world.
Without us creating monsters, there will be much less suffering than we can ever alleviate by destroying monsters with our military.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
We aren't the parent to the world. We can't just go change things because we see them as wrong.
That is why the UN is important because, flawed and political as it is, it is the necessary channel to do anything. Otherwise we become the planet dictator.

The solution to the problem is, we have enabled enough dictators already to rise to power and oppress their people, we need to stop. The best thing we can do is to stop aiding and abetting people we know are violating the ideal human rights we have for the people of the world.
Without us creating monsters, there will be much less suffering than we can ever alleviate by destroying monsters with our military.

At the very least, not interfering allows it to continue. The UN is ineffective. At the first sign of trouble they pull out and rarely do they solve the problems they attempt to address. Monsters don't need our help to be created. In the vast majority of cases, we did not create the monsters, they were there and were the least offensive of the choices we had to deal with.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 06:28 AM

We have directly created (to the level of power they attained): Irans Shah, Saddam, Osama, Hernandez (Salvadoran Death Squads), Anastasio Somoza Garcia (Nicaragua) , Efrain Rios Mont (Guatemala) , Gustava Alvarez & Suazo Cordova (Honduras) , Noriega, Jean-Bertrand Aristide (Haiti), Islam Karimov (Uzbek), Taliban....

I could go on and on. Most of these people owe their power directly to the United States. They never would have overthrown their respective government without us.
They never would have killed the people they did, without us.
They never would have been in a position to rob their people or strip civil rights that we enjoy in america, as they did.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 06:32 AM

That's not true onetime2, several of the regimes the above monsters deposed were democracies. Others were communists, and the only reason we interfered was to slow the spread of communism, not for the good of the people.

The UN has been in India and Pakistan to try and keep the peace since the mid 50's. That is tenacity. And, I believe, the UN's track record is better than ours. Any good we have done since the UN was created is offset by the tremendous evil we have perpetrated in creating these beasts.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
In the vast majority of cases, we did not create the monsters, they were there and were the least offensive of the choices we had to deal with.

So, please tell me where the rest of the monsters we created are? "vast majority" is far from the few you point to.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 07:03 AM

Few? I gave you 11!
And those are just the ones I could get from memory. Mostly in, and most of, central american and parts of south america.

Anyone else want to chime in with some more names and situations they know of that we supported?

One more I remember, Castro.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Few? I gave you 11!
And those are just the ones I could get from memory. Mostly in, and most of, central american and parts of south america.

Anyone else want to chime in with some more names and situations they know of that we supported?

One more I remember, Castro.

I won't even bother debating all that you claim, as some were the most "favorable" option at the time, but even with the dozen you have named, how many countries have we dealt with? How many other people have we supported?

Do you really think the US prefers to put tyrants in power? Do you sincerely believe that, if a "good" alternative was available, we would choose the worst?

lordjeebus · 12-16-2003, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Few? I gave you 11!
And those are just the ones I could get from memory. Mostly in, and most of, central american and parts of south america.

Anyone else want to chime in with some more names and situations they know of that we supported?

One more I remember, Castro.

Pinochet and Idi Amin(EDIT: actually I'm not sure if the US supported Amin, perhaps not) immediately come to mind

EDIT:

Here's a list of 35 US-supported dictators -- clicking on their names explains how the US backed them.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaD.html

lordjeebus · 12-16-2003, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Do you really think the US prefers to put tyrants in power? Do you sincerely believe that, if a "good" alternative was available, we would choose the worst?

In sincerely believe that during the Cold War, the US believed it was better to give countries a dictator then to give them the freedom to choose their own government -- a choice that would allow them to choose communism.

Today, I believe that the US chooses leaders on the basis on what is good for the US over what is good for the country in question.

Of course one cannot be sure that the person chosen to rule a country will not turn out to be ruthless. But there is a solution -- the US can stop choosing other countries' rulers. The exploitation of US power to serve its self-interest through the manipulation of other governments is an intolerable practice.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 07:19 AM

I really think that if we can get a favorable deal out of someone that we would choose him over someone else.
Reagan used some of these men to overthrow several leftist democracies, because they were leftist. I can find the exact names out for you if you wish.

He also would choose a monster to take over a communist country. Reagan preferred a dictatorship over a communist country so close to america.

So, yes I believe we would choose the worst, for that region, but not to Reagans view of the world.

smooth · 12-16-2003, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I won't even bother debating all that you claim, as some were the most "favorable" option at the time, but even with the dozen you have named, how many countries have we dealt with? How many other people have we supported?

Do you really think the US prefers to put tyrants in power? Do you sincerely believe that, if a "good" alternative was available, we would choose the worst?

How do you claim that this coup against a democratically elected official was the better option than letting the citizens of a sovereign nation elect their own leader?

"The US Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, has released thousands of secret documents relating to covert operations in Chile before and during the period of military rule there.

Among the 16,000 documents is a CIA memorandum confirming US funded attempts to undermine the democratically elected Marxist president, Salvador Allende, who was overthrown in a bloody coup in 1973."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1022347.stm

I might as well post some more of the article in case people don't want to click on the link:

Quote:

"Earlier records showed that the US turned a blind eye to political repression against opponents of the military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, who came to power in the coup.

"Actions approved by the US Government during this period aggravated political polarisation and affected Chile's long tradition of democratic elections and respect for constitutional order and the rule of law," a White House statement said on Monday.

Covert aid

It is the third and final batch of CIA records to be released on the period of military rule in Chile, following a review ordered by President Clinton.

The release was ordered in 1999, to allow the public to "judge for itself the extent to which US actions undercut the cause of democracy and human rights in Chile".

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I really think that if we can get a favorable deal out of someone that we would choose him over someone else.
Reagan used some of these men to overthrow several leftist democracies, because they were leftist. I can find the exact names out for you if you wish.

He also would choose a monster to take over a communist country. Reagan preferred a dictatorship over a communist country so close to america.

So, yes I believe we would choose the worst, for that region, but not to Reagans view of the world.

Now, that's a different argument. We are now debating why one alternative was more favorable to another, rather than a blanket statement saying that "The best thing we can do is to stop aiding and abetting people we know are violating the ideal human rights we have for the people of the world".

In Reagan's mind, communism was a bigger threat than a piss-ant dictatorship. He reasoned that the "greater good" would be served by not allowing communism to spread and generate more resources.

I absolutely agree that the US has been VERY short sighted in many situations. That needs to change. I disagree that it boils down to never "propping up" a "bad" person. Sometimes you have to do it.

As far as whether Reagan was right or wrong about communism, that's an entirely different thread.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
How do you claim that this coup against a democratically elected official was the better option than letting the citizens of a sovereign nation elect their own leader?

"The US Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, has released thousands of secret documents relating to covert operations in Chile before and during the period of military rule there.

Among the 16,000 documents is a CIA memorandum confirming US funded attempts to undermine the democratically elected Marxist president, Salvador Allende, who was overthrown in a bloody coup in 1973."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1022347.stm

I might as well post some more of the article in case people don't want to click on the link:

Please reread my post. I did not comment on any of those situations. I merely put them in perspective against the hundreds or thousands of other dealings the US has had.

If you'd like to start a new thread about Allende, feel free. That's not what this thread is about.

smooth · 12-16-2003, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Please reread my post. I did not comment on any of those situations. I merely put them in perspective against the hundreds or thousands of other dealings the US has had.

If you'd like to start a new thread about Allende, feel free. That's not what this thread is about.

No, the thread is about creating frankenstein's. We are presenting evidence that our administration creates them for our country's own interests in disregard of the rights of citizens in foreign countries to elect their own leaders--not due to some untenable decision between two enemies, as you claim.

But after re-reading your post, the answer to your question is that the US does prefer to put tyrants in power when they will cater to the economic interests of those in power. I'm not going to start a new thread to post the evidence in support of that assertion--it belongs right here in this post. If I didn't put it in here, you would be demanding that I track it down as you did earlier to Superbelt.

While no one has mentioned democratically elected Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, our coups don't just extend to leftist regimes as evidenced by this source:

Quote:

In April 1967, a Greek election campaign was about to begin. The candidate favored to win the election was George Papandreou, a staunch anticommunist. His son Andreas was a bit more left-wing, an admirer of subversives like Hubert Humphrey and Adlai Stevenson. Both the Papandreous, however, were a bit too independent for US policymakers. Andreas Papandreou had mused publicly about steering a more neutral course for Greece in the Cold War. He also had some misgivings-correct ones, as it turned out-about the autocratic nature of certain elements in the Greek military. George Papandreou had previously served as prime minister, but had been removed from power in 1965 by the king, with the assistance of the CIA. Like his son, he showed signs of less than complete subservience to US interests.

Two days before the election campaign was to begin, a group of colonels overthrew the government and established military rule. The leader of the coup had been on the CIA payroll for the previous fifteen years
For the next six years, martial law held sway in the birthplace of democracy. Widespread censorship, routine use of torture, brutal beatings and killings by the government became standard. Among the offenses deemed worthy of torture was possession of leaflets critical of the government. While being tortured, victims were taunted that they were beyond all help, since the colonels were supported by the power of the United States.

The official justification for the coup and the hideous repression that followed was that they were necessary to save the nation from a communist takeover. The Papandreous weren't communists, of course, but they were something much more dangerous committed, independent nationalists.

The US attitude toward that breed is made clear by the following quote: When the Greek ambassador objected to President Johnson's plan for settling a dispute concerning Cyprus, LBJ told him, "Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good....If your prime minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitutions, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last very long."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...e_CIAHits.html

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 07:53 AM

And this has what exactly to do with the current President Bush and Saddam?

smooth · 12-16-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
And this has what exactly to do with the current President Bush and Saddam?

/sigh

I think you are being facetious, but I'll answer your question in case you are serious.

You essentially accused Moore and his "supporters" of being irrational without suggestions. I'm presenting the case that we have a long history of a hypocritical stance that we are standard bearers of democracy. Besides the point fact that we shouldn't be meddling with or overthrowing democratic elections abroad on principle, the evidence certainly suggests that these actions lead to the scenarios we are currently in.

The reponses you are giving me indicate that you are unable to connect our historical acts with our current foreign dilemmas. They are not due to some blind hatred for our freedoms, they are rational responses to being on the blunt end of decades of bloody, imperialist actions.

This refusal or inability to make these connections places us in a dilemma and lead many of our citizens to walk around stupidly proclaiming that we haven't done anything to provoke the anger many citizens around the world feel towards us. How can we stop pissing people off if we don't believe we are in the wrong?

You asked what us "lefties" would have us do. I'm answering that while we might debate another day on the merits of toppling bloody dictators, we certainly should agree that we ought not have a hand in creating them. Superbelt already raised the point that we are currenlty doing exactly that. Then you suggested that our actions were motivated by altruism. So far, I haven't seen you post any of the "many" leaders we've installed that have actually helped their native citizens.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 08:13 AM

This all boils down to, and is relevant to, (adding on to what smooth said) Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea, which President Bush is now supporting.

History has taught us that this WILL NOT TURN OUT GOOD. Not whatsoever. This has the potential to cost many american lives down the line much like Iraq is now.
I can safely say there is no moral argument in favor of supporting either of these countries. It's downright evil.

As such, as good people, we cannot vote for George W Bush again. If the next President, Dean, Clark... whoever does the same thing, I would again campaign against them to get the Republican voted in office. This is a big deal and any person with who thinks they have a strong moral fiber has to pay attention to this and determine for themselves if they need to oppose Bush for supporting these torturers.

Because to support Bush is to also support those decisions. You are supporting a continuation of what we are doing in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 08:14 AM

If you are supporting Bush, you are supporting this.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/uzbek060303.htm

and this

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-GNQ

PLEASE read both of these articles.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth

You essentially accused Moore and his "supporters" of being irrational without suggestions. I'm presenting the case that we have a long history of a hypocritical stance that we are standard bearers of democracy. Besides the point fact that we shouldn't be meddling with or overthrowing democratic elections abroad on principle, the evidence certainly suggests that these actions lead to the scenarios we are currently in.

The reponses you are giving me indicate that you are unable to connect our historical acts with our current foreign dilemmas. They are not due to some blind hatred for our freedoms, they are rational responses to being on the blunt end of decades of bloody, imperialist actions.

You asked what us "lefties" would have us do. I'm answering that while we might debate another day on the merits of toppling bloody dictators, we certainly should agree that we ought not have a hand in creating them. Superbelt already raised the point that we are currenlty doing exactly that. Then you suggested that our actions were motivated by altruism. So far, I haven't seen you post any of the "many" leaders we've installed that have actually helped their native citizens.

Hmm, I guess you're right, we have NEVER helped create leadership which is kind to its people.

Germany, Japan, Korea, Russia, more recently, Liberia are inconsequential. Go on thinking that all the US does in the world is create bloody dictators, that our interests are never to do what's best for the world, or that we should stay out of international affairs, but the real world doesn't allow us that luxury.

smooth · 12-16-2003, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Hmm, I guess you're right, we have NEVER helped create leadership which is kind to its people.

Germany, Japan, Korea, Russia, more recently, Liberia are inconsequential. Go on thinking that all the US does in the world is create bloody dictators, that our interests are never to do what's best for the world, or that we should stay out of international affairs, but the real world doesn't allow us that luxury.

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I'm answering that while we might debate another day on the merits of toppling bloody dictators, we certainly should agree that we ought not have a hand in creating them.

Edit: I was going to leave your post alone with my above response, but I'm going to post this to clear something up.

I already stated earlier that I'm not trying to "win" something on an internet forum, merely discuss ideas. That stated, I don't appreciate you building a strawman.

I never stated that the US government hasn't helped create kind leadership. I stated that we have historically installed tyrants that suited our economic interests--not because we had to do so, but because we wanted to.

The examples you cite were collaborative efforts to rebuild countries after multi-national wars--not instances of "leaders we've installed", with the exception of Liberia. I don't even know why you cited Liberia, but it doesn't particularly bother me because at least I now know who is paying attention to world events and I'll discuss these issues further with them.

Thanks for the time and I'm sorry that you feel the need to argue in circles with me. I tried to lay out my opinion and answer your questions in a straightforward manner, but you appear to not have read my responses.

2nd EDIT: added italicized words to clarify my point to onetime2.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 08:37 AM

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av063003.shtml

Quote:

On June 3, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published an advisory detailing the apparent torture death of Otamaza Gafarov, who had been due to be released in September after serving a seven-year prison term for stealing state property. According to the HRW advisory, Gafarov died May 3 – a day before the start of the EBRD gathering. "When they [Gafarov’s relatives] retrieved his bruised body, prison authorities told them that he died of a heart attack, although one guard told the family that Gafarov’s death ‘happened differently,’" the HRW advisory said.

...

"Attempts by Uzbek authorities to explain away the mutilated bodies they return to grieving families as the victims of ’high blood pressure’ or other natural causes have failed to mask an unrelenting pattern of torture and abuse," Smith added.

..

Subjects who withstand violence rarely go free to describe it. Mr. N. of Tashkent Province says the police threw him naked in the snow, and then dragged him across a floor. He endured the torture and refused to make a false confession. Nevertheless, he ended up being sentenced to a 14-year-prison term.

Islam Karimov and Bush
I wonder, did he look into Karimov's eyes to determine his character before or after he agreed to give him 500 million dollars this year.

Rumsfeld and Islam Karimov.
Repeating history.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20031207a1.htm

Quote:

After a month in Uzbekistan I was able to make up my mind. Uzbekistan is potentially a reasonably rich country, with oil and gas, gold and other metals and extensive high-quality cotton production. The benefits of these resources are, however, restricted to just a few families that support the exploitative economic mechanism established and maintained by the president and his cronies.

..

There is another difference between Georgia and Uzbekistan that makes revolution unlikely in the latter. This is that, while the United States is withdrawing its support for the Shevardnadze regime, reducing aid and putting pressure on him to allow fair elections, in Uzbekistan the U.S. is increasing its economic support for the regime and does not put any pressure on it to reduce its exploitation or to allow its people democratic freedoms. It makes no mention of fair elections.

..

As long as the government is supported by the U.S., as many other brutal dictatorships have been supported, there is no prospect of such justified and disenfranchised dissent turning into a successful revolution.

_____
Until we get someone in office who won't support this, and will instead put pressure on Karimov, we are complicit

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
So far, I haven't seen you post any of the "many" leaders we've installed that have actually helped their native citizens.

Funny, it doesn't say anything about ruling out collaborative efforts.

Quote:

Originally posted by smoothThanks for the time and I'm sorry that you feel the need to argue in circles with me. I tried to lay out my opinion and answer your questions in a straightforward manner, but you appear to not have read my responses. [/B]

Ditto.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 09:11 AM

onetime, tell me. On the issues of Uzbek and EG alone, what do you think of the morality? Don't take Bush's aggregate and average it out because to the Uzbeki's that is no consolation.

If you are a religious man, you know that one evil deed is enough, if you don't repent for it. Electing Bush based on Uzbekistan, for me, would be a major sin.

onetime2 · 12-16-2003, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
onetime, tell me. On the issues of Uzbek and EG alone, what do you think of the morality? Don't take Bush's aggregate and average it out because to the Uzbeki's that is no consolation.

If you are a religious man, you know that one evil deed is enough, if you don't repent for it. Electing Bush based on Uzbekistan, for me, would be a major sin.

I am not informed enough to make specific comment on Bush's part in these things and, in all honesty, will not cast my vote because of them.

My answer needs to stray from the thrust of this thread (creating monsters) as you bring up the reelection of Bush, so I feel I need to communicate why, at this time, I will back him in the next election. Maybe I'm out of line in going this route, but this is the route my brain started taking when you said that he should not be judged in aggregate.

I can only make a general statement of my feelings on why Bush, even with his faults, is a better choice than the alternatives. There are MANY disturbing and horrible situations in the world. Some we can exert direct control over while others we can't. Given these facts, there is no choice but to lump activities/achievements together to judge the overall level of “good” or “bad” done by an administration.

When I look at the alternatives to Bush, I see a general lack of resolve to do what it takes to fight the war on terror in the short term, and that is one of my key decision points. People can argue all they want that this war is wrong or that somehow we brought it all on ourselves, they can point to the assinine things that Bush does, they can call him stupid and a liar and whatever else they choose. But, there are two phases to the war on terror, in my mind. One is the short term. That includes attacking those institutions (whether governmental, financial, religious, etc) who encourage, support, and fund the terrorist groups who target us. These attacks need to have military, governmental, economic, and even religious components. There have to be consequences to those who are providing support, there can be no weakness in resolve for winning this war. Failure to follow through to an end in this first stage of the war will do more harm to US international effectiveness and homeland security than the backing of a hundred Karimovs.

I absolutely agree that our past actions have contributed to the current situation. I also believe that our past inaction has contributed at least as much. The short-term strategy, as I see it, is to rattle the terrorist networks. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have helped in this regard but there is still more to do.

The second, and probably more important phase of the war on terror is the long-term strategy. Part of this is a new focus on the Middle East and international policies that support human rights, and I dare say, nation building. Certainly we are nowhere near where we need to be in supporting human rights as you point out in your examples and other examples show. We are willing to deal with China and North Korea while basically ignoring their violations. This has to change but without success in the first stage of the war, the second is sure to fail.

Is Bush the right person to lead the second phase? If I were to put money on it today, I’d say no without hesitation. But, I would also say that the alternatives to Bush for second phase success would draw the same bet and I have little belief in their short-term performance. It’s my hope that Bush will succeed in giving the US a position of strength to work from. If he is successful in creating some semblance of Democracy in Iraq (especially without full international support and virtually no support from the UN) then we have a much stronger bargaining position. I further believe that a prosperous democraticish (yeah I made it up, but I’m still not convinced that it will be a true democracy) Iraq will put pressure on surrounding countries who currently sponsor terrorism.

The reality is that the UN will not come in to help in Iraq no matter who sits in the White House. They will cut and run as soon as the “insurgents” kill some of their workers or some of their troops. This will completely undermine the slice of success we’ve had in the wot by reinforcing the terrorist belief that we have no stomach for war.

I’m sure you disagree with many points in here, and I’m glad about that. That’s all part of what makes our society interesting. But, to get back to your question, electing Bush (or any President) is not about just Uzbekistan, it’s about the aggregate and so far, for me, the aggregate of Bush outweighs anything the Dems have to offer.

Ironcarrot · 12-16-2003, 12:43 PM

Michael moore rules, that is all.

Lebell · 12-16-2003, 03:11 PM

Superbelt,

Some of your better posts.

I find you much more convincing when you post sources and facts.

Ironcarrot · 12-16-2003, 03:13 PM

SB rules.

Superbelt · 12-16-2003, 03:42 PM

Thanks for the praise guys. This thread represents a fair amount of work on my part.

I would like to know if the information and arguments I have presented have got anyone thinking, and to what degree.
Was I able to convince anyone who previously was leaning Bush, to perhaps, at least reassess that?

I would especially like to know what Conclamo Ludus thinks, since it was he who solicited for this, really.

12-15-2003, 02:01 PM	#41 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Thank you Superbelt. I'll read up. About Rummy and Cheney: How much of our policies do they actually dictate within their positions in the administrations they've served? Is this possible to know? I know that the president is ultimately responsible for their actions, but I'm curious about how much they may or may not do on their own. This type of stuff honestly pisses me off. I'm glad I am not in charge of international relations and have to decide who gets what and why from our country. It seems like a losing situation in many ways. Isolationism doesn't seem to work because as our countries move towards globalization, the problems of other countries eventually become our problems too, i.e. AIDS. The propping up of dictators is a good way to get derailed later on. Like I said about Hussein ealier, I know its our mess, its unfortunate that it is our mess, but I'm glad that we are cleaning it up. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

12-15-2003, 04:21 PM	#45 (permalink)
Mehoni Insane Location: Within the Woods	Thanks Superbelt, great post.. and these were not as biased as the one I found. __________________ There seem to be countless rituals and cultural beliefs designed to alleviate their fear of a simple biological truth - all organisms eventually perish.

12-15-2003, 05:59 PM	#46 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I've waded through most of this trying to figure out what many of you seem to see as being the your solution to the problem. What seems to come from this is that we should elect the ex-governor of the most rural state in the U.S. (http://www.vtchamber.com/about_vt/106.html) to the presidency. You and he tout his claim to experience and ability to govern to the fact that he was once the Governor of the State of Vermont. Not attempting to belittle the state of Vermont in the least, because about all I know about it is that maple syrup is produced there, but I don't see how governing a huge population such as this - approx. 600,000 people (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html) gives him anything approaching the ability to head the government of the most powerful nation on earth. His expression of his ability to deal with foreign policy, as was expressed today, might hint that a return to Vermont might be best for all concerned. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!! Last edited by Liquor Dealer; 12-15-2003 at 06:03 PM..

12-15-2003, 06:06 PM	#47 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	The same was said about a governor from Texas, and a governor from Arkansas. I personally think that as long as the candidate has some executive experience, he'll do alright. __________________ "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."

12-15-2003, 06:23 PM	#48 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Hindsight is 20/20, none of us thought that the Soviet Union would fall as soon as it did. Not a single country, intelligence service, or newspaper did. So we saw Hussein, bin Laden and others as way to kill the Bear. We didn't create the Ayatollah of Iran, while we may have ignored the warning signs because we were focused on not glowing in the dark, we didn't create him. Like it or not, politicians in general take a very Machiavellian approach in dealing with affairs. They're more interested in getting things done now and the aftershocks be damned, we're the United Fucking States of America, we can handle anything. Well unfortunately when you cut back you're military and Human Intelligence you essentially tie your National Security hands behind your back. I can see where Moore is coming from, but on the other hand, he's a nut like Ann Coulter who is just out to make a buck and I hope people realize that. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

12-15-2003, 11:50 PM	#50 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And see how Bush handled that state? Houston passed Los Angeles as the most polluted city in the union. And the school system of Texas has been abysmal. The difference between Texas and Vermont may be large, but when you jump to the scale of the entire country, there is no experience that can compensate for that. The population differences between Texas and Vermont become moot at the Presidential level.

12-16-2003, 03:21 AM	#51 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i'm not certain that population levels are neccesarily a good meter for executive experience either, but... most pollution regulations that effect particular cities are handled at the municipal level. the mayor of Houston for the past 6 years is a former Clinton administration cabinet member, and a staunch liberal. http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/citygovt...biography.html Also, I agree that Texas schools have their problems, but I believe that education standards improved during the then Gov. Bush's tenure from where they were when he took over. Yay Ann Richards! So yes, the system is still struggling, but at least it was improving. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

12-16-2003, 05:18 AM	#52 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	How about some alternatives Mr. Moore? How do you (or your supporters here) propose that we deal with countries that we NEED to deal with that have "inappropriate" leadership? Shall we go in and "liberate" them militarily? Should we send cards encouraging them to give up their evil ways? Shall we simply cut them off from the rest of the world via embargoes as we did with Iraq for a decade? Let's see, can't intervene militarily because then you'd label us bullies. Can't embargo them because then we're killing the innocent civilians. They aren't going to be swayed by pleas of "doing what's right". So, come on, enlighten us neanderthals about the proper way to deal with such countries. Oh wait, I know, if it was a Democrat in the White House, those protests wouldn't exist. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

12-16-2003, 06:18 AM	#53 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	We aren't the parent to the world. We can't just go change things because we see them as wrong. That is why the UN is important because, flawed and political as it is, it is the necessary channel to do anything. Otherwise we become the planet dictator. The solution to the problem is, we have enabled enough dictators already to rise to power and oppress their people, we need to stop. The best thing we can do is to stop aiding and abetting people we know are violating the ideal human rights we have for the people of the world. Without us creating monsters, there will be much less suffering than we can ever alleviate by destroying monsters with our military.

12-16-2003, 06:28 AM	#55 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	We have directly created (to the level of power they attained): Irans Shah, Saddam, Osama, Hernandez (Salvadoran Death Squads), Anastasio Somoza Garcia (Nicaragua) , Efrain Rios Mont (Guatemala) , Gustava Alvarez & Suazo Cordova (Honduras) , Noriega, Jean-Bertrand Aristide (Haiti), Islam Karimov (Uzbek), Taliban.... I could go on and on. Most of these people owe their power directly to the United States. They never would have overthrown their respective government without us. They never would have killed the people they did, without us. They never would have been in a position to rob their people or strip civil rights that we enjoy in america, as they did.

12-16-2003, 06:32 AM	#56 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That's not true onetime2, several of the regimes the above monsters deposed were democracies. Others were communists, and the only reason we interfered was to slow the spread of communism, not for the good of the people. The UN has been in India and Pakistan to try and keep the peace since the mid 50's. That is tenacity. And, I believe, the UN's track record is better than ours. Any good we have done since the UN was created is offset by the tremendous evil we have perpetrated in creating these beasts. Last edited by Superbelt; 12-16-2003 at 06:34 AM..

12-16-2003, 07:03 AM	#58 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Few? I gave you 11! And those are just the ones I could get from memory. Mostly in, and most of, central american and parts of south america. Anyone else want to chime in with some more names and situations they know of that we supported? One more I remember, Castro.

12-16-2003, 07:19 AM	#62 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I really think that if we can get a favorable deal out of someone that we would choose him over someone else. Reagan used some of these men to overthrow several leftist democracies, because they were leftist. I can find the exact names out for you if you wish. He also would choose a monster to take over a communist country. Reagan preferred a dictatorship over a communist country so close to america. So, yes I believe we would choose the worst, for that region, but not to Reagans view of the world.

12-16-2003, 07:53 AM	#67 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	And this has what exactly to do with the current President Bush and Saddam? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

12-16-2003, 08:13 AM	#69 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This all boils down to, and is relevant to, (adding on to what smooth said) Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea, which President Bush is now supporting. History has taught us that this WILL NOT TURN OUT GOOD. Not whatsoever. This has the potential to cost many american lives down the line much like Iraq is now. I can safely say there is no moral argument in favor of supporting either of these countries. It's downright evil. As such, as good people, we cannot vote for George W Bush again. If the next President, Dean, Clark... whoever does the same thing, I would again campaign against them to get the Republican voted in office. This is a big deal and any person with who thinks they have a strong moral fiber has to pay attention to this and determine for themselves if they need to oppose Bush for supporting these torturers. Because to support Bush is to also support those decisions. You are supporting a continuation of what we are doing in Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

12-16-2003, 08:14 AM	#70 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	If you are supporting Bush, you are supporting this. http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/uzbek060303.htm and this http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-GNQ PLEASE read both of these articles. Last edited by Superbelt; 12-16-2003 at 08:19 AM..

12-16-2003, 09:11 AM	#75 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	onetime, tell me. On the issues of Uzbek and EG alone, what do you think of the morality? Don't take Bush's aggregate and average it out because to the Uzbeki's that is no consolation. If you are a religious man, you know that one evil deed is enough, if you don't repent for it. Electing Bush based on Uzbekistan, for me, would be a major sin.

12-16-2003, 12:43 PM	#77 (permalink)
Ironcarrot Upright	Michael moore rules, that is all. __________________ 'Bart don't use the finger of death on your sister dear.' 'Its so clean and bland, I'm home!' "I see you drive on the left side here.' 'No mam I'm just drunk"

12-16-2003, 03:11 PM	#78 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Superbelt, Some of your better posts. I find you much more convincing when you post sources and facts. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-16-2003, 03:13 PM	#79 (permalink)
Ironcarrot Upright	SB rules. __________________ 'Bart don't use the finger of death on your sister dear.' 'Its so clean and bland, I'm home!' "I see you drive on the left side here.' 'No mam I'm just drunk"

12-16-2003, 03:42 PM	#80 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Thanks for the praise guys. This thread represents a fair amount of work on my part. I would like to know if the information and arguments I have presented have got anyone thinking, and to what degree. Was I able to convince anyone who previously was leaning Bush, to perhaps, at least reassess that? I would especially like to know what Conclamo Ludus thinks, since it was he who solicited for this, really.