What we do with despots

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 19:33
VIEWED: 7760
PAGE 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:30 AM

I've heard that the real reason to get rid of Saddam (as opposed to the other reasons which were, perhaps, less real) was because he was a brutal dictator who delighted in torturing his own people. Much has been made of the plastic shredder, the ear-cutting, and so forth. Just to keep you all apprised of how the rest of our war on tyranny is going, I bring you this article on Islam Karimov, current head of Uzbekistan, whose repertoire includes boiling people to death, electric shock, beatings, fingernail removal, near-suffocations and so forth.

Our response has been to build a base in his country, give him aid, and send a steady parade of top officials to court him.

www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 7:18 AM

As far as I know, nobody there beat a certain somebody's dad (hint hint nudge nudge). So, sounds about right.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

MACBAKER

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
As far as I know, nobody there beat a certain somebody's dad (hint hint nudge nudge). So, sounds about right.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Beat him at what?

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

KNIBBLET

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:31 PM

Honey, he's "Our" despot. As long as he serves our purposes, we'll ignore everything. But, let him make the mistake of failing to do what we tell him to do, we'll label him a criminal and do away with him.

Case in point: Saddam Hussein.

We propped him up for years and supported him whilst he used chemical weapons on Iranians.
We called him all sorts of nice names when he was our butt monkey. Heck, we even have lovely photos of our government officials with him.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

But, as soon as he decided to think for himself ... OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:19 PM

We can’t fight all the little despots out there at once. And it does no good to pit them against us if we aren't going to fight them. It complicates matters that are already complicated. So we make diplomatic displays, and in return we get things like a base of operations and a nation that isn’t going to overtly try to throw monkey wrenches in our business while we are taking care of the despots that are currently at the top of the list. It’s actually a quite logical strategic maneuver. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We can’t fight all the despots at once, and some degree of strategic diplomacy is required to keep the other despots at bay.

But it’s not the little despots that I’m concerned with. It’s the big ones, such as China. That’s the one we have to worry about. That’s the one that we have to be careful about cozying up to too closely. For instance, some of the things that we might not want to do with China is sell them military technology, give them access to our satellites or give them knowledge of our offensive missile systems. Because a war with China, especially one in which they are using our weapons against us, would far, far more costly then a war with Uzbekistan.
http://www.artistmarket.com/writers/piraino/clintonchina.htm

REAVERMADNESS

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:27 PM

One person's despot is another person's glorious leader.

Heck the main reason I even read this thread was that it mentioned "despot" on hte title and it reminded me of a 7th grade spelling test we had to take. We had to use the words in a sentence and I didn't study (at all) and couldn't figure out what a "despot" was. So my sentence was:

"Look over der, at despot on demiddle of derug."
I got points for creativity.

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:

Beat him at what?

GW has been quoted as saying (paraphrase) "He beat my dad!"

Refering to Saddam and the way his dad didn't go into Baghdad and crush him then and there. So, he is implying that he's going to go in and get revenge for his dad. Quite consistent with what I've seen of this "man."

I'm actually surprised I had to explain that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:55 PM

@Finn:
There is a difference between saying/doing things that would incurr the wrath of a nation and just leaving well enough alone. Why does the US have to do anything there? Why can't you guys just put things in the queue and deal with them as time/money permitts?

No, of course not! That'd just be darn right sensible! You have to do something, even if it is completely hypocritical.

But yes, China is one of the ones to watch right now. I'd even say, with your military in its current state, that you'd be hard pressed to "win" any conflict with them.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

MACBAKER

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
GW has been quoted as saying (paraphrase) "He beat my dad!"

Where was he quoted saying that? Why would he say that?

The US won that war. Saddam was allowed to stay in power for several reasons, mostly to keep our allies in the middle east placated when they felt the job was done after Kwuat was liberated and Iraq's forced were decimated. It took him ten years to rebuild forces, ignore UN sactions, and for everyone including Clinton to agree that Saddam had to go. The PM's of Great Britain and Canada have also been quoted on Saddam being a threat.

This has never been a Bush revenge issue, and to say so is silly. It is about finishing a job Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. all wanted done. Both Clintons (Bill and Hillary), Al Gore, and even John Kerry have been quoted as saying Saddam was a danger and needed to go. They are also all quoted as saying that they believed Saddam had WMDs! This was said during the Clinton Administration, not Bush's! The Bush administration didn't come up with the WMD term, the Clinton administration did. It took the aftermath of 9/11 to do something about it. Oportunististic? Yeah, but before 9/11, the general public wasn't ready for another war in Iraq, and Clinton couldn't act. After 9/11 it was an easier sell. Bush did what Clinton would have liked to do, if the public hadn't been so resisitant to the idea. Now, everyone is trying to rewrite history, and blame the idea all on the current administration. Nice try, but the quotes are on record.

I'm actually surprised I had to expalin that!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:29 PM

FINN

"So we make diplomatic displays, and in return we get things like a base of operations and a nation that isn’t going to overtly try to throw monkey wrenches in our business while we are taking care of the despots that are currently at the top of the list"

That brings to mind a question- What IS "our business"?

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"
"I know, you told me that yesterday."

Did you know that we supported Syria's invasion of Lebanon? Did you know that we supported Saddam? The Shah of Iran? Somoza? Did you know that we STILL support the House of Saud? Where have you been the past several... er... decades? Apparently, you missed the point AGAIN! How can I make this so pellucidly clear that EVEN YOU can't miss the point?

Sigh.

For the umpty-umpth time: If we simply STOP SUPPORTING dictators... not actively work against them, just stop supporting them... with arms, aid, bases, training, military intelligence, and so forth... then they will not come back to bite us in the butt a dozen or so years later. This is one of those cases where a long term, principled decision will actually work out best.

Eited to add:

"That’s the one {China} we have to worry about. That’s the one that we have to be careful about cozying up to too closely."

Seems a little late for the warning. All large corporations have already cozied up to China because it's so darn PROFITABLE. They started by selling dirt-cheap stuff thru rock-bottom distributors (Walmart), then allowed chip makers (AMD) to build fabs, and PC manufacturers (IBM) to invest, and are now buying mag-lev trains and microsatellites even from our very closest allies. In the struggle between patriotism and profit, which do you think wins in corporate boardroom? They follow the almighty dollar and they'll sell... hell, have already sold... your livelihood and your security for a few pennies.

I just love corporatism, don't you?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE