What we do with despots
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 19:33
VIEWED: 7760
PAGE 4 of 9
"Thirdly, none of my replies have involved weaponry"
Quote:and your support of an anti-missile system comes to mind immediately to mind. Ohhh, right... missiles aren't weaponry. My mistake.
...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
But, OK, I'm game. Someone has to break the bullshit cycle. So here's a serious resonse to your opinion.
"It’s really quite simple, we can’t fight the entire world at once, and it does no good to pit a despotic regime against us, if we aren’t willing to fight them."
Are you saying that our only options are fight them (there's that weaponry thing again) or support them with bases, training, arms, intelligence, aid, materiel etc.? What about simply not aiding them? I think you've "simplified" the choices to the point of absurdity.
"What possible good does it do us to discount Uzbekistan and risk them becoming an adversary in a part of the world where we are already embroiled in conflicts?"
Why would they become our adversary? They'd have nothing to gain from it (provided that we're not actively working against them) and a whole lot to lose. You haven't explained this particular assumption, and it seems to be a key point in your opinion. Develop a plausible scenario in which they decide, apropros of nothing, to pick a fight with us.
"As far as human rights and despotism go, short of regime change, we are far more likely to influence Uzbekistan in this direction if we have a positive working relationship with them."
This statement can be evaluated in different directions depending on what you mean by "working relationship". If you mean send aid and arms, on its face it would be a self-contradiction, because you're saying that the best way to change a dictatorship is to support it militarily. But let's explore various working relationships besides military aid.
Our BEST chance of pressuring Uzbekistan is if they become dependent on us, and we then threaten to w/draw something vital in return for internal changes. What could we hook them on? It could be humanitarian aid, it could be trade and development, it could be military aid (which is a self-contradiction). On the face of it, a dictatorship just doesn't seem the best place to proffer humanitarian aid. Trade and development is more plausible. The nature of dictatorships... and corporations... is that they'll be happy to sign a deal, provided that (a) the dictator gets a substantial cut of the action (personally and nationally) and (b) the corporation gets the cheapest possible price on labor and resources. The deal doesn't necessarily mean infrastructural or technological development, or even a rise in the standard of living. So while the dictator is amassing hard currency, he is facing an increasingly restive population. Aside from personal excesses, that hard currency is going to go into supporting state systems of oppression- increased police/ military, greater control of larger swaths of the economy. So far, I'm not seeing a real positive to this scenario.
But this is just hypotheticals about what MIGHT happen in Uzbekistan. That's why I wanted to look over specifics and particulars- What did we get out of propping up Suharto? What do we get out of propping up the House of Saud? What were we aiming at when we supported Saddam? I'm willing to be specific, and to look at your erasoning in dpeth. But I'm not going to answer off-the-cuff opinions with dissertations.
Now its' your turn.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mac- You spend far too much time talking about the people here, and not enough time with the topic, and so your contribution to this discussion is almost nil. Do you have anything to say BESIDES insulting people? Or are you just... sigh... a troll??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is off topic... but then so was the original comment about Bush's dad. So sue me.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/
http://www.ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=25915
The younger Bush didn't say "He beat my dad." He said "He tried to kill my dad"... referring to the alleged assassination attempt by Hussein supporters following the war to liberate Kuwait. This claim has been vigorously debated. Some say the 11 confessions and convictions are compelling evidence that the plot was real. Some say Hussein wasn't crazy enough to do such a thing and the confessions were beaten out of the accused. And on it goes... depends on which axe you want to grind.
To both MacBaker and Sigmanunki... I googled "bush hussein dad" and got a wad of hits on the first page. Took me 2 seconds. Everyone, lighten up a little.
OK... back on topic and resume the bar fight.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually I wasn’t talking about weaponry; I was talking about Clinton allowing the sell of arms to China.
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Thirdly, none of my replies have involved weaponry"Quote:and your support of an anti-missile system comes to mind immediately to mind. Ohhh, right... missiles aren't weaponry. My mistake.
...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
But, OK, I'm game. Someone has to break the bullshit cycle. So here's a serious resonse to your opinion.
If you have a problem with my support for NMD, that’s fine, but you know nothing about it, and unfortunately, I’m not in a position to openly discuss it with you.
Quote:Not aiding them? And that gets us where? I’m not an isolationist. I don’t believe hiding behind our borders will get us anywhere.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Are you saying that our only options are fight them (there's that weaponry thing again) or support them with bases, training, arms, intelligence, aid, materiel etc.? What about simply not aiding them? I think you've "simplified" the choices to the point of absurdity.
Quote:Why not? Picking a fight with the US seems like the chic thing to do these days. Do you suppose Iran and Syria will be telling the Uzbeks how wonderful we are? If the Uzbeks decided to side with the Iranians or the Syrians or Chinese, where does that leave us or them?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why would they become our adversary? They'd have nothing to gain from it (provided that we're not actively working against them) and a whole lot to lose. You haven't explained this particular assumption, and it seems to be a key point in your opinion. Develop a plausible scenario in which they decide, apropros of nothing, to pick a fight with us.
Quote:Clearly I mean something other then this:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This statement can be evaluated in different directions depending on what you mean by "working relationship". If you mean send aid and arms, on its face it would be a self-contradiction, because you're saying that the best way to change a dictatorship is to support it militarily. But let's explore various working relationships besides military aid.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What about simply not aiding them?
Uzbekistan is an ally of the United States, which means they are probably not an ally of Iran, Syria or some other less then helpful regime. In a region of the world where many thousands of our fighting men and women are struggling to bring stability to two Asian nations it is important that we reduce as far as possible the number of political variables. Through our relationship with Uzbekistan, we have the use of the K2 airbase near Kanabad, which gave us great mobility and striking power during operation Enduring Freedom to liberate Afghanistan. Our presence in Uzbekistan also means that Uzbekistan is less likely to simply fall off the map and become another terrorist stronghold, as Afghanistan once did. In addition, Uzbekistan receives aide from the US close to 100 million dollars. Uzbekistan’s internal politics are shaky at best, with a violent faction seeking to reestablish the oppressive Islamic regime under the Uzbek Caliphate and a secular but illiberal government taking oppressive reactionary measures to Islamic extremists. The US has reduced its aid to Uzbekistan by almost a quarter in the hopes of leveraging improved human rights conditions and a more open and liberal government. Who knows how much it will work, but obviously this is an option that we would not have at all if we took the isolationist position.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- erase everything I said about "working relationships". You prolly don't believe that statement yourself, so there's no point in debating it to death. I think I know how to move this discussion forward more productively, because I think this is yur real consideration:
"So you think we should just ignore them? A part from the strategic advantage to having a base of operations, there is also the concern that they might become a problem. Do you suppose they are just going to patiently wait until we get around to toppling their government? What if they decide to side with Syria or Iran, while we are “leaving well enough alone?” It makes far more strategic sense to have them as an alley (sic) then (sic) making waves while we are trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you say?"
We have bases in Iraq and Afghanistan (which we militarily occupy), Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Pakistan, UAE, Oman (allows access), Qatar, and Diego Garcia (A UK island some distance away) We've been politely asked to leave Prince Sultan AFB in Saudi Arabia. The remaining large nations in the area are either hostile to US interests (Syria, Iran) or uncommitted (Yemen). So, WHAT IF, you ask yourself, that smaller nations like Uzbekistan were to ally with Syria, Iran, or even Russia or China?
How do you envision the worst-case scenario?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see we cross-posted. I do have a ?? for you from your post- Explain please,
"Actually I wasn’t talking about weaponry; I was talking about Clinton allowing the sell of arms to China."
What is the difference between "arms" and "weapons"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Who knows? But if there's no reason to find out, why put ourselves in that position?
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you envision the worst-case scenario?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is this a strawman, or do you seriously not understand? It's not a difference between "arms" and "weapons"; it's between "Clinton selling us down the river" and "weaponry," which I never discussed. I work for the Army, I know enough about weaponry to know if I’ve discussed it. Is this really important?
Originally posted by SignyM:
I see we cross-posted. I do have a ?? for you from your post- Explain please,
"Actually I wasn’t talking about weaponry; I was talking about Clinton allowing the sell of arms to China."
What is the difference between "arms" and "weapons"?
It seems a rather strict restriction on a discussion about international politics to insist on avoiding the use of the words “arms” or “weapons.” It’s just the nature of the beast, that arms or weapons are a part of the equation of international politics. It doesn’t necessarily make the discussion about weapons.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SM- "How do you envision the worst-case scenario?"
FINN_ "Who knows? But if there's no reason to find out, why put ourselves in that position?"
Why does anyone think about and discuss their opinion? To teach something, learn something, or to refine your own opinion. Surely you must have SOME vision of what you're trying to avoid! If you don't post it, then either you're afraid of the boogeyman, or you're just refusing honest discussion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or it's after 11pm and I've been up since 4am.
Perhaps I'll elaborate tomorrow night.
:)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME