What we do with despots

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

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?

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 8:11 PM

@MacBaker:
The problem is that the US "news" that you've clearly been listening to mixes a dash of truth in with a pound of spin. If you look to other sources (read: outside of the US) you'd be aware of this.

I made a comment that is common knowledge.

I'm tired of every political discussion turning into "retorts" of this kind. So, if you re-phrase your reply in a civil manner, I will reply to it.

----
"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 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I made a comment that is common knowledge.

I'm tired of every political discussion turning into "retorts" of this kind. So, if you re-phrase your reply in a civil manner, I will reply to it.

Where was I uncivil? Was it when I dared to disagree with you? Or was it uncivil that I asked for a source for this supposed "comment that is common knowledge". Name a reliable source for this quote! What's uncivil about asking for proof?

As far as what news I follow, I avoid broadcast news, which is far too concerned with ratings to be reliable. I choose to read about news from several sources, and balance my opinions with reasearch and reports from several sources both left, moderate and right.

BTW: your response is also a RETORT! Political discussions always lead to debate. Always have in a democracy! Deal with it! If you can't take what you obviously relish dishing out, I suggest you find something else to do with your time, like take up knitting! That's pretty safe from retorts!

Since you obviously can't handle debate of any kind, I'll avoid this thread from now on, and leave it to you and your followers! Have a nice day!

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@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.

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 then making waves while we are trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you say?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Seems a little late for the warning.

That’s not my fault. I was warning people about this in 1998. People chose to ignore me; mostly Postmodern Liberal types like you. Instead of paying attention to what was really going on, they were prattling on about the evil empire of Wal-Mart. Or maybe the Fascist regime of K-Mart with their Blitzkrieg of reasonably priced merchandise. Get a grip on reality, Karl. It has nothing to do with corporations. It has to do with something called export controls, which are laws restricting the export of defense sensitive technology. After getting a big chunk of money from the Chinese government, Clinton started relaxing or bypassing entirely export controls to China. He may have even given them classified information about our missile systems. If corporations sold us out, it was only because Clinton made it possible.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:03 AM

"I was warning people about this in 1998. People chose to ignore me... export controls, which are laws restricting the export of defense sensitive technology. After getting a big chunk of money from the Chinese..."

People chose to ignore you because you have nothing rational to say.

If you think that the only, or even the major, threat from China is military, then you clearly have not been paying attmtion to either the price of oil, the value of the dollar, the relative size of national economies, or the amount of debt that we have outstanding to foreigners. What do you propose to do if the Chinese decide they don't want to hold our T-bills anymore? Or the oil producing states figure out that the Euro is more stable, and decide to dump the dollar? Or nations avoid the one bright spot in our export picture- weapons- because they don't like our politics? Or our corporations desert our nation in droves, leaving us looking pretty much like Argentina? I know this may be hard to imagine, but think REAL HARD about this... you can't solve every single problem with a gun, or even an arsenal of nukes. You can't solve the CHINESE problem with guns, or even nukes. And even in the military realm, they're getting most of their weapons from Russia, and the remainder from the EU- including Britain.

Can you please for once come up with something insightful, or at least not so single-mindedly bloody stupid?

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:53 AM

@MacBaker:
I made a comment. Your reply was just a "justification" for the war, which is off topic given the thread and context of the comment that you where replying to. Thus you spouted off.

And as for naming my source, can you remember what date an interview/press conference/etc was on years ago on demand?

What I demand, by the way, is that you stay on topic (which you haven't done) and to not have such an aggressive tone in your post (which you are doing).

Until you can abid by these rules, I will not reply to you further.

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

RUE

Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:02 AM

A bit off the topic of despots (except for the China connection), but here are two items from the front page of AsiaTimes online:

Quote:
China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound
Adding to the US dollar's woes, no less than Alan Greenspan now warns that the party may be over for the greenback as foreign investors tire of paying for the United States' uncontrollable fiscal deficit and want to shift to other currencies at some point. ...
... US dollars accounted for 63.8% of the world's currency reserves at the end of 2003, down from 66.9% two years earlier, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) figures released last April. Almost 70% of the 56 central European banks surveyed said they had increased exposure to the euro.
(in) a more recent finding ... Asian central banks have been quietly switching their dollar holdings to regional currencies for at least three years now. A study by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) shows that the ratio of dollar deposits held in Asian offshore reserves declined to 67% in September, down from 81% in the third quarter of 2001. India was the biggest seller, reducing its dollar assets from 68% of total reserves to just 43%. China, which directly links the yuan to the dollar and is under US pressure to allow a freer movement of its currency, trimmed the dollar share from 83% to 68% over the same period. ... (Mar 11, '05) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GC12Dj01.html catching Asian flu
SYDNEY - They may be telling a different story to money markets, but Asian central banks have been quietly switching their dollar holdings to regional currencies for at least three years, confirm global banking data. In a further, and so far the biggest, setback for the greenback's status as the undisputed reserve currency, Japan on Thursday said it might diversify its holdings, though monetary chiefs later sought to play down the prospect. South Korea rattled currency traders with a similar announcement late last month, followed by a similar backtrack.
China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines and Hong Kong have already started a sell-off ... http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/GC11Dk01.html

The US can't beat China militarily. Economically, China is pulling away.

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

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 then making waves while we are trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you say?

Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth? Why do you always have to make such wild assumptions? Why are you always going to extremes for "solutions"?

Leave well enough alone, does not mean don't watch. It just means, don't poke the bear.

I'm not even sure that you aware that someone can not be with you, but still not your enemy.

Why do you think that you must topple there government? Are you not aware that such things can be done without violence?

ie You've gone around dropping bombs all over the world. As a nation, how's that working for you? B/c, from where I site, not so much.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:46 AM

Holy shit , do SignyM and SigmaNunki even know what the hell is being discussed? When the two of you deal with the chips on your shoulders, then we’ll see about carrying on a discussion.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:52 PM

FINN... DEEP BREATH... Yes, we know what's being discussed. We're just tired of the same old same old. Yer a real gun-totin' capitalist, ain't ya? Except that (1) you're not a capitalist, you're a droid, just like everyone else and (2) "nuking 'em all" isn't a real solution.. not even for China. In other words, your fundamental world view is at odds with reality. That's why you keep reaching the same irrelevant conclusions over and over again.

So tell me, why do we support despots? Trace that out for me step by step, listing all the despots that we supported, and show me what advatnage it has gained us in the long run (within a 30-year time frame.)

As far as China is concerned... I wasn't to happy about trading with them in the first place. You see, they don't need our military secrets because they can BUY all the weaponry they need with their nice hard currency reserves. And WHERE did they get those currency resrves, hmmmmm???

In order to have meaningful, or even semi-interesting discussion, we must both be prepared to examine our fundamental assumptions. So far, you have said nothing that would cause me to examine mine. Look at your views on Social Security as an exemplar. Everything that you think is a problem is not, and everything that you think is a solution is a problem. How do I know??? Because Bush's "reforms" have been tried in other countries, notably Britain and Chile- with resounding failure.

So how did you get in such an intellectual pickle? It's because, as you've said, you've been told something all your life - and you BELIEVE it. You like to think of yourself as a real independent cuss, but the one place where it truly counts- in your brain- you're shackled by what you've been told. Stop believing. Start thinking.

I'm serious about the above question about despots. Please list for me the despots that we've supported, and show me how it's worked out for us in the long run (30 year timeline). I may ask a LOT of questions; I promise to keep them sincere and meaningful.

MACBAKER

Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@MacBaker:
I made a comment. Your reply was just a "justification" for the war, which is off topic given the thread and context of the comment that you where replying to. Thus you spouted off.

And as for naming my source, can you remember what date an interview/press conference/etc was on years ago on demand?

What I demand, by the way, is that you stay on topic (which you haven't done) and to not have such an aggressive tone in your post (which you are doing).

Until you can abid by these rules, I will not reply to you further.

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

Everytime I try to leave, they pull me back in!!! Another retort from SigmaNunki! What a surprise!

You made an attack on the Bush Administration's motivations for the war in Iraq, I questioned that over simplictic view. You made it on topic with your initial comments! Deal with it, and deal with the fact that people are going to respond, and not always in support of your views.

You've said the this Bush quote is common knowledge! If that is true, it should be easy to find ONE source for it!

You can demand what ever you want, but until you follow your own rules, why should anyone else? As soon as you made your first comments, you made any retort to them fair game and on topic!

BTW, the original topic was "What we do with despots". How is any comment about Saddam and the war in Iraq, not on topic when talking about what we do with despots?

Amazing! I defend my view, and I'm accused of being aggressive and off topic. You defend your views, you are somehow claiming the high ground here? You sound like a child having a tantrum because someone is daring to question your opinion, and is expecting facts to back up your claims. WOW, if that is the way you expect things to work, maybe this should be a facist nation, with us all living by YOUR rules!

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

MACBAKER

Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Holy shit , do SignyM and SigmaNunki even know what the hell is being discussed? When the two of you deal with the chips on your shoulders, then we’ll see about carrying on a discussion.

Give it up Finn. Anyone who dares to disagree with them, is just another "gun-totin' capitalist" or a "droid". Evidently, if we don't believe things their way, we are unable to think for ourselves, aren't sincere and don't have anything meaningful to add. In other words, debate and disagreement of any kind, frightens and annoys them!

They would obviously prefer that no one question their views, just believe anything they say, and blindly follow them. It's a good thing they aren't ruling here, or we might get arrested as political enemys of the state! Tyrants! HMMMM, pot meet the kettle!

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FINN... DEEP BREATH... Yes, we know what's being discussed. We're just tired of the same old same old. Yer a real gun-totin' capitalist, ain't ya? Except that (1) you're not a capitalist, you're a droid, just like everyone else and (2) "nuking 'em all" isn't a real solution.. not even for China. In other words, your fundamental world view is at odds with reality. That's why you keep reaching the same irrelevant conclusions over and over again.

Neither (1) nor (2) are correct statements. They are both fallacies.
(1) is an ad hominem. Because I am not a “droid.” That I do not draw the same opinions as you have does not make me a droid. But you are conceited. You claim that “everyone else” is a “droid.” Everyone is wrong but you. Get over yourself.
(2) is a strawman. Because I never once used any argument that could even be called “nuking ‘em all.” You invented this. Like your conceited worldview, this is just another lie you tell yourself. After you’ve convinced yourself that you, and only you, could be right, you then must take other arguments and rephrase them so that they are wrong, to prevent from disproving your previous lie.

“Everyone else” in the world is not a “droid.” And you need to get this chip off your shoulder, because you sound like a fruitcake.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Give it up Finn. Anyone who dares to disagree with them, is just another "gun-totin' capitalist" or a "droid". Evidently, if we don't believe things their way, we are unable to think for ourselves, aren't sincere and don't have anything meaningful to add. In other words, debate and disagreement of any kind, frightens and annoys them!

They would obviously prefer that no one question their views, just believe anything they say, and blindly follow them. It's a good thing they aren't ruling here, or we might get arrested as political enemys of the state! Tyrants! HMMMM, pot meet the kettle!

Yep. Generally, when people start using the “everyone else in the world is wrong but me” argument, it’s usually a sign of desperation. They’ve both made some intelligent points in the past. Their posts are fun to read, but sometimes it’s a little like talking with someone who thinks they know it all.

It reminds me of Tammy Bruce’s discussion on malignant narcissists.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:07 PM

You both have entirely misintepreted my comment. By "droid" I meant a working person... like the overhwelming majority in the world INCLUDING ME. So- do you own your own business? If not, then you're not a capitalist. As far as the second point- I have yet to see you come up with an economic or political discussion on the topic "USA vis a vis the rest of the world". Your replies always seems to involve weaponry.

So the challenge -or offer (however you choose to perceive it) - still stands. Since you seem to think that it makes sense to foster dicatorships in light of other goals, please lay out your reasoning, starting with a list of dictators that we have supported over the past thirty years and show me that it has done us more good than harm. Are you willing to back your opinion with reasoning, discussion and facts? Or will you just let it dangle in the breeze?

MACBAKER

Thursday, March 17, 2005 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You both have entirely misintepreted my comment. By "droid" I meant a working person... like the overhwelming majority in the world INCLUDING ME. So- do you own your own business? If not, then you're not a capitalist.

Just so you know, yes I do own my own business (actually one of three partners). I'm a filmmaker/producer, and our production company just finished our first feature length film.

If you know anything about that business, you would know that we consider our work more artistic than capitalistic. If we were in it for the money, we would be in a far less risky business!

Don't try to lump everyone together (droids?). It is short sighted and naive.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:57 PM

So we have one person in this thread who can actually claim to be a capitalist but who chooses to be considered something else.

And I'm not lumping "everyone" together, just the >90% of people who work for a living, as opposed to people who make their money through investments.

My offer to Finn still stands.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 17, 2005 8:17 PM

That’s a rather narrow interpretation of the definition of capitalist. Let’s solve this problem right now. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
capitalist
1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : PLUTOCRAT
2 : a person who favors capitalism
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=capitalist

Capitalism is more then just the act of owning capital. Like Socialism, it is also an economic philosophy, and those who favor that philosophy are called capitalists. Clearly the misinterpretation started a long time ago with your rather narrow interpretation of the word capitalist.

Secondly, while I am capitalist, I am still not a “droid.” If one wanted to reduce me down to a single term based on my profession, it might be “academic,” but definitely not “droid.”

Thirdly, none of my replies have involved weaponry. Whatever posts you’re reading they are not mine.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So the challenge -or offer (however you choose to perceive it) - still stands. Since you seem to think that it makes sense to foster dicatorships in light of other goals, please lay out your reasoning, starting with a list of dictators that we have supported over the past thirty years and show me that it has done us more good than harm. Are you willing to back your opinion with reasoning, discussion and facts? Or will you just let it dangle in the breeze?

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. It’s just that simple. 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? It’s just idealist moralizing. 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, then if we ignore them, particularly for new nations like Uzbekistan. If I remember correctly, the Left was virulently opposed to removing Hussein? You wanted to foster that dictatorship, but not Uzbekistan?

I could go into more detail, but that would require me checking some facts and looking a few things up for clarity. I’m not willing to do put that much work into this right now. I can only spend so much time on lunch, and I’m not going to spend all of it writing posts that will be dismissed without review.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:09 PM

Since I'm looking for detail- facts and figures to back up your generalizations- I'll consider that your opinions are still dangling. I DID promise to review those posts sincerely and meaningfully, BTW.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:33 PM

Of course you will. Just like you did earlier. If you're not willing to consider what I've said about Uzbekistan, I'm not going to go into the history of international politics in general so that you can dismiss that as "dangling" too. I just don't have the time.

MACBAKER

Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since I'm looking for detail- facts and figures to back up your generalizations- I'll consider that your opinions are still dangling. I DID promise to review those posts sincerely and meaningfully, BTW.

So you are the only one allowed to make generalizations, without facts to back them up? How interesting! How sincere and meaningful! How fair and balanced! HOW HYPOCRITICAL!!!!

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

SIGNYM

Friday, March 18, 2005 2:36 AM

"Thirdly, none of my replies have involved weaponry"

Quote:
...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

and your support of an anti-missile system comes to mind immediately to mind. Ohhh, right... missiles aren't weaponry. My mistake.

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 18, 2005 2:50 AM

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??

DANFAN

Friday, March 18, 2005 3:09 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 18, 2005 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Thirdly, none of my replies have involved weaponry"

Quote:
...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
and your support of an anti-missile system comes to mind immediately to mind. Ohhh, right... missiles aren't weaponry. My mistake.

But, OK, I'm game. Someone has to break the bullshit cycle. So here's a serious resonse to your opinion.

Actually I wasn’t talking about weaponry; I was talking about Clinton allowing the sell of arms to China.

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:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

Clearly I mean something other then this:

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 18, 2005 4:17 AM

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?

SIGNYM

Friday, March 18, 2005 4:21 AM

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"?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 18, 2005 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do you envision the worst-case scenario?

Who knows? But if there's no reason to find out, why put ourselves in that position?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 18, 2005 4:29 AM

Quote:
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"?

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?

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 18, 2005 5:21 AM

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 18, 2005 5:39 AM

Or it's after 11pm and I've been up since 4am.

Perhaps I'll elaborate tomorrow night.
:)

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, March 18, 2005 6:01 AM

When it comes to the after-effects of US support for despots I just have one word:

Pupusas!!!

Okay. More detail.

Country: El Salvador
One of our buddies: Roberto D'Aubuisson
Result: Destabilize region, thousands flee, many end up illegally immigrating to the US and settling in Southern California, bringing regional recipes with them, one of them being pupusas.

*editted to add: Just for clarity, this was my response to SignyM's earlier question:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM
So tell me, why do we support despots? Trace that out for me step by step, listing all the despots that we supported, and show me what advatnage it has gained us in the long run (within a 30-year time frame.)

Just my attempt to inject levity into a discussion about a topic that saddens me (our ongoing by-any-means-necessary approach to foreign policy).

*editted once again

And while I'm digressing from the thread...

Quote:
originally posted by MacBaker
Just so you know, yes I do own my own business (actually one of three partners). I'm a filmmaker/producer, and our production company just finished our first feature length film.

Congrats!

RUE

Friday, March 18, 2005 8:14 AM

Quote:
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.

At one point the US had the clever idea to help Afghanistan's mujaheddin against Russia with money and arms. Eventually one portion of the now well-armed (Thanks! USA!) mujaheddin became the Taliban, took over the country, and provided a safe harbor for bin Laden. Afghanistan became a terrorist stronghold with HELP from the US, not b/c of US inattention.

Quote:
Uzbekistan’s internal politics are shaky at best, with a violent faction seeking to reestablish the oppressive Islamic regime and a secular but illiberal government taking oppressive reactionary measures to Islamic extremists.

First mistake is saying that the Islamic faction is trying to 'reestablish the oppressive Islamic regime'. Uzbekistan is a former Soviet Republic and has never had an 'oppressive Islamic regime'. Second one is trying to pass off Karimov's policies as a reaction to Islamicism. From the start he has taken brutal action against ALL political opponents, including intellectuals and those looking for democratic reforms. It's just naked despotism, which you are trying to excuse for some obscure reason. Finally, calling Karimov's reign 'illiberal' is so inaccurate, it's a lie.

MACBAKER

Friday, March 18, 2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:
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.

Actually danfan, I knew this. Like you said, it was easy to find if one bothered doing some simple research. I was hoping Sigmanunki would at least attempt to back up his quote by looking it up himself, but he was too busy repeating the same rhetoric over and over, without sources and facts to back him up. Funny how expecting accountablity for one's statements makes me a troll to some.

BTW, it ain't a real bar fight until a chair is thown through the mirror on the back of the bar.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, March 18, 2005 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
At one point the US had the clever idea to help Afghanistan's mujaheddin against Russia with money and arms. Eventually one portion of the now well-armed (Thanks! USA!) mujaheddin became the Taliban, took over the country, and provided a safe harbor for bin Laden. Afghanistan became a terrorist stronghold with HELP from the US, not b/c of US inattention.

No. Afghanistan was liberated from Soviet Occupation with HELP from the US. The terrorist stronghold part didn’t come until we left the country to fend for itself with no one but Pakistan to overlook the re-establishing of its infrastructure.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First mistake is saying that the Islamic faction is trying to 'reestablish the oppressive Islamic regime'. Uzbekistan is a former Soviet Republic and has never had an 'oppressive Islamic regime'.

The world existed prior to the Soviets. Uzbek territory was under the rule an ‘oppressive Islamic regime’ from the eight century until the Russian Czars invaded in the 19th century.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Second one is trying to pass off Karimov's policies as a reaction to Islamicism. From the start he has taken brutal action against ALL political opponents, including intellectuals and those looking for democratic reforms. It's just naked despotism, which you are trying to excuse for some obscure reason. Finally, calling Karimov's reign 'illiberal' is so inaccurate, it's a lie.

I’m not excusing anything. It is perfectly accurate to describe the Uzbek government as illiberal. Actually, it may be inaccurate to describe it as “naked despotism.” A despotism is a government by the absolute rule by a despot. Uzbekistan on the other hand has a constitution, a legislature, a court system, a President and even universal suffrage. In practice most of the power rest in the executive branch, so one can draw an analogy to despotism, but that doesn’t mean it’s a lie to call it illiberal. I don’t even know what the hell that means. Even if it were a “naked despotism” how is that not illiberal?

For crying out loud, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?

DANFAN

Friday, March 18, 2005 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
BTW, it ain't a real bar fight until a chair is thown through the mirror on the back of the bar.

And then you get thrown through the energy window on the front of the bar and your spaceship has to swoop in to rescue you from the Alliance supporters on Unification Day...

[heavy sigh]

can't hardly wait for the movie...

SIGNYM

Friday, March 18, 2005 5:10 PM

Finn- I hope you get to that worst-case scenario. I know what MY worst-case scenario is, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. TTUL

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, March 18, 2005 8:39 PM

1) How am I not following my own rules? Statment is not truth.

2) I answered your question. My original post was just stating that this is in character for this administration and more specifically a certain person. This is on topic which was followed by your tantrum (continued is subsequent posts) which was not. Read the thread title, this isn't a thread on the Iraq war.

3) You are not defending your views in a way that I have dictated that I will respond in kind.

4) If you want to know what this all has to do with this thread title read my original post.

5) I will not be further pulled off topic. Any parting remarks will be ignored until you can respond within my outlined parameters.

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

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, March 18, 2005 8:48 PM

One last note before I go (just read this now).

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:

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.

Thank you for the links.

But, I did admitt to not knowing the exact quote and did label my "quote" as a paraphrase. My conclusion was that this was (in part at least) a revenge thing. This is supported by the information posted and linked to. MacBaker, there's you go.

Now I resume my off topic silence to not be interupted again.

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:

Everyone, lighten up a little.

I will speak generally here. Not pointing anyone in particular (seriously).

I won't speak for anyone else, but quite frankly I'm rather tired of fighting when I should be debated. And the only reason why is that people have blinders to what is actually going on. They read and listen to spin and belief instead of facts.

So, I'm just stating that I'm not going to participate in the crap anymore. I have more inportant things to do than to try to talk reason into some that is delusional. EDIT: Or someone that is just going to spout insults.

And now back to those more important things.

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

RUE

Friday, March 18, 2005 9:24 PM

Quote:
The terrorist stronghold part didn’t come until we left the country to fend for itself with no one but Pakistan to overlook the re-establishing of its infrastructure.

Post-Soviet lawlessness (GO USA!!) and a country awash with US arms were the foundations for US approval of, and later relations with, the Taliban - on the theory that it didn't matter how brutal they were as dictators, they were the only group that might stabilize the country enough for business to be conducted. The US was willing to invest in Afghanistan (pipeline, infrastructure) and was in the active process of negotiating with the Taliban. I won't be tedious about the back and forth. The whole scheme broke down when the Taliban went with Petrobas. Up to that point, the US was friendly with them.

Quote:
The world existed prior to the Soviets. Uzbek territory was under the rule an ‘oppressive Islamic regime’ from the eight century until the Russian Czars invaded in the 19th century.

Really. WHICH 'oppressive Islamic regime' ruled Uzbekistan between the 8th and 19th centuries?

Quote:
It is perfectly accurate to describe the Uzbek government as illiberal.

Then it must be perfectly accurate to describe the surface of the sun as 'warm'. Words exist because people need to communicate accurate distinctions.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- I hope you get to that worst-case scenario. I know what MY worst-case scenario is, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. TTUL

Well the short answer is that I don’t know what the worst scenario is. It’s almost impossible to say. It depends on too many variables, so at the very best I would be speculating. But if I were to speculate, I would say that a worse case scenario would be Uzbekistan ending up like Afghanistan was prior to the US lead liberation from the Taliban. If, for instance, the Hizb ut Tahrir were to gain control and reestablish the Caliphate, it may look every much like Afghanistan under the Taliban. It could offer a place where al Qaeda or al Qaeda like Islamic terrorist organizations could operate unobstructed. That’s particularly likely if the US were to ignore Uzbekistan, as if ignored Afghanistan, but that’s just one of many possibilities.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Really. WHICH 'oppressive Islamic regime' ruled Uzbekistan between the 8th and 19th centuries?

Arab Caliphs? Samanid Turks? Temur Dynasty? The Kokand Khanate? Bukhara Emirate? All were oppressive to one degree or another. By today’s standards they would be considered despotisms.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Then it must be perfectly accurate to describe the surface of the sun as 'warm'. Words exist because people need to communicate accurate distinctions.

Yeah, you’re right. It’s such a liberal regime. God, you’re kooky.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 19, 2005 2:21 AM

Oh wow. Your worst-case scenario is so much ROSIER than mine! (Is there an icon for popeyes???) My worst-case scenario, which is not restricted to us ignoring Uzbekistan but all "tyrannical" nations in the Mideast, goes something like this-

Saudi Arabia falls to Wahhabism (I know that's not what they call themselves but I can't remember their real name).

Iran, under protection of China and Russia, takes over southern Iraq.

Syria and Uzbekistan, as the two secular governments (that I know about) decide to make common cause in their anti-Americanism- just out of sheer cussedness. Alternately, the Uzbekistan government falls and sides with Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan decides to throw its lot in with China.

Eventually, only Yemen, Qatar, UAE, and northern Iraq will have any friendly dealings with us. It's not a pretty sight. So...what then? I mean- how does that affect us? Your thoughts, please. Don't be shy with your imagination.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:05 AM

Then I think you’d be looking at World War III. The US and Britain, probably also Western Europe in general, aren’t likely to allow Iran to invade Iraq, and I don’t think China and Russia would protect them. What does China and Russia have to gain that is worth risking war with the West in backing an Iranian invasion of Iraq?

Saudi Arabia is already Wahhabist, and if Iran were ballsy enough to invade Iraq, the Saudis are likely to believe, perhaps accurately, that they’ll be next or on the list somewhere. Saudi Arabia will likely side with whoever is against Iran. Jordan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel will probably side with the West. Turkey will also side with the West. As far as the former Soviet Asian nations, like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc, you could probably flip a coin and get as accurate prediction as anyone could say, but my guess is they would want to stay out of it. Syria is in a bad place. Geographically, they don’t have a strategic position, if Turkey sides with the West as they are likely to do. An Iranian invasion of US backed Iraq would likely be very concerning to them, since they wouldn’t want to get drawn into something where they are essentially fighting a four front war. I can’t see Syria getting into it, unless they really believed they would be protected by Russia or China. But I can’t imagine why Russia or China would go that far.

Basically, I think Iran would not invade Iraq, but Middle Eastern countries have done stranger things. Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait was considered, even by Middle East politicians, to be the one of the dumbest military movies in history.

Although, honestly, I’ve never really thought about it.

RUE

Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:27 AM

I've been staying on the sidelines b/c I'm curious as to what you two hash out.

Rue

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:22 AM

Please continue this discussion guys. I'm learning a great deal just ghosting.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 19, 2005 11:11 AM

YOU know, I haven't thought about this either, so I guess we're both in new territory. I wasn't thinking about Iran invading Iraq- more like Iran and Iraq forming a coalition, with Iran being the senior partner. But assuming that we're talking about an invasion.... hmmm...

Iran and Iraq are both Shia. If they made common cause, Sunni nations would probably form an instantaneous bloc in the face of an overt Shia threat: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and southern Afghan Taliban. Bahrain (Shia majority) would probably get sucked in on the Iran/Iraq side, and so might Syria (Shias in power). You might even see some nations -like Iraq and Afghanistan- fracturing.

The region is divided by ethnic (Arab/ non-Arab), religious (Sunni/Shia), political (pro/anti-American) language and other "identity" factors that do NOT neatly line up with each other, so exactly how things polarize would depend on which kind of bloc formed first, but given the specter of Iran plus Iraq, the primary response would be Sunni.

But... and this is important... while you've done a great job detailing who would land on what side, you have not convinced me why WE should care. What does it matter to us who sits in the seats of government in the Mideast, and why should we and the EU even get involved? Why don't we just let them sort it out, and if it means a rather long period of instability... well.. so what?

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:13 PM

Finn- I'm not going to pile on you if you say the most obvious thing that comes to everybody's mind. Actually, I'm trying to get past this point.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 21, 2005 10:48 AM

Hello??? I'm not going jump you, screaming RUNNING DOG IMPERIALIST PIG!!! (Oh wait...dog... pig.... does that work?)

Can we get past this point please?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, March 21, 2005 2:51 PM

I've been visiting with my sister all weekend in Florence. She is on leave before she deploys to Iraq. This is the last time I'll see her for a while, so I wanted to spend as much time with her as possible. I'll write a response tonight. Right now I have to go to the lab.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hello??? I'm not going jump you, screaming RUNNING DOG IMPERIALIST PIG!!! (Oh wait...dog... pig.... does that work?)

I think the preferred term is ‘dog.’ Some Greek woman in London told me ‘Americans are imperialist dogs who should be killed like dogs.’ Radical European Anti-Americanism! It’s so much fun.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:34 PM

I hope your sister comes home safe. Looking forward to your reply.

SIGNYM

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:34 PM

GRRRR. double post!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:42 AM

On Iran/Iraq Coalition? I think it is likely that a democratic Iraq will share many similar ideologies with Iran largely due to the Shia majority. Though I’m not sure that religion is enough to bring these two countries together. Shiite religious beliefs not withstanding, there is still a strong ethnic division between the Persian Iranians and Arabic Iraqis. If Shiite Iraq was going to defect to Iran I would have expected that such a defection would have been more likely during the Iran-Iraq War. Despite Hussein’s oppression of the Shiites, they still fought against the Iranians for eight years, so I think the Shiite Iraqis are certainly as much Iraqi nationalists as they are Shiites, and not likely to simply adopt an Iranian or even a Persio-Iraqi nationality. Furthermore, while Iran is certainly a Shiite nation, I don’t believe its religious government experiences wide support from the people of Iran, and I don’t think that on average, even religious Iraqi Shiites, are likely to share much more then a spiritual agreement with the leadership of Iran. If one could expect that the Shiite religion were influential enough to completely obscure national, political and ethnic lines between Iraq and Iran, (or indeed between Iran, Iraq and Syria) then one might ask why such a huge socio-political rift exists between the Kurds and Sunni Arabs. Religion is often brought up in the Middle East as a polarizing factor, but in practice it rarely represents the influence that I think it is given. True, the Middle East is a hotbed of religions extremism, and political policy within a nation is often attributed to Islamic religious doctrine, but international policy is still government by economics, nationality and political borders. There is plenty of Sunni and Shiite religious unity in the Middle East, yet that rarely translates into political cooperation between Arabs. (Jordanians (Sunni) oppressed Palestinians (Sunni). Syrian (Shiite ruling class) oppressed Lebanese (Shiites.))

In addition, the Shiites of Iraq represent only 60% of the nation, which is certainly a policy making majority, but not one that is likely to eclipse the Kurds or the Sunni Arabs, and they will certainly have something to say about an Iran/Iraq Coalition. Iraq may politically realign itself as an ally to Iran. Certainly there have been people in Iraq, (United Iraqi Alliance recently voted into power) who have demonstrated a relationship with Iran. But a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq is not likely to be similar to the undemocratic Iran. In a worst case scenario might be something like an oppressive Shiite aristocracy taking control of the government and dissolving whatever democratic reform that may have developed, in favor of a theocracy. This threat has been something of specter for while now. In such case, Iran and Iraq may begin to look very similar from a US point of view. But even in that case, I still think it is not certain that there will be very much cooperation between Iran and Iraq. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were, ideologically, quite similar, and so appeared to represent a cooperative threat to the West, but in reality, they were as likely to go to war with one another as with the US.

Why we should care? The short answer is that we are invested. The US and Britain have spent an enormous amount of political capital, resources and human life, liberating, stabilizing and hopefully democratizing Iraq to become a liberal independent nation. We aren’t going to do all that just to watch a dictatorial theocratic regime walk in and take it away. Most of the EU would support or even participate in the defense of Iraq for similar reasons. Of course I could be wrong. While the West has a strong tract record of supporting and encouraging the growth of democracy they do sometimes get caught in political and economic ‘ditches,’ for lack of better word. It’s more of a tendency then a strict policy. So if the West is ruled by a Chamberlain sort of philosophy then we may look the other way. But I

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 6:33 AM

Those pictures are just creepy
Rummy and all of them just smiling and patting eachother on the back

you know the blinders will have to come off slowly and painfully, most I'm sure will just embrace the hypocrisy and shrug their shoulders while they go on with their life

But this is what we are, what we've always been really, sure will denounce such behavior publically, while supporting it privately..only now their not really even trying to hide it..eat your heart out America

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I hope your sister comes home safe.

Thank you. I'm sure she will.

RUE

Sunday, March 27, 2005 4:35 AM

I too think the US is too heavily invested in Iraq to walk away. But it's not for freedom, that's just sop for the mindless.

Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil
by Greg Palast
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
...
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favored plan (coup d'etat, replacing Hussein with a compliant leader) was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, at the request of the State Department.
...
Privatization blocked by industry
Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."
Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatize Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.
Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."
New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.
Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ... would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out of the transaction."

View segments of Iraq oil plans at: www.GregPalast.com/opeconthemarch.html

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, March 27, 2005 5:08 AM

I'm not sure I would dismiss the value of democracy in Iraq as "sop for the mindless." I happen to believe that liberal governments are quite valuable, in terms of both freedom and economics. If the US were only interested in Iraqi oil, the hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone into liberating Iraq would have been put to better use buying Iraqi Oil and investing in Iraqi Oil fields.

RUE

Sunday, March 27, 2005 5:31 AM

Ah, yes. If only US companies had contracts with Iraq.

But the US and Britain (BP) were shut out of the Iraq oil business on account of their bombing to enforce the no-fly zone.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, March 27, 2005 5:47 AM

Once again, if the US were only interested in Iraqi Oil we wouldn't have put restrictions on US oil companies to begin with. In the end the US made the choices it made with regard to Iraq because, clearly, there were other things of interest then oil, which the US can, did and does get from many other countries besides Iraq. The “it’s all for oil” conspiracy theories just don’t hold water.

RUE

Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:10 AM

Quote:
if the US were only interested in Iraqi Oil we wouldn't have put restrictions on US oil companies to begin with.

I have NO idea what you mean by this. Do you mean before the war? (when the US was locked-out by Iraq.) Or do you think it was after the war? (Not then either - the US oil companies wanted national ownership to keep an in, AND to protect the price of oil.)
What ARE you referring to?

SIGNYM

Sunday, March 27, 2005 6:26 AM

WHOAA there! Let's take a couple of steps back. I prposed the scenario where Iran takes over Iraq, and Finn basically responded that the US and EU would respond militarily. But right now, I'm just trying to get Finn's ideas on WHY we would intervene. What would be the reason for jumping in, why wouldn't we just wait it out?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, March 27, 2005 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I have NO idea what you mean by this. Do you mean before the war? (when the US was locked-out by Iraq.) Or do you think it was after the war? (Not then either - the US oil companies wanted national ownership to keep an in, AND to protect the price of oil.)What ARE you referring to?

I was about to ask you the same thing. You claimed that the US was “shut out” because of the “no-fly zones.” The first problem is that the US instigated the no-fly zones in order to protect Kurds and Shiites from Hussein. If you actually believed that the Oil was all the US was interested in then why would the US instigate the very thing you claimed was shutting us away from that Oil? Secondly, you have your facts wrong. Iraq was not shutting out anybody. The sell of Iraq Oil was administrated by the UN Oil-for-Food program, not Iraq, which seems to have sold oil rather more liberally then even their own regulations permitted. According to the USDoE, 20% of the US petroleum imports from the Persian Gulf (which includes Saudi Arabia) between 1996 and 2003 came form Iraq. That’s a pretty big chunk of oil for being shut out of the market, wouldn’t you think?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:08 PM

HEY! Are you still interested in discussing (not arguing... for a change) this topic?

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:28 PM

What do you want? An invitation? I just wrote a thousand word response last week.

RUE

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:11 PM

What I read of Finns' response, in sum: Finn thinks the US is in Iraq for freedom, which is why the US so generously invested taxpayer money, time and lives.

I thought you two were done, or at least had given up. Now that I see you are not, I'll keep my response off the board for now.

RUE

Friday, April 1, 2005 3:27 AM

Just a bump.
I am looking forward to reading more on this topic.
Rue

SIGNYM

Friday, April 1, 2005 7:36 AM

Sorry Finn- I scrolled down very quickly to the end, and missed your post along the way. I hope to get to it this weekend- after I do my taxes.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 13, 2005 1:37 PM

If you scroll thru my vars posts on tyranny and Iraq, every now and again you'll see something about our good buddy, Islam Karimov, tyrant of Uzbekistan, one of the desposts we feed "in order" to advance democracy. Well DANG!! It looks like we wound up on the wrong side AGAIN!
How DOES that happen??

Quote:

Uzbek troops shoot at protesters

ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan (CNN) -- Soldiers have opened fire on protesters in an eastern Uzbekistan town where anti-government rebels were holding hostages in a regional headquarters, witnesses have said.

Journalists said the shooting came from a tank and a truck full of soldiers which had sped to the center of Andijan where the protesters had gathered. A Reuters correspondent later said he saw one body lying on the ground.

The Uzbekistan government said the rebels had refused to compromise during talks with authorities. {mmm-hmmmm. SignyM}

Thousands had been demonstrating, calling for the resignation of Uzbek President Islam Karimov and his authoritarian government. The president's office described them as criminals and extremists.

Maybe it has something to do with short-sighted, unprincipled decisions???

Nah.......

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:11 PM

D*mn I hate being right! But, if anyone had bothered to look at the real situation in Uzbekistan- the corruption, torture, poverty and nation-wide intimidation you would have known that this was just a rebellion waiting to happen.

Quote:
Thousands of refugees today fled fierce fighting in eastern Uzbekistan -- where human rights monitors say clashes between soldiers and rebels have left hundreds dead.

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:27 AM

Something you will not see in USA newspapers. All hail the Alliance!

Quote:
Heated criticism was growing last night over 'double standards' by Washington over human rights, democracy and 'freedom' as fresh evidence emerged of just how brutally Uzbekistan, a US ally in the 'war on terror', put down Friday's unrest in the east of the country.... Critics said the US was prepared to support pro-democracy unrest in some states, but condemn it in others where such policies were inconvenient.

Witnesses and analysts familiar with the region said most protesters were complaining about government corruption and poverty, not espousing Islamic extremism. ...

Washington has often been accused of being involved in a conspiracy of silence over Uzbekistan's human rights record since that country was declared an ally in the 'war on terror' in 2001.

Uzbekistan is believed to be one of the destination countries for the highly secretive 'renditions programme'... The CIA has never officially commented on the programme. But flight logs obtained by the New York Times earlier this month show CIA-linked planes landing in Tashkent with the same serial numbers as jets used to transfer prisoners around the world....

Critics say the US double standards are evident on the State Department website, which accuses Uzbek police and security services of using 'torture as a routine investigation technique' while giving the same law enforcement services $79 million in aid in 2002. .

The aid paradox was highlighted by the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who criticised coalition support for Uzbekistan when they were planning invading Iraq, using similar abuses as justification.... The support continues, seen by many as a 'pay-off' for the Khanabad base.

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, May 15, 2005 5:14 PM

SignyM, this is really nothing new, if you check out the Human Rights Watch or Amnesty international websites they report that up to 5000 pro democracy demonstrators have " vanished " between 2001 - 2003. With similar reports from Egypt really makes you wonder that if the Americans belived their own rhetoric why aren't they on the otherside of this " war "

http://web.amnesty.org/library/engworld/2md

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, May 16, 2005 2:39 AM

Mind you, it is even worse to be in a country without a despot " owned " by the US.

Chile in the 70's, Venezuela and Cuba present day, ...........

and now Burma ?

'Superpower behind' Burma blasts

The government says the terrorists and explosive came from abroad
Burma's government says rebels trained abroad by a "superpower" were behind last week's bombings at three shopping centres in the capital, Rangoon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4549109.stm

Kind of reminds me of a really excellent movie,

The Quiet American, starring Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258068/

Plot Summary for
The Quiet American (2002)
Saigon, 1952, a beautiful, exotic, and mysterious city caught in the grips of the Vietnamese war of liberation from the French colonial powers. New arrival Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser), an idealistic American aid worker, befriends London Times correspondent Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine). When Fowler introduces Pyle to his beautiful young Vietnamese mistress Phuong (Hai Yen) the three become swept up in a tempestuous love triangle that leads to a series of startling revelations and finally - murder. Nothing, and no one, is as it seems, in this adaptation of Graham Greene's classic and prophetic story of love, betrayal, murder and the origin of the American war in Southeast Asia.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 16, 2005 5:53 PM

Quote:
Mind you, it is even worse to be in a country without a despot " owned " by the US

I dunno. Suharto managed to kill offf upwards of 300,00 ppl with the express permission of Kissinger, and with US arms and materiel:

Quote:
Kissinger, who does not find room to mention East Timor even in the index of his three-volume memoir, has more than once stated that the invasion came to him as a surprise, and that he barely knew of the existence of the Timorese question. He was obviously lying. But the breathtaking extent of his mendacity has only just become fully apparent, with the declassification of a secret State Department telegram. The document, which has been made public by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, contains a verbatim record of the conversation among Suharto, Ford and Kissinger. "We want your understanding if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action," Suharto opened bluntly. "We will understand and will not press you on the issue;' Ford responded. "We understand the problem you have and the intentions you have." Kissinger was even more emphatic, but had an awareness of the possible "spin" problems back home. "It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly," he instructed the despot. "We would be able to influence the reaction if whatever happens, happens after we return.... If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home." Micromanaging things for Suharto, he added: "The President will be back on Monday at 2 PM Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned." As ever, deniability supersedes accountability.

Now I'm not saying that the root of ALL tyrannies lies with the USA. Pol Pot, as far as I can tell, was an entirely home-grown creation. (However, if you read "Confesssions of an Economic Hit Man" you'll get a view of how we engineered their creation.)

But we so often find ourselves on the side of tyranny that, since WWI reconstruction- and with the exception of our involvement in Serbia- I cannot find a single instance in which we actually supported democracy over tyranny. That's a pretty sad record. With our economic and military might, we could have done some good but we threw our weight behind the dark side.

AFA Burma is concerned - I can't imagine why the USA would want to destabilize the Burmese government -except possibly to light a little fire under China's *ss (Since they don't cooperate or trade extensively, that doesn't seem like much of a reason.) I think that like all unpopular governments it's easier to point to a "enemy", even a fictitious one -dubya does this all the time- to whip up support than it is to address the root causes of the problem. Look how they managed to tie their resident cause celebre to the explosions.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 16, 2005 6:50 PM

The evolving story-

Quote:
Uzbek toll rises as unrest spreads
Unrest is the bloodiest in Uzbekistan's post-Soviet history.
ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan -- The death toll from a crackdown by Uzbekistan security forces is mounting amid reports that unrest has spread from Andijan to at least three other towns.

More than 700 people reportedly have been killed in clashes last week in the region bordering Kyrgyzstan, The Associated Press reported Monday.

Quote:
U.S., UK Split Over Uzbek Violence
Condemnation by Britain of Uzbek soldiers who opened fire on protesters contrasts markedly to the near silence coming from its allies in Washington.

In London, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Sunday slammed the violence in the city of Andijan as "a clear abuse of human rights."

He was speaking as witnesses described how Uzbek soldiers fired into a crowd, including women, children and their own police comrades begging them not to shoot./quote]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Monday, May 16, 2005 6:52 PM

Finn, we started a discussion that I promised to continue. Up until a couple of day ago, my life was like a motorcycle with the throttle stuck wide open. If you're still interested, I would like to pursue it.

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Now I'm not saying that the root of ALL tyrannies lies with the USA. Pol Pot, as far as I can tell, was an entirely home-grown creation. (However, if you read "Confesssions of an Economic Hit Man" you'll get a view of how we engineered their creation.)

I seem to recall reading that the US engineered the overthrow of the Cambodian Royal Family with the intent of trying to buy off whomever came to power later. Pol Pot simply stepped into this vacuum before anyone else making it impossible for the US to install their guy.

Quote:

But we so often find ourselves on the side of tyranny that, since WWI reconstruction- and with the exception of our involvement in Serbia- I cannot find a single instance in which we actually supported democracy over tyranny.

I am very cynical over Serbia as well, the West... Brits and Americans in particular helped to give post Tito Yugoslavia a big push in the wrong direction.

Quote:

That's a pretty sad record. With our economic and military might, we could have done some good but we threw our weight behind the dark side.

Or young Skywalker, you have become the darkside.

Quote:

AFA Burma is concerned - I can't imagine why the USA would want to destabilize the Burmese government -except possibly to light a little fire under China's *ss (Since they don't cooperate or trade extensively, that doesn't seem like much of a reason.) I think that like all unpopular governments it's easier to point to a "enemy", even a fictitious one -dubya does this all the time- to whip up support than it is to address the root causes of the problem. Look how they managed to tie their resident cause celebre to the explosions.

I would hazard a guess to one of two reasons:

1. " Burma is the world's largest exporter of teak and is a principal source of jade, pearls, rubies and sapphires. It is endowed with extremely fertile soil and has important offshore oil and gas deposits. However, its people remain very poor and are getting poorer. "

and / or

2. " The armed forces - and former rebels co-opted by the government - have been accused of large-scale trafficking in heroin, of which Burma is a major exporter.Prostitution and Aids are major problems. "

Maybe Bush doesn't want the competiton for his new Afgan poppy fields ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1300003
.stm

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:07 AM

Looking a little further, I googled "burma china oil" figuring that Burma might be one pearl in China's "string of pearls" which is to guarantee them China an oil supply and came up with this on the first hit:

Quote:
Burma: China has developed close ties to the military regime in Rangoon and turned a nation wary of China into a "satellite" of Beijing close to the Strait of Malacca, through which 80 percent of China's imported oil passes.

China is building naval bases in Burma and has electronic intelligence gathering facilities on islands in the Bay of Bengal and near the Strait of Malacca. Beijing also supplied Burma with "billions of dollars in military assistance to support a de facto military alliance," the report said.

www.littlespeck.com/region/CForeign-China-050119.htm

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:13 AM

So your saying it's not the Heroin....

Damn, I thought I was on to something there

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:33 PM

Oh, well... that TOO!

Finn- I read your reply. Still wondering if you have the time or interest to continue.