Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive

Well, no ... not "about right." I am posing a scenario that we all practice every day, albeit on a lesser scale. Do we really believe that cruel murderous dictators are more dangerous than porn and alcohol? I don't ... I think they have equal killing powers, and the porn and alcohol may be more dangerous because they are quiet killers, and they destroy families and lives without broadcasting their intent. Yet, we shop in gas stations that sell it, and we buy products that advertise in conjunction with it. In other words, we have all already done these very kinds of things but because we see the practicality of it, we don't argue against it. And because it is a whole lot harder to make a dramatic case when we admit to actually doing it.

I think our national policy has to be driven by our national interests, not by someone else's moral character or political ideals. Think about the irony: You have talked before about how Bush is not putting our national interests first. But when Bush pursues a relationship with someone who can help the national security of America, you don't like it. That seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Bottom line is that I don't think it is a black and white issue. We encourage lying because we know that information obtained by spies is crucial to our national interests. We encourage soldiers to kill husbands and fathers in war because it is vital to our national interests. In other words, there is no easy answer while living in a sin-cursed world.

[ May 16, 2005, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Anybody who compares buying a bottle of Sprite at a convenience store to a brutal Communist dictatorship that has murdered, tortured and imprisoned its own citizens---is suffering from a serious case of moral relativism.

 

When I saw your name, I suspected it would be a poor attempt at a response that would include an unfounded personal attack. Imagine my surprise when I read your post ... There was none. It was just like I thought it would be.

But try to get past your personal issues and deal with the problem. I suffer from no sense of moral relativism. In fact, I asked a question early on, and used a real life example to support it.

You unfortunately have a habit of not dealing with the real questions, apparently preferring to stoop to personal attacks.

So let's present it again: Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to explore the necessity and limits of strategic alliances for various reasons. They are a fact of life, even in our lives, where we accept certain things we don't like because of the necessity of it. For instance, late on a Friday night, we will buy a 2 liter of Sprite at a very high price at a nearby convenience store because one in our family is sick to their stomach, even though we would never buy it there under normal circumstances. Their selling of alcohol and pornography make it distasteful to shop there, but the need of the moment demands a "strategic alliance." We make these kinds of choices every day.

How do those kinds of choices play out in international politics where the stakes are much higher?

If it takes a strategic alliance with a communist dictator to defeat an avowed enemy, is that wrong?

 

The question remains, is a strategic alliance with a rat really necessary in dealing with the snake?

It may make things easier, but is it the only option?

 

So do you have an answer?

 

Actually, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Eladar, who merely posted another question. You posted while I was posting.

I don't think your answer, however, is "very patriotic. I disagree with every part of it. My point in this thread was about national security and strategic alliances, not about sovereignty, borders, global citizenship, or trade agreements. I am an America first kind of person. I think we need to do what is best for America, and not worry so much about the political problems of other countries.

To me, it seems your concern about "cozying up to dictators" doesn't put America and her interests first. If a dictator can help make this country safer and stronger, then let's take advantage of it. Why spend our money around the world to defend ourselves when we can get someone else to do it for us? If Musharref will chase Bin Laden (as he is), let's spend our money elsewhere and let Musharref do that work. It seems strange to me that you (I believe) wanted us to stay out of the political situation in Iraq, but now seem to want us to get involved in the political situation in Uzbekistan or Pakistan, or wherever there are "murderous dictators." I don't quite get your thinking on that.

Let's ask it this way: Would you sacrifice or postpone the success of America's economic future to help get rid of murderous dictators such as the on in your articles above?

 

I did not post another question. I was merely pointing out an inherent weakness to your assumption.

I say we support good governments, even if at one point they were bad.

As to the specific question of the thread, I believe that we did (do) not need Uzbekistan. If it can be shown that those in charge are rats, then we should not support them.

 

Poncho, I don't know enough about the Uzbekistan situation to comment intelligently, or even semi-intelligently about it. I was using Pakistan as an example. By your standard, it seems we should not team up with Pakistan because of their human rights situation. But if we did not, UBL would be running free in his country. Our alliance with Pakistan has allowed someone else to help pursue UBL and save our money, time, and effort for other things. To me, the Pakistan alliance is a case of America first, even with a person whose actions we disagree with.

Eladar, you said

That looked like a question to me ... I realize the first was probably rhetorical, but as I said I don't know enough about Uzbekistan to say anything.

I do know that our alliance with Russia in WWII enabled the Allies to win. By your standard, we should have never had them on our side. But because we were fighting a mutual enemy, and they could provide enough resistance on the east, we together defeated Germany.

 

Do you really think that is true? I don't think anyone in their right mind actually believes that. And I see no real purpose in posting it. It detracts from the conversation. It is sad when people can't disagree about policy without resorting to the wildest emotional plea.

 

I believe it is safe to assume that this was a necessary alliance. I don't see the threat in the Middle-earth and Central Asia to be of the same magnitude as the military threat of the Axis Powers of WWII.