Senior US Officials Cozy up to Dictator Who Boils People Alive

[Pastor Larry]

So what your saying is that just because we disagree with the practices of a cruel dictator or a terrorist oraganization that has a record of abuse, torture and murder. That we should be able to overlook these traits because the big picture tells us we really need those bases in order to launch attacks against another cruel dictator that has a record of abuse, torture and murder because we found it easy to overlook his record of abuse, torture and murder becasue we really needed his help in fighting against another cruel regime that had a record of abuse, torture and murder because we outsmarted ourselves by replacing a cruel dictatorial regime that had a record of abuse, torture and murder with a puppet regime and the people gave them the boot and replaced the puppet government we installed with a cruel dictatorial regime and cut the supply of oil to our friends. Is that about right?

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 ]

 

[Conservative Christian]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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?

 

[Eladar]

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?

 

[poncho]

Uzbek Opposition Urges U.S. to Stop Supporting President Karimov

“We want the United States to see Uzbekistan not only as a giant military base in their war on terror, but also as a country where people want freedom and human rights,” Akhtam Shaimardanov, member of a small opposition party, was quoted by Reuters is saying.

“War is just about to break out in Uzbekistan. We want them (United States) to realise this and help us,” he said, holding a crudely written banner reading “We demand the USA to stop supporting Karimov’s regime”.

SOURCE

Tensions Persist in Uzbekistan After Uprising, Thousands Flee

Eight government soldiers and three Islamic militants died in the latest clash in eastern Uzbekistan, where spreading unrest sparked harsh crackdowns by security forces in violence that has killed more than 500 people over three days. The bloodshed prompted up to 4,000 people to flee to the closed border with Kyrgyzstan.

The explosions of pent-up anger, which undermine the stability of a Central Asian republic that hosts an important U.S. military outpost, have now hit at least two of Uzbekistan’s towns in the Fergana Valley on its Kyrgyz border as well as its fourth-largest city, Andijan, The Associated Pressreports.

SOURCE

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia) Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and -- as their architects would like to believe -- controlled. The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan -- the plan of the CFR -- Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.

This position is corroborated by Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner. On November 6, he told FTW, "The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission ( founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller -- and the Bliderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."

SOURCE

¡desea vivo la nueva orden del mundo!

 

[Pastor Larry]

So do you have an answer?

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
So do you have an answer?

Yes I do. We should get behind President Bush and support any "free trade agreements", surrender our national sovereignty, erase our borders and become good "global citizens".

Thats very patriotic...don't you think?

 

[Pastor Larry]

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?

 

[poncho]

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

Guess I got an itchy mouse finger.

 

[poncho]

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.

I don't see any inconsistancy on my part. Bush isn't putting our national interest first. He's putting the recomendations of the CFR, Trilaterals and other one worlders ahead of America's national security, sovereignty and the liberty of American citizens.

 

[Eladar]

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]

For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

America's global primacy. Thats all that really matters...right?

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

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?

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.

 

[poncho]

UBL doesn't matter anymore.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

We got Saddam and a foothold in Eurasia that was the objective. Doesn't matter how many lies we're told, how many have to be tortured, how many have to suffer or give up their freedoms as long as the whole affair can be sold as being important to our national security.

You want security then give up your rights, erase the borders, and surrender your sovereignty that's all we ask. The Management.

 

[poncho]

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[poncho]

And all this time I thought you were a reader Pastor Larry.

Conservatives have been hearing about Abu Ghraib for three weeks now, and they've had just about enough. To hear them tell it, the media is taking one isolated, unfortunate event and using it to undermine the military, the Bush administration, and American morale. They're tired of introspecting and apologizing, and they want to refocus on the real bad guys. As Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol put it on Fox News this Sunday, "We've got to win this war. And it is insane for this country to be obsessing about a small prisoner-abuse scandal."

The problem is that the conservative insistence that the Abu Ghraib abuse was isolated or "small" is more a statement of faith than of fact. In recent days, The New Yorker and Newsweek have alleged that top Pentagon officials authorized interrogators to terrify and humiliate high-value detainees throughout the international prison system the United States established after September 11. If the right wants to defend this policy, which the Red Cross called "tantamount to torture," that's one thing. But it can't just demand that the media change the subject.

CBS NEWS

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of which are known to torture prisoners.

WASHINGTON POST

The practice of extraordinary rendition, the extra-judicial removal

of people in U.S. custody both domestically and abroad to foreign

governments that are known to use torture, has received little

attention because of the degree of secrecy with which it occurs.

Congressional Record: June 24, 2004

The American Bar Association objects strongly to the inclusion of provisions authorizing "extraordinary rendition" in the House leadership's bill that purports to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. These provisions would permit secretly transferring terrorist suspects to foreign countries known to use torture in interrogating prisoners. Extraordinary rendition not only violates all basic humanitarian and human rights standards, but violates U.S. treaty obligations which make clear that the U.S. government cannot avoid its obligations under international law by having other nations conduct unlawful interrogations in its stead. This practice not only violates our own cherished principles as a nation but also works to undermine our moral leadership in the eyes of the rest of the world.

American Bar Association Statement on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Provisions of HR 10

 

[Eladar]

I do know that our alliance with Russia in WWII enabled the Allies to win.

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.

 

[poncho]

"It is sad when people can't disagree about policy without resorting to the wildest emotional plea."

I agree, the government shouldn't resort to the wildest emotional plea. (mushroom clouds, imminent threat, able to leap over tall buildings and hit us with nukular missiles in 45 minutes, terrorist alert is now yellow elevated, etc. etc.) It's done all the time just the same.

The good news is that with a little plastic and duct tape we can all be safe.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Eladar:

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.

More folks died on 9/11 than did in Pearl harbor. And the basis of what they are doing is exactly the same, the elimination of the Jooos.

And Poncho, yer still gettin' the news from nyc.indymedia ? Sometimes I think you begin to make sense, and then you go on one of these.