Diabolical Dictator Discovered in Central Asia! Let's Roll - or Shall We?

Pontiuth Pilate

Republican Jesus!
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
7,980
Location
Taking stock in the Lord
The background.... A cruel dictator retains a one-party stranglehold over his small Central Asian nation. Dissidents are electrocuted, have their fingernails torn out, are raped, beaten, arrested, put on show trials, and even recently boiled alive. Human rights organizations deplore his brutality, and the intelligence agencies of several nations have already conclusively linked him to terrorist operations and extremist Islamic groups. The country is mired in poverty because of its cruel autocrat's rule of terror and extortion.

So the question: next target of the America's War on Terror?

WRONG. "Crucial" ally of the United States and member of the Coalition of the Willing.

Plenty of data on our best friend in Trans-Caucasus: UZBEKISTAN.

http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/1201/uzbekistan-bridge.htm

http://staging.hrw.org/press/2003/09/uzbekistan093003.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto.../us_attacks_uzbekistan_030930150010&printer=1

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/karimovprof.htm

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav081903.shtml

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav091003.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1029-01.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/03/ret.vinci.otsc/

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/coalition/uzbekistan.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html

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

Could I just ask the obvious question here?

WHY?
 
Questions like that are classified as "rhetorical" under the United States Patriot Act of 2002. Therefore, this thread is hereby closed by order of the Office of National Information Retrieval.

Thank you for your interest.

R.III
 
Because they gave a military base for the low, low price of $500 million. Why else?

Anyone who bothered to look would find that Uzbekistan is a dictatorship that has very harsh censors and likes to conduct these little secret raids on opponents, foreign and domestic.

Besides, they're fighting "terrorists" of their own. Same reason China was so willing to support Afghanistan...since they have their own "terrorists" (whether they are or aren't terrorists or just separatists or protestors doesn't matter here) in Xinjiang.
 
Originally posted by Richard III
Questions like that are classified as "rhetorical" under the United States Patriot Act of 2002. Therefore, this thread is hereby closed by order of the Office of National Information Retrieval.

Thank you for your interest.

R.III

Yeah! We can't have terrorists questioning the true and patriotic government! Arrest Pontiuth!

Where's Ashcroft when you need him?
 
I don't know what the hell is the deal with Uzbekistan, but those are some nice unbiased sources you have there. ;)

I'm guessing the US will use them for what they need and see if they survive long enough to become a significant ally. Once that happens we'll probably 'encourage' them to change their ways.
 
Yeah! We can't have terrorists questioning the true and patriotic government! Arrest Pontiuth!

Where's Ashcroft when you need him?

Banging on Pontius' door as we speak. A little early for the usual raid, but they had to move quickly. ;)

My only problem with this thread is that it should have been done with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the list as well.
 
Yes, but more people know about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Not everyone knows about Uzbekistan. It's interesting...I've heard interviews on a radio show talking about the Uzbek tyranny.
 
Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
I don't know what the hell is the deal with Uzbekistan, but those are some nice unbiased sources you have there. ;)

I'm guessing the US will use them for what they need and see if they survive long enough to become a significant ally. Once that happens we'll probably 'encourage' them to change their ways.


Like I said, relatively cheap military base in Russia's backyard and next to Afghanistan. That's more than enough reason for the foreign policy team!
 
i'll help u figure out if there will be a war. just anwser these questions.

1) Is Uzbekistan a threat to America?

a.Yes b.No

2) Does Uzbekistan have oil?

a.Yes b.No

If you anwsered No to #1 and Yes to #2, then we will go to war.
 
hehe


I love stupid questions.


It's rather simple actually, we don't want to. There is no reason to, so why bother?

P.S.: Try getting some real sources next time to support your argument.
 
We don't want to make too many enemies at one time, or too quickly, Pontiuth - now... pipe down! - before you give away the master plan. Of course you know these are former S.S.R.'s - right in the middle of Russia's sphere of influence...

...have you no sense of political & diplomatic cunning! First step in this case, is to WIN them over to our side, we (invade, if necessary &) puppet them later - once they (and the international community) are completely 'prepared' for such maneuvering. A very delicate process in this case, and no step must proceed before the previous is complete. We know what we're doing here - long term. YOU, the simple citizen, need not be concerned...
 
Naturally Panthera's right, considering our diabolical plan has been in place for years now.

There is no interest in these regions other than a strategic one, and that is not enough to convince the American people that we would need to go there.

You are looking for something that doesn't exist in the effort to get a rise out of someone.

Bad form.
 
Most people are aware that America supports democracy and freedom when it is in America's interest but is also more than happy to support despotism and repression in equal measure. It is called Foreign Policy. All countries have one. The only real surprise here is that people still believe the rhetoric that America is for freedom, democracy and self determination everywhere.
 
normally, i'd support humanitarian missions unless the local population would turn very hostile(i do not think of Operation Pimp Saddam as a humanitarian mission, plus, it will make the people's lives worse[in the long run]). but right now, we have to many enemies.
 
How will their lives be worse in the long run?

I am vastly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

We also cannot perform humanitarian missions for everyone, isn't that the UN's job?
 
Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
How will their lives be worse in the long run?

I am vastly interested to hear your thoughts on this.

We also cannot perform humanitarian missions for everyone, isn't that the UN's job?

because there are 100 people like Saddam competeing for power, and they'll do anything for it, and their lives will be worse during the Civil War, not to mention all the people we've dismembered.
 
And you honestly believe that we are going to let a Saddam-type back into power after the lives that have been spent there?

We will have a friendly ruler there, that is for sure. And a friendly ruler who won't get out of hand when it comes to his own population.

You obviously have not heard about Mr. Hussein's penchant for killing his own people?

And these same people will be worse off with a ruler who doesn't control their lives with terror?

And this Civil War you are talking about? What Civil War?

The people we've dismembered? WTH? Where are you going with that?

It was a war. Civilians get hurt and killed.
 
Originally posted by Flatlander Fox

We also cannot perform humanitarian missions for everyone, isn't that the UN's job?

Of course, the US also went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Reasonable people might have been led to believe that this removing of dictators would not remain confined to Iraq alone ;).
 
Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
It was a war. Civilians get hurt and killed.

Finally voice of reason!...

It was war about WMD, 9/11 connections and evil dictator.
 
Top Bottom