Supporting Dictators

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, Damn Pat, once again well said. Where are you from, anywhere around Ohio?? I suddenly wanna buy you a beer and chit chat after seeing how much we agree on so many things....

Hawaii, come visit...

SeanWah

So, Reagan was wrong and the Russians were right, is that what you are trying to say?

[Mia]

I don't think so - I think he's referring to the people we backed AGAINST Russia.

They turned us and now look at our situation. They could never do what they are doing now if we hadn't given them the arms to do it with.

[Mia]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, PH... I can't subscribe to these deluded fantasies of powerful men creating evil for profit.. I just cant.. sorry.

That's not a deluded fantasy - that's history.

[Mia]

Here's what doesn't make sense: We armed and funded Afganistan gurillas to fight against the Soviets because we didn't want to commit our troops. We armed and funded Iraq against Iran because we didn't want to commit our troops.

Then we committed our troops to fight Afganistan AND Iraq after we deemed them as threatening because they have the weapons we gave them.


Is that really logical?

Mia

Not only did Reagan back the Mujihadeen, who in effect became the Taliban, the now US ally, the Northern Alliance, were the then Soviet ally.

Now matter how you slice it and dice it, it's a clear example of the foolishness of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Of course, Uncle Joe should have taught that lesson.

But for the curious, the Mujihadeen weren't renowned human rights supporters either.

Bottom line, supporting evil is supporting evil. Supporting terrorism is supporting terrorism. All people seem to be doing is trying to defend these acts, when Bush is making such clear moral distinctions about evildoers, and continuing to support chosen dictators.

It's all horsedoodoo. Forget nuance, forget the absurd moral clarity of Bush. Stop suuporting evil, stop supporting tyrany, then the US might have a moral leg to stand on.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's an insightful organization trying to end the tyranny in Afghanistan:
http://rawa.false.net/index.html
Their statement starts off like this:
"RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, was established in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1977 as an independent political/social organization of Afghan women fighting for human rights and for social justice in Afghanistan. The founders were a number of Afghan woman intellectuals under the sagacious leadership of Meena who in 1987 was assassinated in Quetta, Pakistan, by Afghan agents of the then KGB in connivance with fundamentalist band of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar . RAWA’s objective was to involve an increasing number of Afghan women in social and political activities aimed at acquiring women’s human rights and contributing to the struggle for the establishment of a government based on democratic and secular values in Afghanistan. Despite the suffocating political atmosphere, RAWA very soon became involved in widespread activities in different socio-political arenas including education, health and income generation as well as political agitation.

Snip

Demonstrations against the Soviet invaders and their stooges and later on against the fundamentalists, and unrelenting exposure of their treason and heinous crimes has been a hallmark of RAWA’s political activities. It was in consequence of its anti-Soviet occupationist struggle and agitation that RAWA was marked for annihilation by the Soviets and their cronies, while the Islamic fundamentalists vented their wrath on our organisation for our pro-democracy, pro-secularist and anti-fundamentalist stance. Our uncompromising attitude against these two enemies of our people has cost us dear, as witnessed by the martyrdom of our founding leader and a large number of our key activists, but we have unswervingly stood, and continue to stand, by our principles despite the deadly blows that we have been dealt."

They tell it like it is, no punches pulled. The government in Afghanistan is still a medieval atrocity network. Our buddies.



When will it end? When our nation's righteous foundation on the Constitution is restored

PatrickHenry

One thing I find amusing, that the constitution, while we can argue about its relationship to religion, can unite people of disparate beliefs.

Yet, in US politics today, the regard for the constitution is obvious by the partisanship, fake patriotism and attempts to curtail the very rights granted to "all men" by the constitution and the bill of rights.

[PatrickHenry]

Did you mean "disregard" for the Constitution?

Well, you could use that word. I hoped to convey my opinion of a lack of regard for the constitution. Which I consider is obvious to one who actually sits down and reads it.

[Comrade]

I always like the people who claim Saddam Hussein constituted a soveriegn power.
The only thing I am willing to concede to the family vendetta is that Bush Jr had his attention drawn to Hussein due to exposure through his dad. Hussein did plenty to merit being stomped on, in any case.

You do not see us trying to intervene militarily in France or a similar country that did not support us in Iraq. That is because we respect their sovereignity. Not to the point where we will not try and sway them with money (grants, licensing, boycotts, etc) but any country is free to use their money in any way they wish; they earned it.
Dictators, oligarchies, communist totalitarianism, they do not constitute sovereign governments, they constitute despotries.
But then there's always the guy who wants to pretend that we can just ignore the world. One of the reasons communism is not productive is because it cannot deal with other countries...You would have us do the same with political policy.

Supporting right-wing dictators was fine, back when the Soviet Union was aggressively recruiting in the Third World. The reason we could not immediately implace a democracy is the same reason why communism was so appealing: it takes a long time. Communism is immediate, that was the...I'm trying to think of what the name of the singing mermaid seductresses from the Odyssey was, but I can't think of it, heh.

We can either stamp out the corn holes of the world and try to make them better, or we can sit behind our oceans and pray the festering dictatorships out there don't try to attack our allies until we are surrounded. THAT was the aim of influencing the third world, even if it meant dictators, because they were the lesser evil. Now that the main proponent of communism is dead, we can turn and remove those things that were necessary before but unthinkable now.

You can't do everything, and you can't do everything at once. Even American power has limits, most often imposed by social climate.

[Impenitent]

siren's song

[Comrade]

aha! thanks

[Mia]

Afgans told us while we were waging this war that the Northern alliance was was bad as the Taliban.

Whoever we can hook up with seems not to matter - we can always bomb them later after we put them in power.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Comrade,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I always like the people who claim Saddam Hussein constituted a soveriegn power. The only thing I am willing to concede to the family vendetta is that Bush Jr had his attention drawn to Hussein due to exposure through his dad. Hussein did plenty to merit being stomped on, in any case.[/b]

What are you trying to say here, that Saddam was a bad man?
When Saddam was "President" of Iraq, it was a sovereign country, now it is a conquered and occupied country. "Merit being stomped on", meaning you approve?

Originally posted by Comrade,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Comrade,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You do not see us trying to intervene militarily in France or a similar country that did not support us in Iraq. That is because we respect their sovereignity. Not to the point where we will not try and sway them with money (grants, licensing, boycotts, etc) but any country is free to use their money in any way they wish; they earned it.[/b]

Military intervention in France would be a nuclear confrontation. "We", meaning the US? (Please bear in mind that this is an international debate forum). France is a traditional ally of the USA from the days when the "enemy" was the British.
What are you implying?

Originally posted by Comrade, Dictators, oligarchies, communist totalitarianism, they do not constitute sovereign governments, they constitute despotries. But then there's always the guy who wants to pretend that we can just ignore the world. One of the reasons communism is not productive is because it cannot deal with other countries...You would have us do the same with political policy.

Last time I checked, any country that is not occupied by foreigners is a sovereign country; the word means "independent". "Dictators, oligarchies, communist totalitarianism" are governments with which the US has trade relations, even mutual defense alliances. One of the US largest trading partners, the supplier of all that good merchandise for low prices, is Communist China. Wake up.

Ever hear of: "Republic of Uzbekistan? chief of state: President Islom KARIMOV (since 24 March 1990, when he was elected president by the then Supreme Soviet) percent of vote - Islom KARIMOV 91.9%,
{snip} The government, while aware of the need to improve the investment climate, sponsors measures that often increase, not decrease, the government's control over business decisions. A sharp increase in the inequality of income distribution has hurt the lower ranks of society since independence."
A few facts from the CIA World Factbook: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ok/geos/uz.html
Well, Mr. Karimov, a noted dictator is a good "friend" of the USA. But I wouldn't say his is not a sovereign country.

Or how about Saudi Arabia. Not a sovereign country? A hereditary monarchy, with a ruling class, and the holiest sites in Islam. A tough little military all their own. The Saudis are independent and so, sovereign. So what are you tryin' to say?

By the way "despotries" isn't a word in English.

Originally posted by Comrade, Supporting right-wing dictators was fine, back when the Soviet Union was aggressively recruiting in the Third World. The reason we could not immediately implace a democracy is the same reason why communism was so appealing: it takes a long time. Communism is immediate, that was the...I'm trying to think of what the name of the singing mermaid seductresses from the Odyssey was, but I can't think of it, heh.

IMO, supporting right-wing dictators has always come back to bite the US in its ass. Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Chile's Pinochet, Somoza of the Nica's, Trujillo, Batista, on and on. All these situations turned out bad. "Implacing" democracy isn't something that can be done from outside the country in question. It is the result of education, honor, struggle against colonialism, and authoritarianism. It is usually won in blood. So what are you tryin' to say here?

<!--QuoteBegin-Comrade,@
We can either stamp out the corn holes of the world and try to make them better, or we can sit behind our oceans and pray the festering dictatorships out there don't try to attack our allies until we are surrounded. THAT was the aim of influencing the third world, even if it meant dictators, because they were the lesser evil. Now that the main proponent of communism is dead, we can turn and remove those things that were necessary before but unthinkable now.[/quote]

Man, were you high when you wrote this? This doesn't even make sense.

<!--QuoteBegin-Comrade,
You can't do everything, and you can't do everything at once. Even American power has limits, most often imposed by social climate.[/quote]

The power America needs most is the power to restrain itself. And you should learn what this site is for: posting clear opinions with facts to back 'em up...