Freedom and Democracy For All....

[JP2]

.... oh, except the people in Uzbekistan.

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

[...]

But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers.

[...]

So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (£300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

They're funding the anti-democratic warlords in Afghanistan as well, as the nation verges on the brink of civil war:

Karim Khan stands disconsolately outside the local government headquarters in the remote village of Tuksar. He used to run the neighbouring village, but was bundled out by a rival militia one night recently, leaving his wife and family behind as virtual prisoners.

The incident is not isolated. It is being replicated throughout northern Afghanistan in what amounts to low-level civil war as militias use the autumn, the country's traditional fighting season, to change the map of power.

[...]

While fighting is growing in intensity in southern Afghanistan, as US forces engage resurgent Taliban forces in the Pashtun heartlands two years after they were supposed to have been defeated, the jockeying for power in the north is between three main groups, all of which are financed and supported by the Americans.

How is it possible that the Bush administration could launch its war on international terror while being so unwilling to clip the wings of warlords who inflict terror mainly on other Afghans?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1073827,00.html

Not much more needs to be said really.

Any of the Bush/Blair apologists want to add anything?

 

[Arks]

Geez just because America choose not to fix every single damn problem in the world you have a go at them.

America give money to almost every country so thats standard.

Why not have a go at other governments who do nothing in the world.

As for Afganistan isn't it funny how you only research the bad things that are happening, but if you looked closer you would find that things have improved greatly from before the war.

 

[1jasonoz]

You mean things like this happening in Iraq right now, you know the country that we have liberated to free the people from the supression of Saddam;

29 October 2003

THE US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq has
kept in place a 1987 law implemented by Saddam Hussein making unions
and strikes in the public sector illegal, an official with a West Coast
dockworkers' told Fairplay magazine.

"Because virtually every industry was state-run, Saddam Hussein made
unions illegal," said Clarence Thomas, a member of the executive board
of the Oakland, California, Local 10 of the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union. "Yet this law is still in effect," he told a US labour
meeting in Chicago on Saturday.

Thomas has just returned to the States after leading a US labour
delegation to Iraq.

The delegation met with union leaders driven underground by the former
regime as well as leaders of new unions formed since the invasion.

But the CPA has kept Saddam's restrictive labour laws in place, and
Iraqi unions "now believe the coalition forces have no interest in
bringing democracy to Iraq."

Fairplay reports that the 1987 anti-strike law was incorporated into a
list of "prohibited actions" drawn up by US administrator Paul Bremer
on 16 June.


The USA banning the right to strike in Iraq?

 

[Arks]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
You mean things like this happening in Iraq right now, you know the country that we have liberated to free the people from the supression of Saddam;

29 October 2003

THE US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq has
kept in place a 1987 law implemented by Saddam Hussein making unions
and strikes in the public sector illegal, an official with a West Coast
dockworkers' told Fairplay magazine.

"Because virtually every industry was state-run, Saddam Hussein made
unions illegal," said Clarence Thomas, a member of the executive board
of the Oakland, California, Local 10 of the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union. "Yet this law is still in effect," he told a US labour
meeting in Chicago on Saturday.

Thomas has just returned to the States after leading a US labour
delegation to Iraq.

The delegation met with union leaders driven underground by the former
regime as well as leaders of new unions formed since the invasion.

But the CPA has kept Saddam's restrictive labour laws in place, and
Iraqi unions "now believe the coalition forces have no interest in
bringing democracy to Iraq."

Fairplay reports that the 1987 anti-strike law was incorporated into a
list of "prohibited actions" drawn up by US administrator Paul Bremer
on 16 June.


The USA banning the right to strike in Iraq?

In the middle of an ongoing conflict I can see why this is in place. When order and stability are present these things will become availabile. You didn't expect everything to fall into place right away did you?

 

[Wicked Lester]

Perhaps the Europeans might like to take the lead on this one.

After all they once declared they would sort out the problems of the former Yugoslavia (Jacques Delors - 1993) and that worked out really well!!

 

[Slax]

Originally posted by Arks
In the middle of an ongoing conflict I can see why this is in place. When order and stability are present these things will become availabile. You didn't expect everything to fall into place right away did you?

Hostilites have ended George W. said so in May. The USA has an obligation to remove all represive laws even the ones they agree with like anti-unionism.

 

[Slax]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
Perhaps the Europeans might like to take the lead on this one.

After all they once declared they would sort out the problems of the former Yugoslavia (Jacques Delors - 1993) and that worked out really well!!

Considering that the countries which made up Yugoslavia (with the exception of Slovenia) had been trying to kill each other for the best part of the last 2500 years they've done quite well. Croatia is now recovering and the other republic are improving with proper support and infrastructure.

The USA destroyed all the infrastructure in Iraq, have privatised most industries, and have done a deal that will cripple Iraq with debt for the next generation.

So how the F***ing Hell is this helping a country?

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by JP2
Not much more needs to be said really.
Any of the Bush/Blair apologists want to add anything?

Typical mindless US and major Western Powers bashing. If they do step in then they are called imperialists and war mongers. If they don't then they are called hypocrites. They obviously can't do everything at once, nor should they. Some people just like to have an uninformed whinge.

Originally posted by Slax
Considering that the countries which made up Yugoslavia (with the exception of Slovenia) had been trying to kill each other for the best part of the last 2500 years they've done quite well. Croatia is now recovering and the other republic are improving with proper support and infrastructure.

And that wouldn't be possible if the US hadn't stepped in to the mess in the Balkans. The Europeans had neither the will nor capability to do anything.

 

[1jasonoz]

Originally posted by Arks
In the middle of an ongoing conflict I can see why this is in place. When order and stability are present these things will become availabile. You didn't expect everything to fall into place right away did you?

See the statement below;

Hostilites have ended George W. said so in May. The USA has an obligation to remove all represive laws even the ones they agree with like anti-unionism.

 

[ferrets79]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Typical mindless US and major Western Powers bashing. If they do step in then they are called imperialists and war mongers. If they don't then they are called hypocrites. They obviously can't do everything at once, nor should they. Some people just like to have an uninformed whinge.

You have conveniently avoided addressing the actual point, and have instead paraded the typical right wing response to such arguments.

The point being made is that American administrations are more than happy to work with and aid those who carry out human right violations when it suits their interests. The Uzbekistan case is not unique one either; America has a well-documented history of propping up dictatorial/repressive regimes. Turkey for example is a major recipient of US military aid and yet it continues to repress the Kurdish population, brutalising the Kurdish people. Yet do we see the US highlighting these violations?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Slax]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
And that wouldn't be possible if the US hadn't stepped in to the mess in the Balkans. The Europeans had neither the will nor capability to do anything.

And when are the US going to have charges laid against them for war crimes in killing civilians? They seem so happy to lay charges against army officers who happened to kill a few civilians but the US who attacked civilian targets got off scot free!

 

[Ray Nolan]

Originally posted by Slax
Hostilites have ended George W. said so in May. The USA has an obligation to remove all represive laws even the ones they agree with like anti-unionism.

Care to get the facts right before we go off all half-cocked? President Bush announced that "major combat operations" were over. He did not announce that "hostilities" were over, and the current low-level guerilla war being conducted by what's left of the regime and their terrorist partners would indicate that hostilities are not over. The reason the declaration stated that only "major combat operations" were over was to make clear that hostilities had not ceased and the war was still ongoing. As such the Coalition does not have to release any prisoners it has because the war is still ongoing, the Provisional Coalition Authority likewise can continue to employ repressive laws that may be needed to assist in upholding law and order until the war is over. As such the Provisional Coalition Authority has no obligation whatsoever to remove any repressive laws at present, and will continue to have no obligation to do so until the war is declared as over.

 

[1jasonoz]

As such the Provisional Coalition Authority has no obligation whatsoever to remove any repressive laws at present, and will continue to have no obligation to do so until the war is declared as over.

What declaration of war? The US is operating under the conditions of the UN, which has not declared a state of war.

 

[Ray Nolan]

Originally posted by 1jasonoz
What declaration of war? The US is operating under the conditions of the UN, which has not declared a state of war.

The Coalition is enforcing UN Security Council Resoultions unilaterally, it's not operating under the conditions of the UN at all - hence the controversy of going to war without UN approval. The UN has not declared a state of war but that (as with everything with the UN) is an irrelevance. The Coalition unilaterally imposed a deadline for Iraq to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions, threatening military action if the deadline was not met. Once the failure to comply occured military action commenced - that becoming the declaration of war. It's a tricky way of declaring war without actually saying so - again so the Coalition could get around various international obligations they would've had, had there been an open declaration of war.

 

[JP2]

Originally posted by ferrets79
You have conveniently avoided addressing the actual point, and have instead paraded the typical right wing response to such arguments.

The point being made is that American administrations are more than happy to work with and aid those who carry out human right violations when it suits their interests. The Uzbekistan case is not unique one either; America has a well-documented history of propping up dictatorial/repressive regimes. Turkey for example is a major recipient of US military aid and yet it continues to repress the Kurdish population, brutalising the Kurdish people. Yet do we see the US highlighting these violations?

Yes, thank you. NMW and Arks, next time you'd do better to read the article before you decide to comment.

I posted the article to demonstrate the fact that for all the government of the US (and to a lesser extent the governments of the UK and Australia) say that they are determined to stamp out terrorism and spread democracy world-wide, there are just as many (if not more) examples of them funding terrorism and totalitarianistic despots world-wide, as with these two cases here: they're funding Karimov and they're funding the Afghan war-lords, despite the fact that both - in a sense - employ terroristic measures and are anti-democratic.

And the reason they're being funded is quite simple: they're the enemy of the enemy and they're both working to secure pro-western interests.

Just like the Baath party and al-Qaida were.

 

[Ray Nolan]

Originally posted by JP2
.... oh, except the people in Uzbekistan.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

They're funding the anti-democratic warlords in Afghanistan as well, as the nation verges on the brink of civil war:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1073827,00.html

Not much more needs to be said really.

Any of the Bush/Blair apologists want to add anything?

So, you're trying to tell us the United States are essentially doing what every other country in the world does - acting in what they perceive to be their national interest first and foremost.

Nothing out of the ordinary there so your problem is? Make no mistake, any other country in their position would be doing exactly the same thing, so why single out the US for criticism? Get over it, that's the way of the world.

 

[skilts]

The dumb '****' Bush is on a crusade to eliminate an abstract noun, 'terrorism' from the world. Good luck.

Has anyone suggested to him that another way to do it might be to confiscate all dictionaries?

Damn, that won't work. That idea smacks of book burning and mind control. How is he going to control anybody's mind when he has no control over his own?

 

[Jars458]

Re: Re: Freedom and Democracy For All....

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
So, you're trying to tell us the United States are essentially doing what every other country in the world does - acting in what they perceive to be their national interest first and foremost.

Nothing out of the ordinary there so your problem is? Make no mistake, any other country in their position would be doing exactly the same thing, so why single out the US for criticism? Get over it, that's the way of the world.

Because they make a big song and dance about being the protectors of freedom and democracy in the world

In the end they are nothing of the sort. In many cases, they do the opposite.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by JP2
Yes, thank you. NMW and Arks, next time you'd do better to read the article before you decide to comment.
[/B]

Why bother, it's The Guardian. It always has the same message!!

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Re: Re: Freedom and Democracy For All....

Originally posted by Jars458
Because they make a big song and dance about being the protectors of freedom and democracy in the world

In the end they are nothing of the sort. In many cases, they do the opposite.

There's no doubt that the Americans (not all of course) are a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites, however that does not mean that everything they do is wrong (although The Guardian seems to hold that view).

 

[Ray Nolan]

Re: Re: Re: Freedom and Democracy For All....

Originally posted by Jars458
Because they make a big song and dance about being the protectors of freedom and democracy in the world

In the end they are nothing of the sort. In many cases, they do the opposite.

So, like every other great power, the United States is a hypocrite.

Kleenex?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by JP2
[BThe incident is not isolated. It is being replicated throughout northern Afghanistan in what amounts to low-level civil war as militias use the autumn, the country's traditional fighting season, to change the map of power.
[/B]

Sorry, I'm still reeling from the "country's traditional fighting season" line ...

So, like, do they have a kind of Wizard Cup for fighting in the Winter pre-season ?!

 

[Jars458]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom and Democracy For All....

Originally posted by Ray Nolan
So, like every other great power, the United States is a hypocrite.

Kleenex?

Yes please, the behaviour of many countries in the world inlcuding the USA Australia and China do make me cry.