Uzbekistan

Calina

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You are completely missing the point and it is this: if we will inflict certain rules on the world - such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - then we have to adhere to those rules ourselves. We can strongly and diplomatically oppose policies of those countries but we do not have the right to enter a country by force and say "You Got It Wrong When You Voted" and then either 1) force them to vote again until they get it right or 2) impose a personnel of government which is more palatable to us.

Currently, Uzbekistan is run by Islam Karimov, whose record on human rights is horrific in the extreme. Are you suggesting that this person should be maintained in power on the grounds that if we let the locals vote, they might vote in an Islamic style government which is at variance to your perception of what is right? Because currently that's what we/the West/The US - take your pick - are doing.

As regards your comment above: no we don't damage the human rights of the average US citizen by opposing and objecting to their continued use of the death penalty. If we invaded by force and then changed their law and local government, we would be violating their human rights.

Hobbes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So what about gay marriages? They are in the minority after all? Or prehaps the abortion. You could probably argue the latter is against human rights (quite a few would disagree). But do you not see how your logic is going?

As for imposing dictatorship/etc. If it was the same deal under islamic law the same people would be up in arms about it. The point trying to be put across is the support of the west of cruel dictatorships when it suits them while spouting freedom and democracy for all.

It has nothing to do with Islamic laws being wrong.. If thats the case then why is the US so cushy with Pakistan? Or Egypt for that matter. Slight hole in the old argument there.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

In a perfect world, I suggest that if a people knowingly and fairly chose to form an Islamic State then we have to accept that as their decision. However we shouldn't do anyting that would help them do so in any way, and we then must then oppose vigorously everything that that state does that is against our view of morality and democracy.

But it isn't a perfect world and the truth is that Islam is fostering and harbouring the most dangerous and vicious group of inernational terrorists in history and their aim is the destruction of the West, by any means possible especially by mass murder. In these circumstances we have to treat the situation as self defence and to actually assist the formation of such an Islamic State would be suicidal.
This is why the EU and US are quite rightly so reluctant to bring about the downfall of Saudi Arabia and it's neighbours.

What groups are you talking about here exactly?
If you listen to most of the "radical" groups and even general Muslim opinion (leaving aside the outright lunatics, who are an extreme fringe element), they are saying that it is Western interference in Muslim countries, continued blind support for Israel, Russian action in Chechnya and so on, that they have the problem with.
They couldn't care less about our way of life. Look at what the Uzbeks are living under at the moment, do you really think they care about what we do and how we live our lives?
As long as the West continues to interfere in these countries, either directly e.g. Iraq, or indirectly e.g. the support of dictators like Karimov or blind support for everything Israel does, the extremists will have all the propaganda they need to gain support.
Western governments aiding the suppression of these peoples has (IMO) caused most of the current problems, continuing to do so is not going to change anything for the better.

ressem

The degrees of civil rights granted by rulers is as varied between majority islamic countries as those claiming to be democratic.
Oman, Malaysia, Bangladesh are comparitively stable.

Uzbekistan claims that it's currently a republic. Ignore that police torture and kill elected former opposition leaders, public displays of religion are punished, even though some 90% of the population are muslim.

The US state department issues conflicting reports about Uzbekistan, in 01, 04 they were pretty critical, but in 2002 signed off on reports pushing aid that were meant to be on the basis of improved human rights as demanded by Congress.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

What groups are you talking about here exactly?
If you listen to most of the "radical" groups and even general Muslim opinion (leaving aside the outright lunatics, who are an extreme fringe element), they are saying that it is Western interference in Muslim countries, continued blind support for Israel, Russian action in Chechnya and so on, that they have the problem with.
They couldn't care less about our way of life. Look at what the Uzbeks are living under at the moment, do you really think they care about what we do and how we live our lives?
As long as the West continues to interfere in these countries, either directly e.g. Iraq, or indirectly e.g. the support of dictators like Karimov or blind support for everything Israel does, the extremists will have all the propaganda they need to gain support.
Western governments aiding the suppression of these peoples has (IMO) caused most of the current problems, continuing to do so is not going to change anything for the better.

These people have been surpressed by their religion for centuries before any westerners goty involved. Islamic States are surpressing States. The surpress their own people and this is the truth of history.

The US doesn't support Karimon and the only place where the west interferes is essentially Israel which is the core cause of most of the Islamic Terrorist movement.
Dealing with the facts of life rather than how we wish it to be, we would be crazy to do anything to enable Uzbekistan to become an Islamic State. They would tie up with Iran and the Islamic extremists in Sudi, Pakistan, Egypt and other groups to expand the vicious terrorist war against the west.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

These people have been surpressed by their religion for centuries before any westerners goty involved. Islamic States are surpressing States. The surpress their own people and this is the truth of history.

You're going all over the place now with your generalisations.
So are you now saying that because these people (according to you, not some grand historical truth) are "suppressed" by their religion, it's ok for Western governments to aid secular dictators to suppress them?
What is suppressing people in Uzbekistan and a great deal of other Muslims countries today? I fail to see how it's their religion, considering in many countries their call for a more religious state is being suppressed by the secular authorities or else the royal families who are keeping power to themselves.

The US doesn't support Karimon and the only place where the west interferes is essentially Israel which is the core cause of most of the Islamic Terrorist movement.

The US does support Karimov, you are either completely naive or else you're just choosing to ignore all evidence that's being given to the contrary.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Dealing with the facts of life rather than how we wish it to be, we would be crazy to do anything to enable Uzbekistan to become an Islamic State. They would tie up with Iran and the Islamic extremists in Sudi, Pakistan, Egypt and other groups to expand the vicious terrorist war against the west.

Also, how can you state this as categorically as you are? How do you know this for a fact?
Should the West continue to ignore a ruler of a country who allows the army to massacre civilians just in case they become part of this grand global conspiracy?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

You're going all over the place now with your generalisations.

I don't believe so, but even if I were making reasonable generalisations.... You make enormous generalisations when you say "As long as the West continues to interfere in these countries,..... the extremists will have all the propaganda they need to gain support." That is also a huge generalisation.

So are you now saying that because these people (according to you, not some grand historical truth) are "suppressed" by their religion, it's ok for Western governments to aid secular dictators to suppress them?

No. I'm saying that it is not the west that has been interfering and surpressing their people. It has mainly been their own people and religion.

What is suppressing people in Uzbekistan and a great deal of other Muslims countries today?

Most Muslim countries are surpressed by their own people and religion.

I fail to see how it's their religion, considering in many countries their call for a more religious state is being suppressed by the secular authorities or else the royal families who are keeping power to themselves.

In some yes. But not in all. You are generalising wildly now :rolleyes:

The US does support Karimov, you are either completely naive or else you're just choosing to ignore all evidence that's being given to the contrary.

Please post evidence of such support, and leave out the normal international relations stuff.

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

Also, how can you state this as categorically as you are? How do you know this for a fact?
Should the West continue to ignore a ruler of a country who allows the army to massacre civilians just in case they become part of this grand global conspiracy?

I never stated it as a fact. For goodness sakes Frank ! get a grip :rolleyes: And yes I believe we should ignore such a dictator if the alternative is an excalating danger to our lives and our way of life. yes. I believe in survival.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Please post evidence of such support, and leave out the normal international relations stuff.

I take it then that any evidence that shows this support is "normal international relations stuff" and going to be ignored by you, right?

And yes I believe we should ignore such a dictator if the alternative is an excalating danger to our lives and our way of life. yes. I believe in survival.

And you'll wonder why "they hate us".
Maybe you should reconsider some of your paranoia, these are real people you're talking about.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

And yes I believe we should ignore such a dictator if the alternative is an excalating danger to our lives and our way of life. yes. I believe in survival.

Two words:

Saddam.
Hussein.

Now, either we are able to contain the growing threat from Islamic Extremists in Iraq, or your support of removing him contradicts your belief as stated above.

And if we are able to contain the growing threat from Islamic Extremists in Iraq, then that ability contradicts your belief as stated above.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

But just because a lot of people (yourself included) believe in them doesn't make them correct - by your own admission.

And people who believe that Islam is the correct way...they believe that what they support is the correct way, and that just because a lot of people believe otherwise and support this heathen UDHR thingy doesn't make it ok.

And it would appear that both you and the Muslim extremists support the notion of acting in contradiction to the very ideals you claim to be upholding, in the name of upholding them.....

So I'm still not sure where the difference is. You believe your beliefs are the right and correct ones, and that popularity doesn't make other beliefs correct. So do they. You believe that its sometimes necessary to act in contradiction of your own beliefs in the name of upholding them - acting for the "greater good", so to speak, based on your own definition of good. So do they. You disagree with some of the fundamental principles on which their beliefs are based, because they are diametrically opposed to fundamental principles you believe in. Guess what....

So do they.

Where was the difference again?

jc

Hobbes

Quantum wrote:

Please post evidence of such support, and leave out the normal international relations stuff.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html
Just in case your incapable of looking...

The US is funding those it once condemned. Last year Washington gave Uzbekistan $500m (£300m) in aid. The police and intelligence services - which the state department's website says use "torture as a routine investigation technique" received $79m of this sum.

Mr Karimov was President Bush's guest in Washington in March last year. They signed a "declaration" which gave Uzbekistan security guarantees and promised to strengthen "the material and technical base of [their] law enforcement agencies".

The cooperation grows. On May 2 Nato said Uzbekistan may be used as a base for the alliance's peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan.


That was 5 seconds in google, you can find a lot more.

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

hang on you dont think its ok for a country to decide what way they want to govern themselves

you think you know whats best for them and you should impose that on them wether thay want it or not

just because the EU does not extradite people to the US or any other country to be executed does not mean we are imposing what we believe on them


honestly I think your atitude is every bit as bad as islamic fundamentalists they also think they have found the perfect system and would like to impose it on you and are just as equally puzzled as to how you cant see the benefits of their system but are confident once they impose it on you you will see the error of your ways.

cdebru

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html
Just in case your incapable of looking...

The US is funding those it once condemned. Last year Washington gave Uzbekistan $500m (£300m) in aid. The police and intelligence services - which the state department's website says use "torture as a routine investigation technique" received $79m of this sum.

Mr Karimov was President Bush's guest in Washington in March last year. They signed a "declaration" which gave Uzbekistan security guarantees and promised to strengthen "the material and technical base of [their] law enforcement agencies".

The cooperation grows. On May 2 Nato said Uzbekistan may be used as a base for the alliance's peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan.


That was 5 seconds in google, you can find a lot more.

i think the link you provided earlier

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


speaks louder than words

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

just because the EU does not extradite people to the US or any other country to be executed does not mean we are imposing what we believe on them

Correct. It means that we draw the line at co-operating with principles we disagree with exactly where our borders are.

We allow them to continue their practices in accordance to their beliefs within their borders, and we do likewise inside ours.

We neither actively support nor take action against said practices. We simply tolerate their existence, no matter how wrong and barbaric we see it as.

jc

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

I take it then that any evidence that shows this support is "normal international relations stuff" and going to be ignored by you, right?

Correct ............... We have normal relations with Pakistan and China. That doesn't mean we 'support' them. We also traded with Libya and Egypt and many other similar despotic regimes.

And you'll wonder why "they hate us".
Maybe you should reconsider some of your paranoia, these are real people you're talking about.

I know exactly why they hate us and looking after our own skins isn't a provocation in my books.

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

Two words:

Saddam.
Hussein.

Which is a direct intervention in a country where the majority do not support an Islamic State and enabling a democracy to take hold. Supporting my point.

Now, either we are able to contain the growing threat from Islamic Extremists in Iraq, or your support of removing him contradicts your belief as stated above.

No. This proves that in a country where there is not a majority demand for an Islamic State and we liberate them from the dictator, then a democracy that will foster human rights and good relations can result. My point supported again.

And if we are able to contain the growing threat from Islamic Extremists in Iraq, then that ability contradicts your belief as stated above.

No. This proves that in a country where there is not a majority demand for an Islamic State and we liberate them from the dictator, then a democracy that will foster human rights and good relations can result. My point supported again.

And people who believe that Islam is the correct way...they believe that what they support is the correct way, and that just because a lot of people believe otherwise and support this heathen UDHR thingy doesn't make it ok.

They are entitled to their views and to form their Islamic State. But I believe that we shouldn't help them and create another enemy for us in the west.

And it would appear that both you and the Muslim extremists support the notion of acting in contradiction to the very ideals you claim to be upholding, in the name of upholding them.....

Wrong. I have repeatedly stated that if they want to form an Islamic State then let them form it. But I have said that we should not enable or support them change from one dictatorship to another which will be far more dangerous to us and our way of life. That is fully consistent.

cdebru

Quantum wrote:

.
I know exactly why they hate us and looking after our own skins isn't a provocation in my books.

looking after your own skin is not a problem trying to improve your situation on the backs of other people misery is especially if you help impose that misery to make your own existence better

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Correct ............... We have normal relations with Pakistan and China. That doesn't mean we 'support' them. We also traded with Libya and Egypt and many other similar despotic regimes.

Turning a blind eye to what's been done is supporting these despots, just because there isn't a direct and active role being played by Western governments in the killing (in the Uzbek case) doesn't absolve them from any wrong doing.

I know exactly why they hate us and looking after our own skins isn't a provocation in my books.

Who is this "they" you keep referring to out interest?

cdebru

Frank Grimes wrote:

Turning a blind eye to what's been done is supporting these despots, just because there isn't a direct and active role being played by Western governments in the killing (in the Uzbek case) doesn't absolve them from any wrong doing.

?

there is a direct and active role been played by the US as alraedy documented in an earlier post

the US is training their police and army and investing over half a billion a year

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Quantum

Hobbes wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,963497,00.html
Just in case your incapable of looking...

The US is funding those it once condemned. Last year Washington gave Uzbekistan $500m (£300m) in aid. The police and intelligence services - which the state department's website says use "torture as a routine investigation technique" received $79m of this sum.

Mr Karimov was President Bush's guest in Washington in March last year. They signed a "declaration" which gave Uzbekistan security guarantees and promised to strengthen "the material and technical base of [their] law enforcement agencies".

The cooperation grows. On May 2 Nato said Uzbekistan may be used as a base for the alliance's peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan.


That was 5 seconds in google, you can find a lot more.

With respect.. that's the kind of product you get from spending only 3 seconds on Google and a salutary lesson to spend a little more time.

Read this one from July 2004: BBC Report

"The United States has frozen aid to Uzbekistan because of what it calls a lack of progress in democratic reforms.

US state department spokesman Richard Boucher said Uzbekistan had made some encouraging progress over the past year on human rights, but Washington was disappointed by a lack of progress towards democracy."

There was very good reason to work with Uzbekistan after 11/9 when the Allies had the opportunity to put troops and air assets there and there was signs of progress toward democratic reform. As I said sometimes we have to work with nasty people to oppose even nastier people. It seems to me that the US has acted fairly honourably in this.

Amazing what a bit of research produces.

Quantum

cdebru wrote:

looking after your own skin is not a problem. trying to improve your situation on the backs of other people misery is especially if you help impose that misery to make your own existence better

I agree 100%. Thankfully the west has not done that.

Frank Grimes

cdebru wrote:

there is a direct and active role been played by the US as alraedy documented in an earlier post

the US is training their police and army and investing over half a billion a year

I was more trying to say that the US/West hasn't sent soldiers there to shoot civilians which is no doubt what I'd be accused of saying by the poster.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

I agree 100%. Thankfully the west has not done that.

The West has done this in the past and is continuing to do so now. Are you completely ignoring everything that's been said here, and history for that matter?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

Turning a blind eye to what's been done is supporting these despots, just because there isn't a direct and active role being played by Western governments in the killing (in the Uzbek case) doesn't absolve them from any wrong doing.

Turning a blind eye when our survival and way of life in at risk is justified and a damned good thing imho.

Who is this "they" you keep referring to out interest?

Islamic States, Islamic terrorists, Islamic state terrorists.

Frank Grimes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

If the US decided tomorrow that it would be in our best interests to reinstate capital punishment (and carry out the sentences), would you go along with that?

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Totally irrelevant as Turkey were looking to become a member of a club. The people in the club have decided that each perspective member must adhere to certain rules before they are admitted. If Turkey felt that they did not want to change their ways, they would not be allowed to join the club.

You have stated previously that it should be your right to invade another country to depose their democratically elected gvernment if you feel that 'standards' have slipped and you have deemed that those standards are your own. You are not a democrat and you certainly do not respect other peoples choices. Effectively, you are a bigot.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

Turning a blind eye when our survival and way of life in at risk is justified and a damned good thing imho.

That is not why it's being done, if you really believe that I'm sorry for you.

Islamic States, Islamic terrorists, Islamic state terrorists.

You seem to be classing all Muslims as terrorists though, do you believe this to be the case?

Quantum

Frank Grimes wrote:

The West has done this in the past and is continuing to do so now. Are you completely ignoring everything that's been said here, and history for that matter?

I'm not interested in all of recorded history. I would rather stick with the issue at hand and I stand by my statement..