Uzbekistan

Quantum

ressem wrote:

Bringing back to OT, given that Uzbekistan is populated with followers of a more moderate form of Islam, and under commmunism women had a more equal say, and the better standard of literacy and education, is there really no chance of their mostly muslim population forming a decent representitive state, justifying either us or the US state dept shutting up while protestors are shot (with all the PR opportunities it presents to the militant fundamentalists).

And is it worth taking the chance ? You say that they follow a more moderate form of Islam, ahow knows if this is true, but history seems to show that wherever an Islamic State is formed, this kind of disgusting repression and non democratic regime follows. I see no point in enabling one dictatorship change to another under a different name, that will follow the pattern of harbouring and facilitating anti western radical islamic terrorism. The risk is too high.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

I see no point in enabling one dictatorship change to another under a different name, that will follow the pattern of harbouring and facilitating anti western radical islamic terrorism. The risk is too high.

Excluding Afghanistan, what Islamic States/Muslim countries have done this?

cdebru

Frank Grimes wrote:

Excluding Afghanistan, what Islamic States/Muslim countries have done this?

actually todays Irish times had an interesting piece on Afhganistan apparently they are offering amnesties to former Taliban and they are coming back

the former Taliban foreign minister is standing for election in Kandahar and apparently they offered an amnesty to Mullah Mohammed Omar the leader of the taliban which he refused

seems the US is so desperate to get out that they want to cut down their taliban wanted list and end the insurgency in Afghanistan by letting middle ranking taliban back in

cdebru

Quantum wrote:

And is it worth taking the chance ? You say that they follow a more moderate form of Islam, ahow knows if this is true, but history seems to show that wherever an Islamic State is formed, this kind of disgusting repression and non democratic regime follows. I see no point in enabling one dictatorship change to another under a different name, that will follow the pattern of harbouring and facilitating anti western radical islamic terrorism. The risk is too high.

So what would be your final solution for Muslims whom you obviously view as some lesser form of live incapable of running their own affairs the way us civilised sorts do:(

ressem

And is it worth taking the chance ?

When a population get riled, Ukraine / Iran (using both as contrasting outcomes of repression) shows how fast things can change. In Ukraine's case the US as supporters of the opposition have an influence. In Uzbekistan they're losing credibility.

If the government falls with the hardliners able to claim credit, they will be empowered to gain more say in the creation of a new state overthrowing the existing constitution.

Maybe you are right, perhaps I'm not giving the US credit and they are putting heavy pressure to cool it behind the scenes, quietly so as not to provide Al Jazeera sticks to beat them with (other than that silence can be taken as accceptance ). In the past though they've provided mixed messages. In 2002 the State dept overrode their advisors to reverse their views on human rights progress, so as to allow aid to Uzbekistan. That was almost certainly pushed by the defence agenda of government.

If the US/EU apply careful pressure to existing regime then they may be able to convince the majority party to restore democracy without collapsing the state.

I'd assume we'd both see that as preferable. Or do you really believe that a govenment that behaves like the current regime will not be toppled eventually?

Quantum

cdebru wrote:

So what would be your final solution for Muslims whom you obviously view as some lesser form of live incapable of running their own affairs the way us civilised sorts do:(

I find that an utterly offensive comment that I have no intention of responding to.

cdebru

Quantum wrote:

I find that an utterly offensive comment that I have no intention of responding to.

what do you find offensive about it you obviously dont respect their human rights and place your own feeling of safety above their right to live

A Dub in Glasgo

Quantum wrote:

I find that an utterly offensive comment that I have no intention of responding to.

You have responded to it by responding to say you are not going to respond to it.

You do seem to advocate that it is preferable that 'we' should let a dictator brutalise their people because 'we' cannot take a chance if the people decide to become something which you feel threatened by.

Quantum

ressem wrote:

When a population get riled, Ukraine / Iran (using both as contrasting outcomes of repression) shows how fast things can change. In Ukraine's case the US as supporters of the opposition have an influence. In Uzbekistan they're losing credibility.

I think that credibility is not high on the agenda of the US right now and I don't blame them. Wider security issues and US lives are far more important. Uzbekistan is right in Russia's back yard, and it's population don't hold much potential for good relations with the US. If it is true that an Islamic State is likely, or a possibility then I don't see what's in it for the US, the EU or the west to facilitate a change of dictatorship.

If the government falls with the hardliners able to claim credit, they will be empowered to gain more say in the creation of a new state overthrowing the existing constitution.

The chances of the constitution staying must be almost zero. Either the result will be a muslim democracy (highly unlikely)or an Islamic State. Both will be completely different than now and both carry huge risks to the west.

Maybe you are right, perhaps I'm not giving the US credit and they are putting heavy pressure to cool it behind the scenes, quietly so as not to provide Al Jazeera sticks to beat them with (other than that silence can be taken as accceptance ).

I seriously doubt it. . for the above reasons.

In the past though they've provided mixed messages. In 2002 the State dept overrode their advisors to reverse their views on human rights progress, so as to allow aid to Uzbekistan. That was almost certainly pushed by the defence agenda of government.

This was a choice determined by the far greater issues of 11/9 and the war against terrorism. They made the smart choice that we would have made had we been in the same situation.

If the US/EU apply careful pressure to existing regime then they may be able to convince the majority party to restore democracy without collapsing the state.

Maybe. But the information that I see coming out of the country isn't looking good. I would love to see anyone who has any more positive references. But the way things look I think it is better to just leave things as they are, while keeping pressure on the dictator to maintain some level of restraint.

I'd assume we'd both see that as preferable. Or do you really believe that a govenment that behaves like the current regime will not be toppled eventually?

There's no such thing as inevitable. Regimes like this can last twenty or more years. Look at Saddam. And maybe the anti war protestors will get their banners out and try to keep him in power too ! So who knows what will happen. Maybe it will be delayed long enough to get the EU's finger out and join the job of sorting our the Israeli-Palestinian issue which is at the core of all of this.

Quantum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You have responded to it by responding to say you are not going to respond to it.

You do seem to advocate that it is preferable that 'we' should let a dictator brutalise their people because 'we' cannot take a chance if the people decide to become something which you feel threatened by.

I said we should leave it to the people themselves - because the result would only be another dictatorship that would threaten our own safety. I think this is a very reasonable and logical point of view.

cdebru

Quantum wrote:

I said we should leave it to the people themselves - because the result would only be another dictatorship that would threaten our own safety. I think this is a very reasonable and logical point of view.

leaving it to the people of Uzbekistan to sort out there own problems is completely different from propping up a regime with money military hardware and training them how to suppress their own population.

that is not leaving it to the people to sort out that is taking the side of the dictator

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

I think that credibility is not high on the agenda of the US right now and I don't blame them. Wider security issues and US lives are far more important. Uzbekistan is right in Russia's back yard, and it's population don't hold much potential for good relations with the US. If it is true that an Islamic State is likely, or a possibility then I don't see what's in it for the US, the EU or the west to facilitate a change of dictatorship.

oook? Afganistan is on the US back yard and by that rational the US government shouldn't have interfered in Afganistan in the 80s or 00s. You keep talking about wider security issues, and non interference, thats an oxymoron.

The chances of the constitution staying must be almost zero. Either the result will be a muslim democracy (highly unlikely)or an Islamic State. Both will be completely different than now and both carry huge risks to the west.

And why are both huge risks to the west. You're talking chicken and egg, it's not like muslims woke up and came to the conclusion they don't like the US, the situation is a tad more complex.

This was a choice determined by the far greater issues of 11/9 and the war against terrorism. They made the smart choice that we would have made had we been in the same situation.

Would we? And who is "we"? Ireland?

See you're going into that LBJ mentality of (refering to a central american dictator) "he's a sonnabitch, but's he's our sonnabitch"

Quantum wrote:

I see no point in enabling one dictatorship change to another under a different name, that will follow the pattern of harbouring and facilitating anti western radical islamic terrorism. The risk is too high.

As I recall this war was fought because "they hate our freedoms" So now it's keeping a dictator repressing a country because he's better than the potential alternative. Recent american foreign policy has lead to the support of Pinochet, Indonesia, Saddam Hussein and the Saudi Royal family, just how many blind eyes must the us turn to the behaviour of their allies?

Maybe. But the information that I see coming out of the country isn't looking good. I would love to see anyone who has any more positive references. But the way things look I think it is better to just leave things as they are, while keeping pressure on the dictator to maintain some level of restraint.
There's no such thing as inevitable. Regimes like this can last twenty or more years.

Oh thats sweet. Well just sell him arms and tut louder while he abuses human rights. I mean these are human beings husbands wives children, and you're asking them to sacrifice their rights because of securing the rights of and freedoms of people in Indiana? Who realistical aren't threatened by an Islamic state?

Look at Saddam. And maybe the anti war protestors will get their banners out and try to keep him in power too !

Nice and glib. I'll think you'll find that I was an anti war protestors, and like many others I was protesting about arms sales to Iraqi, US leaving the kurds out to dry post gulf war. Rumsfeld and the rest of your hawks were scurring off sell him weapons days before his oppression. No one was suggesting keep Saddam in power.

So who knows what will happen. Maybe it will be delayed long enough to get the EU's finger out and join the job of sorting our the Israeli-Palestinian issue which is at the core of all of this.

Right and your solution the the Israeli-Palestinian situation would be? Considering you better the devil we know attitude to central asian dictators with a penchance for boiling supporters I see this working out well for some palestinians.

See you keep ignoring the realities of one situation while demanding the US deal with another in a idealistic manner. As long as the US government has a mindset that will tolerate the Uzbekistan regieme, demanding that handle the far more dosmeticaly volitile issue of Israeli in an even handed manner is a bloody joke.

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

oook? Afganistan is on the US back yard and by that rational the US government shouldn't have interfered in Afganistan in the 80s or 00s. You keep talking about wider security issues, and non interference, thats an oxymoron.

I'm not justifying anything that they did in the 80's. I never mentioned it. Now is now and the realities are as they are.

And why are both huge risks to the west. You're talking chicken and egg, it's not like muslims woke up and came to the conclusion they don't like the US, the situation is a tad more complex.

I really don't care about the history. I only care about now. And the now is that swopping one dictatorship for another is far too big a risk that it wil become yet another west hating terrorist haven.

Would we? And who is "we"? Ireland?

Yes.

See you're going into that LBJ mentality of (refering to a central american dictator) "he's a sonnabitch, but's he's our sonnabitch"

If the cap fits. Survival before principles. And the result of your suggested change in Uzbekistan will be a dictatorship of just a different style, so your quote can be turned to your statements too.

As I recall this war was fought because "they hate our freedoms"

I don't think that was the reason, though it may be one of your favourite Bushisms.

So now it's keeping a dictator repressing a country because he's better than the potential alternative.

Keeping one dictator in power because the alternative dictatorship is worse. Correct !

Recent american foreign policy has lead to the support of Pinochet, Indonesia, Saddam Hussein and the Saudi Royal family, just how many blind eyes must the us turn to the behaviour of their allies?

As many as necessary if the safety of the US, EU and the west is at stake. There's a war on and whatever it takes.

Oh thats sweet. Well just sell him arms and tut louder while he abuses human rights.

Essentially.

I mean these are human beings husbands wives children, and you're asking them to sacrifice their rights because of securing the rights of and freedoms of people in Indiana?

Indiana, Spain, germany, London, Dublin, Australia, Iraq, everywhere.

Who realistical aren't threatened by an Islamic state?

All of us. every western or christian country. They are indiscriminate and slaughter everywhere.

Right and your solution the the Israeli-Palestinian situation would be?

Get the Israelis out of Palestinian land for a start.

Considering you better the devil we know attitude to central asian dictators with a penchance for boiling supporters I see this working out well for some palestinians.

Exactly.

See you keep ignoring the realities of one situation while demanding the US deal with another in a idealistic manner.

There's nothing idealistic about solving the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It can be solved, and if the EU pulled it's finger out it could be solved a hell of a lot faster.

As long as the US government has a mindset that will tolerate the Uzbekistan regieme, demanding that handle the far more dosmeticaly volitile issue of Israeli in an even handed manner is a bloody joke.

I don't believe so. Blaming the whole world's problems on the US is the joke. Sometimes self defence comes first and if the EU took it's finger out and got stuck into foreign policy we wouldn't have half the problems that we do.

Frank Grimes

Quantum wrote:

All of us. every western or christian country. They are indiscriminate and slaughter everywhere.

Simple question here, yes or no answer. Can you differentiate between normal Muslims and an extreme minority of terrorists?
If your answer is yes, why do you continually imply that all Muslims are out to get us?

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

I'm not justifying anything that they did in the 80's. I never mentioned it. Now is now and the realities are as they are.
I really don't care about the history. I only care about now.

Bingo and that would be the problem, little foresight was put into US support for fanatical muslims in afganistan in the 80s, and we're dealing with the history of that mistake. Ignoring how the situation will and could evolve, is what got us into this mess in the first.

And the now is that swopping one dictatorship for another is far too big a risk that it wil become yet another west hating terrorist haven.

And maybe and this is just some wild speculation, the country will become a terrorist west hating haven because after ten years of a brutal dictatorship proped up by the US government the people learn to hate the west.

Yes.

Thats an absurd analogy, we don't have the miltary might, and we haven't been sticking our noses into middle eastern foreign policy for decades.

If the cap fits. Survival before principles. And the result of your suggested change in Uzbekistan will be a dictatorship of just a different style, so your quote can be turned to your statements too.

Classic. However if you disregard your principles before survival you don't get to go back and pick up your principles. Talking about fighting for freedom in Iraqi the right to vote in Iraqi while ignoring another dictator getting fat on your largeness, is monumentally hyprocritical.

I don't think that was the reason, though it may be one of your favourite Bushisms.

I was being glib, the US is touting that it went to war to make the world a safer more democractic place.

Keeping one dictator in power because the alternative dictatorship is worse. Correct !

Better the devil we know eh? Again I'm sure thats comfort to the people he's killed, (we know he killed you, but geez the next guy, he'd have been a bleeding psycho) Of course you can't prove the alternative is going to be worse, you just suspect it.

As many as necessary if the safety of the US, EU and the west is at stake. There's a war on and whatever it takes.

Brilliant screw their freedoms and screw their rights. We're at ORANGE alert people! It's still safe to shop!

Indiana, Spain, germany, London, Dublin, Australia, Iraq, everywhere.
All of us. every western or christian country. They are indiscriminate and slaughter everywhere.

Great so instead of looking at the route cause of why this happens we just go back to "they hate our freedoms" take away some more of our own, oppress a few other countries, because of the alledged worldwide threat posed by the potential that their might be terrorist training camps set up at some point in Uzbekistan. Camps which because people had their families tortured and killed by the US proped up regieme, have a very specific target in mind.

Nice vicious little cycle you've got us in here Quantum.

Get the Israelis out of Palestinian land for a start.

And this is were we get priceless. After all this "realism" and "survivalist" dogma, we get this glib solution. Brilliant. So tell us, how would you go about doing this? What exactly do you define as Palestinian and Israeli land?

Also, considering the Israeli's get more US aid per captia than any country in the world? Considering 1.4 billion of that aid is purely miltiary aid, considering the Jewish lobby and Neo Con's are a dominant force in US politics? Considering the realist worldview in Washington is that it's good to have a strong pro US country slap bang in the middle east? I mean you take about realism and survivialism, and then you suggest that the US chop their hand off in the middle east, a president commits political hari kari, and you destablise a whole region. Israeli's existance and strength is down to the attitude you are displaying about Uzbekistan.

Exactly.
There's nothing idealistic about solving the Israeli-Palestinian situation. It can be solved, and if the EU pulled it's finger out it could be solved a hell of a lot faster.

I'm sorry, how do you propose the EU solve it?

I don't believe so. Blaming the whole world's problems on the US is the joke. Sometimes self defence comes first and if the EU took it's finger out and got stuck into foreign policy we wouldn't have half the problems that we do.

Uzbekistan and Israeli are two examples relevant because the of US involvement and financial support. So yes the US is partially to blame for these situations. As for the EU getting "stuck in" to foreign policy, it may have escaped your attention we're having trouble ratifying our own internal constitution and you think now would be a good time to try and become a dominant world player? :rolleyes:

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

Keeping one dictator in power because the alternative dictatorship is worse.

I assmue that when you say is you mean could be?

Or, if you did mean to say is, do you have any evidence to suggest as much - that it is inevitable that your particular worst-case Islamic nation scenario would actually come to pass in Uzbekistan were the current ruler to be removed (regardless of whether or not he, or the populace were supported by the west)?

After all, haven't several posters indicated (and posted links to support , if I'm nto mistaken) that there is a body of informed opinion that says it would be most likely to be a moderate version of an Islamic nation which came into being, rather than a Fundamentalist or Extremist version.

They are indiscriminate and slaughter everywhere

Could you clarify who "they" are in this situation?

Nations which are under Islamic (Sharia) law?
Nations which have Islam as the official religion?
Nations which have Islam as the official religion and which are not democracies?
Nations which have Islam as the official religion, which are not democracies, and which are not currently listed as US allies?

I'm not trying to be smart. Its just that you've defended against claims of unfair generalisations more than once by explaining that you're not referring to who ppl think you're referring to.

I just think it might be easier to discuss the point if you clarified who you are talking about before its challenged.

jc

shltter

bonkey wrote:

After all, haven't several posters indicated (and posted links to support , if I'm nto mistaken) that there is a body of informed opinion that says it would be most likely to be a moderate version of an Islamic nation which came into being, rather than a Fundamentalist or Extremist version.



jc

of course if we give it another couple of years under the present dictator with the US backing what we are actually creating is a breeeding ground for islamic extremists and the radicalisation of the population at large

far from this being the safe option if anything it is the most dangerous option

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

I assmue that when you say is you mean could be?

I would say as I have said above that it seems likely. I also asked for anyone who knew better or knew some more information about this to post references. None has arrived.

After all, haven't several posters indicated (and posted links to support , if I'm nto mistaken) that there is a body of informed opinion that says it would be most likely to be a moderate version of an Islamic nation which came into being, rather than a Fundamentalist or Extremist version.

I haven't seen any of these . Please point them out. Also I personally don't see a whole lot of different between the former and the latter. Both seem to me to be far too high a risk for the west to get involved actively promoting the switch from one dictatorship to another.

Could you clarify who "they" are in this situation?

Extreme or radical islamic Terrorists.

I'm not trying to be smart. Its just that you've defended against claims of unfair generalisations more than once by explaining that you're not referring to who ppl think you're referring to.
I just think it might be easier to discuss the point if you clarified who you are talking about before its challenged.

While your point is valid in this case I would point out that I have posted consistently on a number of ocassions and it seems to me that no one could doubt who it is that I refer to.

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

Bingo and that would be the problem, little foresight was put into US support for fanatical muslims in afganistan in the 80s, and we're dealing with the history of that mistake. Ignoring how the situation will and could evolve, is what got us into this mess in the first.

Well my response would be to agree with you. However in present circumstances I would suggest that it is you who isn't paying attention to how things would end up. It's easy to campaign for the removal of such a dictator, but it is you who is ignoring the implications of the resulting circumstances which look like they would end up as an Islamic State that would be a serious danger to the West.

And maybe and this is just some wild speculation, the country will become a terrorist west hating haven because after ten years of a brutal dictatorship proped up by the US government the people learn to hate the west.

if that were true yes. But it isn't. And yes I agree it is far from definite. But I say we shouldn't take the chance. I just don't see what the point is in swopping one dictatorship for another.

Thats an absurd analogy, we don't have the miltary might, and we haven't been sticking our noses into middle eastern foreign policy for decades.

What I said was: "They made the smart choice that we would have made had we been in the same situation."

Classic. However if you disregard your principles before survival you don't get to go back and pick up your principles. Talking about fighting for freedom in Iraqi the right to vote in Iraqi while ignoring another dictator getting fat on your largeness, is monumentally hyprocritical.

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever hypocritical about it. It's a matter of self defence and the US looking after it's own safety and the safety of it's people. It choses to take action where it feels a positive result is achievable. It decides not to take action where it isn't.

I was being glib, the US is touting that it went to war to make the world a safer more democractic place.

I really don't want to get dragged into this - but the truth is that Bush claimed he went to war because of WMD didn't he ? The trashed intelligence that that was based on is irrelevant. This is what he claimed, no ? It is true that he and others (me included) have supported the action based on the fact that it liberated 25 million people, but I dont think that this was one of his major justifications.

Better the devil we know eh? Again I'm sure thats comfort to the people he's killed, (we know he killed you, but geez the next guy, he'd have been a bleeding psycho)

Life sucks sometimes. Better they get killed that we in the west get killed.

Of course you can't prove the alternative is going to be worse, you just suspect it.

Exactly. Life is like that. Sometimes you have to make an assessment on the risk. I suggest that based on the information coming out o this country that the risk is too high and the gain is just a swopping of a dictatorship for another.

Brilliant screw their freedoms and screw their rights. We're at ORANGE alert people! It's still safe to shop!

I couldn't put it better myself. It's our lives before theirs all the way. It's my son's life before all of them, any day of any week.

Great so instead of looking at the route cause of why this happens we just go back to "they hate our freedoms" take away some more of our own, oppress a few other countries, because of the alledged worldwide threat posed by the potential that their might be terrorist training camps set up at some point in Uzbekistan. Camps which because people had their families tortured and killed by the US proped up regieme, have a very specific target in mind.

That's it basically.

Nice vicious little cycle you've got us in here Quantum.

That's the way the world works. Self defence can be a bitch for the other side.

And this is were we get priceless. After all this "realism" and "survivalist" dogma, we get this glib solution. Brilliant. So tell us, how would you go about doing this? What exactly do you define as Palestinian and Israeli land?

That's far too far off topic for this thread.

Also, considering the Israeli's get more US aid per captia than any country in the world? Considering 1.4 billion of that aid is purely miltiary aid, considering the Jewish lobby and Neo Con's are a dominant force in US politics? Considering the realist worldview in Washington is that it's good to have a strong pro US country slap bang in the middle east? I mean you take about realism and survivialism, and then you suggest that the US chop their hand off in the middle east, a president commits political hari kari, and you destablise a whole region. Israeli's existance and strength is down to the attitude you are displaying about Uzbekistan.

That's got to be a joke right ? This conflict in Israel/Palestine IS the cause of the whole instability in the middle east. Your concern for the US is touching but I don't support it. The US and EU and Russia need to get together to sort this out and stop it being a one man show for the US in it's support of the outrageous Israeli behaviour. This is the cause of 11/9, of radical islamic terrorism, of our whole problem and one major contributory factor, in my opinion, is the unwillingness of the Eu to step up to it's responsibility to play a strong role in the region.

I'm sorry, how do you propose the EU solve it?

Again, that's way off topic. I never said I had a solution, I said that it is my opinion that it can be solved and would be solved alot faster if the EU stepped up to it's responsibility.

Uzbekistan and Israeli are two examples relevant because the of US involvement and financial support.

I don't agree. They are poles apart in their circumstances.

So yes the US is partially to blame for these situations.

Wrong again. The US are to blame for the israeli situation but have no responsibility for the Uzbekistan situation which is essentially caused by the break up of the USSR and the failure to allow the people of Uzbekistan to control their own country. Nothing to do with the US.

As for the EU getting "stuck in" to foreign policy, it may have escaped your attention we're having trouble ratifying our own internal constitution and you think now would be a good time to try and become a dominant world player? :rolleyes:

Wrong again. I said they should be stepping up to their responsibilities and getting stuck into these issues, instead of bickering about every foreign issue. The Constitution is irrelevant and doesn't prevent in any way the EU havinga common foreign policy backed up by a common military capability.

bonkey

Quantum wrote:

I would say as I have said above that it seems likely. I also asked for anyone who knew better or knew some more information about this to post references.

So its innocent till proven guilty, eh? We have to prove they're not a threat, and until then they are one?

None has arrived.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2787796&postcount=91

This was the post I was thinking of. It didn't have a URL (my mistake), but unless you're going to suggest that Dadakopf was lying about what he saw on TV, then I would say that more information has been offered on this thread to suggest that its not an extremist version of an Islamic State that we'd be looking at but rather a moderate implementation

Your response was not to provuide a counter-point, but rather to point out that it is possible that a counter-point exists. Your exact words were:

I'm not convinced. It's a hell of a risk to take, to enable an Islamic State under current world conditions. "Experts" often disagree - and gambling our future on them isn't my idea of good planning.

There are undoutedly people on both sides purporting to be experts.
There are undoubedtly so-called experts on both sides who are not experts, as well as those who are biased and choose not to use their expertise objectively.

However, you appear to have arbitrarily chosen to dismiss the offered information because it doesn't sit with your preformed judgement, rather than explaining what informational basis your judgement has been based on that allows you to shrug off this point.

So I beg to differ - someone has offered this information. You just dismissed rather than refuted it.

Also I personally don't see a whole lot of different between the former and the latter.

You see not a whole lot of difference between moderate and extremist religious implementations? Am I understanding you correctly? I thought that by definition moderate and extremist were effectively mutually exclusive?

Extreme or radical islamic Terrorists.

The original question was: Who realistical aren't threatened by an Islamic state? Your response was that we all are because they are killing everywhere. Now, if they are terrorists, and an (unspecified)Islamic State is a threat because of this....how can I not conclude that you are implying that all Islamic states are involved in state-funded terrorism carried out by extreme and/or radical Muslims?

While your point is valid in this case I would point out that I have posted consistently on a number of ocassions and it seems to me that no one could doubt who it is that I refer to.

I can't talk for anyone else, but I still have quite a doubt.

You insist that you're not generalising about Islam, but see no significant difference between a moderate Islamic nation and an extremist one. So when you explicitly refer to Extremist aspects of Islam....what distinction are you making?

You say that the threat from an Islamic Nation is that they kill indiscriminately everywhere (becayuse thats what the question was), but clarify that you're referring to extreme or radical islamic Terrorists and not Islamic Nations when you say this. I assume this to mean that you're referring to state-sponsored terrorism but you haven't clarified that, nor have you shown in any way that Islamic nations in general are connected to such, and that its not just a minority of them.

You've also argued that a nation either is, or is not, under Islamic (Sharia) Law and that there's no middle ground, but fail to clarify whether or not you are referring specifically to the sub-set of nations which are under Sharia Law when you talk about these sponsors of terrorism, or the more general case of nations where Islam is the national religion or nationally predominant religion, or some mix in between.

The only way I can "clearly" see who you're talking about is to assume that you're making the very generalisation that you've insisted time and time again that you are not making.

Thats why I asked for clarification...and - again, maybe its me - its still not clear.

jc

shltter

Quantum wrote:

.
Wrong again. The US are to blame for the israeli situation but have no responsibility for the Uzbekistan situation which is essentially caused by the break up of the USSR and the failure to allow the people of Uzbekistan to control their own country. Nothing to do with the US.
.

The US has a massive responsibility for the situation in Uzbekistan they are pumping millions into the country propping up the government

they are training the military

they are providing them with military equipment

they have only offered the bare minimum of criticism of the murder of women and children

they are using the country to bring in people captured in Afhganistan for torture

it is time people opened their eyes the biggest threat to the west is not from Islam it is from the US and particularly the people in power in the US

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

Well my response would be to agree with you. However in present circumstances I would suggest that it is you who isn't paying attention to how things would end up. It's easy to campaign for the removal of such a dictator, but it is you who is ignoring the implications of the resulting circumstances which look like they would end up as an Islamic State that would be a serious danger to the West.

Look how, what serious evidence have you presented that the alternative would be worse? You haven't you've just said theres a risk.

if that were true yes. But it isn't. And yes I agree it is far from definite. But I say we shouldn't take the chance. I just don't see what the point is in swopping one dictatorship for another.

For the sake of the people of Uzbekistan? the potential that the situation could improve, basic things like free speech and not getting boiled alive.

What I said was: "They made the smart choice that we would have made had we been in the same situation."

What if you mean we were an economic and military superpower with a history of funding dangerous extremists and sadist madmen when it suits us?
We're not, and it's specious reasoning to wonder what would ireland do in the same circumstances. When we never would be.

There's absolutely nothing whatsoever hypocritical about it. It's a matter of self defence and the US looking after it's own safety and the safety of it's people. It choses to take action where it feels a positive result is achievable. It decides not to take action where it isn't.

And wheres the hard data to support this claim of yours? Manpower and feasibility studies. You're making the claim that the US are looking at Uzbekistan and going "meh not worth it"

I really don't want to get dragged into this - but the truth is that Bush claimed he went to war because of WMD didn't he ? The trashed intelligence that that was based on is irrelevant. This is what he claimed, no ? It is true that he and others (me included) have supported the action based on the fact that it liberated 25 million people, but I dont think that this was one of his major justifications.

After WMD were'nt found, the reasoning changed to, we're bringing freedom to Iraqi and have toppled a brutal dictator. They're just helping oppress some others and support another dictator. Why do you support the "liberation" of 25million iraqi's and not the liberation of the people of Uzbekistan.

Life sucks sometimes. Better they get killed that we in the west get killed.
Exactly. Life is like that. Sometimes you have to make an assessment on the risk. I suggest that based on the information coming out o this country that the risk is too high and the gain is just a swopping of a dictatorship for another.

What bonkey said....

I couldn't put it better myself. It's our lives before theirs all the way. It's my son's life before all of them, any day of any week.

Oh joy. Tell me, how far would you go, how much tyranny would you support, how many disappeared would you find acceptable, how many mass graves dug for the sake of your "security" before it becomes unpalitable?

That's the way the world works. Self defence can be a bitch for the other side.

So you admit this is a loop a vicious circle, you just don't want to break it because the risk is too great? You're admitting that in all likelyhood if Uzbekistan uprises aganist a US backed dictator they're going to have a much better reason then religious dogma to hate the west? Why not try to break the cycle?

That's got to be a joke right ? This conflict in Israel/Palestine IS the cause of the whole instability in the middle east. Your concern for the US is touching but I don't support it. The US and EU and Russia need to get together to sort this out and stop it being a one man show for the US in it's support of the outrageous Israeli behaviour. This is the cause of 11/9, of radical islamic terrorism, of our whole problem and one major contributory factor, in my opinion, is the unwillingness of the Eu to step up to it's responsibility to play a strong role in the region.

It's a primary and significant cause. But theres no way on earth you can marry your idealistic solution (just get the Israeli's out) with this realistic solution you present to Uzbekistan (better the devil we know) They're too imcompatable worldviews. As long as world leaders are happy to support dictators the world is not going to force Israeli to act in a fair manner.

Wrong again. The US are to blame for the israeli situation but have no responsibility for the Uzbekistan situation which is essentially caused by the break up of the USSR and the failure to allow the people of Uzbekistan to control their own country. Nothing to do with the US.

Blink, the US had nothing to do with the collaspe of communism? The gipper is outraged. US is funding both countries, and the US helped with the collaspe of the USSR, but I forgot we're talking about the "now"

Wrong again. I said they should be stepping up to their responsibilities and getting stuck into these issues, instead of bickering about every foreign issue. The Constitutioan is irrelevant and doesn't prevent in any way the EU havinga common foreign policy backed up by a common military capability.

Oh FFS. My point is at time while we're bickering about the constitution and enlarging you really think the EU is in a position to develop a cohesive and focused foreign policy, that the entire EU would support?

For someone who talks a "realist" pov, you tend to display a fair degree of naviety.

Quantum

mycroft wrote:

It's a primary and significant cause. But theres no way on earth you can marry your idealistic solution (just get the Israeli's out)

I never toted this as my solution. I only said get them out 'for a start'. Why do you distort every sentence I post ?

They're too imcompatable worldviews. As long as world leaders are happy to support dictators the world is not going to force Israeli to act in a fair manner.

Your solution will most likely produce another dictatorship in my opinion. A Theocratic dictatorship.

Blink, the US had nothing to do with the collapse of communism?

I never said that, anywhere.

Oh FFS. My point is at time while we're bickering about the constitution and enlarging you really think the EU is in a position to develop a cohesive and focused foreign policy, that the entire EU would support?

Yes. If we wanted to. We don't need a constitution to form a united front. Our failure has no excuse. We behave like a world economic power but we don't fulful our responsibilities and leave the US to make all the decisions - and then whinge about it. The Bush bullies get away with all of this because there's no one to stand up and say no. We get the world we deserve sometimes. And what are we in Ireland doing to get action ? Are we encouraging a united policy to make the world a better place ?

Quantum

bonkey wrote:

This was the post I was thinking of. It didn't have a URL (my mistake), but unless you're going to suggest that Dadakopf was lying about what he saw on TV, then I would say that more information has been offered on this thread to suggest that its not an extremist version of an Islamic State that we'd be looking at but rather a moderate implementation

That's a bit bloody rich Nonkey considering I posted about the BBC program that described the fact that the people wanted an Islamic State. But this isn't considered relevant or valuable ? So anything I say is worthless but anyone else that posts something with no supporting reference whatsoever is contributing real information ?

However, you appear to have arbitrarily chosen to dismiss the offered information because it doesn't sit with your preformed judgement, rather than explaining what informational basis your judgement has been based on that allows you to shrug off this point.

As I said. He posts his unreferenced statement and you take it as "information" but my post about the BBC program from reporters within the State in the last ten days and that is worth nothing. Great !

So I beg to differ - someone has offered this information. You just dismissed rather than refuted it.

No. I posted information. You are the one dismissing it.

You say that the threat from an Islamic Nation is that they kill indiscriminately everywhere (becayuse thats what the question was), but clarify that you're referring to extreme or radical islamic Terrorists and not Islamic Nations when you say this. I assume this to mean that you're referring to state-sponsored terrorism but you haven't clarified that, nor have you shown in any way that Islamic nations in general are connected to such, and that its not just a minority of them.

You've also argued that a nation either is, or is not, under Islamic (Sharia) Law and that there's no middle ground, but fail to clarify whether or not you are referring specifically to the sub-set of nations which are under Sharia Law when you talk about these sponsors of terrorism, or the more general case of nations where Islam is the national religion or nationally predominant religion, or some mix in between.

This is a complete misrepresentatation of my posts. Nowhere anywhere have I ever referred to an "Islamic nation". I have never accused the Islamic "people" of being killers. I have been completely specific when I have referred to the terrorists they harbour and promote. I have also never referred to countries where the religion is Islam. I have only ever referred to "Islamic States" - a completely different and specific thing. All Islamic States that I know of have been shown to harbour and promote Islamic Terrorists.
So I have been specific and clear at every stage of every post yet you ask questions about things I have never said or posted about.

DadaKopf

This was the post I was thinking of. It didn't have a URL (my mistake), but unless you're going to suggest that Dadakopf was lying about what he saw on TV, then I would say that more information has been offered on this thread to suggest that its not an extremist version of an Islamic State that we'd be looking at but rather a moderate implementation

Sorry, guys. I got bored of this thread. Just to state: the programme was Adam Boulton's Sunday programme. I can't remember *who* said what he said but I remember thinking he had reliable credentials. Sorry I can't be more specific. I'll ty and find info backing up his assessment soon, I promise!

Quantum

I think it has run it's course too. I found it very interesting on the whole and other people's opinions useful.
I 'think' that the situation in Uzbekistan is more complicated than simply seeking the removal of a dictator, and am a bit disappointed that more people don't agree - even if they passionately disagree with my conclusions.

A Dub in Glasgo

Most people do not agree because they would have to see themselves in a hyprocritical light. To condemn innocents to murder, torture and abuse because you do not feel safe with the alternative is a bit too selfish for most people (I would guess). At the same time demand democracy and human rights for others.

bonkey

That's a bit bloody rich Nonkey considering I posted about the BBC program that described the fact that the people wanted an Islamic State.

How exactly is a show saying that people want an Islamic State relevant to the distinction that I was making between whether the people want a moderate Islamic State or another flavour of it? Because thats all you mentioned about the show - that the people wanted an Islamic State.

But this isn't considered relevant or valuable ?

If you can show me which part of the post you made about the BBC show makes the distinction as mentioned above, then I'll accept that its relevant and valuable to the point I was making and that I should have referenced it.

So anything I say is worthless

Not wortless. Irrelevant. What you said wasn't relevant to the distinction I was making. Dada's comment was.

As I said. He posts his unreferenced statement and you take it as "information" but my post about the BBC program from reporters within the State in the last ten days and that is worth nothing. Great !

Again - its to do with relevancy, not validity. If I was saying that there wasn't going to be an Islamic State at all, it would be remiss of me not to discuss your radio article. However, given that I was rather discussing the nature of the Islamic State that would ensue, I thought it was obvious that not only was your article not relevant to my point, but that I was implicitly agreeing with what you said about it - that the people want an Islamic State, or (at least) that an Islamic State could/would come about.

But seeing as you brought up the point of validity.....I'm curious as to how you can attach any weight to the findings of one program, and yet dismiss another on little more than the grounds that "experts often disagree". Indeed, if you can disregard something on the grounds that "experts often disagree", don't you end up ultimately at the point where you can believe what you like, and simply disregard any information that doesn't fit with your chosen viewpoint on the grounds that experts often disagree, and disagreement doesn't necesarily mean you're wrong.

This is a complete misrepresentatation of my posts.

You answered a question about the threat from an Islamic State by saying that they kill indisciminately everywhere.
You then clairified that the "they" were Extreme or Radical Islamic Terrorists, without limiting it specifically to Islamic-State-sponsored terrorism carried out by Extreme or Eadical Islamic terrorists.

Consider that you said only a few posts prior to that that a Muslim democracy would also be a huge risk to the west, and that you have repeatedly stated that the US support of the Uzbeki regime was legitimate self-defence, and it would appear that you're not just saying we ened to defend ourselves against Islamic States, but rather suggesting that there are also grounds to protect ourselves against Muslim democracies.

This is where my line of questioning originated from. It is based on what you have said in your posts...its just not based on a single statement in a single post. If I'm reading too deeply into the comments that you've made, I apologise.

At the end of the day, its a side-issue. I'm quite willing to accept that your viewpoint is that you see the US actions (either support of the regime, or simeply non-opposition of same) as perfectly reasonable, because of the threat of what might happen if change happened in a certain direction. I disagree with your assessment of the threat, and with your assessment of what is reasonable in dealing with or limiting the threat.

Not all self-defence is justified, and not all acts of self-defence are justifiable...just the same as with foreign policy in general. This is the crux of the matter, and ultimately where I suspect no common ground will be found - you do not see Uzbekistan as a situation where that line has been crossed, and others do.

jc

mycroft

Quantum wrote:

I never toted this as my solution. I only said get them out 'for a start'. Why do you distort every sentence I post ?

No, you said pretty much an a total withdrawl of Israeli from Palestinian land. I'm trying to figure out how you can marry such an idealistic solution to one crisis with a realistic solution to another.

Your solution will most likely produce another dictatorship in my opinion. A Theocratic dictatorship.

Which you've yet to prove would be A) a dictatorship or worse than the current situation.

I never said that, anywhere.

No but you stated the US has a responsibility to Israeli because its a situation it caused, while not in Uzbekistan because it didn't. I merely pointed out that this is a byproduct of the cold war a conflict the US was involved in. You may not have said it, I was looking at what you said and extrapolating from it. I'm sorry but the US is responsible in part for the Uzbeki siutation.

Yes. If we wanted to. We don't need a constitution to form a united front. Our failure has no excuse. We behave like a world economic power but we don't fulful our responsibilities and leave the US to make all the decisions - and then whinge about it. The Bush bullies get away with all of this because there's no one to stand up and say no. We get the world we deserve sometimes. And what are we in Ireland doing to get action ? Are we encouraging a united policy to make the world a better place ?

Hold on you're saying the US should keep a brutal dictator in place and then asking what we're doing to make the world a better place? You're cynically suggesting that we keep a dictator in place because the potential alternative may be worse, and then making a plantiff plea on the lines of "why can't we all get along?"

As for the consitution I was drawing a parrallel, we don't need a constitution to form a united front but it is an example of how we are unable to agree on fundamental rules of how we interact but you expect us to form a coherrant foreign policy?