"running dogg" wrote in message
...
Li,Chanchun wrote:


"uncle arnie" wrote in
Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.

In a geo-strategic oil producing location such as Uzbekistan it is
absolutely vital to the interests of the U.S.
The alternative is a stranglehold by Communist China and its ally
Russia.

It's funny that when I defended Westerners doing business with China as
a business proposition disconnected from politics, you called me all
sorts of names and accused me of being a nazi. But when Arnie points out
that US support for dictatorships such as Uzbekistan can actually harm
our interests in the long run (look what supporting the Shah got us) you
say that supporting a dictatorship is vital to our interests, and better
us than China. While it may be true that Uzbekistan is strategically
important, supporting that dictatorship goes against Bush's hypocritical
"let freedom ring" rhetoric as well as your own desire for China to be
free and democratic. If democracy is good enough for the US, and a
desirable outcome for China and NK, then why not the Uzbeks? Or are they
not important, expendable in the cause of wealthier, more powerful
nations?


It is indeed funny when you have absolutely no comprehension of the
significance between China and Uzbekistan.