"Al Dykes" wrote

How many blue water ships does Russia have these days? I can't
believe that added up, all their ships would equal some large joint
NATO excercise.

What significance does that have to the allied issue?

Besides, size (number of ships) isn't everything.


Supersonic missles made by Russia, purchased by China, with the ability to
peirce the defenses
of US aircraft carriers certainly do.

I think an India-China axis in reaction to a Muslinist PAK with a
nuke bomb is the scariest scenario.

We lived for 50 years with 40,000 Russian nukes pointed at us. If we
stay smart we can work with them.


But they have no interest in working with you.

"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.

Li,Chanchun wrote:

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.



That is not a very inventive way of avoiding answering the question...also, I
don't believe you meant to say 'significance'.



mike

-=jd=- wrote:

On Mon 06 Jun 2005 07:54:01p, dxAce wrote in
message :



Al Dykes wrote:

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Typical loser...

How many times have you, and those who hold your ridiculous beliefs
backed the losing team?



Oh, it gets worse for the loser - I heard on the radio today that (S)Kerry
had worse grades than Bush while at Yale. It is believed that that is one
of the big reasons why he wouldn't release all of his records during the
campaign - he had plenty to hide...

So if the libs like to define Bush as a moron, then by their own
definition, would that not make (S)Kerry a sub-moron?

An apparent Yale period photo of Kerry has been up on Drudge for a few days.
What is really (S)kerry about that photo is that I knew a few Naval officers who
had that same in-bred east-coast (USA) look to 'em. Got that look as if to say
"My s**t don't stink." They were always a fun bunch.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

What in the world is a "geo-strategic oil producing location". It is
an important sounding phrase, but one that I can't make any sense of.

"John S." wrote:

What in the world is a "geo-strategic oil producing location". It is
an important sounding phrase, but one that I can't make any sense of.

You don't get out much do you?

The phrase makes perfect sense.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"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."

We have an unfortunate habit of supporting some really bad people
because they support some short term goal. We really like having that
airbase in Uzbekistan so we can overlook a few domestic incidents.
Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Agusto Pinnochet, the Shah of Iran,
Manual Noriega and a long list of african despots also come to mind.
Unfortunately these bad guys turn out to have some embarrasing habits
that inevtably are exposed in the press. We deny any connection and
wonder why the bad guys in many instances turn on us.

Uhhh, bright-boy you forgot to provide your insightful explanation.

"John S." wrote:

"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."

We have an unfortunate habit of supporting some really bad people
because they support some short term goal. We really like having that
airbase in Uzbekistan so we can overlook a few domestic incidents.
Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Agusto Pinnochet, the Shah of Iran,
Manual Noriega and a long list of african despots also come to mind.
Unfortunately these bad guys turn out to have some embarrasing habits
that inevtably are exposed in the press. We deny any connection and
wonder why the bad guys in many instances turn on us.

Yes, perhaps we do at times support some ostensibly bad folks out there. One
thing one must bear in mind though is the fact that governments do not
necessarily have 'long term friends'. Governments have 'long term interests'.

There is a difference, 'tard boy... please try to pay attention.

Continue to tote.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"John S." wrote:

Uhhh, bright-boy you forgot to provide your insightful explanation.

Uhhh, 'tard boy, I've never considered myself to be in the business of trying to
rehabilitate idiots, I'm merely a DX'er. Perhaps your mommy might try to explain
it to you.

Continue to tote.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm