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?


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"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

"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.

"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:

"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.


Yeah, and it ALWAYS blows up in our faces. We prop up every corrupt
sheik in the Middle East; the House of Saud, Mubarak, King Abdullah,
Musharraf, not to mention our puppet govts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then
we wonder why they want to kill us all. And that's not mentioning the
Shah, who was overthrown, and Saddam, who we overthrew because he ****ed
George Bush Sr. off. And then there's Osama, who is downing our
helicopters with Stinger missiles, not to mention the various other ways
in which he uses our tactics against us. Radio Havana has claimed that
the drones that we were flying over Iran earlier this year were meant to
get them to turn on their radar so we could pick up its vital stats. The
Iranians didn't bite because, as one Iranian AF officer said, "they must
have forgotten that they trained half our guys". What a wonderful mess.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

running dogg wrote:

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?

This is the point exactly. Well put!

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

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