"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.

Perhaps a session at summer school might help? Ask mommy if you can still go.

LMAO at the 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:



-=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.

Yeah, and W thinks his **** is holy and we should worship the toilet he
****s it in. That was our choice in the last election. Wonderful, huh?


----== 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 =----

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!

-=jd=- wrote:



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?


Not sure this has anything to do with any leader's or wannabe leader's
marks. I don't think, though you can correct me if you think I'm wrong,
that there would any difference between Kerry's approach to Uzbekistan or
other bad dictatorships than Bush's. This is not a political party issue,
it is a general country direction issue. You may be able to point out some
subtle differences, e.g., a particular dictator or despot being more
popular with one president or party than another, but the general issue
still remains. A democracy cannot support tyranny in another country for
very long. I'd rather see the Uzbeks free, paying taxes, importing and
exporting, and maybe offering tourism than what's going on presently.

Mark Zenier wrote:



That's probably Turkmenistan, not Uzbekistan. It's getting to the
point where you can't tell those central asian dictatorships apart.

We used to call the Latin American dictatorships "banana republics". We
need a term for the Asian variety. Suggestions?

uncle arnie wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:


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?


Not sure this has anything to do with any leader's or wannabe leader's
marks. I don't think, though you can correct me if you think I'm wrong,
that there would any difference between Kerry's approach to Uzbekistan or
other bad dictatorships than Bush's. This is not a political party issue,
it is a general country direction issue. You may be able to point out some
subtle differences, e.g., a particular dictator or despot being more
popular with one president or party than another, but the general issue
still remains. A democracy cannot support tyranny in another country for
very long. I'd rather see the Uzbeks free, paying taxes, importing and
exporting, and maybe offering tourism than what's going on presently.

Will the Uzbeks offer Kerry a Purple Heart if he scratches himself on their
territory?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

uncle arnie wrote:

Mark Zenier wrote:


That's probably Turkmenistan, not Uzbekistan. It's getting to the
point where you can't tell those central asian dictatorships apart.

We used to call the Latin American dictatorships "banana republics". We
need a term for the Asian variety. Suggestions?

Canuckystan1, Canuckystan2, Canuckystan3... etc.

Wake up 'tard... you are already in a 'banana republic' and have been for years.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

uncle arnie wrote:

Mark Zenier wrote:



That's probably Turkmenistan, not Uzbekistan. It's getting to the
point where you can't tell those central asian dictatorships apart.

We used to call the Latin American dictatorships "banana republics". We
need a term for the Asian variety. Suggestions?

Rice republics? (In the US, souped up Japanese racing cars are called
"rice rockets".) But "Asia" is a big place, stretching from Turkey to
Oman to Japan. When that is considered, rice doesn't really fit. Maybe
the Muslim variety (most of the places we're talking about have Muslim
populations) could be called halal republics, halal being the Muslim
equivalent of the Jews' kosher. Any other ideas?


----== 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 =----

In article ,
running dogg wrote:
uncle arnie wrote:
Mark Zenier wrote:
That's probably Turkmenistan, not Uzbekistan. It's getting to the
point where you can't tell those central asian dictatorships apart.

We used to call the Latin American dictatorships "banana republics". We
need a term for the Asian variety. Suggestions?

Rice republics? (In the US, souped up Japanese racing cars are called
"rice rockets".) But "Asia" is a big place, stretching from Turkey to
Oman to Japan. When that is considered, rice doesn't really fit. Maybe
the Muslim variety (most of the places we're talking about have Muslim
populations) could be called halal republics, halal being the Muslim
equivalent of the Jews' kosher. Any other ideas?

Bananistans. ;-)

(Although it doesn't make that much sense, as the crop
that makes the economy in most of those places is cotton.)

Mark Zenier Washington State resident