No learning from history: Uzbekistan
 

USA has a staunch ally in the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Like
Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Samoza, and many others, Karimov
sponsors torture and massacres of his own people. He has succeeded in
pushing the traditional Sufi version of Islam toward fundamentalism. 1,000
unarmed were killed on 13 May 2005. We'll hear alot more about this
country in the future, unless a better understanding of how anger at a
brutal regime propped up by a foreign power can fertilise overseas violence
and terror. Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.

In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:
USA has a staunch ally in the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Like
Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Samoza, and many others, Karimov
sponsors torture and massacres of his own people. He has succeeded in
pushing the traditional Sufi version of Islam toward fundamentalism. 1,000
unarmed were killed on 13 May 2005. We'll hear alot more about this
country in the future, unless a better understanding of how anger at a
brutal regime propped up by a foreign power can fertilise overseas violence
and terror. Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.


A couple months ago, long before the recent mass murder, Economists
Magazine nominated him the second worst dictator in the world. Second
only to Kim Jong Il in NK.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"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.

In article ,
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.




Right. We back a despot who gets overthown by an Islamists mob who
hats us becuase we backed the guy that opressed them. That's what
happened in Iran. The Islamists started with the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt (see google) for similar reasons, without our help. The MB
tought OBL who to hate.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

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.

China and Russia are not allies.

Interests of the US will be damaged in the long run by supporting such
regimes.

Al Dykes wrote:

In article ,
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.




Right. We back a despot who gets overthown by an Islamists mob who
hats us becuase we backed the guy that opressed them. That's what
happened in Iran. The Islamists started with the Muslim Brotherhood
in Egypt (see google) for similar reasons, without our help. The MB
tought OBL who to hate.


No. Iran's problems started with the colonial predecessor, the British who
overthrew the gov't that looked like it was heading toward democracy and
installed the shah. The US took up the banner.

You forgot to say that the CIA trained bin Laden.

The expedient definition of a gov't worth supporting, and the contrasting
claim to bring freedom and democracy to others with very similar gov'ts by
overthrow, invasion or destabilization looks pretty two-faced. And it
creates grave risks for us all even if it appears to work in the short
term.

uncle arnie 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.


China and Russia are not allies.

Interests of the US will be damaged in the long run by supporting such
regimes.


Look at Haiti. The US backed dictator Papa Doc Duvalier and his successor son
for about THIRTY years. They were monsters. Just a little while ago, they put
the ELECTED leader Aristide, at gunpoint, on a plane to France. Go figure.


mike

In article , Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:
USA has a staunch ally in the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Like
Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Samoza, and many others, Karimov
sponsors torture and massacres of his own people. He has succeeded in
pushing the traditional Sufi version of Islam toward fundamentalism. 1,000
unarmed were killed on 13 May 2005. We'll hear alot more about this
country in the future, unless a better understanding of how anger at a
brutal regime propped up by a foreign power can fertilise overseas violence
and terror. Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.


A couple months ago, long before the recent mass murder, Economists
Magazine nominated him the second worst dictator in the world. Second
only to Kim Jong Il in NK.

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

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

"uncle arnie" wrote

You forgot to say that the CIA trained bin Laden.


Another internet myth that refuses to die.

"uncle arnie" wrote

China and Russia are not allies.


Really? You don't read enough. Perhaps the largest ever joint military
exercise scheduled between these two countries in the Pacific this summer
will convice you otherwise. They are certainly not US allies.


Interests of the US will be damaged in the long run by supporting such
regimes.

Just as the US supports China economically?

In article ,
Li,Chanchun wrote:

"uncle arnie" wrote

You forgot to say that the CIA trained bin Laden.


Another internet myth that refuses to die.




Agreed. During the Anti-soviet era OBL was a funds raiser, a
recruiter and later used his experience in the family construction
business to build the cave fortresses we hear about. Some of that was
front-line work and he earned his chops and impressed the fighters.
Essentially all western aid to the mujahideen was done through the PAK
secret service (at PAK's insistance) and most Afghanis and mujahideen
to this day think they kicked the Russians out by themselves with aid
only from Arab and Muslim assistance.

When SH invaded Kuwait OBL went to the the Saudi Royals and asked to
be allowed (and funded) to oust SH (an unbeliever) from Kuwait
(believers) without the help of the Americans who he disliked but had
not attacked, yet. Saudis allowd US into the the Muslim holy land and
OBL went on the warpath against Americans and declared the Saudi royal
family to be unbelievers and started to attack them, and us.

BTW: Under Bush we've pulled out of SA. The terrorist think they'v won
that battle.

Source: _Ghostwars : the secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and
bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001_
by Coll, Steve.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

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?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

In article ,
Li,Chanchun wrote:

"uncle arnie" wrote

China and Russia are not allies.


Really? You don't read enough. Perhaps the largest ever joint military
exercise scheduled between these two countries in the Pacific this summer
will convice you otherwise. They are certainly not US allies.



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

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.


:-)


Interests of the US will be damaged in the long run by supporting such
regimes.

Just as the US supports China economically?




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

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?

Some people around here still have Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers on
their cars.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Mark Zenier wrote:
In article , Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:
USA has a staunch ally in the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Like
Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Samoza, and many others, Karimov
sponsors torture and massacres of his own people. He has succeeded in
pushing the traditional Sufi version of Islam toward fundamentalism. 1,000
unarmed were killed on 13 May 2005. We'll hear alot more about this
country in the future, unless a better understanding of how anger at a
brutal regime propped up by a foreign power can fertilise overseas violence
and terror. Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.


A couple months ago, long before the recent mass murder, Economists
Magazine nominated him the second worst dictator in the world. Second
only to Kim Jong Il in NK.

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

Mark Zenier Washington State resident



You are right, of course. I just confirmed it in someting I wrote
right after I read the issue. Thanks.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

Al Dykes wrote:

In article ,
Mark Zenier wrote:
In article , Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:
USA has a staunch ally in the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Like
Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Samoza, and many others, Karimov
sponsors torture and massacres of his own people. He has succeeded in
pushing the traditional Sufi version of Islam toward fundamentalism. 1,000
unarmed were killed on 13 May 2005. We'll hear alot more about this
country in the future, unless a better understanding of how anger at a
brutal regime propped up by a foreign power can fertilise overseas violence
and terror. Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.


A couple months ago, long before the recent mass murder, Economists
Magazine nominated him the second worst dictator in the world. Second
only to Kim Jong Il in NK.

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

Mark Zenier Washington State resident


You are right, of course. I just confirmed it in someting I wrote
right after I read the issue. Thanks.

Al is often wrong... best to ignore him!

His mission after all is simply to rant and bitch about Bush and/or the USA,
whether he has the facts behind him or not.

Go tote it Al.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

Al Dykes wrote:

In article ,
Mark Zenier wrote:
In article , Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
uncle arnie wrote:
USA has a staunch ally in the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Like
Saddam, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Samoza, and many others, Karimov
sponsors torture and massacres of his own people. He has succeeded in
pushing the traditional Sufi version of Islam toward fundamentalism. 1,000
unarmed were killed on 13 May 2005. We'll hear alot more about this
country in the future, unless a better understanding of how anger at a
brutal regime propped up by a foreign power can fertilise overseas violence
and terror. Can't understand how this simple lesson is not learned.


A couple months ago, long before the recent mass murder, Economists
Magazine nominated him the second worst dictator in the world. Second
only to Kim Jong Il in NK.

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

Mark Zenier Washington State resident


You are right, of course. I just confirmed it in someting I wrote
right after I read the issue. Thanks.

Al is often wrong... best to ignore him!

His mission after all is simply to rant and bitch about Bush and/or the USA,
whether he has the facts behind him or not.

Damn.. I forgot to toss in the fact that he's a Liberal 'tard!

Go tote it Al.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
dxAce wrote:

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?

Some people around here still have Kerry / Edwards bumper stickers on
their cars.

Have you ever tried to remove a bumper sticker from your car? It's damn
near impossible. I once stuck a Darwin Fish on my car, and when I got
rid of the car I had to pry it off. It made a horrible 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 =----

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

Have you ever tried to remove a bumper sticker from your car? It's damn
near impossible. I once stuck a Darwin Fish on my car, and when I got
rid of the car I had to pry it off. It made a horrible mess.


Warm it up real good with a hot blast from a hair dryer.
Works on the dealer's ad stickers to.

"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

"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