US ouster from Uzbekistan, good or bad?

[peacedove]

Uzbekistan Evicts US From Key Base

Uzbekistan has given the Bush administration six months to evacuate aircraft, personnel and equipment from Karshi-Khanabad air base, which the US uses in its Afghanistan missions

(Washinton post Saturday, July 30)

Good in the sense that the US war on Islam and Muslims will be hampered.

Bad in the sense that the US leverage on the Uzbek administration to become better at human rights abuse management will also be hampered.

what do MNers think?

[monkeytrousers]

Will it be hampered PD?

And I rather thought the US was prepered to turn a blind eye with it's human rights record while they were there. They just might change their minds now.

[monkeytrousers]

Quick hijack - what do you make of Tariq Ramadam?

[SenoraPostrophe]

I agree with mt. There's been a lot of overlooking of human rights/electoral abuses in countries that have actively helped the "war on terror"

[monkeytrousers]

Ramadan even

[peacedove]

the game!

As long as the world said nothing, or the war went the way of the US, it would have continued to ignore Human Rights abuses in its allies. The events have forced the US to critisise its own allies. The Uzbeck governement has been so frightened that it has forged allaince with Russia and China again, who are no lovers of Human Rights, and have worries of populations (particularly Muslim) wanting independence.

It is, as I said, teh Great Game again. In the last two centuries it was Russia and Britain, now US, Russia and China.

Tariq Ramadan and the US:

If we look into the US administration and the population's mindset, things will become easier to understand. Mr Bush said: "either you are with us, or against us", meaning you were not supposed to look at US policies, or suggest anything, you were supposed to follow Bush blindly, or you were a terrorist. The liberals were also silenced by that, or went along. Ramadan was refused a visa, and branded an extremist because of this mindset, which does not want to lsten to reasons other than "they hate our freedom".

It is only leftists like Naom Chomsky who had the nerve to say anything againt the war. With the end of war not in sight, with administration's lies exposed, with the human rights and Geneva convention violations by the US, there is more discontent in the US over the war, but the americans are more conservative and religious than the Europeans, hence the liberal Democrats were not elected. (By the way, the British also relected Blair, and I am going to read the thread on this with interest). To silence local and world criticism, to gain some initiative in Iraq, the US has now started voicing criticism of its allies.

Remember Rice saying: "for the last 60 years my country has propagated stability over democracy/, and we have achieved neither."

Not a change of heart, just a realisation that the US has to do (or at least say) something different to win some friends.

[peacedove]

the game!

As long as the world said nothing, or the war went the way of the US, it would have continued to ignore Human Rights abuses in its allies. The events have forced the US to critisise its own allies. The Uzbeck governement has been so frightened that it has forged allaince with Russia and China again, who are no lovers of Human Rights, and have worries of populations (particularly Muslim) wanting independence.

It is, as I said, teh Great Game again. In the last two centuries it was Russia and Britain, now US, Russia and China.

Tariq Ramadan and the US:

If we look into the US administration and the population's mindset, things will become easier to understand. Mr Bush said: "either you are with us, or against us", meaning you were not supposed to look at US policies, or suggest anything, you were supposed to follow Bush blindly, or you were a terrorist. The liberals were also silenced by that, or went along. Ramadan was refused a visa, and branded an extremist because of this mindset, which does not want to lsten to reasons other than "they hate our freedom".

It is only leftists like Naom Chomsky who had the nerve to say anything againt the war. With the end of war not in sight, with administration's lies exposed, with the human rights and Geneva convention violations by the US, there is more discontent in the US over the war, but the americans are more conservative and religious than the Europeans, hence the liberal Democrats were not elected. (By the way, the British also relected Blair, and I am going to read the thread on this with interest). To silence local and world criticism, to gain some initiative in Iraq, the US has now started voicing criticism of its allies.

Remember Rice saying: "for the last 60 years my country has propagated stability over democracy/, and we have achieved neither."

Not a change of heart, just a realisation that the US has to do (or at least say) something different to win some friends.

[monkeytrousers]

The US pays lip service to many things moral. The general responce is something like'that is of interest to us' , 'that is a concern', 'we are investigating such claims', which are meaningless and simply sidesteps to get onto the next question which will hopefully be more to their taste.

There is no accountablity, the media do not follow up or challenge these obvious brush offs. I often watch the news and find myself agog at how mad the world is, not from the stories they are reporting, but how they are being reported. It's beyond parody, but the corporate structures are so established they're impossible to beat at their own game.