US and Dictators

[WarPigs4538]

I know it seems like yesterdays news but I came to thinking of this because my school bus driver is an adament conservative and we were arguing over the war in Iraq. I argued that King George led the nation to war under the pretense of WMD which turned out to be a lie. she countered by saying the betrayal of trust doesnt matter since we removed a dictator from power. I find it interesting that righties always put this forth. My question is, if removing a dictator from power is soooooo important, then why did the US support the following:

1 Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier
2 His son "Baby Doc" Duvalier
3 Fulgencio Batista
4 Contra Rebels
5 Ngo Dinh Diem
6 Mullah Muhammad Omar and his Taliban (Cold War)
7 Saddam himself (Iran Iraq War)

I know most of these men were supported for the sake of preseving sweatshops and industrial interests, but I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this savage hipocracy the Right continues to deny.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

People on the right are often severely irrational for starts. And it's not like they're going to say, "oops, we were wrong". They create a web of backpeddling and lies which only further confuses people, working to their advantage. For christ sakes just look at our ties to Saudi Arabia. As if Abdullah doesn't torture and execute people.

[POFO_Communist]

The right will continue to be irrational and illogical no matter how much turmoil and suffering they cause on the global scale.

If the right continues to dominate world affairs, then we are doomed to relive history over and over again.

Here is the doomed historical cycle I am talking about:

Capitalistic economies of regional powers grow and eventually, come into direct competition. They fight for the control of resources and profit=Imperialism.

The weaker economies are absorbed by the stronger, etc etc. Until finally, we get a number of world-scale economic powers, who continue this cycle, until there is a major eruption of war and turmoil. This once again evens the playing field, by expending the accumulated profits and recources of these imperialistic powers, and sometimes detroying their very capacity to exist as imperialistic powers.

No matter the ideaology, in a world of rightists, of capital, of 'profit' in general, the outcome will always be the same. It is always a battle of economies. These battles are inescapable, because in order for capitalism to exist, there must be competition, competition for profit, and as is logical, continuous profit, is unsustainable in a limited world. Which leads to the eventual breakdown of these empires and the cycle begins anew.

We must break free from this cycle by eliminating the very essence of unsustainable profit, capitalism. This can only be achieved with true communism. Unfortunately, true communism cannot hope to exist in a world so rampant with capitalistic elements.

In relation to the topic at hand, the US came to support these various dictators because it simply suited them to do so at the time. It suited their 'economic' interests at the time. As simple as that. There is really little more to it than that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey it's everyone's favorite trading cards! (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html)!!! Click on the link to learn about thirty-five of America's less-reputable old friends!

Coincidently, amusing foibles and I also had a band called The Friendly Dictators, which never made it out of the basement.
Of the songs I've written (and there are a lot, some still performed by Raygunomics back in Halifax), most of my favorites were for that band.
Not among my favorites is the 20-second three-chord relavent-to-the-thread self-titled themesong:

With Bass Tab! (Written entirely on the "A" string to avoid formatting issues!)

A67777777677777776777777767777777

We love the USA!
We love the USA!
We love the USA!
We love the USA!

A2-2-2-2-677767772-2-2-2-677767772-2-2-2-677767772-2-2-2-67776777 x2

Too bad we are FASCIST SCUM BAGS
Thank god we are ALL FOR FREE TRADE
To bad we are THREATENING WORLD PEACE
Thank god that we PRIVATIZE STUFF

A67777777677777776777777767777777

We are U.S. Financed!
We are U.S. Financed!
We are U.S. Financed!
We are U.S. Financed!

A7---

Bush can launch military strikes from our country.

A2-6-7!

[Intifada]

Ask the right-wing scumbags why the Americans support Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan.


MEET OUR NEW SADDAM: INTRODUCING ISLAM KARIMOV OF UZBEKISTAN

Introducing Islam Karimov, one of Washington's most recent allies in the War on Terror. The neo-Stalinist autocrat presides over Uzbekistan, a vast mineral and oil rich country strategically located in central Asia. A country where dissidents are boiled alive (1); where having an Islamically sanctioned beard can get you arrested (2); where torture is widespread. In short, a country where human rights abuses are occurring on "a massive scale," (3) financed in part by the American taxpayer.

Slightly larger than the state of California and home to the fabled Silk Road cities of Samarqand and Bukhara, Uzbekistan today is a prime theater in the "War on Terror". After the September 11 attacks, Uzbekistan granted American troops permission to use its Khanbad military base located just north of Afghanistan.

The establishment of Khanbad, along with other bases in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, enabled the American government to achieve three major strategic goals. In addition to providing a center from which the American military could pursue the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bases more importantly, improved "American access to Kazakh and Turkmen oil and gas," and extended "US influence to a region hitherto dominated by Russia and of constant concern to China (4)." The bases in essence paved the way for America to gain a foothold in a globally strategic region thereby putting it in a better position to compete with Russia and China for the great oil treasures of the Caspian Sea.

In addition to being the world's largest lake, the Caspian sea is believed to hold vast oil reserves comparable to those of the Middle East. Yet, unlike the Middle East, transport of the extracted black gold from the landlocked lake to the open sea is a major hurdle. Therefore, the primary issue guiding the politics of the region revolve around not ownership of oil, rather control of the proposed pipelines by which the oil is transported. It is within this context that Uzbekistan has emerged as "the key strategic state in the area (5)."

Uzbekistan's cooperation with Washington has not gone unrewarded. In March 2002, Messrs Bush and Karimov formally met for 45 minutes in the White House. The meeting produced a five point strategic partnership between the two countries. Among other things, in exchange for continued use of Khanbad, the agreement granted Uzbekistan $500 million in aid and credit guarantees (6), $25 million for military assistance, $18 million for "border security assistance", and $1 million in policing assistance (7). These concessions were made to one of America's "foremost partners in the fight against terrorism (8)" despite the State Department's own declaration that, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with a very poor human rights record (9)."

According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) 2003 World Report, the Karimov led government violates, on a systematic level, basic rights "to freedom of religion, expression, association and assembly." HRW notes that Karimov has used the pretext of the "War on Terror", to pursue a campaign whose aim is to squelch opposition. Specifically, the government has arrested and tortured thousands of independent Muslims, including minors. HRW and other human rights organizations estimate that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 prisoners held on religious and political charges. Most recently, forensic evidence has been revealed suggesting that Karimov's government boiled to death two Muslim prisoners after they refused to stop praying.

The only major critique of Karimov's government by a western government official has come from Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (10). "Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy, nor does it appear to be moving in the direction of democracy," said Murray at the opening of the Freedom House human rights center in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in October 2002. Murray continued by exclaiming that, "The major political parties are banned; parliament is not subject to democratic election; and checks and balances on the authority of the electorate are lacking." Murray concluded by noting that, "no government has the right to use the war against terrorism as an excuse for the persecution of those with a deep personal commitment to the Islamic religion, and who pursue their views by peaceful means."

Murray's speech did not sit well with either the American or the Uzbek governments, the latter calling on Murray to apologize for his remarks. Murray did not relent and continued his critiques. In May 2003 he decried, "the intense repression here [in Uzbekistan] combined with the inequality of wealth and absence of reform." While in August 2003 he restated that there was, "no freedom of speech, mass media, movement and so forth." Furthermore, he called on the Uzbek interior and national security ministries to publicly criticize themselves for using torture.

Murray's blunt manner "was causing alarm in London and Washington, where he was regarded as too undiplomaticsome influential figures in the diplomatic service felt he had gone too far." For his troubles, Murray was subject to a spurious internal British Foreign Office investigation for alleged misconduct. The pressures got to Murray, who eventually returned to London in October of this year for "medical reasons".

According to James McGrory, a British development consultant based in Tashkent, "The common belief is that Mr. Murray is being sacrificed to the Americans. They certainly loathed him...the US Embassy makes no effort to conceal its dislike of the way he repeatedly and unequivocally slams (the country's) human rights record."

Clare Short, former International Development Secretary who resigned from the Blair cabinet over the war in Iraq, is a purported supporter of Murray's critiques. Of Murray, Short said the following (11), "He is an individual who was taking a stand on human rights issues where there is terrible, terrible repression if he has been smeared and belittled for standing up for fundamental human rights--this is not just a few honorable political dissidents but really horrible repression--that would be outrageous."

The case of Uzbekistan and Craig Murray prove that once again political expediency takes priority over human rights issues in a globally strategic region. The final word belongs to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the only major American periodical to significantly condemn American policy in Uzbekistan. In an editorial dated November 8, 2003, it was noted that, "If U.S. policy is to have any credibility in the Muslim world--indeed in the world at large--it must be based not on convenience, but on principle. It will be recalled that in the 1980s, the United States made a similar deal of convenience with another Central Asian tyrant. His name was Saddam Hussein."



Source (http://www.muslimuzbekistan.com/eng/ennews/2004/01/ennews18012004.html)

http://www.uzland.uz/fact/bush6.jpg

[bolshevik butcher]

Don't forget pinochet, or the reigieme in saudi arabia, or musharaf in pakistan

[Intifada]

The point is, the US will choose to ignore any human rights abuses by a certain regime, as long as that certain regime will be a lackey to the imperialist policies of the US Government.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:37 PM
The point is, the US will choose to ignore any human rights abuses by a certain regime, as long as that certain regime will be a lackey to the imperialist policies of the US Government.
very true, as long as a dictator's willing to back them the U$' happy, even willing to fund them.

[amusing foibles]

Hey, TFD played in your living room too, and we almost played that coffee house...

Denial (or, in a few cases, outright support...) of the US's disgustingly hypocritical policies toward "democracy" and "liberty" worldwide is the one thing that constantly surprises me about right-wingers.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Let's not forget Juan and Evita Peron. (Perhaps the funniest dictators of all time)

The U.S. supports dictators because:
1. Early in the Cold War, placing a dictator in power in any particular country was that easiest way of controling it.
2. Most dictators are facist is some way or another. Facists and communists are natural enimies.

At the climax of the Cold War, all but the strongest of these dictatorships came under civil unrest, and in many cases they were overthrown.

When these rebels, mostly communist, threatened the dictatorship, the west moved in to fight a series of tiny wars to keep the commies at bay. Korea, Vietnam, Congo, El Salvador, Bay of Pigs, etc.

Now that the Cold War is over, the U.S. has been returning to 3rd world countries to reinstate U.S.-friendly dictators under disguise of a "Democracy" (Boniface Alexandre of Haiti, Iyad Allawi of Iraq)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The United States government has zero interest in promoting human rights around the world, or even within its own territory. The U.S. will promote human rights, if it means improving or enlarging the global empire. The avowed contribution to human rights is only a side effect, but a good one to embrace for the sake of propaganda.

The United States is essentially claiming the entire planet (at very least) under its sphere of imperial dominance. The area of the world the U.S. can dominate has been growing for centuries. The U.S. has staked its claim to the entire Western Hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine. When President Monroe staked the claim, the U.S. could meddle with parts of the Caribbean, which within decades extended to conquering the northern half of Mexico and dominating the rest of Latin America.

The Cold War threw this dominance in question, as the U.S. grappled with the USSR across the globe. Of course, there never was an "international Communist conspiracy", but Moscow was certainly in the game of supporting anyone who would steer their state away from the U.S. and toward the USSR. As nations in Latin America tried to break Washington's yoke, they found willing aid from Moscow. As Washington's official strategy was to isolate these nationalists and annihilate them, aid from a superpower was clearly enticing.

Bourgeois democracies are preferable to the American ruling class, for propaganda if nothing else. But with Latin Americans yearning for lives out from under the thumb of American corporations like the United Fruit Company or Anaconda Copper, and soon to be emboldened by the Cuban example, fascism proved more reliable. After all, when it comes to putting the boot on the throat of Third World people, there is none better than the jackboot.

Dictatorships in Latin America have become more scarce since the end of the Cold War. It has to be much easier for Washington to manipulate the Latin American politics without the interference of another superpower.