A new "Saddam Hussein" exists in an old ex-Soviet state

[crocodile deathroll]

This is not the kind of tourist destination one would like to travel to just on the northern border of Iran. He is even more oppressive then Saddam. Just read about him here (http://www.sibelle.info/oped27.htm) and here (http://www.erkin.net/chronicle/iraqis.html) It is a real eye opener. He even has a great golden statue of himself the turns slowly in the direction of the sun. He is just so much like Saddam, manifold.

The Post hoc Justification for delaring war on Iraq could of been more urgently applied to this country as this guy makes Saddam look like a pacifist. But we didn't perhaps because Turkmenbashi has Dick Cheney on his side here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/175.html)

Here is a list (http://www.usemb-ashgabat.rpo.at/frame.html) of other American countries represtented in Turkmenistan. This may all come back to haunt them in ten years time.

CDR

[Tony]

Can you please highlight some key points?

[Skeptic]

Of course, if the US DOES attack Turkemistan and gets rid of this whacko, CD would be screaming all over the internet that the US is "imperialistic".

Ah well. With people like CD, it's always either "The evil US ignores the suffering of millions!" or "The evil US attacks innocents in an imperialisic war!".

[a_unique_person]

Strawman. The basic point is that the US will cuddle up to whoever helps it's interests, when it suits, and turn on them for the same reason.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Strawman. The basic point is that the US will cuddle up to whoever helps it's interests, when it suits, and turn on them for the same reason.

And the problem with that is......?...

[Brian]

Originally posted by Tony


And the problem with that is......?...

Yeah. I'm down with that as long as my life is comfortable.

[fishbob]

And the problem with that is......?... The only problem is that you can work towards a world where you can expect backstabbing and treachery - rule of the strongest, or you can work towards a world where you should expect a little integrity and respect - rule of law. Now the US has always claimed to believe in rule of law, the constitution points us that way. So sucking up to any tinpot dictator who happens to have some cash is hypocritical. So our allies begin to realize that we can not be trusted. So eventually your life will be affected in some unforeseen way, and not be quite so comfortable anymore. And by then it will be too late to fix the problems without a whole lot of bloodshed and misery.

Other than that, no big deal.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Tony
And the problem with that is......?...

That people will remember what happened in other nations which were "liberated" from dictatorial rule by the US and may well decide that they'd rather take their chances with the dictator they know than the uncertainty of life in their own nation "post-liberation".

[EvilYeti]

I've always wanted to visit there, for one reason only. I find the women unbelievably attractive.

http://www.untuk.org/landscapes/photo/peoples/ACF5FFF.jpg

[shuize]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've always wanted to visit there, for one reason only. I find the women unbelievably attractive.

http://www.untuk.org/landscapes/photo/peoples/ACF5FFF.jpg

That sounds like as good a rationale on which to base our foreign policy as any. Better than most even.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shuize


That sounds like as good a rationale on which to base our foreign policy as any. Better than most even.

I'm surprised Clinton didn't think of that.

[shemp]

I will do my part by not using any Mary Kay cosmetics. (http://www.usemb-ashgabat.rpo.at/frame.html#mkc)

[WildCat]

I thought this thread was going to be about Vladimir Putin. But I guess the press and corporate crackdowns and the war in Chechnya are ok w/ the peace activists, since he opposed the Iraq war.

[CapelDodger]

from Tony:
And the problem with that is......?...
... more easily recognised from outside the US.

[Tony]

Good answers. Now, can you name me a country which doesnt act in it's own interests?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
This is not the kind of tourist destination one would like to travel to just on the northern border of Iran. He is even more oppressive then Saddam. Just read about him here (http://www.sibelle.info/oped27.htm) and here (http://www.erkin.net/chronicle/iraqis.html) It is a real eye opener. He even has a great golden statue of himself the turns slowly in the direction of the sun. He is just so much like Saddam, manifold.


Although those are damning articles, none of them show or even suggest he was WORSE than Saddam, only comparable in his repression. Can't help piling on the rhetoric, I guess.


The Post hoc Justification for delaring war on Iraq could of been more urgently applied to this country as this guy makes Saddam look like a pacifist. But we didn't perhaps because Turkmenbashi has Dick Cheney on his side here (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/175.html)


No, this guy doesn't make Saddam look like a pacifist. Seems to me he's perfectly content merely oppressing his own people, Saddam wanted to conquor the entire middle east. That's a substantive difference, and the implication of your statement is the reverse of reality in that regard.


This may all come back to haunt them in ten years time.

I'll agree on that point. But you haven't stated what you think we SHOULD be doing with regard to Turkmenistan.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Strawman. The basic point is that the US will cuddle up to whoever helps it's interests, when it suits, and turn on them for the same reason.

But this is a strawman itself.

Skeptic was merely pointing out, many of the critics of US foreign policy are usually self-contradictory.

The example he used sums up everything.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Strawman. The basic point is that the US will cuddle up to whoever helps it's interests, when it suits, and turn on them for the same reason.

I'm sorry, but I seem to remember some nice cuddling by Mr. Chirac to the dictator of Zimbabwe.

I understand what you are saying.

But isn't this kind of like the EU, complaining about the horribly "economically impearilistic" policies of the US and then shutting out third world agriculture?

I mean the whole thing about glass houses and stones.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tony
Can you please highlight some key points?
Below are some points I have highlighted. However I do not advocate a US invasion because I have found no evidence that is an imminent danger of an attack on US soil by any of the alleged WMDs that Iraq was alleged to of had, and are still yet to be found. There is plenty of evidence of repression. Just that is humanitarian justification for was the post host justification for the war that is still going on in Iraq then US would only overstretch itslef to many other tin pot dictatorships like Turmanbashi's

BBC Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1634100.stm)

Golden statues of the president are dotted throughout the capital.
Giant posters of the president adorn public buildings across the country. Golden statues of him are dotted throughout Ashgabat, the most spectacular of which is the 12-metre revolving image of him atop a 23-metre high tower in the city's central square.



Mr Gorbadze warns however that "if a real opposition does emerge it will most likely be a violent one, because Niyazov has shut off all parliamentary or democratic channels".



Schoolchildren have to recite oaths of allegiance to their leader every day. In Soviet days, university students, regardless of their discipline, had to take courses on communist doctrine. Today Turkmen students must attend lectures on subjects such as "The Domestic and International Politics of Turkmenbashi".



Attack on Press 2002 (http://www.cpj.org/attacks02/europe02/turkmen.html)

The magnitude of President Saparmurat Niyazov’s cult of personality might even astonish the Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin. A golden statue in Turkmenistan’s capital, Ashgabat, honors Niyazov, who is called “Turkmenbashi,” or “the Father of All Turkmen,” and his portrait graces the country’s currency. In 2002, Niyazov’s birthday was declared a national holiday, and he renamed the months of the year, dubbing January “Turkmenbashi” in his own honor.


CDR

[reprise]

Originally posted by Tony
Good answers. Now, can you name me a country which doesnt act in it's own interests?

All countries act in their own best interests, but I think that what has happened over the last couple of years is that whereas the US was once perceived as acting primarily in its own best interests but also in a manner which would benefit other nations, now it is perceived as acting in bad faith and being concerned ONLY with its own best interests and with total disregard to the longterm impact of its actions on other sovereign nations.

When even the populations of nations which are allies of the US question its motives, it is hardly surprising that those who are not its allies outright disbelieve any stated good intentions.

I seriously doubt that another terrorist action on US soil of the magnitude of 11 September, 2001 would generate anything like the empathy from the world community which occured two years ago. Outside of the US, there is very little reporting of serious opposition to Bush's actions by the US population. The perception is - rightly or wrongly - that the US population is basically supportive of the actions which Bush has taken in the name of 'The War on Terror'; a perception which will become "fact" should Bush be returned to office next year.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Ziggurat




No, this guy doesn't make Saddam look like a pacifist. Seems to me he's perfectly content merely oppressing his own people, Saddam wanted to conquor the entire middle east. That's a substantive difference, and the implication of your statement is the reverse of reality in that regard.





That was the Saddam of the 1980s, the Saddam that Rumsfeld was jumping into bed with. He has be very much humbled between Gulf War I and Gulf war II. Humbled to the extent that Turkmenbashi indeed made him look like a pacifist. With a wacko like Turkmenbashi right Afghanistan's border and a bumper crop of opium, the US has far greater cause for concern for Turkmenbashi then they did for Saddam last March.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by reprise

I seriously doubt that another terrorist action on US soil of the magnitude of 11 September, 2001 would generate anything like the empathy from the world community which occured two years ago. .

What empathy? Outside of a handful of empty statements by political leaders I mostly noticed people in countries that were allegedly our friends (Britain, Canada, Australia, France, etc.) saying "You Americans got what you deserved". THe only way for there to be less empathy is for everyone to attack us themselves

I realized, in the aftermath of September 11th, that a good chunk of the worlds population would like to kill me for no reason other than my nationality and that most of the rest of the world would cheer them on.

[shuize]

Originally posted by reprise


I seriously doubt that another terrorist action on US soil of the magnitude of 11 September, 2001 would generate anything like the empathy from the world community which occured two years ago...

Yes. On bahalf of the United States, let me thank the world for their post 9/11 empathy. I remember what little there was lasted about as long as it took for the U.S. to gear up to go after the ringleaders in Afghanistan. Of course, all the world's empathy added together and $1.50 might just buy you a cup of coffee in New York City.

But it's still nice of the rest of the world to "talk" a good war on terror while instructing us how we should run our foreign policy. I suppose a little bit of empathy gives them that right ....:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

I seriously doubt that another terrorist action on US soil of the magnitude of 11 September, 2001 would generate anything like the empathy from the world community which occured two years ago.

WHAT empathy? All I recall at the time was mostly self-satisfied grunts that the "imperialistic capitalism" of the "opressive rogue nation, the USA" got what it deserved.

And, besides, empathy is greatly overrated. There is tons of "empathy" in Euorpe for the suffering in Africa... which means jack sh*t in terms of any real help, for the most part.

Outside of the US, there is very little reporting of serious opposition to Bush's actions by the US population. The perception is - rightly or wrongly - that the US population is basically supportive of the actions which Bush has taken in the name of 'The War on Terror'

Indeed so, mostly because it does.

What is not clear is what, exactly, is so bad in what Bush did. There are many mistakes, sure, but why is removing the Taliban and Saddam so awful? Or his desire to democratize the middle east?

a perception which will become "fact" should Bush be returned to office next year.

And if so, so what?

[reprise]

Post-Taliban Afghanistan (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133100)

It remains to be seen whether post-Saddam Iraq is any better.

What gives Western nations the right to impose democratisation on the Middle East? We certainly don't accept that they have the right to impose their style of government upon other nations any more than we accepted that Communism should be imposed by force.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
That was the Saddam of the 1980s, the Saddam that Rumsfeld was jumping into bed with. He has be very much humbled between Gulf War I and Gulf war II. Humbled to the extent that Turkmenbashi indeed made him look like a pacifist. With a wacko like Turkmenbashi right Afghanistan's border and a bumper crop of opium, the US has far greater cause for concern for Turkmenbashi then they did for Saddam last March.

You've got a funny definition of humbled. Saddam was constrained, but he continued unabated with his rhetoric, calling for a "reunification" with Kuwait (one guess as to what that really means) and shooting at our planes. And yet you think he was somehow a changed man? Here's a run-down of Saddam's "humbling":

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/424

You have yet to provide any indication that Turkmenbashi threatened any of his neighbors or planned to export violent ideology. I'm not saying Turkmenbashi isn't a bad guy: he clearly is. But you haven't supported the case that you are trying to make, which is that he's worse than Saddam.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by reprise
Post-Taliban Afghanistan (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133100)

It remains to be seen whether post-Saddam Iraq is any better.


The article is as presumptuous as your interpretation of it is. Note several telling statements: the author had never been to afghanistan before, and so has no idea how bad things were before we kicked out the Taliban. Dime store journalists can complain that we're ruining the place, and yet never talk about the refugee numbers: why have so many refugees gone BACK to Afghanistan if things are really so much worse? Maybe because they're not worse. Maybe because, bad as things still are, they're still much BETTER than they were under the Taliban. But that doesn't matter to hacks like that author.


What gives Western nations the right to impose democratisation on the Middle East? We certainly don't accept that they have the right to impose their style of government upon other nations any more than we accepted that Communism should be imposed by force.

What a presumptuous question. It assumes that the populations of the middle east had anything to do with the choice of their current forms of governments. They did not. Talking about the "right" to impose democracy is rather missing the point: their current governments, almost without exception, have no legitimacy to begin with, and so have no inherent right to be in power. And democracy is not simple "our form of government". Democracy, in some form or other, is the ONLY legitimate form of government. It need not be identical to ours, democracy can come in many flavors, but I see no reason to appologize for realizing that non-democratic governments are illegitimate. Your statement is also rather derogatory, in that it assumes that the people of Iraq somehow do not want or are not ready for democracy. That is arrogant on your part. If they truly do not want democracy, then democracy (unlike virtually every other form of government) provides its own mechanism to replace itself. If they want something else, they can vote for something else. In that sense, democracy can never be forced onto any population unwillingly, again unlike every other form of government.

[Skeptic]

What a presumptuous question. It assumes that the populations of the middle east had anything to do with the choice of their current forms of governments.

I'll bet that the sentence that gives the most satisfaction to the despots in the middle east is that magical mantra, "the USA should not impose its own system of govenrment on other cultures".

As if the despot du jour who rules, say, Syria or Libya is an expression of that nation's "culture" or what "the people want", even if he DID get 100.3% of the votes in the last "elections"; as if the American "system of government" is just a neutral option, no better or worse than any other "system", like islamic theocracy or one-party socialism, or whatever the name the despot gives his system of murder and exploitation is.

To use the word "imposing" in "imposing democracy" is dishonest. It is an attempt to make the good look bad--the attempt to get rid of murderous tyrants to seem like some sort of impolite interference. On this view, I suppose that calling the police when you see your neighbor beat his wife to a pulp is "imposing your marital values by force on another marriage".

If that "imposition" is justified, why shouldn't calling the military to stop your neighboring nation from beating millions to a pulp be just as imperative? Wait, don't tell me: democracy "won't work" in the middle east. And preventing wife beating "won't work" with the black / hispanic / indian / whatever couple who lives next door, either.

Sure, democracy and not beating your wife is fine for US civilized people... but those savages just DON'T GET that it's a good thing. Why, just ask that well-dressed, soft-spoken ambassador of his highness the supreme despot of X-istan in the UN; even HE'LL agree his people just "don't want" democracy "imposed" on them. And he's one of THOSE people! So it must be true, right?

[Tony]

Originally posted by reprise


All countries act in their own best interests, but I think that what has happened over the last couple of years is that whereas the US was once perceived as acting primarily in its own best interests but also in a manner which would benefit other nations, now it is perceived as acting in bad faith and being concerned ONLY with its own best interests and with total disregard to the longterm impact of its actions on other sovereign nations.


When was this?

When even the populations of nations which are allies of the US question its motives, it is hardly surprising that those who are not its allies outright disbelieve any stated good intentions.

I dont think the US is unique in this regard, before the war in Iraq, a portion of the US population questioned the motives of France, Russia, Germany and Belgium.

I seriously doubt that another terrorist action on US soil of the magnitude of 11 September, 2001 would generate anything like the empathy from the world community which occured two years ago. Outside of the US, there is very little reporting of serious opposition to Bush's actions by the US population. The perception is - rightly or wrongly - that the US population is basically supportive of the actions which Bush has taken in the name of 'The War on Terror'; a perception which will become "fact" should Bush be returned to office next year.

That's a xenophobic view.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've always wanted to visit there, for one reason only. I find the women unbelievably attractive.

http://www.untuk.org/landscapes/photo/peoples/ACF5FFF.jpg

And they can pull in distant TV channels!

[crocodile deathroll]

This (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text/0428rmfd3.htm) brings back memories of this (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm) .
What humanitarian assistance? I would call it humanitarian exploitation. I doubt if his love affair with that tinpot dictator will last all that long.

[shuize]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
This (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afghan/text/0428rmfd3.htm) brings back memories of this (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm) .
What humanitarian assistance? I would call it humanitarian exploitation. I doubt if his love affair with that tinpot dictator will last all that long.

I remember mentioning my disappointment about the manner in which the French welcomed the thug Mugabe with a friendly handshake a while back and being met with scorn from other posters as a result.

So just for reference, is it only U.S. diplomats who are worthy of ridicule for shaking hands with foreign bad guys?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by shuize


I remember mentioning my disappointment about the manner in which the French welcomed the thug Mugabe with a friendly handshake a while back and being met with scorn from other posters as a result.

So just for reference, is it only U.S. diplomats who are worthy of ridicule for shaking hands with foreign bad guys?

Rumsfeld just happened to be shaking hands with Saddam when he was at his most abominable worst. The time Israel quite rightly put an end to his nuclear weapons program. If his pals from Israel were a wake up to Saddam was up to, then why wasn't Rumsfeld?

Again, We here on one hand Dubya's desire to restore Western and central Asia do democracy. But what hope has his got when his defense secretary thanks that dictatorial thug of Turkmenistan for his humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. I anticipate at the end of all this mess in Iraq, another dictatorial thug will be installed in Iraq and you can forget all Dubya's windbagging over democracy in that country.

CDR

[shuize]

I'll take your response as a "yes" to my question. Apparently only U.S. diplomats are to be ridiculed for such things.