Iraq bad Equatorial Guinea good

[Judith]

http://usembassy.state.gov/malabo/
Pursuant to a decision by President Bush, the United States has reopened the United States Embassy in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea

I thought Bush liked to topple regimes with bad human rights records. When no WMD's were found, he suddenly started talking about how he invaded Iraq because of human rights. :rolleyes:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18181.htm


Citizens' ability to change their government peacefully remained somewhat restricted. The security forces committed numerous abuses, including torture, beating, and other physical abuse of prisoners and suspects, which at times resulted in deaths. Members of the security forces generally committed abuses with impunity. Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening. There were deaths in custody from torture and abuse, combined with a continuing lack of medical care. Prisoners often were tortured to coerce confessions. Security forces used arbitrary arrest, detention, and incommunicado detention.


Sounds a little like Iraq to me. Why isn't Bush invading? The rule must be if a country has bad human rights records AND oil AND is friendly with your oil buddies, leave it alone. No nation building here. :rolleyes:

[crackmonkey]

I find this line of reasoning to be pretty odd. You cherry-pick a couple of superficial similarities between two very different countries and expect them to be treated identically?
That's like a doctor to treat a broken arm identically to a bruised leg... they're both merely injured limbs, right?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Judith
Sounds a little like Iraq to me. Why isn't Bush invading? The rule must be if a country has bad human rights records AND oil AND is friendly with your oil buddies, leave it alone. No nation building here.

Some of us would very much like to continue (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5955). Notice that the articles in my post are written while Clinton was president, well before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was anywhere on the agenda.

I tend to think, (and you do too, I'm sure) however, that two or three countries at a time is about all we can handle. In the meantime, defeat in detail is the way to go.

When Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia/Kosovo , I will be pushing this administration (or whichever administration is in power) to do exactly as you suggest. I would choose Zimbabwe rather than EG, because I think there is more hope of succeeding at improving Zimbabwe. By the time we have freed enough forces to take action, world events might convince me to choose another country, however.

MattJ

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Judith
http://usembassy.state.gov/malabo/


I thought Bush liked to topple regimes with bad human rights records. When no WMD's were found, he suddenly started talking about how he invaded Iraq because of human rights. :rolleyes:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18181.htm



Sounds a little like Iraq to me. Why isn't Bush invading? The rule must be if a country has bad human rights records AND oil AND is friendly with your oil buddies, leave it alone. No nation building here. :rolleyes:

Of course this is a bogus argument.

The poster would never be in favor of Bush doing anything in sub-Saharan Africa. There have been something like 3 million dead in the Congo in the Civil War over the last few years.

Would the people that are protesting Bush be in favor of him using military force to try to stop the conflict?

I tend to think they would say, "Neo-Impearilist," "chimp," "shrub," "only doing it to steal the Congo's diamonds..."

[dsm]

Originally posted by Mike B.

Of course this is a bogus argument.


The argument is that Bush (et.al.) is inconsistent in his policies. This is a completely separate argument from whether the things he does choose to do (like invade Iraq) are incorrect.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Judith
[BSounds a little like Iraq to me. Why isn't Bush invading? The rule must be if a country has bad human rights records AND oil AND is friendly with your oil buddies, leave it alone. No nation building here. :rolleyes: [/B]

Of course oil is one of the deciding factors in choosing a response to insane governments. If Iraq did not have huge oil reserves (and thus huge wealth) it would not be able to afford the military hardware to fight numerous wars with its neighbours (not mentioning WMDs here, lets stick with what we know to be true). No oil, no problem. Apply this thinking to Zim, Rwanda, Eq Guinea etc and it should be clear that they are relatively speaking dirt poor, and thus cannot afford the mayhem that Saddam can (though I'd say Mugabe would love to try!). They can of course cause much internal chaos with not so much money, witness Rwanda, but it would be hard to really threaten your neighbours with machetes. So, poor human rights records and belligerence alone are not a big enough problem to invite international intervention. Opprobrium yes, intervention, no. Combine those with massive amounts of money (via oil or whatever) and then you start to see a real threat to regional stability.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Of course this is a bogus argument.

The poster would never be in favor of Bush doing anything in sub-Saharan Africa. There have been something like 3 million dead in the Congo in the Civil War over the last few years.

Would the people that are protesting Bush be in favor of him using military force to try to stop the conflict?

I tend to think they would say, "Neo-Impearilist," "chimp," "shrub," "only doing it to steal the Congo's diamonds..."

Which is why I've given up caring about world opinion (See posts in Goodwill thread).

The same people who decry the U.S. as imperialistic for any intervention are exactly the same people who criticize the U.S. for isolationism when we don't intervene.

[Judith]

Originally posted by dsm


The argument is that Bush (et.al.) is inconsistent in his policies. This is a completely separate argument from whether the things he does choose to do (like invade Iraq) are incorrect.

Right that is my point. Flew over some heads :) When WMD's were not found, suddenly the 'message of the week' from Bush is that Iraq had a bad human rights record but thats inconsistent because there are bad human rights records all over and he's ignoring them. In fact, reestablishing diplomatic ties with them.

[Aoidoi]

60 minutes this week had a section on EG. Turns out they've got lots of oil, and like most dictatorships with sudden access to wealth the ruling elite is holding onto all of it. The current "president" gained office in a coup against his uncle... whom he then had executed.

The oil companies have some very advantageous deals with the current president there. EG is getting 15% of oil revenues, compared to up to 60% in other African nations. They managed this by offering a deal for exploration and exploitation of potential oil before any had been found, and because the negotiators for EG were completely inexperienced in that sort of thing.

On to whether Bush's policies are inconsistent... well, yes. Even with the US's immense military budget we can't invade the whole world at once. The other factors that were brought up on 60 Min was that EG is not a muslim country, and there is currently basically no anti-US terrorist sentiment there. It may well be possible to improve the situation through diplomatic measures. One way or another the US tried to deal with Saddam for quite a while. So maybe just wait 20 or 30 years and see if we invade EG for consistency's sake. ;)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Judith
Right that is my point. Flew over some heads :)

Actually, I don't think it flew over some people's heads -- they just chose to duck when it came their way (ie. willful ignorance rather than misunderstanding).

;)