On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:06:16 +0000 (UTC), Tom Betz
Post by Tom BetzPost by BlackWaterNow unless you think totalitarian tyranny is a GOOD
thing you'll support the presidents vision of bringing
some light to such dark and dismal 'outposts'.
Saudi Arabia (where women are chattel, and where people who
protest against the government's policies are imprisoned and publicly
flogged)
You've REALLY got to learn the difference between
ideological rhetoric and realpolitik. Bush knows
the difference, Clinton clearly knew the difference,
Kerry knows the difference. The two are not
necessarily incompatible but the REAL comes first
and the IDEAL comes second or you won't survive
to persue the ideal.
As for Saudi ; I agree, it's a nasty country.
Alas, the glittering generalities suitable for
campaign rhetoric are rarely suited to real-
world politics. Currently, we NEED Saudi Arabia
and those elements in its leadership who ARE
our 'friends'. So, reform there will have to
be put on the back burner. Not forgotten mind
you, just put at a lower priority.
I doubt the Saud dynasty will last forever. Rad
Islamists, the usual intrigues and internal
reformers will all have a cumulative effect
eventually. It's a shakey, disjointed 'government'
there. WHEN the big change comes, THAT'S the time
to step in and support bona-fide reformers.
In the meanwhile, practical considerations rule.
Sorry, but that's just the way things have to
be done.
Post by Tom BetzKuwait (where women are chattel, and a puppet parliament under
the thumb of Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah is "elected" by
the less than 15% of Kuwaiti nationals who are permitted to "vote")
Another undesireable situation - although less oppressive
than in Saudi. Also another situation where immediate NEED
outweighs ideological DESIRE.
Post by Tom BetzPakistan (run by an unelected military dictator)
Sucky place, sucky situation. WEIRD situation too.
Pakistan isn't really a 'country' in the normal sense
of the word. It's more like a trailer park housing
all of the little ethnic groups who weren't really
Indian and weren't really Afghani/Uzbeki/Kazi/etc.
either. Mushariff runs PART of the region but
hardly ALL of it.
Alas, yet another place we NEED. I'm not even sure
there IS anything remotely resembling a 'reform
movement' there ... no allies to help ... and the
last elected government wasn't anything to brag
about. Maybe when we're done with Pakistan, we'll
give a wink-n-nod to India which can nuke 'em at
its discretion.
Post by Tom BetzUzbekistan (where torture is a favorite pastime of Islam
Karimov's secret police)
An extremely nasty country - the armpit of the planet.
Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see that government go down
in flames. The question, as in Pakistan, is whether
there's any substantial number of reformers compatible
with 'democratic' thinking. To further 'democracy' and
freedom movements there have to BE some.
Post by Tom BetzIf Bush is serious about overcoming tyranny, he can start with the
tyranny of his Saudi buddies. If he doesn't, we can rest assured
that he's just lying again.
Are you really THAT naive - or just playing around ?