Quote:
Originally posted by: LRB
Quote:
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
Quote:
Originally posted by: LRB
Quote:
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
There are several options you could exploit. What about diplomatic pressure? The position you are in now gives you the possibility to have the Uzbek government listen to you. Had you not been involved with the Uzbeks in the first place, there really is little you could do. There are ups and downs to leaving the Uzbeks alone. A possible upside is that the chance of Islamic radicals taking over after the current administration finally falls is significantly reduced. This would also mean that cannot be accused of cursing one country, and rightfully so, while turning a blind eye to another. The downside tot his is obviously that nothing is going to change there for a few years at least. To put it crudely though, that wouldn't be the only country where the West at large doesn't pay heed to, so I guess that would become another statistic.
As for the Saudis, I do not believe the US is pushing hard enough to get some real reforms happening in the country, though one could ask the question if the country is ready for any significant change. I also think the US should seriously consider redrawing its troops, now that Iraq is no longer a threat to the Saudis and the economic wealth they possess. This would not be giving in to the terrorists as far as I am concerned, though they might want to exploit the situation and say tha it is.
I am no politician, and I won't pretend I know everything concerning either country, but I think there are certainly options to be explored.
|
OK so now I know what you would like done, in very general terms, with these two governments. However this has nothing to do with Iraq. As Dude as so aptly pointed out, you are trying to misdirect the topic.
|
Oh come on, you're telling me you can't see the connection? Didn't you remember our siscussion abvout the "double standard?"
|
double standard does not apply to Iraq. It may apply to some other nation that should arguably be treated as Iraq. But there are tons of differences between Iraq and the most similar nation to it in the world. The decision to invade Iraq was not made lightly, nor without considering many different pieces of of the puzzle. What we do or don't do towards Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan has no direct bearing on how we conduct our foreign relations with Iraq. Each is a seperate and unique case. However, even if we were to treat either Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan inappropriately, that would in no way invalidate what we did in Iraq.
Essentially it appears that you have no valid argument except misdirection.
|
Just because you perceive it to be "misdirection" does not mean it is. I sure do not wish to misdirect the discussion in any way. I just think this applies to IRaq as well. Wasn't it you who said that the United States had more reasons to go into Iraq and clean house, except the WMD issue, though that was a top issue (though you've consistently failed to name them). Now, let us presume that the other things that the US went into Iraq for could be related to the "Stability for freedom" policy, which was obviously used by the Hussein regime.
At this point in time, the WMD's are a non-issue. Now you can tell me all you want that you had credible intelligence suggesting that the Iraqis DID have these weapons, I do not think that's the whole story. I do have some respect for sppooks, even if I don't like them. If weapons are not found, that will have been an error on a grand scale. Use of false "facts" used in speeches doesn't help there (I'm talking the Niger transfer here).
So, at this poitn in time, that leaves us with the human rights issue. In that case, I think the double standards argument is not misdirected at all.