NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5345280.stm

Sickening, to say the least. This guy, once a good buddy of Bush, is known to boil his political opponents alive. Yet, I don't hear Bush clamoring for war with Uzbekistan.

Of course he's bloodthirsty. It's delicious. *nod*

Is this the guy who renamed the month of April after himself?

Is this the guy who renamed the month of April after himself?
I heard about that somewhere..like on NPR or somethng

Well, Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. So these things aren't unprecedented.

Of course he's not clamoring for war. The last time he tried to liberate a people from a bloodthirsty, genocidal, oppressive dictator, liberals reprimanded him for trying to spread a basic standard of human rights throughout the world. He's not going to try to free another wretchedly oppressed populace any time soon. Apparently, liberals hate the proliferation of basic human rights throughout the world.

I heard about that somewhere..like on NPR or somethng

Yeah, on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, I think it was. Renaming April is the least of his glorious deeds.

Well, Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. So these things aren't unprecedented.
And look who got it WITH him! Pathetic indeed, isn't it?

Is this the guy who renamed the month of April after himself?

No, that was the nut who runs Turkmenistan. :p

And look who got it WITH him! Pathetic indeed, isn't it?
There are two ways I can read this statement. One is as an angry piece of politically based commentary, and the other is entirely dirty and juvenile.
I think it goes without saying which way I am going to read, and it further goes without saying that I am tittering most vigorously right now.

Begoner21;11682182']Of course he's not clamoring for war. The last time he tried to liberate a people from a bloodthirsty, genocidal, oppressive dictator, liberals reprimanded him for trying to spread a basic standard of human rights throughout the world. He's not going to try to free another wretchedly oppressed populace any time soon. Apparently, liberals hate the proliferation of basic human rights throughout the world.

Bush has no problem with dictators, as long as they're pro-American dictators. Hence, when pro-American dictators like Karimov, Mubarak, the Saudis, Musharaff, etc. commit human rights abuses, they are never criticized, but when anti-American dictators like Castro and Hussein commit abuses, Bush raises hell.

Begoner21;11682182']Apparently, liberals hate the proliferation of basic human rights throughout the world.

No, but liberals do seem to care a lot more about the welfare of our fighting men than neoconservatives do.

There are two ways I can read this statement. One is as an angry piece of politically based commentary, and the other is entirely dirty and juvenile.
I think it goes without saying which way I am going to read, and it further goes without saying that I am tittering most vigorously right now.
You might want to take it in context. But i don't really give a fuck one way or another.

No, but liberals do seem to care a lot more about the welfare of our fighting men than neoconservatives do.

And neo-conservatives seem to care a lot more about the welfare of the people of Iraq than liberals do. Let's call this one a tie, eh?

Well, Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. So these things aren't unprecedented.
Yes but this guy is much worse.

Begoner21;11682182']Apparently, liberals hate the proliferation of basic human rights throughout the world.
As a member of Amnesty International I would support the Iraq war if this what actually happened.

Begoner21;11682227']And neo-conservatives seem to care a lot more about the welfare of the people of Iraq than liberals do. Let's call this one a tie, eh?

It's not our job to police the world.

Begoner21;11682227']And neo-conservatives seem to care a lot more about the welfare of the people of Iraq than liberals do. Let's call this one a tie, eh?


I would say putting Iraqis in direct danger by "fighting them over there, rather than in the US by using Iraq as a terrorist magnet", essentially using them as human sheilds shows that the welfare of the Iraqis certainly isnt a neo-con concern.

Begoner21;11682227']And neo-conservatives seem to care a lot more about the welfare of the people of Iraq than liberals do. Let's call this one a tie, eh?

Neocons and their war turned Iraq into an anarchic, chaotic hellhole where bloodshed, wanton destruction, fear, killing, and atrocities proliferate, and people are being slaughtered left and right. Yes, they sure do seem to care a lot. [/sarcasm]

Neocons and their war turned Iraq into an anarchic, chaotic hellhole where bloodshed, wanton destruction, fear, killing, and atrocities proliferate, and people are being slaughtered left and right. Yes, they sure do seem to care a lot. [/sarcasm]

*shrug* Are they honestly any worse off?

That's bullshit. That guy is a maniac. This is like giving awards to the Chinese after the Tiananmen Square massacre.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494636

*shrug* Are they honestly any worse off?

To put it bluntly: Yes.

So, he hasn't preserved his country's cultural heritage? He may be (is) a total dick but he knows how to preserve that cultural heritage! The UN has other bodies to judge his other actions, UNESCO is a one trick pony, apparently.

*shrug* Are they honestly any worse off?


A GAO report says yes
they are worse off
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0629-10.htm)


also from the interviews with Iraqis I have heard, they themselves claim to have a much harder time getting by now with a crap economy, extremely limited electricity and much less security while in the midst of a civil war.

You might want to take it in context. But i don't really give a fuck one way or another.
Sorry, but in the greater scheme of things: Context < Juvenile tittering. 'SJust a fact of the Internets.

Sorry, but in the greater scheme of things: Context < Juvenile tittering. 'SJust a fact of the Internets.
No need to be sorry. Just try to get over it.

No, that was the nut who runs Turkmenistan. :p

Was it? I'll try to remember that. :p

Was it? I'll try to remember that. :p

He also named bread after his mother. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov

Bush has no problem with dictators, as long as they're pro-American dictators. Hence, when pro-American dictators like Karimov, Mubarak, the Saudis, Musharaff, etc. commit human rights abuses, they are never criticized, but when anti-American dictators like Castro and Hussein commit abuses, Bush raises hell.

*cough*

Begoner21;11682182']Of course he's not clamoring for war. The last time he tried to liberate a people from a bloodthirsty, genocidal, oppressive dictator, liberals reprimanded him for trying to spread a basic standard of human rights throughout the world. He's not going to try to free another wretchedly oppressed populace any time soon. Apparently, liberals hate the proliferation of basic human rights throughout the world.

Oh jeez, here we go again with "liberals are all evil and should be taken out and shot for the betterment of the world" or whatever. Get over it. It's like "liberal" is the worst thing you can call someone. I, as a liberal, saw what happened in Iraq coming. Saddam's regime came tumbling down quickly, but what's there to replace it? A big, ugly void, and people are now no longer scared to come out of the woodwork and clamor for the government they really want, which is a brutal Islamic theocracy. OK, well, some of them want that, and all they need is a charismatic Khomeini figure and it's a done deal. Blammo, we're back to where we started, only instead of the country being run by an annoying dictator who kills his own people and really isn't a threat to anyone now that the U.S. and Co. shut him the hell up in '91, we have a loose cannon caliphate that's probably going to pursue nuclear weapons. Oh yeah, and I'm sure they're not above killing their own people or making war with some nosy neighbor (Iraq-Syria war, maybe. Theocracy against Batshit-party state. Where have we seen this before?)

So frankly, let's get the Kurds their own state out of northern Iraq and then get the hell out of there before the place turns into Iran Part II. It's not about human rights. It's about the fact that the human cost of trying to set up a human-rights-friendly state in what's left of Iraq is prohibitively high.

Begoner21;11682227']And neo-conservatives seem to care a lot more about the welfare of the people of Iraq than liberals do. Let's call this one a tie, eh?

Yeah, they care about their welfare in that they look like the stupid dicks that they are for wanting to go over there if we remove out troops and let the civil war we fueled commence.

Bush has no problem with dictators, as long as they're pro-American dictators. Hence, when pro-American dictators like Karimov, Mubarak, the Saudis, Musharaff, etc. commit human rights abuses, they are never criticized, but when anti-American dictators like Castro and Hussein commit abuses, Bush raises hell.

And no matter whom President Bush "raises hell" with, some people always shriek and twitter simply because its him doing it.

Where is the UN and all of europe on all of these terrible dictators-many of which are right in their backyards ?

Neocons and their war turned Iraq into an anarchic, chaotic hellhole where bloodshed, wanton destruction, fear, killing, and atrocities proliferate, and people are being slaughtered left and right. Yes, they sure do seem to care a lot. [/sarcasm]

Keep chanting "Neocons"- it must make you feel good.

You're absolutely clueless as to how the average Iraqi feels now- they have a hand in their own country. "Atrocities proliferate"?-you almost hint its the "neocons" commiting them.

Its the scumbags slithering across the borders to blow up markets,schools and mosques that the Iraqis fear and hate-NOT the American soldiers.
Its sadaam and his sons that they hated. They seem to like to vote, they seem to like to have their cities and infastructure restored and modernized, they seem to like to have jobs.

Spare us the bullshit,ignorant liberal mantra. You dont feel any more valid no matter how much you chant it and you annoy any one else that knows better.

Sickening, to say the least. This guy, once a good buddy of Bush, is known to boil his political opponents alive. Yet, I don't hear Bush clamoring for war with Uzbekistan.

Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and Paris-based Reporters Without Borders have all expressed their concern at the award, which Unesco said was in recognition of Mr Karimov's preserving his country's cultural heritage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5345280.stm

Considering the cultural history of the Uzbeks, wouldn't boiling one's enemies alive naturally garner an award for preserving traditional culture?

Considering the cultural history of the Uzbeks, wouldn't boiling one's enemies alive naturally garner an award for preserving traditional culture?

I laughed. :D

I laughed. :D

Good. Now maybe we can work on giving awards to someone who manages to restore the native Karankawa (or another Texas costal tribe of native Americans) who practiced ritual canibbalism - as long as they eat GWB.

That's so silly. The award is for preserving cultural heritage, and if the guy did that there is no real reason not to give him the award. It's not an award for the attrocities he's done.

I don't see why the west shouldn't have stayed allied with Karimov. He's a bulwark against islamic extremism in the region and it's in our interests to ensure he stays in power.

I don't see why the west shouldn't have stayed allied with Karimov. He's a bulwark against islamic extremism in the region and it's in our interests to ensure he stays in power.

Har yes, dictators who boil people alive, as long as they aren't Evil Muslims.

You're a real piece of work.

Har yes, dictators who boil people alive, as long as they aren't Evil Muslims.

You're a real piece of work.

The same sort of thing would happen under the alternative form of government, which is an islamic theocracy. If there's going to be a brutal dictator ruling the country it may as well be one who's friendly with us.

Well, Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize. So these things aren't unprecedented.

Don't forget Sudan being on a human rights committee.

I still like that tune, "The World Turned Upside Down"

Begoner21;11682182']Of course he's not clamoring for war. The last time he tried to liberate a people from a bloodthirsty, genocidal, oppressive dictator, liberals reprimanded him for trying to spread a basic standard of human rights throughout the world. He's not going to try to free another wretchedly oppressed populace any time soon. Apparently, liberals hate the proliferation of basic human rights throughout the world.

Bush was supportive of Karimov long before the Iraq War.

Typical UN staffer:
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m139/thomask_06/HeadUp.jpg

Bush was supportive of Karimov long before the Iraq War.

Yes, since after 9/11. Karimov let us have air force bases in his country for bombing raids over Afghanistan; in return, we aided him handsomely, and were courteous enough to keep our mouths shut over his atrocities.

And no matter whom President Bush "raises hell" with, some people always shriek and twitter simply because its him doing it.

Where is the UN and all of europe on all of these terrible dictators-many of which are right in their backyards ?

Almost all countries have the same double standards. Human rights abuses in unfriendly countries are a no-no, but when friendly countries commit abuses, they get a slap on the wrist, at worst, or, most likely, the abuses will be ignored outright or denied.

Keep chanting "Neocons"- it must make you feel good.

You're absolutely clueless as to how the average Iraqi feels now- they have a hand in their own country. "Atrocities proliferate"?-you almost hint its the "neocons" commiting them.

Its the scumbags slithering across the borders to blow up markets,schools and mosques that the Iraqis fear and hate-NOT the American soldiers.
Its sadaam and his sons that they hated. They seem to like to vote, they seem to like to have their cities and infastructure restored and modernized, they seem to like to have jobs.

Spare us the bullshit,ignorant liberal mantra. You dont feel any more valid no matter how much you chant it and you annoy any one else that knows better.

I never claimed Iraqis loved Saddam, who was a real pice of shit. But at least under Saddam, they could walk down the streets without fear of being blown up. Despicable as Saddam was, at least he allowed religious freedom. Christians worshipped freely. Now they live in mortal fear. At least half the Christian population has fled since the war began. Women were treated far better than they were in other countries in the region. Now, women, too, are suffering horrific abuses, in spite of Iraq's "democracy." And considering the current Iraqi government is largely a U.S. puppet, entirely dependent on U.S. aid for survival, one can hardly say that Iraqis "have a hand" in their government.

That's so silly. The award is for preserving cultural heritage, and if the guy did that there is no real reason not to give him the award. It's not an award for the attrocities he's done.

Aren't these awards political anyway? Why else would those who violate human rights win awards?

Bush has no problem with dictators, as long as they're pro-American dictators. Hence, when pro-American dictators like Karimov, Mubarak, the Saudis, Musharaff, etc. commit human rights abuses, they are never criticized, but when anti-American dictators like Castro and Hussein commit abuses, Bush raises hell.

Still waiting, [NS:]Begoner21...

I never claimed Iraqis loved Saddam, who was a real pice of shit. But at least under Saddam, they could walk down the streets without fear of being blown up. Despicable as Saddam was, at least he allowed religious freedom. Christians worshipped freely. Now they live in mortal fear. At least half the Christian population has fled since the war began. Women were treated far better than they were in other countries in the region. Now, women, too, are suffering horrific abuses, in spite of Iraq's "democracy." And considering the current Iraqi government is largely a U.S. puppet, entirely dependent on U.S. aid for survival, one can hardly say that Iraqis "have a hand" in their government.

If you weren't a member of the Baath Party, you lived in mortal fear.

Kurds were gassed just for fun. Shiites had their land intentionally flooded. People were taken away and shot or tortured on suspicion of not liking Saddam enough.

Mass graves containing 300,000 people. Including women and children.

Oh, and if the Iraqi government is a US puppet, why did its leaders pay a visit to Iranian leader Ahmadinejad.

Bush is pretty adamant that the US will NEVER talk to Ahmadinejad, until Iran verifiably destroys its uranium enrichment program.

Looks like they're not very good puppets.

If you weren't a member of the Baath Party, you lived in mortal fear.

Kurds were gassed just for fun. Shiites had their land intentionally flooded. People were taken away and shot or tortured on suspicion of not liking Saddam enough.

Mass graves containing 300,000 people. Including women and children.

Oh, and if the Iraqi government is a US puppet, why did its leaders pay a visit to Iranian leader Ahmadinejad.

Bush is pretty adamant that the US will NEVER talk to Ahmadinejad, until Iran verifiably destroys its uranium enrichment program.

Looks like they're not very good puppets.

As I've said, Iraq under Saddam was not a paradise. I came close to dancing in the streets when the bastard was toppled. I'd love nothing more than to see his corpse dragged through the streets. But overthrowing him has done nothing but create a power vacuum, where no one is safe, and havoc and chaos run rampant.

And I'll concede on the puppet part. Another cookie. *hands DK cookie*