TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I love my country's hypocrisy

I love my country's hypocrisy

Not sure if many have known about this, but I bumped into this again when visiting the guardian today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1072313,00.html

Re: I love my country's hypocrisy

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Not sure if many have known about this, but I bumped into this again when visiting the guardian today http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1072313,00.html

This part of the quote got me interested:

quote:

But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been vying. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.

Seems to coincide well with this recent article about areas in that given region:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=457996

"He who controls the spice, controls the universe..."

Yes, the "war on terror" has provided many across the world with the excuse to crack down on their own with some semblance of legitimacy:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=2173160

quote:

"He who controls the spice, controls the universe..."

Hopefully not for very long.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=2155717

Countries around the world, not just the United States, need to take concerted efforts to eliminate this rediculous reliance.

but it is the spice of life...

They're doing a pretty good job of bringing democracy to Afghanistan as well:

quote:

Karim Khan stands disconsolately outside the local government headquarters in the remote village of Tuksar. He used to run the neighbouring village, but was bundled out by a rival militia one night recently, leaving his wife and family behind as virtual prisoners. The incident is not isolated. It is being replicated throughout northern Afghanistan in what amounts to low-level civil war as militias use the autumn, the country's traditional fighting season, to change the map of power. [...] While fighting is growing in intensity in southern Afghanistan, as US forces engage resurgent Taliban forces in the Pashtun heartlands two years after they were supposed to have been defeated, the jockeying for power in the north is between three main groups, all of which are financed and supported by the Americans. How is it possible that the Bush administration could launch its war on international terror while being so unwilling to clip the wings of warlords who inflict terror mainly on other Afghans? [...] It was not just that a vacuum developed. The Americans encouraged the leaders of the Northern Alliance to resume their old positions. Their forces played little role in defeating the Taliban and only managed to advance on the ground thanks to US carpet-bombing of Taliban positions. But in victory, the Americans behaved as though they were in the warlords' debt, rather than the other way round.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1073827,00.html

Yet somehow all this hardly suprises me.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade They're doing a pretty good job of bringing democracy to Afghanistan as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1073827,00.html Yet somehow all this hardly suprises me.

Would you expect the guardian to say anything good about the region? But at any rate, the situation of disarming the warlords is a little more difficult than asking them for their guns ... however at least some steps to acheive those ends have been started:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3210359.stm

It's unfortunate that Afghanistan is now on the back burner now that the US's attention is firmly fixed on rebuilding Iraq, however, right now I would place greater urgency on the Iraq situation.

Re: Re: I love my country's hypocrisy

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 "He who controls the spice, controls the universe..."

The oil is vital for land travel...


Anyway, I'd say that the US got itself in a situation where it's forces are involved in too many areas of the world for the US to be able to force it's opinions on other countries. That's why it must accept any allies it has even if their human rights records aren't spotless.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's unfortunate that Afghanistan is now on the back burner now that the US's attention is firmly fixed on rebuilding Iraq, however, right now I would place greater urgency on the Iraq situation.

how did you base that? al queda is in afghanistan/pakistan, allegedly they are the one who hit us on 9-11

we need an independent investigation

So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (�300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".

There is little question that the power and longevity of Karimov's government has been enhanced by his special relationship with the United States. There is also little question that supporting him is a dangerous game. All the principal enemies of the US today were fostered by the US or its allies in the past: the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Wahhabi zealots in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein and his people in Iraq. Dictators do not have friends, only sources of power. They will shift their allegiances as their requirement for power demands. The US supported Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in order to undermine the Soviet Union, and created a monster. Now it is supporting a Soviet-era leader to undermine Islamist extremists, and building up another one.

I assume the US has made a desicion of "lesser of two evils" but i dont know if i agree with the US on this choice. I'm sure there could have been a middle way solution to keep muslim extremists at bay while undermining Islam Karimov's pittyful regime.

Well you guys don't want to hear this but it appears President Karimov is stopping the spread of militant-islam in his direction, something the US could never do even if it took over that country. The thing is Karimov is fighting on a closer brutality level to the terrorist themselves, something the US can never do, but something that is very Machivellian and successful.

Sure he's not the nicest guy, but in this case they don't want the nicest guy necessairly, you want the dogs to go after the dogs, not cats to go after the dogs.

In saying that the US should encourage Karimov to introduce democratic appeals that don't undermind his fight, but what can you do?

After all lets say the US pulls out, then most likely China (as Russia is to damn poor) will just pick up the tab and support Karimov in his efforts..

quote:

After all lets say the US pulls out, then most likely China (as Russia is to damn poor) will just pick up the tab and support Karimov in his efforts..

Russia has only temporarily let go of its colonies since the fall of the Soviet Union

Russians have a fundamental fear of invasion for a range of reasons and typically try to co-opt, control or exterminate those local elites who run the regions on its borders.

Just because Russia is economically weak now doesnt mean that it will be in the future. It has a fundamental advantage over China in that it got rid of Communism. In Russia the Communists gave up power voluntarily, in China they will probably be forced out. China has very many SERIOUS economic problems which its totalitarian government manages to hide.

Russia will never allow the core provinces of the Soviet Union to be controlled by the USA or China for long.

The Cold War was dressed up as a conflict of idealogy but it was at its heart a nationalist conflict between the worlds most powerful countries Russia and the USA, which the Russians lost because their economic system was weaker. Once the Russian economy then it will reassert its control over its former colonies.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Just because Russia is economically weak now doesnt mean that it will be in the future. It has a fundamental advantage over China in that it got rid of Communism. In Russia the Communists gave up power voluntarily, in China they will probably be forced out. China has very many SERIOUS economic problems which its totalitarian government manages to hide. Russia will never allow the core provinces of the Soviet Union to be controlled by the USA or China for long. The Cold War was dressed up as a conflict of idealogy but it was at its heart a nationalist conflict between the worlds most powerful countries Russia and the USA, which the Russians lost because their economic system was weaker. Once the Russian economy then it will reassert its control over its former colonies.

The funny thing is that it's rumored that wealthy American industrialists actually funded the Bolshevik Revolution, which begat the Cold War. The same industrialists made enormous profits on the arms race between the two countries.

As a side note, it's also been said that the USA and Russia are currently in a post Cold-War race to develop their oil routes to and from the Caspian Sea... which if you didn't realize, fits in to the whole Mideast crisis that we are now embroiled. One could theorize that we are currently in that region unwittingly fighting towards those ends.

However, the birth of this 'strong strategic partnership' is accompanied by a stream of very dubious information. On the one hand, there is a lot of harsh criticism of Kazakhstan in the US. Some news agencies in Russia have been asserting the US is ready to invade Kazakhstan. Certain Russian military analysts have been quoted as saying they are alarmed by the verbal attacks on the country of certain highly placed officials in Washington.

Indeed, in the very US congress there is talk of 'Nazarbayev's totalitarian regime' (and, somehow, no mention of Turkmenbashi). The US representative at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe said, 'America is concerned about politically motivated incidents occurring in Kazakhstan. We cannot put up with the selective persecution of the leaders of lawful political opposition'.

http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2002/09/04/49976.html

The wars of the future will still carry a strong odor of petroleum.

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/mcollon.htm

These latter actions led US and other western leaders to begin wondering whether Russia was demanding too great a role, and whether Moscow sought to reap the benefits of an empire without sustaining most of the costs of maintaining it. The numerous bottlenecks that Chevron encountered in trying to negotiate a pipeline across Russia to ship Tengiz oil to market began to look to outside observers like key figures in Russia�s political establishment were more concerned to cripple Kazakhstan economically than to extract fair transit fees. This impression was further strengthened when Russian leaders began to challenge contracts signed between western firms in both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan , saying that the Caspian wasn�t these nations� to develop; Caspian Sea reserves had to be divided and developed through agreements made by all the littoral states. Russia�s hold over transit routes made their objections more than mere idle threats.

http://www.ceip.org/people/olccaspw.htm

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2...12003172423.asp

quote:

Russia�s hold over transit routes made their objections more than mere idle threats. http://www.ceip.org/people/olccaspw.htm

I wanted to comment quickly on these two articles you gave.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes, the "war on terror" has provided many across the world with the excuse to crack down on their own with some semblance of legitimacy: http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=2173160

Excellent editorial. Harold Hongju Koh nails a number of points right on the head.

quote:

Hopefully not for very long. http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=2155717 Countries around the world, not just the United States, need to take concerted efforts to eliminate this rediculous reliance.

Have to say I'm a little incredulous of this guy's optimism. It seems that our reliance is not going to be weakened anytime soon. I appreciate his optimism, but I have troubles believing his vision of hydogen fuel cells. Besides, isin't oil supposed to be the primary energy means of H2 fuel cell operation? IOW, don't you need oil to run the fuel cells? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It seems that our reliance is not going to be weakened anytime soon.

Our reliance is also tied to the fact that our fossil fuel economy would be shattered if superior alternatives were found.

Money talks, and the oil conglomerates speech is a deafening roar.


Electrogravitation and the Biefeld-Brown effect would be an interesting topic of discussion... if only someone really knew about it.

"Do you remember how electrical currents and 'unseen waves' were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy."

- Albert Einstein

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Have to say I'm a little incredulous of this guy's optimism. It seems that our reliance is not going to be weakened anytime soon. I appreciate his optimism, but I have troubles believing his vision of hydogen fuel cells. Besides, isin't oil supposed to be the primary energy means of H2 fuel cell operation? IOW, don't you need oil to run the fuel cells? Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

I actually think that it is far more attainable than we realise. If not hydrogen, then most certainly other fuels such as bioethanol ... I mean even today it's possible to convert a diesel engine to run on grease alone ...

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/d...ior/6913203.htm

If two college kids can do it, I'm certain the car industry can find SOMETHING to use besides gasoline. If push came to shove, the car industry could probably quite easily (however none too cheaply) make hydrogen cars a feasible technology. Yes it does require power to initially create H2 fuel cells however, it does not necessarily have to be oil powered plants ... we could use nuclear powered plants, coal plants, hydro-electric plants, etc. Although this might not be environmentally attractive (however I still bet it's more enviro friendly than a trillion cars spewing out CO) the point is to reduce our strategic reliance on other countries.

quote:

Our reliance is also tied to the fact that our fossil fuel economy would be shattered if superior alternatives were found. Money talks, and the oil conglomerates speech is a deafening roar.

It doesn't have to be that way however. Oil companies wouldn't die out if we converted over to hydrogen cars. The oil industry is already set up to deliver us whatever fuel we use, whatever fuel that may be. There is no other competitive infrastructure or distribution system to compete with the oil companies ... the government simply needs to kick the oil companies (or car companies) in the ass to get them moving on alternative fuel sources.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I actually think that it is far more attainable than we realise. If not hydrogen, then most certainly other fuels such as bioethanol ... I mean even today it's possible to convert a diesel engine to run on grease alone ... http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/d...ior/6913203.htm If two college kids can do it, I'm certain the car industry can find SOMETHING to use besides gasoline. If push came to shove, the car industry could probably quite easily (however none too cheaply) make hydrogen cars a feasible technology. Yes it does require power to initially create H2 fuel cells however, it does not necessarily have to be oil powered plants ... we could use nuclear powered plants, coal plants, hydro-electric plants, etc. Although this might not be environmentally attractive (however I still bet it's more enviro friendly than a trillion cars spewing out CO) the point is to reduce our strategic reliance on other countries.

Oh I certainly don't disagree that it's possible to attain alternative energy resources. I have a cousin that attended NW Missouri State University with a major in Geography, and they're pioneers on some of the alternative fuel energy resources:

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/sloan/Cos...ativeFuels.html

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/academics/ag/bioenergy.htm

Amazing how much money could be saved.

quote:

It doesn't have to be that way however. Oil companies wouldn't die out if we converted over to hydrogen cars. The oil industry is already set up to deliver us whatever fuel we use, whatever fuel that may be. There is no other competitive infrastructure or distribution system to compete with the oil companies ... the government simply needs to kick the oil companies (or car companies) in the ass to get them moving on alternative fuel sources.

My problem, however, and the crux of my argument is I really don't see our desire for oil to be decreased anytime soon. The oil industry is just too strong. Too much money, too much lobbying, too much power.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The oil industry is just too strong. Too much money, too much lobbying, too much power.

Too many friends in the government.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/featu..._oil/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 My problem, however, and the crux of my argument is I really don't see our desire for oil to be decreased anytime soon. The oil industry is just too strong. Too much money, too much lobbying, too much power.

See I think the problem is that oil is too cheap. What we need is another Arab oil embargo on the US. Make oil expensive as hell and you'll see consumers happily running towards alternative fuel sources. As long as oil remains cheap, consumers will gladly continue to purchase gasoline and endorse the oil companies ... OPEC will still set oil prices to be juusssstt right, not too expensive to gouge us, but just enough to milk us. There is no greater example of an oligopoly market than oil. It's inefficient and it makes the middle east, not us artificially rich. The oil companies will happily do whatever OPEC says becuase they'll get their fair share. Of course oil companies don't want to switch over to alternative fuel sources ... that's expensive and they don't want to piss off their opec masters!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See I think the problem is that oil is too cheap. What we need is another Arab oil embargo on the US. Make oil expensive as hell and you'll see consumers happily running towards alternative fuel sources. As long as oil remains cheap, consumers will gladly continue to purchase gasoline and endorse the oil companies ... OPEC will still set oil prices to be juusssstt right, not too expensive to gouge us, but just enough to milk us. There is no greater example of an oligopoly market than oil. It's inefficient and it makes the middle east, not us artificially rich. The oil companies will happily do whatever OPEC says becuase they'll get their fair share. Of course oil companies don't want to switch over to alternative fuel sources ... that's expensive and they don't want to piss off their opec masters!

Most definitely! Though I personally wouldn't be too happy in the short term with a huge spike in prices - I currently spend about $2500 alone in gas each year commuting to work. Anymore taken out of my paycheck and I'd be screwed!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.