TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Jon Stewart having an epiphany
Jon Stewart having an epiphany
I saw this happen on The Daily Show the other night, and I thought, "wow, I hope I'm not the only one watching this." Apparently, I wasn't. The Wall Street Journal transcribed the show.
| quote: |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362 by JAMES TARANTO 'But as an American . . .' We hardly ever watch Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart," but our TV happened to be tuned to it last night when erstwhile Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg, author of "The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might" (foreword by Bill Clinton, blurb by Madeleine Albright) came on. We're not sure what possessed us to turn on the sound and watch, but we're glad we did, for it was a fascinating interview. Here's a TiVo-assisted transcript of most of it: ------------ Stewart: This book--it talks about the superpower myth of the United States. There is this idea, the United States is the sole superpower, and I guess the premise of the book is we cannot misuse that power--have to use it wisely, and not just punitively. Is that-- Soderberg: That's right. What I argue is that the Bush administration fell hostage to the superpower myth, believing that because we're the most powerful nation on earth, we were all-powerful, could bend the world to our will and not have to worry about the rest of the world. I think what they're finding in the second term is, it's a little bit harder than that, and reality has an annoying way of intruding. Stewart: But what do you make of--here's my dilemma, if you will. I don't care for the way these guys conduct themselves--and this is just you and I talking, no cameras here [audience laughter]. But boy, when you see the Lebanese take to the streets and all that, and you go, "Oh my God, this is working," and I begin to wonder, is it--is the way that they handled it really--it's sort of like, "Uh, OK, my daddy hits me, but look how tough I'm getting." You know what I mean? Like, you don't like the method, but maybe--wrong analogy, is that, uh--? Soderberg: Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. I think the way to look at it is, they can't credit for every good thing that happens, but they need to be able to manage it. I think what's happening in Lebanon is great, but it's not necessarily directly related to the fact that we went into Iraq militarily. Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something. Soderberg: I think partly what's going on is the country next door, Syria, has been controlling them for decades, and they [the Syrians] were dumb enough to blow up the former prime minister of Lebanon in Beirut, and they're--people are sort of sick of that, and saying, "Wait a minute, that's a stretch too far." So part of what's going on is they're just protesting that. But I think there is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it though the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them. Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings. Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole-- Stewart: This could be unbelievable! Soderberg:---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's-- Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's-- Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say. Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it. Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. Stewart: [crossing fingers] Iran and North Korea, that's true, that is true [audience laughter]. No, it's--it is--I absolutely agree with you, this is--this is the most difficult thing for me to--because, I think, I don't care for the tactics, I don't care for this, the weird arrogance, the setting up. But I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region. Soderberg: Well wait. It hasn't actually gotten very far. I mean, we've had-- Stewart: Oh, I'm shallow! I'm very shallow! Soderberg: There's always hope that this might not work. No, but I think, um, it's--you know, you have changes going on in Egypt; Saudi Arabia finally had a few votes, although women couldn't participate. What's going on here in--you know, Syria's been living in the 1960s since the 1960s--it's, part of this is-- Stewart: You mean free love and that kind of stuff? [audience laughter] Like, free love, drugs? Soderberg: If you're a terrorist, yeah. Stewart: They are Baathists, are they--it looks like, I gotta say, it's almost like we're not going to have to invade Iran and Syria. They're gonna invade themselves at a certain point, no? Or is that completely naive? Soderberg: I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see. Stewart: Really? Hummus for everybody, for God's sakes. ------------ We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top). She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism. Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation." Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues. |
one down, 58 million to go.
Interesting. I haven't seen the show in a while. Sounds like I missed something good. Thanks for sharing the article.
from what i see, ie. the five(5) minute interview, it seems that she did little to even discuss 'the superpower myth'.
if, by debunking, you mean that she purportedly infers that the US is doing good things, despite Dems hating Repubs and hoping for failure...well...heropinion on that matter seems to state that.
as for jon stewart being a goof ball and occasionally hitting the nail on the head...perhaps. this IS from 'opinionjournal' and all it seems to be is opinion.
the opinions of these two people, the opinion[s] of the reader[s]...i really see no epiphany, nor any actual discussion of that 'the superpower myth is, could mean, or how it is playing out in conventional politics or the minds of the populace.
did anyone actually read her book? or just gain backing for a side from a comedy program? seriously, i dunno|
I'm not sure how the US's militant posturing has anything to do with the ufolding situation in Lebanon. It's a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy to suggest that there's a link unless you identify to some real correlative, causal events between the two concepts. The fact is that the only two "democratized" nations in the Middle-East that the US has been directly involved in over the past 4 years are still hanging in the balance and there must be some concern for the long-term stability of both of them once the US withdraws its troops. As usual, the conservatives are allowing themselves to get swept up in triumphalism before really understanding the full nature of the situation.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade I'm not sure how the US's militant posturing has anything to do with the ufolding situation in Lebanon. It's a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy to suggest that there's a link unless you identify to some real correlative, causal events between the two concepts. The fact is that the only two "democratized" nations in the Middle-East that the US has been directly involved in over the past 4 years are still hanging in the balance and there must be some concern for the long-term stability of both of them once the US withdraws its troops. As usual, the conservatives are allowing themselves to get swept up in triumphalism before really understanding the full nature of the situation. |
in terms of stewart i think they mean he has been able to do something with his show that no one else could. here he has an actual reprutable political ficture (not some run-of-the-mill "expert") and he actually manages to get her to speak her mind. not something you're going to get anywhere else. if she was on Larry King live for example, she would be speaking like she was on a news program like she was reading from a script and the topic probably wouldn't leave her book. The Wall Street Journal (not imokruok, everything in that quote was said by The Wall Street Journal) is saying that the show has actually become something everyone can enjoy and it is quite informative as well as fun to watch. even know-it-alls like James Taranto whom would otherwise be expecting stale watered down content, by his standards, as you might get on the Tonight Show with Leno and not interest him.
i'd like imokruok to clarify what he means by this "epiphany." maybe reading it transcript took away from the experience. being a regular viewer of the daily show the interviews are usually this good so it wasnt something i hadn't seen before. stewart is really good at getting people to loosen up and speak their mind. if any of his guests appeared on any other show i'd probably get bored with what they had to say and change the channel, but stewart pulls it off. i never, for example, knew the rev. al sharpton has a pretty good sense of humor and is rather funny until i saw him on the daily show.
i will be very upset, as well, if Bush goes down in history as one of the greatest presidents.
democrats here and evreywhere will oppose, inflict, and propagandize anything that stands in the way of peace and more importantly, their return to majority power.
follow the making of history...not the deconstruction of a party.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050304/D88JRCCG0.html
Please continue to have you party take credit and propogandize anything positive that happens in the Middle East for political gain and meanwhile at home hire propogandists to slander any person or group who opposes social security a la the Swift Boat Vets. It goes both ways.
Last week we were all fearing disaster with North Korea breaking off talks, mass death in Iraq, Iran making threats and Syria potentially siding with Iran. This week there's good news in Lebanon and potentially in Egypt in addition. Both the bad and the good continue to develop and no one knows how anything is going to play out in the long term yet. Let's just hope the world becomes a lot less violent in the future and stop worrying about who should get political gain or blame. I don't know anyone personally on the left or right who wants more violence to occur, regardless of what they feel about the means being used.
OMG still busted over Kerry losing on his own merits
i'll do you a favor and avoid that donkey party red herring like the frikken plague.
credit goes where credit is due. jealous much? anyway, no one but the talking heads are taking any credit...yet... give it 10 years.
remember the party of blind opposition. you'll lose more elections that way.
i know i sound cold blooded, but you will learn one way or another.
honestly though, this whole john stewart thing is irrelevant. It all comes down to one word.
Conan
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo OMG still busted over Kerry losing on his own merits i'll do you a favor and avoid that donkey party red herring like the frikken plague. credit goes where credit is due. jealous much? anyway, no one but the talking heads are taking any credit...yet... give it 10 years. remember the party of blind opposition. you'll lose more elections that way. i know i sound cold blooded, but you will learn one way or another. |
Yeah, Bush absolutely deserves total credit right now for Lebonon, Hariri's death and the consequent uprising had nothing to do with internal politics. There's also absolutely no problems in Iraq, there's no chance that a shi'ite dominated government will turn into a theocracy. Sorry I disagree with a lot of Bush's tactics, but I don't recall saying I wouldn't give credit if some of his tactics ultimately worked. For the record I disagee with the Democrats on a lot of issues, so I don't blindly follow them, but it seems you blindly follow partisan politics, considering you suggest all Democrats want mass violence and possible war since it would disprove Bush.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Izzy you are indeed correct, however the recipricle of the statement also holds true to the fallacy. it is incorrect to say that the US had nothing to do with the unfolding of the situation in lebanon. We can never conclude either way factually so all that is left is opinion. And we all know politics is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the US's actions in the mideast had some impact on the positive events in Lebanon. Therefor i support the actions of the US. edit - i saw the show btw. i'm so happy john is coming around |
OK first off I agree with Izzy - you can't factually argue one way or another that Lebanon's revolt was due to America, so its stupid to do so.
However, I believe (i.e. speculate, opine) that America did have a lot to do with the consciousness that led the Lebanese to revolt.
First, obviously most Lebanese will refuse this, and this is fine. But there is a feeling in the air, a change in the Arab psyche that has come from the war on Iraq.
I think the change in Arab psych (which although not the cause to the revolt is the underlying condition that allowed the cause to take effect) is due to the American invasion of Iraq.
This is for a several reasons:
1) The USA has demonstrated it is not afraid in meddling in the Middle East anymore and using force if needed.
2) The USA has demonstrated it will not take shit from the Arabs any longer. It is not about to abandon its quest anytime soon.
3) The USA has demonstrated there is an alternative to dictatorships in the Middle East. And that dictators are not Gods - they are mere mortals that can be successfully overthrown (the last time this happened was in 1970s and only by fundamentalist, never secularists).
4) Waiting for America or an external power to do your dirty work for you will result in a worse situation then if you take your own dirty work and fix it up yourself (i.e. If Iraqis would have revolted to overthrow Saddam it would have been better then if the Americans had done it for them).
5) The Americans have demonstrated a trust in the Arabs. Somebody for once believes in the average Arab. The US in Iraq has given the Arabs a deep trust by allowing them to govern themselves. It gives a respect, an honor back to the Arab people by saying "Here, you are a human being like all the rest of us, you are smart like all the rest of us, you should be capable to govern yourselves, decide your own destiny". This is a change from the dictatorship/fundamentalist which preach a "you are stupid, don't question us, we know what is best for you" attitude that has been prevelant for 1000s of years in Arabia.
6) The USA has exposed the fundamentalist for what they are: They care more about killing Americans then they do about their Arab brothers. The Arab world due to what the fundamentalist are doing in Iraq (which is primarly Arab on Arab action) are slowly losing face and patience with the fundies.
I think that is many of the psychological impact that the war on Iraq has had on the Arabs.
In addition there has been some new realities.
The current dictatorships can no longer be as cruel to their people (as this might merit an invasion by the USA) therefore current governments are less able to control the people, or inversly the people have or are able to have more power.
For example, I believe that the odds that Syria would have invaded/oppressed the Lebanese after this assasination attmept would have been, much, much greater had the USA not been next door to Syria with rumors abound that it is looking to invade another Arab country.
I believe that many of the Lebanese felt comfortable uprising against Syria because they realized, what is Syria going to do? What can they do? Invade Lebanon? Oppress Lebanon?
Not with the USA next door they're not.
And although it is not directly the USA that led to the revolt, I believe that the USA invasion led to the underlying change in the envrionmental conditions in the middle east that are allowing much of this reform.
The basic premise that has changed is that the USA is not giving a green pass to any nation that is friendly with it but oppressive to their people anymore. That the USA will use force if it has too. And it doesn't matter how many Americans you kill anymore, they'll continue fighting. (Recall Clinton withdrew from fundamentalist Somolia when less than 20 US troops were killed. Whereas Bush is holding strong with more than 1000 killed in Iraq).
And in conclusion this is what I think John Steward believes too. This is why he is coming to this dilema. He believes in the results the War on Iraq is producing in the Arab world, but he is/was against the tactics and methods used to obtain these results (i.e the War on Iraq).
nutshell^
...or mustard seed shell...whatever.
I really wanted to get to your commentary, Yoepus, because I think it cuts right to the heart of the matter as to the rationale of those who still support Bush�s Iraq and Middle Eastern foreign policies. I want to tackle this in two parts: First I�ll address the Lebanese revolt, and then I�ll address the rest of the Middle East. I feel this is necessary because it is more useful and meaningful to examine each country critically.
For Lebanon, you state:
| quote: |
| For example, I believe that the odds that Syria would have invaded/oppressed the Lebanese after this assasination attmept would have been, much, much greater had the USA not been next door to Syria with rumors abound that it is looking to invade another Arab country. I believe that many of the Lebanese felt comfortable uprising against Syria because they realized, what is Syria going to do? What can they do? Invade Lebanon? Oppress Lebanon? Not with the USA next door they're not. |
| quote: |
| Syria has long been promising an end to its 30-year occupation. Last fall, when the six-year term of Lebanon's Quisling president, Gen. �mile Lahoud, was about to expire, the Syrians forced an amendment to the constitution, allowing a three-year extension. That's what set in motion the broad-based opposition movement and led Rafik Hariri, the popular prime minister, to resign in protest. Hariri's assassination last month stirred that opposition into outright revolt. Did the election in Iraq, or Ukraine, embolden the protesters? Many of them say it did. But the combustion's ingredients were already well-packed. http://slate.msn.com/id/2114260/ |
| quote: |
| In any case, what happens next? If the Syrians do withdraw (and they've reduced their forces from 40,000 to 14,000 the past few years), some abstract concept called "freedom" won't take over; flesh-and-blood Lebanese people will�and that's where the troubles began. The terrorist organization Hezbollah represents a substantial portion of Lebanon's population and will almost certainly play a strong role in any new government. (If it's somehow kept out, expect civil war.) Will its leaders be interested in integrating Lebanon into some new Middle Eastern order that involves peace with Israel? Is there a package of sticks and carrots that might cajole and lure them into an accord? Will Bush (and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) be interested in negotiating such a deal? Then there are the ethnic conflicts�Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Maronite Christians, and the Druze. They're unified now in the cause of pushing out Syria, just as they were unified back in 1943 in the cause of pushing out France. In the intervening 60 years, divisions reigned, at times sparking chaos, which motivates the various occupations. (See Juan Cole's blog on Tuesday for a succinct summary of this history.) |
| quote: |
| I don't think Bush had anything much to do with the current Lebanese national movement except at the margins. Walid Jumblatt, the embittered son of Kamal whom the Syrians defeated in 1976 at the American behest, said he was inspired by the fall of Saddam. But this sort of statement from a Druze warlord strikes me as just as manipulative as the news conferences of Ahmad Chalabi, who is also inspired by Saddam's fall. Jumblatt has a long history of anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment that makes his sudden conversion to neoconism likely a mirage. He has wanted the Syrians back out since 1976, so it is not plausible that anything changed for him in 2003. The Lebanese are still not entirely united on a Syrian military withdrawal. Supporters of outgoing PM Omar Karami rioted in Tripoli on Monday. Hizbullah leader Hasan Nasrallah still supports the Syrians and has expressed anxieties about the Hariri assassination and its aftermath leading to renewed civil war (an argument for continued Syrian military presence). |
| quote: |
| The Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah declared its full support for Syria today, presenting a direct challenge to opposition groups after Syria promised to gradually withdraw troops from Lebanon. Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, spoke to reporters today in his stronghold in southern Beirut, breaking weeks of relative silence over the crisis concerning Syria's presence in Lebanon. He called for Lebanese to "express their gratitude" to Syria by joining a demonstration on Tuesday against United Nations Resolution 1559, which calls for Syria's withdrawal and Hezbollah's disarmament. "I invite all Lebanese to this meeting to refuse foreign interference," he said. Although he acknowledged that a Syrian pullout was a reality, he stressed that Syria must be able to leave with honor - a reaction to repeated statements by the Bush administration and Lebanese opposition groups calling for a quick and complete pullout of Syrian forces. . . For weeks, Hezbollah, which maintains a well-armed, 25,000-man militia in Lebanon and commands the support of hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims in the country, has been a political wild-card. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/i...gedcomplication |
| quote: |
| Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday ordered a revision of the country's election laws and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981. The surprise announcement, a response to critics' calls for political reform, comes shortly after historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, balloting that brought a taste of democracy to the region. It also comes amid a sharp dispute with the United States over Egypt's arrest of one of the strongest proponents of multi-candidate elections. "The election of a president will be through direct, secret balloting, giving the chance for political parties to run for the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose among them with their own will," Mubarak said in an address broadcast live on Egyptian television. Mubarak -- who has never faced an opponent since becoming president after the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat -- said his initiative came "out of my full conviction of the need to consolidate efforts for more freedom and democracy." http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/int...artner=homepage |
| quote: |
| Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday abruptly called off a planned trip to several Middle Eastern countries that had been scheduled for next week, a decision that came apparently because of the arrest of a leading Egyptian opposition politician last month. The decision highlighted a rift with an important ally over President Bush's push for democratic change. It came a day after Mr. Bush's tense meeting with Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, who was clearly uncomfortable with Mr. Bush's criticism of Russia's democracy. The linchpin for Ms. Rice's trip had been a planned meeting in Cairo of foreign ministers for the Group of 8 industrial nations and the Arab League to discuss economic aid and democratic change in the Middle East. But that meeting was postponed by Egypt on Sunday in an early sign of the tensions that have been building even as the Bush administration has praised Egypt for its help in the Israeli-Palestinian mediation after Yasir Arafat's death. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/p...ner=rssuserland |
| quote: |
| But Mubarak's order to parliament declared the amendment must state that any potential candidate be a member of an official political party and win the endorsement of parliament. Most opposition parties and reform activists, therefore, said the initiative, though welcome, did not go far enough and that they feared it was only cosmetic. All acknowledged that Mubarak was likely to stay in power after the September vote, particularly since any potential candidate must still be approved by parliament, which his ruling party dominates... http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=534156 |
| quote: |
| The need for parliamentary approval would mean the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest Islamic group and probably the most powerful rival to Mubarak if an open vote were held, could not present a candidate. In a statement Saturday, the group whose supporters make up the largest opposition bloc in parliament demanded further reforms, including greater freedom to form political parties, and the end to Egypt's nearly 25-year-old emergency laws. The rules would also exclude three well-known political activists who have started a campaign to allow their run for presidency: feminist writer Nawal el-Saadawi, sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, and former opposition member of parliament Mohammed Farid Hassanein. Mohammed Kamal, a leading member of the ruling party's policy-making committee, said parliament would propose an amendment within two weeks, and a national referendum to approve it would be held within nine weeks. George Ishaq, spokesman for the Kifaya, or "Enough," movement that has led a series of anti-Mubarak protests since December, said the move was not complete. "Freedom and democracy is a normal request for people," he said. "We need more than this." |
| quote: |
| The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were positive improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. There were credible reports that security forces continued to torture and abuse detainees and prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and hold them in incommunicado detention. There were cases in which Mutawwa'in continued to intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners. There was no evidence that violators were held accountable for abuses. Most trials were closed, and defendants usually appeared before judges without legal counsel. There were reports that the Government infringed on individuals' privacy rights. The Government continued to restrict freedom of speech and press, although there has been an increase in press freedom over a series of years. The Government restricted freedom of assembly, association, religion, and movement. Violence and discrimination against women, violence against children, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and strict limitations on worker rights continued [...] The Mutawwa'in reportedly detained young men for offenses that included eating in restaurants with young women, making lewd remarks to women in the shopping malls, or walking in groups through family-only sections of shopping centers. Women of many nationalities were detained for actions such as riding in a taxi with a man who was not their relative, appearing with their heads uncovered in shopping malls, and eating in restaurants with males who were not their relatives. Many such prisoners were held for days, sometimes weeks, without officials notifying their families or, in the case of foreigners, their embassies. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm |
| quote: |
| Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights [...] The Government's human rights remained very poor, and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. Citizens could not exercise the right to change their government peacefully. Security force mistreatment likely resulted in the deaths of at least four citizens in custody. Police and NSS forces tortured, beat, and harassed persons [...] The Government employed official and unofficial means to restrict severely freedom of speech and the press, and an atmosphere of repression stifled public criticism of the Government. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27873.htm |
| quote: |
| Just last month, a 62-year-old woman, Fatima Mukhadirova, was convicted on charges of religious extremism after she had spoken out about the torture and death of her son in custody. Her son, imprisoned for "religious extremism," died in prison in August 2002 after he was apparently submerged in boiling water. Mukhadirova was released following international outcry. But police raids and arrests continue unabated and at least 26 independent Muslims have been convicted since January. http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/200.../uzbeki8309.htm |
| quote: |
| The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. In 2002, citizens participated in national government elections; however, many observers found serious flaws in the legal framework for the election. Security forces used excessive force, at some times resulting in death, and committed or failed to prevent extrajudicial killings of suspected militants and civilians. The Government enacted measures to improve the discipline and training of security forces and punished some security forces officials who were guilty of abuses; however, abuses by security forces remained a problem. Killings between rival political factions and sectarian groups continued to be a problem. Police abused and raped citizens. Prison conditions remained extremely poor and life threatening, and police arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. Several political leaders remained in detention or exile abroad at year's end. Case backlogs led to long delays in trials, and lengthy pretrial detention was common. The judiciary was subject to executive and other outside influences and corruption, inefficiency, and lack of resources remained severe problems. The Government has taken steps to control the judiciary and to remove itself from judicial oversight. Some aspects of the Government's implementation of its anti-corruption campaign violated due process. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27950.htm |
| quote: |
| Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan20.html |
| quote: |
| Polls have closed quietly in the ex-Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan where President Askar Akayev promised a free and open parliamentary election. But voting was delayed for two weeks in one district, Tong, after protests about candidates being disqualified. The vote comes before a presidential election set for October in the central Asian republic. Mr Akayev has warned against any attempts to oust the government like recent changes in Ukraine and Georgia. He has promised to step down for the October poll, after more than a decade in power. However, his critics fear he will use the parliamentary election to prolong his term in office or pave the way for a younger relative to succeed him. Elections in Kyrgyzstan are generally regarded as a cosmetic exercise to confirm the status quo, but this campaign has seen stirrings of discontent, the BBC's Ian MacWilliam reports from the capital Bishkek. The 75-seat parliament is being contested by nearly 400 candidates. Several opposition and independent candidates were banned from standing, sparking the protests. In Tong, roads were blocked by supporters of Arslanbek Maliyev, a popular member of the outgoing parliament barred from standing for office over alleged electoral irregularities. he electoral commission said the blockade of roads meant polling stations in Tong were not ready for the vote. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4301625.stm |
| quote: |
| Turkmenistan is one of the most repressive countries in the world. The government systematically violates virtually all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Little has changed in Turkmenistan�s human rights record since the EBRD adopted its country strategy for Turkmenistan in 2002. If anything, conditions have worsened. Since the reported attempt to assassinate President Sapamurat Niazov on November 25, 2002, persecution of real and perceived opponents of the government has intensified. The rights of ethnic and religious minorities have particularly deteriorated during the past year. http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=turkme |
| quote: |
| Opium-trade proceeds help finance Taliban remnants and other terrorists, and with 40 to 60 percent of the economy now dependent on this trade, the country is verging on becoming a narco state, the report warned. As the source of about 90 percent of the world's heroin, Afghanistan is "an enormous threat to world stability." Narcotics have been a major factor in the Afghan economy since the Soviets invaded in 1979. But in the lawlessness that's flourished since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, when about 19,800 acres of land supported poppy growth, production has exploded - to nearly 511,500 acres last year. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0308/p08s02-comv.html |
| quote: |
| Permanent American bases in Iraq? The question seems so incongruous to His Most Austere "Eminence Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim," (as the leader of the Shiite party which won the January 30 elections identifies himself on his visiting card) that he almost bursts out laughing. "Ha! Ha! No. No one in Iraq desires the establishment of permanent foreign bases on our land. The United Nations Security Council resolutions are clear: it will be up to the elected Iraqi government, when the time comes, to give those forces a specific departure date. As soon as possible." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/030705I.shtml |
| quote: |
| 1) The USA has demonstrated it is not afraid in meddling in the Middle East anymore and using force if needed. 2) The USA has demonstrated it will not take shit from the Arabs any longer. It is not about to abandon its quest anytime soon. 3) The USA has demonstrated there is an alternative to dictatorships in the Middle East. And that dictators are not Gods - they are mere mortals that can be successfully overthrown (the last time this happened was in 1970s and only by fundamentalist, never secularists). 4) Waiting for America or an external power to do your dirty work for you will result in a worse situation then if you take your own dirty work and fix it up yourself (i.e. If Iraqis would have revolted to overthrow Saddam it would have been better then if the Americans had done it for them). 5) The Americans have demonstrated a trust in the Arabs. Somebody for once believes in the average Arab. The US in Iraq has given the Arabs a deep trust by allowing them to govern themselves. It gives a respect, an honor back to the Arab people by saying "Here, you are a human being like all the rest of us, you are smart like all the rest of us, you should be capable to govern yourselves, decide your own destiny". This is a change from the dictatorship/fundamentalist which preach a "you are stupid, don't question us, we know what is best for you" attitude that has been prevelant for 1000s of years in Arabia. 6) The USA has exposed the fundamentalist for what they are: They care more about killing Americans then they do about their Arab brothers. The Arab world due to what the fundamentalist are doing in Iraq (which is primarly Arab on Arab action) are slowly losing face and patience with the fundies. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I want to tackle this in two parts: First I�ll address the Lebanese revolt, and then I�ll address the rest of the Middle East. |
MisterOpus, you're a man after my own heart. Poli Sci student by any chance?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov MisterOpus, you're a man after my own heart. Poli Sci student by any chance? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 tree-huggin, bleedin'-heart hippy liberal |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.