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

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..."

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

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.

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________

quote:

"Learn, child, to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given. 'Sermons may be preached through stones." - Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, p. 74, letter 31

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.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

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.