Uzbekistan Military Slaughters 500 Protesters

[FlamesAddiction]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...m/uzbekistan_dc

It will be interesting to see how Washington reacts to this. So far, there has been no statement of condemnation. The U.S. has publicly backed the Karimov regime and considers Uzbekistan an ally despite their deplorable human rights records and now this Saddam-esque attack on civilians. The U.S. also currently uses Uzbek bases for the "war on terror".

Refugees are apparently flooding over the Kyrgyzstan border as we speak, and there have been reports of some getting shot as they try to escape.

[transplant99]

I guess the US could invade and stop the killing...but after the support they had globally for their last effort in doing so, I kind of doubt they would be too interested in that!

[CaramonLS]

US better at least be consistant in their foriegn policy.

If they decided to invade this would at least make me think less of the Bush Administration as being a bunch of dirty liars, and at least they could go in for the "right reasons".

Anyone know how much Oil this country has?

[octothorp]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@May 15 2005, 02:51 PM


Anyone know how much Oil this country has?

Not a huge amount of oil, but Uzbekistan is one of the top ten natural gas producing countries in the world. As well, they are a trading ally with China, and they are a conceivable route for a Caspian Sea - China oil pipeline project. So they are a fairly important country to the petroleum industry.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 15 2005, 06:29 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...m/uzbekistan_dc

It will be interesting to see how Washington reacts to this. So far, there has been no statement of condemnation. The U.S. has publicly backed the Karimov regime and considers Uzbekistan an ally despite their deplorable human rights records and now this Saddam-esque attack on civilians. The U.S. also currently uses Uzbek bases for the "war on terror".

Refugees are apparently flooding over the Kyrgyzstan border as we speak, and there have been reports of some getting shot as they try to escape.

200 Uzbek soldier and police litter the streets as well. I am looking for the story.

Very deplorable but from all account they weren't shooting into a peaceful demonstration by any means.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by HOZ+May 15 2005, 11:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ May 15 2005, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 15 2005, 06:29 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...m/uzbekistan_dc

It will be interesting to see how Washington reacts to this. So far, there has been no statement of condemnation. The U.S. has publicly backed the Karimov regime and considers Uzbekistan an ally despite their deplorable human rights records and now this Saddam-esque attack on civilians. The U.S. also currently uses Uzbek bases for the "war on terror".

Refugees are apparently flooding over the Kyrgyzstan border as we speak, and there have been reports of some getting shot as they try to escape.

200 Uzbek soldier and police litter the streets as well. I am looking for the story.

Very deplorable but from all account they weren't shooting into a peaceful demonstration by any means. [/b][/quote]
From what I read, the police and army were fighting against each other.

But it is true that Uzbekistan has an armed civilian population (so there were likely military casualties) - very similar to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When the Shi'ites and Kurds revolted in Iraq, they were armed with assault rifles and rpg's. Hussein crushed those people in a similar way that we are seeing in Uzbekistan.

Since Hussein's tactics were condemned and used as a way to justify the invasion after WMD were not found, I just want to see if Bush applies the same standard to Uzbekistan. So far, no word. Britain has already condemned the incident and viewed the protest as a pro-democracy display, but still nothing from Bush.

[FlamesAddiction]

According to this article, the Uzbek dictator says 10 soldiers were killed.

[FlamesAddiction]

nm

[Claeren]

As i understand it the protestors are from muslim factions that have peacefully (but now increasingly violently) been demanding the adoption of total islamic law in all off the non-Islamic States of mid-Asia, spread from ~Turkey to ~Chain (non-inclusive).

The USA has successfully convinced the governments of those nations to arrest any known followers of these groups as part of the war on terror over the past ~4 years. While this action slowed their advancing for a while it has also led to many groups becoming more militant....


Needless to say, the Americans most likely gave their blessing on the militant crackdown on the protestors and is providing logistical support for the nations involved to supress these people as effectivily as possible. It is suspected American intelligence is broadly used to arrest leaders of these groups on a regular basis....


Right or wrong it is a tricky situation that raises a lot of questions about democracy, religion and the state, and self-determinism.....

Claeren.

[Looger]

the definitions of 'terrorist groups' has been getting absurd lately.

religious organizations quite often have lofty 'stated' goals that don't jive with their actual activity or general disposition.

should we persecute all mormons because their religion says that people of native american descent were turned red for shame of killing jesus christ, and that their women should be raped until there are no more red people?

what about jews, the talmud says that when israel is reborn in the land of canaan, the people there have to be exterminated. should all jews be held responsible for this goal?

america has as much ethical and moral content in its foreign policy as any powerful country:

ZERO

[FlamesAddiction]

Death toll up to 700 now:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...stan050516.html

[Looger]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...n/etc/cron.html

1953
U.S.-backed coup ousts Mossadeq; reinstates shah

At the height of the Cold War, the Eisenhower administration approves a joint British-American operation to overthrow Mossadeq, worried that his nationalist aspirations will lead to an eventual communist takeover. The operation is code-named Operation Ajax. At first, the military coup seems to fail, and the shah flees the country. After widespread rioting -- and with help from the CIA and British intelligence services -- Mossadeq is defeated and the shah returns to power, ensuring support for Western oil interests and snuffing the threat of communist expansion. General Fazlollah Zahedi, who led the military coup, becomes prime minister.

1978
Pro-Khomeini demonstrations; revolution looms

In January, an article in an Iranian newspaper smears Khomeini, leading to the outbreak of violent demonstrations in Qom. The unrest spreads throughout the country. In September, in what is known now as Black Friday, government troops fire on demonstrators. Martial law is declared.

Baghdad, under pressure from Tehran, forces Khomeini to leave, and he settles in Paris where he establishes an opposition movement in exile. The Islamic Revolutionary Council, an underground assembly, is formed in Iran at Khomeini's behest.

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

islamic revolution needs an enemy, and the united states has in the past and present been quite willing to fill that void.

either american foreign policy is totally dumb or very brilliant.

i'm not saying that Uzbekistan is on the doorstep of islamic revolution, but if a few crowds get wiped out and a few embassies get blown up in retaliation for american support of a brutal regime in the interests of oil / gas, who loses?

maybe even some americans can get taken hostage, beheaded, etc.

that would be T**s!

sincerely, american foreign policy, circa FOREVER

[FlamesAddiction]

At least Britain is taking a stance:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/1...tion/index.html

LONDON, England -- Condemnation by Britain of Uzbek soldiers who opened fire on protesters contrasts markedly to the near silence coming from its allies in Washington.

In London, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Sunday slammed the violence in the city of Andijan as "a clear abuse of human rights."

He was speaking as witnesses described how Uzbek soldiers fired into a crowd, including women, children and their own police comrades begging them not to shoot.

[FlamesAddiction]

What's the common denomenator in these pictures:

[Looger]

Flames Addiction,

yep, no question. had the democrats found a candidate that was anti-iraq war, and shown that top shot of rummy, election over.

of course, democrats like that get shot.

uzbekistan is in a strategic position that is totally crucial for american central-asian policy. and they are not in moscow's sphere of influence, that makes whatever regime is in power above the law as far as america - and to some extent canada - is concerned.

russia's old empire twisting the knife against them is in my opinion russia's greatest threat, and one on which they spend the most attention (chechnya...).

though kazakhstan, georgia, and belarus are firmly in line by way of corporate domination and blood, places like ukraine, chechnya, uzbekistan, latvia/lithuania/estonia (with a huge emphasis on latvia) are certainly not.

the americans were very keen after the breakup and moved in to support whichever local strongmen were running the show, and yes, that means islamic funtamentalists in chechnya, initially anyway.

islamic protestors being shot by a US-backed regime.

looks like this policy is bearing big, juicy fruit.

tastes good, don't it?