Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 04/19/2004 View Sun 04/18/2004 View Sat 04/17/2004 View Fri 04/16/2004 View Thu 04/15/2004 View Wed 04/14/2004 View Tue 04/13/2004
1
2004-04-19 International-UN-NGOs
Uzbeks shut down Soros
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by eLarson 2004-04-19 10:48|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Soros said the foundation planned to appeal and called on the United States to reconsider ties with Uzbekistan, its closest regional ally and home to hundreds of U.S. troops stationed at a military base near the Afghan border


"Marvin?"
"yes sir?"
"I'm reconsidering our aid to Uzbekistan..... whatever it is now....double it"
"yes sir"
"and send a thank-you card"
Posted by Frank G  2004-04-19 12:18:08 PM||   2004-04-19 12:18:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Soros said the foundation planned to appeal and called on the United States to reconsider ties with Uzbekistan, its closest regional ally and home to hundreds of U.S. troops stationed at a military base near the Afghan border.

Ahhh...another deranged billionaire, totally out of touch with reality. I'm sure the Tides foundation will give him some press, maybe even NPR. Dream on rich boy, you can only buy so much influence in this world. Looks like your dreams of world domination are running smack into reality.

The times they are a chang'n.
Posted by B 2004-04-19 1:25:51 PM||   2004-04-19 1:25:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I should offer a hat-tip to the Chicago Sun-Times, which is where I encountered the story this morning (dead tree edition).
Posted by eLarson 2004-04-19 2:13:58 PM||   2004-04-19 2:13:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 B> In short -- decrying French and Russian ties to Iraq's brutal dictatorship is more than okay as said ties only benefitted France and Russia to the injury of Iraqi people. Decrying American ties to Uzbekistan's brutal dictatorship is wrong as said ties benefit America to the injury of Uzbeki people.

Gotcha.

So far I've not seen anything wrong with what Soros' foundation has done -- unless supporting democracy is a wrong thing when done in countries with regimes not especially targetted by the US administration for elimination.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-04-19 2:35:50 PM||   2004-04-19 2:35:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 So far I've not seen anything wrong with what Soros' foundation has done -- unless supporting democracy is a wrong thing when done in countries with regimes not especially targetted by the US administration for elimination.

If Soros' minions want to go in there and start slamming people, they shouldn't be too surprised when the people in charge get a little irritated.
Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-19 3:17:50 PM||   2004-04-19 3:17:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Aris, re: gotcha.

go reread my post. Next time you talk to me, please address what I have written or just scroll on by. Thanks.

Posted by B 2004-04-19 4:14:49 PM||   2004-04-19 4:14:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 B> I saw you heavily insulting a guy because he founded a foundation that urged against having friendly ties with brutal dictatorships.

I've, ofcourse, also seen you insult me because I *didn't* urge against *invading* a certain other brutal dictatorship.

In my previous post, I try to reconcile these two opinions of yours.

If there's a different way to reconcile them than the one I suggested, please make it known.

Bomb-a-rama> "If Soros' minions want to go in there and start slamming people, they shouldn't be too surprised when the people in charge get a little irritated."

True, but I was acting on the assumption that B wasn't the dictator of Uzbekistan. I grant you, that if he is indeed the dictator of Uzbekistan, then he does have reason to get irritated.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-04-19 5:35:01 PM||   2004-04-19 5:35:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Aris,
You are correct, Uzbekistan is a tough one. Karimov is no saint but neither is he a Saddam, who we did support in the past.

I despise Soros and his opinions on US politics and US power, but from what I can tell, his activities in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Caucus and Central Asia are mostly positive - although Soros has always been controversial and he seems to be sparking even more resentment and backlash lately. I just wish he would apply the vast resources and efforts of his Open Society Foundation towards the Middle East where creating a more open society is the biggest and most important challenge of the Century.

Getting back to Uzbekistan, I think the choice is clear. Like Mumbarak in Egypt, you have to support Karimov. While the lefties call us hypocrites and the possibility of "Blowback" is there if Karimov falls or weakens, the current needs are dire. Like Elliot Ness in the Untouchables, you do what you have to do. It's not like the choice is a Karimov dictatorship or a parliamentary democracy. The main oppositition are Islamic fundamentalists - just like in Egypt.
Posted by John in Tokyo 2004-04-19 6:42:36 PM||   2004-04-19 6:42:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 OK..I'll bite, though I know it's wasted finger effort.

Please reread my post. What I said was that Soros is a deranged multibillionaire who has lost touch with reality to think the US would come running to his defense. You weakly and unsupportedly claim that, "So far I've not seen anything wrong with what Soros' foundation has done" when in fact you know full well that he has attempted his own regime changes - something that really gets your panties wadded when you talk about the US doing that in Iraq. So whose the hypocrite here?

I don't recall saying anything about whether or not the US should or should not have ties with Uzbekistan, nor did I make any justification of their abuses of human rights - I just said that Soros was deranged to think that we would give a darn if his meddling little foundation was given the boot.

Like I said, read it again.
Posted by B 2004-04-19 9:19:30 PM||   2004-04-19 9:19:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "something that really gets your panties wadded when you talk about the US doing that in Iraq."

Wrong. Wrong in all counts. Wrong absolutely.

For starters, Soros hasn't invaded any country, so he *isn't* doing what US is doing in Iraq. Unless you think that the means don't matter one bit when doing "regime change".

Secondly, I don't have any objection to "regime changes", even by means of invasion, when said regime changes are about overthrowing brutal dictatorship and installing democracies. As opposed to overthrowing secular dictatorship and installing Islamist ones in their place, which is the most likely end result in Iraq.

Third, I may have misunderstood the article but it was my impression that Soros was urging the US to reconsider ties with Uzbekistan, not because Soros' foundation was evicted, but because of its general human rights and civil liberties record. You are missing the forest for the tree, B.

Fourth, who do you think you are kidding? It gets "my panties wadded" when I see USA doing that in Iraq? No, it gets "my panties wadded" when I see USA utterly *failing* to do that in Iraq and in neighbouring countries. When I see the entire US army being mobilized to the *benefit* of the Iran-Syria axis and never to its detriment.

As you should well know had you read any of my actual posts.

Liar liar, once again, B.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-04-20 10:23:14 AM||   2004-04-20 10:23:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 "when in fact you know full well that he has attempted his own regime changes - something that really gets your panties wadded when you talk about the US doing that in Iraq. So whose the hypocrite here?"

I wonder how many times I'll have to scream out "I FIND NOTHING MORALLY WRONG WITH OVERTHROWING DICTATORSHIPS" till B finally, *finally* gets it and stops slandering me.

Liar.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-04-20 10:26:55 AM||   2004-04-20 10:26:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 well my mistake then Aris. I guess that explains why you can see nothing wrong with Soros' foundation. I UNDERSTAND now how you could become easily confused and think that the decision by the Uzbecks, to refuse allow Soros' foundation to work towards overthrowing their government (as well as our own electoral process) would be considered by you (and only you) to be my condoning civil rights violations and abuse of human rights by Uzbeckisan

At least, I can only conclude that must be how you think, since you somehow distorted my comments re: Soros' foundation, to be a justification for Uzbeck human rights abuses... when in fact, IT IS CLEAR FROM MY POST (if you had bothered to read it...which is where our little discussion began) that I was only addressing Soros and his foundation's penchant for mischief.

It's all clear to me now. I apologise for your misunderstanding.
Posted by B 2004-04-20 11:22:55 AM||   2004-04-20 11:22:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 You are calling the Soros foundation's support for human rights in Uzbekistan to be "a penchant for mischief".

How did I distort this plain fact?

And how did the Soros foundation try to overthrow "your electoral process" btw? I must have missed that newsitem.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-04-20 1:58:14 PM||   2004-04-20 1:58:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 man! you guys've gotta give this thread a rest! LOL
Posted by Frank G  2004-04-20 2:25:22 PM||   2004-04-20 2:25:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Aris...
Commence par apprendre à lire, espèce de demeuré.
Aprende a leer, antropoide.
Lern erst mal lesen, Affenjunge.

and...

Pouvons-nous déclarer que cette discussion est officiellement close ?
Podríamos declarar esta discusión oficialmente muerta?
Können wir diesen Thread offiziell für tod erklären?
Posted by B 2004-04-20 3:38:47 PM||   2004-04-20 3:38:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Given how you've repeatedly claimed I hold positions which are the exact opposites than the ones I've actually (and repeatedly) stated, I don't think you can lecture me on my reading skills.

Your claims that I misread you is just annoyance on how I show the core meaning of your words by removing the babble surrounding it -- for example the way that the fact you are *annoyed* at what Soros does (e.g. you calling him names, 'deranged' 'out of touch with reality' 'dreams of world domination'), indicates that you are annoyed at what Soros *does*.

And yeah, we can declare this discussion thread officially dead. But I'll ask you next time to speak in English what you mean, and mean what you say (Lewis Caroll reference, that one) -- because I do know some German but am not that fluent in it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-04-20 6:51:21 PM||   2004-04-20 6:51:21 PM|| Front Page Top

14:50  Gentle
14:50  Gentle
14:50  Gentle
14:50  Gentle
14:44  Gentle
14:44  Gentle
13:40  Gentle
13:40  Gentle
01:28 Not Mike Moore
22:48 Anonymous
20:18 Zenster
18:51 Aris Katsaris
15:38 B
14:25 Frank G
13:58 Aris Katsaris
11:51 Aris Katsaris
11:22 B
10:28 Liberalhawk
10:26 Aris Katsaris
10:23 Aris Katsaris
10:15 Liberalhawk
07:49 Phil B
07:42 anona
07:35 B









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com