Uzbekistan sends US eviction notice

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That was my point.

subtelty is wasted on fools, young Padawan.

[Urban Ranger]

I heard from other sources that Uzbekistan accused of supporting anti-government riots inside the country.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


can you name one other great power with overseas strategic interests?

[lightblue]

If they ask you to leave, you have to leave, otherwise it could be seen as an act of war (to have troops on foreign soil against the wishes of the government is iirc). No point arguing on the how and why, if they say leave, you leave.

[MikeH]

Since when did this administration care about international law or invading foriegn countries

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


can you name one other great power with overseas strategic interests, that walks away from a militarily useful base over humans rights concerns?

Not the United States, by any means, if the dispossessed Chagas Islanders are anything to judge by:

What started the dispute?

The forced removal by the British Government of around 2,000 islanders from the Chagos group of islands, in the Indian Ocean, between 1967 and 1973.

They were moved so the United States could build a military airbase on the island of Diego Garcia, the biggest of the archipelago.

The islanders, who with descendants now number up to 5,000, live in Mauritius but are desperate to return to their homeland.

The community lives in slum conditions, suffers high unemployment and complains of racist treatment by the indigenous population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3177682.stm

And yes, evidently the British are to blame too.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I heard from other sources that Uzbekistan accused of supporting anti-government riots inside the country.

Good job on actually reading the thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
And yes, evidently the British are to blame too.

[Ned]
Sooner or later, most of the worlds problems can be traced to the Brits.
[/Ned]

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by lightblue
If they ask you to leave, you have to leave, otherwise it could be seen as an act of war

No problem:
"Dear Americans. It is with deepest regret I have to inform you that we are in a state of war with the evil terrorist regime of Uzbekistan..."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


[Ned]
Sooner or later, most of the worlds problems can be traced to the Brits.
[/Ned]

That's a remarkable example of Ned's talent for litotes.


Clearly the word 'all' had not yet entered his lexicon.


Hard times in Diego Garcia:

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Not the United States, by any means, if the dispossessed Chagas Islanders are anything to judge by:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3177682.stm

And yes, evidently the British are to blame too.

Molly, theres a difference between "walks away from a military base over human rights concerns" and "walks away from military bases WHENEVER theres a humine rights concern"

I did not say the US always lets human rights trump military factors. Generally we dont. In Uzbekistan, though, it appears we did. And I asked for instances where anyone else did.


I limited it to countries with overseas strategic interests, cause i wanted to eliminate wiseass comments from small quasipacifist countries that rely on others for their defense. Rather I wanted instances from countries like UK, France, China, Russia.

[Mr. Harley]

Pakistan is a real stumbling block. Mushariff is a strong man, in a quasi-democratic state by tolerance, i.e. like Algeria if the military don't like the results, the elections will not count.

But the alternative are Wahabi madrass educated Pashtuns, i.e. The Taliban (for the example from next door). The Pakistanis let the Moslem fundies in as a counter to India's policy in Kashmir (which is also wrong IMHO). The fundies created fanatics useful for deniable ops in Kashmir. The problem is it also created more domestic Moslem fanatics.

So now we have a nuclear state that could, if pressured for full democratic reform, become a Muslim religious theocracy with nukes. Happy, happy, joy, joy. There are no good answers with regards to Pakistan, only choosing from a very poor set of choices at this point. I fear any policy decisions made there will be B.A.D. at best, i.e. Best Available Data.

[el freako]

shawnmmcc,

Could this worry about Pakistan be why the US is not only ignoring but actually aiding India's nuclear proliferation?