Bush promoting democracy around the world....

Except in Nepal, where his administration continues to support the King, despite the massive pro-democracy protests.

any thoughts?

 

haha democracy. ha ha ha ha. wot u need is a healthy bit of dictatorship boy. oh yea u live in USA yeaaaaaaa.

 

let my clarify.

They have been giving proper lip service regarding a "compromise".

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Can you document somehow what you claim to be the US position?

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=27385
http://mumbai.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/6233.shtml
http://www.alternet.org/story/35185/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041806G.shtml
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0402nepal.html

and lets not forget the ny: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/world/asia/23nepal.html?ex=1303444800&en=d458a8bb807d506b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This is just too funny: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27789

 

Democracy?

Maybe some might be under the illusion that he promotes democracy. In reality, he promotes neoconservatism.

 

Oh those horrible Maoist terrorists, how dare they improve clean drinking water, education, women's rights and land reform!! Don't they understand that our MNC's are the only ones who should have sole rights to their land, water, agriculture, et al?

Just another in a long history of Washington's villification of those who seek self determination over foreign domination. If we can't commodify it and set the economic frameworks for its wholesale exploitation, then it must be evil incarnate!

 

How surprising. Your articles don't back you up. Did you even read them?

I'm not surprised that both Shane and Lick are ready to support the Maoists while complaining about the lack of democracy. Because that makes sense - complain about the monarchy - but then support a movement which plans on establishing a totalitarian government. Everybody knows that hating America and embracing lunatic extreme left groups is very progressive. I hope the Nepalese cultural revolution and great leap forward are as much fun as the ones in China.

So if the Maoists routinely carry out extrajudicial killings, if they use forced conscription to recruit child soldiers, if they have taken a liking to brutality in pursuit of the Maoist goal of elimination of class enemies, so what? Communism - what could go wrong? So lets ignore the bank-robbing, kidnapping-for-ransom, and extortion the use to finance themselves, lets celebrate terrorism, because when they cut roads, bridges, or power to a region to isolate it and take it over, it is a glorious hardship they are causing, at least that's how it looks from Brussels.

 

Once again PB proves that he neither reads nor comprehends anything outside his snide delusional bubble of corporatist avarice. Newsflash PB, those articles more than back up the fact that this admin is all too happy to continue financing a despotic monarchist regime in stark contravention to all its glowing rhetoric about "exporting democracy". Not unsurprising given the close and warm relations it has maintained with the military government of Musharev and the solid friendship the chimp enjoys with Karimov of Uzbekistan.

As long as they buy our arms the neocons and their mindlessly gullible sycophants like PB will make every excuse they can to justify their flagrant duplicity.

 

All the elements (and more) which preceded the US invasion of Iraq which you excuse regularly. Seems you have trouble with extraordinary execution perpetrated by those in the pay of Washington.

The chimp's chimp as ever, PB.

[edited to add: Do notice of course that whilst shane backed up his assertions with referenced citations, PB's rants as usual come with nothing more than his delusional say so.

Expect a flurry of his preferred rightwing pundit propaganda and lies to claim hardship for those who are enjoying "better education, women's rights, land reform, et al.". Apparently PB and his ilk truly despise such advancements behind their routine claims of support the same. Schizophrenia at its finest.]

 

What do you care? You're just the latest in a long line of western cafe revolutionaries who wish totalitarian leftist regimes on poor countries. You haven't a clue what is happening in Nepal - if you think exploitation by western multinational corporations is what's bothering the Nepalese, you are demonstrate even more ignorance than usual. But so what? You're just dumping boilerplate rhetoric here anyway.

And Shane did not back up his assertions, providing links doesn't count for much if they don't support your argument.

And as for human rights abuses by the Maoists, well, either you are trying hard not to know or you're just planning on blaming their atrocities on the jews, like you usually do.

 

Oh PB so off the mark on all your snide retorts as usual. Its a wonder you arent under hospitalised supervision for your delusional utterances, truly.

Never said that the MNCs were the cause of the current unrestby the napalese, but sure as the sun they are the driving force behind US policies in support of a despotic nutcase whom you, in typical fashion, avoid decrying with a vigour. Unsurprising that you should respond with all manner of fictitious assertions to divert attention away from your patented ignorance.

And again, you are sorely mistaken (or simply so derisively dense as to fail miserably at reading comprehension), shane's links do indeed outline ongoing financial assistance to the nepalese military which is forcefully supporting the despotic powergrab of the king.

Perhaps your continuous apologetic for flagrant neocon criminals and liars has finally pushed you over the edge completely into "faith-based" delusion.

[edited to add: Do note that we still have no evidentiary supporting references from PB to back up anything he claims, in true and all too expected PB fashion].

 

Its a bit odd that none of your posts provide links [or, in LickSpeak(TM) verbiage: evidentiary supporting references] to anything, but you want to whine about my lack of documentation. I don't expect people to provide a link for everything they say. If I dispute a fact, as I did in this case, I ask for a link. Otherwise, I don't need one. Myself, I get my facts right, and I've been here long enough for people to know that. That's why nobody challenges me on facts. If you want to challenge me on something specific, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

You however, have difficulties with facts.

So warm that we got evicted from the country after criticising human rights violations there (here's a link for you http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/11/22/us_closes_air_base_in_uzbekistan_amid_uprising_dispute/). I guess the news hasn't reached your eurocrat cubicle yet - it only happened five months ago. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. Are you the world's most useless foreign policy analyst or what? Don't worry about it though, just give us a "LOL" and claim that the fact that you are completely wrong only proves how right you are.

Oh I do apologise if I can't distinguish between incoherent logic and non sequiturs. The idea that MNC's can't wait to get their hand on Nepal is patently absurd. Which MNC's exactly are desperate to get into a small, poor, remote, landlocked country of farmers? MNCs are just a central casting bogeyman you include in all your rants, they have nothing to do with what is happening in Nepal.

 

What are shitting me?

Have you taken a good look at a map recently?
Nepal is very strategic foothold...

 

There is hardly any country in the world that can't be described as a "strategic foothold" when no other argument is available.

 

Well gee PB, don't try to apply too much brain power to the obvious fact that my posts have focussed on taking YOu to task for your patented denial of everythign that doesn't confirm your delusional sycophantry of the Bush admin.

Since the issue has been centered around your denials of relevance for Shane's links, no further citations were necessary (nor would further links be any more effective in penetrating your neocon indoctrinated world) than those already sufficiently provided by the thread starter.

You are quick to demand proof from others and then whine and dodge like a schoolgirl when your demand is answered with information that exposes your heros for the duplicitous supporters of autocracy, repression and crimes against humanity that more rational minds have long recognised them to be.

 

okay, now you've lost me... what exactly is your arguement here?

Nepal has always been a concern for both china and india, Maoists gaining power in that state will have massive ramifications in that region, so why ask why they would be interested in " small, poor, remote, landlocked country of farmers"?

 

Its true you don't need any "evidentiary supporting references" to back up your weird obsession with following me around and denouncing things in general. But you obviously did need "ESR's" for your bizarre, utterly random and completely wrong claim that Bush has close and warm relations with Uzebekistan. Please. You have no point, you're just on a rant.

Really, which link was that? The Maoist PR job? Or The Onion? maybe Shane's "lets not forgot the NYT" article which describes the US as one of the most important backers of the seven party alliance behind the protests? Or the many quotes of US government officials urging a return to democracy? I guess you didn't bother to read the articles, the sight of html links was enough to convince you.

"Strategic foothold" is a meaningless phrase that people use when they can't think of anything else to back up their arguments blaming the US or insinuating bad motives.

It has ramifications for India, mostly, but not for MNCs. Neither China nor India want the Maoists in power, and they both have far more influence in Nepal than the US.

 

Their words not mine:

"In January 2002, Colin Powell, at the time US Secretary of State, paid an unprecedented visit to Kathmandu to announce open and total support for the monarchy in crushing the Maoists. "You have a Maoist insurgency that's trying to overthrow the government and this really is the kind of thing that we are fighting against throughout the world," Powell declared. The then-US ambassador to Nepal James Francis Moriarty made no secret of America's "strategic interest" in the region."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041806G.shtml

And yet:

"More than 8,000 Nepalese have died since a civil war broke out in 1996, and the death rate has sharply increased with the arrival of almost 8,400 American M-16 submachine guns, accompanied by U.S. advisors, high tech night fighting equipment, and British helicopters."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/failed/2004/0201thinair.htm