 |
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001 time: 05:37
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:37
|
|
quote: 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:
quote:
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|