Neo-Conservatism and Iran?

I dont believe that to be the case. Bush asserts the need to protect the homeland by bringing peace elsewhere. In this sense Turkmenistan suddenly becomes less relevant and certainly falls below Iraq in terms of a foreign policy priority.

Foreign aid for what?

The two arent exclusive of each other. Bush has a moral value system that guides his political instinct, he may approach such obstacles in a pragmatic fashion.

because its what pragmaticism dictates.

No... US strategic interests come first because the primary responsibility of any government is the security of it's people, only after these consideration have been taken into account can one worry about human suffering.

The Cold War is a prime example of this doctrine and now that this war is over the two strands are combining.

The US however cannot do everything, and it wlll never please everyone.

The greater breaches of human rights in Turkmenistan means it should be above Iraq in terms of FP if Bush's policy of oposing oppressive regimes is true. Surely you start with the most oppressive and work on that to start with?

Thats not what Bush asserts here, no.

maybe it was to provide and distribute some 15,000 tons of wheat and supplies desperately needed in Central Asia during the winter?

no he is opposing oppression and tyranny.

The US government has condemned the Turkmenistan government, and has reduced all diplomatic ties, he has opposed their dictorial agenda. I dont find that strange in the slightest since it not only is consistent with his speech above but is consistent with the concepts of security that are the primary priority in establishing the focus of foreign policy.

look, there is only so much the US can commit to. the US is morally opposed to the Turkmenistan government, but it simply does not warrant the same attention as nations such as Iran and Iraq, not only in matters of Human Rights but clearly in regard to national security, that is a moral judgement and a highly pragmatic approach to it. This is entirely consistent with what he expresses above.

"We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others "
"Your nation and mine in the past have been willing to make a bargain to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability..Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe."

He is recognising that a secure and free America is defended by bringing freedom to others. The secure and free America is still the central goal, motivation, and basis for foreign policy. That does not mean he does not morally oppose Governments such as that of Turkmenistan as has been made perfectly clear by the US stance.

I didn't. George W. Bush has liberated two countries from the oppression of Muller Omar and Saddam Hussein respectively. Would you like to put them back into power?

At the end of the day that quote posted earlier is saying Bush is concerned with the human rights

On Moral grounds in Iraq we had 300,000 people in mass graves, torture and repression running rampent and a (widely believed) demonstrated use of chemical weapons against the Kurds of Halabja (some argue it was the Iranians).

To contain Saddam it was essential to either remove him from power or use sanctions. The sanctions has killed hundreds of thousands probably millions of people over twelve years through starvation and disease.

Saddam had also invaded both Iran (with some US support - but with most support coming from France and Russia) and Kuwait.

Saddam had also been very close to developing nuclear weapons (which Israel destroyed in the 1980's), and had (at some point) stockpiles of Chemical and Piological weapons.

He had violated 17 UN resoultions from the Security council of the United Nations and he had demonstrated links with Palestinian terrorist and less firm but credible links with Al Queda.

I don't know a lot about Turkmenistan. How many of the above could apply to this country, and is there a feasible strategic interest reguarding American Security? Since nobody is suggesting that the US should just go around removing anyone it doesn't quite like...

It's due to America that Iran have a bad regime. It's America that supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein.

Interesting...

Wow! There seem to be a disproportionately large proportion of Right-Wingers on this particular thread. I'm used to battling it out solo!

I understand your concern!

I am just surprised! I would expect that in a place of educated people there would be a larger proportion of Left Wing people, which is the perception of student campuses.

The tactics of the Cold War were justified, that war is over now and we have a new set of rules..

EDIT: Although reading through the thread it seems Speciez has a point. Perhaps intervention is justified where it is pragmatic to do so.

I'm asking you whether you believe Turkmenistan is worse? Because this is dire enough for me..? You'd also have to demonstrate a clear emerging threat.. which I do not believe is present in the country.

This isn't about morality!

Its about security AND morality. If you read the quote again you will see the concept of security mentioned in a very clear context!

I understand your concern!

I am just surprised! I would expect that in a place of educated people there would be a larger proportion of Left Wing people, which is the perception of student campuses. Perhaps this perception is mistaken!

I believe it is best to respect everyones views (especially as I once held them myself).

I dont believe that was his point. He asserted that, in being pragmatic, Bush could not fulfill his claims to be leading by morals.

"because its what pragmaticism dictates."
"Yes i agree but Bush is claiming to have morals and is as turkmenistan shows failing to act on them. Why doesnt he just come out and say he is more interested in political goals than ethics if this is the case"