| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Poonte | Posted
on 08-Feb-03 09:46 AM
Got this in my e-mail today... Bush's anthem... (sung to 'If you're Happy and you Know it') If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq. if the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq. If the terrorists are frisky, Pakistan is looking shifty, North Korea is too risky, Bomb Iraq. If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq. If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq. So to hell with the inspections, Let's look tough for the elections, Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq. It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq. To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq. They've got weapons we can't see, And that's all the proof we need, If they're not there, they must be there, Bomb Iraq. If you never were elected, bomb Iraq. If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq. If you think Saddam's gone mad, With the weapons that he had, And he tried to kill your dad, Bomb Iraq. If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq. If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq. If your politics are sleazy, And hiding that ain't easy, And your manhood's getting queasy, Bomb Iraq. Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq. For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq. Disagree? We'll call it treason, Let's make war not love this season, Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 08-Feb-03 12:20 PM
Poonetji, This is really funny, but I wish it weren't true. But it is. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 08-Feb-03 12:31 PM
Poonte... Beat Around the BUSH you don't!!! Sad, but True!! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 08-Feb-03 09:30 PM
hah poonte dai, dohori bata gai-khane-bhasa ko rastrita gan?? bhayena ni yaar.. ramro lagyo! ja thok sabailai bhando bush dai.. |
| MunnaMobile | Posted
on 09-Feb-03 07:40 AM
Yeah Poonte..U r rite..topline..side line & Bottomline Bomb Iraq!!! |
| surya | Posted
on 09-Feb-03 12:21 PM
As clever as it is, I disagree with what people seem to be saying. The ditty is nothing but Bush-hating-lefty-liberal-democratic propoganda. |
| bhedo | Posted
on 09-Feb-03 12:26 PM
Right, you're either for us or against us. |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 10-Feb-03 11:58 AM
poonet, perfect tune to fit the mentality of the core audience. ever heard the rendition applied to the pathetic situation in nepal? i have. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 08:49 AM
Another one on the subject...(via e-mail): ________________________________ A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (yes, of Monty Python). Letter to the Observer Sunday January 26, 2003 The Observer I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. |
| Satya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 09:22 AM
Poonteji, Well written to describe this Bush jantu. Hitler was a menace for his neighbors and this jantu is dangerous for the whole world. Humor revealing birth of more dangerous Hitler! |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 10:27 AM
Well, humor aside, the genuine problem is that Saddam IS a genocidal maniac, he HAS gassed tens of thousands of his own people, and anyone who saw Powell's evidence to the UN with an open mind has to have been left very, very disturbed about what Saddam is hiding. I bet it's not Valentine presents. The better analogy (though an unfunny one) would be if Mr. Johnson or Mr. Patel were known child molesters. What, then, do you do about having them in the neighborhood? Seriously. The simplistic reaction of anti-war protesters--"hell no, we won't go, we won't fight for Texaco," yadda yadda--just doesn't cut it for me. For the record, I don't agree with Bush on this. But geez, folks, it's France and Russia who have the business ties to Iraq, NOT the US. Think that might have a little teeny weeny something to do with their opposition to this? As for Bush's reasons (more on that later) I don't think oil is the crux of the matter. However, where I agree with the humorist is this tongue-in-cheek take: "The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few [sic] Muslim countries ..." He goes on to qualify the Muslim countries as being countries "that have never threatened us," which is certainly debatable when he's talking about Iraq, but the rest of the point is well taken. See, that's the heart of the problem. No serious and halfway informed person can possibly fail to realize that Saddam bears an uncomfortable resemblance to a Hitler--fascist, genocidal, expansionist, etc. That's been obvious for a long time (even when the US was supporting him). But the Middle East in 2003 isn't Germany in '41, and a first strike on Iraq may well produce a fallout (literal or figurative) that is completely and utterly the opposite of what is intended. All I can say is thank God I'm not the one making the decisions. It's a tough one, folks. And really, the UN's credibility IS on the line. Yet I agree that Bush's hardline approach is putting us on the road to disaster. Personally I think it's less about oil, and more about Bush's own belief system--he's a fundamentalist, and don't underestimate the role of his faith in all this. I expect he believes in the protective power of God in protecting those on the side of angels, and he does see himself as being on the side of the angels. Which actually makes it scarier. Lord save us from the True Believers! Plus Saddam tried to kill his Daddy, this is giving a focus to his administration, etc etc. But whatever the motivations, I'd risk a little UN credibility (which can be rescued in the long run) over a decision that could NOT be changed in the long run. The Muslim world will just double its hatred toward the US if Bush invades, and that will remain something we have to deal with. In brief: This isn't a simple problem. Humor is fine (love the chant, Poonte, even if I don't really agree with the premise) ... but when we're REALLY forming our opinions on this, let's not take refuge in simplistic explanations. |
| Free Thinker | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 10:58 AM
The real difference between Bush and allies on one hand and their skeptics on the other is the belief that Saddam can be contained without invading Iraq as has been the case since sanctions were slapped on him. It has been argued that his is the most closely monitored regime in the world and with US forces all around his country Iraq may be less of a threat to Western security than with Saddam overthrown and potential chaos in Kurdistan, Iraq and even all over the Middle East which in the long term could rebound and hit Western oil and security interest hard. Some people inside and close to the Administration realize this but support war as a way for the US to demonstrate that it is not weak and can respond militarily no matter where in the world and what the situation. They argue that the psychology of a terrorist or rogue regime is based on the belief that America is vulnerable and using force can bring about a change of thinking in America or cause severe damage to America's prominence. The only way for the US and allies to maintain their prominence is to strike at terrorists and rogue regimes to send a message to potential terrorists that they may be able to explore Americas vulnerabilities but the US will come after them no matter what. I think this, among other factors, is what is driving the administration and it allies to go against public option and pursue the military option. |
| Free Thinker | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:01 AM
So among other things, this boils down to the fundamental belief of many people that the interests of America and the world lie in Americam dominance or at least upper hand in world affairs and that upper hand must be protected at all costs - whether diplomatic, military or economic |
| surya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:10 AM
Here Here Sally! I am so sick and tired of all this Bush whacking going on! No one said he is smart or that he might not have any alterior motives to want to engage in war with Iraq, but the reality is that US IS UNDER ATTACK BY SADAMM AND Some OTHER MUSLIM COUNTRIES WHO ARE SUPPORTING AL QUAEIDA AND OTHER ISLAMIST TERRORIST GROUPS! I think it is UNTHINKABLE AND IRRISPONSIBLE for people to compare Bush to HITLER! SADDAM is the ONE Who has used nerve agents against his OWN PEOPLE! That North Korean Freak is the one who is letting his people starve so that they have to EAT their own BABIES!! GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF SAND, PEOPLE!! STOP using easy rhetoric to bomblast and minimize the REAL fear and CONCERNs of people who might DIE tomorrow or at least be exposed to some chemichal or biological agents spread by the TERRORISTS and THE STATES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISTS! Obviously Terry Jones should stick to humor and not try to act like his dumb article produced by his pea brain speaks the truth!! he says... 'And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us." Does he suggest that we WAIT till the code orange is stepped to code RED! and we are breathing poison or reeling from a dirty bomb attack? What does Jones and other like him suggest is the answer to the current situation? What is the alternative solution? I think Powell is supposed to ask the UN security council today.. how long do they intend to wait and let Sadda dilly dally and give the inspectors a runaround while he might very well be transporting his weapons to terrorists throught hte back door? I wanna know! How long!? If Bush were such a HITLER he would have bombed IRAQ from the face of the earth and the other states that harbor terrorists. But they have actually tried to seek support from the UN and the European who obviously have very very short memory of their own plight in WW 2. Maybe they are saying the US should not have gone in their and laid their lives on the line on the beaches of Normandy and kicked out Hitler because? I think noone WANTS to send their KIN to be SACRIFICED... neither the AMERICANS nor THE GORKHALI daju bhais!! All this lefy liberal peacenik crap is just as bad if not worse than the righty whitey "war mongering" in today's climate!! Please!! |
| surya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:14 AM
Oh yeah, so the world should just have "CONTAINED" HITLER so he and the NAZI could have kept their brutality and ruthlessness within their national borders.... yeah, I am sure the Jews, the Catholics and other who were Hitler's target woudl really appreciate hearing that. |
| Satya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:31 AM
I don’t agree that US fought against Hitler to liberate Europe. US was profiting by selling arms to both parties at the beginning of war. US was and still is the main sponsor of terrorism in the world against world leaders opposing US policies. US helped Saddam to kill Iranians and Kurds with poison gas. US tried to kill Saddam and is still trying. Then why Saddam should not try to kill his enemy who wants his head at any cost? Is Saddam is dangerous for US? Of course, NO! Actually Bush’s US is more dangerous for Iraq and the world. Iraq is a weak state after the gulf war and UN sanction has left Iraqi people hopeless. Now US wants to invade Iraq to control its oil. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:41 AM
hmmmm.... If I recall correctly, US armed, fed, fostered, nurtured and empowered Saddam in Iraq's war against Iran. The "moral of the story" is Bahula kukurlai palyo bhaney....it will naturally turn around and bite you. The "logical" sequence is a product of what is called "natural consequeces". Just another simplistic "oneliners"... as to why Bush has no biz creating a war US never had! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:47 AM
the genuine problem is that Saddam IS a genocidal maniac, he HAS gassed tens of thousands of his own people, and anyone who saw Powell's evidence to the UN with an open mind has to have been left very, very disturbed about what Saddam is hiding. I bet it's not Valentine presents. Sally, The genuine problems is that there are many genocidal maniacs and Saddam is one of them. What would you consider Arial Sharon? Is he a Buddha re-incarnate? What about the others, such as the President of Turkmenistan, the warlords who have now become Presidents in many African countries and are on a killing spree? Powell's evidence, The French today claimed that Powell's allegation that Al-Quaida has Baghdad links is yet to be proved. Bilx also didn't seem to take those satelliute pics seriously and he has his won doubts. Its not valentine's present, but its not what the US is claiming it to be. Yes, Rusisia and France have business interests in Iraq. The FRench have sold Mirage bombers to Iraq in the past and so has Russia supplied arms and ammunition. But, until the 1990's, the US was Iraq's ally. The US supported Saddam because he had wedged a war against the Khumeni regime in Iran. Of course, oil is not at the heart of this conflict. Its Realpolitik, Realism and Geopolitik at play, why miss out on a chance to show to the world that your hands are rather long, and if you get some extra benifits such as oil and gas, why not, let's just dive right in. "No serious and halfway informed person can possibly fail to realize that Saddam bears an uncomfortable resemblance to a Hitler--fascist, genocidal, expansionist, etc. " Then waht does Kissinger-Nixon team represent? Who is acountabel for the deaths of civilians in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos? Shouldn't Nixon-Kissinger team be held liable for their wise and nice decison to unncesaarily prolkong the war so that they can continue bombing on the civilians? That time it was the fear of DOMINO EFFECT, this time is WMD. I don't in any way claim that Saddam is a gandhi reincarnate, but I don't agree with the Bush administrations policy on Iraq. Regarding the Muslim Hatred, I think there is a solution: A significant change on the US policy twoards Israel. Its time now for the US to resolve the problem that it created, i.e, alienating the Arab world in favor of Israel. If the US somehow manages to persuade Israel for a partition and give some territories to the Palestanians, then this hatred will turn into love, but will take awfully long time. As long as the US keeps on continuing with an unjust policy on Palestatinians in particular and Arabs in general, there's no way, not even 2000 wars on terror can eliminate terrorism. Aiiay, haat dukhyo aaba ta.. la maile mero view rakhe.. yaha ko k biuchar cha? |
| surya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:47 AM
So nice to see you have such a strong grasp on the TRUTH, Satya. |
| surya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:49 AM
Bahula Kukkur le tokna thalyo bhane bahula kukkur lai pound ma lagna parcha, kaso? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:53 AM
oho.. kati dherai comment aayteko rahecha.. aaba bholi deen bahri padhnu paryo |
| Poonte | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:56 AM
Yes, Saddam is a menace. He is a monster who has used weapons of mass destructions in the past, and may very well be hiding some more of those somewhere. He has defied, violated, and expressed utter disregard for the Security Council resolutions. However, is war truly necessary to confront him? I have doubts. Could there be other alternatives (to war) to disarm the monster? France has seen some. Germany has seen some. Russia has seen some. And China sees some too. That's three out of five permanent members of the Security Council who disagrees with the US; and, although Germany is not a permanent member of the SC, it certainly is a major state that cannot be ignored in the global political and economic platform, especially in the European context. So, I too questioned the US motive in the face of some of it's own stauch allies doing the same. One reasoning I could come up with was, of course, the oil factor. The French and others are reaping the benefits from doing business with Iraq, who, BTW, possess 20 % of the world's oil when the US and UK, the two countries with the most foreign investments, have been left in the dark--something that the latter would obviously resent. I am a mere graduate student who has little informaton on the discussions that goes on in the Oval Ofice, or the War Room of the Pentagon. Nevertheless, the above reasoning sounds plausible to me. Sally's reasoning also sounds plausible: Bush may be determined to emerge victorious from the present quagmire because he happens to be a religious fundamentalist himself, and would like to see himself as an angel who protects those who share his way of thinking. It could be something else. It could be many other things. The fact is that be it the French, or the Brits, or the US, no country does anything unless they have in their minds a clear-cut goal that serves their national interests. It is sad, but true; and we might as well live with it. Therefore, I find it utterly disbelieving when anyone suggests that the US is preparing for war just because Saddam is a menace to his own people, to his neighbors, and to the world. Same can be said of the French trying to avoid war--they see their national interests clearly in danger should the war erupt. As a person looking at the mess from afar, without any promises of personal gains should the events unfold either way, I believe the war is totally unnecessary. Therefore, I know the French may be doing all they are doing for all the wrong reasons, but I believe they are doing the right thing in trying to prevent an all-out war. ALL I AM SAYING...IS GIVE PEACE (INSPECTIONS) A CHANCE! ______________________________________________ If the made-rich-by-oil Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld truly believe in democracy, let the UN take appropriate actions/inactions against Iraq without the undue US pressure on the members--AND DO NOT THREATEN THE UN OF LOSING IT'S CREDIBILTY IF IT ACTS AGAINST THE US-BRIT WISHES. Uphold the spirit of global democracy, and graciously accept the defeat. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 11:58 AM
Satya's argument is one of the reasons I'm seriously concerned about the impending war. Even on this board, there are people who unthinkingly dislike everything the US does, and have uninformed kneejerk responses to things. They are capable of believing that, because US companies profited by selling arms to both sides in the 30s (true), the US somehow didn't fight to liberate Europe from Hitler--that it must have had some other motive for sending hundreds of thousands of young Americans to their deaths. They confuse US support for Saddam in the war against Iran (true, and a bad policy) with having a policy of lending a helping hand in gassing Kurds (not true). There are way more ignorant people out there in the Middle East ... people who also think that, because the US does a lot wrong, it somehow wears a black hat all the time and is the Great Satan. And they're not just motivated by shallow ideology and reductivist thinking. They're also motivated by religious zeal, which is absolutely impervious to logic. That's not necessarily the case with kneejerk thinkers (who might change their opinions, and the depth of their thinking, with time and maturity). So I just don't see Bush's policy as appropriate to the circumstances. Basically, the US is damned if it does (bomb Iraq) and damned if it doesn't (bomb Iraq), but I think it's MORE damned if it does, because it just fuels the hatred of the irrational. Of course, I hope I'm wrong. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:05 PM
The US policy can be summed up in one line: The nemy of your enemy is your best friend. Russia and China. Iran and Iraq. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:05 PM
Surya, look up the laws for harboring, producing and conditioning dangerous/mad dogs....The creater (owner) gets penalized first! The creater is held accountable first! |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:12 PM
IF, I really do think there's a difference between aggresiveness in perceived self-protection (Sharon) or during a state of war (Kissinger et al) and gassing and murdering one's own population (Saddam, Hitler, Pol Pot). That's not to say that Sharon or Kissinger-style tactics are somehow "right," I just say that there's a qualitative difference, and we need to be honest about it. Yes, you're absolutely right that there are many, many evil rulers in the world today. The US definitely picks and chooses which villain it will tout as the Scariest Of Them All. Poonte, in a lot of ways I agree with you, but no one is "threatening" the UN that it will lose its credibility if it doesn't act. The fact is, the UN has warned Saddam about a million times, and anyone who has a kid knows that if you keep saying "don't do that or else," and "or else" never comes, you DO lose credibility. No one takes it away. You just lose it. But as I said, lost credibility can be regained. Maybe the UN would agree to a coalition invasion of Iraq in a year; who knows? Maybe it would agree to something else. Whatever. The danger for the US is that an invasion would give more fodder to US-haters out there by behaving in this way. And that, I think, is foolish ... if there are other possibilities. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:12 PM
I only wish.... Some of the homeland security fundings would be spent in the education and protection of home-grown children! So public schools would have airconditions, class-rooms and sufficient educational material! That, old school buildings would be torn down so toxic molds and noxious fumes would not expose children, parents, faculty to serious life threatening diseases. The people of US need the money spent on them and not on a created personal war! |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:15 PM
Hey Sitara. Maybe that will be one good outcome of this war. Like, for instance, my office has just bought a bunch of gas masks for us. Seriously. Maybe at the end of the war, we'll be able to give them to schools so kids won't be exposed to toxic fumes and molds :-) |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:17 PM
i find it hard to take seriously people who rolled over without a fight for a bunch of maoist punks. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:23 PM
My school does not even have enough food for 3 days nor water!!!! We are planning to make a gas mask of one gallon-size ziploc bags with cigarrette filters stuck up our nose!!!!! :( Seriously, we are fighting to have AC and library equipment installed into our buildings! I have seen worse schools....classes being taught in hallways. I would love to see the day when the government has to organize bake sales for each gas mask purchased.... a reversal of bake-sales to buy books for the classrooms!!!! :( |
| Poonte | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:36 PM
Sally, As slow as it may be, the inspections are making progress. Saddam has not gassed anyone, be it his own people, or anyone else, after the inspections started, has he? As long as Saddam is being restrained in using his supposedly stock-piled weapons, and as long as he is being disarmed without having to resort to war, I, for one, am willing to confront the war mongers (in the US and elsewhere) in any way I can. If the UN is to lose it's credility whenever a member violates it's resolutions, I wonder why it never lost an inch of credibilty whenever Israel violated some of the most crucial UN resolutions (both of the Security Coucil and the General Assembly)? Israel, BTW, has violated the most UN resolutions, the most times, than any other country in the world, with far greater frequency than Iraq; and it is able to get away with it only because it has the backing of the only superpower in the world--the almighty, "justice-seeking" United States of America. ISO is right in saying that if the US is sincere and genuine about fighting terrorism steming from islamic fndamentalism targetted against it, it must fight by correcting it's position on Israel--F-16s, M-16s, cruise missiles etc. will only create more terrorists. |
| surya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:37 PM
Sitara: Don't have time or inclination to look up the laws and you salready gave me the synopsis "The creater (owner) gets penalized first! The creater is held accountable first!" May I ask what the penalty is and who adminsters it? PERSONAL WAR!? Yeah its sad school don't have the amenities and resrouces for the kids, but I hope we will still have kids and schools left .... when all is said and done. |
| Satya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:48 PM
US provided sample of anthrax to Saddam when he was their friend. US dismissed Iranian claim that Saddam used poison gas against Iran. US did not question Iraq why it was gassing his own people when the gas was actually used. If it was not US then who helped Saddam to develop chemical and biological weapons? Of course, there are other players, but US is the main culprit. Therefore, logical extension “US helped Saddam to kill Iranians and Kurds with poison gas” is valid. Now Iraq is just trying to survive as a nation. It still might have ambition to get WMD but it is impossible at present situation as reported by UN inspectors. That is, continuous bombing of Iraq is totally irresponsible response from US and UK. It is madness to invade Iraq in the pretext of antiterrorism or disarmament of Iraq in present situation. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:52 PM
Oh, oh, oh!! High stakes internaional diplomacy on this thread, very stimulating. But being a uneducated tandoori hand, most of it just goes right past my head. So what do I do, just go and ask my beautiful tutor about the intricacies of war. Apparently, Bush wants war because: 1. Iraq, under its Arab nationalism posture, remains the only credible threat to Israel because of its secular human resources, technical advancement, and wealth. All other Arab nations are either too poor, fragmented, or already under US-Israeli security arrangement (such as Saudi Arabia). 2. Get hold of Iraqi oil reserves (the second largest in the world). 3. Get hold of Middle East's largest supply of fresh water (Euphrates and Tigris). In the next couple of decade, whoever controls this resource will control the middle east. In fact, water is the most strategic resource for the region. Once you set up a puppet regime in Baghdad, like the one in Afghanistan now, you will have unhindered access to both oil and water in the region. Allegations of Kurdish Gassing: 1.CIA documents suggest that the gas weapons were used by both the Iranian and Iraqi troops during their long war. It is not clear who fired the shells that killed the Kurdish villagers because both sides were fighting in the area when the villagers died at the time. It could very well have been Iranian shells that killed the Kurds. Secondly, the number was not in 'tens of thousands' as some say. It was much smaller. And besides, that gassing took place in 1986-7...why did nobody raise that question then? It would be like accusing the US of having used weapons of mass destruction on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago! 2. The claim to protect the Kurds from Saddam is rather dubious. Much more Kurds have been killed and tortured by the Turkish army than Saddam, yet nobody is accusing the Turks...because they are allies. So it is OK to kill Kurds if you are alley? 3. Is Saddam the only one with weapons of Mass destruction? No, so why only pick on him? Israel, Pakistan, India all have hundred times more of this WMD than Saddam ever did, yet the UN and the US and the UK are very silent on that. Why is not anybody protesting India's missile tests in recent days? Besides, if Saddam did have WMD, why did he not use them during the Gulf War when his troops were dying by the thousands? Isn't that what they are for? 4. That Saddam is a monster, hitler, devil....come on, spare us the superlative. Yes, he is an authoritarian ruler like any who rules a country with a single party. He does not tolerate opposition. But so many other regimes are also similar. China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Burma, Korea, and many of the former soviet republics are no different. He is at least secular. Women and men in Iraq are far more educated, open-minded, progressive than most of the middle east. He is far more progressive than the Gulf kingdoms and sultanates. 5. So why is the US/UK picking on Iraq only? It is because Iraq is a threat to Israel, he has lots of oil, and lots of water. The other autoritarian states do not meet all three attributes. Why do France, Germany, Russia oppose the war? There might be some vague sentiment for national sentiment, but the underlying reasons are: 1. Once the US/UK forces capture Iraq and take over the oil fields, the oil contracts will go US and UK companies (Texaco, Mobil etc), after all that is one of the main reasons why Cheny and Rumsfeld are there for. Companies from other countries will be shown the exit door. 2. The French need to show their superior civilizational superiority, of course! |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 12:59 PM
Poonte, I don't know if the inspections are making progress; I guess it depends on how you define progress. On the minus side, they've reported severe frustration, they haven't found things, and I doubt anyone seriously believe that it's because Saddam is pure as the driven snow and there's nothing to find. On the plus side, Saddam is contained; in fact, the strategic miscalculation he made by attacking Kuwait did marshall all sorts of forces against him, and he was (for a while at least) pretty heavily under a microscope; then it seems the world lost interest; now interest is back again. Anyway, the concern (and I don't know what the answer is on this) would be whether he can be contained indefinitely. It's a serious problem. Keep the inspectors in forever? What if he kicks them out again? Just shrug and say, 'Oh well'? Like I said, I'm glad I'm not making the policy ... either at the White House OR at the UN! It's a toughie. On credibility: Well, you answered yourself why the UN hasn't lost credibility over its resolutions which Israel has violated. Israel has the backing of the US, so the onus on that becomes the US's, not the UN's. Obviously you're right and the US needs to get serious about looking for peace in the Middle East. That's just such a horrible and frustrating situation; Clinton had made such enormous process, and then along comes Sharon who acts like a jerk and visits the Temple Mount and--just as he calculated, I guess--the Palestinian extremists go on a murderous rampage against innocent civilians and Israelis then feel backed into a corner and even the doves start thinking they were too naive and then Sharon comes to power, and the cycle just gets worse and worse ... A nightmare. Yes, a solution to that problem is crucial ... as everyone knows. Wish it were easier. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:00 PM
Rumsfeld doesn't rule out nuclear bomb against Iraq REUTERS[ FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2003 09:24:34 AM ] WASHINGTON: Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday refused to rule out the US use of nuclear weapons in a possible war with Iraq, while a leading senator told him such a move would trigger "a near-total breakdown" in American relations with the rest of the world. "Our policy historically has been generally that we will not foreclose the possible use of nuclear weapons if attacked," Rumsfeld said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. But he added: "We have every confidence that in the event force is to be used in Iraq that we can do what needs to be done using conventional capabilities." The United States is assembling a large military force in the Gulf region for a possible war with Iraq. President George W Bush has said the United States will lead a coalition to disarm Iraq if the Iraqis fail to comply with UN resolutions requiring them to give up any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies possessing such arms. Rumsfeld said the United States would not "rule out various options," but said "those weapons ... have not been fired in anger since 1945." Rumsfeld's comments came during pointed questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, who expressed alarm that the Bush administration may be lowering the threshold for possible use of nuclear weapons. "As you well understand, the nuclear weapon is not just another weapon in an arsenal. And until now we've always kept them in a class of their own for good reason because of the enormous destructive power and our profound commitment to do all we can to see that they are never used again," Kennedy said. Rumsfeld said, "Does the (Defense) department have an obligation and have they in successive administrations of both political parties had procedures whereby we would conceivably use nuclear weapons? Yes." Kennedy then asked whether the United States was "seriously considering using any nuclear weapons against Iraq?" "The only person in the United States who has the power to use weapons of that nature is the president of the United States," Rumsfeld responded. "It seems to me that if one looks at our record, we went through the Korean War, we went through the Vietnam War, we've gone through the war on terror and we've not used nuclear weapons. That ought to say something about the threshold with respect to nuclear weapons," he said. Kennedy pressed Rumsfeld about a January 25 Los Angeles Times article citing a report by defense analyst William Arkin saying US military planners are examining potential nuclear targets in Iraq and mulling options, including so-called bunker-buster nuclear weapons against deeply buried military targets. The Times said the planners were focusing on the use of tactical nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to pre-empt one. "I'm concerned that the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq in the absence of an imminent, overwhelming threat to our national security would bring a near-total breakdown in our relations between the United States and the rest of the world, particularly with regard to the Arab world," Kennedy said. A presidential directive issued last year states, "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force -- including resort through all of our options -- to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces aboard, and friends and allies." The Washington Times reported on January 31 that the classified version of the document explicitly allows for a nuclear retaliation to a chemical or biological attack. Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, noted the Bush administration's request for funds to study nuclear weapons that could be used against deeply buried targets. "If the United States sends signals that we're considering new uses for nuclear weapons, isn't it more likely that other nations will also want to explore greater use or new uses for nuclear weapons?" Levin said while questioning Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld said other countries were engaging in underground tunneling to develop, manufacture and store weapons, adding that "not having the ability to penetrate and reach them creates a very serious obstacle to US national security." The only use of nuclear weapons in wartime came in August 1945 when the United States used atomic bombs against two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War Two. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:08 PM
Suva, a lot of points to argue with :-) but of course you're right on the nuke WMDs (if not other banned weapons) being elsewhere and the US picking its enemies. And while I reserve the right to call a devil a devil, I agree that there are many devils in the world, and the US is darned good at ignoring those with no geopolitical importance. That might just be the way the Realpolitik cookie crumbles--no one can fight everyone, etc--but it does tend to taint the US moral superiority stance. The gassing thing (you're wrong on that BTW, more later) is an example. Yes, the US should have paid some attention at the time, but Saddam was its "friend" so I guess it just got shoved under the rug, to be used now that it can be. Doesn't make it any less true, though. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:09 PM
If they nuke Iraq, then Israel and the whole of midle east will be HISTORY. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:09 PM
And yes, well, on the Rumfield quote ... Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield ... YIKES. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:13 PM
sally, "I really do think there's a difference between aggresiveness in perceived self-protection (Sharon) or during a state of war (Kissinger et al) and gassing and murdering one's own population (Saddam, Hitler, Pol Pot). That's not to say that Sharon or Kissinger-style tactics are somehow "right," I just say that there's a qualitative difference, and we need to be honest about it. " Really? In either case human lives are lost. No, there's no qualitative mistake in eiuther killings. The Nixon-Kisisnger team is as guilty as Hitler and Polpot if you go by the Geneva Convention, article 3. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:17 PM
also, bombing in cambodia wasn't of any use or help to the american security. they just felt like bombing it, bombed it. sharon does the same thing, shoot 'em all, and Hitler and Pol Pot did the same thing, i.e, killed inncoent civilians for no reason. so, they all are guilty of the heniouus crimes against the humanity. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:17 PM
Sorry. Don't agree. They all might be guilty, and maybe (if you're for the death penalty, which I'm not) they should all hang. But Hitler, Pol Pot, etc are guilty of different things. Kind of like abducting and murdering people cuz you hate the color of their skin or the political party they belong to (Hitler, Pol Pot) or responding to a threat against your family (or even a real attack, as in Sharon's case) by just taking out the machine gun and blasting away and to hell with the consequences. Both wrong. But different. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:20 PM
so, ramallah incident last year can be justified, sally? |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:21 PM
Didn't I just say they should all hang? I'm not justifying war crimes. I'm distinguishing between war crimes and genocide. To insist on a difference is not to justify. |
| Satya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:22 PM
How convincing is Powell's testimony against Saddam? Please read the poll. I believe it reflects the world opinion,excluding US citizen brainwashed by US propaganda. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,889970,00.html Did Colin Powell present a convincing case for military action against Iraq? Among 185277 voters, 73% said NO. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:25 PM
Satya, there's a difference between "convincing testimony against Saddam" and a "convincing case for military action." I find his testimony against Saddam troubling. Whether it's a convincing case for military action is another question. |
| Satya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:31 PM
Sallyji, I agree that there's a difference between "convincing testimony against Saddam" and a "convincing case for military action." However, without convincing tesstimony against Saddam how could Powell convince his audince to go for war to depose Saddam? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:34 PM
ok, got it, sally. insisting on dfferencesis not justifying. convincecd at satisfiued for now..1:30 AM friday mornming..,. let's see if i cn come up with something after 6-7 hours. good night and happy valentine's day.. spread love, not hatred.. (does any one know how to forward this to President Bush and President Hussien?) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:35 PM
at=and |
| Satya | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 01:42 PM
IFji,, 01:30AM is still early! It is 03:41AM here! |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 02:03 PM
IFji, yes, I agree with you that since this is Santa Vanta's Day, we should be talking about love and not violence. In fact a British paper also had the same idea: they have a cartoon of Bush-Blair couple doing an intimate French kiss (of all the varities!). Guess what the caption says? Make love, not war! So spread the lov, as good old Rastaman would say!! |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 04:00 PM
A recent television program in a US channel justified US decision in 1945 to NUKE Japan. The presenter said that had US not used the NUKe then the war would have prolonged and more US (mind you US) would have resulted. The show said that the decision to NUKE the Japs was taken in direct response to the Japanese tactic of "Kamikazi"- a suicidal attack by flying planes into ships. I wonder how the US, which not only possesses a vast quantity of WMD but has already shown the world that it uses those with the lease provocation can justify moral superiority over Iraq! |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 04:05 PM
sally, you say "I reserve the right to call a devil a devil". But calling on some devils and not other devils is just as guilty. For example during King Birendra's rule several hundreds (may be one or two thousands) of people died in Nepal. SO does that make King Birendra a devil or not? See..? It all depends on prospective and how one is presented. Is killing even a single innocent person an act of devilish intent or not? Then thousands have already died in Somalia, Afganistan and Iraq. A number of them Innocent and a number of them collateral. Does that make US devilish or not? |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 04:23 PM
Biruwa, let me make an analogy. Lots of men beat their wives. Beating wives is terrible and horrific and surely the men who do it seem devilish to their victims. I have no tolerance for wife beaters. But does that, then, mean that someone who, say, not only beats his wife but hangs her upside down by a meathook and tortures her for a solid month along with all 10 children fails to be a "devil"? Because other men beat their wives too? Neither is tolerable, and of course in the real world there are a sickening number of gradations (bad states, bad regimes, and so on). But I think we're being dishonest if we don't recognize that there comes a point when it's just too bad to be silent. And it's kind of a cop-out to say, oh, I won't speak against that neighbor whose wife has been hanging in the closet howling for a month, because after all, my other neighbors' wives are sometimes beaten too. Speak out against all the bad rulers. (Including, possibly, Bush). There's no shortage of awful regimes that aren't getting equivalent press right now, for obvious reasons, and we all know very well that Bush isn't going to go against them--including some that could very well be harboring bin Laden--cuz he's all obsessed about Saddam. But that doesn't mean that somehow poor Saddam is being misunderstood and picked on unfairly and shouldn't be called by his true nature. Let's just be honest about that. OK, enough for today--time to go home and do other things! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 09:55 PM
Ok, a question for Sally? Does on lesser evil regime have rights to punish a greater evil regime? an anology: can a shop-lifter go and beat a bank robber? if yes, why? saying that america is a lesser evil, and sadam is a bigger evil, so America has every rights to attack Iraq is somehow just not convincing enough. What's the immediate or a long term threat from Iraq to the US? Why is US is not doing anything to contain Korea (KOreans have already accepoted the fact that they have nukes) where as Saddam who is claiming to have no possession of WMD is being targeted? Also, I am not very optimistic about CIA 's evidence on Iraq. CIA which have been renamed Can't Identify Anything has not been able to locate Bin Laden yet, gave a wrong map of Belgrade to the American troops which lead to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy there. Suharto, Marcos and dictators in Africa and South and Central America, are just a few examples of the US supporting good DEMOCRATIC regimes. So, yes, the US is a great nation. It has rights to bomb anyone who is deemed evil by its President. Yeah, Let's bomb Iraq, Syria, China, India, Pakistan, France and Germany (the old European SOBs) and all of them "against us" nations in this war for and against terror. |
| noname | Posted
on 14-Feb-03 10:21 PM
IF...haina kati matria lekhna sakne ho....! Typist haru bhanda ma rakheko chha ki kya ho? :) By the way, I have not yet read this thread completely! |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 11:27 AM
Nevertheless, U.S. officials maintain that this is all the proof they need. However, the U.S. viewing public must be aware that the they were only allowed to view excerpts of the 16-minute audio message, and contrary to what CNN has been proclaiming, it is not all about Iraq. The audio message also includes advice on refraining from alcohol and illicit sex, and respecting one's parents, in addition to other spiritual advice. The audio message will not go down so easily in Europe and the Middle East and will be seen as a desperate attempt by a U.S.administration that has taken a bashing in NATO and at the U.N. to turn the tables around. Source is Iraqi Newspaper accessible at http://www.khilafah.com |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 11:37 AM
uploaded 15 Feb 2003 Rumsfeld refuses to rule out use of nuclear weapons against Iraq WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday refused to rule out the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the possible war with Iraq, but noted atomic weapons have not been unleashed in hostilities since 1945. Source is Iraqi Newspaper accessible at http://www.khilafah.com |
| Biruwa | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 11:41 AM
Donald Rumsfeld says in this news that in punishment to Saddam USA may use Neucular Weapon against Iraqi cities. I can not accept that a country which uses NUKE time and again enjoys moral superiority against anybody. Does threatening lakhs of people of annihelation constitute a devilish act? I believe so! |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 04:59 PM
People, Listen to the People! Millions of people across the globe say no to war, simultaneously! Unprecedented global solidarity for peace! Rejoice! Those folks who went for the peace march in Sydney, London, New York, Israel, Tokyo, Seoul and tons of other towns and cities across the globe has rekindled my hope in humanity again! Hats off to those souls! It show that ther people who still care about peace, justice and sisterhood of all. But most important, it shows that common people can recongize Bushitt when they see one! I hope the plea of millions of common people across the globe (and not the Oil and Arms Company CEOs) will cause the misguided followers of the war party to reconsider their blood lust. By all accounts, the simultaneous protests across the globe on this scale is unprecedented, not even during the Vietnam war years! If there are so many people saying no, they must have a darn good reason. So let us not only listen to the government sources, let us also pay attention to the people...after all we are a democracy right? By the way, did any Sajhapure attend any of these peace rallies. I was thinking of Pooji honking his yellow tyausi for peace in New York. Please comment if any of you saw any of these protests. I read on BBC that London had the biggest ever peace gathering over 2 million!! Maybe time to dismantle the Blair witch project there! Rev. Jesse Jackson also addressed that mass gathering. There is now a real possibility of peace breaking out! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 08:11 PM
Yes, and isn't it sad that the US media has conspicuously chosen to give little coverage to the massive protests against the war around the world? Among the major news outlets, I found only CNN giving detailed coverage of the protests in international cities...tyo pani, for about a minute only every hour. So much for them accusing the international community of being biased. Suva Chintak...pyalo tyausi ko horn chai hoina, but I was there shouting my lungs off--I finally had a good excuse to take a leave from weekend tyausi job after a long time. ;) I was about 7 blocks away from the UN headquarters with few of my ex-colleagues and my ex-boss from YMCA International. I really wanted to be arrogant this time, hence I carried a banner that read: "Merci Beaucoup, Monsieur Weasel!!!" (Referring to the outrageous headline on The NY Post that called the French and the German ambassadors to the UN weasels), and underneath it read: "Drop Bush, not bombs!" One of my colleagues tried to argue with me that the French motive is not entirely morallly right either; and my answer: they maybe doing it for all the wrong reasons, but they are doing the right thing. (The line I have used in my previous posting above) Tei ho, chichyaiyo, karaiyo, ghanti sukaiyo...some celebrities gave touching bhasans, but couldn't see them from upfront. I hope they'll get the message now...ahile lai, I am just glad to be home, and not in jail :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 10:00 PM
Thanks Suvachintak for updating us on the protests worldwide. I saw it live on CNN last night. CNN first reported that the protestors in London were planning on a "sit in" at the end of the protest, but that plan was later abandoned. The Guardian has some nice stories on the protests and how it can affect Blaire in Particular" and the Labour Party "in general". Yesterday, on a Question-Answer Program/Talk show on BBC, Jack Straw, failed to give convincing reasons in favor of the Britain's support and involvement in the war. Then, the anchor asked someone in the US govt. on what the US govt. has to say on Blair's support for the war, and the protests in London. The answer coming for the leading advocate of democracy: Yeah, we thank Mr. Blair for his support. See, it doesn't matter if people protest. We applaud Mr. Blair for not yielding to the majority. He is there to lead, not follow. (interesting, isn't it.. democracy's definition has probably changed these days.,. its probably .. for the eladers, by the US and to the US) There was a protest in Nepal too. See, we are living in an amazingly inter-connected world, and Nepal, although a small nation, can't remain untouched by the world events. The Gorkha-Women-Association (the organization of the wives of Gorkha Soldiers) took out a rally in Kathmnadu against the war and "discrimination" that prevails in the British Army when it comes to pay our Nepali men. Blair's speech at the Labour Party convention(?) was interesting. "'I ask the marchers to understand this: I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And it is the cost of conviction.'" He doesn't want to respect the popular sentiment, nor address it but still wants to be popular. Marchers in France and Germany said that they didn't believe that the evidence presented to the UN. German TV channel DW had a nice coverage of the protests in Europe in their Le Journal aired at 10 PM NST. Probably the most interesting slogan was heard in Seoul, Korea: Drop Bush not Bomb. German TV news rep[orted that South Korean protestors are even discussiing plans to send volunteers to Iraq to work as human shields in case of an attack. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 10:06 PM
Marchers in France and Germany said that they didn't believe that the evidence presented to the UN Read this as: They didn't believe that the evcidence presented to the UN by the US Secretary of State was Convincing to attack Iraq. Seems like BUsh-Blair team are set on a war with Iraq..despite the consequnces it will have on their parties for years to come. 2M proterstors in London means the loss of 3 million votes for the labor party in the next elections. |
| bewakoof | Posted
on 15-Feb-03 10:18 PM
"There is no body of evidence large enough that one cannot ignore if one is inclined to do so" |
| Poonte | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 08:59 AM
I got a kick out of this one: http://www.stopesso.com/funstuff/nose.html |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 09:04 AM
Pooji, My hats off to you, I think you represented the sentiments of many of the peace and justice loving Sajhapuris at the historic march yesterday. If such a march is held in Beantown, I too want to go, my Indi Mastah says that is fine by him. "Aye Bush kya war war laga rekha hai, iske aur kohi kaam nahin hya kya?", he said when I told him about the New York march. And thank you for the descriptions of the day. IFji, yes it was a wonderful outpouring of common sentiments across the world. I say the public has spoken in no uncertain terms, let us now see how democracy works. If the Bush-Blair witch project is to disarm Iraq, see this fact: ten times more Iraqi weapons (inclding WMD) were destroyed by the UN inspectors since the Gulf War than during the Gulf War itself! So if the Inspectors allowed to do their job, they will soon make Iraq pretty toothless. But that is not US/UK goal, they want to go in and regime change and put in their own puppet government which will be obliged to give out all the oil fields to US and UK companies. Even if Saddam is totally disarmed, he is not going to reward the US and UK companies...hence the need to replace Saddam. It is not about the weapons as such. Let peace prevail! |
| sally | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 10:44 AM
IF, you wrote: "an anology: can a shop-lifter go and beat a bank robber? if yes, why?" LOL. Ok, sure, if the bank robber is going to open up and blast innocent folks in the bank, and the shoplifter beats him up, then kudos to the shoplifter. Especially if I'm one the folks in the bank who might be blasted. (Btw that's theoretical, and not meant to be an analogy of the situation right now.) But you also wrote, "saying that america is a lesser evil, and sadam is a bigger evil, so America has every rights to attack Iraq is somehow just not convincing enough." I never said that. I have NOT said that America has every right to attack Iraq. All I'm saying is, hey, let's not be intellectually dishonest here and pretend that containing Saddam is easy, that he's not so bad, etc etc. The REAL problem isn't just Big Bad America versus The World. Saddam actually DOES come into play, too, as does the credibility of UN resolutions. This is not an easy situation. In brief, I think that not dealing with Saddam is a bad choice. Dealing with Saddam as American plans is a worse choice. (Talking about nukes?!? A planned year-long occupation of Iraq, with Iraq run by the US military?!?) Any realistic proposals would be interesting to hear ... |
| czar | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 10:51 AM
Global public opinion is hardly going to back Bush into a corner from which the only way out is to prevent the war from occurring. Tony Blair may lose a few votes, but electoral memories aren’t as long lived as some hope. As for Bush, the protests most likely further add to his resolve to see off the Butcher of Baghdad. The righteousness of the bible thumping WASP is no different from the wild- eyed mullahs. They share more similarities than differences. Each is utterly convinced of the superiority of their unyielding moral stance. The world must hew to their narrow and unrelenting perceptions. Or else. Except in this case, Bush has the wherewithal to unleash B52’s from Diego Garcia and cruise missiles from the aircraft carriers. The mullahs have promises of celestial virgins. Both have devastating results, with differences in scope. Further, the US military needs a testing ground for tactics and advanced weapons programs. Iraq was a spectacular success for the stealth fighter and the B1 bombers in the last war. The military boys are, among other things, itching to test Electromagnetic bombs that devastate all electronic circuitry within its blast radius. That would effectively cripple enemy command and control centers causing total battlefield chaos. Then there is the new anti-personal weapon that heats an enemy combatant’s skin to 50 degrees centigrade. This would nullify opposing forces by forcing a retreat, hiding or surrender. Without exposing American forces. Such a weapon would be mighty handy in clearing the streets of Baghdad and other cities where most think the last ditch battles will take place. The mullahs and their ilk of the Muslim theocracy are mocked for being educated in the Koran and little else. There are quite a few who think the same of the MBA toting White House incumbent. Neither lot seems particularly cognizant of their responsibilities to this planet or inhabitants thereof. Yet they act with utter rashness, all the while proclaiming total devotion to protecting and acting in mankind’s interests. Man has not evolved enough to avoid war. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 10:52 AM
Sallyji, in my humble opinion, a realistic proposal would be: 1. Let the UN inspectors continue their work to disarm Iraq (ideally, they should also disaram someother nations as well, but that would not be 'realistic', as you say). They have done a terrific job, Saddam does not have any proscribed weapons any longer. If he has a few stashed away in some cave, they too will be found in the continuing inspections. Bombing Iraq will not necessarily find those hidden ones any way. 2. In the last 10 years Iraq has not invaded anyone, posed no threat to anyone, if anything it is getting weaker by the day. In fact he is so weak that it does not have control over half of the sountry in the South and the North. 3. So, what noble purpose is served by going there with war? Is there a 'realistic' justification here? In Peace! |
| czar | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 11:27 AM
Iraq is facing war for breaking UN resolution 1441. What was the UN doing while the previous ones were violated? Some might argue that the only one of import was this last one. Which leads one to question why in tarnation the UN churned out 1440 resolutions that didn’t mean diddley squat. Some years ago, in a commentary in Times Magazine, it was remarked that the UN was a place where reps from 160 countries came to hang their hats and yell bloody murder at the US for any and everything. The editorial further wondered why the US should bankroll this venture when those very same reps picked up their hats and left come time to pay for the crapshoot. That commentary was made while the US owed nearly a billion dollars in back dues. How’s that for chutzpah? Now for that perennial violator of UN resolutions: Israel. Thumbing their noses at the world body has been raised to an art form by successive Israeli governments. So long as you are part of the Judaeo-Christian fold of civilization you can do this with varying degrees of impunity. The moment you are out of this cozy club, you’re out in the cold and set to face a higher standard. The UN may do some good work and I am sure someone can find a report of it in some archive. If not, surely there will be a conference on it in Davos or some other cushy spot. Meanwhile, for many, it may recover some shred of dignity if it can bring forth a coalition to confront Israel over its appalling record of human rights violations against the Palestinians. Until then, woohoo, its just Johnny ole boy and “Imagine”. |
| surya | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 02:22 PM
Yeah, its pretty bad, Israeli human rights records. And the UN along with the World Bank and IMF are part of the legion of doom, have no doubts about that. Still, Saddam is a monstor, no need for a mirror to show his true colors. |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 03:28 PM
czarji, Very thought provoking and incisive commentary. Peace! |
| sally | Posted
on 16-Feb-03 11:42 PM
OK SC, a few thoughts: The inspectors' job has never been "to disarm Iraq." It's to verify Iraq's self-reported claims of its own alleged disarmament. So it's dependent on Iraqi cooperation, which has been very poor. Plus, the UN still has to figure out how long inspections can go on, and what will constitute undue interference by Saddam (or, ideally, any state. Since I agree--there's a long list of states where inspectors could take an enlightening vacation.) Still, inspections may be the best alternative. Or rather, a wimpy and semi-ineffective alternative that is deeply problematic in the long run, but still better than a poorly supported war, which is likely to be a disaster. Unlike you, I don't think the inspectors are doing some magically terrific job. They're doing the best they can, but a handful of foreigners running around in Iraq in SUVs don't have the capacity to be detectives in a country the size of California. I see the inspectors as the international equivalent of chaperones at a high-school dance. They're oblivious to just about everything that's going on, and the kids are drinking away in their cars and playing them for a fool. Yet the fact that the chaperones are there (however ineffectively) does keep things from getting out of hand. Whereas a war would be as if a handful of local cops--Dirty Harry and a couple of Loyal Sidekicks--learned that a very nasty gangster kid is hanging around at the dance, selling dangerous drugs. Well, Dirty Harry is a well-meaning fellow. Plus he's had a bunch of family members killed by dangerous drugs lately. So Dirty Harry and the Sidekicks rush in and smash the windows of every car where they suspect kids are drinking, and then not only bash the skull of the drug-dealing gangster but accidentally beat up a couple hundred other kids. Then they take over the high school and run it for a year. Well, that sure stops the drinking better than the chaperones did ... but at what cost? And for those of us who live in the home of Dirty Harry, does it increase or decrease our security in the future? I guess I'd rather have those pathetic chaperones. But still, I wish there were a more effective choice ... |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 17-Feb-03 12:37 AM
Sallyji, thanks for your considered comments in this discussion. While I am in agreement with much of what you say, we all have to ensure our own security and interests (personal, economic, political, national). That is the bottom line. But I am not convinced about a few of your statements: 1. That Inspectors only inspect, they do not destory. Please check their reports, they inspect and when it is found they destory it. It is well documeted, they have destroyed since 1991 thousands of missiles and other WMD. In a way you could say it is search and destroy, by all counts they destroyed much more than Bush Sr. did during the Gulf War. I am sure Iraq will try to hide what ever is hidden, but one reason they are not able to find any big finds recently is that they did such a good job till 1998. So if the concern is really to disarm, sending inspectos with fancy gadgets to each nook and cranny of Iraq is much more efficient than throwing bombs. I know the bombs are smart, but they are no match for people on the ground. 2. And you point that we have had our people killed by the gangster. True, and whoever did that ought to be fried. But it was not Iraq who did that, it was mostly Saudi folks. So why punish Iraqis for something they have not done? Just because they too are Islam, Muslim, dem and dem wid the funny names as Rastaman would say? It would be just as immoral and unjust to one side which has nothing to do with the crime that you are about to punish. Just my too cents...But I see that you too are burning much midnight oil. Would you by chance also be in the student business? I am so glad I quit school a long long time ago! Peace and Justice! |