| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| socrates | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 05:21 AM
Hi all, I don't know how you folks feel about the military intervention in Iraq that could start (depending on where you are) as early as today, but I, for one, strongly support it. Let's hope civilian casualties can be kept to a minimum in getting rid of Saddam and transforming Iraq into a normal place. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 09:20 AM
Socrates ji First: Would you define what "normal" is. Second: What does "transforming Iraq" mean/entail? Third: What is so logical about "bombing for Peace"? Is it parallel to "killing for Pro-life"? Would you use deductive or inductive reasoning ???? |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 10:23 AM
Hear, Hear Scrates! Let's pray that the casulaties are low. |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 10:24 AM
I mangled your name, sorry, Socrates! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 10:56 AM
If I was to pray for anything, I'd have prayed for no casualties, not for low casualties. Not a loss of a single life is necessary to contain Saddam at this point. I am sure Bushies will have to be praying even harder for forgiveness in the years to come, when the US will definitely be suffering the consequences of this ill-advised action. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:08 AM
When the self-righteous decide the punishment/fate of "lesser-beings"... we create another dictator ...killing in the name of anti-terrorism! So, now the question arises: what is the degree of difference between Saddam and Bush?.... Great Men think ALIKE and Fools seldom Differ!!!??? Amen to that Poonte! |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:12 AM
Poonte, you just might not have prayed hard enough then. Sorry for being flip, but as things stand, low is better than high, since no casaulties is probably not possible. "Contaning" Saddam Hussein does NOT mean no casualties by the way. He is responsible for genocide, systematic torture and othe crimes against his own people. |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:12 AM
nice try, poonet, but there have already been casualties. so your first point is moot. your second point is ridiculous, to say the least, as the iraqi people have been suffering the consequences of ill-advised inaction. no doubt you'll pray your hardest for forgiveness for your part in that. eh eh eh eh hussein in your membrane... |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:22 AM
Contrary to what the senile old farts in Florida who did not know how to punch their ballots might want to say about how Bush "stole" the election in 2002, Bush IS a democratically elected leader! Unlike Saddam Hussein who put his opponents in vats of acid so there are no traces of them left, Bush is not a dictator. He does not have his opponenets erased from the face of the planet. And last I heard Al Gore was still kissing his wife Tipper and gaining weight steadily. Comparing Bush to Saddam not only illustrates faulty reasoning but exemplifies the distructive wilfulness and irrisponsibility of those who make those sort of comparisons. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:33 AM
Faulty is as Faulty sees! |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:47 AM
Whatever Sitara! Obviously it's down to one liners when you can't make a come back?! no? |
| socrates | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:59 AM
Sitara, valid questions. >"Would you define what 'normal' is." It's in the general sense of "ususal" or "regular." To elaborate, a normal country does not - attack its neighbors without being provoked, - use chemical weapons on its own citizens and enemy combatants, - run a barbaric police state, - relentlessly pursue WMD at any cost, and - have a megalomaniacal tyrant of a dictator (who has the disposition to use such weapons). >"What does 'transforming Iraq' mean?" It does't mean turning it into a Switzerland. What it does mean is turning Iraq into a country that is no longer - barbaric to its own citizens, - a menace to its neighbors and other countries, and - in pursuit of WMD. Immediate dismantling of the infrastructures of state terror and WMD would be a good beginning. >"What is so logical about 'bombing for peace?" Clever choice of words there, Sitara. Get real, in real life we can't avoid making choices. At this juncture, not bombing would be effectively allowing Saddam to get ever closer to fully operational WMD warheads and delivery systems. Do you think Saddam will be a kinder, gentler, mellower guy then? Surya, Agree with you completely. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 12:14 PM
Socrates ji... Nice points: Now compare all the "normal" countries and the "normal" attrocities (white-collar)played out within the countries and outside of--- in the name of progress, oil, civilization, justice and good! Surya... I have You to be wordy for me .... :) You are correct: I do resort to one-liners when I choose Not to rant, rave or riot! Just a matter of personal philosophy hajur! |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 12:27 PM
okay copying and pasting. yeah i get it! har har. |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 12:58 PM
Totally agree with you and Socrates. Once U.S. made the stance and is now going to war now 30 countries have joined to help. I can understand they don't want terrorism in their countries so they waited till the gutsy move of U.S. Obviously they agree but prefer to stay behind the curtain. France says if Saddam uses chemical weapons we will join, that is a little too late. They want proof at the price of casualty. Its like saying if your neighbor has an unlicensed gun and has had the history of shooting his pets when he is upset and you rat on him or take charge but everyone says you don't have the proof. Once you do bring in the cops and he shoots one and everyone agrees that was the right thing to have the guts to bring him to justice but now its at the price of one cop being killed. Its sad that all the anti-war protestors have to wait to be convinced that Saddam is a mass murderer. They will get their proof once he unleashes his weapons of mass destruction when the war starts and then lets see what they have to say then. When the war is over and they find all the chemical weapons hidden in their underground tunnels and caves I'd like to see what they have to say. The funny thing is they have no solution when asked "what should we do then if not war?" , they repeat again and again "War is not the solution" then what is, what is your dang argument and back it up will you. I respect when people voice their opinions but when it is a blank one just to make a stance then it is a pity. Ya, right U.S. and the pro war people get a kick out of killing people so they can add Iraq to their map and get all their oil that is the sole purpose, sure. I stand by to say the pro-war people are for peace too since they will liberate the people and bring peace. Afghanistan is an example, U.S. went liberated them and is rebuilding now and the people are free, not a perfect world yet but at least U.S. is helping rebuild and people there are not afraid anymore. I don't care what anyone has to say, I am glad U.S. has the guts to liberate the Iraqi people from all the atrocities they have suffered. So what if the U.S. has interests in the Iraqi oil. Who doesn't, no wonder France, Germany, Russia and the 30 countries want to help now the decision is made, they want a piece of that oil. Peace always comes at the price of war, doesn't mean its going to be a perfect world after that but at least U.S. has the guts to make that move while everyone sits and criticizes and watches on the sidelines. Sorry, yes, I love to rant since I love also to hear others rant who can actually back up their ranting. Kajal |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 01:24 PM
I was really starting to worry!! Thanks Kazal!! |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 01:42 PM
What do you mean Surya? Worry about what? |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 01:46 PM
President Bush appears determined to wage war on Iraq despite the world's opposition, despite the progress of UN weapons inspectors, despite the likelihood that an unprovoked war will foment, rather than eliminate, terrorism. The Bush Administration has threatened to attack Iraq even without the authority of the UN Security Council. This constitutes both a threat to world peace and to the very integrity of the UN as an institution dedicated to "the maintenance of international peace and security." Time is running short. This disastrous war must be prevented. President Bush made his decision to attack Iraq long before the matter was ever brought to the UN. I believe that it was only because of the influence of Tony Blair, Colin Powell, and other less hawkish figures that this matter was ever brought before the UN. Throughout the UN discussions and the inspections, the Bush Administration never stopped talking about the upcoming war. It was never treated as anything less than inevitable. And without any proof that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction currently in Iraq, the goal of disarmament seems nothing more than a pretence. Thank You.. |
| sparsha | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:07 PM
To me: This war has nothing to do with - *how cruel Saddam Hussein (sh) is *how undemocratic the state of Iraq is *how Iraq is associated with terrorism *how Iraqi people will have "freedom" *how to maintain stability in the region or *DISARMAMENT OIL ...OIL...and ...OIL (plus personal ego) is what comes in to my mind. There are many more rugged state out there...what about them? what about saudi arabia? how democratic is the nation? Disarm India, Pakistan......but lets start from home...right here...if we want to talk about disarmament! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:15 PM
The last time I checked the system of international law, external military intervention is justified only in self defense, unless it is a pre-approved by the Security Council. This impending war has basis on neither of these premises. I wonder when did defending/liberating Iraqi population become part of self defense for the US. DEMOCRACY?????? Then get the majority votes in the SC to support the war! DEMO KWASI for Bush! |
| Poonte | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:23 PM
Bull's eye!!! SPARSHA! |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:25 PM
Mr. Robert Frost, I respect your viewpoint but still disagree. Ofcouse Bush appears determined "to wage war on Iraq despite the progress of UN weapons inspectors" The so called progress that they had the chance to make that they couldn't in 12/13 years they had, that progress that was finally seen at Saddams own leisure that was made only because the U.S. and allied troops put pressure. "This constitutes both a threat to world peace" What world peace are you talking about that existed? The gassing of the Kurds in North Iraq, the atrocities by Saddam, the WTC bombing, 9/11, Philippines bombing incident, the USS Cole.........should I name more? If you can call that peace...I see it more as peace that was shattered that led to the determination of the gutsy U.S. to wage war finally, about time - to defend the peace that existed more like I'd say. "Without any proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction" Have they shown proof of documents they don't have any after the gassing of the Kurds? What will you say when they unleash it on the allied soldiers, once U.S. finds them, would that be proof enough for you? Its not the UN's job to go Easter egg hunting for the WOMD, according to Resolution 1441 they are to declare it "full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations". I support the war fully and I hope and pray they liberate the Iraqi's with as little or no casualty at all. You say "despite the world's opposition" why then are more than 30 countries joining in? If you are opposed shouldn't you stay opposed and defend your stance, why are these countries agreeing to support U.S. and allied forces now? |
| bewakoof | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:44 PM
for all those who seem apoplectic about the anticipated loss of lives in the coming war: thousands of civilians already die every year at the hands of Saddam's regime. I hope the casulaties will be minimal. But I am sure any loss of lives in the war will be much less than the lives lost if Saddam is allowed to stay on. and for those with facile slogan 'no war for oil': is the assertion that US will just take all of Iraq's oil ? same slogan was used in the first gulf war. has the US taken Kuwait's oil ? There are very good reasons for opposing this war. 'No war for oil' is not one of them because thats a false premise. war is horrible, it is awful. but another awful reality is that sometimes world is better for having had a war than having fooishly avoided it. - very reluctant supporter of this war. |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:44 PM
Sparsha ji, Ofcourse any imbecile knows there are the political agenda's in this war. U.S. including, France, Germany, Russia and others, yes ofcourse the oil is a biggy. SO WHAT? If in the process they do achieve the following goals you mention, why is that so bad: how cruel Saddam Hussein (sh) is (So get rid of the cruel who brings cruelty to his own people) *how undemocratic the state of Iraq is (give them a chance for democracy so they can pick their own leader and allow them freedom of speech as well so the world can hear from the Iraqui people themselves what was Saddam's regime like) *how Iraq is associated with terrorism (put an end to his funding to the families of terrorists) *how Iraqi people will have "freedom" (give them the freedom they deserve) *how to maintain stability in the region or *DISARMAMENT (once they have the freedom to choose it will come and stability will be maintained in time and once U.S. and allied forces are there they will unveil what Saddam has in his dungeons and caves that everyone so gullibly believe he doesn't) We may sadly find out soon once the war starts if he decides to go out with a bang, now that he is caught one way or the other he may use the chemical weapons on the troops. PROOF ENOUGH?? |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 02:48 PM
Manche ta "bewakoof" tara WELL SAID hai! Just kidding, but bewakoof ji, I do agree with what you have to say! |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 03:39 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html |
| sparsha | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 03:40 PM
Kajal and Bewakoof mahodaya, I will respond to both of you, tara later hai. right now, I am stuck with a vital project. I tried to scoop some minutes out of the project but seems tight...I feel like the project should be my first priority over sajha at this time. |
| dangggg | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 03:57 PM
Amen to poo dai and sparsha. As far I know, this war is all about REVENGE. Bush buda ( daddy bush) le chora lai election ma ladaunu bhanda pahile. "Chora! bau ko nak rakhes. Maile garna nasakeko kaam pura gares. Tyo saddam lai thik pares." bhaneko thiyo hola. Ani chora le tyehi gardai cha. You know how these texans are about revenge. Anywho, hamile bhandaima le hune hora. Je hunu cha aba 1 ghanta ma bhaihalcha ni. 1 hour and 2 mins remaing until the war starts. dangggg |
| toilet paper | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:19 PM
Socrates writes: "To elaborate, a normal country does not attack its neighbors without being provoked." So now you tell me, why the hell is then America attacking Iraq? So following your definition about a normal country, America would be completely not normal; thus you would be contradicting yourself. Ok, so you are saying that America is making Iraq normal. How gave that right to America? So next time if America thinks Nepal is not a normal country, should it just attack Nepal then? What's the point of having a U.N. if you are not going to respect it? All you guys how are supporting war, let me ask you one simple question. Have you ever wondered why millions of people and hundreds of countries are opposing this war? You don't hear about it in CNN or in FOX. All you hear about is why America should attack and how evil Saddam is. You trust CNN or FOX or even BBC? Then you are in trouble. Let me tell you, after september 11th, when America started attacking Afganisthan, did you ever get to see the sorry and sad state of the Afgani poeple either on CNN or BBC or FOX? When I went back to Nepal during that time, I could watch it over there on TV how the innocent Afgani people were starving due to the war. The American media don't show these parts. Have you seen how innocent people in Iraq are fleeing the country with their families and belongings on CNN or FOX due to the threat of American attack? The media is not free and you talk about free speech. Let me laugh. And Bush talks about how Liberty is God's gift to the world through America. They have forgotton that they took away the same liberty and freedom from the Native Indians, when they took away their land to make America. And they preach about "liberty?" Isn't that Ironical. Just imagine, going down to Africa and killing all the blacks and almost wiping the black race from earth. That's what they did. Imagine all the millions of Native Indians that had lived in North and South America, and how they have turned their number down in to just thousands now. Imagine that. And they talk about "freedom?" Bin Laden's Al-Queda, and Saddam Hussain have no such links as they constantly talk about in the news. That is just to brainwash the stupid people. So to end this, just to remind those who watched Bush yeaterday during his speech and support the war: So what's your take on Bush's saying or requesting the Iraqi people not to destroy the oil-well? |
| toilet paper | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:20 PM
Read some How as Who. Spelling mistake |
| toilet paper | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:21 PM
To enlighten those you are behind Bush's ass go visit www.counterpunch.org |
| bhedo | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:26 PM
Uh huh, keep defending Bushie. Fact of the matter is, this war is about 1. Oil( In his last speech, he said something to the effect of :" I urge Iraqis to not destroy oil wells" 2. Politics(basically trying to manipulate us like puppets) 3. Revenge( As Bush himself said, "This guy tried to kill my dad") 4. Upcoming election(duh! If this war goes the way America wants it to go, then there's no doubt in my mind that Bush will be reelected) Fact: Saddam has no frigging links with Al Qaeda. In fact, Bin Laden called Saddam a Kaffir(infidel). If anybody has links with Al Qaeda, it's the Kurds from Northern Iraq. Everybody knows this war isn't about liberating the Kurds. Turkey is as oppressive as Iraq is, but USA doesn't care squat because they're our FRIGGING allies. If you wanna do the right thing, then do so, but there should be no double standards. And speaking about double standards, why the heck are we ignoring North Korea ? Kim Jong Il is basically taunting America, but what do we do? We just let him play us like puppets. Now Bush is a walking contradiction. The idiot said something like, "I don't believe in diplomacy" when it came to Iraq, but when it came to Korea, he is like, "We're trying to resolve this threat diplomatically". Hahaha. Of all the idiocy. Also, it's better not to believe American/British propaganda. Some of the documents provided to the UN were forged. For instance, Americans/Brits claimed that Iraq was hunting for Uranium in Africa. That was totally fabricated. And Saddam is evil all of a sudden? Who the hell armed Iraq in the first place? Reagan Administration, goddammit. Now when it suits our purpose, it's ok to bomb Iraq? WTF? Saddam has been in power for 30+ years now. Why are we so interested in ousting him now? Coz he has "weapons of mass destruction". Hahaha, a bunch of malarkey I tell you. How can a country that has been suppressed for 12 years have weapons of mass destruction?? And where's the goddamn evidence? If we had ample proof, why were we not able to persuade the UN? Also, according to Friedman(writes for NY Post's Oped section. I have read his book, "From Beirut to Jerusalem), historically speaking, the Arab world has always been ruled by Tyrants. Tyrants can be either good or bad. Saddam has been/ was a "benevolent tyrant". Iraq is supposed to be the most democratic country in the middle east. It's a SECULAR country. |
| DWI | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:46 PM
Bhedo, I do share your sentiments but don't agree 100%. I am a little neutral on this matter, I want to defend Bush but there are some logistic holes that you can't fill with reasonings, otherwise. About the motive for popularity in election, that is not true. Bush Seinor's popularity had soared high during the Gulf war but he went on loosing the following presidential election, partly because of the war. During war and country crisis, the support for the leaders seem to soar up high. But that rise cannot be prolonged to the election days; it probably will have negative impact by the time we reach the election. Iraq being rich on oil, does have a hand on the motive. However, to say that US and UK would capture the oil resources of Iraq is preposterous. This question was asked to Tony Blair in a recent discussion and he handled it pretty well. As childish this motive may sound, I do think the 'chip-from-the-old-block' wants to give a closure to the task his father initiated. Bush senior was prudent enough to call off the war when Iraq's force retracted from Kuwait. The coalition at that time was for that purpose only, thus UK and US didn't violate any rules by following Saddam to his grave. Accord 1441 insures that Saddam follows his part of the promise and since Bush junior feels that it is violated, he feels that the job that his father initiated didn't get its due closure. In any case, the most prudent step would have been to give 2 more months; their wouldn't be no more violation of UN's accord (hoping Hans Blitz's report would be completed by then) and the coaltion would increase to a lot more countries. Bush's point that we have given 12 years alreay can be countered by saying: "Precisely, so why can't we give 2 more months?" |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:50 PM
Kajal, My question, On what legal basis does the US judge Saddam Hussein, when the US has refused to sign the agreement on the International Court on War Crimes? Why is a war against Iraq seen as justified when all now recognise that the invasion of Hungary to export socialism and the Vietnam war to export democracy have were unjust? The president of the United States is now four hours away from setting a precedent that will give the green light to every nation with a chip on its shoulder to strike first and ask questions later. In this light, George W Bush is vastly more dangerous to world stability than Saddam Hussein ever was. One thing says a lot about Bush: his idea about "us and them". As a leader of the most powerful nation he does not seem to have a balanced view of the world. It's clear he is not concerned about the thousands of innocent Iraqis who will bear the onslaught of his military machine. He does not even listen to the Pope who advised him against this action. Yes Saddam is bad but in a way Bush seems more dangerous to the world right now. He destroyed Afghanistan (without success) and left, who says he will rebuild Iraq? This is not a war. It is an invasion designed to show the world the USA is in charge and the world's strongest military and economic power. If human lives were the main concern here, Bush's government would allow inspectors to continue their work and drop aid not bombs on the Iraqi people. It gets harder every hour to stomach the suffering this attack will cause. The UK and US were among the countries who supported Saddam during the war with Iran. Who armed him with WMD weapons?? It was justified to use them against Iranians? Killing more than 1 million? Have the policies (moralities) of UK and US governments changed? The US administration has gravely overestimated its ability to sway the UN, and has fallen back on a questionable moral legitimacy. Having initially called on the authority of the UN it now shows its contempt for that very same authority by acting unilaterally.This is the type of behaviour that creates anti-US terrorism. How many young Muslims do you think will decide on terrorism as a result of Bush's actions lately? The answer is more than you think. Robert.. |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:52 PM
Bhedo, Valid points raised... |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 04:57 PM
Toilet Paper ji, None should attack another country just on the basis it things its not normal. If that is your only argument man, what have you been upto, have you not read all the others comments as well or you must be smart enough to see the bigger picture why U.S. is leading the war. Yes, yes, yes, oil is one of them so what I say again. "Have you ever wondered why millions of people and hundreds of countries are opposing this war?" Well, one can ask also, why are they supporting the troops now after the decision is made? Why are the opposing parties holding their hands and joining in then? " don't hear about it in CNN or in FOX. All you hear about is why America should attack and how evil Saddam is. You trust CNN or FOX or even BBC? Then you are in trouble." Ofcourse you did hear, all you'd see is the protestors on all the media, where were you man? I agree media can be misconstrued but so you have to go to other sources, so where are you getting your sources then? Are you an Iraqi (not), were you there? everyone forms their opinions through some source so no point arguing about media, journals etc. unless you are one of the Iraqi's or you were there. So, you can't really attack anyone cause you are one of them who relies on sources such as ......whatever source, facts, lies, media, journals, hearsay.. etc . "The media is not free and you talk about free speech. Let me laugh." Laugh as you may but who brought you those stories that you saw on TV? Media right? So media can bring out the truth as well as misinterpret or misconstrue the truth, yes! Yes, I agree, it is very heart wrenching to see the suffering of people during war, starving people, fleeing people and all what about before the war, they are being starved, tortured, tight lipped because they will be punished, where can they flee? At least U.S. declares war so they have time to flee, but they can come back to a liberated and free country, a country that will still be their but free. I agree with you and have the same sentiment on one topic. The Native Americans. But this war, I don't agree with you at all. "So what's your take on Bush's saying or requesting the Iraqi people not to destroy the oil-well?" What's your point? Ofcourse U.S. and everyone else is interested in the oil, they don't want to see it destroyed but the oil is still going to be for the people fleeing right now who will come back. They still need it as its their main source of income, would you rather they destroy it? Yes, U.S. and others will benefit from it too, but they won't be able to lift all the oil wells and bring it to U.S. for good, it still will be there for Iraqi people they need it, why destroy it, its a waste. We are all just exchanging opinions that's all, calm down and say a prayer for the troops and the Iraqi people at this time of crisis will ya. I guess if you saw a neighbor torturing his kid time and time again as you drive to work, would you sit there and look away and say, I am for peace, don't want to cause any problems or would you have the guts to not only report it but make sure it comes to an end?? If there is a known sexual molester in your neighborhood and you have a teenage daugter, and he is showing many more signs over the years, would you make sure he is out of the neighborhood and get rid of him or would you wait till he commits another molestation act or rape so you can bring him to justice once there is proof?? Got to go now, more later maybe. Pleasure reading so many different view points. I will pray for peace even if it comes at the price of war. Sometimes the choice has to be made and someone strong and powerful has to come forward. I pray for the safety of everyone that are out there fighting for peace. |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 05:05 PM
My conclusion: The message from Mr. Bush is: the UN must act in accordance with US wishes or it is irrelevant. It is wrong to go to war without UN second resolution. Only the participating countries are saying that this is legal. The rest of the World (including Mr Kofi Anan) say it is illegal. What about other tyrants? What about other countries that torture their own people? Why not attack half the World? I think the answer is simple: They do not have oil. |
| nemesis | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 06:49 PM
Surrya and the likes of you, this message is for you all. A little bit of history: It is probably true that at the beginning of the present push of the administration to go to war, the connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were minimal. Each, on the face of it, had to distrust the other. From Saddam's point of view, bin Laden was the most troublesome kind of man, a religious zealot, that is to say a loose cannon, a warrior who could not be controlled. To bin Laden, Saddam was an irreligious brute, an unbalanced fool whose boldest ventures invariably crashed. The two were in competition as well. Each would look to control the future of the Muslim worldbin Laden, conceivably, for the greater glory of Allah, and Saddam for the earthly delight of vastly augmenting his power. In the old days, in the nineteenth century, when the British had their empire, the Raj would have had the skill to set those two upon each other. It was the old rule of many a Victorian crazy house: Let the madmen duke it out, then jump the one or two who are left. Today, however, these aims are different. Security is considered insecure unless the martial results are absolute. So the first American reaction to September 11 was to plan to destroy bin Laden and al-Qaeda. When the campaign in Afghanistan failed, however, to capture the leading protagonist, even proved unable, indeed, to conclude whether he was alive or dead, the game had to shift. Our White House decided the real pea was under another shell. Not al-Qaeda, but Iraq. ... Let me begin with Colin Powell's presentation before the UN on February 5. Up to a point, it was well detailed and looked to prove that Saddam Hussein (to no one's dramatic surprise) was violating every rule of the inspectors that he could get away with. Saddam, after all, had a keen nose for the vagaries of history. He understood that the longer one could delay powerful statesmen, the more they might weary of the soul-deadening boredom of dealing with a consummate liar who was artfully free of all the bonds of obligation and cooperation. It is no small gift to be an absolute liar. If you never tell the truth, you are virtually as safe as an honest man who never utters an untruth. When informed that you just swore to the opposite today of what you avowed yesterday, you remark, "I never said that," or should the words be on record, you declare that you are grossly misinterpreted. Confusion is sown rich in permutations. So, Saddam had managed to survive seven years of inspection from 1991 to 1998. He had made dealsmost of them under the counterwith the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Jordanians; the list is long. He also knew how to play on the sympathies of the third world. He convinced many a good heart all over the world. The continuing cruelty of America was starving the Iraqi children. The Iraqi children were, in large part, seriously malnourished by the embargo Saddam had brought upon himself, but, indeed, if they had been healthy, he would have kept a score of six-year-olds starving long enough to dispatch a proper photograph around the world. He was no good and he could prove it. He did so well at the games he played that he succeeded in declaring the inspections at an end by 1998. More to come, stay tuned A glimpse where US of A stands in the eyes of beholdres: Meanwhile, the world was reacting in horror to the Bush agenda for war. The European edition of Time magazine had been conducting a poll on its Web site: "Which country poses a greater danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so far, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent.... As John le Carré had put it to The Times of London: "America has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but this is the worst I can remember." Harold Pinter no longer chose to be subtle in language: ...The American administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government, but seem to be helpless. Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist American power, Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's declaration "We are not the doctors. We are the disease." According to Reuters, on February 15 more than four million people "from Bangkok to Brussels, from Canberra to Calcutta...took to the streets to pillory Bush as a bloodthirsty warmonger." |
| nemesis | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 06:52 PM
Credit goes to : By Norman Mailer Only In America I will most more once you all digest this. |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 06:57 PM
nemesis: "Surrya and the likes of you"... It's one R BTW. And speaking of digesting.... maybe you like to eat/read others' regurgitated carp. Not me. I did not go beyond the first line, so keep your attitude to your self. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 07:15 PM
Frost ji, Poonte ji, Nemesis ji, Sparsha ji, Bhedo....and all for PEACE over the horrors of the war.... US is delivering "Shock and Awe" onto Iraq!!!! Bite-size/ spoonfuls or in a grande scale? My prayers go out to those women, children, elderlies huddled in their homes....waiting for the bombs to fall and "liberate" them! :( Surya...ji I thought you were interested in reading more than one-liners...what happened with Nemesis' posting????????? His is surely a good looooooong read! :) |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 07:19 PM
sitara please don't bother with me. i am not interested in engaging with useless chatter with you. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 07:25 PM
Surya ji Rest in Pieces! :) |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 07:38 PM
Surya ji, "eat/read others' regurgitated crap" That's a good one I must say, very true too, there are those that like to do that, then there are those that are floating in outerspace, clueless. Funny thing, as soon as I saw "a bit of history" I did not even bother to read the rest, If I'd like a taste of the history over and over again, I know where to go and I have read it. Write some of your own original views and back it up, for a change. Even Bhedo, Robert Frost, toilet paper whose current stance I don't agree show some originality and bring their own views forward. |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 07:45 PM
Sitara: I know under your facade of peace and love, you wish me and those who don't agree with you ill! Thank you for revealing yourself to the good folks in Sajha majority of whome no doubt will second you. I for can't stand you and your hypocricy, but really hope you stay safe and sound in your home with you child. Just as I pray for those in Iraq tonightr and just as I wish for my family. Shame on you! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 07:50 PM
The last time I checked the system of international law, external military intervention is justified only in self defense, unless it is a pre-approved by the Security Council. This impending war has basis on neither of these premises. Poonte: yes, the preamble of UN charter,article 4 of the same chapter and the UN laws on military action, unilateral or multilateral, and some preceedents of the IJC do not support this war. I don't udnerstand one simple thing: The US agencies helped in kidnapping Abdullah Oculan, the Turkish-JKurish leadrer and handed him to the Turkish authorities. He is now in a prisionw here he can be killed any time. Now, this US, is saying that it wants to help Kurds achieve a peaceful stellement. Isn't this somewhat weird? |
| bhedo | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:04 PM
*how cruel Saddam Hussein (sh) is Lol@cruel, like we don't know that. Don't you understand? He's been cruel for 30+ years now. *how undemocratic the state of Iraq is LMAO. This is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Even though Iraq is as democratic as a middle eastern country can get, please try to understand that Iraqis are muslims, and "democracy" is a western concept. *how Iraq is associated with terrorism Where's the proof? Al Qaeda's link with one of those radical Kurdish factions? Sorry, but they don't represent mainstream Iraqi government, and hence you can't say Iraq is associated with terrorism. Basically, you just took in what the media fed you hook,line and sinker. Heh. *how Iraqi people will have "freedom" LOL, exactly what Bush reiterates. *how to maintain stability in the region Lol@stability. So basically, you're afraid of a country that's been suppressed for 12 years huh? *DISARMAMENT Uh, there's no proof that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. War cannot be based on a big if: "If Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction". I could as well bust my neighbor's face first because I think he's gonna hit me first. I'm off to bed now. Ciao. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:09 PM
Surya ... Really, I was afraid to wish you PEACE, lest you turn on me! Oh well one can't win! C'est la vie! How about this: Shuva Raatri :) |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:12 PM
Robert Frost ji, I apologize, did not mean to ignore you, I did not see your question directed towards me. I will respond soon. Have to go now though. Got to attend to family. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:14 PM
Chomski and Saeed agree that the US probably tops the chart if we look at the nation states that are in direct violation of the international law. Kupchan believes that, the US is making a wrong decision by bypasing the UN. Others say that this war was totally UNNECESSARY. But, the US, with a coalition of the willing has already began attacks in Iraq. So, there's not much point in discussing the legality of this war, but we shoudl look into what the world will be like once this war is over. Lt's think about the impacts it will have on the "international system" in years to come. The biggest question is how long the US can continue with its "rogue" ways? And how long can it retain its superpower status? Will the UN continue to play a pivotal point in the international system? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:18 PM
pivotal point= role |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:18 PM
Sitara: stop acting and stick by your words/meanind for a change. So you wish me to rest in peices? BFD! And stop with those fake simley face. |
| surya | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:31 PM
Also, interesting turn of phrase... "Turn on you"! Please. Nice try, but its a no go. I did not "turn" on you... rather you turned on me implyign that I was ranting for saying your reasoing was faulty. Oh well. I ain't starstruck. Nor am I blinded by yo brilliance. And even when you sprayed your pheremones, I saw the claws even when retracted:) ohhhhhhh that was harsh! oh well. one for the road, no? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 08:33 PM
Let's face the truth. After this war is over: 1.There will be more superpowers (and rogue states) 2. There will never be peace in Iraq. 1. The US's bypassing of the UN has established a negative trend. Now, no one is obliged to follow the UN charter. Now, the trend will be to contain the US by the European powers, and China. Also, we might see another cold war. This time, there will be coalitions and the major coalitions that will present a direct or indirect threat to the US hegemony are : FRanco-German Alliance, Russia-India-China Alliance, European Union and Franco-German Alliance. 2. There won't be peace in Iraq: The US streategyu has been to keep things unfinished so that it can intervene later on. In Afganisthan, the US is still supporting the local warlords. THis will happen in Iraq. The US will craete many oppositions of the ruling governmnet and the changes in regimes will be even faster than BUsh changes his clothes! By crating political chaos and or turmoil, the US will always have a reason to stay in the region. Also, how long are the Arab neighbors going to support the puppet governmnet in Iraq? If the US doesn't create turmoil in Iraq, the neigboring states will mobilize their cdovert operations agenicies for this purpose. The result: Even more dangerous regime than that of Saddam Hussein's in Baghdad. This will in the Short Run strengthen the state of ISrael but in the long run, it will result in a never ending war between the Israelis and the Arabs including Iraq. Just my anive views.. of course.. Here's some from the IL to those who are still confused about the legality of war. According to the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States: No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its POLITICAL, economic and cultural elements are condemned. Article 2 (4) of the UN charter states that: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or POLITICAL independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations. According to the decision made by the International Court of Justice on Collective Defense on Nicaragua Case: "For one state to use force against the other, on the ground that that state has committed a wrongful act of force against a third state, is regarded as LAWFUL, by way of exception, ONLY WHEN THE WRONGFUL ACT PROVOKING THE RESPONSE WAS AN ARMED ATTACK" Also, ICJ has concluded that the mere possession of nuclear weapons did not of itself constitute a THREAT. On Intervention: The principle of non-intervention is a part of customary international law and founded upon the concept of respect for the territorial sovereignty of states. Intervention is prohibited where it bears upon matters in which each state is permitted to decide freely by virtue of the principle of state sovereignty. This includes, as the International Court of Justice noted in the Nicaragua case, the choice of Political, Economic, Social and Cultural systems and the formulation of foreign policy. |
| DWI | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 09:22 PM
Good points Isolated. There seems to have a sense of breach-of-contract from US end, something like saying, " I like the law until it serves me." However, I cannot ignore the role that France has played in this war. October or November of last year, when Collin Powel got France's full support on backing up the 1441 accord, France seemed fully willing. France then came ahead as the leading nation on the security councel to veto any motion supporting the war. Even in the recent UN voting, France claimed that it would veto again, without even letting the voting process to start. Collin Powell, actually might goto a little pressure because of this failure. Apparently, France understood 1441 different from US. I agree that the accord doesn't call for invasion of arms in case of failure by Iraq to comply; but the way this new nemesis (France) of United States has acted, it certainly evokes doubts on its intentions. After a vast criticism by UK and US, France seems to be "softening" a little bit and has claimed that it would support the troops if Iraq uses the bio-chemical weapons (note that Hans Blix has re-iterated that Iraq won't use bio-chemical weapons). As the chinese ambassador said, if there is a 1% possibility of peace, we should give 100% effort to this. Is France actually following that motto or else? |
| Kajal | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 09:42 PM
Robert Frost ji, The geopolitical situation of the world is in a threader. There is no longer two Super Powers, trying to countermeasure each other. Since the fall of the USSR, the burden of peace keeping has fallen on to the U.S. Based on your knowledge I don't believed that I need to sight examples, you seem to know your stuff. But, it does relate to the point of why the US did not sign the War Crimes court agreement. Because, when there have been incursions in the world, it is US troops that are sent. It makes it quite easy for dissenting countries of such actions to place US troops on trial for just such accusations. I respect your position about this situation but, the US and the world does have the responsibility to remove the Iraqi leadership. The Gulf War never really ended. There was an armistice. It was based on conditions that Hussein agreed to, but as of today still has not followed through on. If you think bringing up the fact that the US supplied samples of WOD for defensive purposes then it not relevant. There are many countries that have such weapons. The difference is that those other countries don't use them on their own people or others. If we sit back and do nothing, think about how many people are going to die under the rule of Hussein. Hussein's son killed political prisoners so that he could make room for new prisoners. Do you recall a few months ago when Hussein released prisoners and a riot started in Baghdad. It was because there were hundreds that never came out, and are still not accounted for. That is just the tip of the ice berg. Some may also say that the sanction have hurt the Iraqi people. However Hussein still has over 20 palaces and billions of dollars in Swiss accounts. Hussein is like a leach, sucking the life out of Iraq while others suffer. About Resolution 1441, that was not supposed to be a hunting expedition for inspectors. It is silly to think that the world is supposed to have to look for WOMD that are supposed to be presented to us. This type of disarmament is unacceptable and do not work and still haven't work. The only reason for any extra 2 months of expectations, would be for political reasons, to satisfy the UN. To think that within two months something was going to happen that didn't happen in 12 years is not realistic. About the oil, the only reason France, Russia, and China wouldn't go along with the US is because of the oil. They have oil rights and have Billions of dollars owed to them by Hussein. This whole situation for security counsel dissent was about MONEY. Where as for the US it is about self preservation and security. I rest my case. I really appreciate everyone's opinions. Please excuse any spelling errors, I am tired now, Goodnight. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:33 PM
"Since the fall of the USSR, the burden of peace keeping has fallen on to the U.S. " My question is HOW? Who gave the US the authority and power to make decisions and or made it a Police State? For Peace Keeping purposes, there was and there is the UN Security Council. The US can not just assume the responsibility to save the world. It has to go throgh a democratic process. "If we sit back and do nothing, think about how many people are going to die under the rule of Hussein" Just flip the coin and think, how many innocent americans and Iraqis are going to die under the rule of Bush. There are many issues that I don't agree with you. The draft Resolution on Iraq, presented to the UN SEC COUNCIL by the UK and the US stated that should Iraq fail to compy with this resolution, the US and the UK have all the rights to invade Iraq. This draft resolution was a subejct of heavy discussion at the Council and Fracne, Germany and China rejected and decided to vote against the resolution, if it were to be prsenetd in that form to the security council. later, there was a significant amount of toning down and rephrasing the draft resolution before presenting it to the UN sec council, then it got passed as Resolution 1441. There is no provision for the military action in the sec. Council resolution 1441. It merelys states that "if iraq fails to comply fully with the resolution, then it will have to face "serious consequences". Serious Consequences does not necessarily mean MIlitary Action. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 19-Mar-03 11:37 PM
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; From the UN SEC COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441. Serious Consequences does not necessarily mean military action against Iraq. Furthermore, the UN Sec Council Resolution 1441 does not state, explicitly or implicitly on change in Iraqi Regime becuase its a direct violation of UN Charter. The Draft Resultion presented to the UN SEC COUNCIL by the US and the UK last october-november had provisions for military actions, if Iraq failed to comply with the "proposed" resolution. However, the FRench and others dismissed the "Draft Resolution" saying that they would not endorse anything that would lead to a war and pose a threat to Iraqi "political" soverignty. Then there were some rephrasing done to the draft resolution and "military action" was taken out. The new draft was adapted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002. To kajol/kajal: I don't think anyone has asked nor requested the US to assume the responsibility of a peace-keeper. There is the UN security council, which has the authority vested on it by the UN Charter and International Law to assume the peace-keeping responsibility. The US can not act alone. There is no mention of the Iraqi Regime change in the resolution 1441. This US action is unilateral and against International Law. The US, of course rephrased the whole draft resolution in November before getting it adapted as the UN SEC COUNCL RESEOLUTION 1441, and this shows that until late last week, they were trying to make it look like an UN Operation a la Korean War. However, the insistence on peaceful means by other key members of the Security Council made America and the UK act alone. With this American action, the UN is no longer an international monitoring commitee. However, some angry states are planning to pass a resolution that will isolate the Americans. Let's see how it goes. This war will have serious consequences on International System for years to come. And interestingly enough, this war will result in US's contained role in the international arena. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 02:04 AM
ISOLATED FREAK:For Peace Keeping purposes, there was and there is the UN Security Council. The US can not just assume the responsibility to save the world. It has to go throgh a democratic process. "If we sit back and do nothing, think about how many people are going to die under the rule of Hussein" Just flip the coin and think, how many innocent americans and Iraqis are going to die under the rule of Bush." Yes, You are right till the certein extent.But people in the iraq is dying anyway.I remember the baby of the imprisoned techer died in the jail in the iraq and the women hold her baby till the three days after the death.There is the long suffering of the iraqi people with the saddam's regime.The people in the northen iraq is doing all means to overthrow saddam. The D-DAY ultimetum given by the UK and the US is over last night.The forces already headed for the invasion.Everybody know that this is the NO-WIN WAR.Both side will lose,But the surprising fact is that the frech veto to the UN resolution.The french are the total opertunist here.Their weapon business with the iraq may be one of the condition. JACQUE CHIRAC think that he is a NEPOLEAN but it was a long way back.He forgrt the allies who put their life for the sake of them.Sooner or later france have to join the old allies (i am not sure about whether or not they will join) german,france,russia and china also have their own opinion.They are changing the tune.Today's dinner of the tony blair with the chirac may bring out the new news. The consequence of the war will bring this things in my point o view. 1.The muslim extremist world will unite from the phillipines to morocco. 2.The NEW WORLD ORDER breaching international law.That may be result as a WWIV. 3.There may be biggest impact in the EUROPEAN UNION unity.They will lose faith on each other. The development of EC to EEC To EU may end to no_EU.And the other nation to join EU in 2004 have to think twice. 4.International violence will twice as now happening. 5.Polarisation of the world may grow faster and "globalisation" will be in losing state. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 02:10 AM
french ( VIVE LA UN SEC COUNCIL ) has lost it dignity.This is the main cause that is forcing the war as inevitable.Because the US and the UK thinks that they will be religating in the SEC COUNCIL.If the french success in using their veto. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 03:55 AM
Isolated Freak ji Well thoughtout critical analysis; I enjoyed reading your writing. PEACE! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:48 AM
As the chinese ambassador said, if there is a 1% possibility of peace, we should give 100% effort to this. Is France actually following that motto or else? DWI, I think France is sincere this time. A couple of hrs ago, the Russian President issued a statement saying that this war is a total violation of the International Law. China issued a statement asking for the "total halt" of war. France is seeing the revival of Degaullism, i.e, pursue an independent foreign policy. Just as France pulled out of the Atlantic Alliance in the 50s, Cheraq pulled out of the US-UK+ WILIING Alliance. Rajunpl, Its better to die in the hands of your own people rather than on the hands of foreign Agressors. Saddam's popularity is probably at its all time high because no matter what the system is, people don't want another country (-ies) aggression on their soil. This time around, the Americans, without any legitimate reason have attacked Iraq. The Iraqi President's speech this morning was quite interesting. As I wrote on my previous post, he refered to Israel and in the middle east reason, Jordan and Syria have been denouncing the US led attack. Soon, you'll see a militant arab-nationalism on the rise, and that would create more terrorist organizations. You'll see 200 Al-Quaidas now. If the war continues for 10 days, then believe me, the situation will get really ugly in the whole region: Iraq will attack Israel. If Israel retaliates, the chances of Syria and Lebanon and to some extent Egypt attacking Israel can not be ruled out because of the Ramallah incident last year. [Hosnmi Mubarak (sp??), the Egyptian President last year remarked that if the Israelis keep on torturing the palestanians, then he will consider all the peace and friendship teaties with Israel, void and null. Syrians have been asking the UN to send weapons inspectors to Israel. So, the chances of Israelis facing an agression due to the militant arab nationalism can not be ruled out. If this happens, then the war will continue for another 2 weeks to 2 months and do you think other Muslim nations and others who have been opposing war will stay quiet? I don't think so. It seems like Samuel Huntington's theory, there's going to be a clash between the civilizations, and that would be the starting of World-War III. Also, Chiraq seems to be a DeGaullian, not Napolean. "The NEW WORLD ORDER breaching international law.That may be result as a WWIV. " I think the new world order will have multiple players, this time instead of natioons tates it will a coalition of nation states containing one another. ".Polarisation of the world may grow faster and "globalisation" will be in losing state." Polarization is obvious. However, I don't think golobalziation will come to cul-de-sac. Globalization will continue because the whole basis of the new-alliances will be economic. The economic interests will create alliances. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:50 AM
and sitara, thanks. Om Shanti: |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:53 AM
seems like Samuel Huntington's theory, there's going to be a clash between the civilizations, and that would be the starting of World-War III. = seems like Samuel Huntington's theory, there's going to be a clash between the civilizations, and that would be the starting of World-War III will finally come true. |
| nemesis | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 06:22 AM
isolated freak ji, you appear to be well-read and well adjusted person. I enjoyed reading your posting. People here seem to be especially Surya who is only intererested to see his/her own viewpoint. People who don't read history are condemned to repeat mistakes, haven't you heard that before? Or is that a news to you in your busy life echoing what George Bush aka Rumsfield aka Chenney are saying. Critical analysis, knowledge of history not self-righteous irritation are warranted when you are talking about something like war. First you chide Sitara for "one liner" then you smirk with your obscenity laden one liner (mind you) at me for posting what people are reading and digesting. People would rather read him (let me remind you) if you ask me. Shall we take a vote? Shame on YOU surya!! By the way kajal sounds very much like you. Not that I am suggesting anything. Here is more to those who LIKES to read what OTHERS are thinking: |
| nemesis | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 06:30 AM
There had been talk before, and there was certainly talk then in the White House that we had to send troops into Iraq as our reply to such flouting of the agreement. Unfortunately, Clinton's adventure with Monica Lewinsky had left him a paralyzed warrior. In the midst of his public scandal, he could not afford to shed one drop of American blood. The proof was in Kosovo where no American infantry went in with NATO and our bombers never dropped their product from any height within range of Serbian antiaircraft. We did it all from 15,000 feet up. So, Iraq was out of the question. Al Gore was a hawk at the time, ready, doubtless, to improve his future campaign image and rise thereby from wonk to studa necessary qualification for the presidencybut Clinton's vulnerability stifled all that. So, in 1998, Saddam Hussein got away with it. There had been no inspections since. Colin Powell's speech was full of righteous indignation at the bare-faced and heinous bravado of Saddam the Evil, but Powell was, of course, too intelligent a man to be surprised by these discoveries of malfeasance. The speech was an attempt to heat up America's readiness to go to war. By the measure of our polls, half of the citizenry were unready. And this part of his speech certainly succeeded. The proof was that a good many Democratic senators who had been on the fence declared that they were in on the venture now; yes, they, too, were ready for war, God bless us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The major weakness in Powell's presentation of the evidence was, however, the evidential link of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It was, given the powerful auspices of the occasion, more than a bit on the sparse side. With the exception of Great Britain, the states with veto power in the Security Council, the French, the Chinese, and the Russians, were obviously not eager to satisfy the Bush passion to go to war as soon as possible. They wanted time to intensify inspections. They looked to containment as a solution. and two-sided in his remarks, but the suggestion of a common interest, despite all, between al-Qaeda and Saddam was also there. Was it finally happening? Had the enemy of Saddam's enemy now become Saddam's friend? If so, that could prove a disaster. We might vanquish Iraq and still suffer from the catastrophe we claimed to be going to war to avert. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could yet belong to bin Laden. ------------------------ And how about this? To flag conservatives, war now looks to be the best possible solution. Jesus and Evel Knievel might be able to bond together, after all. Fight evil, fight it to the death! Use the word fifteen times in every speech. More to come .... |
| sparsha | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 06:44 AM
Even though a lot of things have come out from different participants in this thread since I promised to respond, I am keeping my promise and back here in the thread to respond. Kajal wrote: Ofcourse any imbecile knows there are the political agenda's in this war. U.S. including, France, Germany, Russia and others, yes ofcourse the oil is a biggy. Ok, we almost seemed to agree here. (I say the oil is the BIGGY and you say it is a "biggy"). Fair enough. SO WHAT? If in the process they do achieve the following goals you mention, why is that so bad: how cruel Saddam Hussein (sh) is (So get rid of the cruel who brings cruelty to his own people) What in the process? What is the goal here? What authority does the US have over other countries to act the way it wants? If Saddam is cruel, prove it where the jurisdiction is and demand as the law warrants or let the Iraqi people deal with Saddam and his cruelty. Is the US really concerned with liberating Iraqi people? I doubt. *how undemocratic the state of Iraq is (give them a chance for democracy so they can pick their own leader and allow them freedom of speech as well so the world can hear from the Iraqui people themselves what was Saddam's regime like) You can't force "democracy" on others. Also, where does this "turned-the-world-into-democracy" mission of the US end? *how Iraq is associated with terrorism (put an end to his funding to the families of terrorists) How many times do you hear in the news about Iraqi terrorists? In 9-11 incident. most of those " terrorists" were Saudis, if you don't remember. Also, please remember how you define terrorism. What business does the US have to fly spy planes all over the world? Why is US stationed everywhere? People don't enjoy foreign intervention in their internal affair. Why is the US disliked everywhere? *how Iraqi people will have "freedom" (give them the freedom they deserve) Who is the US to decide who needs freedom and who does not? *how to maintain stability in the region or *DISARMAMENT (once they have the freedom to choose it will come and stability will be maintained in time and once U.S. and allied forces are there they will unveil what Saddam has in his dungeons and caves that everyone so gullibly believe he doesn't) We may sadly find out soon once the war starts if he decides to go out with a bang, now that he is caught one way or the other he may use the chemical weapons on the troops. PROOF ENOUGH?? Proof enough? NO. The immediate goal, seems like, is to kill a sitting president of a nation that is not friendly. Stability is internal not forced. Is Afghanistan stable now? ** Bewakoof wrote: &and for those with facile slogan 'no war for oil': is the assertion that US will just take all of Iraq's oil ? same slogan was used in the first gulf war. has the US taken Kuwait's oil ? There are very good reasons for opposing this war. 'No war for oil' is not one of them because thats a false premise. I don't agree that oil is not the primary reason along with personal revenge in this war. Not at all. What do you mean by "US is not taking all the oil from Kuwait?". If tomorrow south Africa takes over Lesotho, the US will go there with massive troops to liberate Lesotho? Do you think? war is horrible, it is awful. but another awful reality is that sometimes world is better for having had a war than having fooishly avoided it. I partially agree here. This war has no justification. The US should have given enough time for the inspection team first. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 06:57 AM
Again oppurtunist france and russia pretending to be allies but history will keep them apart.If There would be any good for the france that would be to be with the old allies.The bitter consequence of the yesterday's dinner in the brussel is geeting the situation even worse. Some people saying "WAR IS BAD BUT THE SADDAM IS EVEN WORSE".This is the clear view that saddam should be hunt down and it is inevitable.He is mixing the evil with the religion.He is again misleading his own people.He is the man who is developing (japanese kamikaze suciders). He has done more bad then the good in the earth.His evil regime should be removed from the arab world and it is inevitable. The blast of the oil wells in the 1991 THE GULF WAR I and killing of his own innocent civilians and hurting neighbours should be ended.All the monstrous face of his many doubled should be hunt down. As ISOLATED FREAK says : Its better to die in the hands of your own people rather than on the hands of foreign Agressors. Saddam's popularity is probably at its all time high because no matter what the system is, people don't want another country (-ies) aggression on their soil. This time around, the Americans, without any legitimate reason have attacked Iraq. The Iraqi President's speech this morning was quite interesting. As I wrote on my previous post, he refered to Israel and in the middle east reason, Jordan and Syria have been denouncing the US led attack. Soon, you'll see a militant arab-nationalism on the rise, and that would create more terrorist organizations. You'll see 200 Al-Quaidas now. JORDAN AND SYRIA are one of the many terror harbouring countries and they are total anti-west.They are in no-doubt harbouring the al-quida's people.The misunderstanding of the fanatic muslim-world.Like you said it is better to be killed by own aggressor.The matter of life and death is equally important to every human beings in the earth.Whether you are being hunt down by foreigners or the one of your indegenous people.Life is life after all.If someone is fighting against the evil they will get support from the every aspect.Like the kurdish are doing now.You see the river of people flowing towars the kurdisthan. As far as we are concerned with the UN RESOLUTION.1941 There you see the clear aspect that the ( if saddam do not disarm by the peaceful demand then the military force may be used. The US and the coalition force are not breaching the international law in every aspect.If you don't believe see the poll towards the "whether or not to held the war" by the british and the american public.That the they have the full suppeort.Only the muslim minorities here are opposing the war.That doesnn't mean that the I am anti-muslim.I do strongly support the GOOD. Let's see if there happen a truce. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 07:09 AM
That was interesting sparsha,kajal : Ok, we almost seemed to agree here. (I say the oil is the BIGGY and you say it is a "biggy"). Fair enough. The biggy is also the power.The struggle is because of the oil and the power. The political reason behind the war: 1.Get the saddam hands off the OPEC.( the west is suffering from the heavy oil rise). Saddam is rising the value of the oil so that he can rebuild his country.But he cannot because of his evil mind. 2.To make more pathetic to the al quida and the muslim extremist.To make them unsafe in the world. 3. Saddam to raise the (hatred) thouht of the anti-west-behaviour in the arab world.And false leading them in the name of ALLAH. 4.Saddam to make the dream come true want to make a muslim world and the one world of muslim and rule the world. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 07:30 AM
IF whether you go for the Samuel Huntington's theory or the french priest nastodomous the end of the world is coming. WWIII may just be the path of world end. But, I don't again believe both.Nastrodomous prediction in the liturature style and Samuel Huntington's theory. ( clash of the civilization) ( clash of the civilization): example is israel and the palestine after the WWII.Yes, it may separate the muslim world and the western world .............but.......What about the eastern european giant russia and the asian giants china and the japan...?? well, believe in good jay shambhooooooooooo |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 07:53 AM
I believe many opinions are going to change rather quickly in the aftermath of possible terrorist attacks. While I hope they do not occur, I fully expect that they will, and I will be shaking my head at the neverending lust for power some people in this world seem unable to overcome. With so much of the world crying out in unison that war is no longer an acceptable end to conflict of interests, it is utterly disgusting that world leaders continue to ignore their own people. I can only hope these same leaders are held responsible for the death and destruction the wreak upon this planet. Stand up for peace. Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has done nothing to advance Iraqi society. That said, I think President Bush has pursued this problem in the worst way possible. Even before he went to the UN it was clear he was going to war. He didn't waste any time in getting thousands of troops deployed. This entire dilemma could have been avoided had Bush not been such a war hawk and been patient. Iraq was not going to attack us. A few months of further inspections would not have posed any more of a threat. Bush is just exerting his military power because he doesn't know how to handle the domestic issues. I feel for the innocents. Imagine the terror of waiting for bombs and not knowing when or where they will fall. Imagine the desperation and despair of parents unable to protect their children, Imagine the terror of the children as they tune in to the fear of their parents. Bush did not subscribe to the international court. Is this why? We are seeing today the greatest unilateral military action since Hitler's invasion of Poland. What happens next? We have stepped into an abyss. Now we do not know what we are doing. It was provoked and created by a government that has ceased to represent the people, a government that has no concern for the will of the people, no concern for human life; a government driven by ideology and economic interest. Today is a sad day in the history of mankind. No longer do the principles of peace, justice, and diplomacy, established after the Second World War exist. They have been replaced by a war that will create fear, suffering, and hatred. And America has ceased to be a beacon of freedom; she no longer has hope. We knew it was coming, and we knew it was to come this morning. But that does not make it any easier to bear. Somewhere deep in the earth there must be a great mourning, reflecting the grief of all those who opposed this war, and our grief carries through to the Iraqi people who must bear the aggression imposed on them. This day will be remembered in history as the beginning of World War III. If we have a history. The US and British strikes are not only illegal but they are irresponsible. I pray for the Iraqi people. I hope we all voice our prayers together. May peace prevail. |
| czar | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 08:05 AM
Isolated Freak: foreign policy mandarin at full steam ! Interesting thoughts presented and, as always, an excellent read. Nemesis, welcome aboard. Judicious arguments. Those who forget the lessons of history do so at their own peril, eh? Precisely! Surya: might I remind you that we have all, at one time or another, made the mistake of getting personal. As a soccer coach would exhort, play the ball not the person. The sands of Persia have, over millennia, buried the bones of many a pasha. It can just as easily accommodate an M1 battle tank or an American general. War is war. There is no such thing as a just war. Never will be. Remove the veneer of civilization and the reptilian part of the brain emerges. Why be so shocked, it is the nature of man to fight. Only 20% of authority is given, the rest is assumed. Thanks to its undisputed economic and military might, America plays the role it does. Yet within its successes lie the seeds of its own destruction. It has been thus with all empires. A new world order will emerge now, but change is inevitable. |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 08:21 AM
Take a vote for what? A vote to take out the unpopular view? Go for it! I can't wait. I think the vote is already out! Its already clear what the issue at hand is - self-righteousness of those who think their anti-war views give them moral superiority over those who support the war, however reluctantly. Another thing.... if you goad and needle, don't expect people to sit back and take it. Maybe some folks are used to it, but not others. Maybe some people would avoid confrontation and fear losing face, but others realize this is cyber forum and there is no accountability owed to those who don't reciprocate! And dont accuse one of getting personal when you turn a blind eyes to someone else doing the same! I was playing ball, till someone changed the rules to say it only applies to me. Equating being pro-peace to being anti-war is a fallacy! Saying people who support this war are war-mongers, stoopid, and have no sense of history, just goes to show the utter lack of respect the accusers have toward those who see things differently. Obviously the visitors to this forum are overwhelmingly anti-war. Fine. But don't try to use the sheer number of supporters of your particular views to corner and isolate those who think differently. Having said that.... The UN is a largely ineffective and corrupt body used, not only by the US, but by the Europeans and other nations who serve on their various councils to serve their own national and regional interests. IF asserted that 1. There will be more superpowers (and rogue states) 2. There will never be peace in Iraq. About superpowers... you are probably right, but I don't think the emergence of this new geopolitical scene will owe its genesis to this particular war. The world had gone through some massive shifts in the last two decades& from the Balkans, Albania, Macedonia, the Former USSR nation states, EU, Rwanda, Somalia, NAFTA and NATO& the Chinese economic boom, the Koreans and Japanese, the list goes on. And of course the economic scenario changes in the US with the massive recession of the early nineties, the boom of the mid nineties and now again another dip. All these have affected the ways markets and nations relate to each other. It is naïve to think that somehow nations stops politicking and clamoring to gain positioning and power when the iron curtain dropped. Of course after this war is over there will be additional power shifts especially in the middle-east. But this was will not be THE reason for the power alliances that emerge. I agree with Sparsh that stability is largely an internal issue& internal to Iraq and internal to the Middle East as to what these players decide they want to do with the opportunity they have in a Saddam-less Iraq. If the Arab states want to keep heading towards their insular Islamist agendas, oppressing their people, they will keep doing that and they will use Iraq to further continue that agenda. There is only so much outsiders can do, but one thing definitely needs doing is disarmament. After Sept 11, I have no faith that weapons Saddam has might not get into the hands of Al Quaeda and that the latter might not use if on other civilians. And the argument that containing Saddam within his borders is enough has always baffled me. I think the mistake in 91 was that Bush Sr. buckled under world pressure and did not go after Saddam as he should have and left the mission at just ensuring Kuwaits freedom. There are parallels between Germany in WWII and Iraq that anti-war folks just dont want to deal with. Should the coalition of nations in WWII have left the job at liberating France and Poland from the Nazis and left the millions of Jews still in Germany awaiting their deaths in Germany at the mercy of Hitler because Hitler was contained ? Sparsha also said& but another awful reality is that sometimes world is better for having had a war than having fooishly avoided it. I think thats where were at with this war. But still, this is a horrible horrible time. Lets hope the pundits are wrong about Saddam possibly using civilians as human sheils. Lets hope there is no terrorist attacks as retribution. |
| czar | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:02 AM
Surya, Not getting personal applies to all present, not just you. Squabbling is unseemly for all of us. St. Paddy's day is over, so lets not end up in a brawl with each other, shall we ? |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:13 AM
Robert Frost: Fine rhetoric. So fine I almost wanted to beleive all of it. I agree this is a sad day. But it's made sadder by the people who say they are for peace and justice, but just want to see in this war US acting as a world bully. This war simply reflects the complexity of the the world today. It is simplictic and incorrect to attribute it to Bush alone. That lets off the Saddam off the hook... the man who is THE reason for the war. Also you are gravely mistaken to say that this "government has ceased to represent the people, a government that has no concern for the will of the people, no concern for human life." In terms of rhetoric, it is powerful, and sounds sooo cool. But the reality is most Americans (over 60%, this is after all a democracy where majority rules) supports the Bush adminstrations handling of the IRaq situation. This war will not CREATE "fear, suffering, and hatred"... those already exist n the world as evidenced by Sept 11 and as evidenced by what Saddam does to his people. And even as I type this news is comign in saying Saddam's army have started igniting oil wells like they did in 91. "America has ceased to be a beacon of freedom; she no longer has hope." Does that mean people will be seeking other shores to realize their dreams of freedoom, prosperity and pursuit of happiness? :) |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:16 AM
I thought the reminder was to me, Czar, since you did name me in your comment. As they say, takes two to tango. That applies to a brawl as well. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:22 AM
A friend of mine sent me this email; it expresses many concerned opinions; voices who care about the people of USA, of Iraq and those who believe in peaceful mediation! This country will remain violent and belligerent in its use of force against other 'problem' countries as long as US domestic issues related to violence and use of force continue. The international policies sponsored by this country are a reflection of its own political and economic cultural values. The recent events in the breakdown of international diplomacy and continued push to support private industry and corporate interests, in this case the oil and military industry, are an example of what happens inside this country in other more 'benevolent' industries that have a lot of political and economic power that can bend established laws and protocols. Some of these are: - the gun industry - the prison industry - the automobile industry - the tobacco industry - the for-profit health care system and attached industries As long as violence, force, and political elitism are promoted as a means to maintain corporate interests and inequitable systems, this country will continue on an imperial path. G. W. Bush may leave the White House in a couple of years, but the landscape will continue to be fertile for other leaders to maintain an agenda that does not meet the needs of the citizens of this country and other countries. For sure the military of this country and its ability to use it in combination with economic and corporate interests will become stronger, secretive, and difficult to change. The response may be for others to build a similar attitude to challenge this power... thus more killing and oppressive machines and ideas are likely to come about. The seeds for this are spread all over this nation and others as well. How can this be challenged? What seeds can be planted to counter this kind of culture? Public opinion has had a strong presence during these times, but it needs more power. Corporations and governments are loose to do what they please and citizens are completely disenfranchised. But public opinion has been widespread continuously, broadly, and wisely. We need to continue doing this. But there has got to be something else. Today is a sad day. It is the day when the United States of America and some other countries started bombing Iraq without a UN Resolution to support this action. It is the day setting a precedent for pre-emptive war. It is a day when international law has been broken. It is a day when humanity expressed its madness in one of its worst manners. It is a sad day when many children are learning that violence is OK. That bombs are necessary to resolve conflict. That war is a peace machine. Peace is crying today. Marcos Public welfare It is indeed a sad day... US Government has not learned from the devastation Vietnam War left in its wake! People are still paying heavily. |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:31 AM
what a load of guano. like most of you care at all about iraq, much less yourselves or, better yet, your own countrymen fighting over there. all this phony posturing by sajha's snobbish popular clique is complete bunk. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:40 AM
Thanks Czar and Nemesis. Nemesis, please go on with your analysis of the issue. Your's is quite interesting and I have to read it all over again before I type in my response. "Only 20% of authority is given, the rest is assumed. Thanks to its undisputed economic and military might, America plays the role it does. Yet within its successes lie the seeds of its own destruction. It has been thus with all empires. A new world order will emerge now, but change is inevitable. " Bingo!!! This was also at the core of today's Putin's speech/remarks. Rajunpl: "As far as we are concerned with the UN RESOLUTION.1941 There you see the clear aspect that the ( if saddam do not disarm by the peaceful demand then the military force may be used. " NO. There is no mention of military action(s) in the UN Resolution 1441. "4.Saddam to make the dream come true want to make a muslim world and the one world of muslim and rule the world. " Really? Robert Frost: "Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has done nothing to advance Iraqi society. That said, I think President Bush has pursued this problem in the worst way possible." I agree with you 100%. There were other options available but the US chose to pursue the worst of all options available to them. |
| Kajal | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:51 AM
Here! Here! CZAR, I pass by every now and then and I have heard so many different opinions and view points from my Iranian, South African, American, Slovenian and other friends. I wanted to come to Sajha to hear my Nepali friends voice their opinions and to soak up some of the intelligent point of views from the opposing side as well. Robert Frost, Surya, Socrates, Czar, Sparsha, Poonte, bewakoof, toiletpaper, DWI sure seem to know their stuff and I really admire their intelligent view points. The bickering and taking it personal instead of debating and discussing to exchange and ideas I don't know about, quite childish and immature. By the way nemesis, since you brought it up "Shame on YOU surya!! By the way kajal sounds very much like you. Not that I am suggesting anything." Yup, I don't deny it, I may surely sound like Surya, DHUH! that's cause we share the same view points including with the others who are pro war in this particular case. Don't need a rocket scientist to figure that out that you should feel so strongly to point out! Don't contradict yourself either, you say you are not suggesting anything but you just did, "Kajal sounds very much like you" that is what you said. I still stand for peace and if its at the price of war it has to come I support it fully as I do believe terrorism and the brutality within the Saddam regime did exist and it was peaking even without the talk of this war. You can agree, disagree, but both sides can come up with some very good arguments its a matter of how strong you support your own, do carry on this interesting thread. Sajha is quite an impressive community and I must say I have had the pleasure of passing through here every now and then. There are enough people who share my view point so I am out of here now. Its great to see both side to the story and the intelligent exchange of the human mind and stance.CZAR I pray for not just the Iraqi people but for the troops and all of us and our families all over the world also, who have been living with the fear of being attacked without a warning even before this war started. Peace Out! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:59 AM
Surya: Nice and Brilliant arguments there. "About superpowers... you are probably right, but I don't think the emergence of this new geopolitical scene will owe its genesis to this particular war. The world had gone through some massive shifts in the last two decades& from the Balkans, Albania, Macedonia, the Former USSR nation states, EU, Rwanda, Somalia, NAFTA and NATO& the Chinese economic boom, the Koreans and Japanese, the list goes on. And of course the economic scenario changes in the US with the massive recession of the early nineties, the boom of the mid nineties and now again another dip. " Surya, as far as my limited thinking goes, I think in the next round of multiple-superpwoers we will see an "active" collective-defense. You are right that the alliances existed befrore this crisis and they will continue to exist and operate, but in the enxt world order, the economic or any other alliance might serve as an alliance for collective defense. This will definately alter the whole balance of power because each alliance in itself will act as a mini UN. Regarding Peace in Iraq: The American strategy will be to find a way to stay in that region for many years to come. So, the Americans will, on the one had fund the democrats, but on the other hand, they will keep on funding fundametalist groups to crate a "powerful" opposition to the ruling party because once there is democracy with a silent/non-violent opposition, the chances of another round of dictatorship in Iraq can not be ruled out. This is why, the US wants a instable government and tensions in Iraq, and the Iraqis will keep on suffering. Also, let's not forget one simple fact: Whenever there is democracy due to another country's (in many cases superpowers) involvement/intervention, that democracy is bound to be a failure from the very beginning. Look at Russia, Nepal, Afrcan Countries.. So, instead of true democrats, the US will see an Ultra Nationalist groups which will be defiant of the US and its policies or a weak indecisive regime which will create more tensions in the country. Either way, Iraq is well on its way of becomning Afganisthan before the recent US intervention. |
| czar | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:11 AM
Surya, yes please, do lets tango. |
| Dilasha | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:11 AM
Whine and chij ji, testo bitter hunu bhayena ni, after all this is a forum that educates us in many ways which I'm sure you agree with. I'm pleased to read such interesting comments from everyone in this thread. Yes, it is saddening to see the nation going on war and even more heart wrenching to see people in Iraq carrying their luggages and leaving their hometown trying to get refuge in neighboring countries. One can hardly imagine how horrific their lives must be right now- full of fear, agony and uncertainty; boy aren't we lucky to be where we are right now! We can only pray for those innocent lives and hope that they will see the light soon. God bless them. I was watching Oprah Live the other day when she had a Professor of Arab descent and Thomas Friedman as guests. The latter worked on a documentary called "Searching for the Roots of 9/11." which willl be aired on March 26 at 10 P.M (I believe it's ET). Some of the clips of that documentary were shown which were very thought provoking. Like for eg. when Friedman asked the univ. students in Qatar why they think Sep 11 happened to which one of the students replied that just because it happened to America it's a big thing for the world, whereas Sep 11 takes place every day in Palestine and other neighboring countries. The documentary also states that people in the Arab nation and other nations look upto America for many reasons at the same time they have hatred for how the US "boss" around other nations. For those of you who are interested, do watch the documentary. Oprah also showed some clips of Michael Moore's documentary (I forgot its name) which were very devastating to look at. It shows some gruesome pictures of people dead in different nations that America attacked along with some stastistical figures. I think the documentary is not out yet but it is something to look forward to. btw, did you guys see Saddam Hussein's speech last night? I don't think that was the real Saddam. He looked so different. Well, with the many lookalikes he is known to have, I'm sure that was one of his "hamshukle". Let's hope for the best. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:18 AM
The intelligence agencies confirmed right away that the man who appeared on TV was Saddam Hussien the real. The argument is: Saddam's voice is unique and it was indeed his Voice, not of anybody else. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:20 AM
Dilasha, an interesting read will be: Nasty, Bruitish and Long: America's War on Terror. [Current History, 2001.. march/april (exact month ta birse)] |
| Dilasha | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:38 AM
Thanks Iso! I'll check that out. "Cruise missile attack to shock and awe " why the heck do they have to use the words "shock and awe"? why don't they be honest enough to say "to destroy the infrastructure, the electric wires, to demolish the schools, to wipe out the various resources" for god's sake! |
| YoUnGblOOdz | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:47 AM
when i was lookin at the TV.. n they broadcast saddam's address to nation.. i was shocked.. saddam looked so different.. i even told mah family member that its not saddam.. n there was sum telecast problem..n sound n al.. i even agress with one of the reporters observation after the saddam's speech.. he thinks it was a recorded tape.. because of those lines in the bottom of the screen.. n sum tracking problems.. but i am quite sure it was his imposter or recorded.... hasta la vista saddam.. ( I HOPE HE AIN"T GONNA SAY>> I"LL BE BACK) YB |
| YoUnGblOOdz | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:53 AM
"THIS IS THE DAY YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR" that was quite nice dialouge to SADDAM BY US>..in their radio.. american army lai pani hindi movies le choye jasto cha.. >>HARAMJADOUN TUMHE ISI DIN KA INTAJHAR THA >>>> YB |
| Poonte | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 10:59 AM
Weapons of mass destructions--the very core of the pro-war arguments. Iraq has not used it since it did so against the Kurds in 1988(?)--they did not even resort to chemical/biological weapons in the 1991 Gulf War. This means one of two things: They either did not have chemical/biological weapons, or, even if they did, they were afraid to use them. The fact that they had been apprehensive about resorting to WMDs even if they had them proves that Saddam was effectively deterred/contained. Hence, the the war was unwarranted. Furthermore, as someone has already pointed out above, if anyone is truly serious about disarmament, then they shoud start right here in the US, or Israel, if one is focused on disarming the Middle East. Human rights/democracy. It has apparently become obvious that the meaning of democracy has been mercilessly distorted by none other than the most "democratic" country in the world, the almighty US itself. Believing in/practicing democracy does NOT mean complying with the ideals/interests of one counrty or the other (particularly the US), and acquiesce to EVERY demand that the latter puts forward. If one truly believes in democracy, then one must also listen to the voices from around the world, especially in matters that might entail global ramifications. Fighting for democracy in Iraq by undemocratric means (remember, the US, the UK and Spain could not even garner majority votes in the Security Council to support their side of the debate) sounds to me as absurd as trying to fight a fire by starting a fire. In addition, if the "saviour" of democracy was to fight for very person's freedom around the world, I think he would have fought hundreds of wars by now; and would have also fought with EVERY country in the ME, including Israel for its brutal treatment of Palestinians. Therefore, the war is again unjustified on the premise of liberating the Iraqis. OIL, OIL, OIL There's no doubt that every country acts according to it's own self interest, and oil happens to be of interest to many powerful countries. The French and the Russians were no doubt positioning themselves against the war out of their own selfish reasons as much as the US and it's handful of allies were pursuing it. However, one must also not fail to seriously consider the ramifications of any pursuit of selfish interests. In this regard, I think even though the US will obviously win the war and gain operational victory in the short run, it will definitely suffer a major strategical failure in the long run. Consequences I could not agree more with Isolated Freak's articulate piece above regarding the consequences of this war on a global level, and I have nothing to add to it at this time. Allow me, however, to write something on what I think might happen to a post-war Iraq. One thing that immediately comes to my mind when I think of the ouster of Saddam from Baghdad is the Iranian Revolution. The regime of Saddam Hussein, despite being undemocratic and fiercely brutal to it's opponents, is, after all, one of the only two secular states in the region (the other being Syria). Iraqi people, being free of fundamentalist religious doctrines, were perhaps the most educated and technologically advanced in the Arab world. The US may install a puppet government in post-war Iraq like they did in Iran by bringing Shah to the throne; and I am not too sure whether Iraq will also then not suffer the similar fate that the Iranians did--overthrow of the puppet government and the introduction of a Islamic fundamentalist regime. Many experts have already highlighted the fact that after the fall of communism, fundamentalism (particularly Islamic) would probably replace communism as the key enemy of the western world. Therefore, either by invoking the destructive passion of many Muslims around the world, or by possibly paving the way for a fundamentalist regime in Iraq in the future, the US may be creating more enemies and more troubles ahead for itself. This, obviously would not serve the self interest of the US in the long run. The prudent decison would have been to pacify the potential enemy through peaceful means--deeper economic relations, better understanding through compassion, and addressing the root causes of hatred are some of them--instead of creating the basis for the proliferation of more people who hate the US. Although it is highly unlikely that the present Iraqi forces would be able to repel any attack by the US forces, IF they do put up a strong resistance that the US cannot overcome, then I foresee a creation of a divided Iraq--Northern Iraq under Saddam, and Southern Iraq, which has almost all the Iraqi oil fields, under a puppet regime of the US. Southern Iraq, although fiercely opposed to Saddam at the moment, is still a haven for fundamentalist Shiite muslims backed by Iran, another of US' stauch foes--and I doubt the viability of a strong US influence being played there in the long run. A divided Iraq would also cause huge problems on another front: The Kurdish in the north, who are also brutally oppressed by Turkey, a major US ally in the region. Looking at it from any angle, I only foresee major troubles ahead for the US. Only time will tell whether President George W. Bush, Jr. was far sighted enough to ensure longer term security of the US interests. For now, I doubt he was. |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:26 AM
Tango is almost always better than brawling. But the music has to be right. IF: very kind of you. There has been precedence in the world where nations who are "freed" by others stagnate in infighting. That's the responsibility of the people of that country. If democracy fails in Afganistan again, it will be because Afganisthan failed. Yes, after the mujjahadin days after Russia was chased out, the Americans could have stuck around to help the war ravaged Afganisthan. But in the end, its the Taliban who is ultimately responsible for the state of the nation today.... not outside governments. I am not sure what you are saying about Nepal.... Nepal's democracy failed for no other reason other than the corruption of the leadership and the people's own inability to envision a new future beyond the legacy of feudalism and nepotism. If you are saying that the "democracy" we fought for some 12 years ago in Nepal was brought about by anything other than impetus from Nepalis desire for a just democratic nation, I disagree with you. YEs, India played some part then, but the thereafter is only ours to own. Anything else is shirking responsibility. Let's hope Iraqis will own their problems and seek assisstance when needed. I don't espouse the complete lack of faith you have in the US government. There have been times in the past where the US government has been involved in pitting political interests against each other to keep its interst, but today is a different world. In the face of fundamentalist terrorism, I trust the US government will be lot more judicious about who they fund and how. I agree the time ahead are hard for America... as those who wish her ill will continue to try and undermine her, harm her and the ideals that she stands for. I hope you all realize how that spells trouble not just for America but all who are vested in the ideas of democracy and freedom. |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:31 AM
dilasha, walk a mile in my shoes, and then get back to me. do you have family over there? if so, i hope they come through unscathed. |
| socrates | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:33 AM
The Weekly Standard The Peacenik Top 10 A look at the ten most popular objections to war and some common-sense responses to them. by Fred Barnes 03/06/2003 THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them. (1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing. (2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals. (3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful. (4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans. (5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen. (6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it. (7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat. (8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone. (9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him. (10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said. No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq. They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd. Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:34 AM
hmm poonte, Intresting thoughts. Thrashing the Realists at the White House? :-) C'mon, realism in itself isn't bad but the way the US is going baout it would even make Hans Morgantheu red in anger. "Looking at it from any angle, I only foresee major troubles ahead for the US. Only time will tell whether President George W. Bush, Jr. was far sighted enough to ensure longer term security of the US interests. For now, I doubt he was. " I agree with you 100%. See, being a realist isn't bad (as you mentioned in your post), but I guess, there is a limit in practicing realism. And as Newton said, to evrey action tehre is equal but opposite reaction, I agree with your above lines and also with the entire post. Post Saddam Iraq will be a headache for the US govt in the long run. This wasn't a trategically advantegeous war. |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:49 AM
Thank you Socrates!! Very nice. Thank you IF... exactly. This was is NOT a strategically advantageous war for the US. The war is being waged at the face of all the naysayers at home and abroad. Unless you the arguement is that war shoudl be entered into only if its staregically advantageous, I say, more the reason to try and understand what is behind the war.... that the decision to go to war is tough, but morally just and politically necessary? |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:56 AM
Poonte, Ifreak, Czar, Surya, nemesis et all. Precise thoughts! Here are some of my view points: Now that Bush has decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, in the face of explicit opposition from the international community, every head of state in every country of the world must be particularly careful about their own position. Who knows which unfortunate country/ruler will be attacked and removed next and under what pretext. American arrogance has reached unprecedented magnitudes. The only victor in this war will be death. Liberation will not be achieved through war. Monstrous dictators may have bomb shelters, but the civilians do not. When we learn that imposing our will on other people leads to more violence? If we spent the same time and money to make sure that people throughout the world didn't live in poverty and without hope there would be no need for war. In history we will look back at this event as the one that changed the world forever. The voice of the people has ultimately been ignored. Now, why am I not at all surprised? This war was going to happen no matter what was said or done by the United Nations, no matter how many MILLIONS of people protested against it. What Bush wants Bush gets and he wanted war. I don't think he'd be so keen if he didn't have a nice bunker to go and hide in. It's not his family and friends that are going to be blown to smithereens so therefore it doesn't affect him at all. It's a sad day today as all of our Sajhaites have mentioned and grief in horror, we pray My sympathies are also with the soldiers and other men and women in uniform who have to follow the orders of their commanders. However, that doesn't mean I should deny my belief that they are fighting the wrong war. In conclusion, there is a large number of comments regarding "Bush and Blair doing what is right based on the facts". Firstly how do we know that these facts are true? Secondly how do we know that they truly are acting in our interests, and not in their own personal (business) interest? Thirdly, there is an awful lot more to this whole saga that none of us will ever know, dating back to way before the September 11th attack, whoever it was carried out by. I don't think anyone should blindly jump into supporting their government when none of us truly knows what is going on. Thank you....! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 12:06 PM
surya, merci beaucoup, mademoiselle. You say, the responsibility to institutionalziew democracy lie on the people. I agree, but the question is, will the US let democracy institutionalzie in Iraq? Again, as far as my limnited thinking goes, NO. Because, if there is a stroing democracy in Iraq, the US's interests in Iraq in particular and the in the whole region in general won't be served. Therefore, the US's strategy will be to get involved in the region for a longer period and for this they will either support a dictator or weak regimes. On Nepal: Nepal's democracy never got institutionalzied. Again obvious reasons are corruption, nepotism, bad governance in the last 12 years but behid all this, there lies yet another reason and that is, who/what was the force responsible behind the change in the system in the 50s and in the 90s? Diddn't India have some interests in Nepal and wasn't those interests responsivble for India's support/active participation in democratizing Nepal? See Surya, I am of the opinion that in International Relations, it is always easy to deal with one idiot at a time rather than 100 idiots. Democracies create 1000 idiots in third world countries. Kaplan, Zakaraia and some others have been arguing against the notion that democracy brings liberty and works everywhere. Re: decisions behid war(s): Realism. Its the pursuit of self-interests. But this time, the stakes are high. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 12:08 PM
kasto dherai spelling errors bhayecha.. apologies hai. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 12:15 PM
Robert Frost: Now that Bush has decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, in the face of explicit opposition from the international community, every head of state in every country of the world must be particularly careful about their own position. yes, this is why many nations are not supporting the US in this war. And, again this war is a total violation of the UN Charter and the international law. "What Bush wants Bush gets and he wanted war. " Exactly. My point is, International system and international law are so inter-connected that if one gets altered, the other too gets akltered. Now, we will have an international system as a result of the direct violation of the international law, and how can you imagine to have a better system when its roots are "unlawful"? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 12:24 PM
OK here's something to think about: "bada le garcha jo kaam, huncha tyo sarva sammata." |
| bewakoof | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 12:31 PM
Well, this is a lively thread. My random responses and thoughts and dooi paisa&. Supporting this particular war doesnt automatically make one a Bushie as Bhedo alleges. I support this war because I think on balance it will be beneficial to the US and the world. There are many other issues where I disagree with and oppose the policies of Bush administration. Sparsha: my question was, has the US taken Kuwaiti oil after the first gulf war?. Answer: No, Kuwaitis still own their oil. And US will not get to take Iraqi oil after this war either. So I am asking people who make the accusation that this war is about oil to explain exactly they mean by that. And I am pointing out that slogans dont become facts just by repeating them ad nauseum. About your hypothetical question, I dont know whether US will intervene if S.Africa invades Lesotho. But I do know that US intervened to stop the massacre in Kosovo and there was no oil involved there, and mind you that was without UN approval either. I dont attribute perfect consistency to US policies. Just like everyone else, US looks after its strategic interest. It is in the US strategic interest to get rid of Saddams regime. It is not about oil, nor about revenge. Among other reasons, I support this policy because a) I care about US strategic interest and b) world will be a better place without Saddam. For those appalled by the fact that this war is not authorized by the UN: UN has approved exactly 2 wars out of more than a hundred armed conflicts since the WWII. It is desirable to have an effective international body but when it becomes ineffective other organizations and alliances spring up. UN itself rose out of the ashes of League of Nations. As one former British PM put it there are no permanent alliances, there are only permanent interests. Kajal, appreciate you efforts at reason. Keep it up. |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 12:43 PM
I just lost my last post, oh well, anyhow, I guess the bottom line is whether you have faith in this government and trust Bush to be a leader with intergirty. Can't say I do blindly, but I have faith in the system and the believe that the government is accountable and answerable to the people. Sometimes leaders have to make difficult and unpopular decisions. This is one of them. IS: its true democracy means the gazillion idiots around the world are now free to be idiots. I think we know we pretty much see eye to eye on this from what I can remember of other thread on this issue. But I will add one more thing before I cease yammering in this thread anymore, democracy is not a monolith. It is up to the specific people to make it work for them. People are ultimately responsible for themselves. Bye all have a nice day. |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 03:23 PM
Surya, couldn't agree more. Only one thing: has Bush really wanted a new UN SC resolution? I do not think a new resolution inevitably would designate the limits of war, and Bush does not want limits, he wants to reach what he wants to reach and not what the UN wants to reach. The timing of starting the war could not be worse. Every country in the world, particularly Muslim, is watching quietly but intently as Condoleezza Rice quietly hands Israel enormous financial aid from George Bush. The perception that the US is in league with Israel in starting a crusade against Islam will be unavoidable. World democracy is only a notion. For all that the US-UK-Australian alliance has committed a catalogue of diplomatic blunders, the UN has also been revealed to be deeply flawed by this event. We need a better balance between the wealthy countries that underwrite UN activities, and the rest of the world that should be (but isn't) providing that body with democratic legitimacy. The West should not have to bribe minor tyrannies to carry out outstanding UN resolutions, and the well-bring of the Rest should no longer be thwarted by apparently arbitrary vetoes and enervating handouts. In the modern world it is very easy to take some decisions, and it is very hard to take some. Chirac has proved that he is one of the very few men in authority who are brave enough to make the right decisions, however hard it might be to take them. He has improved the image of the nation he governs by a long way. Bush's statement that "this will not be a war of half measures" is likely to come back and haunt him - and the rest of the world - as I am certain that the Islamic extremists will take his words to heart and redouble their efforts to spread their brand of terror across the world in retaliation To those of you that support this war: You may be right in that the surviving Iraqis will no longer have to live under Saddam's rule. But what you have failed to realise is that this situation of allowing pre-emptive military action by a minority of states has shattered the notion of world democracy and international law. Any nation that disagrees with the USA now must worry about not only economic sanctions but also the possibility of facing "regime change" by force. An utterly terrifying prospect given that the most powerful nation on earth has a leader 'elected' on the back of spurious actions in the US Supreme Court. The power of the most powerful military machine can now be bought in the USofA! This utter disregard for the UN is a disgrace. The "war" itself is an illegal attack on a sovereign state by aggressors who claim that Iraq may cause potential instability! No one denies Hussein is a dictator but how anyone can justify an attack on a country, who has been weakened by sanctions and bombed continuously for ten years, on the grounds they are a threat to world security is absolutely unbelievable! The main justification that is being offered for this war is that Iraq stands in violation of 17 UN resolutions. A perusal of modern history will show that Israel has violated more that forty UN resolutions. How does then one can justify this illegitimate attack on the Iraqis? Warmongers will always find some excuses. I just ask any hawk to answer this question satisfactorily. If you cannot offer a just explanation, then please tow the line of peace. The world needs a show of U.S. muscle so there will be no doubt to any potential aggressors that attacking the United States of America has serious consequences. Amen..! |
| Puru Subedi | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:33 PM
Related analysis at wsws.org: The twenty lies of George W. Bush By Patrick Martin 20 March 2003 Lie No. 1: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. Lie No. 2: For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. Lie No. 3: The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament... Lie No. 4: Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men. Lie No. 5: The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. Lie No. 6: [Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. Lie No. 7: America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. Lie No. 8: These governments [the Security Council majority] share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Lie No. 9: Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. Lie No. 10: The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. Lie No. 11: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. Lie No. 12: As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. Lie No. 13: We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. Lie No. 14: Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it. Lie No. 15: War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice. Lie No. 16: [T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. Lie No. 17: The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. Lie No. 18: We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. Lie No. 19: As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Lie No. 20: Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Detail explanation of each lie is at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/bush-m20.shtml |
| dWI | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:41 PM
In the midst of all these turmoil and perhaps in the aftermath of the war, the validity of UN will defiinately be questioned. May be US should have taken the same stance as it did during Kosovo war, avoiding the council all together; but whatever it did, no doubt that there has been a violation. It is notable that the country with most of the UN code violations is Israel, followed by Turkey and Morocco, although the violations might be of lesser impact than the lateset one done by US. Isn't it more than coincidence that all of those countries mentioned above are a good allies of US? These and other things question my willingness to support US action, and I can't help but still support the country I am living in. |
| surya | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:42 PM
Robert Frost: I hate to come back after I said I am leaving the thread, but either you are not reading what I am saying or not understanding. I just want to point out that what we are saying is very different. I agree on some point on some points you make, however I don't agree that this is an unjust war. Also, the challenge for the "hawks" to step forward and answer the question is pose comes too late on this thread. I suggest you go back and read closely what the "hawks" have said thus far. Also, as you yourself said... World democracy is only a notion, a mistaken notion. World democracy is not possible while we continue to make excuses for the tyrants and genocidal maniacs of the world. |
| dWI | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 04:55 PM
By the way, the number for UN violations that I was talking above was as follows: Israel: 32 (since 1968) Turkey: 24 (since 1974) Morocco: 17 |
| bhedo | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 05:23 PM
I wonder how many of you would be championing a pro-war stance had America still relied on the selective service draft system for fighting this war. America would still have its regular troops, but the equation would be different, since there would be that little danger of your loved one(s) being drafted to wage war with a country, which has been, basically speaking, a vegetable for the past 12 years. Given that most of us don't really have a firsthand war experience, we take it for granted, completely ignoring the hardships and difficulties a war-ravaged country has to deal with, not to mention post-war psychological traumas faced by someone in the military. Would you want your son to go face this? Think about it. All this talk about war is taking our attention away from the most important issue facing America today: the economy. Consumer confidence in the market has reached its 10-year lowest, and as predicted by economists, even the bestcase war scenario might not provide the much-needed jolt to prevent recession. More than likely, the economy will keep going downhill for a while. The Bush proposal will create a deficit of 1.08 trillion dollars over the next five years. This doesn't even take into account war costs. And looks like we've got peace-keeping troops everywhere these days, another source that'll cost us $$. Iraq cannot hurt America. We're miles away from them. If Iraq really posed a threat, Israel could easily have removed Saddam. We're not needed there. Israel is in fact more worried of Iran than anybody else. Hunt down terrorists(Saddam is off the hook) if they are a threat. But we've already made up our mind to take Saddam down, which is a joke really. Even if the Bush administration claims it has found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I am not going to believe it. Rumsfeld today reiterated what Bush said in his last speech, that Iraq/Iraqis should not destroy oil wells, a source of income for the country. This facade didn't fool me even a bit; we're hoping that once we use Iraq for our personal gain, the oil price will go down, which will boost the economy. But if you weigh the pluses and the minuses, this war will do us more harm than good. Like I said before, you cannot impose your moral values on someone else. Iraq is not a Christian country --albeit with a propensity for modernization-- and they don't think like one. All right, even if the Shiahs come to power, will that really be good? Iran is a Shiah country, remember? I doubt it'll go as we want it to go. |
| vision | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 05:30 PM
Comedian Dennis Miller on Iraq war: HERE ARE 10 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN VOICING AN OPINION ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE: 1) OUT OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ..... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY. 2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE. 3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," YOUR REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?" 4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE EDUCATION YOU DESERVE. 5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US. 6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V. 7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO 8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE. 9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM. 10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 07:03 PM
Surya, [We learn by hearing/reading perspectives/views that are very different than our own. Of course mademoiselle, our views don't converge on many issues, but still you have been presenting your views forcibely and making us think and come up with good arguments. Its more like a real thinking exercise prticipating in this thread. So, disagreements aside, I request your presence and participation in this thread. ] Having said that, let me continue with the instituionalization of democracy: If I am not mistaken, i.e, if i didn't read your post(s) wrong, you believe that the resposibility to institutionalize democracy lie on the people. You are right. However, without a strong leader/leaderships democracy can not grow/develop/institutionalize. People value and care for democracy if its a result of their own struggle and thinking. WHen somebody else's imposes democracy, without assessing whether the people are ready for it or not, then people will never learn to value the system. I agree with you that to run and protect the nation , at times, the leders have to make hard decisions. This is what Machiavelli argued some 500 eyars ago: Be very unpopular in the short run, to be puplar in the long run. Harsh decisions are inseperable part of the game of statecraft, I agree. However, this dcision by President Bush, is HARSHER and I don't think this unnecessary demonization, stigmatization and invasion of Iraq will help him achieve popularity in the long run. Or, it could be just that I am missing something here. Bhedo: You are right. There's no way Iraq can attack/inflict damages ( in) the US. The US has a strategic location. |
| dangggg | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 08:51 PM
News flash! Saddam hussain died on march 5th, 2000. That means BUSH started this war for nothing. Bush named this war - "operation liberating iraq." Aba Saddam nai nabhayepachi ke ko liberating iraq ni. Does this mean that bush was wrong all along and he should be punished? who should punish him? you decide. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:11 PM
Saddam hussain died on march 5th, 2000. That means BUSH started this war for nothing. Bush named this war - "operation liberating iraq." Aba Saddam nai nabhayepachi ke ko liberating iraq ni. What's the source of this news? |
| Kajal | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 09:15 PM
dangggg ji, Ke ho yesto? DANG! Where are you coming from? DANG, mailay ta bujhena hai? Kinda like the other night I was watching the Hardball debate on the present war issue, some African American woman stood up and said "I want to know how many people in Iraq are black". Out of context, did she want to know so she could point Bush as being racist if there were enough black people? Where was she coming from? Doesn't matter even if she were an Asian and asked "how many Asians in Iraq" I was thrown off a bit. What are you trying to say??? Anyway, brilliant arguments hai on both sides, I have been reading, very very interesting and such intelligent view points hamro Nepali Sajhaties Haru. I have already made a stance and tried to speak my version of my perspective on "peace that may have a chance at the price of war" so no point reiterating and refuting over and over again so I am just going to try and come back and read this interesting thread as the brilliant minds keep going on. All I can say is we are fortunate enough to be able to sit back and participate in this thread, while the ones protecting us to be able to do this are out there fighting for peace for the Iraqi's and the whole world (ya, ya many will disagree but that is fine). Peace won't come steadfast but at least its better to try then just sit and watch while neighbors are hurting and the ones causing the hurt keep poking and prodding endlessly. In peace! |
| DWI | Posted
on 20-Mar-03 11:39 PM
Well said Kajal, my thoughts exactly. Thanks Socrates for the article. Andrew Sullivan really had a note worthy point, There was no peace treaty, only the truce Vision, Dennis Miller is not a respected comedian without no reason. was fun reading it. Puru good article. I guess my thoughts are with Surya. However I cannot help, but admire Poonte, Robert Frost, Isolated Freak & Vision's analysis even though I beg to differ. Arrogance less and analytical debates should always be welcomed and my hats off to all who participated. Hope to read more points. |
| RAJUNPL | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 02:27 AM
There is a matter of time and interest say for instance where was the american's or the british when the nepalese were under the tyrant regime rana's...? You cannot give me the example of the british residence in KTM at that particular time.The intersest for the particular nation rise if one has something to do with it in a future.This is also a historical evidence.If you see the freedom or want to know about the freedom and the meaning of the democracy.They are the highest aspect of the human beings that makes the life possible to go through the stages we are going. each wants the democracy. The massive bombing by the US and the BRITS in the towns of iraq has something to do with the whole world interest.While the situation in the israel-palestine is even worse.The area of the israel/palestine and the iraq where the civilization has started.Now there ie clash everywhere.The long-urnned clash between the israel and the palestine is biggest hell or the longest living hell on the earth.There the backing of the israel by the US and the palestine by the iraq or the other muslin countries is obvious. This war THE GULF WAR II is the begining of the new peace campaign among the iraqi people and example for the other people in the middle east.The heavy artillery possesed by the british and the american forces are not the threat to the world,like the france and the russia thinks but it is a indirect UN MANDATE. The casualties in the war is not a surprise.It happens but only the matter is how many..? Even in the gulf war I. There was a mistake firing from the US troops to the british.The war is inevitable to bring down the eveil regime and thewre is no doubt about that.This would be the great achivement to threat the terrorism in the world.The weapon of mass distruction held by the saddam is not only the threat to the west but it can take any direction.There are no brothere and the sisters for the terrorist.They are the total oppertunist and the next thing is always unpredictable for them. The tyrant saddam is not the ruler of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE.This brutal regime is the biggest surviving in the earth after the bin laden. As far as Isolated Freak says : You say, the responsibility to institutionalziew democracy lie on the people. I agree, but the question is, will the US let democracy institutionalzie in Iraq? Again, as far as my limnited thinking goes, NO. Because, if there is a stroing democracy in Iraq, the US's interests in Iraq in particular and the in the whole region in general won't be served. Therefore, the US's strategy will be to get involved in the region for a longer period and for this they will either support a dictator or weak regimes. On Nepal: Nepal's democracy never got institutionalzied. Again obvious reasons are corruption, nepotism, bad governance in the last 12 years but behid all this, there lies yet another reason and that is, who/what was the force responsible behind the change in the system in the 50s and in the 90s? Diddn't India have some interests in Nepal and wasn't those interests responsivble for India's support/active participation in democratizing Nepal? Your point of view is also wrong.Because if you see the interest before the indian independence,Indians were already the part of the british imperial state.After the independence in the INdia and the MAOIST communism prevailed in china .The oppertunist king tribhuvan got his throne back.There was a interest of the free world everywhere.Both of the neighbouring giants got their own types of democracy. It is only because of the people like you and me that gives people democratic power to the PANCHAYET (the council of five).That we were long suffered.The case in the IRAQ here is totally different. Even the world changed a lot after the GULF WAR I.The chem/bio/nuclear weapons in the day to day world are even taking the biggest and the valnurable shape.Let us pray the god not to use those type of weapons by the both side. LONG LIVE NEPAL.........LONG LIVE IRAQI PEOPLE |
| RAJUNPL | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 02:31 AM
lE WORM CHIRAC |
| surya | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 04:45 AM
Ye if it were some other time and day, I might truely have liked "mademoiselle", but these days I am with RAJUNPL..... Le worm Chirac!! French hoina angrezi aja IF ji. Besides the right term is probably "Madame"... so let's just go with Surya. I have been listening to the radio and following the news from Iraq. I am saddened to hear that Iraqi armies have torced over 30 oil wells. But very happy to hear that the US Military despite its might and capacity is treading gently so far and mostly engaging in very precise bombing instead of what everyone thought the "shock and awe" campaign promised. There have thankfully been very few civilians casulaties so far. It was pathetic to hear the Iraqi spokes person though... he sounded idiotic especially when he accused Bush and his gang of being the villians like Al Capone! Al Capone? |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 05:12 AM
no Francaise, OK! Seems like we should meet over some freedom fries :-) First of all let me thank you for re-entering the discussion. Now, we have been getting reports of the casulaties. Some 12 "allied" soldiers died on a chopper crash and there are reports of oil wells. I don't think its 30 yet. The Iraqi reaction, name calling and oil well burning, at this point can be said natural under "crisis situation". Its their strtaegy, although a bad one, nonetheless going to prove very very costly for the americans, for some time to come. Let's hope that "Shock and Awe" is limited to bombing strategic locations like the Ministry for Planning, which they bombed last night. In otehr news, The Iraqi governmnet is saying that people who surrendederd to the British Troops are civilians, not army-men. At this point, we can just hope and pray that there will be a very few civilian causualities, if not none. Also, it won't be overexpectations on our part to hope that POWs and the Civilian population will get treatment they deserve and as outlined by the Geneva Convention. Blair is now focusing on rebuilding his ties with European Nations and says that teh UN should take lead in Iraq's rebuilding. A brilliant diplomatic move, however, I have my doubts whether this move is going to win him allies and or restore people's faith on the UN. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 05:44 AM
Rajunpl:Your point of view is also wrong.Because if you see the interest before the indian independence,Indians were already the part of the british imperial state.After the independence in the INdia and the MAOIST communism prevailed in china .The oppertunist king tribhuvan got his throne back.There was a interest of the free world everywhere.Both of the neighbouring giants got their own types of democracy. Hmm, interesting!!!! |
| dangggg | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 06:34 AM
Dear Sajhaites, I was just kidding abouyt saddam's death. hyaaa kasto! sarcasm pani nabujheko. Saddam sachikai mareko bhaye everywhere halla bhaihalthiyo ni. Ani bush le" saddam we will hunt you down in hell or wherever you are" bhantyo hola. It was just my imagination, I didn't get that from any source tara what if it was true???? They are trying to verify if the chasme saddam is the real saddam what if he isn't? what if saddam died long time ago? then what will be the meaning of this war? what will bush do? ani yo operation ko naam OPERATION HUNTING SADDAM. IN HEAVEN OR HELL! hunthiyo hola. HASTA LAI YETINAI. dangggg |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 06:42 AM
VIVE LA TONY BLAIR. isolated freak :" Blair is now focusing on rebuilding his ties with European Nations and says that teh UN should take lead in Iraq's rebuilding. A brilliant diplomatic move, however, I have my doubts whether this move is going to win him allies and or restore people's faith on the UN." The might and the will of tony blair are immense.He knows what he is doing.He has been betrayed by his own party, see that the claire short maniac and the oppertunist ROBIN COOK resign.The best part is it is good that the robin cook has resigned if he was there , there would be more difficult for the tony blair and his campaign.Now there is a clear vision.The warning letter by the musllim community of britain to the tony blair shows that the MUSLIM IN THE BRITAIN ARE TOTAL FUNDAMENTALIST. poLL report. 62% of the french peoplr are backing the worm like jacque chirac.85% in british are backing the tony blair and the more than 80% in the US are behind their president bush. Their national interest are amazing.See how people love their countries.The minor ANTI-WAR protest led in such countries are led by the INTERNATIONAL MUSLIM COMMUNITY.They are basically the indegenious people from the TURKEY,PAKISTAN,JORDAN,SYRIS,BANGLADESH,IRAN AND all such fundamentalist muslim country. The surprising fact in HERE IN THE SAJHA and other countries is that why are they anti-war suppertor while the people of IRAQ,US,UK are the pro-war supporter.You are not fighting from the sajha while those are fighting in the iraq.There in iraq is not only the muslim community alone.There are more than 5 million christian. As the ISOLATED FREAK says the clash of the civilisation.Theoritically it might happen if that goes onto the fundamentalist world.But practically if you are freed once in the democratic world you would always deny it.If you go for the casualties in the military as well as in the civillians.That has always been haaped and will happen.The question again is more or the less.The mechanical failure of the copter.That is natural and no one can resist it. LET US GIVE THOUGHT AND PRAYER TO THE COALITION FORCE (which include the brother and friends from the western nepal) TO LIBERISE THE IRAQ BUT NOT TO CONQUER JAY SHAMBHOOOOO |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 06:50 AM
surya: I have been listening to the radio and following the news from Iraq. I am saddened to hear that Iraqi armies have torced over 30 oil wells. But very happy to hear that the US Military despite its might and capacity is treading gently so far and mostly engaging in very precise bombing instead of what everyone thought the "shock and awe" campaign promised. There have thankfully been very few civilians casulaties so far. It was pathetic to hear the Iraqi spokes person though... he sounded idiotic especially when he accused Bush and his gang of being the villians like Al Capone! Al Capone? This is not the new news.This was the plan even before the war.Saddam will not neglect the strategy he used in the GULF WAR I. his plans : 1.To blow up the oil wells .He doesn't care about the environmental impact. 2.To use chemicl/biological weapon of mass distruction.Even if his own people dies he has no mercy on them. 3. To poison the water .So that the coalition force as well as his own people dies. |
| czar | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 06:55 AM
Years of neglect and lack of spare parts means huge amounts of work, large investments and many years are needed to make Iraqi oil wells operable and profitable again. It will take anywhere from 2 to 5 years and cost upwards of $ 50 billion. Last estimates submitted to Congress for this war was about $90 billion. The numbers being kicked around is $ 150 billion, over 15 years, as the estimated tab for getting Iraq back on its feet. Now what does $ 10 billion mean ? If one were to spend a dollar every second, it would take 317 years to spend it. Any biz school type will blanche at the numbers. Whats the ROI? Bush ole boy is all set to give yet more tax breaks to his wealthy chums, while Ram Bahadur tax payer is stuck with the bill. Thats you and I. I tell ya, thats one heck of an expensive funeral for Saddam & Co. Couldnt they have gotten some cheap Chinese or Korean contractors to do it for less ? Anyone find they suddenly got a parched throat yet? |
| freak of nature | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 07:09 AM
RAJUNPL Le worm Chirac!! I agree with this. And I would like to assure to czar that the cost of the liberation is not equal to the cost of the money. |
| czar | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 07:16 AM
Better yet, should have let loose in Iraq all the presently umemployed Nepali politicos. By the time that lot got going, Saddam would have pleaded for mercy and begged to be ejected into space. Preferrably in the direction of the sun. |
| Raksiya | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 07:24 AM
Czar, You said, "Saddam will not neglect the strategy he used in the GULF WAR I." his plans : 1.To blow up the oil wells .He doesn't care about the environmental impact. -- I agree with that. he did that in gulf war I. 2.To use chemicl/biological weapon of mass distruction.Even if his own people dies he has no mercy on them. -- Did Iraq ever use WMDs against the U.S. or U.S. allies? No. Iraq used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in the 1980s. They also used them against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war. But during the Gulf War I, Iraq never used chemical or biological weapons. They knew that any use against American troops, Saudis or Israelis would be met with devastating consequences. And, now, If Saddam has the strategy to use them, what deters him? 3. To poison the water .So that the coalition force as well as his own people dies. --yes, there is a chance that malicious Saddam could poison water supplies to kill his own people before he is driven from power. Nonetheless, British and US troops have carried 3.5 million emergency food packs to avert a potential humanitarian disaster. |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 07:24 AM
Surya, on a heating debates such as this where the world peace is at stake, obstacles of the viewpoints are bound to occur. I, however, in my oppose to war, wasn't trying to debate on anyone here, including you, but rather was sharing some of my thoughts. Going back to this issue, in my views, the foundation for personal freedom in a global society is the international law. In my opinion, neglecting precisely this law can attain no sustainable peace and freedom for the global population. If there was imminent threat from any country to another country, or if there were acute atrocities going on, no member of the international community would refuse their support for military intervention. Sadly, the US have successfully established/maintained their position as the only country in the world that can attack other countries at will without having to fear international sanctions. Resolution 1441 talks about Iraqi disarmament and not removing Saddam Hussein. America has breached International Law and the UN Charter by invading a Sovereign nation just because it doesn't like its leader. The "Coalition of the Willing" should have allowed the UN to organise a referendum to enable the Iraqis say whether they want Saddam or not. Does Israel not have Nuclear Weapons? Why has America not pursued Israeli disarmament? I am deeply disturbed by the fact that the war, just or unjust, is started by the leader who uses terms like "Axis of Evil" and "Coalition of the Willing". It is exactly this kind of sentiment that segregates humankind and started the last World War. These slogans perhaps provide great soundbites but they serve little purpose in making the world a better place. The most one-sided slaughter of humanity in the history of modern warfare, there has not been a single reference to Iraqi combat causalities, are they not worthy of our humanity or compassion? Or has the west become so arrogant and blind it does consider those outside the sphere of Western influence to be members of the human race? Thank you all.. Robert, from the dismayed woods...! |
| Raksiya | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 07:28 AM
Is Sajha screwed up or my eyes, as the war heaped on? I was writing in regard to Rajunpl, not Czar. My appology!! |
| surya | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 08:15 AM
RAJUNPL who said it ws new? I said it was news as per the radio. Anotehr thing I heard on TV lat night was Hans Blix saying most likely Saddam won't use checm or biological weapons even if he has any because then that would mean people would think the war was after all justified. YUP!! Funny though coming from Mr. Blix, no? Robert Frost, I am debating, but don't think it's about winning the debate. You said, "I am deeply disturbed by the fact that the war, just or unjust, is started by the leader who uses terms like "Axis of Evil" and "Coalition of the Willing". It is exactly this kind of sentiment that segregates humankind and started the last World War. These slogans perhaps provide great soundbites but they serve little purpose in making the world a better place." I think agree with you to the degree that this sort of sound bites and rhetoric in general can be pretty pat and cheesy, but other than that I think they serve the purspose. I like the directness. I don't think they DIVIDE... they simply point to an ALREADY divided world. Being called INFIDEL is pretty divisive too I would say. In times of crisis and when under duress, you have to be able to say who is friend and who is foe. Maybe the term Axis of Evil is pretty melodramatic, but hey Saddam and Bin Ladin ARE evil. As for the Coalition of the willing.. that too is fine with me... the willing who are taking the risk to join a very unpopular war...................... As for the war being expensive... yeap, it will be. But being isolationist is not really an option either. Maybe Bush will also be a one term president like his dad. Whatever it is, hopefully Iraq will pay for its own rebuilding. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 12:14 PM
Great discussions going on here! DANGGGG!!!!! HE hehe! you surely have a sense of humour!.... Quirky! (like mine! :P) |
| oys_chill | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 12:18 PM
Dangg, achel! kotha ma eklai eklai tanna suru garya ho ki kya ho??? where is my chiiisooooooooo beeeeeeeer!!!...........war is not for me, nor its debates :) ... I got a much dangerous war raging inside me! but neverthless excellent points from both sides......but don't agree with either, either ;) oys |
| SITARA | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 12:40 PM
OYS!.... Name dat war: Mature mind versus Young age! To put two feet in two boats... it is a matter of balancing the impossible lest you do the splaaaat! ;) Where art thou? |
| DWI | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 02:18 PM
Few points out of the current war: 1. Citizens from the "captured" part of Iraq were televised cheering for the US troops and condemning Saddam. The emotion might not be genuine and may not even mean much, but boy, the media sure has gotten something to feast on. 2. Dow Jones have soared 8% up, last time that happened was in 1982. It was very much expected; but since the war is still lingering on, the rally might head downwards by monday. Whatever it be, the overall stock senario is certainly good. Bush should have included the war in his economic stimulus package. Boy, senator Daschle sure might feel stupid now. But emerging as a leading critic of Bush's policy, he might have straigtened his candidacy for president. Tomorrow, Saturday, NY broadway and Time Square is going to be jammed with protestors. Don't plan anything. |
| surya | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 02:29 PM
Whatever it is, its pretty sad. |
| Kajal | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 04:10 PM
DWI ji, "The emotion might not be genuine and may not even mean much, but boy, the media sure has gotten something to feast on." Hmmmmm... I know what you mean, but I myself would really like to hear an interview with a few or most of the Iraqi people and find out what they really have to say after this war. Hopefully both sides will come out, whether they think they have been betrayed by Bush or they think finally they feel free to talk and voice their own feelings. Whatever the outcome I sure hope we will hear it from them. Ofcourse the media plays a big part but I am sure they will portray both the sweet and sour effects that they project I am hoping, since nothing gets by the media these days. The good, the bad and the ugly always all come out that is one thing I like about being here, you hear all sides to the story and the rest is up to each individual to form an opinion based on that and other sources of information! |
| DWI | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 08:08 PM
True Kajal. I bet that 100% vote Saddam got will do the about turn. Same old Afganistan story. But note the fact that media can (and oft are) very biased. Matter of fact one of the NY newspaper had categorized the channels favoring and against the war. I don't recall the exact categorization, but NBC and FOX were on one team and ABC on other, to the best of my recall. The government two networks, inside Iraq (including Al Jazeera), are displaying Bush's picture with Idiot heading at top and clips of people bringing out the rally for Saddam. Our channels aren't govt regulated but you have to identify bias when it is presented. So far, I think the media is doing excellent job. |
| Nepe | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 10:28 PM
Excellent discussion, friends. I thought about writing my own original views on this war, but found that they are already told by you guys. The only problem was they are scattered, some in the views of the opponents of the war and others in that of the supporter of the war. At this time, I am too lazy to retrieve and compile them, but if you are interested to know my stand, here it goes in a modest one liner. I think this war is a right war with wrong reasons. It seems to me that most of participants in this discussion have not cared to see that there are two distinct parts in this war, a part about the USA and a part about Iraqi people. We can deal with the matter related to the US later, but we can leave the suffering of the Iraqi people to deal with later. Iraqi people have suffered from Saddam as well as the world community already for too long. Its time to put an end to it. If it takes to use less wrong to do away with an absolutely wrong, so be it. The rest will be up to you to take care of. If you can oppose the US when it is going to remove a mini Hitler from the earth, there is no reason for me not to believe that you can oppose the US when it does the things you fear it might do. It will never be too late. But neglecting Iraqi people now will be too late, because it already has. Accepting the war with a heavy heart and surprising some of my old friends if you will, Nepe |
| Prem Charo | Posted
on 21-Mar-03 10:55 PM
Too much copy and paste in this thread. Mostly, you guys talking about what we already know from other resources. Why are you wasting your time on this pointless argues. Only thing I want to say: the unprvoked and illegel invasion of Iraq by the United States is an event that will live in infamy. The political criminals in Washington who have launched this war, and the wretched scoundrels in the mass media who are reveling in the bloodbath, have covered this country in shame. Hundreds of millions of people in every part of the world are repulsed by the spectacle of a brutal and unrestrained military power pulverizing a small and defenseless country. The invasion of Iraq is an imperialist war in the classic sense of the term: a vile act of aggression that has been undertaken on behalf of the interests of the most reactionary and predatory sections of the financial and corporate oligarchy in the United States. It's overt and immediate purpose is the establishment of control over Iraqs vast oil resources and reduction of that long-oppressed country to an American colonial protectrate.> Tara, good analysis of war against IIIIIIraq. Our Bush is commemorating his victory. Danggggggggg, good sense of humor:-) hehehehehehe!!! |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 22-Mar-03 01:59 AM
RAKSIYA :.To use chemicl/biological weapon of mass distruction.Even if his own people dies he has no mercy on them. -- Did Iraq ever use WMDs against the U.S. or U.S. allies? No. Iraq used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in the 1980s. They also used them against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war. But during the Gulf War I, Iraq never used chemical or biological weapons. They knew that any use against American troops, Saudis or Israelis would be met with devastating consequences. And, now, If Saddam has the strategy to use them, what deters him? Good analyse there.But, saddam is saddam and another thing is there are already 12 years past since the GWI.In This war particularly or the period of this time technology went through the roof.satellite bombing by the harrier.Some strategy saddam may change since the GWI. And, now, If Saddam has the strategy to use them, what deters him? What deters him..? This is a complicated question.Determination is something that happens by the particular situation of any given events.You can see the broad daylight heavy bombing.The cast of GWII is in some extent differ from GWI.The retreat of the republican guard you can see there,that they are surrendering and there are furthermore process for that.You can also see the unexpected casualties in the civilians.The war with the iranian and the kurdish were just the minor for the saddam and so do with the kuwait.That means, all of them were the muslims and because of the all were muslim he had to fool the world by showing that he is not that bad. But, he is too bad now.You can see the joy over the civillians of his own nation.They are expressing something which were hiding for ever.They want to test the taste of the democracy.They want to overthrow the autocrat. What deters him..? In the end of the day you have to know that he is not actually a president but the tyrant.Like the ranas were once use to be in nepal.In the fundamentalist world anything may be possible but not sure.Even when people like you and me see in the television we got some degree of the aggression with the vile nature over there.What do you think when (if) the tyrant seeing the whole scenario through his window.Wouldn't he be ready to to anything?He may change his point of view as he did plan. For instance,see his special republican guard,thousand of islamic fundamentalist militants who are ready to do anything in the name of islam.Giving up their life is nothing for them.example is the september 11. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 22-Mar-03 02:05 AM
Using the weapons (bio/chem/nuclear or anything) in the war is unpredictable. |
| Rosam | Posted
on 22-Mar-03 11:47 AM
this was mistakenly posted on another thread so I have copy and pasted it here. I am truly sorry to see that some people are trying to sell the old theory of war on terrorism and link to Iraq ,first proposed by oil dealer "dick"e and endorsed by "bush"e.Is not it sad to say that those people who should be condemning violence whose country is literally torn apart by fights are supporting this human genocide.Do they know that whether in serbia or in afganisthan or in sierra loine or now in Iraq true nepali are on the very frontline ,representing either britain or UN? I pray to god that he should give these people the ability to think and analyse.Please respond without being personal. |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 22-Mar-03 12:54 PM
Rosam, I agree with you that voilence should be condemned to the very limit. It is unfortunate that the U.S. and the U.K. governments are blinded by greed and pride. By their singular act of attacking Iraq against the desire of their citizens, the U.N. and the majority of the people of the world, they are actually cutting a very deep wound in the fabric of planet earth which will not heal until there comes a new world order. They should always remember that pride manifests before a fall. Breaking international law to enforce international law is the devil's idea. For the next 25 years, Arab hatred of the West will be fuelled by the photographs of Baghdad in flames. I fear the future created here through this incredibly blunt military action. Demonstrations and protests have not stopped the invasion of Iraq. No amount of popular opposition will make Bush and Blair blink. They know very well that no amount of precision bombing will prevent civilian casualties in this unjustified war. The blood of the innocents of Iraq will taint the conscience of Bush and Blair for the rest of their days! I am in awe and despair at the sheer savagery of modern war, and the sanitised comments of the spokesmen for the belligerents. I am and remain opposed to this war. This is humanity at its worst. People are proud of killing other people. We all know how bad Saddam is but are we any better when we kill Iraqis? Unless we do not count them as human beings, then we should be ashamed of what we are doing to them. I have watched some people going on TV and cheering for this war. It is too bad that we use the 9/11 disaster to justify to our conscious that we can kill others. I guess the rule of the jungle still applies in this world. Frost, at the woods...! |
| oys_chill | Posted
on 22-Mar-03 04:01 PM
i honestly don't give F*** about war for i have a bigger war raging inside me... but if BUSH can go and invade a country on his belief that SADDAM IS WICKED AND HE SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH, and if we support that cause.....next time the middle easterners come and hit BACK AT US........WE SHOULN"D COMPLAIN..for I AM SURE MANY INCLUDING ME TAKE BUSH THE SAME WAY :) .............. jus my personal opinion :)........ EAT THE RICH, KILL THE POOR, ScREW EVERY OTHER SON OF A ...(u know whom) oys |
| Satya | Posted
on 22-Mar-03 10:08 PM
I agree with all Shajhabasis who oppose this war against Iraq. I suggest all of you to read and request, specially comrades in arms supporting the war, to comment on the article This war is brought to you by ... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html I fully agree with previous posters who oppose this war simply because: 1. Bush and Blair have tried to justify the war on the basis of false evidences and false assumptions. a. They tried to get favorable world opinion for the crusade against Iraq by telling the whole world that Iraq is only six months away from joining the nuclear bomb club. UN inspectors have already refuted this claim. As it is clear now Bush_Blair gangs claim was based in fake documents. b. The gang claimed that aluminum tubes imported by Iraq were for nuclear ambition. UN inspection team has said this is not true. c. Some of their cases for war was based on student thesis, copied word by word including grammatical mistakes. It was a desperate move to convince the world for the crusade. 2. Bush and his war monger company tried very hard to link Iraq with Al_Qaeda to find pretext for the war. Of course, they failed. 3. The gangs claim on Iraqs WMD is disputable. While it is certain that Iraq has no nuclear program any some more some of the biological and chemical weapons are still unaccounted. While the 12 years old weapons might have no more weapon value because of limited self life of such weapons the warmonger gang was making it life and death issue. Again, UN inspection team was working this issue. 4. Real intention of the gang of warmongers is Regime Change not liberation of Iraqi people, nor WMD, nor crusade against terrorism. 5. The gang tried very hard to get approval from UN Security Council for the invasion to legitimize the aggression. When it failed Bush_Blair claimed that resolution 1441 has already approved the use force against Iraq. Is UN relevant only if it submits to Bushs aggression agenda against the will of the majority? 6. The gangs moral ground against WMD is only hypocrisy. They have WMD and they helped Iraq to develop the weapons by selling materials and technology. 7. Iraqi human right records are not good but neither are in other countries in the region. Iraq is the only Muslim country where women have almost equal rights as men. Therefore, poor human right can not justify killing innocent Iraqis by the Bush_Blair gang. 8. After defeat in Gulf War I Iraqs military is weakened by UN sanctions. There is no imminent threat from Iraq though Saddam Hussein might have his ambition for dominating some part in the region. 9. UN inspection was making convincing progress. Then why this invasion now? Few more weeks for inspection could have saved many lives. This war is immoral and illegal. This war is blatant violation of democracy in UN and right of Iraqi people. This war is show of force for oil and domination of the region and the world. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 23-Mar-03 09:40 AM
satya: that was quite long but vewry grippin' article. i am just waiting for the book to come out. thanks for the link |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 23-Mar-03 10:27 AM
Just a quick note on the article: all IR majors and all interested in IR should read it. altough there are some lines that are hard to verify or belive in, it nonetheless has a good explanation of terms like realpolitik, geopolitik, realism, theatrical militarism, hegemony and most importantly PNCI and its role in formulatiog the US fooreign policy. |
| DWI | Posted
on 23-Mar-03 03:23 PM
Five captured US soldiers are paraded on Iraqi television as coalition forces meet determined resistance in the push to Baghdad. President Bush labels these Iraqis as war criminals as this would be a violation of Geneva convention. But how can we start analyzing the codes and motions of convention/pacts when the foundation started with a major violation of the biggest coalition of nations? What Iraq is doing is wrong, but do we still have a room for morality? |
| Poonte | Posted
on 23-Mar-03 08:24 PM
Indeed, DWI! What was done to the American POWs did violate the Geneva Convention on POWs, however, complaints coming from the very people who started the war illegally to start with sounds a bit too cynical, doesn't it? BTW, FYI...the scenes of mass Iraqi POWs in the backgrounds aside, the airing of individual Iraqi soldiers surrendering to the US forces also violates precisely the very article of Geneva Convention on POWs that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have raised with regards to the American POWs. Who was there to cry foul then? |
| DWI | Posted
on 23-Mar-03 08:37 PM
Good point there. May be the cry is to divert the blames coming from the Parents of the deceased and POWs, and many US citizens, towards the always-culprit, Iraq. As much as I want to support the troops (as if it matters), I just can't find justifications for so many things. The only good news for the US troops may be the finding of a concealed chemical factory in Baghdad. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 23-Mar-03 08:41 PM
will the republican guard stand against the colaition forces in baghdad? |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 24-Mar-03 02:08 AM
I am not sure about the republican guard but Special republican guard will surely do till their certein reach.Do not forget that they have the fresh-bought ammunition from the france a year and ahalf ago. The three line of defence strategy by the saddam (a) militants (b) republican guard (c) special republican guard in baghdad.The republican guard only have the 30 years old russian artillery.They can defeat a country like iran and the kuwait from that but never stand in front of the coalition force,whose artillery are much sofisticated.The special republican guard's fighter plane has the same story.But the F-18,tornado,F-14,harrier,B-52 are awful bomber.Poor saddam's artillery has long way to go if they have to coop these.The GULF WAR II has never-had-in-a-history tactics.The britsh SAS and the US DELTA FORCE( US even deny it's existance) are awful.They are highly trained commando in the earth. As far as PoW's case the video shown by Al-jazeera was an awful, it was out of geneva convention.Look at the PoW's in the Coalition force hand.Though the iraqi-authority claims that they are treating humanly.You can guess something from the PoW's of the GW-I. EVEN NOW IF YOU SAY THAT THE WAR IS ILLEGAL..!!Do not forget that thousand of iraqi children died from food problem in the streets,Do not forget the image of the iraqi people that has been destroyed by the saddam's chemical/biological tests.Do not forget the ileegal invasion of iran in the 80's and the kuwaiti's in the late 80's.Do not forget the instabilities cause by the tyrants in the ARAB STATES. The war was inevitable.The loss and suffer of the casualties are BAD.But,terrorism is worse.That you never know who would be their next target ! It can be nepal,uk,france,german or any other countries of the world.Do not forget that there is difference between the government body/international coalition govt. body and the terror body. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 24-Mar-03 09:42 AM
rajunpl, neither the US nor Iraq are follwing the Geneva Convention or any other convention. Remember CNN and BBC showed the pics of some Iraqi soldiers surrendering at the very beginning of the war. Don't you think that the depiction of Iraqi sokldiers with their hands ties to their back.. being serached.. being commanded and shown to the whole world IS a direct violation of Geneva Convention (Articles 1, 3C, 13, 14 and 17). for more on the convention and articles, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm |
| Robert Frost | Posted
on 24-Mar-03 10:21 AM
It is obscene for the prisoners to be paraded in front of the cameras but let us not forget that we have already seen Iraqi prisoners on screens and in newspapers. The questioning of the US prisoners undoubtedly takes the indecency of the show a step further but as far as human rights and the treatment of POWs goes the US have no grounds to complain for as long as the human right's disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay is allowed to continue. The prisoners that are there were all captured in war but the US refuses to acknowledge them as such. It must be expected that other will do the same to their servicemen and women captured in what is not universally recognised as a justifiable action. |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 24-Mar-03 01:12 PM
pretty interesting discussion about war happening in sebs forum too. http://www.sebsonline.org/forum/forum_view.aspx?F=1&T=32835 http://www.sebsonline.org/forum/forum_view.aspx?F=1&T=32894 |
| babaal | Posted
on 24-Mar-03 11:16 PM
|
| rajunpl | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 02:09 AM
ISOLATED FREAK JYU. I am pro-war. But I am still centrist.I am war suppertor in my own point of view.I do support the truth.It can be iraqi or the allies.There is a saying in a america, " WHEN GRANNY FART,YOU GO AND KICK THE DOG." Obviously, This war is much more sopphisticated then the GW-I.The loss and suufer of the casualties are in lesser numbers.The bombardment are being done only after the several warnings.The search as you said,There is no harm in the normal search as it can be taken under the common sense.The cases of the suicide bomber and many that kind of things growing the fear.But,there is no direct violence to the iraqi PoW's.You can see the faces of the US PoW's and there is a clear vile act.The psychological war is no more to be believed as western media said. One thing I would like to say is that, UN IS SPINELESS.Why did they make the resolution when they cannot act according to it..?This is the pure chaos in the UN. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 02:11 AM
Thanks for your link.IF jyu. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:03 AM
yoiu are most welcome, rajunpl jyu |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:06 AM
anyway, here's one thing that i have been heraing in kathmandu bars: Iraq has chemical weapons and all those WMDs that US claims Iraq has.. becaue the US itself sold those to Iraq in the 80s. Iraq hasn't used those yet, and the Americans are trying to get those weapons back. I would have dismised it but.. there was a clippin on DW (german TV) showing Rusmfield and Hussein in a friendly conversation in the 80s.. in Baghdad!!!! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:07 AM
clipping=news clip |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:23 AM
IF jyu DEUTSHE has nothing more interest than the casualties loss in the war with the americans. FRANCAIS and the british has littlebit different story.There is no surprise for the americans stii celebrating the independece day that they were freed from british. That's the reason officers-in-command of the US forces saying "THAT YOU ARE STLL THE BEST,WITHOUT YOU MISSION COULD BE IMPOSSIBLE" BERLIN and the PARIS street are the double dealer street.Atleast kathmandu is better for showing it's sanity.IRAQ has the weapons using RUSSIAN ,US,UK,FRENCH MADE.Only us weapon are not exclusive.This is fact. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:23 AM
I Meant to Post it Here: A common argument used by most governments and war-mongers to justify a war/s is that the action somehow serves a higher and or "just" purposes of "National Interest", "Moral Justice" and "Self Defence". "National Interest" is usually fueled by political and/ or economic interests. Usually, going to war or not going to war can be both exploited by the government depending upon the benefits derived from either action. If governments can exploit the benefits from another Foreign government remaining in power, it will NOT go to war. Israel is a good example of such a beneficial situation. Ironically, Iraq held similar position when US was at loggerheads with Iran. Supporting Iraq was lucrative for US at the time. However, when Iraq stopped toeing the line... US found it necessary to engage in a war with them. The rationalization wrapped hand- in- glove "National Interest" with "Freeing People from Tyranny". The Insubordinate tyrant becomes as dangerous as a loose cannon that might strike at any time. The morality of national interest however does not camouflage the narrow premise of economic and/ or political selfinterest because such reasons do not justify death and destruction brought on by wars. Delivering "Moral Justice" to the war is another "altruistic" vision used to seduce popular views on war. No war is ever fought if the returns are known to be less than palatable...not even for "Moral Justice". "Moral Justice" for the world is a luxury that a country cannot afford. However, the ephemereal reason of "defending the innocent" CAN BE/IS applied as a salve for covering aggression. Another word used is "Reluctant supporter" of the a "Just War". However, many countries do not find such a notion palatable because the "righteous pursuit of justice".... a figment of a delusional imagination is NOT worth risking the life of so many. However, sending someone's sons and daughters to war for a higher reason can/IS be a less-guiltridden reason for aggression. Another common reason given is " Self Defence"; going to war for a premptive strike, lest they attack us. Such a reasoning has been given a validity by comparing individual self-defence with national self defence. BUT the validity is refutable because one cannot anthropomorphize an individual with a nation. "Self Defence" is a concept that is applicable in both instances for the attacker as well as the pre-emptive attacker. Can the horrors of 9/11 be Justified as a preemptive strike by the Terrorist Muslim Community???? So, yes... any reason for WAR even a Reluctant war is NOT justifiable! The devastation is too great to bear for the human psyche. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:24 AM
dealing middle east + dealing west = double dealer |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 10:39 AM
hmmm!! Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs (Chomsky, pp. 12-17) heram na ejk choti milcha bahne.. it has some interesting points on Iraq and the US. |
| Poonte | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 04:20 PM
In the other thread titled, "dai alikata dollar dinu na," Sparsha has presented a brilliant satire piece. Towards the end, he asked, "So who's next to be liberated and stablized?" My fingers itching, I can't help but respond. I have chosen to respond here in this thread because I think it's more appropriate--Sparsha jee ko ramailo satire lai serious response le tesko ramailo pan ma prahar nagaroun ki bhanera... So, who could be the next target of the 21st century American "crusade"? I am not yet an expert on global affairs, neither have I had the disprivilege of working for the world's most notorious terrorist organization, CIA, that I claim to have the answer. However, as a student of a subject related to international affairs, I think I can make a well calculated guess. The answer to the afore-mentioned question, I think, is none other than Iraq's next door neighbour who had been its most formidable foe until the Americans came into the picture--IRAN! ANOTHER ASPECT OF GLOBAL/REGIONAL IMPACT OF THE WAR ON IRAQ: IRAN. The evidence of love lost between the US and Iran in recent history needs no elaborate reiteration. Ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, and the subsequent seize of the American embassy there by Iranian students, it has been a well known secret that the CIA has been extremely active in closely monitoring the Iranian government and trying to seize every opportunity to topple it. Iran was also listed as one of the three "axis of evils" (Iraq and North Korea being the other two) by president Bush as recently as November of last year. Iranians have also made it known that the deep-seated hatred is mutual. Bottomline: I would be extremely surprised if the US did not establish few American bases in Iraq after it is "liberated" and a puppet government is imposed on it, and sought ways to make excuses to attack Iran then. As a matter of fact, I suspect this might very well have been part of the long term goal of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" all along to begin with. A hardcore realist may argue that it is perfectly natural for the US to list Iran as a long term target because it is indeed in the interest of the US to neutralize its potential adversary militarily. What s/he may not realize is that hardcore realpolitik based on militarism never did, and never will, have answers to those who seek to promote their self interests. Instead, I have a reasoned suspicion that it will only be in the long term disinterest of the US to be stubbornly convicted that they can solve every problem at hand militarily. I am sure the Iranians have already realized what I, as a mere student of IR, feel like I can see, and would from now on seek to amass weaponry and make war plans. This obvious proliferation of weapons and preparations for war generated by further distrust of the US by the Iranians can NEVER be helpful in promoting better understanding between the two long time foes. Therefore, I believe, instead of making friends, Bush's policies are making more enemies and further hardening the positions of those who are already their enemies. How thoughtful can that be? _____________________________ To begin with, CIA committed a serious blunder in 1953 and opened the pandoras box vis-a-vis Iran when they helped Reja Pallavi Shah and his cronies put the extremely popular PM of Iran then, Mohammad Mosadeh, into house arrest and installing the kingship in Iran. The history was not forgotten, and it became easier for the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran to gain more support from the mass public in the 1970's, which not only heralded the Islamic Revolution and the overthrow of Shah in 1979, but also completely buried whatever trust and friendship that the US may have had with the Iranian people. If this doesn't serve as an example that unnecessary meddling in the affairs of another state will sooner or later bring havoc to the "superpower," I wonder what will. _____________________________ The intense and controversial (remember the IRAN-CONTRA scandal?) secured the release of US hostages from Iran, and seemlingly cooled off the hostility for the time being. However, what the US has been engaging in ever since with reagrds to Iran is a conflict management, not conflict resolution, i.e., they have managed to avoid a crisis, but have failed miserably in even trying to resolve the conflict by addressing the root causes of the hatred; and I believe it is unwise to make matters worse by posing a conflictual attitude when the otherwise is needed. _____________________________ Hardcore realpolitik based on militarism may sometimes manage a conflict, but if one wishes to resolve the differences and ensure peace for oneself and others deep into the future, then one needs to rely on tactics that go beyond the threat of violence, and the possible subsequent use of it. One needs to build trust and wipe out misunderstandings, the things that military might will never be able to deliver. This, my friends, is being realistic! |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 25-Mar-03 07:40 PM
Poonte, Nice and informed observations. You are right: The trend seems to be toppling the regime (s) that the US doesn't like for obvious and or unobvious reasons. And given, what's happening in Iraq, you are not way off in yoiur analysis. I am also hearing the same arguments that once the mission in Iraq is over, its Syria, Libya and Iran who will be liberated from their "links with Al-Qaida, Terrorists and Evil" rulers. BUt, as far as my thinking goes, even though Iraq will be a success Operation, it will prove very costly for the Americans and the British for quite a long time. It may seem like a success for the US and the coalition of the willing in the short run, but it will prove beneficial for the Arab nations in the long run. I think, the Iraqi misadventure will put an end to the American "explorer" spirit for years to come. The reason for this: Alliances. We will be seeing the emergence of alliances as collective economic and defense measures, and these alliances will challenge and counter the US hegemony. Another argument which is quite reasonable is this: The resistance of the Iraqi people and the Army, will help in spreading the feeling of " Militant Aram Nationalism". Already people in Egypt, Jordan and Syria have been swayed by this new movement, and you can't contain it. Its too late now. Why do you think the Jordanians denied airspace and the groundspace to the "coalition" forces? Given these two factors, alliances and nationalism, I don't think the US will embark in yet another adventure. Another mistake on Bush's part: He is alienating his old allies and instead of making new allies and be in good tems with the old ones, he is just accusing everyone of being Mastermidns of the 9/11 attaks and sellers of Arms to Iraq. If I understood the theories of International System, though I don't claim to have understood those given my lack of experience and training, I will say, the Cold War is inevitable at this point. My understanding of the theories is: There are always two or more super-powers in the International Systems that will check-and-balance one another. IF we look at the early colonial period, we see the Dutch, the Portugese, the French, the British powers who were countering each other in the far corners of Asia to Africa to Latin America, thus ensuing a system of Check and Balance. After the Second World War, we saw the Russians and the Americans checking up one another which was one of the factors that was responsible for avoiding major international conflicts. A good example of this: The Egypt-Israel conflict. Now, we are living in an unipolar world--there's no opposition whatsoever to the US supremacy in world's defense and economic afairs. This is because the US's strategy of "internalizing the world economy" really worked. Things been changing in the last 10 years, and the circulation of Euro in 11 countries of the Euroepan Sub-Continet has, if nothing else, has started to contain the US's economic dominance. And all this was happening against the theories that there can't be any Single superpower. Now, the time has itself created a situatation that calls for the resistance and although we might not see the re-integration of the Soviet Empire, we will see strong voices opposing the US actions, and a coalition, much like WARSAW re-emerging from the ashes. Now, going back to Iran, sory I just went on and on discussing irrelevant kura-haroo: Iran's liberty will be in the Israel's interests, and the Arabs know this. Iraq was due to inflamed propoganda, kind of ostracized from the Arab league, Iran is not. Plus, if there's an attack on Iran immediately following Iraq, many Arab nations will directly oppose the US action because, they very well know that if they don't speak up or resist the next round of agression, its their turn. Let's not forget one important thing: Iran is capable of making nuclear bomb. It hasn't done it yet but I think after 2-3 years, Iran will succesfully test a bomb with a rhetoric that the Iranian nuclear bomb is to create a balance and safety in the Arab world. And no one will oppose it, except the US. A nuclear armed nation in that part of the world, and you know the stakes of your misadventures are now high. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 26-Mar-03 09:32 AM
On Arab Nationalism/Movement: There is great resentment that an Arab country with an Arab population is being invaded by a foreign power. It is also noticeable that the pockets of Iraqi resistance are generating a lot of Arab pride. People feel that this is what Arabs should be doing. Only 3% of the population had what could be defined as a favourable view of the US, whereas last year it was 12%. (in Saudi Arabia) From today's The Guardian. |
| SITARA | Posted
on 26-Mar-03 09:43 AM
The reconstruction business Cheney's cronies? Mar 20th 2003 | NEW YORK From The Economist print edition Rumours are rife about who will make money out of rebuilding Iraq IT WAS an inevitable conspiracy theory du jour: if the war goes well, the real winner will be Vice-President Dick Cheney's former firm, Halliburton, and other Bush administration cronies. Newspapers have reported that Halliburton has secretly won gigantic contracts for work in a post-war Iraq and that were America to run Iraq, more deals would follow. The Bush administration has been keeping mum about such matters. Discussing victory plans before the shooting had even begun would be widely viewed as unforgivable hubris. That said, it would also be irresponsible for the administration to ignore the reconstruction needs of a country that it intended to deconstruct. What kind of victory? Mar 20th 2003 The war's fiscal effects Mar 20th 2003 Iraq, United States Debt and development War in Iraq Halliburton If, as rumours suggest, bids have been solicited for reconstruction work only from American companies, that would not be illegal or even unusual, especially on defence-related contractsthough it would not be good politics. Excluding the French may be understandable in the present circumstancesbut surely not the British firms whose complaints have been widely reported in the press. Actually, the suspicion that American firms have stitched up the lucrative contracts to come in Iraq is probably ill-founded. The administration says that contractors from other countries, including Iraq, will be included as consortium members (and so will profit) when reconstruction starts. The contracts discussed so farfor about $900m of workare peanuts compared with the billions of dollars that will eventually be up for grabs. Given the particular sensitivity of Halliburton, what can the Bush administration do to allay suspicions of cronyism? The White House has already been burnt once when, last year, it appeared to defend questionable accounting practices at Halliburton during Mr Cheney's tenure which are now under formal investigation. Alas for the administration's reputation, there may be no better qualified firm for many of the jobs that will need to be done. Halliburton has one main challenger for the title of the world's leading oil-services firm: Schlumberger, which is, ahem, French in origin. But when it comes to military outsourcing, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root division has a more impressive record than any of its rivals. During the second world war, Brown & Root built the Corpus Christi naval air station in Texas. More recently, it has built detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to hold suspected terrorists, and has men on the ground in Afghanistan and even Kuwait. If that too hints at cronyism, remember that the firm has flourished under Democrat presidents such as Bill Clinton. It owns and runs some British defence facilities, including the Devonport naval shipyard, provides logistical support and maintains submarines for the Royal Navy. In short, it is hard to argue that Halliburton is an otherwise unqualified firm that has won business only because of its political connections. Back in 1999, when he still ran Halliburton, Mr Cheney boasted in an interview with The Economist that the first person to greet our soldiers as they arrive... and the last one to wave good-bye is one of our employees. He was talking about the extensive role, including managing the airfields where soldiers arrived, that Brown & Root played in the Balkans. It will be no surprise if it plays the same role in Iraq. That would be good news for Halliburton's current management and maybe even for Iraq, but a political headache for its former boss. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 27-Mar-03 02:10 AM
Was a beautiful observation by the POONTE as well as IF.I just wonder sometime with the papers like THE SUN,THE INDEPENDENT (pro-war paper),THE MIRROR (ANTI-WAR PAPER) ,Guardians and the times are pro-war but they are trying to attract the public by the centrist types of views in the wars. Well I am not the IR student neither the politics.I am just spilling only what I think.I am bit surprised with the IF saying that the iran is capable of making nuclear,may be true by the sense that the unpredictable and fast moving technology. What about the ARAB STATES OF ISRAEL...? I believe it could be one of the superpower after the US sooner or the later.By the experience of the long term war and the saturated capital by the jews.See the JEWS banks,chain superstores,industries in the west. POONTE JYU In the normal sense the war of IRAN-IRAQ in the 80's and the US-iraq now has the different agenda.Some says it is propoganda but it isn't .If US had to win the war they could have it done with the blunder-attack.Their sophisticated tactics of the war is amazing.They are looking for the peace way out if possible.The minor loss of casualties in the war is not a big deal though it's highly important for that given family. Problem of americans with the foreign policies is not something new.It has been existed since very long.Even in the time of nixon. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 27-Mar-03 09:39 AM
Problem of americans with the foreign policies is not something new.It has been existed since very long.Even in the time of nixon. Now, this is a very interesting observation. Will be posting an essay on the AF soon. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 28-Mar-03 01:40 AM
Looking forward :) |
| freak of nature | Posted
on 05-Apr-03 06:18 AM
saddam maryo ki jimdai caha |
| khimu | Posted
on 05-Apr-03 06:42 AM
jimdai chha hejo u sanga dinner jinar gareko masu pani khado rahechha moro sadam bajya! |