Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure

So after breaking humty Dumpty, you want the Iraqis to put him together again ....

Brilliant Gill Saheb.

Re: # 1

What other choice do the iraqis have?... suck it in and get cracking on reconciliation... sooner the better... americans sure made a mistake, but iraqis do not have to reinforce that, by killing each other like crazy fools...

Sorry ... the foregoing response was after reading just the teaser.

You`re right. It won`t work. These troops are not actually a `surge`, but partial replenishment for the 30,000 or so dead and wounded (remember the initial deployment to Iraq was 162,000 out of which about 132,000 still remain). The difference is that all of these will be deployed in Baghdad and Al-Anbar in an attempt to clear and hold districts, while the earlier strategy was to clear and rush back to green zones. If they hold districts, they will become perfect targets for shooting practice. I just don`t know what these americans are doing. They must be completely insane.

I think soon they will opt for plan `B`, which is to fortify themselves in the permanent bases they have built for 70,000 troops or so, and keep the oil flowing. That`s all.

Mohar,

This is relevant to your question which I had posted on UP today:

Saddam was the boy with his finger in the dyke. It was never simple to pull him away, and he knew that. Lots of other people knew that too, but the US administration neither knew, nor bothered to find out.

Iraq is no ordinary country. I know you`re not too keen on Islamic history or the catalysmic events that characterise it, but that was the capital of the first caliphate, and that`s where the iconic figures like Ali and Hussain are entombed. It has always been a tug of war since the time Ayesha battled Ali over Kufa right there, and where the Khwarij encamped in rebellion. This is also the land where the Sassanids were defeated.

All these adverseries are still there, and that`s my point. That`s what I meant by letting the `genie` out of the bottle in an earlier post.

I think currently Americans are in the process of gathering guarantees that if they limit their occupation of ME by keeping their military in the surrounding countries of Iraq, like Gulf States, and SA etc,. the freedom fighetrs in Iraq and Al-Qaeda would not come chasing them there. Iss waqt sab ki phati hoi hay -Arbon ki bhi aur kafiron ki bhi.

I have very mixed feelings about the US staying on in Iraq. Were they to leave, the sunnis will be run over and/or the country will be partitioned. Like it or not, americans are the only neutral party there now and they also bear COMPLETE responsibility for the catastrophe there.

#6 by soysauce

soysauce, what makes you decide americans are a neutral party? They sowed the seeds of sectarian clash between shia/sunni by disenfranchising Sunnis in the very constitution that they wrote for Iraq, and when that didn`t work in turning one against the other, they blew up Hasan Askari`s tomb. Even that didn`t work, so they formed death squads with 50 Sunni bodies turning up every single day in Baghdad. That worked, and Sunnis decided if Iraq is going to be split, might as well protect your turf, and grab more if possible. Thus the sectarian strife.

...and no the Sunnis will not be run over if US was to leave ... as it is the 21,500 more are to crush the Sunnis. And the collaberator is the Shia government which would love that to happen.

It is unbelievable, but I have never used this Shia/Sunni terminology till now. Was never even aware of it. But that`s the divisive power of the farang. It does work. However I know better.

zeemax, newspaper reports say americans are working to stop the mehdi army death squads and are apparently having some success. There has been a drop in the number of torture-cum-murder victims recently. There also has been ``ethnic`` cleansing of shia and sunni areas of Baghdad by sunni & shia militias, respectively, and the americans are supposedly trying to stop & reverse that. They are under a lot of pressure from the saudis and egyptians on one side and their puppet government on the other side so the net effect (one hopes) is some neutrality on the part of the americans.
Given Bush`s track record, it`s hard to believe he can do anything constructive anywhere but I do hope that good sense prevails and the Iraqis will get back to something resembling a normal life. It`s american responsibility to reconstruct Iraqi civil society.

Re: # 4
[...All these adverseries are still there, and that`s my point..]

I understand... now here is my point: how long ago was that when Ali kicked hussain`s a$$ or Ayesha occupied Kufa or whatever?... how much water has flown down euphratis and trigris since then?...Why is 21st humans fighting battles of the 7th century desperadoes?... whatever issues Ali, hussain, ayesha may have had in those days, are they even relevant today in the real world?...

And where is the outrage and words of wisdom from good folks of the community?... where is the call to stop the madness of the past and have intra-muslim harmony for the future?...

Does it make sense to you?

Mr. Gill,

Iraq was in a mess even brfore the US entered there. Unfortunately it appears that it may well become a bigger problem for the US as well.
Extra troops are not going to do anything worth while. But the US is caught in an inextricable dilemma. One way or the other, the outcome does not appear to be positive. In my opinion Bush has given the lead of ascendancy to Iran in the middle eastern theatre. Iran becoming more powerful may or may not be a desirable outcome for stability in the middle east. As long as the baboons in saudi are in proper control of the US, hopefully things should remain in control.
But in all this drama, the biggest loosers are ordinary iraqis who are dying for no fault of theirs. One can argue of course that they are dying because of their own prejudices and schisms in the society. First it was under saddam and now under the US occupation. I don`t think it matters to a common man if death comes to him via an al qaeda nut job, saddam or a good intentioned US soldier.
Even if this is the last gasp of imperialsim from US, it surely wouldn`t be the last one in the wrold.
Adios

Iraq campaign is one that was very badly executed. Hubris and pathetic ignorance of middle eastern history on the part of Americans has caused all this mess.

Kamath

Current public polls in the US show that about 3 of 4 Americans oppose the President`s efforts in Iraq and that fewer than 1 in 5 support a surge of troops. President Bush has lost the confidence of the American public. As yet, that loss of public confidence has not connected to President Bush at all. Either that or he simply chooses to ignore it. The militarily futile ``surge`` is on. Soon, the second Battle of Baghdad will erupt.

This is not a ``surge`` in real military terms. Bush is sending 20,000 US combat troops to Baghdad. The first US brigade will arrive on January 25.

The next brigade will arrive by February 15. The remaining three brigades will go in after that in 30-day increments. Militarily, this is a trickle. The first to move into Iraq will be the Second Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division which is now in Kuwait and ready to move. The remaining four brigades are in the US in assorted stages of disassembly, repair and retraining. The last of the US brigades will be ready to go to Iraq - in late March!

Militarily, the US cupboard is empty. When the 82 Airborne`s 2nd Brigade moves from Kuwait to Baghdad, the US military will no longer have either a tactical or a genuine strategic reserve inside Iraq. All of the 15 brigades there will be fully deployed and engaged. None of them will be able to assist any of the other US brigades without ending what it is now doing.

Politically the situation is simple in principle. President Bush had to make his own move before the newly-elected US Congress itself had a chance to do so. He has made his move with his speech and with this mini-escalation. That forces the US Congress into responding to his initiative instead of acting first and forcing President Bush to respond. President Bush is playing for time. Meanwhile, the Iraq enterprise has FAILED.

It is not generally understood by the American public that the reason the US has not been driven out of Iraq is that the vast majority, the Shiites, have not been part of the insurgency. The Shiites are attacking the Sunnis who are forced to fight a two-front war against US troops and Shiite militias and death squads.

If President Bush launches an attack upon Sadr City, a vast Shiite slum area north of the Green Zone in Baghdad which contains the US Embassy, he could ignite a general Shiite uprising against the US Forces, not only Baghdad itself, but across the main Shiite areas to the south which go all the way to Kuwait.

Here, the military facts on the ground are simple and harsh. Were the main grouping of Shiites to the south to rise up against the US occupation of Iraq, the US Forces around Bagdad would be CUT OFF!

US Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, a decorated combat veteran who served in Operation Desert Storm, has said this: ``Surge? Yes, we can. It will break the force, which in my estimation is broken already. It will leave you with N0 strategic reserves.`` Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway pointed this out on January 8, ``If you commit your reserve for something other than a decisive win, or to stave off defeat, then you have essentially shot your bolt.`` President Bush has shot his bolt.

Over the coming weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings on Iraq alone. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has announced a schedule for four weeks of hearings on Iraq featuring witnesses such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, members of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) which recommended a new course in Iraq, a slew of former secretaries of state and defence, current and retired generals and Middle East scholars. A devastating report by the Center for Defence Information, founded by former top-ranking US admirals and generals has revealed that in the most recent US Federal Budget, overall defence spending will rise to more than $550 Billion. That exceeds what all the rest of the world`s nations combined spend on defence. This is Empire based upon raw force.

The militarisation of America has gone so far that the gargantuan US war machine now stands with 702 bases in 132 foreign countries and has annual military budgets topping $550 Billion. At issue here is whether this is what the American people genuinely want, or whether they have been cajoled into it?

The historical irony is that America`s birth cry was an uprising followed by a rebellion and then a long war AGAINST an Empire (the British Empire) in order to gain their own freedom and independence?

The wonder here is why anybody in Washington is so surprised if people in other nations do likewise.

...SR

Following words were spoken on the floor of the US House of Representatives by Congressman Ron Paul, a conservative Republican from Texas :

``There’s just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don’t believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That’s nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth-- including home.``

Check it out...

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr011807.htm

Re: # 2
Mohar:

Today There was a bomb blast in Iraq by a suicide bomber and I believe 100 people died.
Why Why -one should ask. Killing fellow brethren - innocent helpless men, women, and children.

One wonders if the society has gone mad or just a few ? Is it because of Americans?
Kamath

..a majority of the american public is against the occupation of iraq....a majority of the iraqi public is against the occupation of iraq.....

....then how, and why, in the world is the us still occupying iraq....doesn`t democracy mean the govt. doing what the people want (in this case, what the populations of both the occupied and occupying country want!)...

...in fact, out of the 191 or so countries the majority population of every single country is against the us occupation of iraq.....

........then how, and why, in the world is the us still occupying iraq....

oh wait!!.....i mis-spoke.....the majority population of one country in the world is in favor of the occupation of iraq....israel!.....

hmmm......

The media has been portraying Iraq as a disaster. This is just to confuse muslims into thinking that America is neutral by nature, when in fact it is cunning and aggressive. Just like WMDs, this is another myth propagated by the western media.

The Iraqi fiasco, however depressing for Iraq fans, is going EXACTLY according to the plans laid by the neocons to destroy internal security, encouraging factional divisions and a pliable government which will allow the oil to be stolen under legal cover.

hehe...ummah homies duking it out...it`s an ali v/s hussein (or abdul v/s abdul) deathmatch...sort of like the WWE but for real..


GCC WOULD SUPPORT U.S. STRIKE ON IRAN

ABU DHABI [MENL] -- Gulf Cooperation Council states would support a U.S. strike to destroy Iran`s nuclear weapons program.

A report by the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center asserted that the six Gulf Arab states would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The report said the GCC regards Iran as a bully that seeks to dominate the region.

``Teheran has to finally realize that if push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab Gulf states have no choice but to quietly support the U.S.,`` the report, authored by international studies director Christian Koch, said.

GRC, which on Tuesday held a roundtable that included U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, said Iran has rejection negotiations with the Gulf Arab states. The report cited Iran`s military buildup in the Gulf and its refusal to negotiate the seizure of two islets from the United Arab Emirates.

#10 by mohar11

Does it make sense to you?

No it doesn`t. But read the following Newsweek report from January 2005
and some pieces of the puzzle may fall in place:

‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq.

After you`re done with the above, contemplate upon what the two British SAS men were doing when caught in a booby-trapped car packed with explosives and disguised as Iraqis:

British Uncover Operation in Basra: Agents Provocateurs?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I am quite surprised at the choreographed nature of union of state addresses in US. What really bothers me is the fact how these events are choreographed not only for the speaker but the audience as well. Everybody just seems to know when to stand up and applaud as if they have memorized a script.

Compare this to annual state of union speeches in countries like britian, France, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh etc. where annual state of union address is like passing through a gauntlet for the Head of the Executive. In some of the countries the event ends up in jootaybaazi like India or Bangladesh or even France, spain, Italy, Japan, Mexio,Taiwan, and many many more countries. In Pakistan the dictator have not mustered up courage to address even one time to his hand picked rubber stamp assembly - because he can`t.

On the other hand state of union address in US seems more like Poliburo party conventions of former Soviet union or present day China.

#17 by parthaab
You are a real political analyst with clear vision, Parthaab.
Bush junior was not wrong atall when he declared that his mission was accomplished. Even a blind Freddy could have seen that it is exactly what would happen with the action that the so called coalition of the willing had taken.
The mission is well and truly accomplished in them engineering the civil quagmire that exists there now. You don’t hire the best brains in the White house for advisors not to have seen it coming. Unless we want to judge them of those who only have half of the brain!
The Coalition of the willing are playing the fiddle and shedding crocodile tears while Iraq burns and the Shias, Sunnis, the Kurds, the region and some part of the world is singing:
Jo lagaaye bhi lagey or bujaahye nah bujhey! (With apologies to Ghalib).
Rashid

Re: # 22 Urstruly {``...state of union address in US seems more like Poliburo party conventions of former Soviet union or present day China...``}

The United Soviet States of America has far more in common with its former rival. The SU was a wannabe imperialist power with a system of State-monopoly capitalism, where the ultimate in M&A (mergers and acquisitions) had been achieved by a stroke of genius. There was one ``limited liability`` corporation in the SU, called the Communist Party Inc., that had successfully ``acquired`` the entire economy. Only 4% of the population of the SU were members. Likewise, in the USSA hardly 4% of the population ``owns controlling interest`` in the top 5,000 corporations. In other words about the same proportion of the general population (4%) really matter in the USSA as mattered in the USSR.

...SR

Re: # 24

Yep, USA is same as USSR... your pearls of wisdom are simply out of this world :)

Re: # 24

Thank you SR. I don`t think anyone has any doubts in their mind that a minute faceless elite group runs the country with an illusion of democracy and all. Frankly, if one to think on academic basis, how a country can be called democratic when only half of the ``voting age`` population votes and the winning candidate gets little over even half of that. I am seriously beggining to have doubts on election or vote as a vehicle to achieve ``rule by the people and for the people``. and it is not just US, it is accross the board. The Musharaf phenomenon can be taken as the pig-without-the-lipstick aspect of this illusion. What do you think.

#26 So the US is run by a faceless elite. even if one accepted your bs, you are in no position to talk about democracy - given that you are always quoting from the ``shariah``, which is the antithesis of the popular vote.

You are a Pakistani, and you call the Pakistan army ``napak`` for going after those who would impose their rule on Pakistanis - i.e. the islamist terrorists.

You live in the US, and you are always defending those who killed thousands of innocent people in the US on 9/11.

You spout democracy from one side of your mouth, and sharia from the other side of your mouth.

#21 by zeemax on January 24, 2007 6:44am PT


hello peemax..I`m sure they whacked a bunch of your jihadi buddies...if your jihadi brothers were winning, kashmir would have banega`ed pakiland by now, wouldn`t it have....

Re: # 27

The fact of the matter is that US is committing horrendous acts of genocide in many parts of the world and destroying countries after countries and nation after nation in the name of democracy. So it is only fair to put this biitch to scrutiny and examine it from inside out. Had Americans kept their democracy to themselves then probably no one would have given a shit.

US tax payer, Indian billionaire arjun!!

at least you are like an amreekan neocon that you like to present yourself as in one way - your attempts to link kashmir to islamist terrorists are as pathetic as attempts of the neocons a few years ago to link iraq to islamist terrorists.

#29 urstruly - thats much better: you dropped your pretense of being in favor of democracy.

The US is guilty as charged in being the foremost nation to bring an end to the Divine Right of Kings and to replace it by We, the People!!

Specific misdemeanors include:

inspiring the french revolution and, when that became a dictatorship, inspiring the french to a second revolution in 1848 which finally put france on the path to democracy.

inspiring the brits to stay the course on democracy. nd from them the indians.

moving japan and germany into democracy after after world war ii.

inspiring the chinese to democracy - with the statue of liberty replica being used by the crowds in beijing.

You have a problem with all this? What do you want instead? for mullah dow-piaza to become the Divinely Authorized Khalifa of Pakistan?

#30 by tahmed32 on January 24, 2007 12:22pm PT


your attempts to link kashmir to islamist terrorists


so the ``moderate`` paki prophet tahmed lets his veil drop...the jihadis in kashmir aren`t islamic terrorists according to him..

gee..wonder why LeT and JeM etc have been linked to Al-Queada by the US...

Re: # 31

I do not have time to react to slogans. Thanks for your input.

I thought Mullah32 was gung-ho about the war in iraq - I remember him battling other pakis in the mudpit over this... now he is blaming it on the neo-cons?... :)

#33 Urstruly: Those are historical facts. Dont hide from facts by calling them slogans.

What are slogans is your calling for democracy from one side of your mouth while talking about shariah from the other - the moment you dropped that slogan of democracy after I brought this to your attention...you obviously have no choice but to avoid further discussion - since all you have left is your hollow slogans of ``shariah`` and your hollow berating of the US.

#32 arjun: Did i refer to the jihadis? do i have to treat your inability to read english as well as your rabid hallucinations?

2001 was the first state of the union address by Bush. Each year after that things became progressively worse. But at the time of 2002, 2003, 2004 state of the union speeches, americans still earnestly believed that their commander in chief was not a pathalogically lying thug. They gave him a free hand to play on their fears.....and play he did!

Lets take a look at who was ``showcased`` in his speeches of those good old days:

2002 Union speech - A jubilant Bush showcased a newly liberated afghan woman. There was that puppet Hamid Karzai in his night gown sitting in the chamber as well, thanking Americans for promoting him from an oil executive to afghan president.......actually thanking Americans for liberating Afghanistan.

2003 Speech - There was that convicted felon turned Iraqi president-in-waiting Ahmed Chalabi sitting in First Lady’s chamber, looking somber and serious as Bush told us how Iraqis were begging to be liberated, with flowers in their hands.

2004- A jubilant Bush told an ovation loving congress that Iraq was liberated. Bush could hardly speak 2 sentence without this rubber stamp congress standing on its feet and applauding......

2005 - In what now looks like the most comical moment of his state of the union speeches, an Iraqi woman was flown from Baghdad......and on cue she stood up to wave her purple stained finger (anyone remembers the purple revolution so hyped by bush admin?) to prove to americans that she had just voted in Iraqi elections (Did anyone read the news in NY Times today stating that most of Iraqi parliamentarians today are actually living in Europe and other parts of middle east?)

Those certainly were the days!

tahmad #31: ``The US is guilty as charged in being the foremost nation to bring an end to the Divine Right of Kings and to replace it by We, the People!!``

..following is a portion of the list of countries whose kings and dictators that the usa has supported and/or continues to support.....

iran (shah)
pakistan
jordan
egypt
saudi arabia
oman
uae
bahrain
qatar
iraq (during saddam`s earlier days)
morroco
most of the central asian stans
venezuela
argentina
nicaragua
....

the list is too long to print here........the general criteria has been to support who is pro-usa....not who is pro-democracy....

#38 What you say is true. But what is also true (and point 2 below completely negates your implication that the US supports dictatorships/kings) is...

1. the long history of the US inspiring democracy around the world that I summarized below is equally true.

2. the US has much warmer relations with democracies today than it does with dictatorships/kingships. Thus, the US has much warmer relations with England, Western Europe, and even more so Eastern Europe, Japan, Australia, and increasingly India than it does with iran, jordan, egypt, or even pakistan.

Both this points are of fundamental relevance to the question of the US role in promoting democracy around the world. And yet....these points never cross the mind of the US haters in muslim countries.

Re: # 38

USA has opposed a lot of non-communist military dictators - it has failed in removing some of them.

Burma
Musharraf before 9/11
Algeria
Ethiopia

Interactors:

Let me try to put a few things in correct perspective. Democracy was not the prime reason or reason at all, for President Bush to attack Iraq. It was an afterthought; it was cooked up when he didn’t find any good reason to give to the American public and the rest of the world. The reason for invading Iraq was its weapons of mass destruction, wmds, that were never found anywhere in Iraq. Even this excuse was false and fabricated.

Then he used the “regime change” for an excuse for Iraq invasion. He brought in democracy as the last excuse to continue the occupation of Iraq.

In itself, democracy is a good form of governance. It stinks when you consider it together with the occupation of Iraq. Democracy may not be ideologically the best form of governance but it is surely the best among other forms that we see around us in many countries of the world.

The Muslim world does not seem to accept it mainly because it was developed in the western world and “everything western is pooh-pooh.” Also the vested feudal interests do not want to lose control. Iqbal ridiculed democracy in many of his verses such as:

Jamhooriyat ikk tarz-e-hakoomat haiy keh jiss mein
Bandon’ ko gina kartay hain tola naheen kartay

He also condemned separation of church from the statecraft in his verses. He wrote:

Judah deen’ ho siyasat sey tau reh jaati haiy Chingezi

When Kamal Ata Turk abolished khilafat in Turkey after World War I, Iqbal was in an intellectual quandary because Ata Turk was his Mard-e-Momin and the perfect man. Now he was put into a difficult situation. Iqbal rationalized it by arguing that although Islam does not allow the abolition of khilafat, there was no verdict from the recognized Islamic authority (such as Jaamah al-Azhar) against Ata Turk’s installation of democracy in Turkey. This was a lame rationalization.

Since there is no regular system of transferring power from one ruler to the other in the Muslim world, the result is continuing chaos and confusion.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 38

Romair:

``..following is a portion of the list of countries whose kings and dictators that the usa has supported and/or continues to support.....

iran (shah)
pakistan
jordan
egypt
saudi arabia
oman
uae
bahrain
qatar
iraq (during saddam`s earlier days)
morroco
most of the central asian stans
venezuela
argentina
nicaragua ``

Wish you would do not lump countries into one Central Asia in this list.

My question to you is: don`t you wonder why?

Anil

anil #42: ``My question to you is: don`t you wonder why?``

....i don`t wonder why...because i think i know why....this is what all superpowers have done throughout history....the occupy other countries so that they can use the resources there, to raise the living standards of their own people.......

......previously, superpowers use to outrightly annex and conquer the countries......now that is no longer the fashion, as it has become extremely difficult to occupy other countries....iraq and afghanistan being prime examples....

.....so now superpowers get access to resources through other means......they support and in many cases keep in power kings and dictators, who are dependent on the superpowers for their survival....in the process, the superpowers are allowed access to those countries.....

...i am quite sure saudi arabia would not be selling oil at the rates it is to usa, if it had a democracy......i am quite sure qatar would not have allowed us troops to use its bases to launch the iraq war had it been a democracy......

....we have some good examples in front of us, for what happens is the usa`s supported kings and dictators are thrown out........it is happening in south america.....venezuela is a huge thorn in the usa`s neck....the usa tried a coup there recently, which did not work.....other south american countries are going in the same direction......

....similarly, iran a fledgling democracy is a thorn in the neck of the usa....as is palestine, another fledgling democracy.....turkey, another one, did not allow the usa to use its land for attacks on iraq.....pakistan, an off and on democracy, is also somewhat of a thorn in the usa`s neck........

as i said earlier....all superpowers do this....otherwise they cannot remain superpowers.....pakistan and india also do it at whatever local level they can.....the only difference is that, for some reason, the usa tries to hide its unethical superpower moves behind a veil of, ``helping the others``........

i would have more respect for the us foreign policy, if its leaders simply told the truth and said, ``we push other countries around, because we can...if others don`t like it, they can climb a tree.``.....what i don`t like is hiding behind all these falsehoods about pushing democracy and human rights etc.......

Re: # 26 Urstruly {``...I am seriously beggining to have doubts on election or vote as a vehicle to achieve ``rule by the people and for the people``. ...``}

The principle that state power should be subservient to the people, and not the other way around, is the most sacred and fundamental corner stone of a ``democracy.`` All other considerations are secondary to this basic goal. The trouble is that there is no flawless mechnism with which to setup a state system which ensures that the state does not become a tool of coersion or exploitation in the hands of those who are vested with the state`s executive authority. Majority rule can quickly turn into mob-rule if the minority rights are not held sacred... and mob-rule can be every bit as bad as a ruthless monarchy, if not worse. A cursory study of The Terror in Paris under the ``committee of public safety`` will convince you of that. So then what is the answer?

Most people will instinctively say that voting is the best way to elect ``representatives``... Sadly, on closer examination we realise that more often than not ``elections`` turn out to be, paradoxically, unhealthy for the basic spirit of democracy. This is because the electoral process is easy to subvert. Take America for instance. The US Congress was supposed to be, in Thomas Jefferson`s words, ``...a portrait in miniature of the people of the United States...``, that is, if America was to be a true democracy. In that event Congress should have consisted of over 50% women, 11% blacks, 12% Hispanics etc, etc, and 1% Jews and 1% Muslims (My percentages are not exact, but you get the point). What we have instead is a Congress that consists of 95% white men, 45% of whom are lawyers. (We shall not mention religious heritage.) Clearly, this flies in the face of Jeffersonian ideals. But this is what you get if you hold elections, flawed as they are. But there is a better solution.

In this modern technological era a random computer generated list would be a better choice than the primitive system of voting. Most voters don`t ``know`` their elected reps any way. So neither will they ``know`` their computer selected reps. The voters lists do an adequate job finding jury members to sit on trials, so why also have a ``Congress Duty``...? Of course you would have screening safeguards to keep the serial killers, rapists and wackos out, as you do in a jury selection. These guys would have only one term (unless they hit the lottery again) so no lobbists offering PAC money for re-elections. Each representative would get a whole office full of staffers and there is no reason to think that they will do any worse of a job than these rascals who presently run for office. Surely we could cut down corruption and represent the voice of people better by this method of computerised true democracy.

{``...The Musharaf phenomenon can be taken as the pig-without-the-lipstick aspect of this illusion...``}

Here I must disagree. Although no particular fan of Musharraf himself, I have revised my old misguided liberal notions about the role of Paki army in politics. Let me explain.

First, you have to get rid of the silly idea that the army is in fact a military service. It is not. Since there is no possibility of a future war with Bharat (and God knows we never thought beyond Bharat) there is no need for a military. You might ask, How do I know there is going to be no war? Simple..!! All the land on the Pak-Bharat border has been bought up by the senior army officers. There is thus an incentivised built-in guarantee of peace.

So, Pakistan has no further need for an army, therefore the army has transformed itself into a professional political organisation.

Now given that the various other political organisations (or parties) only make provisions for the rich and powerful to rise to the top, they are not very democratic. Only the wealthy can afford to rise above the level of local area politics. However, there is only one political party, the army, where a fellow from a safaid-posh gharana has any hope of rising to the top. Its not a perfect system, but hey... its the best we seem to have managed.

...SR

#44 by SR on January 24, 2007 7:33pm PT



The principle that state power should be subservient to the people, and not the other way around, is the most sacred and fundamental corner stone of a ``democracy.


Dude..when Iraq was invaded, a majority of people were in favor of the war...now a majority of people are against it..hence the democrat win in november and Bush`s readjustment of policy...


And about your BS about the composition of the US congress, has it occurred to you that some groups are perhaps not interested in running for office and chose to make their mark elsewhere..

It`s always funny when people from the land of the pure, the land that`s had very little experience in representative democracy, criticize the supposed faults of US democracy based on some unachievable gold-standard...

#43 by bulleya on January 24, 2007 7:05pm PT


turkey, another one, did not allow the usa to use its land for attacks on iraq.....pakistan, an off and on democracy, is also somewhat of a thorn in the usa`s neck........


Is this the same Turkey that was bailed out by the US and gets plenty of US aid and the democratic government of which has decided to align itself with the US in matters other than the IRaq invasion...

And Pakiland a thorn in America`s neck...don`t flatter yourself...didn`t you read about how they`re piling on the pressure..that bombing they did 10 days ago whacking paki jihadis..and just yesterday they whacked one of your soldiers when a precision guided bomb ``mistakenly`` landed on a paki checkpost...

#28 by broken_78rpm

.. I`m sure they whacked a bunch of your jihadi buddies...

awww ... looks like the other way around ....

Soldiers look upon the bodies of their colleagues in Srinagar after attack left nine killed and seven injured.

And what Bush`s readjustment of policy are you talking about in #45? Oh ... you mean the `send more` policy when 67% americans are saying `get the hell out of there` policy.... I forgot you need regular medication for congenital mental deficiencies.

Tahmed writes : <<< 1. the long history of the US inspiring democracy around the world that I summarized below is equally true.

2. the US has much warmer relations with democracies today than it does with dictatorships/kingships. Thus, the US has much warmer relations with England, Western Europe, and even more so Eastern Europe, Japan, Australia, and increasingly India than it does with iran, jordan, egypt, or even pakistan. >>>


We have to leave it to the most dispicable slave of the West on here, tahmed, to confound facts and twist relationships in order to prove the official slogans of his object of worship, i.e. the US elite.

The long ``history`` that the US has is a bloody history of genocide and imperial conquest and slave trade, not a single example exists, among a non-European nation (whose extension/settler society the US was) where the US has promoted democracy and brought development, other than for the strategic reason of US occupied Japan and South Korea. In both cases their sights are firmly fixed on China. Giving examples of US neo-colonial parterns the likes of Australia and the UK and saying that the US has closer relationship with them compared to Pakistan is a most pathetic attempt at trying to justify US crimes in the name of democracy. No democracy exists in the US itself by the way and this elite has done everything to undermine it using corporate concentration and institutional links between its political and economic sector. When it does not exist at home how can they promote it abroad?

Let me end by quoting Micael Parenti for the fifth time on here

(quote)``...for the United States has supported some of the worst butchers in the world: Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Shah in Iran, Salazar in Portugal, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Zia in Pakistan, Evren in Turkey, and even Pol Pot in Cambodia. In the 1965 Indonesian coup, the military slaughtered 500,000 people, according to the Indonesian chief of security (New York Times, 12/21/77; some estimates run twice as high), but this did not deter U.S. leaders from assisting in that takeover or from maintaining cozy relations with the same Jakarta regime that subsequently perpetuated a campaign of repression and mass extermination in East Timor...`` (end quote)

(quote)``...the overthrow of Premier Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran and installing Shah Moammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah of Iran) in 1960; the CIA’s Council of Generals’ military coup in Indonesia toppling President Sukarno in 1965; the killing of President Allende of Chile in 1973; President Johnson in 1965 sent 25,000 Marines to the Dominican republic to prevent the return to office of the elected Juan Bosch; Prince Sihanouk was removed by the army led by CIA-trained General Lon Nol; the CIA’s Counter Terror Teams and the Provincial Reconnaissance Units, used techniques of terror, assassination, physical abuse and intimidation in Vietnam; U.S. Marines supported a conservative party revolt against a nationalist government and where they remained for 20 years in Nicaragua;..`` (end quote)

Re: # 39 exactly, if you see US realtions with democracies, they are much cordial than with dictatorships. It is about the alternatives available in that land. If tomorrow Musharraf goes..who is going to lead Pakistan. There are no political institutions in the country..alternatives are not that great

#41 by freethinker

Iqbal was in an intellectual quandary because Ata Turk was his Mard-e-Momin and the perfect man. Now he was put into a difficult situation. Iqbal rationalized it by arguing that although Islam does not allow the abolition of khilafat, there was no verdict from the recognized Islamic authority (such as Jaamah al-Azhar) against Ata Turk’s installation of democracy in Turkey. This was a lame rationalization.

This verdict is a bit hasty. There appears no contradiction between Iqbal being opposed to conventional democracy/seperation of religion & state, and his support for Ataturk for the reason that he did not accept the clergy`s Islam being same as the Mard-e-Momin`s Islam. He perhaps believed Ataturk to be that and may have been disappointed, but never changed his stance.

See below from 1936:



Anyway, echoboom is more qualified on the subject, and may like to shed some light.

The entire world, including the notoriously sluggish Hindoos, ARE BUSY LIKE WORKER BEES trying to make a better living, better future for themselves.

But muslims are a totally different morons all together. What is this UNBELIEVABLE MADNESS that engulfs muslims ? and believe me, as a backward caste hindu I have seen some unbelievable stupidity within Hindus, but this Muslims stupidity ``blows`` me away (pun intended). Sunni or Shia or whatever... why the F it matters so much that people end up blowing each other away for just such minor syntactic differences ( after all, both groups are called Muslims, aren`t they ?).

It is time westerners discovered some magic bio-weapon that can induce a little dose of rationality on the patients. Insha allah, we shall carpet bomb all muslim countries with such rationality weapon and cure the Islamic disease. Only then people will stop clutching that retarded book from 7th century and instead grab books written/inspired by REAL GODS such as Sir Newton, Edison, Nikola Tesla, etc...

Speaking of which... here is a case for polytheism isn`t it ? the retarded prophets and gods only spoke of flying things, magic light energies, unlimited food, etc but the REAL GODS like Edison, Newton, Wright brothers, etc actually made those things happen. If it weren`t for these gods a major portion of world`s population would still be having life expectancy measuring in few decades....

#51 by sri

Sunni or Shia or whatever... why the F it matters so much that people end up blowing each other away for just such minor syntactic differences ( after all, both groups are called Muslims, aren`t they ?).

Incidentally, on the other board ``It is Never OK to Hit a Woman``, Urstruly and Sattar are duking it out over who should be called a Muslim and who should not. If such madness engulfs supposedly educated folks, one can only imagine the plight of the average Abduls back home.

Speaking of retard prophets and gods talking about flying things and magic djinns, if I, your humble servant, were to drink a full glass of Vodka, smoke a pile of Marijuana stuffed inside a hookah, I can then easily imagine myself blabbering eloquently about pigs flying to Mars and white butter harvested on Moon`s surface.

Zeemax: #50

Let me quote directly from Iqbal (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p. 157) as follows:

“Let us now see how the Grand National Assembly has exercised this power of Ijtihad in regard to the institution of Khilafat. According to Sunni Law the appointment of an Imam or Khalifa is absolutely indispensable. The first question that arises in this connexion is this: Should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkey’s Ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly. The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India, so far as I know, have not yet expressed themselves on this point. Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly necessary to argue this point. The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam.”

The views expressed in the above extract are completely in contradiction of his views expressed in the verses that I quoted in my first post. He has frequently rejected the democratic form of government in his poetical verses. With regards,

Mohammad Gill

``He has frequently rejected the democratic form of government in his poetical verses. ``(freethinker)

correct -- as they say -- ``khaanay kay daaNt aur dekhanay kay aur haiN`` -- in early thirties Iqbal indeed had a fling with fascism

Re: # 50 zeemax

Do not blame Iqbal. It is not his fault that he had high regards for Mustafa Kemal. Not many people know, except those who have studied the history of Turkey that Mustafa did raise the slogan of an ``enlightened`` and ``moderated``, ``modern Islam`` (sounds familiar?) for first 15 years after 1918. As a matter of fact he unified Turkish resistance against European and Greek colonialism under the banner of Islam. But once he had firm grip on power he started eliminating his allies through public executions and took a 180 degree turn (sounds familiar?) on his initial promises. He absolutely secularized the country to the extent that for certain period of time state machinery was used with its crushing powers to prevent Muslims from performing their daily religious duties. His moderation really fell hard on the Turkish women for whom the doors of education and employment were closed unless they took their clothes off. Fortunately, Iqbal passed away a few years before that happened, otherwise the the following couplet would have been his instead:

Teer kha kar jo daikha kameeNgahh ki taraf
apne hi dostoN say mulaqat ho gayi.

#54 by freethinker,

Gill Saheb, thanks for reproducing the extract from ``The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam`` so, that removes any ambiguity. Your central premise upon which your argument rests is that the Caliphate as originally envisaged in Islam was `not` democratic, i.e. going by the generally accepted definition of rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. This premise is severely flawed.

The guideline in Islam is simply ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` (or Mard-e-Momin if you like), and not by descent. Iqbal interpreted this spirit to have been followed in Turkey’s Ijtihad on the Caliphate or Imamate being vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly, as opposed to a Caliphate by descent which the Ottoman Caliphate was.

Of particular note here is Iqbal`s contemptuous reference to contemporary religious authorities as `The religious doctors of Islam in Egypt and India` as opposed to what you allege that he rationalized his own stance through their silence. In fact he considered them irrelevant.

Iqbal ridiculed ``Western`` style democracy, and not Democracy however you define it per se`. That`s why he thought the Turkish abolishment of the Caliphate and rule by people`s representatives in the forms they had proposed was not only ``thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam``, but also necessary in view of the new realities.

On another contention in your post #41 i.e. ``Also the vested feudal interests do not want to lose control.`` This is actually exactly upside down. It is the vested feudal interests (or corporate, or several other types of oligarchs) who have the most to gain (and do) through Western style democracy, precisely for which reason Iqbal rejected and ridiculed it. This is not the democracy originally envisaged in Islam as given above.

Hope above vindicates Iqbal.

Regards.

#56 by Urstruly

That`s why I call Mustafa Kemal ``Ata-Turd``, despite that he came and sprinkled the earth from Maulana Rumi’s tomb on Iqbal`s grave.

SR

Thanks for a detailed response. I think we agree in principle that Western style democracy is an instrument to safeguard the interests of a tiny ruling class. I think your computer-based election is also a very good suggestion. Currently I have been thinking on two points in this regard:

1. The first point is if voting (computer based as you suggested or paper based) then why not make it compulsory under penalty of law for every adult to vote. But I am not in favor of using it as a vehicle to choose among lesser of the two evil political contestants. I think voters must have an option to choose ``none of the above``, which would permanently disqualify all person on the ballet if say 60% of the voters chose that option. When that happens new candidates would replace the first two evil ones and the process goes on till a candidate is selcted which has an overwheming votes from general public.

2. The other point is completely opposite to that. As we see that in every society there is a spectrum of intelligence and education level among the masses. For example a city dweller though highly educated knows squat of agicultural issues of rural countryside. Similarly a farmer wouldn`t know anything how industrial urban polcies would effect a city urban professional. But in case of Pakistan, for example, we see that 80% of the vote comes from rural areas resulting in education ministers who were not even matriculate. So why not a commune like political heirarical system where people would choose their local candidates based on their local agendas. Whereas on international level there should be Politburo hierarical structure where only educated elite (in intellectual sense) could rise to the top like technocrates etc. For example in US, most of the Secrateries of differnt Departments (Minsiters) are extremely well educated and trained in that particular area for years. SWome of them are even PhDs.

... On an aside, it is only this type of democracy which respectively places rapists, child molesters, and coffin stealers right at the top in the most established and much touted `democracies` of Israel, USA and India, in that order....

nasah # 55

Did he ever go back to promoting (western style) democracy? He might have experienced a conversion rather than a temporary fling.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

There can be no last gasp of imperialism as long as history lasts because that would be the end of the history itself.

The American imperialism in Iraq is the most recent edition of an old story and this story will continue in a different context and in a different manner with different observers, listeners, and narrators long after we have ceased to echo our opinions upon the passions of our times.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#61 by kaalchakra,

No he never went back.

This is from Armughan-i Hijaz (The Gift of Hijaz), published posthumously.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 63

Dear ferozk:

I might have misunderstood it but I think the author did not mean to say we are witnessing the death of imperialism. I think the author was trying to opine that the current period is the last gasp of imperial misadventure [in Iraq]. I guess, there is good worth to this opinion.

You are right imperialism will stay alive and well for as long an innate desire for adventure and innovation for producing material in surplus is present in humans.

Regards, Tahir

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Zeemax: #66

Our ideology may be the best one in the world but are we satisfied with the kind of government that we have in Pakistan or in any other Muslim country? The different forms of western democracy are working for the common good of their people. Nothing is perfect in the world; we can find faults in everything. But the western democracy which is pragmatic and not totally ideological really works.

I don’t know where you are presently living but I tell you of my personal experiences. The first time I became aware that as a human being I had some rights, was in Britain when I went there for my graduate education. Although I was not a British citizen, I had more or less the same rights that they had. Life of a common man is quite peaceful in the U.S. where I currently live.

I worked in the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department and I rose quickly through the cadres and superseded many whites who were born citizens simply because my credentials were superior to theirs. I don’t mean everything is hunky-dory here. I experienced racial discrimination when I was looking for my first job. I felt bitter but I also realized that the discrimination in Pakistan was far worse. I don’t mean to win any points in any argument but I honestly believe that it would be good for Pakistanis and other Muslims if we could adopt a western style of democratic government in our ethnic countries. If the label of the “western” is hurtful, try to Islamize it.

I also love Iqbal’s poetry but I don’t agree with his philosophy. This philosophy is keeping the Muslim world backward.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

If we take into account the cases of Algeria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Vanzuella etc. it is quite evident that West will never let a democratic rule flourish in any muslim country unless it is corrupt, unconstitutional, consist of puppets, and thugs; pakistan, egypt, afghanistan, iraq etc are good examples

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 59 Urstruly {``... first point is if voting (computer based as you suggested or paper based) then why not make it compulsory under penalty of law for every adult to vote...``}

You seem to have misunderstood my contention. I say NO casting of ballots at all.

(``...it is unimportant who has the right to cast votes. What really matters is who counts those votes...`` Josef Stalin)

The computer should randomly SELECT a list of viable representatives from the general voters` lists. This would produce a ``representative sample`` which will more accurately reflect (thus ``represent``) we the people... Just like ``jury duty``, this should be called ``Congress Duty``... So there will be no need to secure re-election money and do dastardly deeds for it. Plus the staffers will keep them advised and informed. As it is, most of the work is done by the staff. The professional politicians mostly spend their time in self-promotion any how. They do very little.

I tell you that honesty is politics will increase ten fold once professional politicians are out and ``Joe Average`` gets in there. Surely you`ll also have the school teachers, engineers, doctors, lawyers in there in addition to machinists, truck drivers, court room clerks and plumbers.

There will be many more fresh perspectives than we get from the Harvard MBAs and Yale Lawyers today. Of course, certain screening criteria would have to be applied. For example, before starting their term of office the finalists would be put through a crash course of sorts and then somehow ``tested`` to rule out the total imbiciles.

...SR

I have noticed with some amusement that certain people have become very silent in several of these matters. These are the ones who used to spew a lot of hot air and smoke telling everyone how America was not an imperialist power and why Iran war was such a wonderful idea. What happened? Are they now embarrased for the nonesense they believed and vomitted out on these pages? Or were they just plain idiots who are too scared to squeek? Just wondering.

The truth of the matter is that facts cannot be argued with. NO COUNTRY, not even the former evil Soviet Union has committed as much foreign aggression over the last century and a half as has the United States. If there is one force of International Terror and Evil that surpasses ALL OTHERS, it is the ``FEDERAL GOVERNEMT`` of the United States.

Following is an abbreviated chrnology of US imperial aggression:

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners` strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops ``Dollar Diplomacy`` protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners` strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops ``Police duty`` during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov`t nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal`s return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; ``carpet-bombs`` countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov`t.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994-? Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be ``terrorist`` nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002 Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Second Gulf War launched for ``regime change`` in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks from Kuwait, other Gulf states, and European and US bases.

...SR

Here is a very pertinent excerpt for a great American soldier`s speech.

``War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we`ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn`t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn`t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ``finger men`` to point out enemies, its ``muscle men`` to destroy enemies, its ``brain men`` to plan war preparations, and a ``Big Boss`` Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country`s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from a Lieutenant to a General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.``

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Butler, Commandant US Marine Corps

Feroz writes <<< There can be no last gasp of imperialism as long as history lasts because that would be the end of the history itself. >>>

History ``ends`` everytime an institutional structure changes. There is no logical necessity for history to repeat itself. Many factors come together to determine that ``history``, merely defaulting to historical determinism is an easy escape, or an attempt at legitmizing the status quo. The ``imperialism`` of the past is not the same as current day imperialism, neither is there any guarantee that it will be the same in the future. With every change come new hopes for liberation and new challenges that the imperialists have to face, otherwise they would never alter the structures that ensure their domination.

freethinker writes <<>>

A typical over-