Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts

Re: Feroz (reply 54)

The buzz is that Pakistani scientists did take those missiles to Islamabad and since they couldn`t (according to int`l media) do the reverse engineering themselves, they probably asked the Chinese to do it for them. As far as the F-16 issue is concerned, I don`t know why Pakistanis were so reluctant to ask forcefully for money which was theirs to begin with?

Rumor has it that the deal was struck over Osama bin Laden. Pakistan finds him and extradites him to the US and everybody`s happy. Except may be for Mullah Omar, Osama`s father-in-law. And he has at his disposal the army of Taliban and his network of Sipah-e-Sahaba that can blow up a few things in Pakistan in retaliation. I`m personally against any capitulation by Pakistan, period. Remember this: if a Westerner is tried and punished in a non-Western country, esp. 3rd world, the government always make such a big deal about it, making humanitarian appeals on presidential levels. Have Pakistani government no pride? (no, you don`t have to say it, I already know the answer to that)

Rehan.

Re: Waheed & (Saad: what happened to YOU pal?)

The last time I checked, which was just now, the Freedoms of speech, press and expression were still part of the Bill of Rights. And the Bill of Rights was still part of the US Constitution. And US Constitution was still the supreme law of the land. Do you see where I`m going with this?

You know, I feel sympathy for people who still consider themselves aliens and foriegners even after becoming legal residents of this country. (I hope you`re not illegal, are you?) Anyway, because if you felt part of this country, you would know your rights and responsibilities. As Americans, its your God damn right, nay responsibility, to set straight the leaders of your country when needed. And if you think of yourselves any less because of your skin color, your religion, your country of origin, your bloody accent, then you haven`t learned to be Americans yet.

You are still desis living in an intimidated, humiliating state of ignorance, looking down upon yourself with a slave mentality that`s the specialty of our typical bloody elites from Pakistan. If you really love this country and want to truly contribute towards the development of the United States, act like Americans by speaking out when the emperor has no clothes.

Proving your patriotism by appearing more loyal than the king rather than understanding the principles upon which this society was founded serves no purpose. You merely look stupid (I`m sorry you thought otherwise Saad) more than anything else. Dissent...is the check that keeps a democracy alive. You may be citizens of the United States, but you have a long way to go before you can call yourselves true Americans my friends. No hard feelings and nothing personal, of course.

_____________

And even though I promised I won`t do it again, I`ve got to post the following excerpt so you can see what it means to be a true American. This is the guy who was entrusted by the US government for seven years with the mission to search and destroy Saddam`s aresnal until he resigned on his own.

____________

Former UNSCOM Iraq arms inspector Scott Ritter spoke to Wellington freelance journalist Jeremy Rose in San Franciso at the State of the World Forum.

(This excerpt only relates to sanctions. The full interview can be found here:

http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9811/S00090.htm)

Rose: How do you feel about people like Denis Halliday who resigned at a similar time to you in protest at the sanctions?

Ritter: I have nothing but the highest respect for Denis Halliday. And it would surprise a lot of people to find out that I totally agree with Denis Halliday. Sanctions are horrible. The sanctions regime being imposed on Iraq is a huge injustice. Being perpetrated by the United Nations at the behest of the United States.

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait. The decision to keep these sanctions were made after the end of the Gulf War when a precondition for conflict termination was imposed saying Iraq must get rid of these weapons of mass destruction. Until they do so sanctions will be left on. But the purpose of sanctions is to create harm in Iraq. To create pain. So that Iraq is compelled to obey the law. Iraq is a brutal dictatorship the pain is being felt by 22 million innocent Iraqi people, not by the leadership, not by Saddam Hussein, not by his cronies. So therefore sanctions are going after the wrong people. The people of Iraq are not the decision makers. Saddam Hussein is more than willing to use them as a pawn to keep himself in power and to further his own personal interests. Now we have a situation where the UN imposes sanctions at yet the same time another part of the UN comes in and says this is a humanitarian disaster, which it is, and we have to alleviate the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people. Which is good, except sanctions were imposed to create pain and suffering so that the Iraqi people would pressure the regime. Now you have Denis Halliday in there doing an extremely frustrating task trying to bring in food and medicine. To the women, the children and the elderly who are suffering. And he`s bringing that in to alleviate suffering caused by the United Nations. The UN is at war with itself in Iraq.

Rose: So what`s the answer?

Ritter: The answer is you cannot punish Iraq solely on a sanctions based policy. Sanctions don`t work. The Iraqi regime is thriving. They`ve learned to violate sanctions left and right. Sanctions are unenforceable. The continuation of sanctions only weakens the efforts of countries like the United States to put pressure on Iraq. Because what`s happened is Iraq is turning sanctions around and undermining the basis of support that the United States has for its policy. Hardly any country around Iraq right now supports the continuation of sanctions.

Rose: How would you put pressure on Iraq without sanctions?

Ritter: To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It`s not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren`t working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they`re going to keep these weapons and they`re going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone aspects of its sovereignty, Iraq presents a clear and present danger to international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop presenting this capability and if they don`t disarm they can be compelled. This means the Security Council has the authorisation to either act as a council and do military action or have a member nation on its own undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being pointed at the heads of inspectors.

The US pushed it. We`re in this position because the US wanted Iraq disarmed. Iraq is not being disarmed right now. It`s up to the United States to compel Iraq. Sanctions aren`t working. They`re not going to work. There`s only one person to blame for all of this and it`s Saddam Hussein. He has to be held accountable. I think the answer is quite obvious what has to happen. It doesn`t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I don`t have to say it.

_______________

The Latest: LA Times reports on the front page on 12/24/98: National Security Advisor Sandy (idiot) Berger says ousting Saddam is impracticle and that the US would retain its current policy on Iraq.

Rehan.

RE: Waheed.

You have a biting (but also accurate and refreshing) perspective. There is indeed some unintelligent commentary here, but it is not coming from you.

``But the fact STILL REMAINS...

1) You are here because...???``

yes, yes, go on. please tell me why i am here.

``Its is hypocritical of you to ``express`` your ``outrage``...while you still draw bounty from this land...but you can`t tell me sitting in your insulated living room that you are ``outraged``...that is such a load of
bull...``

why is it hypocritical? how do you know i draw bounty from this land? what does that mean?

the US government (because that is who my problem is with) does not OWN the resources of this country or this world, they merely control them. they are not handing me out dollar bills for just being here. i work very hard for what i earn, which is quite little by the way, and i work for an organization that has been working to end sanctions and aggression against iraq, so your point about my expressing outrage from the security of my drawing room is completely inaccurate. furthermore, just because i live and work in this country does not mean i cannot criticize its government. i did not sign any kind of pledge or sell my soul when i entered the US. even if there were a law against speaking out against the government of the country i lived in, i would not live by it. i am a free individual and no matter where i live, i have an inalienable RIGHT to speak my mind, thank you. i do not need the permission or the consent of ANY government. i would do the same wherever i lived -- right now i live in the US, which is a powerful bully, so i speak out against the actions of its government and military if i disagree.


``and btw...what exactly does your ``expression of outrage`` do...?``

there is a growing opposition to the sanctions against iraq and us military attacks against it that my organization and ordinary people are a part of. it is no way near mainstream, but because of the sustained perseverence of those who are opposed to the injustice against the iraqi people, this opposition is growing and eventually, something will happen.


``I HOPE,THINK, and BELIEVE that the Iraqi victims, would take the Red Cross and the Western
Wheat help/aid over you people any day...``

what do you mean ``you`` people?

listen, waheed, the iraqi people do not NEED western aid. iraq is an independently wealthy country that can meet its own needs if the sanctions are lifted. get your facts right!


``Your kind sits here for better opportunities and still bitches about bad USA....how sad are U...?``

again, there is no logical or moral connection between seeking better opportunities in the US and putting up with its foreign policies. as i said, everyone has the right to the freedom of speech and expression and independent thought. i certainly donot take my orders on how to think from any government, leave alone the US government.

Re: Waheed

``Its is hypocritical of you to ``express`` your ``outrage``...while you still draw bounty from this land...``

--- True, accepted Waheed. But your connotation is just not as simple as you make it to appear. Let`s suppose that you are being employed at a company along with your friend. And the company`s management takes your friend to task on issues that you perceive as unjust. What would your reaction be ? In my opinion , there are three possible sane reactions. 1. Sit tight since you do not want to be hypocritical as your salary and lifestyle comes from being employed by the concerned company. 2. Resign from the company in protest. 3. Voice your dissent while staying in the company and try to show your support for the friend by convincing other people about the real intentions of the management.

I would in all probabilities opt for the third. Atleast i get to convince some fellow employees about the reality . But then i would not go the whole hog and label the entire company, the entire workforce and the entire culture as wrong doers since i too am a part of that entirity. Only if i do that it could be perceived as being hypocritical.

I do not think BG`s replies fall under this perspective. She rather falls into the more sane and judicious third category.

you said

`` I HOPE,THINK, and BELIEVE that the Iraqi victims, would take the Red Cross and the Western Wheat help/aid over you people any day...``

-- sure, i too do the same, and i am also sure that BG also thinks the same.

you said

``Your kind sits here for better opportunities and still bitches about bad USA....how sad are U...?``

-- well, if someone does that they are indeed sad. But subtle differences do exist. BG does not criticise USA all the times. There are occasions where she finds things very much on the right side with USA too. Likewise, for her all things are not rosy with Pakistan too. Given your argument, she cannot live in any country at all.

Hope you would understand

Rishi

re ferozek
``I admire your passions and commitments towards many causes, including this one and I wish you bon
chance et bon temps!``

thanks

``In this regard, I sincerely hope that you`ll forgive me. You denigerated the Realpolitik and other
political rationalizations and therories, but whether we like it or not, the rules of the game are based
on those paradigms. Unless you have a better idea or a replacement for the present rules, the games
will go on just as they have. If you do have an alternative I would really like to hear your suggestions.``


i dont pretend to have a kick-ass framework and system roaring to go. the way i see it, life is a constant struggle and you cant NOT do something because you think you will fail as the enemy is too powerful. after all, power is powerful as long as its unchallenged. things have changed in different parts of the world because people spoke out and stood up to colonialism, sexism, slavery, authorotariansim. things are no way near perfect, but i can at least say THAT instead of accepting murder and aggression just because billy boy is in control of the largest military complex in the world. its as simple as that -- calling a spade a spade, whether its done by writing a book, an article, a reply on chowk, or joining a rally outside time square. whatever you or i can do to understand what is going on, inform ourselves and those around us of the truth and then speak out our minds. i think every bit helps.

regards

Re: RR

Thanks for the article; this is just another example of the mainstream media ignoring dissenting voices. As I mentioned in the post to mubbashir, the dissent against American policy in Iraq needs to be uniformily articulated.

This is off topic, but I thought you`d find this interesting. One of my best friend worked as an engineer, at Litton, on the guidence systems for the cruise missiles. After the cruise missiles landed in Pakistan, I asked if they could be reversed engineered, and his sly reply was, ``sure, if you know what you`re doin``.

Do we know what we are doing, or did we give up those missiles in exchange for the F-16 money; I have to wonder, why after 10yrs is the US so willing to settle this issue? I don`t what, but something is not kosher here...

Re: BG

I second your comments in response to Waheed`s posts. The reason Chowk is such an interesting forum is, because we have refrained from personalizing our comments. Lets keep it that way.

If I should, this is addressed to all Chowkwallahs, be guilty of a similar crime, please give me a swift kick in the ass and remind me not to make a horse`s ass of myself! Occassionally, I do pontificate and when I do, I needed to be reminded of the Emperor`s clothes.

re RR

thanks for the links!

Interesting news item today. Secretary Cohen is apparently making the rounds to ``collect`` for the recent ghoonda-gardi against Iraq. He is meeting with Kuwaiti leader Jabbar as-Sabah to convey there was value in Operation Desert Fox, to justify sharing of the costs. PAYBACK TIME!! This do-the-job-and-send-us-the-bill mentality is becoming rather obvious.

Or perhaps there is more an element of jagga-tax.

re waheed
``Who died and made you incharge...???``

i can ask the same question of you in light of your response (see below).


``you don`t sound stupid, so just don`t act like one by ``personalizing the issue``.

thank you for the endorsement. i believe it was you who personalized the issue. and i quote:

``OH PHULLLEEEEZZZEEEE....!!!! SHOVE IT...!!!


We have degenerated more than we think...have a cup of coffee and worry about your IRAs...this
iraqi, muslim brotherhood crap ain`t it...!!``

may i remind you that people have presented diverging opinions on this issue without having to tell others what to do and how to think. and they have supported their view points without having to resort to the kind of recommendations you have made.

Re: ASK

My mistake. Seems that the region you consider as West Asia, I generally consider as middle eastern.

Other than that, I concur with your assessment, but my only question on the matter is that, those countries need to stablize their domestic policies first. The reason for western influence in that region is, because of the internal policies that are open to exploitation by external groups. This a Catch-22, because most of the internal problems are created to insure western influence in the region.

It is all about oil and who wants it !

To chowk editors & readers: I promise this is the last one :)

To Feroz & BG: This is my gift to both of you. But, obviously, for completely different reasons. These are only a few excerpts: The more juicy nuggets. The full article can be reached at the following address: (And believe me everyone, its worth the long reading)

http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/articles/z9804-rogue.html

___________________

Rogue States

The concept ``rogue state`` is highly nuanced. The U.S. does not fall into the category despite its terrorist attacks against Cuba for close to 40 years.

By Noam Chomsky

A secret 1995 study of the Strategic Command, which is responsible for the strategic nuclear arsenal, outlines the basic thinking. Released through the Freedom of Information act, the study, `Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence`, ``shows how the United States shifted its deterrent strategy from the defunct Soviet Union to so-called rogue states such as Iraq, Libya, Cuba and North Korea,`` AP reports. The study advocates that the U.S. exploit its nuclear arsenal to portray itself as ``irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked.`` That ``should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries,`` particularly the ``rogue states.`` ``It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed,`` let alone committed to such silliness as international law and treaty obligations. ``The fact that some elements`` of the U.S. government ``may appear to be potentially out of control can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary s decision makers.``

The report resurrects Nixon s ``madman theory``: our enemies should recognize that we are crazed and unpredictable, with extraordinary destructive force at our command, so they will bend to our will in fear. The concept was apparently devised in Israel in the 1950s by the governing Labor Party, whose leaders ``preached in favor of acts of madness,`` Prime Minister Moshe Sharett records in his diary, warning that ``we will go crazy`` (``nishtagea``) if crossed, a ``secret weapon`` aimed in part against the U.S., not considered sufficiently reliable at the time. In the hands of the world s sole superpower, which regards itself as an outlaw state and is subject to few constraints from elites within, that stance poses no small problem for the world.

Contempt for the rule of law is deeply rooted in U.S. practice and intellectual culture. Recall, for example, the reaction to the judgment of the World Court in 1986 condemning the U.S. for ``unlawful use of force`` against Nicaragua, demanding that it desist and pay extensive reparations, and declaring all U.S. aid to the contras, whatever its character, to be ``military aid,`` not ``humanitarian aid.`` The Court was denounced on all sides for having discredited itself. The terms of the judgment were not considered fit to print, and were ignored. The Democrat-controlled Congress immediately authorized new funds to step up the unlawful use of force. Washington vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to respect international law not mentioning anyone, though the intent was clear. When the General Assembly passed a similar resolution, the U.S. voted against it, effectively vetoing it, joined only by Israel and El Salvador; the following year, only the automatic Israeli vote could be garnered. Little of this received mention in the media or journals of opinion, let alone what it signifies.

Secretary of State George Shultz meanwhile explained (April 14, 1986) that ``Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.`` He condemned those who advocate ``utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation`` sentiments not without precedent in modern history.

The British used chemical weapons in their 1919 intervention in North Russia against the Bolsheviks, with great success according to the British command. As Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, Winston Churchill was enthusiastic about the prospects of ``using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes`` Kurds and Afghans and authorized the RAF Middle East command to use chemical weapons ``against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment,`` dismissing objections by the India office as ``unreasonable`` and deploring the ``squeamishness about the use of gas``: ``we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier,`` he explained; chemical weapons are merely ``the application of Western science to modern warfare.``

The Kennedy administration pioneered the massive use of chemical weapons against civilians as it launched its attack against South Vietnam in 1961-1962. There has been much rightful concern about the effects on U.S. soldiers, but not the incomparably worse effects on civilians. Here, at least. In an Israeli mass-circulation daily, the respected journalist Amnon Kapeliouk reported on his 1988 visit to Vietnam, where he found that ``Thousands of Vietnamese still die from the effects of American chemical warfare,`` citing estimates of one-quarter of a million victims in South Vietnam and describing the ``terrifying`` scenes in hospitals in the south with children dying of cancer and hideous birth deformities. It was South Vietnam that was targeted for chemical warfare, not the North, where these consequences are not found, he reports. There is also substantial evidence of U.S. use of biological weapons against Cuba, reported as minor news in 1977, and at worst only a small component of continuing U.S. terror.

These precedents aside, the U.S. and UK are now engaged in a deadly form of biological warfare in Iraq. The destruction of infrastructure and banning of imports to repair it has caused disease, malnutrition, and early death on a huge scale, including 567,000 children by 1995, according to UN investigations; UNICEF reports 4,500 children dying a month in 1996. In a bitter condemnation of the sanctions (January 20, 1998), 54 Catholic Bishops quoted the Archbishop of the southern region of Iraq, who reports that ``epidemics rage, taking away infants and the sick by the thousands`` while ``those children who survive disease succumb to malnutrition.`` The Bishop s statement, reported in full in Stanley Heller s journal The Struggle, received scant mention in the press. The U.S. and Britain have taken the lead in blocking aid programs for example, delaying approval for ambulances on the grounds that they could be used to transport troops, barring insecticides to prevent spread of disease and spare parts for sanitation systems. Meanwhile, western diplomats point out, ``The U.S. had directly benefited from [the humanitarian] operation as much, if not more, than the Russians and the French,`` for example, by purchase of $600 million worth of Iraqi oil (second only to Russia) and sale by U.S. companies of $200 million in humanitarian goods to Iraq. They also report that most of the oil bought by Russian companies ends up in the U.S.

Washington s support for Saddam reached such an extreme that it was even willing to overlook an Iraqi air force attack on the USS Stark, killing 37 of the crew, a privilege otherwise enjoyed only by Israel (in the case of the USS Liberty). It was Washington s decisive support for Saddam, well after the crimes that now so shock the Administration and Congress, that led to Iranian capitulation to ``Baghdad and Washington,`` Dilip Hiro concludes in his history of the Iran-Iraq war. The two allies had ``co-ordinate[d] their military operations against Teheran.`` The shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the guided-missile cruiser Vincennes was the culmination of Washington s ``diplomatic, military and economic campaign`` in support of Saddam, he writes.

I`m sorry for doing this but I just couldn`t resist it. Hopefully, chowk editors and readers won`t mind it as one way of expressing one`s opinion on the subject.

________________________

www.motherjones.com (coverage on Iraq bombing)

Iraq Bombing ``Another Lie,`` Says Historian Zinn

December 16

[Immediately after President Clinton announced the bombing of Iraq today, we called Boston University historian HOWARD ZINN and asked for his take. After a few minutes, he e-mailed this forceful accusation:]

President Clinton has just told another lie, this time not about the relatively trivial matter of his sexual activities, but about matters of life and death. In explaining his decision to bomb Baghdad, he said that other nations besides Iraq have weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq alone has used them.

He could only say this to a population deprived of history. The United States has supplied Turkey, Israel, and Indonesia with such weapons and they have used them against civilian populations. But the nation most guilty is our own. No nation in the world possesses greater weapons of mass destruction than we do, and none has used them more often, or with greater loss of civilian life. In Hiroshima hundreds of thousands died, in Korea and Vietnam millions died as a result of our use of such weapons.

Our economic sanctions are also weapons of mass destruction, having resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Saddam Hussein may well have weapons of mass destruction, he may indeed be inclined to use them, but only the United States is actually using them, and at this very moment, people are dying in Iraq as a result.

However evil Saddam Hussein is, whatever potential danger he may represent, he is not, as the president said tonight (telling another lie) a ``clear and present danger`` to the peace of the world. We are. And, as the president said, if there is a clear and present danger we must act against it. It is a time for protest.

We are living in times of madness, when men in suits and ties, and yes, a woman secretary of state, can solemnly defend the use, in the present, of indiscriminate violence they do not know what they are bombing! against a tyrant who may use violence, in the future. The phrase ``clear and present danger`` has therefore lost its meaning. The phrase ``weapons of mass destruction`` too has lost its meaning when a nation which possesses more such weapons, and has used them more often, than any other, uses those words to justify the killing of civilians ``to send a message.`` We who are offended by this should send our own message to our demented leaders.

Howard Zinn is professor emeritus of history at Boston University, and author of A People`s History of the United States.

Details of destruction after the bombings:

Irish Times: www.irish-times.com (12/22/98)

__________________________________

`Operation Monica` leaves oppression in its wake

War devastation has quenched the spirit of the people of southern Iraq, reports Richard Downes in Basra

Iraq: Iraq is more like a barracks than a country these days. On the main road from Baghdad to Basra army squadrons keep a wary eye on the skyline and an even closer eye on the local population. Tanks, armoured cars, anti-aircraft guns and thousands of soldiers are in evidence everywhere. Every kilometre or so a small, simple army compound bears testimony to the fact that this is an army of occupation. The south of Iraq is predominantly Shia, while the security forces are drawn overwhelmingly from the Sunni Muslim centre and north.

Each little fort has a large machine-gun pointed at the road and a mobile armoured car. In the wake of the Gulf War, an uprising here led to thousands of deaths before it was brutally suppressed by an Iraqi army recovering from defeat. Since then, the US and Britain have encouraged a low level resistance to the government of President Saddam Hussein, with little success. After the four day bombardment by US and British bombs, the south is damaged but does not appear to be in any mood for a fresh revolt.

Fifty kilometres outside Basra, I saw the effects on the Republican Guard of an American attack. A small tank platoon had bivouacked just off the road. Eight tanks pointed their gun menacingly in the direction of the city. Wreckage was strewn around, apparently the aftermath of the attack. At least three tanks and four armoured personnel carriers appeared to be destroyed. The encampment was surrounded by anti-aircraft guns and jumpy soldiers, who waved me on when I tried to engage them in conversation.

The south of Iraq was heavily bombed during Operation Desert Fox, or Operation Monica as the Iraqi newspapers have dubbed the four-day blitz. In Basra, telecommunications facilities were destroyed night after night. The port at Um-Qasr was hit by heavy missiles and the country`s most important economic asset, the Basra Oil Refinery, is still in flames.

A massive column of filthy black smoke rises from the site polluting the environment and reminding the Iraqis of their vulnerability to outside attack. The local authorities were determined to show me only those civilian sites which had been hit, such as the telephone company offices, but the unmistakable impression gained after a day in the city, is that the government`s hold on Basra has been substantially weakened but not undermined in the past week.

The bombing of the oil refinery may well be the most significant event of the four-day war. Iraq`s oil industry is already teetering on the brink of collapse. Spare parts have been cannibalised from other refineries because of the economic embargo which strictly limits trade. Production is low and quality appalling. The Basra refinery was to have been refurbished to enable Iraq to pump more oil to pay for food imports under the UN-controlled Oil For Food Agreement. That deal was already under pressure as a result of plummeting oil prices. It now looks very fragile indeed and the spectre of food shortages looms.

Few countries in the world are blessed with such an abundance of natural resources as Iraq. It has the second highest level of proven oil reserves in the world. Its two main rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates coupled with a favourable climate, provide perfect conditions for agriculture. But a megalomaniacal leadership bent on being a military superpower has brought only war, sanctions and suffering to its people. At least 10 of the last 20 years have been spent at war, the rest under international sanctions.

The terrible tragedy of this country, more particularly of its people, is that the future only holds the prospect of more war and more suffering.

re waheed

waheed, there is no need for petulance and rudeness. no one is asking you to give up your comforts and join a delegation to provide medicine and toys to iraqi children. you dont even have to worry about it or talk or read about it. but, please, if you have nothing interesting, intelligent, convincing, insightful, or even plain old decent to say -- keep a lid on it. we have a right to express outrage and concern, thank you.

Re: ASK`s post #40

My mistake...I did not fully realize that you were speaking from a West Asian Indian perpective!

Could I ask you to delineate a geo-political boundary for what consitutes, in your opinion, West Asia. My understanding of the term is that it includes a region from Iran to Mynanmar, excluding Iraq which is in middle east. West Asia, in the defination of the US State Dept. generally also encompasses the the same area as South Asia.

Hence, if I understand your question, ``changing the rules`` would imply a geo-strategic realignment of power in the region. This then would bring en vouge the disscussions of Mr. Dhume`s article about Indian hegemony, because that is what we would be talking about.

To take that raison a step futher, it is already an established fact that India is the defacto hegemon of the region. To give Indian hegemony a de jure status, couple of things would have to happen. First and foremost, Pakistan would have to give up its regional power plays in Kashmir and Afghanistan and agree to subordinate its interests within the political tolerances of Indian hegemony, in return for a rapproachément with India on outstanding issues. Secondly, Pakistan would have to officially legitimize Indian hegemony by linking its interests in the region with the overall Indian perspective. Its official policy would be to second and support Indian views to lend credence to the idea of an Indian hegemony in exchange for the Indians using their political clout to externalize and marginalize foreign (western)interests.

Thirdly, all the nations in that geographic area would have to agree to similar positions. Once that is done, the area has to be offically inked in a treaty, much like the Helsinki Accords establishing a de jure Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe, creating and granting to the Indians a sphere of influence in the region. Once this happens, then the Indians can act as the offical spokesperson for the region and based on its economy, population, and military might, but more importantly, the literacy levels of its population, it needs to sponser and give its political patronage to the region as a geo-political, and an economic power bloc in its own rights.

Once that happens, the rules of the game are changed, because now to deal with the region, one has to go through India and the policies of regional confrontation, which the west China favors, are no longer applicable. Thus, via dealing with one nation for the entire region, there is going to be a focus and coherence of policies that will tilt the geo-regional, affecting the geo-strategic, balance of power.

That is how you change the rules of the game and it can be and should be done, but the question is; will it be done?

ASK, I trust you had something similar in mind, or am I, again, off the mark?