Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts

Re: RR (Reply 80)

I think Waheed has finally scampered away and is lying in wait for another opportunity to show us what a strong, brave, red-blooded American he is. Maybe he is watching more cartoons to glean one-liner lessons which can then edify our misguided souls. There has to be an acceptance of your views in the mainstream media before he is going to stick his neck out and support it. Remember this pearl: ``I have yet to come across and average american who say`s USA should get out of Iraq...`` Maybe he is hanging out with Mr. Average American getting the pulse of the nation. Maybe he`s driving around blissfully in his Japanese import, with a sticker on the back reading ``Dallar ki talaash!`` Maybe its enough of an ego boost that you even respond to his posts.

Re: Shafqat (Reply 79)

``Good point. In fact, they`re not. That`s why I`m getting out of here.``

It must be tough just counting your days here, gritting your teeth and not criticizing your hosts, and above all waiting to get back to Pakistan before you can really say what you want. Then again, maybe once you`re back there, you will find other reasons to support the might-is-right paradigm in your neck of the woods. Although…your good samaritan impulse to stand up for the rights of dissenters here on chowk, may be the seed that eventually redeems you.

``You must realize that it is hard to take people seriously if they lack the confidence to speak as themselves.``

If its difficult to take seriously, people who use pseudonyms, why do you spend most of your time responding to these same people? Maybe, and this is a pure stab in the dark, their arguments are compelling. And rightfully, that is what you should be focussing on.

Rehan Rizvi writes: ``BTW Saad: that`s my real name and I hope using initials in place of a name, as Sohail and others do, is not a capital crime in your dictionary. But I`m not sure anymore.``

Rehan, my friend, it is not just the fictitious name, but rather the claims one makes from behind it. The answer to your question, at any rate, is no, of course not. :) :)

Saad

Hmmm...Waheed:

Your silence tells me you have no idea how to respond to my last reply. Well, do you? Or are you taking the fifth? I bet you have no idea what that even means. Anyway, you are not trying to pretend that you didn`t read it, are you? Have some guts and try and come up with a response my friend. Either act like a red-blooded American or shut the hell up. Wait...no, you have as much right to not say anything rational as anyone else.

Only if more Americans could use their heads once in a while for anything other than the thing they put their hats on, like thinking for example, those few of us in the civil rights groups, who fight for everyone`s rights, including yours, wouldn`t have such a hard time protecting the constitution from becoming a tool in the hands of the fascists who like to bomb others just for the hell of it. Get educated for your own sake sire.

Enough said! Hope you had a nice weekend.

Rehan Rizvi.

BTW Saad: that`s my real name and I hope using initials in place of a name, as Sohail and others do, is not a capital crime in your dictionary. But I`m not sure anymore.

Random writes: ``The ones who do respond are not intending to silence the writer, as you contend, but to show how untenable the argument is.``

Well, I was responding to an anonymous interacter who wanted dissenters to ``keep a lid on it.`` This seemed like self-appointed policing. Now you are saying that this was actually an attempt to ``show how untenable the argument is.`` Since you seem to be familiar with that particular interacter’s motives, I will accept your explanation. :)

Random also writes: ``Do you really feel your paychecks are worth it if you have to kiss that much butt ?``

Good point. In fact, they’re not. That’s why I’m getting out of here.

And Random also writes: ``Your critics are the ones criticizing the hand. They are the ones questioning the status quo.``

I think you might have missed the point. I was trying to say that all this chest-thumping sounds quite hollow coming from behind a fictitious name. So all this proud ‘criticism’ actually comes across as a bit of a joke. You must realize that it is hard to take people seriously if they lack the confidence to speak as themselves.

Saad

Re: Waheed

If you were waiting for CNN to do a soundbite on American-Muslim protest, you will tend to be discouraged. The fact that CNN and other media forums did not ``cover`` the news does not imply that there was no news. 1998, according to the American media, only dealt with Monica Lewinsky and nothing else, as far as they were concered, happened in the world.

There is, for your edification, a silent protest against American policy in Iraq, but it is concentrated in foreign policy circles and unless, you read specialized journals on the topic, you will end up being misinformed by the media. If you want dissenting opinions on American foreign policy, I would recommend The Fletcher Report, published by the Tufts University press. It is primarily published for career State Dept. officios and the articles are authored by them too.

A word to the wise, I take exception to your suggestion that just because a nation is strong, it can do anything it wants and its citizens , and the rest of the world, should not voice their opinions against its polices. If you want an example of what happens when such a policy is followed, look no further than Nazi Germany.

Secondly, anyone who pays taxes to Uncle Sam, has the right to tell him what is wrong and if BG is paying taxes, she has earned that right and it is immaterial what her national origins are!

Hay Qazi-e Taqdeer ka fatwa yeh azal say
Hay Jurm-e Zaeefi ki saza marg-e-mufajaat

-Iqbal

(The verdict of Nature from the the beginning is: The punishment for weakness is eternal death.)

Re: Shafqat

``…every now and then one comes across people who want to police the content of discourse… ``

Police is a strong word. More accurate to say that most people don`t feel compelled to respond to some of the extreme views presented here. The ones who do respond are not intending to silence the writer, as you contend, but to show how untenable the argument is. When you finally lock yourself out in the cold with a passionate but specious logic, don`t blame your critics for `policing` you.

``…It is easy (perhaps even fashionable) to beat one`s chest against the US in a forum like this one, but it takes more resolve (not to mention intrapersonal insight) to be able to question the hand that feeds you.``

This sort of reasoning completely baffles me. What you have now started doing is stating the opposing position and claiming its your own. I`ve had the same problem with some of my jamaati friends who will argue into the wee hours of the morning, going around in circular logic, and wearing one down to the point of exhaustion. WHO is questioning the ``hand that feeds``? Not Waheed. Or you. You both want to grab that hand and kiss it. You want to take off your chaddis and have this hand slap your buttocks. Then you want to kiss it again - bhai thora aur maar lein. All because this gracious hand has allowed you to earn a living on its soil!? Are you guys such slaves to your paychecks? Do you really feel your paychecks are worth it if you have to kiss that much butt? Your critics are the ones criticizing the hand. They are the ones questioning the status quo. This would be laughable if it weren`t so exasperating.

``For people who feel the need to hide behind fictitious names, that is probably asking too much :).``

Get over the names, Shafqat. This is your default codicil whenever you run out of ammo.

Click…click…oops.

Waheed writes: ``We are so neatly tucked away in our comfort zone here on chowk far away from reality...you can`t do that...NOT one single mainstream media entity either criticized or protested, NOT one ``muslim`` walked out of his job in protest...:-( Its like in your local mosque where the Khateeb say`s these people are hell bound...and what`s worse is that we still don`t tell him to shove it...:-) !!!``

Very well said. It is easy (perhaps even fashionable) to beat one`s chest against the US in a forum like this one, but it takes more resolve (not to mention intrapersonal insight) to be able to question the hand that feeds you. For people who feel the need to hide behind fictitious names, that is probably asking too much :).

Saad

Random writes: ``Really! Have you found Chowk to be that fascist a space? Why would you continue to be so actively involved with it then?``


Well, Chowk is a great idea and a great product. It gives us all a chance to speak our mind. But, since electronic discussion forums tend to mirror human social interaction, every now and then one comes across people who want to police the content of discourse. Call it good samaritan reflex if you will, but it is something I am always moved to speak up against.

Saad

Re: Waheed

``We all are here BECAUSE we are not there...:-)``

Keep repeating it, maybe we`ll go insane and see the logic.

``...``profit margin`` ``bottom line`` and ``aggression`` are these too difficult concepts for you to handle...?``

Yo Einstein. Try and understand the opinions expressed. People already know these reasons. They just don`t have to wholeheartedly accept, or promote them, like you do.

``What I assumed was this forum is for either ``temps``, ``economic refugees`` or ``first generation americans``, and hence my contention``

Yet another example of you projecting on other chowkwallas how you view yourself.

``We are so neatly tucked away in our comfort zone here on chowk far away from reality...you can`t do that...NOT one single mainstream media entity either criticized or protested ``

When the view becomes mainstream, then you`ll support it. You`re the one in the comfort zone, bud.

``Its like in your local mosque where the Khateeb say`s these people are hell bound...and what`s worse is that we still don`t tell him to shove it...:-) !!!``

You don`t have the guts to admonish your khateeb (figuratively), so others get the wagging finger? Take responsibility for your own lack of initiative. And do stop projecting.

``Also, NOT one person in this discussion, took my question seriously…"

You bring it on yourself. Then again, maybe everyone else is illogical and you`re the only sane voice.

``I went to watch ``a bugs life``...``

It`s a cartoon! Don`t get your life`s philosophy from it.

``a victim, is a weak person, and to be weak in the world I live in, is a sin,``

Careful, your paranoia is showing.

``.. I faild to see you either adding or subtracting something to my point of view...``

I know, I know, sticks and stones! You can take a head-in-the-sands approach to everything but then don`t ask why no one takes you seriously.

Re: Shafqat

Ungul ? Not quite. … I just don`t want to see dissenting views get drowned out by people who want the dissenters to ``keep a lid on it.``

OK, the good samaritan Ungul then. Really! Have you found Chowk to be that fascist a space? Why would you continue to be so actively involved with it then?

Random:

Ungul ? Not quite. My concern here is much less interesting. I just don`t want to see dissenting views get drowned out by people who want the dissenters to ``keep a lid on it.``

Saad

Re: BG,Rishi,RR,Feroz,ASK, et al

Complex issue. Your posts illuminated different aspects of this issue and give us all a more nuanced picture of the game at hand.

Re: Waheed (Reply 39)

Its very tough to understand your posts because you come across like Bashira (from Fifty Fifty) doing Rush Limbaugh. Will not substitute Sultan Rahi for Bashira, for he is a true legend. Your excessive use of the ellipsis and triple exclamations with cliches, add nothing to the ongoing debate. I present examples:

``REALITY CHECK...!!! 1) U.S gets to bomb any place she feels like, you know why, cuz SHE CAN....!!! She can have her cake any godamn way and eat it too....!!! 2) So either shut up...and make your dollars quietly and enjoy your life...or leave... 3) ALL of you are here....BECAUSE...????``

This stream of consciousness writing gets tiresome when your point, if we can call it that, is going nowhere - very fast. Perhaps your objective is to yank everyone`s chain when you feel the discussion has been exceptionally intellectualized; OR you feel frustrated at not having a cogent rebuttal to what has been said. The residual effect is you end up sounding like Bashira in Trouble:

``Touch me naat vhay oi Bashireaah.``

``Oi, vhat if I do ...... THAANH!`` (`then` pronounced in gowalmandi style)

Furthermore, I am piqued by your right-wing Republican/let the good times roll/if you don`t like it LEAVE!/kiss the Bully`s backside/life in the US is jannat so stop whining/model minority jingoism.

Your posts reek of frustration because you probably feel powerless to do anything about the obvious injustice and inconsistencies in Operation Desert Fox. You lapse into predictable holier-than-thou anger against the critics of US policy, because you feel they are as ineffective as yourself in creating a quick change in govt, media, or public opinion. Bhaiyaa, qatra qatra dariah banda aye. In your rush to judge you provide unintended insight to yourself by projecting your views on others.

You sound embarrassed about a perceived `mehman` status in the US. Pakistan gave me jack PLUS the US gave me money/status beyond my wildest dreams EQUALS I hate Pakis who gripe about anything here. Doesn`t make much sense, but this is what you come across as. Witness your persistent remonstrations to shut up and love this country cuz by golly they`re the biggest and the baddest and you gotta love `em. This annoying and unoriginal philosophy is symptomatic of many first generation desis, and other immigrants who misguidedly vote Republican. These guys think they`re very bright and have the system wired, so dollar kamao, live in suburbian bliss and the world be damned. Some of them even think they`re white! Most of them are upwardly mobile professionals with a skewed view of reality.

You must try for a nuanced understanding of the discussion before you launch into this knee-jerk one-dimensional tirade. The loose cannon approach of slamming everyone by starting ``Re: All`` belies an impatience to fathom at least four separate facets of the issue elucidated by different people. Sadly, your comments achieve nothing other than getting your name in print, and that is a dubious distinction, given the content.

``My mother was telling me as story of European conquests by muslims...even if a state flag was left behind by muslim warriors, the christians would fear it...``

I`m sure a lot of us grew up learning history at the knees of our mothers, but at some point we moved on to books and other sources of information to educate ourselves further and formulate our own opinions. May I suggest its never too late.

``I don`t think this would be an exaggeration...because I see it now, the star spangled banner and the mighty dollar...god bless america....they freak`n deserve it...they sure deserve to rule and kick our asses over and over again... ``

Self hate? Pathological? Case study? Maybe you`re playing this bad version of the devil`s advocate to inject introspection and hilarity into an otherwise dry subject? And succeeding!

``These people are smarter, hardworking, tougher...WHY THE HECK they can`t do whatever pleases them...Isn`t THIS IN YOUR FACE SHITHEAD...kinda sting...??? They have gotten every royal ``BADDU`` by the Ka`hoot`s, ...I mean come`on, is it good or is it good...???``

Priceless! I`m speechless. ``Ka`hoot`s``? Surely you mean kahonas.

Re: Shafqat (Reply 58)

Buhat khoob. Entering the discussion by playing the role of `ungul` (as in finger)? Guilt by association?

re rishi

`` --- the citizens of US own the resources of their country and by being a representative of these citizens the US government does indirectly own the resources of the nation.. About the world, well that is a different matter ``

even if we agree on the legal/technical definition, private property laws translate into private ownership of most resources, with the govt playing mostly a regulatory function. (of course, im not entirely for private property, but that is another discussion…btw, not suggesting stalinist communism here)i would still argue for the term ``control`` versus the term ``ownership``.

``Yeah, you might be right. But then who is`nt a bully. ``

fine. i am opposed to all the bullying. the US inflicts more damage than other countries because of its immense power, therefore it comes up frequently for criticism.


``and i do hope that you would think the same about the Kuwaitis and the Kurds``

no one who is opposed to the sanctions against and bombing of iraq holds the position because they support saddam hussein. i certainly dont. i dont understand why one is always required to qualify one`s critism of US policy towards iraq by proving that one recognizes how awful saddam hussein is. he is awful and the sanctions and bombing are still wrong.

``the fact that sanctions are crippling on IRAQ, itself points to the fact that Iraq is not necessarily wealthy in a self-sufficient way.``

no country in this day and age is self-sufficient. even the almighty US. the sanctions against iraq are the most punitive and severe in WORLD HISTORY. my point was that its not that iraq does not have the resources to fulfill its needs. iraq is not allowed to sell its oil, which is its major form of revenue and foreign exchange. and therefore, iraq is unable to buy needed food and medicine. i wanted to point out the fact that iraq`s present poverty is very clearly linked to POLICY and not a lack of resources.

``Your earlier replies were based more on facts than on emotion.``

maybe this was a more `personal` response and therefore, seemed more `emotional`. i dont know. i still stand behind my arguments, and i dont think we really disagree about the core issues.

regards.

I really can`t see how the commentary by Waheed is NOT unintelligent. It amazes me why dissenting voices are automatically assumed refreshing, accurate and logical when in many cases they are no more than dissenting.In this case the only thing this voice is, is cliched. When you cannot do much with a criticism, take personal jibes at the critic, make the critic out to be a hypocrite (which is easily done because all you need to prove a hypocrisy is any inconsistency - minor, perceived, assumed, whatever).

How is it ever hypocritical to criticize something that you sincerely and consistently believe is wrong? Hypocrisy implies a geniune inconsistency. E.g. you criticize the US for something that you do or support/accept other s doing). All other inconsistencies are usually trumped up to prove hypocrisy. If the exact opinions expressed by BG were stated by CH sitting in Pakistan, how does the the argument change? Someone`s location has nothing to do with the nature of the argument and facts: in this case, US`s unacknowledged role in the inhumanity of the sanctions (Its all Saddam`s Fault), the real purpose of the US foreign Policy towards Iraq (Oil) verses the stated one - defending its neighbors (remember the neighborly Iran), the hypocrisiy of their policy in the mideast (Israelites and Non-Israelites). That both indigenous and immigrant folks have made the US a good economy over this century does nothing to these facts.

If your criticism (against a government e.g.) is suppressed forcibly isn`t that what a dictatorship/autocracy is? If it is automatically suppressed by the fact that you are a citizen under that government, how is that any different from a dictatorship? If any criticism is met with the response, ``Oh Yeah, why dont you get out`` (i.e. agree with us or be deported), isn`t that a dictatorship? Isn`t that what our good friends, the Washington DC Defenders of Democracy are purportedly fighting everywhere in the world?

This interaction HAS seen unintelligent arguments. Anyone who can be Bully is correct in being a bully and should not be criticized. If you cannot get out of a bad situation its your own damn fault (the people of Iraq versus Saddam`s regime).

re rishi

thanks rishi. i especially like the way you take waheed`s argument to its logical conclusion:

``Given your argument, she
cannot live in any country at all. ``

well said. thank heavens things are not quite so hopeless :)

Re: BG

Some inaccuracies IMHO

you said

`` 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. ``

--- the citizens of US own the resources of their country and by being a representative of these citizens the US government does indirectly own the resources of the nation.. About the world, well that is a different matter

You said

``right now i live in the US, which is a powerful bully, ``

-- Yeah, you might be right. But then who is`nt a bully. Did`nt Iraq bully Kuwait, does`nt India do the same, and what about China, Pakistan , and every goddamn country in the world. The truth is given an opportunity everyone will be a bully as long as it serves their interest.

You said

`` 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. ``

---and i do hope that you would think the same about the Kuwaitis and the Kurds , apart from victims of lockerbie and the New York bomb blasts. The point i am trying to make is that, a emotional view over reality never helps. In this matter, i would subscibe to Ferozk`s real-politic analyses.

You said

``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!``

--- the fact that sanctions are crippling on IRAQ, itself points to the fact that Iraq is not necessarily wealthy in a self-sufficient way. Iraqis are paying for having a leader who was stupid in intention and execution......

Your earlier replies were based more on facts than on emotion . And this is not a left handed compliment .

Rishi

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?

re: Ferozk

I am sorry for the negative tone of my previous post. On rereading your last post I agree with your proposal. Only I do not see a preeminent position for India in the scheme of things(I do not believe that India is in any way more capable of articulating a common asian viewpoint). I would much rather have a wide based initiative for this realignment.

Ashish

re: Ferozk

I do not share the views expressed by Mr.Dhume on India`s dominance over the region. I was expressing my opinion about the recent activities in Iraq and believe that the same are the feelings of Indians in general. This certainly did not exclude Pakistanis nor did it relegate them to any kind of secondary role in the region or for that matter any of the nationalities in the whole of west asia(by that i mean everything west of the subcontinent which I consider South Asia). I hope you too share my desire to see democracy flourishing in the whole region. It is this perspective that I was talking about. And it is to fulfil this desire of mine that I recommended disengagement of the West from affairs in the region. This certainly does not mean supplanting western hegemony with the hegemony of any other nation. Rather a general movement of the entire region towards a stable democratic setup like western europe. Since I do not percieve western presence in the region as contributing towards this ideal(and I believe most Pakistanis feel the same way too), I propose unified action by all asian nations to take a moral stand against these activities. I regret that you have misinterpreted my concern and an idealistic (though I believe also pragmatic) proposal as having ulterior motives.



sincerely, Ashish

Re: Mubbashir

I agree with your contention that anti-American Iraqi policy advocates have to mobilize public support to seek a reversal of the present policy towards Baghdad.

You suggested that you do not want to lobby the government, that is fine, but local grassroots activism to change, influence, a policy is based on a public perception of the problem. In the case of the American policy towards Iraq, the vast majority of the American public is misinformed and indifferent towards and what is happening in Iraq as a result of American policy.

The Iraqi problem basically falls within a national security foreign policy agenda of the United States and that is a top-down approach. If you do not have access to the policy decision making bodies and as in this case, the media follows the establishment rationale, and denies you your cause access to diseminate information, then grassroots activism becomes a viable option.

The key is still how do you inform the American public that:

1) There is a serious problem
2) The problem affects them
3) The problem can be solved
4) They need to get involved
5) and lastly, but most importantly: finding and supporting political candidates who agree with your position.

This sort of political activism requires an infrastructure that is coherent and has the logistical acumen to get its message heard. Granted, there are a lot of organizations that moniter Iraq, but they are in most cases splintered and are not joined within a large scheme of things. Hence, their messages warnings are often disjointed, seen as alarming and they do not have a political focus; to increase public awareness to change a policy. I promise you, if these groups can join in a common consensus, they will have enough clout to consitute a lobby of their own, enough to interest media attention.

As to your other point, I agree. Saddam Hussein`s regime of terror is supported by the Iraqi elites who, in his ability to rule, see their own survivial. Their position of power, wealth and influence are a direct manisfestion of his rule and since their social status derives from him, they are not too eager to risk their own political suicide. The trick is to convince these groups that there is an existence after Saddam Hussein. No amount of cruise missiles will ``degrade`` this group`s faith in the regime. They have to be told and even, if necessary, promised that their status in society will not be lessened if Saddam Hussein goes the way of the Dodo bird.

In this case, I think that the best American policy would be one of a gradual approach and should be not to alienate the Iraqi people, but to,``win their hearts and minds.`` The Iraq people need to told and offered an alternative to Saddam Hussein. The idea of a Radio Free Iraq is a good idea; they should be told what they are not hearing and let them decide who is right.

Re: BG

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

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.

As the Irish say, may the road rise up to meet you!

re: Ferozk

Thanks for your insightful replies to my responses and those of RR and mubbashir. You have nicely articulated the American position and the rationale given by the Americans(or lack thereof) for that. But my response was from the Indian perspective. Hence the desire to ``change the rules of the game`` in West Asia. I believe that the current American policies in the region are working opposite to the stated objectives(and towards other not so benign ones, intentionally I believe). Replacing the present regime with another dictator or a Shia-Kurd one doesn`t look like something that will lead to long term stability(or democracy). Weakening the people will certainly give more power to the current regime or any similar successor. Disengagement, therefore, seems to be the best policy from the moral standpoint and pragmatic in the long run. I cannot but advocate this. Radio Free Iraq, if it really preaches democracy, I support.

regards,

Ashishk

re: all

Here is a nice article from the Times of India

High Crime In Iraq Not in White House

By VIDYA SUBRAHMANIAM

http://www.timesofindia.com/221298/22edit9.htm

Ashish

here is some more useful information from the international action center:

``But let`s look at the specifics of the U.S. charges against Iraq right now. They too are a lie. Was Iraq in noncompliance? Neither Butler nor the U.S. has challenged the Iraqi Foreign Minister`s allegation that since November 17, 1998, when Iraq allowed weapons inspections to resume, there have been 427 inspections, 128 of them at new sites, and UNSCOM has cited only five so-called obstructions. Five obstructions! And what were they? One was a 45 minute delay before allowing access. Another was a rebuff to an outrageous demand by a U.S. arm inspector, Dianne Seamons, that inspectors be allowed to
interview all of the undergraduate students in Baghdad University`s Science Department. Another, on December 9, was the inspection of a small headquarters of the Baathist political party. Inspectors left those premises after they were asked what is the relation between the
small headquarters of a party and the disarmament mission. The last two cases of so-called Iraqi noncompliance were this: UNSCOM asked to
inspect two establishments on Fridays--the Muslim holy day. The Iraqis told UNSCOM that since these establishments were not open on Friday, the inspectors could visit the establishments, but they would need to be accompanied by Iraqi officials. This is in accordance with the agreement between Iraq and UNSCOM about Friday inspections. These five incidents are the supposed legal basis for raining thousands of powerful missiles into Iraq.``

here is some more useful information from the international action center:

``But let`s look at the specifics of the U.S. charges against Iraq right now. They too are a lie. Was Iraq in noncompliance? Neither Butler nor the U.S. has challenged the Iraqi Foreign Minister`s allegation that since November 17, 1998, when Iraq allowed weapons inspections to resume, there have been 427 inspections, 128 of them at new sites, and UNSCOM has cited only five so-called obstructions. Five obstructions! And what were they? One was a 45 minute delay before allowing access. Another was a rebuff to an outrageous demand by a U.S. arm inspector, Dianne Seamons, that inspectors be allowed to
interview all of the undergraduate students in Baghdad University`s Science Department. Another, on December 9, was the inspection of a small headquarters of the Baathist political party. Inspectors left those premises after they were asked what is the relation between the
small headquarters of a party and the disarmament mission. The last two cases of so-called Iraqi noncompliance were this: UNSCOM asked to
inspect two establishments on Fridays--the Muslim holy day. The Iraqis told UNSCOM that since these establishments were not open on Friday, the inspectors could visit the establishments, but they would need to be accompanied by Iraqi officials. This is in accordance with the agreement between Iraq and UNSCOM about Friday inspections. These five incidents are the supposed legal basis for raining thousands of powerful missiles into Iraq.
``

re: FerozK

I have enjoyed your explanations on Real Politik, hunting, and socio-political darwinism. And I agree that when it comes to institutionalized power, the state, family, its ``might (that) makes right``. But speaking for myself, i don`t expect the people in the pentagon, white house and congress to stop and ask themselves why they are bombing people of Iraq. Like you said it`s in their (not just Clinton here) vested interest to have Saddam, to enact the sanctions, and to occasionaly bomb the place. All the moralisms are not going to stop anything when it comes to the action of the state.

Their justifications might be as hollow as the one`s used to burn down Vietnamese villages in order to save them, but they will work as long as we sit back as spectators. But (here is where i disagree with you), one of the reasons why people have gotten involved in doing something about what`s going on is to disseminate information about what is realy going on and has been going on for a long time in this region. So we are not looking to lobby to the gov`t where our voices will be drowned by better financed interests but to turn to the public- in the form of protests, rallies, posters. This might sound naive to practitioners of real politik but as the action of the Ohio State student activists in preventing US bombing of Iraq in the previous build-up showed that `political animals` can be checked by a informed public or good agitation-propaganda to change the presumptions about this conflict.

...also your confusion on why Iraqi people don`t show their appreciation for American bombing of their cities is kind of self explanatory---if anything US actions since the end of Gulf War have probably strengthened Saddam with some segments of Iraqi population, while dissenting rebels have been systematically executed, or forced to flee.

re: Saddam

An interesting twist on the coincidence angle: what if the mice are running the show ?

Just a thought (and no i am not being facetious)... dL

BG (24, 28):

Yes, I guess you`re right, the third reason I gave--EGO--should be read in a very comprehensive sense. ``Ego`` also meaning a display for the world, in no uncertain terms, about its reach and destructive power.

About this being a moral thing: I agree that we must speak up and make a stink about this whole thing (did you ever go to that demonsration in Time Square?). And there is no question that it is morally wrong. I mean, there has to be another way to deal with all this, a way that doesn`t involve butchering so many people. US foreign policy needs a big overhaul in that respect.

--AS

Visit http://www.lbbs.org for an alternative viewpoint to the barrage of propaganda in the U.S. media. Lots of great articles and statements on the U.S. killings.

my sincere apologies to umair and the readers. i just wanted to put this out there:

The Independent (18 Dec 1998)

Robert Fisk - Deadly cost of
a degrading act

WE ARE now in the endgame, the final
bankruptcy of Western policy towards Iraq, the
very last throw of the dice. We fire 200 cruise
missiles into Iraq and what do we expect? Is a
chastened Saddam Hussein going to emerge from
his bunker to explain to us how sorry he is? Will
he tell us how much he wants those nice UN
inspectors to return to Baghdad to find his
``weapons of mass destruction``? Is that what we
think? Is that what the Anglo-American
bombardment is all about? And if so, what
happens afterwards? What happens when the
missile attacks end - just before the Muslim holy
month of Ramadan, because, of course, we really
are very sensitive about Iraqi religious feelings -
and Saddam Hussein tells us that the UN
inspectors will never be allowed to return?

As the cruise missiles were launched, President
Clinton announced that Saddam had ``disarmed
the [UN] inspectors``, and Tony Blair - agonising
about the lives of the ``British forces`` involved (all
14 pilots) - told us that ``we act because we
must``. In so infantile a manner did we go to war
on Wednesday night. No policies. No
perspective. Not the slightest hint as to what
happens after the bombardment ends. With no
UN inspectors back in Iraq, what are we going to
do? Declare eternal war against Iraq?

We are ``punishing`` Saddam - or so Mr Blair
would have us believe. And all the old cliches are
being trundled out. In 1985, just before he
bombed them, Ronald Reagan told the Libyans
that the United States had ``no quarrel with the
Libyan people``. In 1991, just before he bombed
them, George Bush told the Iraqis that he had ``no
quarrel with the Iraqi people``. And now we have
Tony Blair - as he bombs them - telling Iraqis
that, yes, he has ``no quarrel with the Iraqi
people``.

Is there a computer that churns out this stuff? Is
there a cliche department at Downing Street
which also provides Robin Cook with the tired
phrase of the American Secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, about how Saddam used gas
``against his own people``?

For little did we care when he did use that gas
against the Kurds of Halabja - because, at the
time, those Kurds were allied to Iran and we, the
West, were supporting Saddam`s invasion of Iran.

The lack of any sane long-term policy towards
Iraq is the giveaway. Our patience - according to
Clinton and Blair - is exhausted. Saddam cannot
be trusted to keep his word (they`ve just
realised). And so Saddam`s ability to ``threaten his
neighbours`` - neighbours who don`t in fact want
us to bomb Iraq - has to be ``degraded``. That
word ``degraded`` is a military term, first used by
General Schwarzkopf and his boys in the 1991
Gulf war, and it is now part of the vocabulary of
the weak. Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction
have to be ``degraded``. Our own dear Mr Cook
was at it again yesterday, informing us of the need
to ``degrade`` Saddam`s military capability.

How? The UN weapons inspectors - led for most
of the time by Scott Ritter (the man who has
admitted he kept flying to Israel to liaise with
Israeli military intelligence), could not find out
where Saddam`s nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons were hidden. They had been harassed
by Iraq`s intelligence thugs, and prevented from
doing their work. Now we are bombing the
weapons facilities which the inspectors could not
find. Or are we? For there is a very serious
question that is not being asked: if the inspectors
couldn`t find the weapons, how come we know
where to fire the cruise missiles?

And all the while, we continue to impose
genocidal sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that are
killing innocent Iraqis and - by the admission of
Mr Cook and Mrs Albright - not harming
Saddam at all. Mrs Albright rages at Saddam`s
ability to go on building palaces, and Mr Cook is
obsessed with a report of the regime`s purchase
of liposuction equipment which, if true, merely
proves that sanctions are a total failure.

Mr Cook prattles on about how Iraq can sell
more than $10bn (£6bn) of oil a year to pay for
food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. But
since more than 30 per cent of these oil revenues
are diverted to the UN compensation fund and
UN expenses in Iraq, his statement is totally
untrue.

Dennis Halliday, the man who ran the UN
oil-for-food programme in Baghdad, until he
realised that thousands of Iraqi children were
dying every month because of sanctions, resigned
his post with the declaration that ``we are in the
process of destroying an entire society. it is illegal
and immoral.`` So either Mr Halliday is a
pathological liar - which I do not believe - or Mr
Cook has a serious problem with the truth -
which I do believe.

Now we are bombing the people who are
suffering under our sanctions. Not to mention the
small matter of the explosion of child cancer in
southern Iraq, most probably as a result of the
Allied use of depleted uranium shells during the
1991 war. Gulf war veterans may be afflicted
with the same sickness, although the British
Government refuses to contemplate the
possibility. And what, in this latest strike, are
some of our warheads made of? Depleted
uranium, of course.

Maybe there really is a plan afoot for a coup
d`etat, though hopefully more ambitious than our
call to the Iraqi people to rise up against their
dictator in 1991, when they were abandoned by
the Allies they thought would speed to their
rescue. Mr Clinton says he wants a democracy in
Iraq - as fanciful a suggestion as any made
recently. He is demanding an Iraqi government
that ``represents its people`` and ``respects`` its
citizens. Not a single Arab regime - especially not
Washington`s friends in Saudi Arabia - offers such
luxuries to its people. We are supposed to
believe, it seems, that Washington and London
are terribly keen to favour the Iraqi people with a
fully fledged democracy. In reality, what we want
in Iraq is another bullying dictator - but one who
will do as he is told, invade the countries we wish
to see invaded (Iran), and respect the integrity of
those countries we do not wish to see invaded
(Kuwait).

Yet no questions are being asked, no lies
uncovered. Ritter, the Marine Corps inspector
who worked with Israeli intelligence, claimed that
Richard Butler - the man whose report triggered
this week`s new war - was aware of his visits to
Israel. Is that true? Has anyone asked Mr Butler?
He may well have avoided such contacts - but it
would be nice to have an answer.

So what to do with Saddam? Well, first, we
could abandon the wicked sanctions regime
against Iraq. We have taken enough innocent
lives. We have killed enough children. Then we
could back the real supporters of democracy in
Iraq - not the ghouls and spooks who make up
the so-called Iraqi National Congress, but the
genuine dissidents who gathered in Beirut in 1991
to demand freedom for their country, but were
swiftly ignored by the Americans once it became
clear that they didn`t want a pro-Western
strongman to lead them.

And we could stop believing in Washington.
Vice-President Al Gore told Americans yesterday
that it was a time for ``national resolve and unity``.
You might have thought that the Japanese had just
bombed Pearl Harbor, or that General
MacArthur had just abandoned Bataan. When
President Clinton faced the worst of the Monica
Lewinsky scandal, he bombed Afghanistan and
Sudan. Faced with impeachment, he now bombs
Iraq. How far can a coincidence go?

This week, two Christian armies - America`s and
Britain`s - went to war with a Muslim nation, Iraq.
With no goals, but with an army of platitudes,
they have abandoned the UN`s weapons control
system, closed the door on arms inspections, and
opened the door to an unlimited military offensive
against Iraq. And nobody has asked the obvious
question: what happens next?

So now we know who truly owns ``Weapons of Mass Destruction``.

The Sudanese are without life-saving drugs, civilizations spanning the earliest millennia are being destroyed, and we watch the spectacle on TV.

I agree with you BG. The CNN TV coverage is a sickening, trivializing, infuriating, spectacle.

Anita

re all

you know all this talk about real politik and rationalism and realism and interests is all bogus. US national security and US interests, according to the spin doctors, *by definition * exclude security and interests of the majority of the world`s people. is the contradiction not clear? the US`s reasons for bombing are transparent. we dont need theory to understand what is going on, merely common sense. ultimately, it is a moral judgement. do we think that violence and aggression are `wrong` no matter who commits them or do we think that if you have the bigger gun, you call the shots? do we let the greediest, meanest bully win because he makes and breaks the rules of the game or do we challenge the game and the rules?

it is laughable that the US bombed iraq for supposedly disobeying the UN, while the US itself has broken every conceivable international law in this latest show of cowardly, arrogant disregard for the life of iraqis.


as an aside: CNN`s live coverage of the bombing, as if it some kind of game, is truly sickening. we sit here, thousands of miles away, safely in front of our television sets, enjoying the `live` spectacle of the bombing. its truly surreal how the physical distance from the war (because, of course, its not on our precious soil robbed from the indigenous people) turns it into some kind of entertainment for US americans, while iraqis die and fear for their lives. the sheer cowardliness of the whole business makes me ill.


re annogul

``a white Christian country``

the white makes all the difference. we all know the christians down in panama, grenada, palestine or lebanon dont really count.

Re: RR

This is the first time I`ve done double a play on the Chowk....

Lets start from the bottom and work our way to the top. Thanks for admonishing me not to sell myself short, but being a political animal by nature and by instinct, I have to otherwise no one will buy me! RR, do you know the difference between a politican and a whore...there is none, if the money is right, we`ll assume any position you`d like! As to my being an educated person, I will take your word for it!

As to the realist mindset and the precepts of Realpolitik, I have never subscribed to that viewpoint. Realism, as viable political philosophy, and its adherence to the the doctrine of the zero-sum game, ended on August 4,1914, when the First World War began and invalidated it. The antebellum Europe was dominated by Bismarck and his Realpolitik and by its secert military alliances in a win-lose logical format. Whether I agreed or disagreed with that modus oprendi is a moot point. The reality is that the world I live in still operates on that basis and since I live in an imperfect world, I have to play the game as the rules warrant and not as I would like them to be.

RR, there is an old saying which simply says that one can not hunt with the hounds and also run with the foxes. That applies to life also. We all pick our battles when we can best fight them and I do not look down on any one who has the common sense to turn away and fight another day. Life is like a street fight (in my case drunken fraternity brawls at the local bars) and you must put your opponent down before he puts you down.

I do not play the blame game. As Marx said, ``to each according to his ability and to each according to his means``, I can undertand why the ``weaker opponent``, in your words resorts to bombing the World Trade Center, but I do not and will not condone that approach. Your rational and arguments for winning and surviving in a jungle are correct and I have no qualms against them, but I will say this you: you do not pick a fight with the lion in the jungle unless you are prepared to see it to a finish. If you merely paw the lion, and do it again and again over a period of time, you will only anger and infuriate the lion even more. If you want to kill a lion, you do so when he is weak and not stong.

The same reasoning and rationale applies to the groups and the nations that support them who do not have access to the modern weapons. Why do these groups only attack selective targets in a pin prick fashion that only results in massive retailiation against them. Destroying the WTC and some embassy in a Third World country will not bring them any closer to their aims. Each can play by their own rules, but if the judges (west, the majority of countries)are biased in favor of one set of rules (international diplomacy) then you still will lose the game. Let me put it to you this way, you are playing poker and the other guy is holding a pair of aces and what do you have to back up your bluff with, when it is called?

RR, I have been in enough fights to know that you do not start a fight you can not finish...that is called a death wish. That is my problem with these groups who seek to fight the United States and then say ``Hey, Uncle Sam is not playing fair.`` If you want a fair fight, go to Las Vegas, because the United States fights by street rules; dirty, rough and with the intention of putting its opponents down before they can put it down.

As to your example of the Iraqi uprisings during Bush administration and their eventual ruination, because of a lack of American support, same thing happened during the Bay of Pigs invasion, when JFK, who had favored the invasion, got cold feet and cancelled the air support hours before the landings. The Cuban exile force still went ahead and were decimated by the pro-Castro forces.

Concerning a more detailed reply on this issue, I would suggest that you see my reply to ASK below this post (I am not sure what the reference # is), but you`ll see it. You can`t miss it, the damn thing is too long!

RR; here is something for you to ponder...

The memory of an oppressed people is longer than the road to glory- Walter Winchell

Re: ASK (#20)

I will try to answer your objections to my post:

I did not question the Iraqis being as ``unfit`` in a quality of life argument, but in a political senser. All things being considered equal, the Iraqis are different from other peoples of the region, because they do not have a basic right to life. Saddam Hussein makes sure of that and in the past he has proven that point, even to his son-in-law. The west did not take away the Iraqi right to life on January 17, 1991, and has denied it since then, but Saddam Hussein did when he instituted his reign of terror over the Iraqis.

My question, which I raised, is why, in a basic sense, are the Iraqis willing to suffer for this man ? What are limits of Iraqi suffering and how long will they suffer under him and for him ? What I was suggesting was that they are the only ones who can answer that and no one else.

To be perfectly honest with you, your suggestion that the sanctions be lifted and the Iraqis wait for his much anticipated death, is unlikely to happen. The whole idea of the sanctions was to create conditions in Iraq that would foster his removal. If the sanctions were to be removed, Saddam Hussein would still be there and the Iraqis would still be suffering and there would be no democratic uprising.

The other, the real, reason why the sanctions will not be lifted, is because if that happens, then the west is admiting in toto that its policies, for the last eight years towards Iraq, were flawed. It will not admit to its own quilt in the matter. There is a annoying tendency in the western political mind to ignore its actus rea (guilty act) by refusing to credit its mistakes in hopes that they will be forgotten. The reason why the Europeans favor appeasement in the Balkans and do not reverse their policies and resist the Butcher of B