We, The Muslim Americans

shankar #446: The best and only way to look at the threat from an enemy is to look at the armament purchases of the enemy. If you are my neighbor and you say namste to me ten times, but are piling up guns with my name on them by the thousands, then should I be cautious? Maybe not. But maybe I should be. It all depends on what the consequences are if I am not conscious.

What India`s intentions of piling up armaments happen to be, is debatable. But the fact that armament is being piled up, is not debatable. It is their for everyone to see. India`s current defesne budget is now 5 times that of Pakistan.

I don`t think the RSS or Congress want to swallow Pakistan. But I am quite sure they would be happy if Pakistan was weakened significantly. Unless of course, I am mistaken, and they want Pakistan to continue strengthening itself. I assume India is not buying all this armament to use in movies.

I would encourage you to take a detailed look at the massive armament purchases India has been making over the past few years. India is planning on buying a couple more aircraft carriers. It has signed billion dollar deals with Russia for state of the art attack aircraft (Su-30). It is trying to sign billion dollar deals with France for the latest Mirage 2000 fighters. It is (has completed?) signed a deal with England for 1 billion dollars of Hawk aircraft (this is for training aircraft, so cannot be counted as purely offensive). It is signing billion dollar deals with Israel for all kinds of military equipment (this is the only deal which seems to be mostly for defensive weaponry). It has signed perhaps the largest ever South Asian deal for new tanks. It is expanding its nuclear armament into the ocean with triad launch capabilities. It is buying offensive weaponry left and right. It has increased its military budget by 24%, 15% and I belive 10% again within the past five years. It has done this despite the fact that it is one of the poorest nations in the world, with the highest population of dirt poor people living in abject poverty. Extremely poor countriess buying extremely expensive offensive weaponry is an indication that they really want to go after someone. Is India going to attack China. I doubt it. Then why waste so much money on offensive weaponry when its military is already 5 times the size of Pakistan`s? You tell me, because I don`t have an answer......

Nearly all the weaponary purchased by India can only be used against Pakistan, and not China. India is not going to launch tank, fighter and aircraft carrier attacks against China. Is it?

And it has right now carried out the largest ever deployment of troops in the history of the Sub-Continent (a timeframe ranging from pre-Ashoka to present day). This maybe the biggest deployment of troops in the world, against one country, since WWII. Indian troops are in full deployment 100 meters from Pakistan.

The premise of this deployment is apparently a list of 20 people. What a ridiculous issue to go to war over. At the same time, that list is not being presented to the ICJ or the UN. As well as cross border terrorism. While simultaneously not allowing the UN Observation Groups to monitor the border (LOC), which is their original job.

Your solution to this is that it is all a mind game, and a hool and a, ``a CON game,`` by India. Are you 100% sure? What if you turn out to be wrong? And what can Pakistan do under the current situation but offer India a bilteral withdrawl, and/or keep its forces deployed in defensive positions. It would take the Indian army only a couple of hours to march twenty miles into rural areas of Pakistan, if they were left undefended, and claim them as its own, and then call for a cease fire. It wouldn`t need to attack Lahore or any other town.

``Without aid, they are a failed nation, barely being able to survive on their own 2 feet``

Do Indians have any info on the amount of money that flowed into Pakistan from external aid agencies. Apparently not. If you do an assesment, you will discover that the total external debt of Pakistan is in the 30+ billion dollars. This includes all the interest, etc. The original amount of aid that came into Pakistan was thus quite a bit less than this (probaly between 10 to 20 billion dollars).

Pakistan`s economy actually progressed due to the money sent by Pakistanis from the Middle East from 70s till present day. And from the infrastructure development and privitization during the late 50s and 60s. At its peak, the expatriate Pakistanis were sending in amounts above 3 billion dollars a year (I believe, not sure of exact figure). If you take that over a period of thirty years, and average it, it comes out to a much much higher amount than the aid. India`s IT growth and Pakistan`s economic growth have followed the same expatriate resouce and money investment model.

Due to this, Pakistan has had the fastest growing economy in South Asia till the early 90s (i don`t have Sri Lanka`s growth rates). By the end of the 60s, according to Shahid Burki, Pakistan was being taught at Harvard as a case study, for third world progressing economies.

Why exactly would Indians consider Pakistan a banana republic when India didn`t reach Pakistan`s growth rates till the late 90s? Pakistan averaged nearly twice the growth rate of India for decades. And in 1990, Pakistan was at its historically lowest poverty level of 18%. So not a bad performance, considering the fact that India was decades ahead of Pakistan in 1947, in every single field.

Unfortunately, from the 90s onwards, BB and NS ensured that the coffers would be wiped clean, and nothing constructive would be done. But now things are improving again. The external side is doing quite well. Hopefully that will spill over into the domestic business as well. Foreign exchange reserves should reach 6 billion soon. India`s are around 7 to 8 times that. So is India`s population; so an equal ratio.

As for Kashmir, I can make a bet with you, that someday it will be free. Don`t know when, but someday. Why? Not because of anything Pakistan does. But because, I have faith in a fair God or Bhagwan or Allah. And countries can only get away with killing 60k (figures given by Advani, with a finger pointed towards Pakistan) to 70k human beings for so long, before their inhumanity catches up with them. At that time, we will find out really what is happening inside Kashmir, because the international press and AI will be allowed into it.

Personally speaking I would much rather be part of a Pakistan that maybe a banana republic which does not ban Amnesty International, then a Pakistan that is a non-banana republic but goes out of its way to ban it.

If what you have stated is the actual point of view of most Indians, then I am afraid they have no clue about Pakistan, and about the dynamics of South Asia..........

Shammi #447: George Bush actually did join the Air National Guard to avoid the draft. Most others in his cabinet however did not. Powell and Rumsfeld were in before Vietnam started, as were a couple of other guys. The rest went into combat (except maybe Tommy Thompson). I assume they could have done what Bush and Clinton did to avoid the draft also, yet they didn`t.

Once again, the discussion isn`t on why or how anyone got into the military, but whether they turned into debilitatingly ill people or not. They all display their military credentials loudly and proudly to their voters. So I assume it is considered a positive by the voters.

Dear Shankar

Please do whatever the fuk you want to with ROmair but call Pakistan a banana republic again and you`ll have your beloved shernis castrating you all over chowk. Okay?

:=)

re Shankar #446:

``Bottom line: if I were an employer, I would definitely look at a ``honorable discharge`` from the military, on an applicant`s CV as a plus, rather than a minus.``

Agreed. But would you allow your retirement money to be handled by the same? Or would you like dealing with someone with a similar background in the HMO who has a question(or two) about all those Viagra prescriptions you are doling out for `therapeutic` reasons to your friends?

anNy:

The good looking generals haven`t lost it completely. Their ugly wives are loaded with inherited cash....

Correction to my earlier post: The high IQ guy from Connecticut actually lost his case in federal appeals court where the city`s decision to bar candidates with high IQs was upheld on `rational grounds`.

later

-sac

shankar #446 As someone whose opinion I respect, your perspective on Pakistan as reflected in the points you provide is very interesting. I believe you are quite correct in most of your observations. They are all on the negative side, but nevertheless they are reasonably factual. Thankfully, as I am sure you will agree, there is more to Pakistan (or any other country) than a handful of politicians and military men. Much, much more. And that is why, even as it has become fashionable to call Pakistan a failed state after 1971. I recall reading an article in the economist back quoting some diplomat that ``Pakistan was a drowning dog, and would soon find it`s head under water``. But that hasnt happened yet in 30 years, and so much for that diplomat`s predictions. The ``hidden`` strength of Pakistan that people dont see is the hard-working, pragmatic population with certain strong values. And that is why Pakistan will not only keep it`s head above water, but will gradually reveal it`s true self which is not that of a drowning dog (as many would like to think of it) or even an ugly duckling but of a beautiful swan. And that will be good for all our neighbors too.

re hobbyty 448

``If I understand you, one need not negotiate on any other basis other than inflicting wars and defeat ``

You don`t.

My point was an observation, drawn from recent history, specifically regarding the Arab neighbors of Israel. You twisted it to infer a generalization that makes it easier for you to go into the `poor-PLO` orbit.

re asif n 445

My religion is irrelevant to the debate. While the Quran is the Eternal Word of God to pious Muslims, it is not the framework within which international relations can be conducted. Hence, your point is moot and only goes to buttress my previous argument.

``This is muslim aqidah and totally opposite of what the christians believe so how could we have gotten that idea from the christian right?!``

DOn`t twist my words. I pointed out the simimilarity between the anti-Jewish nonsense that you and the Christian right has. Who is the source and who the recepient of such anti-Semitism is something I haven`t commented on and don`t care to.

``as for the defeats by the arabs at the hands of israel that is bcause the arabs always fought under the banner of arab nationalism``

The War of Independence of 1948 was claimed to be a JIhad by the Nazi Mufti Amin-el Husseini and the 1967 war had similar sanction by the sheikhs of Al-Azhar.

`` and not as muslims in a jihad. the day that happens--bye bye israel.``

Dil ko behlanon ko GHalib, ye khayal accha hai.<

roohi#435

Thanks for producing the article written by Gandhi. This and numerous other actions of his have lead me to believe Einstein who said that the comming generations will hardly believe that such a man of blood and flesh ever inhabited this earth. His commitment to his principles and the logically clear way he reasoned in the article produced by you clearly shows what stuff he was made of.

Re (#445):

You state regarding Jesus (pbuh) “… Allah clearly says in the Qur`an that he was taken up to heaven alive”.

This is not correct. Quran refers to spiritual elevation of Jesus (pbuh), and not a physical one. Jesus (pbuh) was put on the Cross, was rescued, migrated eastwards, and eventually died a natural death. The mainstream Muslim beliefs are based upon incorrect interpretation of Quran and ahadith.

Asad

Shankar #446

“The dominant discourse, it seems to me, in Pakistan is that India has NEVER accepted Partition & is hell bent on gobbling it up again. If it was`nt for our valiant military, Pakistan would cease to exist & those Hindian coyotes will destroy whats left of our country or break it into tiny little pieces. It is because of our glorious military that we are one proud nation & can stand up to India`s hegemony.

We can argue about the validity of that assertion till the cows come home--& neither side will agree.”

Hello Shankar,

My intention is not to argue with you over what you have stated… just a gentle expression of my first hand observation which seems to contradict your statement… the average person on the street in Pakistan is not as silly, ignorant, and ill-informed as we may think. I currently live in Punjab, and even Punjabis are extremely critical of our predominantly Punjabi army. Generally speaking, Pakistanis are quite well informed, and aware of what is good or bad for Pakistan. Your point # 5 may still be valid though.

Your analysis of “Indian point of view” may represent a minority of Indians living in the West… And although the general impression of a highly evolved, secular, and civilized Indian society (as propagated by Indian govt. and by some at this forum ) may not be true, I doubt if your analysis is generally the view of majority of Indians living in India – recent election losses of BJP are an indicator.

It seems to me that things (on the ground) in South Asian societies have moved on, but South Asian governments and some people at Chowk have not realized it yet.

And btw, contrary to popular belief amongst our chowk community, ISI is not adored in Pakistan.

Kind regards,
fairdinkum

shankar #446
Great post esp point 5.

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

Sigalph 321

Re: It took four defeats to bring Egypt and Jordan to the table

If I understand you, one need not negotiate on any other basis other than inflicting wars and defeat - If the Arabs or any other should adopt that line, ``negotiation`` should amount to imposition of terms.

After imposing ``defeats`` on the Arabs, what accounts for Israel`s inablity to negotiate peace on any terms other than it`s own, with Palestinians? Is arguing that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, followed by the demand the Palestinians accept the Israel`s ``right`` to exist, as a condition, to come to the table, The religious and historical justification of a ``settler`` movement while denying the right of return to Palestinains, daily humiliation, taxation, and military occupation conducive to a negotiated settlement? A point of view that seeks to coerse agreement as the primary force in diplomacy cannot be conducive to a negotiated settlement. Positing that the other side understands only force, death and destruction also says a great deal about the values of those who further such positions.

Re: Romair

The Vietnam draft probably affected everyone in Bush`s Cabinet (and every male in that generation) in one way or the other. Clinton went to graduate school to avoid the draft. Others, Bush included, joined the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. Can one prove that that was Bush`s motivation? No, but it is highly likely. The poor generally did not have the opportunity/money to go to graduate school, or the influence to obtain transfers.

As regards Pakistani intelligence agencies, and their intereference in domestic politics, here are a few links:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/politics.html

This article by Altaf Gauhar begins with:

``...I had an opportunity to watch quite closely the working of our intelligence agencies during the 1965 war with India...

Other links are at:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/index.html

Fuzair:

I enjoyed responding to the various questions that you put up, but does your silence on the issue since #401 that perhaps the Arab-Israeli conflict is a clash of two `rights` and that the only solution is mutual accomodation (and not my way or the highway)? If so, were the Camp David 2000 agreement the best way forward? Regards.

sac, urstruly, Romair,

OK guys your points are well taken.

My ``analysis`` of Romair was a tongue-in-cheek observation of some attitudes he subconciously projects in his posts. Fortunately, true ``analysis`` or psychotherapy cannot be done in the cyberworld (or I would be out of a job).

Seems to me I have unwittingly stirred up some past ``issues`` sac & Romair had with each other--that I had no previous knowlege of & I have no intention of stirring that pot--thats between the two of them--.

Re military training. My personal opinion is that it is a definite ASSET, not a liability. That kind of training inculcates a sense of duty, discipline & loyalty. I was very impressed by that movie ``Taps`` where Tim ?Hutton says ``other kids vandalise their schools, we are fighting to keep it open``. At the same time, when taken to extremes (as that movie shows), it can also be bad. But then, every good quality, when taken to extremes can be bad.

Bottom line: if I were an employer, I would definitely look at a ``honorable discharge`` from the military, on an applicant`s CV as a plus, rather than a minus.

Romair, just as you jokingly state that Indian mothers warn their kids that ``if you dont eat your peas & carrots, the ISI will take you away in the middle of the night``--or something like that...I think that paranoia about India is very deeply entrenched in the psyche of the Pak military & then transposed on the civilian population as well.

The dominant discourse, it seems to me, in Pakistan is that India has NEVER accepted Partition & is hell bent on gobbling it up again. If it was`nt for our valiant military, Pakistan would cease to exist & those Hindian coyotes will destroy whats left of our country or break it into tiny little pieces. It is because of our glorious military that we are one proud nation & can stand up to India`s hegemony.

We can argue about the validity of that assertion till the cows come home--& neither side will agree.

Let me tell you the Indian point of view (at least from all the Indians I know personally)--for whats its worth...yeah, I`ll be the first one to admit that it sounds very prejudiced & perhaps megalomaniacal:

1)Partition happened..right, wrong or indifferent it happened..trying to put India & Pakistan back together again as one nation is NOT going to happen. Indians dont want Pakistan to be part of India JUST as much as Pakistanis dont either---at least I hope thats what most Pakistanis feel.

2)Pakistan is just another banana republic that is propped up by US weapons & aid from the middle East. Without aid, they are a failed nation, barely being able to survive on their own 2 feet. Its a nation who is lucky to get ``halwa from Heaven`` just when its going off the precipice.

3)But they want it BOTH ways: they will gladly accept a handout from the US; but complain bitterly when they realise that ``there is no such thing as a free lunch``.

4) Their civilian leaders are the dregs of humanity, who will loot their country blind. Our leaders are bad enough, but we have some checks & balances. Their leaders are worse than scum.

5) that leaves the military. It is the only institution that has some respect in the country. Maybe a lot of ``respect`` is sychophancy, because when you are looking at the barrel of a gun..you really cant ``disrespect`` it.

Military coups initially come as a relief...a goddess that will save them from the precipice...but sooner or later, DEFINITELY..that goddess turns into a whore.

6) One of the ways the Pak military deludes the population is to trumpet the ``Hindian boogeyman``. Their civilians are lead to believe that if it was`nt for their glorious military, India will destroy Pakistan.

Hah!!!What a CON game...Who wants to gobble up a banana republic that cant even rule itself?!

Does India want Pakistan unstable...GOD NO!! An unstable Pakistan with nuclear weapons is India`s worst nightmare. BTW, Indians KNEW Pak had the bomb loooong before Pak was ``forced`` to explode it. Who the heck are you trying to kid?!

The BJP wants the 120 million muslims to LEAVE India & go to Pakistan...NOT the other way around!! The RSS needs another 140 million unruly muslims like it needs a hole in the head!

7) There is NO unfinished business of Partition--OK! Pakistan better get that into its thick skull. If those Kashmiri muslims want to be part of Pakistan, than let them get their asses off to POK..PERIOD. Pakistan can WHINE as much as it wants. The rest of the world doesnt really give a s *it.

If they play stunts like trying to duplicate the mujahedeen war in Kashmir, like they did with Afghanistan..we will kick their asses...we dont care if 70,000 die or 10 million die..wont make a difference. Who the F... is Pakistan or AI to morally judge us?! When it comes to MORAL judgement, EVER country (ESP Pakistan) & even the ``defender of freedom--US`` has blood of innocents on their hands!

So unless there is an oil or trade embargo or the US threatens to destroy us, we wont budge on Kashmir. Pakistan can go kiss our butt....

sigalph,

I dont know if you are a Muslim or not but Allah says in the QUR`AN about the Jews:

And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah`s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. (2:61, Pickthall`s translation)

See this is not anti-semitism copied from the christian right but the Word of Allah Almighty. And you must know that Sunnis do NOT believe that the Jews killed Jesus (alayhisalam)--as Allah clearly says in the Qur`an that he was taken up to heaven alive. This is muslim aqidah and totally opposite of what the christians believe so how could we have gotten that idea from the christian right?!

* * * *

as for the defeats by the arabs at the hands of israel that is bcause the arabs always fought under the banner of arab nationalism and not as muslims in a jihad. the day that happens--bye bye israel.

Chowkies:

From The ``Nation`` - an interesting Opinion piece:

``The next world order

Muhammad Muntazir Mehdi

People of Orphalese, you can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?

-Khalil Gibran

The world order was not always as chaotic as it appears to be today. After 1945 the strongest nations learnt the futility of trying to impose their grotesque worldviews upon each other. It was decided to take measures to ensure that such evil may never rise again. As a result of this new thinking the United Nation was born on the 24th of Oct 1945.

The world was declared a comity of nations. Each nation was to be perceived from then on as an individual. No nation, however strong and mighty, has a right to declare another nation unfit to be a part of the comity of nations. The inviolability of the sovereignty of a state became the supreme law. The concept of irreducible, indestructible units that make up the whole, was not to be challenged. If these building blocks were self-contained, impenetrable and independent then that would ensure the principle of justice, equality and social welfare for all, irrespective of race, religion and nationality.

Conversely, a parallel development dealt a severe jolt to the progress made by the development of UN. At the Bretton Woods conference held in 1944, forty-four nations agreed to set up two integrative institutions to render the world economy more `manageable`. Probably it was the day when economy turned into an instrument with which burgeoning markets could be exploited. The tools created more that half a century ago have perfected their act now and seem to be present everywhere with their slick facades-IMF and the WB. The IMF compelled its` member states to peg their currencies to the American dollar or gold. By 1948, the United States possessed 72 percent of the world`s gold reserves. Hence the basic relationship of the major world currencies was established making dollar the undisputed market mogul.

The ideals of freedom and independence were lost due to the monomania to replace humans with machines. Pan Americana has made it an omnipresent phenomenon throughout the twentieth century. When science failed to deliver an efficient replacement due to the lackluster performance of robots, in variance with the science fiction anticipators, the architects of global society decided to turn the existing humans into diodized, transistorized and more recently computerized humanoids.

Science has made it possible to control us while keeping an illusion of freedom of choice. People are made to desire and acquire things they do not actually want, hate and degrade things they actually know nothing about. The establishment wanted the people to love Russia and despise Germany and Japan before WWII. And after the war it wanted the public to love Germany and Japan and deplore Russia. It succeeded on both counts.

The Americans have today begun to draw parallels between the Roman Empire and themselves. I think they are being modest. No nation has wielded the kind of power and influence that is at the Americans` disposal today. There is a light that guides the American society. American universities are institutes that boast to house and expound excellence. Every thinking mind across the globe is baffled by such innovation and vision.

The obvious question arises: What is the driving force, what is the motivational factor, if it is not the courage to question everything? Every issue is open to scrutiny. Piety or sanctity does not place anything beyond the scope of reason and logic. This is the courage that sprouts from a strong belief in individualism, the cornerstone of liberty and free thought.

Then why is it that a country with such sublime guiding principles- the bulwark of liberty -has become one of the most detested nations in the world.

In the contemporary world order freedom has become a scarce commodity. The lone super power finds itself in a moral dilemma. It feels that the liberty of the individual needs to be thwarted. It is a scary thought that guardians of superior technology might siphon the very liberty that gives birth to ingenuity and creativity, the reason behind American technological supremacy over the world.

Unfortunately, in order to reach the very summit of their growth, America had to deviate from the vision of their Founding Fathers. They changed allegiance in midcourse to gain the maximum mileage and in the process became puppets of the Multinational Corporations.

Americans have known it for long that democracy is dead. Like all great champions, the noble ideal of democracy has just faded away, silently and discretely. The presidential elections that brought George W Bush Jr. have proven the demise for the benefit of the skeptics.

Now the world order is dictated not by any ideology or a grand doctrine. It is decided through brute force. A naked and blatant force that is multinational and intercontinental, interwoven and interconnected in so complex a manner that its tentacles are spread all over the world. The force is compelling enough to make all nations and nationalities bow to its diktat and sacrifice their values and ethos at its` alter.

This force is the power of the global currency or to make the chase easier, it is the reigning dollar in the hands of the MNCs. The struggle is no longer between East and West, North and South, now it is between Microsoft and NEC, GM motors and BMW. They are the sacred cows that are worshipped.

These are huge corporate machines working at over drive trying to out do their earlier production and profit levels. The conglomerates, in order to achieve mighty goals remain constantly in search of newer markets. To break down hard-nosed governments, a change of regime in the sought-after market is deemed a necessary evil. It is done under the pretext of liberalization of trade. Hostilities are declared the moment any country refuses to open its` market. To take away the safeguards of the fledgling economies, stiff conditions are set and poisonous antidotes are administered viz lowering of trade and tariff barriers, deregulation, and devaluation of currency etc.

Huge corporate industries hold the economic strings of countries even after they have attained political independence. Karl Marx held the view that profits in capitalist economies tended to dwindle over time. Lenin reached the conclusion that capitalist nations were driven to seek `super profits` abroad to compensate for diminishing profits at home.

In their infancy the proponents of the corporate industries rallied for smaller and weaker governments. As the franchise became strong and robust they learnt to harness the power and potency of government to their benefit. Therefore the State refound itself and governments have become increasingly intrusive and large, with the sole difference that now the government is an instrument to enhance and broaden the corporatist agenda.

The multinational corporations pursue expansionism as a natural concomitant of Capitalism and its structural dynamics. The governments are controlled through devious methods in order to achieve pre-set targets. In most Western countries elections are no longer about issues.

All political parties contest elections with similar promises and matching manifestoes. The difference is made through marketing. The best advertised candidate grabs the prize. Advertising costs money. The big corporates are ready to pay the cash, if they are assured of favours in lieu of the financial support. These payments are in the form of campaign donations and other gifts dished out during the fund raising campaigns. When their `boy` gets elected he does as he is told by the corporate bigwigs. Non-compliance can lead him to political backlash and scandals.

Media has become powerful enough to effectively tell us, what to eat, drink and wear, whom to endorse, vote and love. If their chosen thing is different from the national fancy or liking . media shall blatantly try to change the very image of justice, beauty and love in the minds of the public.

The face of the next world order is a people devoid of their ability to question and seek the truth. Deceived and manipulated by the media the common man would be playing into the hands of MNCs. The MNCs shall busy themselves in furthering their interests through oppression and exploitation.

Nonetheless, if history has taught us anything, it is, that this shall not be the last world order. As Benjamin Franklin said ``Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety``.

This hegemony of the MNCs would inevitably increase poverty and add to the vicious cycle of terrorism. It is not the threat of war that will make peoples (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) living under oppression to give up their struggle. Humans are funny creatures when it comes to war. They say things they do not mean, vouch for things they would not dare. War is a huge face saving exercise at the grass root level.

We have learned enough through pervious wars to realize that there are no monsters across any fence. Peace will not be brought about through War. We are often told by sagacious people that respect for peace lies in interaction and greater communication between various segments of the society. If that be true, it is also true to say that respect cannot be secured, and ought not indeed, to be respected, unless it is associated in the minds of the great mass of the people with ideas of justice and of reason.``