Hypocrisy Big

ferozk #114
``United States will use that right and that power if it feels that its inactions, of leaving Saddam in power, is more costly than a war with its attendant casualities.``

Exactly what are the costs of leaving Saddam in power?

``If the objective is to win this war against terrorism, then all the costs involved are worth it as long as it insures the final victory``

Can a war ensure final victory? I think the war will only set off a domino effect of instability in the region which will threaten US domination anyway.

For instance, what are the risks of Israel being drawn into the war?

And is keeping the geographical sanctity of present-day Iraq an objective? If so, how do they plan to ensure this? Saddam`s influence in the no-fly zones is already weak if I am not mistaken? A huge US Army presence once Saddam is removed? btw, how to ensure loyalty of Saddam`s Army meanwhile?

If the US plans, after dislodging Saddam, to carve up Iraq into many pieces and redraw ethnic boundaries which have been stable for many decades, will they next bomb Kurds in Turkey and Baathists in Syria or whoever, who will surely pursue renewed interests ?

Its a difficult enough proposition to find one credible workable Iraqi leader to replace Saddam and reconstruct one Iraqi system after many years of Saddam`s dictatorship, and if they plan to break up Iraq they will have do so for more than one state.

``that is the Right of Power and the willingness to use that power to achieve political/strategic aims``

Not debating the Right or the right and wrong. IMO, the US`s strategic/political aims are limited to removing Saddam and they are whistling loudly and crossing their fingers behind their backs for the rest. Perhaps they think that will be the next administration`s headache.

Or they are playing the same tactics as India, namely presenting a credible threat of war without intended to fight it.

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

re: sac #113
sac, what do you have against Dutch whores? :)
and as for the U.S. taking over the oil fields in the gulf, at what point and time did they not own them? the robe-clad ones are free to spend their commission as they see fit. its a small ARAMCO perk, why take it away.

re shankar #107:

You are right about the perception of the Muslim world and how they are going to suffer. You are unfortunately wrong about the Alaskan oilfields and fuel cells. Alaskan oil if ever mined would cost upwards of 16 dollars a barrel just to mine, never mind the distribution costs etc. Same thing with Russian oil most of which is in Siberia. Combine these two and you come up with-get this ONLY 12% of what the US oil consumption is going to be in the next 20 years. Oil in Saudi Arabia costs less than 4 bucks per barrel. Would the hobo in Flint like to pay 4 bucks a gallon for `pure Alaskan oil`?

America should probably take over the oil fields in the gulf. It will save everyone a lot of grief. The robe-clad assholes are spending all the cash on falcons and Dutch whores anyway.

later
-sac

Re: Shankar

My post # 106 was an intro to people suggesting that there is nothing wrong with hegemony or imperialism. I support a hegemonic power, because it creates the ``rules`` by which the world operates and those rules are much better than a world with no rules.

Shankar, hegemony/imperialism is a good thing if applied correctly. The United States` imperium has done lot for the world. It has offered the world approximately 50 years of peace during which time Europe has been created from the ashes of the last war and has intergrated into the largest economic bloc in the world. The world has seen more technological advances than since 1945 than in the last hundred years.

The people who blame the American or the United States for its overbearing nature have to realize that politics, like nature, abors a vacuum. The United States, after 1945, simply filled a vacuum and assumed the leadership of the world and influenced it for the last 50 plus years.

Re: Sadna

The right to remove Saddam Hussein does rest with the Iraqi people, in a theoretical sense. In reality, the Iraqi opposition is fractured and ineffective and the Iraqi public too cowered to resist him or challenge him and remove him for power.

Does this mean a regime change? Yes, when all else fails and there is no other option, but to preserve the sancity and the stability of the international system.

Does a regime change implies a war? No. It is does not necessarily suggests a war. War, in the case of Iraq, is an option, but an option of the last resort. The best option is to convince the Arab world that it is in its interests to pressurize Saddam to willingly remove himself from power, because his inability to do so would harm the Arab/Muslim`s interest vis-a-vis the non-Arab/Muslim world.

In a brutally realistic sense, the United States has the power, if not the right in a dejure sense, to kill Iraqis in order to remove Saddam from power. There is one basic right in international relations/politics, which all nations understand and obey and that is the Right of Power and the willingness to use that power to achieve political/strategic aims. United States will use that right and that power if it feels that its inactions, of leaving Saddam in power, is more costly than a war with its attendant casualities.

Ask yourself this simple question. Are the lives of all the Iraqis worth more than the United States` right to dominate the world and maintain its dominant position in the world?

The answer is no! If the objective is to win this war against terrorism, then all the costs involved are worth it as long as it insures the final victory, because in a war, there is no other subsitute for victory.

The question is, is the final cost worth it? How will this war change America? Will it change it for the better or the worse? Will civil liberities be sacrificed in the United States and the Bill of Rights vetoed in the name of Homeland Security? Will Benjamin Franklin be proven right, when he said that those who give a little freedom for a little security, end up having none! (?)

The outcome of this war is certain; the United States will prevail, but at what costs no one is certain and that is where the real concerns lie.

Ciao

re: sadna

{On the basis of this stance(and other matters related to the military), he got many votes from military personnel which gave him a decisive edge over Al Gore. }

...right, he got more votes from military personnel...but he did NOT win the popular vote...the fact remains that more americans voted for gore than for bush, but this stupid electoral college system put bumbling dubya in control...

re: shrinker

...dammit dude, didn`t they teach you how to be concise in college?...(please tell us you did go to college)...

Ferozk

Excellent analysis. It accurately describes the state of affairs of world today.

But keeping in mind the nature of man, that he cannot accept the tyranny of other and will resist the hegemony in any case, do you think that the Al-Qaida is a resistance to that hegemony. And since no nation currently can resist the military might of US the response to that hegemony is thus stateless. And further if hegemonic interests are ammoral and yet valid can the response to hegemonic interests be also ammoral and yet valid? The point I want to amphasize is that whether this is an issue of right vs wrong at all. If it is as such then how do we chose right.

ferozk #106: I think the point is not whether or something is in the ``US interests``. Since, other things equal, any rational person would say that it is a good thing if something is in the interests of 280 million people. The issue is whether something is in the interests of the future of mankind. (This may seem a grand way to put it, but remember that the future of mankind is where yours and mine and everyone else`s children will live in. That is the only rational way to look at things, rather than whether something is in the ``national interests`` of any one country).
A thoughtful examination of the realities we live in today would make it clear that ``Pax Americana`` is better by a couple of lengths than any other form we have today. The reality is that the alternatives are regional and national power centers, in other words by the likes of BJP in south asia, or musharaff and the mullahs in pakistan, or saudi kings in the middle east, or Obotes in africa. Even a Pax Europa, or a Sino Pax or a Russo Pax could not match the situation we have today. The ideal would be ``Pax Mankind``, but that ideal is clearly not within our reach today.

stuka
I have no problem with Saddam Hussain losing power, but I have a lot of problem with the US deciding to kill Iraqi civilians for it and then deciding who and what should follow him.

Moreoever, if Saddam is a threat to West Asia, get West Asians to reign him in. Their interests in Iraq are likely to be a lot more `genuine` or broadbased, since its their economies, their citizens and their regimes(not the US`s)which are going to pay the price for the disruption and fallout of war in their region and the creation of an unstable ungovernable rump state.

One of Bush`s campaign stands was `no nationbuilding` and no unnecessary use of US military abroad for intervening in foreign situations. He took a lot of trouble to criticise the Clinton adminstration for rushing into international situations, to the extent that the adminstrators in Bosnia were apprehensive that US troops would be withdrawn.

On the basis of this stance(and other matters related to the military), he got many votes from military personnel which gave him a decisive edge over Al Gore. I can understand how Sept 11 required a reexamination of this stance where intervention and nationbuilding in Afghanistan was concerned, but what has changed where Saddam Hussein and Iraq are concerned? The appointment of Wolfowitz?

Feroze
#106

EVERY nation/civilisation aspires to be powerful...thats HUMAN instinct. Its a law of nature. When a country &/or civilisation becomes dominant, it naturally imposes its writ on the less dominant country/civilisations. The countries/civilisations that are dominated will always cry foul--blame the dominant country/civilisation as a bully, hegemon & hypocrite. The reality is that that HUMAN characteristic exists in EVERY country & civilisation. I think its blatantly WRONG to blame the US of hypocrisy & hegemony...when, historically, EVERY country/civilisation that was dominant did the very same thing.

What is happening now (or ``reality``, as I see it) is that after 9/11, the Islamic World is on the defensive. I hear many muslims on Chowk saying the ``star of Islam is rising``. Maybe in numbers, muslims are reproducing faster & many non-muslims are converting to Islam. But numbers dont reflect POWER. In fact, I feel Islam`s star is falling because it has been hijacked by fundos.

Increasingly, the non_islamic world is viewing Islam as a regressive, violent & fanatical religion. At the extreme side of this is seen by the abusive statements of Christian fundos like Falwell, Graham, Swaggert, Robertson etc. In the US, the Christian right is uniting with the Jews like never before.

To an ``average`` American, a Jehad will be, (& should be), fought by a Crusade. This is not going to be an even match. Al-Qeeda thinks that by putting the fear of death in Americans by terrorism is a victory. NOTHING is further from the truth, IMO. Americans are a proud, patriotic people. If they percieve Islam as a threat to their way of life, God help the Islamic world. Liberal muslims wringing their hands & crying about American hypocrisy & hegemony isnt going to make much of an impact on them.

Just look at the Nov elections. Americans have given GWB a ``mandate``--for the lack of a better term. The heck with the economy...a threat to ``our way of life`` is their paramount concern. They are in no mood to hear sermons about ``hypocrisy``. This isnt Vietnam...this is an attack on sovreign US soil.

9/11 has had a TREMENDOUS psychological impact on Americans...much more than Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attacked a military installation at Pearl Harbor. Al Qeeda killed civilians in NY. NEVER MIND that the US has killed more civilians than any other country.

Two quotations come to mind:

1)From American pop philosophy: ``Everybody looks out for number one!``

2) To plagarise the architect of Pearl Harbor, Admn Yamamato: ``I`m afraid all that Al-Qeeda has done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve``...

Al-Qeeda`s actions speak much much louder than the moderate, sane voices of Islam. The whole Islamic world is held hostage to their actions because the moderate voices are inffective AND many moderates are also ``not so secretly`` empathising with Al-Qeeda`s sense of injustice. The moderate muslims arent saying that outrightly. They show their empathy (like this author) by blaming the Americans.

Let me tell you, Americans are in no mood to put up with it. Americans are used to be called the Great Satan by those ``ragheads`` Iranians for the last 25 yrs. To most of them a fundo muslim is no different from any muslim. Heck, most of them dont even know WHAT a muslim is. When Americans are mad, they rally behind the President. GWB is going to not just fight Al-Qeeda, but also settle some scores with Saddam.,,he`s made that VERY clear to Americans..& they, in turn, have said ``go-ahead, Mr President; its time to kick some serious butt``!

Al-Qeeda is not just attacking the US...but Europe, Australia, Russia, as well. BIG mistake, IMO. The non-Islamic world is VERY pissed at the Islamic world, right now. Another ``spectacular`` attack & Americans will say screw civil rights..throw these ragheads back from where they came from. You CANT preach to a powerful bully when he`s mad at you.

The Alaskan oilfields in ANWR are going to be developed in the next 5 yrs. Environmentalists have lost...BIG TIME in this election. ANWR has more reserves than Iran & Iraq put together. Big money is pouring into fuel cell tachnology. Just WAIT! ...in the forseeable future ``Islamic oil`` will become increasingly irrelevant. When that happens the world (ESP the US) will drop the Islamic world..particularly the Arabs.. into the dustbin of history faster than you can say Yasser Arafat...

On a lighter side, I cant, for the life of me, understand why guys like Mullah Urstruly are still living in America...makes me wonder if he is an Al-Qeeda ``sleeper``?!...ready to strike Detroit when OBL ``gives him the word``. What POSSIBLE reason does this guy live in a land, whose govt`s policies he believes are indecent? I`ve asked this question to him, REPEATEDLY, in several different ways. Oh well...I guess he doesnt answer me cos I`m an indecent hindu:))...

Lets put this whole debate in a context. First of all, this article was not about India-Pakistan, but an attempt to highlight the salient policies of the United States, which have certain imperialistic nuances.

Imperialism; power and the resultant consequence of which can be identified as hegemony or dominance are neutral terms, which have value added contextual meanings depending on political, social, economical and religious overtones that color policies, which are labelled under the rubric of imperialism. Imperialism or a imperial hegemony in any of its historic premutations, of Pax Romana or Pax Franca of Napoleon Bonaparte or Pax Britannica or the attempts at a Pax Germanica or Pax Americana or a Pax Europa, was judged based not on the intent, but on the application of enforcing that particular hegemony.

The international system is, in its most ideal state, a metaphor for the Hobbesian state of nature and it can be best described as ``organized anarchy``. In order to govern this system, rules have to be made and those rules have to be enforced, by force if neccessary. Just like the most strong and the ablest in the Hobbesian state of nature dominating the weak, the international system is dominated by a country that has the power to enforce the laws; laws, which are selfish in intent and not alturistic in practice, because nations dominate a international system to futher their own self-interests and not with the wish to promote the general well being of the humanity at large.

International politics is amoral and the salvation of a nation-state, unlike an individual, lies in the present and not in the hereafter. It is this amoral character of international relations, which when applied ruthlessly enables a nation to dominate other nations in the international system. The present system of international relations was created by the United States at the end of the Second World War to allow it to maintain its unrivaled dominance and it is often known as the ``Brettonwood`` system. This sytem, or regime, was based on the parameters of economic dominance and the United States adopted a multilateral approach, creating international organizations dedicated to furthering its global economic/political/military interests. Thus, the United States hoped to cloak its policies, which were basically imperial, under a blanket of international multrilateralism.

Being the ``strongest kid on the block``, the perpetuation of this international system is in the economic/military/political interests of the United States and hence, United States will resist and defeat any nation(s) that challenges United States in the interational politics. It is with this intent, that the United States has assumed the mantle of a hegemon to make certain that no nation breaks the rules and threatens to undermine a system, upon which the present unrivaled position of the United States in the international world order is based.

Within this paradigm, nations that obey the rules are rewarded and nations, which challenge them are isolated, resisted and forced to obey the strictures of the hegemon -the United States. Most nations agree to obey the rules set by the hegemon, because of their own vested self interests; which is, they hope that by agreeing to the dominance of one nation, they will earn the ``patronage`` of the hegemon and will be able to preserve their own spheres of self-interest in the international system.

Hence, the United States` imperial policies are a natural result of its own self-interests and those who disagree with them, labor under an idealistic hope without realizing that in international politics, reality is a compromise between idealism and utopia; between a nation`s ambitions and its limitations.

Ciao

Salvaging islam,

Islam is under siege, it is like a fish out of water, it is lashing out flipping side to side not knowing where the salvation is, where the water is. The bali bombings, this article, the first act of the pak parliment in honouring the kasi the martyr, osama tapes, all these are the lashing of islam under siege.

Out of all of the teachings of islam, it is only one aspect that is inimical to the modern values, jihad. This notion, what ever the tahmed would say, delegates the responsibility of killing the non-innocents to individual muslims. This is simply not acceptable. I recognise that this is a cardinal principle of islam, it is only the shaheed who has a reserved place in heaven. Islam abhores suicide, the only way a muslim can go to an assured heaven is to become a matryr and the safets way to achieve it is to kill kafirs so that he inturn gets killed.

This is a terrible idea, and some level, pakistanis, as the most modern among the muslims have to confront. This article trying to point out the inconsistancies in the west simply delays prolongs the agony of islam. Try to seek a reinterpretation, or simply say that this is out of step with the times.

CONTAINING TERRORISM,

It is time that the muslims accept the reality. At last there is a global concesus on how to face the religious terror.

Control of the jihadic border is the first step, and the americal model will be slowly followed by all.

Preventing technology transfers. If a society is fllowing literally a book 1700 years old, it is only logical that the technology should also match that time. Educational opportunities in the west will be curtailed, any kind of bio tech and high tech will be barred from reaching islamic countries. The income levels will not allowed to rise as shown by the refusla of all to write of pak debt. Saudi is a debtor after the kuwait war, iraq will soon become one after the oil well are siezed.

Centers of higher learning in these countries will be barred as indicated by the attempts to privatise pak universities. Only those who are out, the ilks of tahmed and romairs have escaped the evolving hell hole.

Stuka: I read the article (OK, just the first couple of lines of each para.) to see what topic you want the discussion to back to. I see that Haroon mian does not think the US should take Saddam out. I say that the US should take Saddam out. And moreover (as the sikh said when he ran out of english curses and had to continue in panjabi) the US should also take his two b!stard sons out. As for the Iraqis, I am sure they will lose no time in taking out the ten thousand huge portraits of this Saddam that decorate that country - Saddam in Arab garb, Saddam in British Country Gentleman garb, Saddam in ancient warrior garb, Saddam in modern warrior garb. That is my opinion.

re: stuka

{Why are you all under the thrall of Saddam? }

...no one loves saddam...but unlike shrinker and 12-head some of us are not millionaires and have to worry about the effects of dubya`s ill-thought out adventures in iraq on an already stumbling economy...