Hypocrisy Big

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

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

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

[ #163 by AmericanExpress on November 24, 2002 10:09pm PT
...
If you want to breave for numbers dead breave for 36,ooo American dead by self inflicted drunk driving in last 3 years

Oh no .....Non muslims would rather die for there idolatory ,right to drink


The drunk driving % has been constantly increasing taking more than 35000 lives in last 3 years.


2000 saw the LARGEST% increase in the % & actual number of DEAD from drunk driving ...... ]

I wonder how much of total driving deaths is attributable to other intoxicants or other medical conditions like diabetes or hypoglycemia etc or even driving after a sumptuous Biryani lunch? How much is attributable to stimulants? Popular belief is that stimulants increase alertness. No one has systematically kept track of driving deaths info or else we would have info like this. Probably we would be able to say that after taking any rich spicy dish containing rice and lots of fat we should wait for (say) 2 hours before we are alert enough for driving. May be such info could debunk scientific mythology about stimulants and what not. A person can self administer alertness test and figure out what works for him and what hurts his alertness. But there is a limit to which this has any utility. Those who are idolatrous will remain such. I guess some people will remain what they are no matter what. You like Biryani you will eat Biryani for a million years.

-ew

12 head,

Why is it that not ONE of your heads even has a semblance of intelligence?!. I know doctors arent the most intelligent people on earth. But I cant, for the life of me, understand how you became a doctor.

More amazing than that...how the HELL do you reconcile living in a society whose dominant value system contradicts your own?! I`ve always marvelled at how guys like you, Urstruly, F-K etc CHOOSE to live in the US?

It cant be money--heck your talents will fetch a better price in the oil-rich gulf!
It cant be for ``spiritual`` satisfaction....not in a society whose values are so alien to you!
It cant be for ``political`` reasons..not when the US is declaring a ``cold war`` with the Islamic world you cherish so much....

So what is it?! hahn, that keeps you in Amrika?!!
Amrika ALLOWS guys like you to live here, even if you hate its values...as long as you dont ``f*ck with them`` by breaking their laws..ergo..you are doing it entirely by FREE WILL!!!...

I`m wasting my time...I realise...because this question has NEVER been answered by guys like you. In all the time I`ve been on Chowk, I`ve asked this question REPEATEDLY...either its met with stony silence; or a ``bob & weave`` answer like quoting Iqbal or some gol-mal logic that belongs in another dimension...the type you display so often...

Please reflect upon this..even if you dont have the courage to give me a straight answer....I pity guys like you...atleast Naqsbandhi openly says he`s going back to Pakistan...he`s a fool, but atleast he`s not a hypocrite...

12 head,

Why is it that not ONE of your heads even has a semblance of intelligence?!. I know doctors arent the most intelligent people on earth. But I cant, for the life of me, understand how you became a doctor.

More amazing than that...how the HELL do you reconcile living in a society whose dominant value system contradicts your own?! I`ve always marvelled at how guys like you, Urstruly, F-K etc CHOOSE to live in the US?

It cant be money--heck your talents will fetch a better price in the oil-rich gulf!
It cant be for ``spiritual`` satisfaction....not in a society whose values are so alien to you!
It cant be for ``political`` reasons..not when the US is declaring a ``cold war`` with the Islamic world you cherish so much....

So what is it?! hahn, that keeps you in Amrika?!!
Amrika ALLOWS guys like you to live here, even if you hate its values...as long as you dont ``f*ck with them`` by breaking their laws..ergo..you are doing it entirely by FREE WILL!!!...

I`m wasting my time...I realise...because this question has NEVER been answered by guys like you. In all the time I`ve been on Chowk, I`ve asked this question REPEATEDLY...either its met with stony silence; or a ``bob & weave`` answer like quoting Iqbal or some gol-mal logic that belongs in another dimension...the type you display so often...

Please reflect upon this..even if you dont have the courage to give me a straight answer....I pity guys like you...atleast Naqsbandhi openly says he`s going back to Pakistan...he`s a fool, but atleast he`s not a hypocrite...

9/11 is monumental in the sense that it woke America to a menace that it didn’t think existed. America in its naiveté thought that 21st century world was like them. Meaning that the Muslim world really did not believe in the literal words of its scriptures and had embraced secular values of liberty, justice and humanism. Upon realizing that this was not the case, America and now Russia, China, Australia, India, Israel and of course Europe are all aligned to take action against the Muslim world. Iraq just happens to be the first on the hit parade. Syria, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan are all in line to get theirs.

The blame and responsibility surely rests on us Muslims. When Blasphemy laws are needed to prevent open debate. Kids cannot be taught history or other disciplines that may be controversial. Pakistan I love it dearly but is a failed state. Other Muslim countries are not better. When Saddam prepares his son to take over once he is gone and Bashar has already replaced Assad in Syria and King Hussein’s son has already been crowned in Jordan. Guys wake up!!! It is the 21st century – Liberty??? Did we ever learn what it means? Guess not – may be now we will get a chance when a McArthur like character rules Iraq for the next 5 years. Establishing institutions, setting up checks and balances, developing a secular curriculum in schools so that all shias, sunnis, kurds, ahmadis, Christians, jews feel like Iraqis.

America please send a McArthur to Pakistan as well, we want to get rid of the likes of Mulla Fazlu.

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

12head,

{{Battles are only the scores the war is the match which by spirit PAKISTAN HAS WON .}}

Hahaha! Thats what I mean..you guys ALWAYS come back for more punishment...never learn..

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

American Express #153.

`Battles are only the scores the war is the match which by spirit PAKISTAN HAS WON.`

You are absolutely right. Those are the only kind of matches which the glorious Pakistani Army can win when faced with the enemy. However they are great in conquering Islamabad. What with Ayub, Zia and now Musharraf, they have never failed in winning those battles.

By the way, if you have an inside line to Musharraf, tell him to try another kargil. I am sure the Indian Army will let the Pakistani army have another victory in spirit. You may have to loose another part of your country, but who cares about that when winning a war in spirit.

re: 12-head

....do you like barbecue?...you do?...delicious, isn`t it?...do you like being on the barbecue?...

[ #134 by shankar on November 22, 2002 6:18am PT
...
Another point; no ``expert`` of any kind has accurately predicted the future. Twenty yrs ago, did we ever think that something called the internet would play such an important role in our lives? When there is a serious, concerted effort to find an alternate source of energy...there is always that chance ( a good chance) that scientists can stumble on to the Holy Grail of cheap energy.]

Good point. What if Holy Grail of cheap energy (or otherwise) also happens to be a secret which can pressed into service to fry a continent worth of people? What about if continent busting hyperbomb can be made? Another reason for straining at diplomacy.

And what if a mad Islamic scientist stumbles upon a secret of making a continent buster which can be made without detection? End of non-believers then? Well let us then hope that divisions amongst Islamic peoples will not reduce the human population of planet Earth to mere millions. Because once non-believers are gotten rid off, may be it will be the turn of believers of wrong type to go. Or may be madness will stop somewhere.

Of course we are talking about a hypothetical situation.

-einsteinwallah

tahmed,

{{By your logic, every people in the world have an imperial streak (afghans, italians, greeks, turks, arabs, persians, germans, french, japanese, not to mention mongols, zulus, aztecs, spaniards and brits).}}

I have to agree with Feroze..Good & bad exist side by side in EVERY nation/people/civilisation..& when a civilisation becomes strong, it dominates the weaker civilisation. The people who ``dominate``, rationalise it: ``our way of life, our values are BETTER than the ones of the weaker civilisation...thats why God Himself has made us strong & has given us a mandate``. Y`see whats ``good`` for the dominant civilisation is ``bad`` for the civilisation that is dominated.

Throughout human history that has been a truism.

Its not just humans. Its a LAW of nature. Dominant species will bully & crowd out weaker species. Survival of the fittest is a LAW of nature. From one point of view, ``nature`` is very cruel . Either a weaker species ADAPTS or becomes dominanted & gets extinct.

All the examples you`ve given us..(afghans, italians, greeks, turks, arabs, persians, germans, french, japanese, not to mention mongols, zulus, aztecs, spaniards and brits)....have ALL dominated & tried to expand their empires, during their heyday. Its human INSTINCT. For instance, European powers wanted ``empires`` because they thought they had a divine mandate to ``civilise`` the rest of the world. Same principle applied to Afghans, Persians, Mongols & Turks, when they were powerful. They came to the Indian Subcontinent with their armies FIRST..the priests came later..

So why just blame America? Hypocrisy is a HUMAN characteristic! Yeah, we can all argue (till the cows come home) about who has been MORE hypocritical....But that SAME demon exists in ALL of us.

Arent Arabs hypocrites?! Arafat cries & squeals about the plight of Palestinians...but he hasnt made one PEEP about what is happening to other muslims like Kashmiris, Kurds etc etc. The descendants of Ishmael cant share a teeny tiny bit of land with the descendants of Isaac? Its only recently that the grudgingly accepted the existence of Isreal (not counting radicals like Hamas). In 1947, when the British left Palestine EVERY Arab wanted to extinguish the Jews who were asking for a tiny parcel of land for themselves. The attacked the tiny fledgling nation with an overwhelming superiority of numbers & arms & got their butts whipped.

So Al-Qeeda now has taken on the role of being the defender of all the muslims in the world....because the rest of the world is ``unjust`` to the plight of hapless muslims. Well, if their cause is sooo just, they better take on the butt licking Arab establishment FIRST, before declaring a Jihad against the rest of the world!. If the Islamic world, in general, sympathises with their anger but outwardly denounces them; its the Islamic world that is the bigger hypocrites.

Tahmedji, I realise you hate generalisations...because that is the seed of prejudice. I dont have an argument against that. Unfortunately, right, wrong or indifferent, today- the average American feels that there is a gun pointed to his head & is being blackmailed & terrorised to change his countries policy & value system.

NO human being likes to be blackmailed like that--no matter how hypocritical the policy of his govt is..It only makes him dig his heels in & fight back with a greater resolve. The Japanese tried to do that to the Americans 50+ yrs ago & got nuked . Has America shed any tears on their plight of 1000s of Jap civilians they BBQed who had NO say in the ambitions of the Imperial Japanese military?!...the majority say ``the Japs drew first blood``...

What Al-Qeeda has done is worse than Pearl Harbor. Whats worse, the majority (I think) of the muslim ``street`` STILL believe it was the Jews were responsible for the WTC!! The moderate muslims (who have RIGHTLY denounced Al-Qeeda) are now turing their criticism on American hypocrisy!

Al-Qeeda has now gotten the Americans, Brits, Russians, Phillipinos, Indians, Kenyans, Australians..etc etc MAD at them. Even the ruthlessly brutal action of Putin recently was not criticised by GWB. In the Islamic world, when elections are called, the fundos are making gains...like in Turkey & Pakistan.

What do you think is going to happen if there is one more spectacular strike on the American heartland? All indications from the American media is that the Al-Qeeda is ACTIVELY planning such an attack...call the American media biased all you want...wont make a difference. When a giant is provoked & filled with a terrible resolve, he is in no mood to listen to a lecture in ``morality``. He`s going to settle a heck of a lot of scores & even capture Arab oil for himself & JUSTIFY it from a ``moral`` standpoint!..their spin doctors can put Field Marshall Romair to shame!!

Its time all of us accept this imperfect world for what it IS...not what it OUGHT to be. When a human being is angry, he isnt in the mood to be ``reasonable``. The only thing thats going to save the Islamic world is if they hand over Al-Qeeda & Saddam to the ``free`` world... Otherwise get BBQed while wringing hands & lamenting about ``hypocrisy``...

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

ferozk #149 I am afraid you are simply doing linear extrapolation, unmindful even of current realities. By your logic, every people in the world have an imperial streak (afghans, italians, greeks, turks, arabs, persians, germans, french, japanese, not to mention mongols, zulus, aztecs, spaniards and brits). I would have expected a more intelligent analysis from you.

Re: soysauce

The United States always had an imperial streak; from the Manifest Destiny and the Louisana purchase to Alaska. It was only about a hundred years ago that the United States seriouly considered creating an empire and its first imperial foray was the war against Spain in 1899. It was in that war that the United States won Cuba and Philippines from Spain - its most early colonial possessions.

The United States entered the club of imperial powers as an associate power, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 and wanted to become an imperial power through a policy of multilateralism - the Leaque of Nations, but the Republican dominated senate rejected this idea. As a result, the United States was enaged in a bitter debate between the proponents of isolationism and internationalism.

The next step in the United States` imperialism was its attempts to carve an influence for itself in China under the guise of the ``Open Door Policy``. China, by the early decades of the 20th century was already divided up amongst the Europeans and since at that time, the United States did not have the required military power to win an empire in China, it opted for diplomacy as a means to gain power.

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in the 1930s and subsequent events in the Far East would evict the the United States from and the region. It was after the Second World War that the United States, remembering the lessons of the post-Versailled world, opted to use multilateralism to cover its imperial intentions and sought to advance its imperial pretensions under the sanction of the United Nations; guarded its imperial colonies in Europe with the protection of NATO and protected its economic influence in the post Yalta world through the institutions of World Bank and IMF.

It was only recently that the United States came out in the open and has opely admited to its imperial intentions.

Ciao

Scott Ritter`s Iraq Complex
By BARRY BEARAK
(excerpts)

At the back of the auditorium, a man cupped his hands over his mouth, improvising a megaphone, the better to bellow:

``Iraq is not the problem. Enron is!``

By then, the waiting crowd had already overstuffed Old Snell Hall on the campus of Clarkson University in northern New York. With all 500 seats filled, 100 people wedged themselves onto spare patches of the peeling linoleum floor. Most of the crowd wanted to hear the case against war, and they were exuberant to be hearing it from Scott Ritter, the onetime United Nations arms inspector and now America`s most unlikely peacenik.

Ritter did not disappoint them, talking powerfully without notes for nearly an hour and drawing the kind of prolonged ovation he has come to expect and relish.

President Bush is force-feeding Americans ``a whole bunch of oversimplified horse manure,`` he told them boldly. ``None of what you are being told remotely resembles the truth. Facts do matter, and it is time that you, the American people, start demanding the facts.`` War is not a video game where a reset button resurrects the corpses, Ritter said.

``War is about dead people.``

At 6-foot-4, Ritter is a man of imposing bulk, with arms long enough to bear-hug a podium. An astonishingly tireless talker, he buries listeners in an avalanche of opinions, anecdotes and details. The pile-up of his words seems all the weightier because he draws on his seven years as a weapons sleuth.

Ritter`s current view, which he dispenses with the earnest vigor of a revivalist, is that the administration`s case against Saddam Hussein is based on elaborate falsehoods and exploited fear.

He says he would ``be surprised if there is anything in Iraq worth finding,`` claiming inspection efforts between 1991 and 1998 resulted in the Iraqis giving up 90 to 95 percent of their most deadly weapons, rendering Saddam ``fundamentally disarmed`` -- if still unrepentantly evil.

His suspicion is that the renewed inspections soon to begin will be but a show trial before the hanging.

``The U.N. resolution is worded to allow President Bush to act militarily without Security Council approval,`` he scoffs. ``For evidence, he`ll pull the same unquestioned charade he has been pulling right along.`` ......(NYT)

12 butt-head,
#145

Thats why we hindians dont mess with the chinks, anymore. We learnt our lesson. Thats the trouble with Pakis...all brawn & no brains..heheh.. Atleast we have the brains to know who to pick a fight with....your dear own invincible Pakistan. Its a lot of fun kicking the ass of you handsome bakras...again & again...its even more fun with you guys cos even after you get a buttwhupping, you claim ``great victory`` & come back for more..

Jeezus...Pakistan hasnt won a frikking war in her glorious history & now has become the defacto headquarters of Al-Qeeda! And Al-Qeeda is going to challenge the world from there! The MMA will be cheering them on...1000s will kiss the corpse of Mir Amal Khansi..whatever...because he is a martyr..a hero of Pakistan...like a shaheed Bhagat Singh..

Mushy better watch out. he`s pretty good at doing a ``monica`` to sugar daddy US,,,,, but his awam feels that its quite unIslamic ...

re: 12-head


....do you like barbecue?...you do?...delicious, isn`t it?...do you like being on the barbecue?...

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

re: shrinker

{Heck they cant even defeat the cowardly hindus in a Jihad}

...whatcha talkin about shrinker...one paki soldier is equal to 10 of dem indian ones...

Sri,

You`ve seem to have forgotten to mention the Sikhs and Hindus who joined up with the British National Party to hurt out the Muslims.

The irony is that despite the alliance, the BNP were/are still hell bent on throwing all Desis (irrespective of their background) out.

But then you see, we all realise that those goons are a minoritty and such goons occur amongst every race/nation/religion/community etc. etc. and they are a `clank ka tikka` on their people...quite unlike the dikhead who`s hell bent on writing posts such as 141, 142 etc. etc.

Umer M.

Ref headshrinker #134

[NOBODY of any importance in the US is saying ``maybe we should revise American policy towards Isreal``. Thats tantamount to giving into blackmail.]

No. It is just that the US is a whore that, once bought, stays bought. Just like Pakistan. In the case of Pakistan, Pakistan is the whore and the US is the John. In the case of the US. the US is the whore and Israel is the John.

When sept 11 happenned I really thought all muslim countries are toast. I really thought America will respond with such overwhelming force, all moslems will get see their islamic hell up close. Specifically, I thought America will park one nuclear missile submarine near each one of the muslim countries and begin erasing one country after another. America did not do this inspite of its capability is a testament to their generosity. So Mr. Moghul, inspite of bch` ing and whining you should thank americans for sparing your life.

yet another example muslim thuggery in England http://headlines.sify.com/1393news1.html?headline=Sikh~councillor`s~teenaged~son~attacked~in~UK

England is reduced in to a third world cess pool by muslims.

re shankar:

You are reading the average American mind well. The Muslim world just doesn`t get it. It won`t be a first. Ever since the middle ages, muslims have been phenomenal at picking the wrong sides. The media in the muslim world makes absolutely no sense. Frankly I don`t think moderate muslims stand a chance. Another `spectacular` event by Al-Qaida as you point out and its curtains for them too. The muslim world is headed for a holocaust.

later
-sac

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

another driver of expansion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,845129,00.html

``Consequently, a small country like Lithuania, whose economy has collapsed so catastrophically, has just announced the purchase of $34m worth of Stinger missiles, made by the Raytheon Corporation of Tucson, Arizona. When Tanzania announced it was spending $40m on a new civilian air traffic control system, there was an outcry; but Lithuania, whose official GDP is not much larger than Tanzania`s, will have to spend $240m on arms every year as the price for Nato membership. And Lithuania is just one of seven new member states, all of which are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on arms.

The economic interests driving Nato expansion are so blatant that the man who co-ordinates US policy on the matter practically has ``military-industrial complex`` as his middle name. Bruce Jackson, president of the US committee on Nato, is a former military intelligence officer in the US army who became vice-president of Lockheed Martin, the gigantic US arms manufacturer and biggest provider of financial control and accounting services to the Pentagon, from whose accounts trillions of dollars have disappeared``

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

ferozk #126
The US thinks sufficient money and military muscle will allow it to reach its goals whatever the mess a war in Iraq creates. This is a public perception in the US since WWII and I think its dangerously delusional. If the US by chance triggers off WWIII in the region, IMO, this will no longer hold true.

And I can`t understand the boundless self-satisfaction which leads the US to plan a war in a country next door to Iran while refusing the Iranian Ambassador at the UN, permission to spend a day talking to US lawmakers in Washington DC!

Pankaj, Sac

Since your expertise in the area of energy production far exceeds mine, I will humbly concede that the US wants Arab oil, & will want it in the forseeable future..

I`m not an expert on most issues; but I do have a teeny tiny bit of expertise in how a human mind works & how people THINK. I see about 20-25 different AVERAGE Americans in a day. Let me straighten a prejudice that society has (ESP S.Asians in the US)....average NON-PSYCHOTIC Americans see shrinks in America...esp shrinks in pvt practice..

I happen to talk to them about their inner fears, insecurities & anger. Whenever the topic goes to the state of affairs in the world & how it is directly affecting their daily lives ...I see ANGER...towards Arabs...NOT towards Jews. BTW, MidMichigan isnt NYC, there are very few Jews here & many Michiganders are openly anti-Semitic (esp in a ``safe`` environment of a psychiatrists` office)....NEVER MIND that I dont even look like your typical American Joe...heck most AVERAGE Americans dont know the difference between an Ay-rab & Indian..

Another ``spectacular`` attack by Al-Qeeda in the US..& all bets will be off. When it comes to basic security; civil liberties take a back seat. Yes, the ACLU will piss & moan...but it wont change the mindset of an average American.

Here`s my cynicism to this article. This is the time when moderate muslims should seize the moment & come out swinging against Al-Qeeda...& even Saddam. Otherwise it will be too late. What I`m seeing, though, is just the opposite. Yes the moderate muslim has firmly denounced Al-Qeeda. But he/she is doing it in a very quiet ``dignified`` way. Its drowned out by images of huge crowds of muslims, all over the world, denouncing American hypocrisy, burning the stars & stripes & calling Americans an evil, shameless culture. And you want to blame the Western press for portraying this image?

Even muslim intellectuals like Mr Moghul & posters on Chowk are more critically focussed on American hypocrisy & America`s inability to see the world justly. You are blaming the press for being biased. What social justice are you seeing in Islamic countries? When it comes to social justice, MIGHT IS RIGHT in the Islamic world! Saddam, Mubarak, Saudi princes, Mushy etc etc havent come to power in a JUST way. They have no problem letting their people criticise the hypocrisy of America...but what about their own hypocrisy? But the Arab ``street`` believes all its problems come from US-Israeli hegemony? C`maaan!!... Its very easy to find fault in others. Just look at ourselves in the mirror.

When America is angry, you want to wring your hands & give Americans a lecture?!. Lament about the injustice in the non-Islamic (esp American) world all you want...they are in no mood to listen. What is the Al-Qeeda doing? Its threatening America (& their muslim chamchas)..either you make a U-turn in your foreign policy, or we`ll make your lives miserable. Thats BLACKMAIL--pure & simple! No human being likes to be blackmailed..no matter how hypocritical he or his country is.. So Mr Moghul`s article may get a standing ovation with a sympathetic audience like Chowk...but NOT with the average American. Please REFLECT on what the average American has said in this recent election.

Your fundos have declared a Jihad with some of the most powerful nations in the world. Heck they cant even defeat the cowardly hindus in a Jihad...& they want to take on the whole world?! The beards are going to get a jihad they wont believe...& you guys can shed tears about all the civilian muslims massacred by these godless Ameicans...wont make a difference.

When God doesnt intervene, Might BECOMES Right...just what part of that do you not understand?!

Pankaj
#130

I guess the point you are making is that there is a very serious & genuine effort (with the full backing of the US govt) to find alternate sources of energy.

Why?

Because the US (& its allies) dont want to be so dependant on Arab oil. They are hedging their bets. There is always a possibility that the Arab world may ``explode`` with anti-US anger, when Iraq is attacked. NOBODY of any importance in the US is saying ``maybe we should revise American policy towards Isreal``. Thats tantamount to giving into blackmail. There is a very strong argument why that would just embolden terrorism in the future.

Another point; no ``expert`` of any kind has accurately predicted the future. Twenty yrs ago, did we ever think that something called the internet would play such an important role in our lives? When there is a serious, concerted effort to find an alternate source of energy...there is always that chance ( a good chance) that scientists can stumble on to the Holy Grail of cheap energy. Burning hydrocarbons for energy (even if the US had unlimited reserves of ``Saudi-grade`` oil) is meeting with increasing criticism from environmentalists & scientists alike.

Sooner or later the West is going to be free of their dependance on Arab oil...& oil in general. If there is no change in the Arab view of the world...its THEY who are going to be dumped into the garbage can of history...even if they number in the billions.

Moral of the story: if you KNOW a country is powerful & can kick your butt when it is pissed...dont be a fool & antagonise it...lest of all dont LECTURE it about morality, hypocrisy etc etc...will only get it more pissed off....

Muslims--fight a jihad amongst yourselves FIRST...then maybe you can fight a jihad with the ..er..non-believers.

[ #129 by soysauce on November 21, 2002 9:46am PT

***

So that puts paid to your position that the US has been an Empire since WW2. It has one since its birth. No other nation has celebrated military men as its heroes throughout its history as has the U.S. Ironic indeed for the bastion of democracy. ]

The other day I was reading about the invention of portable chronometer which can be used on ships. According to some this is the most important invention of last millenium. Even Isac Newton is supposed to have advised British on how important such invention would be for sea farers. Refinements of chronometer and refinements in its manufacturing led to concept of ``interchangeable parts``. And it quickly was put in service of manufacturing guns.

There is a lot of double standard about democracy. Apparently only nations which are suitable for democracy are geneologically related to Europe.

-einsteinwallah

I love my V8 5.3Liter 6000 lbs 4WD SUV.

I want my gas to cost less than $1/gal.

sac, saxena

On the issue of fuel cells, my thoughts are closer to that of saxena. Although I doubt fuel cells will be able to replace oil as the major source of energy in next fifty years, they will become important and viable commodities. Right now, billions of dollars are being pumped into fuel cell research by the giants like Shell. The idea is to miniaturize fuel cells so that a single fuel cell of the size of a refrigerator could meet the typical energy needs of the whole household. The issue with the fuel cell is not the technology to make one but the technology to miniaturize one and make it safe enough for common use ( due to the use of hydrogen in fuel cells). Once this technology challenge is met which I believe could happen over the next decade or so, we can see a wide variety of applications of fuel cell in automobiles, households etc. But the bulk of energy needs would have to come from oil, at least in the next 50 years since it is cheapest. Also if we look at the recent trends in relative contribution of the energy sources, we would see that an increasing share, although still small, is being provided by the gas. No wonder a lot of hectic reasearch is going on to tap the huge reservoirs of gas hydrates locked in the bottom of the sea.

PS I am a chemical engineer.

Ferozk,
You make some interesting points. The question i have is how and why are international relationships different from interpersonal ones? You wouldn`t argue for example that a rich person should rule over the masses. Why should it be any different in global politics? I understand that the rich person also happens have the largest arsenal, but what`s stopping the masses from rebelling? Why did the fractured territories of india succumb so easily to the east india company? Why is NATO still fuddy-duddy with the US which has said no to virtually every international treaty?
Just saying that things are the way they are doesn`t shed any light on why they are.
Here`s something i filched from today`s paper``

``In the late 1930s, the editors of Henry Luce`s business flagship, Fortune, sidled into the issue of imperial conquest without breaching decorum by using the explosive ``E`` word:``It is generally supposed,`` Fortune`s editors wrote, ``that the American military ideal is peace. But unfortunately for this high-school classic, the U.S. Army, since 1778, has filched more square miles of the earth by sheer military conquest than any army in the world, except only that of Great Britain. And as between Great Britain and United States has been a close race, Britain having conquered something over 3,500,000 square miles since that date, and the U.S. (if one includes wresting the Lousiana Purchase from the Indians) something over 2,100,000.``

So that puts paid to your position that the US has been an Empire since WW2. It has one since its birth. No other nation has celebrated military men as its heroes throughout its history as has the U.S. Ironic indeed for the bastion of democracy.

re: sac

{Do a little studying on how these companies had/have controlling stakes in all new startups and how they gradually faded away from the scene. }

...the govt is pouring huge amounts to develop hydrogen distribution infrastructure...there are no companies involved in that...and there is only one reason to be looking at hydrogen distribution infrastructure...and in any case speculating about the future that far out is just that: speculation...no point arguing about it; it can`t be proven...

Re: Sadna

Sadna, this is the whole problem! No one knows, understands the final costs of this war. You are right, and where I agree with you is that the idea of a regime change in Iraq is a slippery slope.

Who is next after Iraq? Will changing the regime in Iraq assure the final victory? It is difficult to say, because the term ``victory`` has to be defined either in a political or a military context. Does it mean that the United States will redraw the map? The best answer to that is that yes, the intentions are there, but whether there is an actual capability is yet to be seen.

The United States` strategic and political aims are limited, defined and underscored by its economic policies, which are rooted in its desires to control the engry resources of the world.

Is the United States, as you asked acutely, threatening the use of force to attain a political aim, like India to quote you, without really intending to fight?

First of all, the two situations are different. Secondly, the United States, unlike India, can use force to achieve its political aims in Iraq and succeed, because Iraq does not have the means or the ability to retailate. India did not have the option of war, because contary to the popular opinion in Pakistan, Indian leaders are intelligent enough to realize that a war with Pakistan was not practical, because Pakistan had the means and capability for an effective retailation aginst India. Defeating Pakistan at a Phyrric cost was never worth the final price to India.

Leaving Saddam Hussein in power? What are the costs? In a very simple sense, the political costs of leaving Saddam in power are greater than the military costs to the United States in fighting a war to remove him and in a cost-benefit analysis, he is a political threat and not a military threat. A military response is based on the threat perceptions of a nation and those perceptions are colored by the politics, which decides the level of a given threat.

Still, I agree with you in the sense that the United States does not have a clearly defined ``exist strategy`` and is rushing in, where the angels fear to thread.

Ciao

re pankaj #120:

Thanks for your vote of confidence. Are you a chemist by training just like Sameer?

re RSaxena #121:

``i must say however i am not convinced that over a 10-year-horizon, fuel cells cannot start to dent some of the demand for oil...there is way too much money being spent on them, both private and government, for something positive to not come out... ``

A bunch of 25 year olds were saying the exact same thing...............in 1973...at the height of the OPEC crisis.......

Here is why fuel cells, solar panels and windmills will always remain at the periphery. Any promising technology that has the remotest chance of success is bought out by the GMs and BPs of this world. These companies haven`t spent trillions in their distribution networks to be upstaged by some acne ridden genius working in a garage in Austin. Do a little studying on how these companies had/have controlling stakes in all new startups and how they gradually faded away from the scene.

later
-sac

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/18/international/18MILI.html?pagewanted=1

U.S. Taking Steps to Lay Foundation for Action in Iraq

``...American diplomats have intensified talks with two important allies, Turkey and Israel, to persuade them to remain on the sidelines during an invasion. Quietly, often through informal channels, Washington has also broached discussions with Iran about preventing Iraq`s Shiite majority from trying to seize control of Baghdad or form a separate state if Mr. Hussein falls...``

``..Turkey wants assurances from Washington that independence-minded Kurdish factions in northern Iraq will not attempt to form a separate state, a move that it fears could incite Kurdish separatists in its own country. Turkey has more than 3,000 troops in northern Iraq and could take steps to counter any efforts by Kurds there to seize territory. To ease Ankara`s concerns, the Pentagon is preparing war plans to dispatch troops to protect the oil fields around Kirkuk in northern Iraq.

At Ankara`s behest, Washington is also pushing European countries to accept Turkey into the European Union. Turkey, a major trading partner with Iraq, is also seeking compensation for economic losses that might result from war. Negotiations are under way for a multibillion-dollar aid package that would include forgiving Turkish debts, and military aid and grants, diplomats said.

``Should a crisis come because of Iraq`s defiance, we will work to ensure that the safety net under Turkey`s economy stays in place``, W. Robert Pearson, the American ambassador to Turkey, said in a statement.

The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has vowed to retaliate if Mr. Hussein launches missiles at Israel, a move that could swiftly undermine the support of moderate Arab states for an American invasion, perhaps igniting a broader war.

To allay Israel`s concerns, Mr. Bush has approved a war plan that calls for American forces to seize land in western Iraq to destroy Scud missiles that could reach Israeli cities. Also, American diplomats are urging Israel to limit any responses to Iraqi aggression to purely defensive actions, such as firing Arrow antimissile weapons.

In turn, Israel, during a meeting between its national security adviser and senior Pentagon and State Department officials last Thursday, urged the United States to help resolve a water dispute with Lebanon and Syria, officials said.

The administration has quietly reached out to Iran, often through third parties, to enlist Tehran`s support in discouraging Iraqi Shiites, who represent 60 percent of Iraq`s population, from engaging in terrorism or forming a breakaway republic, officials said. Those channels include the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which represents American interests in Iran, various relief groups, the United Nations and a Tehran-based Iraqi Shiite opposition group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

In exchange for cooperation, Iran wants the United States to release billions of dollars in assets frozen in American financial institutions after American Embassy workers were taken hostage in 1979. It is also seeking pledges of assistance for Iraqi refugees who might pour into Iran if war breaks out.

In one sign that Tehran was trying to reach out to Washington, Javad Zarif, Iran`s ambassador to the United Nations, requested permission to visit Washington this week to meet with members of Congress. But the State Department, which must approve his travel plans beyond New York, would not allow him to stay overnight, and he canceled the trip...``

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/international/middleeast/17KURD.html
Iraqi Kurds Set Sights on Baghdad

A senior leader of an Iraqi Kurdish group has said his forces intend to push all the way to Baghdad in the event of an American-led war in Iraq.

In an interview here on Friday, Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said he had no intention of limiting his group`s military activities to its base in northern Iraq. He predicted that any number of the armed groups who are fighting Saddam Hussein would converge on the capital if the Americans invaded.

``We are looking to Baghdad, we are focusing on Baghdad,`` Mr. Talabani said on a visit to Turkey. ``It is the capital. It is the main part of the country. We are not just looking through Kurdish glasses. We are looking through Iraqi glasses.``

The assertion seemed to raise the prospect of a division between the Kurds and American political leaders, who are fearful that an invasion could unleash a stream of bloodletting among the country`s ethnic and religious groups. While American officials have indicated that they would like to employ Kurdish forces in the event of a war, they speak of limiting the Kurds` role to their base in northern Iraq...``

``..In the interview, Mr. Talabani reiterated his often-stated claim that Iraq`s Kurds would not seek independence but rather want autonomy.

Other groups that would converge on Baghdad, he said, include rebels from the majority Shiite population, as well as the minority Turkoman and Sunni Muslims. Mr. Talabani said such interventions would go a long way toward keeping the peace. If these groups can capture the main cities, he said, ``this will be a good step forward to prevent civil war, to prevent chaos, to prevent clashes among various Iraqi groups....``

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

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

re: pankaj

...i agree about the alaskan oil...i must say however i am not convinced that over a 10-year-horizon, fuel cells cannot start to dent some of the demand for oil...there is way too much money being spent on them, both private and government, for something positive to not come out...

sac and Shankar
``
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``


You are very precise sac. The quality of Alaskan oil is very bad; only some wells in Latin America could be worse. The Alaskan oil has a typical viscosity of 100 centipoise and above and almost always requires enhanced oil recovery methods like the use of steam or hot water to decrease the viscosity and bring it out. In USA, if an oil reservoir has a permeability of the order of 10 milidarcy to 100 milidarcy, it is considered a gift of God. Just to put the matter in proper perspective the typical permebilities of the Arabian wells are 500 milidarcy and above. There is also no need for enhanced oil recovery methods like surfactant flooding or heat treatment in most of the ME reservoirs and hence their oil is dirt cheap. USA would obviously prefer to exercise greater control over ME to keep the oil prices under control instead of going for the comparatively far expensive Alaskan or Siberian oil. USA wants to reduce its dependence on Saudi oil and wants more oil bearing region in ME under direct control. And this is the real reason of the war.

too much credit is being given in this space to u.s. for maintaining stability in the international political order after ww ii. we in pakistan are still dealing with the consequences of blind support provided to general zia during the eighties. i would guess that half the paki expats on chowk would be home right now if the biggest religious nutcases and their henchman, the drug lords would not have been running around brandishing weapons given to them by americans to fight the red army in afghanistan. similarly mideast would not be in such a mess if the republican administration was not acting as the american branch of the likud party while the executive branch was in bed with the house of saud, the other most regressive force in the region. things are not much better in the backyard either. remember the monroe doctrine? don’t think americans are thrilled with the election results in brazil, economic crises in argentina, political crises in venezuela and the unending indigenous insurgency in colombia.

american intervention when done for the right reason can work as the case in balkans. no one however besides the sheeps in congress and tony blair believes that iraqi campaign is being undertaken for the good of humanity. the notion that iraq has the capacity to develop unmanned drones capable of delivering nuclear weapons to u.s. is laughable. why the hell were sanctions in place and why the hell is iraq being bombed daily if it still retains the capability of producing cutting edge weapons system. perhaps syria should ask for u.n. sanctions so that it can manufacture nuclear weapons and unmanned drones capable of flying 5,000 miles. besides would the americans be concerned about iraqi nuclear program if saddam was selling oil to the u.s. at $5 below market while the israeli ambassador was cavorting around with belly dancers at at the baghdad hilton? uncle sam was not too concerned with pak nuclear program when the army was supporting jehad in afghanistan.

even if the republican administration did not have sinister motives for attacking iraq, i still feel that their intervention will have disastrous consequences in the long run. i don’t agree with conventional analysis that the results of gulf war were favourable to region. what did the gulf war really achieve besides restoring the fortunes of a bunch of towel heads? news reports indicate that obl had gone to the saudi govt and asked for permission to drive iraqi forces from kuwait. what would have happened if saudi arabia fought iraq? since only one side would have prevailed in the ensuing conflict, wouldn’t it have been easier to confront one monster rather than two, as is the case now? besides, what right did the americans have to interfere in a conflict fought by two muslim countries? americans don’t seem too eager to intervene when african countries invade each other.

given the track record of american intervention in the region and given the sinister motives for attacking iraq, i don’t agree with people who argue that american intervention will lead to favourable results. the background of the leaders of iraqi national congress does not give much cause for optimism. following is the profile of three leading lights. see the article for complete details.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27877
research by dr glen rangwala, lecturer in politics at trinity college, cambridge

===============================================

general nizar al-khazraji

according to many human rights groups, he is the field commander who led the 48-hour chemical weapons attack which poisoned and burned 5000 kurdish civilians in the northern town of halabja in march 1988. he also, alleges one credible eyewitness who testified in video-taped evidence earlier this year, kicked a little kurdish child to death after his forces entered a village during the height of the iraqi repression in 1988.

but, says ambassador david mack, a senior official in the us state department who co-ordinates meetings of iraqi opposition groups in washington dc, general nizar al-khazraji has `a good military reputation` and `the right ingredients` as a future leader in iraq.

the most senior military officer to defect since 1990, al-khazraji was saddam`s chief of staff from 1980 until 1991, leading the army through the eight-year iran-iraq war and the invasion of kuwait in 1990

brigadier-general najib al-salihi

commander of an armoured division of iraq`s elite republican guard in the gulf war, salihi played a significant military role in iraq`s invasion of kuwait. he was also engaged in putting down the uprising against saddam `s rule that followed the defeat at the hands of the us-led forces. the repressive way in which this particular episode was handled caused 1.5 million people to flee their homes, while salihi went on to write a book about his crushing of the popular uprising, entitled al-zilzal, `the earthquake`.
after commanding iraqi forces in putting down another rebellion by an opposition group in 1995, salihi defected to the side of his former enemies and came to co-operate with the us, where he now lives

ahmad al-chalabi

ahmad al-chalabi came to international attention not for his politics, but for fleeing to london from jordan in 1989 amid allegations he had embezzled millions from the bank he used to own. although he denies any wrongdoing, the collapse of the petra bank left thousands of its customers in penury and earned him comparisons with robert maxwell. he didn`t return to jordan to defend himself at his trial in 1992, which took place in his absence, and will begin his 32 years in prison only if he returns to jordan, which he shows no sign of doing at present

===============================================

to me the following articles provide credible motivations for attack. to prove that i am not a conspiracy theorist, the links i am posting are from an israeli and a mainsteam american newspaper.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=214635

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

sadna#117

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

heeeheeeheee...that one is funnny :o)

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...

re: karokaram

{Don`t you think India and Pakistan should talk ? }

....no...there is nothing to talk about....pakistani govt wants india to effectively hand kashmir over...there is no govt in india which can ever deliver that...and musharraf would rather start a nuke war than ever accept compromise (i.e. turning the LoC into the border)...i bet even you`re twitching right now saying ``that is not a compromise``....

...what is there to discuss?...

Karakoram:

I have read your post, and will read it again as well. Don`t get me wrong. I do see your point, esp about the fact that it is a slippery slope. On the other hand, I read about the usage of Contras in Punjab by KPS Gill, and the obvious success there, and I am in two minds.

I do not put myself on a moral pedestal, but I do feel that if the lives of security forces (who, to me are very much human beings and not cannon fodder) can be saved by putting contras as first line of defense, that does not seem like a bad idea...

The most disturbing thing about your post is that when I read about that doctor claiming to an eye-witness, without a second thought, I wondered..``why the hell does the police not bump that idiot off`` ...this was not conscious evolution of thinking...just a random thought...but then when I saw the same thing in your post, it kinda made me realize that there is no end to dehumanizing people who are obstacles.

Anyways, thank you for providing fodder for thought...

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Can we please come back to the topic at hand. You see, the India and Pakistan bit has been done to death multiple times, and we will continue bickering about Kashmir long after Saddam is dead and Iraq is a pro-American democracy.

The current South Asian perspective on US foreign policy is more important to discuss. I use the word South Asian because this is the first time on Chowk that RSaxena has taken a position which has more in common with Pakistan than with US.

Why are you all under the thrall of Saddam? Do you not feel like Chamberlains, bowing and scraping before Hitler?

In his time, Churchill was ridiculed by the Brits as being a war-monger, when he advocated war against Nazi Germany after the annexation of Sudetanland. Yet , he was prophetically proved right about Hitler in 1939.

Why do you want Saddam to be in a similar position?

This just in:
Bihar police finally got hold of a mosquito who was allegedly spreading malaria in the eastern part of the province. The government remains convinced that the mosquito is an ISI agent, due to the fact that his buzz sounded very much like Urdu to some biharis. The local police inspector, Jay Arjun, lamented the fact that the bullets provided to them were too big and advanced to kill a mosquito, otherwise he would have surely killed the bastard like all the others in the past. Authorities were at a loss to explain a question posed by a journalist as to how an insect as small as a mosquito can single-handedly terrorize and infect a country as huge and brave as India. They remain adamant that it has nothing to do with incompetency, instead, focus remains on the ``evil`` nature of mosquitoes vs the righteousness of Indians.

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

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

stuka,
Counter insurgents a