Can we Stop the War

I must say -- that with few exceptions -- our highflying roamAIR miaN is much more -- earthbound -- in terms of analyses of the War situation -- THESE days :-)

what do u think Arjun miaN?

shankar #175: ``Werent you the guy who was constantly asking the question...``but is it moral?``, in one of our previous..er..discussions...
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that a moral superpower is an oxymoron...that was the whole frikking point in one of our previous arguments, I was making! ``

Moral superpower is an oxymoron. However, superpower-ness is not a good thing, or something that should be encouraged - be it moral or immoral. The world will be a much safer place with no superpowers.

If you look at the democratic systems of the West, they are specifically designed to not allow one state or one province to become a superpower inside a country. California is a superpower in comparison to New Hampshire. But California cannot veto anything presented by New Hampshire. There are no security councils in the US House that have the five largest states as reps, with veto powers.

So, superpowers, moral or immoral, should be discouraged. If there cannot be zero superpowers, there should be at least two.

``Let me tell you, deep down inside 99% of Americans (other than, maybe, 1st generation Americans) think that the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE is the best, most ``moral``, ``liberated``, ``tolerant`` & ``civilised`` in the world``

Actually, I agree with this also. I also think the Western (though not necessarily only American) domestic system of life is the most sophisticated, enlightened, and just in the world. No doubt about it. I would rank Canada as no. 1 and Europe and USA as no. 2. That is why I live mostly in the West. The only areas it has problems in is the breakdown of the family structure, due to excessive open sex and alcoholism. But at a state level, domestically, it is the best. I hope someday Pakistan can have such a domestic government system.

But that does not mean that the USA`s foreign policy is also liberated, tolerant etc. Canada`s is, but the USA`s foreign policies are exactly the opposite of its domestic policies. Israel`s domestic system is also very nice (at least for Jews), but look at its foreign policy. Canada`s foreign and domestic policy are both quite fair.

``To Americans, a ``utopian`` world is if EVERY nation on earth followed their VALUES! ``

If you mean domestic values, then on the whole, I also hope someday every nation can have something like the system of democracy, justice, economy etc. like the West and USA.

``I`ll bet you Bush & his cohorts FIRMLY believe that America is going to ``liberate`` the Iraqi people from the TERRIBLE bondage of Saddam...& make the WHOLE world safer & more civilsed in the process. ``

This is something I completely disagree with. The US govt. leaders aren`t that naive. Infact, they see the world in a lot more Machievellian detail than you and I can see it. The above is what the average American may believe, and even the average American soldier may believe as he bombs Iraq. The above is what the US govt. is trying hard to convince the US public to believe (after the WMD and Al-Qaeda arguments did not work out). But Bush and Co. themselves definitely do not believe this.

If they did believe the above, they would be going into every country, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc., and democratizing it. They would be telling Israel to stop treating its Muslims like third-rate citizens etc. They would be telling India to let go of Kashmir, etc. They would not have earlier supported the Shah of Iran, or Saddam or Taliban earlier. But they don`t. They pick and chose their battles very very carefully. They tyr to install, ``Democracy`` in a country that has an anti-USA dictator. And they try to install a, ``Dictator`` in a country that has an anti-US democracy.

For example, in Afghanistan, they initally supported the Taliban dictatorship when it was pro-US. Then they did not support an anti-US dictatorship of Talibans and installed a more democratic pro-US Karzai. In Pakistan, they currently support a pro-US semi-dictator Musharraf, and would not support an anti-US democratically elected MMA led by Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman. In Iraq, they are not supporting an anti-US dictator Saddam and are trying to replace him with a pro-US, ``democracy.`` While in Iran a democractically elected Khatami is on the axis of evil of the US, while the complete dictator but pro-US Shah was their ally. Infact, the US openly supported the then pro-US dictator Saddam against the more democratic Iran in a war.

In Saudi Arabia, they fully support a pro-US super-conservative dictator king, and would try their best to ensure that he is never toppled through a democratic movement. In Jordan, they fully support a pro-US, though non-conservative, dicatator king and would not support democracy there. In Turkey, they have always supported the pro-US Turkish army whenever it has toppled a democractically elected govt. or banned democractically elected religious parties. Until now, when the religious party has won by such a huge margin that even the Turkish military is scared of kicking it out.

I could go on and on.

``They believe that (unilaterally, if need be) if they can install a pro-US regime in Iraq, it will be a role model for the rest of the Islamic world.``

You need to keep a couple of things in mind: The most influential domestic pressure group in the USA is the NRA. That is why Americans still carry around guns like idiots, when the rest of the civilized world gave up on them decades ago. The most influential foreign policy group is the pro-Israel lobby. That is why the USA is still willing to fight Israel`s inhumane battles, even though the rest of the world wants a just Palestine solution.

What will happen if all the Arab countries become a model of democracy and liberty? Do you really think they will be pro-US? Don`t you think the average voting Arab, rightly or wrongly, is more than a little pissed off at the USA and Israel - to the extent of supporting even a terrorist like OBL. Will a democratic govt. in Saudi Arabia be as allied with the USA as the current kings? Is Bush more popular in Arabistan or is Osama more popular? What if a non-terrorist version of Osama, whom everyone could openly support, appeared in a the form of a nationalistic and democratically elected and charismatic Arab leader in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Iraq or even Kuwait? Look at all the problems for the US govt. a tiny relatively independent TV station like Al-Jazeera has caused? It is showing the world the other side of the picture. What if a whole Arab state became that liberated?

The only thing that Israel has over the Arabs is, other than nukes, is that Israel is a sophisticated democracy (at least for Jews, though not for the Muslims), while all these oil-loaded Arab countries are run by bozo dictators like Saddam and Abdullah. If the US sets these Arab countries on the path to democracy and independence, imagine how strong the Arab countries will become. The first thing a democratic Arabistan will do is raise the price of oil. OPEC would become as powerful as NATO. Do you really think Israel (and the USA) would want that? Do you really think Sharon is telling Bush right now to turn Arabistan into strong democracies like his own country, so they can be a tougher opponent to Israel?

Does the USA itself gain by installing its own domestic values of freedom, democracy etc. in the Middle East? The price of oil would be controlled by the common Arab man, not by a King. The first thing any enfranchised native (be they Indian, Pakistani, Korean, or Arab) always says is to get all, ``foreign`` soldiers off, ``his`` land. So the US military would be kicked out. Arab democracies would not fight with each other, so they would become more united. After all, two of OBL`s battle cries are, ``Get the US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia,`` and ``Raise the price of oil to $330/barrel instead of $30/barrel.``

So the US only loses, if the Arab kings and dictators get replaced by democracies. If it were to gain, then it would have started trying to install these values there fifty years ago. An Arabistan, speaking the same language, with the same religion, enlightened and democraticized, controlling 75% of the world`s know oil reserves will be equivalent to EU in power. It may even develop good symbiotic trade relationships with the USA. But, Israel would be severly cut down to the size it was originally supposed to be. If you are a Jewish lobbyist sitting in DC, would you want Bush to democraticize Arabistan? Not to mention if you are Exxon and British Petroleum.

``YOUR holy mind doesnt have the wisdom to stand in judgement either. Tomorrow, IF your beloved SOVEREIGN, independant nation of Kashmir became a superpower...I`ll GUARANTEE you , your peace-loving Kashmiris will behave EXACTLY the way that the American people & govt is behaving!``

I doubt Kashmir will ever be that powerful. But if it were, then following historical trends, your argument would be correct. Even weak countries like Pakistan (and India, and other countries) have always used their influence to dictate to weaker countries. For example, Pakistan had been controlling Afghanistan and lives of Afghanis there, for its own benefit, for a long time. And now India is trying to do the same there, as is Iran and Russia and USA. Infact, Iraq itself has killed its own Kurds, as has Turkey.

But that does not justify these actions. I cannot kill someone, under the precendence that well if he was as powerful as me, then he would kill others also. If one uses that argument, then anyone who is more powerful can kill anyone. One has to see who is doing the killing and then try to stop them, at that point. Otherwise, it is the law of the jungle. And I am afraid that is what US policies are leading the world towards. Now any country knows that the only way to stay out of the US warpath is to a) have a very strong domestic economy will alliances like Europe has b) Allow the US to have control of your domestic policies in a strong alliance like Saudi Arabia or Turkey (to a smaller degree Pakistan) c) Have nuclear weapons to avoid a US intervention if there are ever chances of that happening like N. Korea, Pakistan, India, Russia etc.

North Korea has already done it. And countries like Iran, which do not fall into any of these above-mentioned categories must have now put their nuclear program into full-speed, i.e. build nukes before the US can come and blow them out.

O Wise one!
#170

You know I reeeaaaly hate it when you put your foot in your mouth & then I have to agree with that prick arjun in #174...

{{Moral superpower is an oxymoron. A country can be one or the other, it cannot simultaneously be both.}}

Werent you the guy who was constantly asking the question...``but is it moral?``, in one of our previous..er..discussions...

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that a moral superpower is an oxymoron...that was the whole frikking point in one of our previous arguments, I was making!

EVERY superpower ``twists`` morality to suit its interests.

Let me tell you, deep down inside 99% of Americans (other than, maybe, 1st generation Americans) think that the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE is the best, most ``moral``, ``liberated``, ``tolerant`` & ``civilised`` in the world...that the under-devoloped world should be taking the ``american model`` of civil liberties, democracy & freedoms that Americans enjoy. At the most, they will say ``Ok the European or Canadian model is acceptable too...!``

To Americans, a ``utopian`` world is if EVERY nation on earth followed their VALUES! Maybe, I`m exaggerating to make my point...but how many Americans (or Westerners) who were born & raised in the US (or West) would wilingly migrate to another underdeveloped country?! Except for rare examples like Jemima Khan or Queen Noor, who migrate cos they are married to very powerful, famous &/or wealthy men from underdeveloped countries...otherwise, the average perception of MOST Americans is ``I`d like to visit your country; but I CERTAINLY dont want to live there & apply to your govt for citizenship!``

To them, an underdeveloped society is ``morally & culturally`` BACKWORD!...not JUST economically backword..And RICH nations like Saudi & Kuwait are ``backword`` too, according to 99% of native born Americans!

Ofcourse there are exceptions. And, yes, Americans are the FIRST ones to admit that ``american code of ethics is not perfect``...in fact, the BIGGEST critics of the US President are Americans themselves!

So! Your Wise Holiness,

I`ll bet you Bush & his cohorts FIRMLY believe that America is going to ``liberate`` the Iraqi people from the TERRIBLE bondage of Saddam...& make the WHOLE world safer & more civilsed in the process. They believe that (unilaterally, if need be) if they can install a pro-US regime in Iraq, it will be a role model for the rest of the Islamic world. Its OPENLY discussed in Washington! A ``few`` 100, 000 dead Iraqi civilians or a few 100,000 dead Afghans is a small price to pay for the ``greater good`` they are going to bestow on the millions of Iraqis & Afghans who survive. They FIRMLY believe that the average Afghan citizen is a 1000 times better off today, than under ANY previous Afghan regime..

Jesus Christ?! Isnt that MORAL, from their point of view? Nobody says the path to a ``righteous`` civilisation`` is bereft of ``collateral damage``!
So whats GOOD for America is good for the rest of the world too!

And you say ``morality`` cant be twisted!!

Now let me come back to the ``original`` point:

{{Now does that make Americans ``better`` or ``worse`` than other human beings?----I think I`ll leave that judgement to a mind much WISER than mine.... }}

Your wise holiness; like my mind, YOUR holy mind doesnt have the wisdom to stand in judgement either. Tomorrow, IF your beloved SOVEREIGN, independant nation of Kashmir became a superpower...I`ll GUARANTEE you , your peace-loving Kashmiris will behave EXACTLY the way that the American people & govt is behaving!

So, join the ``club``...Pope-ji...now, if Allah posted His judgement on Chowk...I`ll be in no position BUT to agree with Him:))

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

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

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

shankar #163: ``Now does that make Americans ``better`` or ``worse`` than other human beings?----I think I`ll leave that judgement to a mind much WISER than mine.... ``

Thank you for asking me to comment. :)

Ferozek`s analysis is quite accurate. As is yours - except for the last part. It took years and years and thousands of American bodybags from Vietnam to turn the tide against the war, within the USA. So I am not sure one can view the end of the Vietnam war as a result of the US public`s, ``niceness.``

I think the US decision makers are far wiser now. They will never get into a war which will result in even hundreds of US body bags, what to talk of thousands. Or into a war that will take more than a month or so to be decided. Hence, their lack of desire to go into North Korea. Considering the fact that North Korea is equally, ``evil`` on the axis, and has kicked out nuclear inspectors, and is openly threatening the USA, one would think it should be attacked as well. But it isn`t due to the bodybag and long war reasons.

People, incorrectly, tend to associate a country`s foreign policy with the way they are treated inside a country. Americans are (were?) nice people. No doubt about it. But what exactly does that have to do with foreign policy? If a Mafia leaders family treats their guests well, does that stop the Maifioso from killing others, outside his house? No. Of course not. He has to do so to remain the toughest kid on the block.

Superpowers have to kill others, and rule others to remain superpowers. There is no way around it. Has there ever been an ethical superpower in the history of the world? Name one. England colonized and killed and enslaved and faminized the world. Germany did the same. The USSR killed 1 million in Afghanistan, etc. etc.

What an average American treats others like, has nothing to do with foreign policy. I am sure Englishmen were very well-behaved and friendly if you went to their homes, while Bengalis were dying due to famines created by their governments. The only way the US, or any country, is going to bring some level of ethics into its foreign policy is if it decides to give up its status as a superpower. No country will ever give that status up. It brings with it a lot of economic prosperity for its citizens. Otherwise, why in the world would the US spend $360 billion on defence per year?

Based on this argument, the war on Iraq makes perfect sense as far as US foreign policy goes. The only criteria to rank it against is - does it increase the US`s status as a superpower? The answer is Yes. Why? Because it gets rid of an anti-American leader, and it greatly increases the US`s power in an area with heavy natural deposits. Simple.

Moral superpower is an oxymoron. A country can be one or the other, it cannot simultaneously be both.

By the time anti-war protests have an effect, the war will be over, such is the devastating firepower of the US Air Force. There will be no US bodybags, because there will be no ground troops (only at the very end will they be used). It is this avoidance of a single US bodybag that has resulted in such massive civilian, ``collateral damage`` killings. The US now ensures not a single source that could put a scratch on a US ground troops` body is left intact. In the process, all kinds of Iraqi civilians will die.

So there is no moral debate on this war to begin with. It is highly immoral. How can someone even think of giving a counter-argument? Superpower foreign policies never work on the basis of, ``benefitting`` the common native they are about to bomb. Why would the US want to benefit Iraq by sanctioning and bombing it? This is the height of patronization. The native`s opinion is never even taken into account. Otherwise, Rumsfeld would at least carry out a public opinion poll in Iraq (not in the USA) about the war. I am surprised how many Americans are naive enough to believe that - not to mention so many Pakistanis on Chowk.

The only debate is political. And politically, I think it does serve the US`s long term interests - evil as they maybe. Otherwise, why in the world are Bush and his crew chomping at the bit to bomb Iraq, despite so much opposition. Obvioulsy, they see some advantage. They maybe evil and maybe about to commit terrorist acts - but they are some of the most intelligent people in the country.

I think the only thing that will avoid the war would be Saddam going into exile. Other than that, I think the US will attack. It will be a quick war of massive air bombardments, which will occur in many Iraqi, ``collatoral`` deaths. However, the war will then end, and the anti-war movement will then have nothing to protest about, and will thus die down. Either Saddam will be captured or killed, or will run away, i.e. another OBL-like situation. Iraqis will obviously hate the US even more.

What will happen after that?

- I don`t the Kurds will get independence, since the Turks have said they will invade an independent Kurdistan. And Kurdish independence has never been practically supported by the USA, due to the USA alliance with Turkey.

- Turkey will be forced into helping the US, much like Pakistan was, against the will of the people. However, Turkey has an Islamic party running the show, so don`t know what will happen there.

- Iraq will be without a govt. So somebody will have to take over. He will obviously have to be very pro-US, which would basically make him anti-Iraqi public opinion. Unlike Pakistan, which has democratic traditions (however weak they maybe), Iraq has none. So the new ruler will be a dictator, with the authority to do a lot of dictating. I don`t see how any dictator appointed by the US in a Middle East country can be successful at running a govt. The Saudi and Jordan Kings, Musharraf (post Sep 11 and pre recent elections) etc. supported the US, but were not appointed by the US. Why and how would an Iraqi population that has been starved to death by the US, support a US propped up govt.?

- The Middle East will be a bigger mess than it currently is, if a war takes place. The Europeans and Americans protesting the war, will not have much to protest about due to the short time duration of the war. So Europeans will soon forget the war, as will the rest of the world. The US will be more secure and powerful in the Middle East than before.

The only country that has been effected by this war, is Germany. The leading candidate lost the election due to his support of this war.

Iraqi military will not be able to send home any US bodybags, like the North Koreans could. The other thing that could avoid a catastrophe in the short term is if Saddam were to go into exile. However, within five to ten years, there would be another Saddam, i.e. someone supported into power by the US who is then removed through massive bombings. And the cycle will continue.

All of the above is going to make maulvis more popular in the Islamic world as a democratic political alternative. After all, Saddam and Iraq are the most secular country in the Middle East. They are the furthust from being a maulvi govt. Yet look at the condition of Iraq. Iran is already under maulvi rule. Turkey`s maulvis (though they don`t look like maulvis - at least not yet) have taken over - democratically, mind you. In Egypt, maulvis win all their syndicate elections, but are not allowed to come into power against a very pro-West semi-dictator. In Pakistan, maulvis have won far more than ever before (one reason is due to the US aggressiveness). Afghanistan will always be a conservative maulvi country. Saudi Arabia is an extremely maulvi, though pro-US govt. This will leave Jordan and whateven govt. that is propped up in Iraq as the only pro-US govts. in the area.

This war, like the US desire to fight USSR through Mujahideen, will create short term political advantages for the US, but will create long term problems for everyone. This is where the US leaderships, as qualified as they maybe, are unable to judge the emotions of Muslim countries. This is also the area where the British used to excel due to their experiences with colonialism.

The best thing that could happen to the Muslims, the Middle East and the world is if the Saudi kings were toppled through a nationalist revolution. That would solve all the imbalances that currently occur in the US relations with Middle East countries. It would greatly solve the problem of Islamic extremism also, since the current extremist Wahabi religious factions of Saudi Arabia are close allies of the current Saudi Kings.

US officials may face war crimes trial: lawyers

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 24: A group of more than 100 legal experts warned President George W. Bush in a letter published on Friday that senior officials could face prosecution if US soldiers committed war crimes in Iraq.

The experts said violations of international humanitarian law by US and allied forces ``were extensively documented`` during the 1991 Gulf War and military campaigns in Kosovo in 1999 and in Afghanistan in late 2001.

``Given these past violations, there is a reasonable basis for assuming that in any future military action against Iraq, these requirements will once again be breached,`` they wrote.

The letter, signed by more than 100 law professors and non-governmental organizations, was also sent to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Canadian counterpart, Jean Chretien.

Previous violations included ``indiscriminate methods of attack,`` the use of cluster bombs and fuel-air explosives, and attacks on electricity supplies and dams, it said.

One of the signatories, Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, said:

``I hope this unjustified war never happens, but if President Bush proceeds to war, we fear it will be a war that unlawfully targets the Iraqi people as was the case in 1991.``

The letters ``are putting the US, UK and Canadian governments on notice that such illegal tactics cannot and must not be used again,`` Ratner said.

Britain and Canada are both parties to the statute of the new International Criminal Court, set up on July 1 last year to try cases of genocide, warcrimes and crimes against humanity.

``While the US did not ratify the treaty establishing the court (now we know why), US officials involved in committing certain international crimes may nonetheless be held responsible under principles of Universal Jurisdiction and the War Crimes Act,`` the lawyers said(NYT)


Caution Colin -- jump off that Bush`s Titanic of Future War Criminials.

Don`t dip ur hands in the Blood of innocent Iraqi PEOPLE -- u r a good man Colin -- jump that Ship of Fools -- RESIGN....

American CONSCIENCE in full play:

LONDON (Jan. 25) - Waving goodbye to families and denouncing ``imperialist`` warmongering, the first convoy of Western volunteers set out from London on double-decker buses on Saturday to act as ``human shields`` against any attack on Iraq.

About 50 volunteers, ranging from a 19-year-old factory worker to a 60-year-old former diplomat, formed the first in a series of convoys organisers say will take hundreds of anti-war activists to Iraq.

Dismissed by critics as naively playing into Iraqi President Saddam Hussein`s hands, the volunteers plan to fan out to heavily populated areas of Baghdad and other parts of the country as a deterrent to Western bombing.

``Our strategy is potentially dangerous but that is the risk we must take in standing beside our brothers and sisters in Iraq,`` said former U.S. marine Ken Nichols, whose Human Shield Action Iraq group is coordinating the London departures.

``We have been inundated by volunteers. This is just the first wave. I am calling for 10,000 to get down there and stop this war,`` he told Reuters.

Proud to be an American!

Ferozk, Nasah, et al,

You may want to check out Ellis Henican`s column in Friday`s Newday. Iraq from the viewpoint of a famous general.

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

It is folly to compare Vietnam with Iraq. In any case, hindsight is 50-50, but the fact remains Vietnam never had access to WMD.

Similar sentiments were expressed in 1991 by professional anti-war agitationists, and we all know what happened. The Ffrench will run to support the US the moment Saddam is on his way out.

````But there is a side of America that will save its butt in the end...when things go beyond a certain point--- they have a conscience, that speaks out loudly. It was American public pressure that finally halted the Vietnam war.````(shanker)

you said it -- Shanker --

Feroz miaN -- don`t underestimate the Power of Protest in America --

America may have a Short Memory -- BUT IT does have a powerful CONSCIENCE --

its CONSCIENCE wakes up a little slowly -- but it does wake up -- to their realization of past or present SINS -- and the pendulum swings to the opposite side --

remember Vietnam.

whatever the rhetoric of the past -- every American NOW knows -- what a terrible waste Vietnam was --

a FOLLY of Himalayan proportion -- built on utterly thin ice of defense against an imaginary `Yellow Peril` -- that was supposed to LAND at West coast -- and take over Seatle -- if -- IF

IF -- `WE` -- did not resist it and FIGHT it in Saigon --

it was pure bunk -- pure unadultrated BULLSH*T

-- a Bull Sh*t and a total FABRICATION -- that took needlessly -- the lives of 60,000 American kids -- who did not grow up in their beautiful bountiful country to enjoy the old age --

and 2 million Vietnamese men, women, children -- injured, maimed and killed -- and whose beautiful peacful land -- DEFORSTED -- by AGENT ORANGE --

all -- by those crazy Texan DonQuixotes -- fighting imaginary windmills -- in distant foreign lands -- on very spurious, criminal assumptions.

all for WHAT? --

now the very SAME Yellow Peril has invaded the US -- but with cheap plastic toys and cheap electronics -- in every happy America Houshold -- anyway -- and the US can do nothing about it.


ONCE MORE -- the same PREFABRICED Bullsh*ts are being REASSEMBLED -- in the AIR -- as ``Axis of Evil`` --

and onc again -- thousand of Ameican youth are asked to DIE for it --

and millions of Iraqi lives and ancient ANTIQUITIES are about to be destroyed

-- for yet another BIG LIE --

by yet ANOTHER `evil fighter` ` --

by yet another -- `buddha basher` -- yet another `American Taliban` --

the TEXA`S TALIBAN -- George W. Bush the Junior -- aka -- the Dimwit Dubya -- of the United States Accidntal Presidency.

````But there is a side of America that will save its butt in the end...when things go beyond a certain point--- they have a conscience, that speaks out loudly. It was American public pressure that finally halted the Vietnam war.````(shanker)

you said it -- Shanker --

Feroz miaN -- don’t underestimate the Power of Protest in America --

America may have a Short Memory -- BUT IT does have a powerful CONSCIENCE --

its CONSCIENCE wakes up a little slowly -- but it does wake up -- to their realization of past or present SINS -- and the pendulum swings to the opposite side --

remember Vietnam.

whatever the rhetoric of the past -- every American NOW knows -- what a terrible waste Vietnam was --

a FOLLY of Himalayan proportion -- built on utterly thin ice of defense against an imaginary `Yellow Peril` -- that was supposed to LAND at West coast -- and take over Seattle -- if -- IF

IF -- `WE` -- did not resist it and FIGHT it in Saigon --

it was pure bunk -- pure unadulterated BULLSH*T

-- a Bull Sh*t and a total FABRICATION -- that took needlessly -- the lives of 60,000 American kids -- who did not grow up in their beautiful bountiful country to enjoy the old age --

and 2 million Vietnamese men, women, children -- injured, maimed and killed -- and whose beautiful peaceful land -- DEFORSTED -- by AGENT ORANGE --

all -- by those crazy Texan Don Quixote s -- fighting imaginary windmills -- in distant foreign lands -- on very spurious, criminal assumptions.

all for WHAT? --

now the very SAME Yellow Peril has invaded the US -- but with cheap plastic toys and cheap electronics -- in every happy America Household -- anyway -- and the US can do nothing about it.


ONCE MORE -- the same PREFABRICED Bullsh*ts are being REASSEMBLED -- in the AIR -- as ``Axis of Evil`` --

and onc again -- thousand of Ameican youth are asked to DIE for it --

and millions of Iraqi lives and ancient ANTIQUITIES are about to be destroyed

-- for yet another BIG LIE --

by yet ANOTHER `evil fighter` ` --

by yet another -- `buddha basher` -- yet another `American Taliban` --

the TEXA`S TALIBAN -- George W. Bush the Junior -- aka -- the Dimwit Dubya -- of the United States Accidntal Presidency.

ferozk,

#162
I agree with you 100%
Bush is going to open up this Pandora`s box in the name of ``morality`` & ``democracy``...& wont be able to stop the nightmare that will follow.

As much as I think the US is the greatest nation on earth, I cant, for the life of me, find ANY ``moral`` reason for attacking Iraq---not at this time, ESP not without the UN`s go-ahead.

I`ve known Americans for more than two decades now. They can be the nicest, fairest, least prejudiced, philanthropical & well-meaning people on earth. At the same time, when they get outraged they can throw rationality & sanity to the winds & twist morality to suit their interests. Maybe its cos theyre as HUMAN as all of us...

I`ll bet you if Satan himself denounced Saddam, Bush would send Rumsfeld to Hell to negotiate a treaty to make Hell a part of Pax-Americana! Not only that, Bush will address the nation to explain why Hell is better than Bagdhad!!....& most Americans will buy it!!!

I guess when the US boasts about its ideals--whose standards are generally unattainable by humans--but which we need to strive towards; it very easily crosses into the realm of ``hypocrisy`` in the way they conduct foreign policy.

Americans, in general, are EXTREMELY ego-centric...ie ``will this benefit MY interests?`` ...eg..``if my son is going to be drafted I may oppose the war out of fear that my son will die...but if my family & I are not personally gonna get hurt, I will pop a whole bag of popcorn & watch the war on CNN!``

Also, it baffles me why the Amercans dont try harder to understand the mind set & cultures of people whose countries` affairs they poke their noses in! They`d LOVE it if a country has a brown-nosing tinpot dictator, who goes ``rah, rah, Amrika!`` Lemme tell you Mushy didnt suddenly become a ``respected`` international leader & given a lot of allocades in Washington because of his good looks!

Maybe you, Feroze, have meet Americans who are highly educated & experienced in dealing with people of other cultures. In my personal experience, an ``average American`` is REMARKABLY ill-informed & indifferent to subjects that dont directly concern his/her life..Americans, ESP in large cities, are surrounded by people of cultures from all over the world. They generally wont try to learn about those cultures; but will respect those cultures; but not if they threaten ``MY WAY OF LIFE!!`` .

Then civil liberties go out of the window...Right now, the predominant mood is ``America--love it; or leave it!``..

But there is a side of America that will save its butt in the end...when things go beyond a certain point--- they have a conscience, that speaks out loudly. It was American public pressure that finally halted the Vietnam war.

I think Churchill understood Amercans better than any of us:`` in the end-Americans always do the right thing--after trying every other alternative``!:)

Now does that make Americans ``better`` or ``worse`` than other human beings?----I think I`ll leave that judgement to a mind much WISER than mine....

Re: Shankar, pmishra2 and nasah

Thanks for your comments!

I will simply tell you all, what really concerns me about this impending war. My concern revolves around the issues of perception. Pmishra2 says that I should not be under any delusion. I am not. I know that that the war will happen; I know that this war is being waged by Bush and the cabal, which advices him. I know that this war may have nothing to do with oil, but I do know that it has everything to do with politics. The reasons for this can be simply summed up within the phrase, ``elections of 2004``. Having being associated with Republican Party since 1987, I know that this war is a political wish of the conservative right and is a political wet dream of the Christian Coalition. The reasons for this war did not start after the horrors of 911, but they are clearly spelled out in the GOP`s political platform of 2000. This war may have nothing to do with most things usually assoicated as a reasons for fighting a war, but it has everything to do with foisting the Republican Party`s ultra conservative political agenda on the United States and in toto, by extension, imposing an image of Pax Americana, as crafted and sculpted by the ideology of religious conservativism, which dominates the GOP. Mein Kamfp was also once ignored, but it openly advocated in chilling details the vision of the future to unfold. John Ashcroft wanted to reverse individual freedoms and increase the powers of law enforcement long before September 2001. This war did not start with 911 2001, but this war started when GOP`s political platform was being framed in 1996 and 2000. September 11, 2001 was simply a caus belli and a day, which ``shall live in infamy`` by replacing December 7, 1941.

This is a caveat, which also alludes to what Shankar and pmishra2 suggested. I agree with what they have to say. Simply because I agree with you, does not lessen my concerns and doubts about the effiacy of this March of Folly. My masters` thesis was on Germany and in the process, I had to discuss the reasons for the outbreak of the First World War. In the all research, which I did, there was NO cause, which could be identified as a diplomatic failure. Diplomacy did not fail. Diplomacy only failed, when it agreed to the logic of ``military neccessity`` and stopped to resist the Lemming like approach to war by the European nations.

My research taught me that war only becomes envitable, if it is allowed and that, it is easy to start a war, but not to control it once its evil is unleashed. War has its own dynamics and once started, that dynamic will hold everyone hostage and instead of influencing the war, the politicans will simply react to the the circumtances of war and be influenced by its own dynamics. There is an errie similarity between those fateful events in the summer of 1914 and in the present situation in the sense that diplomacy is being made to justify an excuse for war and rationalize its outbreak.

My other concern is the ``image problem``. What ever the reasons for this war may be; what ever the justifications may be; and what ever the self convincing agruments the Bush administration may have, this war will not solve any problems it is being promised as a solution. In this sense, I am speaking not only from an academic background in international relations, but also from the experience of being a diplomat`s son with over 25 years` worth of personal observations. International relations are all about perception. In international relations, perception is what one wishes to behold and believe. International relations have nothing to do with reality.

The greatest failure of the United States in this crisis and its most abject foreign policy disappoint has been its inability to make the distinction between its deeds and rhetoric. The United States has been unable to convince that this war on terror is not against the Muslims or Islam. Shankar, as you noted, even if Saddam Hussein deploys snipers in a mosque and that mosque is destoryed as a result, that legitimate act of military neccessity will not be able to balance against the perception of the act itself. This becomes a problem, because even though intellectually it might be justified, emotionally the perception of that act cannot be denied by factual statements issued from Pentagon or State Department or Defence Department or White House news briefing rooms.

This brings us again to the observations of pmishra2. The United States will win this war easily, but it cannot influence or control what the people may wish to think and nor can it control their perceptions. This war will not achieve the aims the United States wishes for or wants, because it will simply make the situation worse. If the intention is, as pmishra2 suggests, to prevent future extermism in the region, then please tell me how such Islamic extermism can be erdicated by destorying a mosque? The irony of the siutation, which the Bush and his cabal of advisers are not considering is that the United States, by winning this war, will gain some modicum of security in the immediate sense, but it will undermine its own long term security interests. It would be the height of folly, if the United States believes that ``it has to destroy the village in order to save it``. Such an act of desperation will not save the village; it will simply destroy it.

Shankar and pmishra2, I agree with your observations that September 11, 2001 has numbed the Americans. That may be true, but that does not justify as a reason for a war! Are the Americans so numbed that they have stopped thinking and are appeasing this war simply because they cannot think!? Will they be any less numbed from the consequences of this war; will they still wonder, in their numbed state, ``why does the world still hate us?`` Will killing people simply because the Americans are numbed make them, ironically, less numb and more empathic? No. This is not a reason. It is an abdication of reason to simply justify revenge.

There is no love for Saddam Hussein in the Arab/Muslim world and no one, except for a few die hards cloaked within the robes of Islamic fundalmentalism, will shed tears on his political or personal demise. No one will cry for this brutal tryant, but tears will be shed for the suffering of the Iraqi people and if their suffering does not end with his removal, then who will believe in the United States` promises the next time? If he has to be removed or killed, then let us be honest and do it for reasons other than preaching morality and respect for democratic norms. What lessons are we teaching those miserable nations, who are constantly preached about the virtues of democracy? When democratic nations fight unpopular wars against the wishes of their people, they stop representating them. If democratically elected governments stop representating their constituents, then what is point of having a representative goverment in which the people are not representative? What lessons are we teaching the world, especially when we are forcing our hypocritcal values down their throats and making them swallow our lies? Are the future dictators of the world scared or emboldened by this hypocricy?

Does the United States even understand the act of moronity it has engaged in? If the situation arises, will the United States ignore the representative opinion of the United Nations and act unilaterally, outside its gambit and without the United Nations` authorization, just to inforce United Nations` resolution 1441? Will the United States destroy the United Nations in order to make it more effective? Where is the reason in this? I am a firm disciple of realpolitik, but these are not the policies of realpolitik, as being argued by the United States. These are policies of insanity.

Nasah, I agree with you, but I have my doubts about the anti-war movement in the United States. With the media so docile that its has stopped asking questions and has absolved itself from its duty of making its elected representatives accountable, what does it say about the right to dissent in the United States? More specifically, what does it say about the levels of tolerance for political dissent in the United States, when the reaction is to balance dissent as a question of patriotism?

My friends, I am sorry for this crie d` coeur, which you had to suffer through. I wish you all the very best and I thank you all for your indulgence.

Ciao