Can we Stop the War

Your article brings forth the effeciveness of yet another mode of expression...the timeless cliche of non-violence, that too in numbers. Making one`s voice heard and an idea introduced thus, need not take the form of a raging war or an unreal act of terrorrism.

Really, is there any place on earth that is free from strife today? Forget the earth, even space has not been spared. There is such distrust rife in humankind that the first reaction to the Shuttle Colombia`s fate was the probability of it being a terrorrist attack! The unfortunate event actually shifted focus from Bush`s unrelenting war-rant for a few days. There was not a single headline on CNN or MSNBC with the words `` Iraq`` or `` Saddam Hussein`` in it. Why can`t the world take a hint? The astronauts; may their souls, at least, rest in peace.

I have found such gatherings kindreds of train, plane, airport acquaintances, in general. With one difference, maybe two: hope is their inner soul; a quintessence of opitimism. I know the reasons why. And they do make a difference. I know that too.

I have enjoyed your essay very much. It is effective, honest, sincere, light and best of all, devoid of difficult words.


PS. I have not read any replies so far. Perhaps that`s my loss; or, my good fortune!

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

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

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

re:#185 by ali87

``In all this they forget that most hindus would not vote for a Mulsim candidate no matter how good he is.``
I can tell you that if someone like Abdul Kalam were to float a political party and stand for elections, he will win hands down. But then he is in a different league. I have yet to see a good muslim politician. Is Syed Shahabuddin good? Or is it Shahi Imam? Name one good muslim politician in India.
Muslims in India need to come out of their self-imposed isolation by forging an alliance with hindus. I am gland that we have not seen a muslim party standing for elections. Experience shows that a muslim party when popular will not be acting in India`s interest (see what muslim league did to India). Muslims when in majority seem to want independence and when in minority, demand secularism. One thing about secularism is to keep religion out of politics. You seem to say that you want religion to be a part of politics. Don`t you see the harm that BJP is doing by mixing religion and polity? Muslim in India should above all learn from mistakes of Pak and Bangladesh and try to assimilate with the majority. This means sending your children to govt schools, taking to education in a big way and becoming lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. There is no reason why muslims in India should be confined only to arts, music and cinema. Religion in politics is divisive and should be shunned.
Sridhar

ali87 #185
Just curious, if you believe in Two Nation Theory, why do you call yourself an Indian? If Muslims can never get a fair deal from Hindus, do you see some other solution to your leaving the country? Get to it now, Indian Muslims, quick march.

re:#182 by arjun_m
Kasuri is not just deluded but outrightly stupid. In that interview with Wolf Blitzer in CNN, this guy Kasuri was desperately trying to malign India and ended up sounding like a jerk. When asked about killing of christians and Daniel Pearl in his country, this guy tried to shift focus to India and talked about Gujarat carnage and muslim bashing by BJP. Really pathetic.
Sridhar

#142 by AmericanExpress on January 23, 2003 10:04pm PT

Perhaps when they see their mothers and sisters they are not reminded that they clothe themselves because of the influence of Islam.

Just a starters on how 1300 years have been a waste..


Just feeling in a monday mood taking cheap potshots...

#134 by stuka on January 23, 2003 12:13pm PT
#140 by pmishra2 on January 23, 2003 7:28pm PT
#138 by Ralph on January 23, 2003 1:02pm PT


Your demographic weightage means breaking up muslim majority MLA and MP constituiencies and lumping them with hindu majority areas so that muslims cant get elected.

I have a friend who was elected as a Congress candidate as Muncipal counciller last elections by a small margin despite lots of rigging by rival BJP canditate.

JD filed for reelection and then all the parties including his own joined together to defeat him because he was muslim. Now this is not imagination this was told to us by the Hindu friends in JD as well as Congress.(Not all are communal minded but majority are in varying degrees)

Most so called secular Hindus simply dont dwell on this bias in elections and also call this as persecution complex if pointed out. Any person from Hyderabad or Bangalore can point out crazy mapping of constiuiecies just because some one doesnot want to accept Muslims getting elected from mulsim majority areas.

Theory is fine. Reality is different..

Or like it is told by many of my hindu people I interact with when the facts cant be challenged.. the comment comes `` why should mulsims expect their candidates elected? if they can come with the suppourt of all people then they should come to legistative bodies.`` In all this they forget that most hindus would not vote for a Mulsim candidate no matter how good he is.

so how do mulsim get to represent their issues? answer comes `` We should not have religous issues come in national life`` My answer goes if every aspect of distinction among people comes up as pressure group which requires representation why not religon? Answer comes that ``religion divides``. So you could have Caste, Language, geographic location(Hill people with their hill councils) nature of living(ie tribal, agricultural) every aspect of soical diffrentiation is legitmate reason for representation but religion(If religon is a major cultural and social differentiator in india.) if it means giving muslims representation divides.

So muslims should get the approval of mainly hostile Hindu electroate in crazily contirvived electroal constituences loaded against them to get their issues represented or depend on (disintrested) Hindu representatives to put up their issues in governing bodies..

I think this is exactly what was forseen by people who went in for The Two nation theory..

Now dont get started on how bad pakistan or bangaladesh is doing... It sounds just too similar to what the British say about their colonies..

Just ponder on it.

#135 by stuka on January 23, 2003 12:13pm PT

You mean that you have forgotten the last 1000 years..

---

Just a cheap take in response to another cheap pot shot.


.....Just showing how the argument could go.

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

re: Is Pak`s future secure?
Just saw Kasuri`s (Pak`s foreign minister on a visit to US) interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Kasuri was very defensive. When asked if Pak will support US in case of a war with Iraq, Kasuri gave an evasive anwer. When asked if Pak had given nuclear technology to North Korea in the past (Blitzer pointed to Hersh`s article in NY Times), Kasuri denied flatly that any such things had ever happened. Not very convincing, considering the fact that a North Korean scientist, who defected to Japan, had been singing like a bird.
(also, read Seymour Hersh`s report implicating Pak in nuclear tech transfer to North Korea: http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan27_feb02_03/newyorkerreport.htm).

Kasuri then brought India into the picture and asked why US was not asking India how it got the nuclear technology. I thought this was the stupidest answer anyone can give. Blitzer turned the screws on further by asking about Daniel Pearl`s murder and killings of christians in Pak.
Things seem to be changing for Pak. Media in US is slowly turning the screws on. The signs are unmistakable.
I also recently read article by Shaheen Sehbai in SATribune : http://www.satribune.com/archives/jan27_feb02_03/P1_policychange.htm
None other than Mansoor Ijaz with James Wooley (former CIA chief?) had written an artilce on Jan 12, 2003 (now archived) in LA times directly implicating Pak in transfer of technology to North Korea. The proof is unmistakable and substantial. One wonders where Pak`s diplomats get their training. This guy Kasuri is lying when he says Pak is not involved.
Pakistan will be the focus after Iraq business is wrapped up. I suggest to Pakistanis in this chowk worry about that rather than what will happen to Iraq.
Sridhar

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

Re: Shankar

Agreed!

The Americans, I knew, even in politics, had a limited knowledge of the world. The majority of the Americans were eager to learn and did make the effort to learn, but only if the issue was of a topical interest. They made the effort, because it was a ``popular issue`` and not to increase their own knowledge. You would be a better person to comment on the average American`s attention span? Need I say more? LOL

Shankar, let me share a learning experience with you. When I moved to the United States, from Ottawa, Canada, for college, I was shocked by the total ignorance of the Americans. My dorm assistance asked me where I was from and being told, asked if ``Canada had in-door plumbing?`` She also asked if the Canadians lived in igloos!!! She was a junior, majoring in anthropology!

Re: nasah

I am not underestimating the power of dissent. I am questioning if any one is actually listening to that dissent! United States is an image society and even if there is dissent, protests and peace marches, and those events are not covered by the media - then they did not happen! That was my concern. Has the media woken up and realized that while it was waving the flag and parroting the offical wisdom, representative democracy in the United States had been replaced by an imperial oligarchy?

Re: stuka

The similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is about the politics of the American presidents and their policies of leveraging their domestic problems with foreign policy successes.

Weapons of mass destruction does not make for a valid argument. If such is the case, then why are such weapons tolerated in states likes India, Pakistan, France, China, Britain, Russia? Every nation in the world, including the United States, has chemical and biological weapons or atleast the capability to make them.

Are those not weapons of mass destruction? What about the factories in the third world nations polluting posion in the air as a by-product of their corporate greed? Are they not weapons of mass destuction? When the Union Carbide disaster happened in Bhopal and thousands of Indians died, could that act not be considered as an act of mass destruction killing innocents? Can businesses and corporations be considered as weapons of mass destuction, when they flout the environmental laws and pollute the evironment and kill thousands?

What about the use of depleted uranium ammunitions by the Americans and the British in the last Gulf War? Was the Gulf War Syndrome not a result of using weapons of mass destruction?

Stuka, the issue here is not the weapons of mass destruction. The real issue is hypocricy! The United States has no right to preach to others, what it foresakes for its own self! Japan preaching against the weapons of mass destruction will have a more powerful argument than the United States, given the historic experience of the weapons of mass destruction and their use. If there is a law against the weapons of mass destruction, and I support such a law, it should be for all laws nations without exceptions. The hypocricy is that the United States wants the world to obey, what it does not want to be applicable to itself. That my friend is wrong and cannot be justified!

Coming to Vietnam and Iraq, the critical similarity is that the United States sought to use its military in Vietnam to settle a political problem just like in Iraq it wants to use force to effect a regime change. What does regime change have to do with weapons of mass destruction? Will removing Saddam from power make such weapons any less potent? If the issue is really of getting rid of Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction, is a regime change really necessary? Did effecting a regime change in Afghanistan really make a difference? Did getting rid of the Taliban bring any improvement in the lives of the Afghan people? Is Afghanistan any better off without the Taliban?

Stuka, the most unnerving similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that United States entered Vietnam, and seems to be entering Iraq, with an ill informed public opinion, under wrong political assumptions and after completely misreading the situation. Was the Gulf of Tonkin a caus belli or an excuse for war? One more similarity - both Lyndon B. Johnson and Bush are, and were, determined to fight a war.

Ciao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shankar,
This is a good point. There is a sizeable pop. of Americans who don`t want to, don`t care, can`t make the effort at this point.

On the other side of the spectrum, I know a few people whose sons are getting trained as we write. And the parents are terrified.

ferozk,

{{What is the ground reality of the opposition in the United States? Is there a well defined dissent or simply a chorus of disapproval? What is the opinion of the American public...the real silent opinion? Is this a valid perception of the situation in United States that the Bush administration is desperate, politically?}}

I`d like to take a crack at this, if you dont mind. I see 20-25 ``ordinary working class Americans`` everyday & I DO discuss their insecurities about life, in general. The PREDOMINANT mood I see is anger & outrage about 9/11. This anger isnt directed towards Jews & Israel...in fact, the more fundamentalist the Christian is the more vehemently he/she feels Israel belongs to the Jews. The anger is towards muslims or Ay-abs...most ``average Americans`` dont know the difference..

In my experience, the ``average American`` is remarkably ill-informed about world history & geography--forget math & science..I dont have a very high opinion of the public school system in this country..If I didnt insist that my 17 yr old daughter watch the World news with me, she`d probably think Iran & Iraq are the same country (like her silly, giggly classmates)--but thats another story..

The only ``concern`` about the war I`ve heard from patients (esp mothers) is; ``Oh I hope they dont bring back the draft!`` Otherwise, the dominant mood is ``lets get `em, once & for all!`` If the war is short & sweet (like the first Gulf War), then Bush`s popularity will soar to new heights. I`ve even heard comments like ``Man, I cant wait for the war to start & watch the action on CNN, I hear the technology is waaaay better than what we had in `90..!``

My personal feeling is if they start seeing pictures of bodybags & a bogged down military, in a ``Somalia`` type situation--then Bush is in deep doodoo. I sometimes wonder whether ``ordinary Americans`` really experience or understand the horror of war--except, perhaps Viet Nam vetrans. Intrestingly, WW11 vetrans are quite gungo-ho about this war--

I was having lunch with drug reps from Pfizer a couple of days ago. Pfizer has a tradition of hiring a lot of West Point grads. This particular District Manager just got out of the army. He was flying Apache Helicopters, but after his 4th kid was born, his wife forced him to return to civilian life.

He said his unit is gung-ho & badly regrets not ?re-enlisting for another 2 yrs. Apparently, they have been told to prepare for house-to-house; street-to-street fighting. Not only that, he says ``Saddam hides his snipers & military units in mosques``--so nothing is sacred. I asked him ``Jeeze, you mean you guys would take out a mosque?``. He looked at me with the expression a soldier boy gets when a civvy asks a dumb question--``when bullets are whizzing at you, you dont give a sh*t about things like that``...

Hoookay! Things just might get pretty damn ugly in February. I hope not.

#149 feroz

Please do not be under the delusion that there is some magical groundswell against the war. There is some discomfort but there is also a broader realization that the US has no choice but to get more deeply involved in the middle-east. And by that I mean physical presence.

Clearly, Iraq has been chosen as the soft underbelly of the region as it is run by one of the areas more lunatic megalo-maniacs. It is easier than moving against the Saudis. We can question the choice but we should also understand that there is also a shared feeling that the US has to act in the middle-east. There is a sense that the US has been unable to respond starting from the 80s to violence emanating from the region.

This stuff about oil is mostly a distraction, though admittedly many Bush cabinet members are oil hands. The broader question is strategic: how to get one of the most backward, inward-looking, terrorism-supporting and rich regions of the world to modernize and move forward. Because otherwise, we are going to be stuck with a generation of suicide bombers and terrorists killing americans and others everywhere.

feroz -- not a well defined opposition yet --

fact is -- the public opinion n the US has been numbed by 9/11 -- there is a slow reacting ambivalence regarding war --

a sort of comfort zone created by unabashed projection of power with open talks of invasions, bombings, occupation of foreighn lands and bluster in general -- leading to the inability to distinguish fight against terrorism and pure naked aggression against noncombatant countries.

But it is slowly changing with the world leaders getting more vocal in their opposition to bush` war -- and the old antitwar crowd now starting to coalesce and getting resltless.

with the falling numbers at the polls for bush -- democrats are getting bolder in confronting the moron on the issue of war --

even republicans are stirring and getting restless -- where this illiterate idiot is taking the country to -- in the name of fighting terrorism.

so in general opposition to war builds slowly in the US -- but over the time it does build -- and ultimately grows to thepoint it throws the rascals out of office if the economy goes bad --

and it will hapen to the junior -- the way it happened his hyperthyroid gulf-hero -- daddy.

#147 arjun_m

For me, many of the events that have transpired between India and Pakistan were explained by the following article from Wednesdays issue of Jang. It also explains to me certain attitudes of Pakistanis and Pakistani culture in general. Of course, indian actions should also be governed by self-knowledge (e.g., moving beyong historical hindu-muslim acrimony, making remarks and carrying out actions that diminish distinctiveness of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal or present them as irrelevant etc.).

BTW, the most amusing part here is that our friend ali87 believes that this article is written by a member of the RSS. Talk about being trapped by ones prejudices....


People to be the priority
M B Naqvi

The writer is a well-known

journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

-----------------------------------------------
PLAIN WORDS

A paradigm change in Pakistan`s foreign policy has to be anchored in national purposes. Hitherto the main national purpose was to wrest Kashmir from Indian control. Reflecting national priorities the budget structure gave overarching priority to somehow pay for the military that was required to wrest Kashmir from India. India`s larger resources have ensured Pakistan`s growing inferiority in conventional military strength. By 1971 everyone could see -- and Islamabad tacitly admitted -- that another conventional war would mean defeat.

Post-1971 situation in 1972 demanded a new way of tackling the Kashmir problem. It was required to accept that Pakistan could not snatch Kashmir. Or Kashmir problem could only be solved by non-military means. At any rate, Pakistan`s imperialistic design of acquiring the entire Kashmir State was unrealistic. What could still work was to let Kashmiris struggle to shape their own future or Azadi. Main struggle was to be then between Indians and Kashmiris, with Pakistan having no active role.

That did not happen. Z A Bhutto stuck to old concepts and purposes. Pakistan tried to compensate for its inferiority in armaments by secretly developing nuclear capability. Formally, by signing the Simla Agreement he had effectively shelved the Kashmir problem. Pakistan stayed quiet for 18 years. Perhaps the Indians got wind of Pakistan`s nuclear programme from Americans and carried out their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistanis swallowed it, exhibiting no particular alarm. Pakistan announced a breakthrough in 1984 and tension with India mounted. India warned Pakistan through the Brass Tacks exercise. Pakistanis thought India will invade. In the winter of 1986-87 Pakistan threatened to use its Bomb if the Indians crossed into Pakistan.

For a decade Pakistan succeeded in neutralising India`s conventional superiority. They became gung ho about nuclear weapons. The Indians did pipe down and remained quiet till 2002, when they threatened war against Pakistan`s abetting of Jihadis. Confident behind the nuclear shield, Pakistan started a proxy war to help Kashmiris` struggle by arming and training them. Pakistan`s precise aims could be inferred. At first the idea was to tire out the Indian Army by a constant haemorrhage in Kashmir and Pakistan Army would then inflict a coup de grace. Later it shifted to just keeping the Indian Army pinned down -- thereby making Pakistan secure.

Indian Army disregarded its own and Kashmiris losses. It was clear by 1998 that India resigned to a long proxy war and did not mind the price. It cost over the 1990s` decade 60,000 to 70,000 Kashmiri lives. And it was Pakistanis who felt the resource crunch: they had to run two arms races: conventional and nuclear. The nuclear race, once mutual deterrence is achieved, requires an expensive command and control system, constant technological updating of all equipment and a whole new conventional arms race. Pakistan went bankrupt by Dec`98. Reeling under western sanctions, only the sequel to 9/11 has buoyed up the economy by cash injections and debt rescheduling. It is a temporary relief.

Matters came to a head in 2002. India threatened war if Pakistan does not stop the ``cross border terrorism``, with all major powers echoing it. President Musharraf blinked and in his June speech agreed to the demand. Although the Jihad has not ended, both Indians and foreigners have realised that there are limits to what Musharraf can do; there are other powerful forces that can defy him and have. Hence the withdrawal of Indian Army October last year.

Two conclusions emerge: the Jihadist Kashmir policy has failed and has imperilled Pakistan. Kashmiris are as far from Azadi as ever and Indian hold on Kashmir is as firm as ever. Kashmiris realise Pakistan cannot go on sustaining Jihad and time has come to wind it down. Pakistanis had bankrupted themselves for a policy that eventually forced Pakistan to choose between a pointless proxy war and fighting a nuclear war that neither side will win. It is not a sane choice. The Kashmir policy is senseless.



This policy was the logical culmination of policies based on inherited assumptions and attitudes -- the characteristics of Muslim separatism -- that were about identity and self-image. Historically the majority of Muslims, originally low-caste Hindus, affected a superiority complex, especially in Northern India. They feared being falling down into the vast assimilative sea of Hindudom surrounding them wherein they will be at the bottom of social heap. May be they would be punished for former uppishness and for real or imagined wrongs. That explained their demonstrative adherence to Islam, which is what distinguished them from Hindus. Their religious exhibitionism and a superiority complex led to emphases on differences with Hindus and regarding themselves as rulers` kith and kin deserving privileges and safeguards -- the leitmotif of pre-independence Indian Muslim politics.

Others` refusal to accept Muslims demands, calculated to preserve imagined privileges, angered them and an adversarial attitude vis-a-vis Hindus developed. Muslims thus demanded weightage -- actually equality of treatment with Hindus -- reservations and separate electorate. These came from, and strengthened, two traits: first, not to accept democracy`s implications, especially the equality with Hindus. The second was to depend on a ruling or hegemonic power to get them their due. Pakistan politics has actually reflected these traits: democracy soon collapsed and a new ruling elite, civil and military bureaucracy, continues to usurp power. The second trait of depending on the US to keeping India (Hindus) in check gave an illusion of equality. This dependency syndrome that produced the ever readiness to hitch Pakistan`s wagon to the American star survives.

Last October`s election and this January`s bye-elections have damaged the Pakistan-American relations. Americans too have taken note that MMA`s rise is directly related to their own unpopularity, especially in NWFP and Balochistan. It is growing elsewhere too. Pakistan has thus to somehow work out a new and more equation with US, without forgetting the existing vulnerabilities.

Pakistanis have to cut the umbilical chord with the Indians and start behaving as a separate and independent nation by treating India as another country. Remember there are no free lunches. Other nation states, including the US, have no obligation toward Pakistan vis-a-vis India and see India as a rising power and an attractive market thanks to its size and state of development. It can also be a useful strategic partner to great powers. No power will prefer Pakistan at the expense of India. Pakistan can never run an arms race with India with others` aid.

Pakistan can do something about India`s attractiveness: to develop itself. That is blocked by military`s control over politics. In a military-run Pakistan cannot make on development, especially human development, the top priority. It will never understand that national strength cannot be borrowed; it has to be developed. Only the people can make Pakistan strong, not the Army. Defence preparedness, not backed by domestic economic strength, is sure to be inadequate and brittle.

Other policies follow. Kashmir is for Kashmiris and they have to make their destiny themselves; Pakistan has no locus standi. That releases Pakistan from illusions. Let Pakistanis forget the pre-natal quarrels with the Hindu-domination and work out a new normal relationship with India. Pakistanis and Indians should be cooperative friends. Both can profit from free trade, economic cooperation, cultural exchanges and a regional framework of economic development that Saarc could become but is not. An eventual (political) entente should be the aim.

Things will become easier for all if only they can counteract the mischief that nuclear weapons by their very presence do. So long as Pakistani nukes exist no Indian government can trust Pakistan and similarly the Indian Bomb`s presence automatically negates India`s good intentions. Pakistani Bomb has not helped Pakistanis get either Kashmir or security; Indians were threatening to wipe out Pakistan no matter what its capability. The Bomb has not enhanced India`s stature; no one respects it as much as in Nehru`s days. Both are finally deadlocked with only one exit.

Nuclear Restraint and Nuclear Safe South Asia are vacuous schemes, mostly hot air; there have no relevance to India and Pakistan, with their present mental baggage. Peaceful ties require basic trust in each other`s intentions, which is absent. The only way out is through simultaneous and mutually verifiable nuclear disarmament. Only a Nuclear Weapons Free South Asia makes sense.

If free of Jihad commitment, Pakistan can give India MFN status, open up, start implementing SAPTA and SAFTA agreements, sign a non-aggression pact, engage in cultural exchanges, restore communications, dramatically relax visa restrictions and make Saarc a vital and vigorously growing reality. With these the stature of both will dramatically rise an

Re: nasah

What is the ground reality of the opposition in the United States? Is there a well defined dissent or simply a chorus of disapproval? What is the opinion of the American public...the real silent opinion? Is this a valid perception of the situation in United States that the Bush administration is desperate, politically?

Any considered reply would be welcome!

Ciao

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

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

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

American Express:

Please tell me any point of time in the past 1300 years when there was no intra Islamic violence.

Otherwise shut up.

SR -- 4 u

````(Jan. 23) - The public is skeptical about whether President Bush`s new economic stimulus plan will do much to help growth in the economy, according to a new poll.

Only a third, 35 percent, say they expect the stimulus plan will be fairly effective or very effective at helping the economy.

Several other recent polls have shown Bush`s job approval slipping into the 50s. Fewer than half support his handling of the economy, 44 percent, and about half supported his handling of foreign policy, 51 percent.

About a third, 32 percent, said their opinion of Bush`s performance has gotten worse in recent months, while 14 percent said it has gotten better

Several other recent polls have shown Bush`s job approval slipping into the 50s. Fewer than half support his handling of the economy, 44 percent, and about half supported his handling of foreign policy, 51 percent.

John Kerry, D-Mass., a presidential candidate, said in a speech at Georgetown University, ``The Bush administration`s blustering unilateralism is wrong, even dangerous, for our country.``

``In practice, it has meant alienating our longtime friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.``

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., called on the Bush administration to tone down its rhetoric.

Hagel, in a telephone news conference from Omaha, criticized Rumsfeld for characterizing Germany and France as ``old Europe`` and said the United States needs to assure the world its leadership is patient, responsible and wise.````(AP)

``United States needs to assure the world its leadership is patient, responsible and wise``? -- u must be kidding Senator Hagel

-- certainly a Taaaall order --

for -- a Crappy Crowd of -- ex-draft-dodgers --jilted-saddam lovers -- crooked-hearted oily dippin -- cocaine-sniffin -- hard-drinkin -- big C scorin -- War Cacklin -- Chicken Hawks -- those -- nuke Twirlin -- Twits -- from Two feeT Tall -- Texas.

#128 ali87


It is a good symbol of your mental confusion that you are attacking a portion of an article taken from a columnist in the Pakistani paper http://www.jang.com.pk. You believe his views represent the RSS??
I am sure he would be very amused (maybe not, maybe it would be worse).

I advise you to read messages CAREFULLY before you respond to them. All you are doing is proving your incoherence.

BTW, as you find the hindu fascination for cows so bizarre, I hope you and your family dine regularly pork. And if not, why not? What is the difference between one irrational set of food rules vs. another??

arjun_m #137

>(shouldn`t the 72 boys be in catholic priest heaven).

I take strong exception to that. Some of us are not Talibanis ;)

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

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

Stuka #135

Everyone knows that past 1300 years have been a waste. Now since Ali87 is here, Caliphate will be restored and all others will again serve their Moslem masters. Don`t you know that besides describing how atomic bombs can be manufactured, Quran predicts the birth of another prophet after 1300 years? It even says that this prophet will be weak in the head. LOL

His equality means Moslems running every place in medieval Islamic manner whether they are in majority or in minority. Not ruling over others is very painful to his weak psyche.

Christians should be given equal number of seats as Hindus in India, Chinese should be given the same number of seats as Caucasians in US House of Representatives, Shias should get the same number of seats as Sunnees in Pakistan. Unless that happens Ali87 and his ilk can not be loyal to their country.

That is what TNT was. Since that wisdom is dying in Pakistan, ali87 has decided to keep it alive. Caliphate is at hand. ;)

Ali87:

``My my actually equality of treatment!!!

How dare they!!! ``

Idiot, he is talking of equal demographic weightage, not equality in terms of rights.

Ali:

As far as time is concerned, have the past 1300 years not been enough??

RE: #125 by pmishra2 and Pankaj
You both are just BJP frontmen. You are moles from the India spreading wrong info about the Hindoo and their backward culture. The truth is that you hindoo brahmins are controling everything and making the lower people like banias and worker class do all the work. The brahmins are trying to takeover the india and they want to destroy Pakistan. Adwani is just a puppet of the BJP and vajpayee.
These RSS BJP are just like Hitler. They want to dominate and kill the anybody who does not want to support them. That is why we are fighting to liberate India so that true Muslim rule can be established. Our Saudi brothers will help us as as we are so close to their way of thinking. We should have our own industries and not support or trade with the West and US. Soon we will be able to suffocate them and spread Islam everywhere in the world.
So you both and those Pakistani tratiors and BJP supporters (tahmed231 and rsridhar, etc) watch out. You will soon be finished. Stop spreading wrong information about Muslims. We were rulers before and we will be afterwards. Right now we are liberators!! So others of you please suport us in out cause. Support all madrasas in Pakistan/Afghanistan and all Muslim brothers. Allah the most benevolent will take care of you. You donations will give you a millionn times return if you support us. You will also get a place in heaven with many other facilities there!!

Tahmed ji

Devanagari is said to have evolved out of Brahmi script. The basic rules by which the alphabets are combined to write words have been retained in devanagari while the appearence of the alphabets has undergone a dramatic change. You can see the alphabets of the old Brahmi and Kharoshthi scripts and compare them against the modern Devanagari alphabets on the following site

http://www.ancientscripts.com/brahmi.html

Dont be surprised to find that a lot of brahmi and Kharoshthi alphabets look a lot like Latin alphabets and you can even find several signs of B/K resembling very closely to modern English alphabets. This is perhaps because Sanskrit, Greek, Old Persian, Latin etc all share their origins in a ``proto-Indo-European language``. It is fun to go through the above website and learn more about the ancient scripts and their alphabets. Try it out, you wont regret :-).

PS I dont think anybody knows the answer to your question whether Harappan script is realted to B/K. It is still an open question.

#119 by ferozk on January 22, 2003 9:12pm PT

We need to think beyond the current topical issues. If we are to come out as a effectivly in charge of our destiny then we need to do the things that need to be done.

It is there where we need to put our efforts.

#126 by Pankaj on January 23, 2003 8:22am PT

What you say is true. Also to be remembered that no more than 2-3% of Indian population ever spoke sanskirt. It was jealously gaurded by Bhramins. Non Bhramins(especailly lower castes who always constitued a large majority) who attempted to learn it were severly punished(There were exceptions though).

The sudden love for propogation of sanskrit by the Bharmanic elite in BJP (who refused to hand over the symbolic brick recently in the rammandir issue to a govt appointed IAS officer who happend to be a Bania)by having vedic universities or sanskrit says how much we have travelled since the time caste system prevailed and how still it dominates the public thought.