Can we Stop the War

mg:

Can we Stop the War?

No. Correction....probably not.

which begets the next question...should we accept the war...NO...a resounding NO!...

...all wars are bad...but this one is particularly bad because it is blatantly more unjust than others...iraq and us are not even neighbours...and the ultimate victims and sufferers would be the civilians in the area...and the ultimate perpetrator and possessor of the largest cache of weapons of mass destructions is the current US adminstration who in cahoots with MIC is leading the american public down a blind alley...

...for the world citizens with conscience...this is the karbela...even though the outcome is predictible...they must make a stand...we must make a stand...or we would not be able to look ourselves in the eye again!

..t

Hello Richa . . . welcome to chowk . . .

Good Article....
The minute you start thinking that you cannot stop the war, is the minute you might as well give up...
Anybody can stop the war, that is the beauty of it, it doesn`t matter how old/young you are or colour/race/religion.
There is nothing worse than an armchair critic who only voices his criticisms to his close group of friends,or people at work. So I urge you to get out there and show some solidarity, and I`ll see you at the next rally!!

P.S Bring some tea though as I always run out, and the English cold weather is slowly killing me.......

They just caught some more chemical weapons in England. Guess Saddam has enough sympathizers there as well. :)

I think leftists are so reflexively Anti American that would have supported Nazi Germany as well, if Germany had not declared war on the Soviet Union. How come the leftists didn`t come out on the street when the USSR invaded Afghanistan? Ditto for the Soviet troops in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. No leftist outrage for Solidarity in Poland through the 70s...but surely Saddam is a poor innocent victim here. The Kurds deserve to die so that the Republican Guards may continue to live.

Please ask the Iraqi exiles who escaped Saddam if they want war.

It is SOO nice to be able to bash the US goverment and exercise your rights in democratic britain. It is SOO nice not to have any solutions for anything at all, just point fingers at the US.

Where were you when 1 Million were killed in Iran-- Iraq war in the 80`s? Where were you when Saddam massacred 10,000 kurds? Where were you when Saddam invaded Kuwait?? Why didn`t you march then?

A central part of being part of the lobotomized left is to see all evil as emanating from the USA and to a lesser extend from UK, Israel etc. This article is a perfect exemplar; and no surprise it includes ludicrous statements like

[quote]
Then there was a man from Pakistan, who talked of the instability in his country, which had been caused by the US;
[end-quote]

What a joke ! What a self-serving, infantile attitude ! What an abnegation of responsibility and of adulthold. We gain an appreciation of the author`s naivete and ignorance, when this sort of statement is passed on as if it were a fact.


The Saudi Arabian savages permit no religion except their own cult in their country. Is that OK? In Tianamen Square 100`s were massacred. Did you demonstrate then? In Muridke in Pakistan, young men are trained to be mass murderers and then sent to India. But thats just fine !! No marches for that....

temporal post #1. Is that really you?

what`s with the `we would not be able to look ourselves in the eyes again!` talk? Does the situation really warrant this kind of emotionalism?

i suppose i`m against the war but that stance is not based on any inspiration. there is none. I’m against the war cause war stinks.

however, what would be inspiring is if the people who were the MOST directly effected by it, Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaiti`s, Turks etc, were to demonstrate their resolve and take a stance - with or against their governments.

Stuka:

Your tears for the Kurds and exiled Iraqis are commendable. But it’s shameful to use that as an excuse to justify war. America’s there to serve it’s interests NOT that of the oppressed Iraqi people. If to serve America’s interests, further oppression is needed, it will be done. This possible war isn’t any karbala by any yardstick. There is no right or wrong.

It’s merely a power play of confusion. And in the confusion we have leaders unconvincingly trying to lead everyone down the blind alley of war.

I watched the coverage of the protests on C-Span for about 1 hour on Saturday. There was lot of sloganeering...which is fine...lot of bashing the Bush..which perfectly fine with me..... then there were immigrant and citizen minority members from many countries whose main focus was how bad US been to their countries...Philphinoes, Palestinians, Blacks, Muslims etc etc....still bearable. What made me turn off the TV was this guy ended his speech like many others with slogans...``Long Live Iraq...Long Live Palestine...Long Live ***aam``..I could not make out last part of the slogan...did he say Sadaam or Islam?...but throught 1 hour coverage I did not hear even once ``Long Live America``. The people who can shout ``Live Live Iraq`` but their lips get paralyzed to say ``Long Live America``...tells me this protest was not about peace...or anti-war...it was purely Anti-America for most of the participants.

First say,

Down with Sadaam!
Down with Terrorists!
Long Live America!

then I will say,
No War!!

One can`t nurture ``death to America, the capitalist satan`` in his/her heart and expect ``No War on Iraq`` shout from me.

Rozaiba:

``But it’s shameful to use that as an excuse to justify war.``

Why??

``America’s there to serve it’s interests NOT that of the oppressed Iraqi people.``

Sure. But can you deny that the cause of democracy and human rights will be furthered in a Saddam less Iraq? If a good result is a reaction of war of self interest, why not emphasize on that aspect as well?

Stuka #4: Two wrongs don`t make a right.

``Saddam is a poor innocent victim here.``

No one is trying to protect Saddam. Saddam`s lifestyle hasn`t changed much even after the last Gulf War. Nothing is going to happen him, other than luxurious exile, at most. It is the common people who will get killed.

``The Kurds deserve to die so that the Republican Guards may continue to live.``

The Kurd argument is hypocrisy of the highest order. As was the, ``Women under Taliban`` argument. Countries that helped put women under Taliban and Kurds under Iraq, do not have a right to then become their champions.

I have been writing about the Kurds, for a while -e ven when the US was supporting Saddam against the Kurds. The country that is really killing Kurds, right now, is infact Turkey (unfortunately the model state for too many secular Muslims).

Kurds are the biggest ethnic group without a state of their own in the world. They definitely deserve a state. And they could get one right now, if the US and Britain wanted them to have one. They could break away from Iraq in a heartbeat, if the US assisted them and wanted them to be free. Iraq is so weak. Infact Kurds in Iraq are semi-independent right now.

However the US does not want a free Kurdistan. I can make a bet, it will discourage one even after an Iraqi invasion by USA. Why? Because the Turks will never agree to it. Infact the Turks have a policy that they will invade an Iraqi Kurdistan, the moment it declares independence. Why? Because they are afraid that an independent Iraqi Kurdistan will help the Turkish Kurds become free also.

If the US is really concerned about a Kurd human rights, it should tell them to declare their own free state (fully free) in Iraq, right now. It should then fly in all its forces into this new Kurdistan and tell Iraq and Turkey that if you invade we will defend the Kurds. It should then put enormous pressure on Turkey to allow their Kurds to be free and join this independent Kurdistan.

But the US needs Turkey too much, to piss it off. So the, ``invasion to free Kurd`` argument is hypocritical.

``Please ask the Iraqi exiles who escaped Saddam if they want war.``

Why ask the Iraqi exiles? They are from the upper class and doing fine in the USA in exile. Why not ask the people in Iraq whether they should be attacked? Shouldn`t the people in Iraq be asked first? If they say, ``Yes`` then the attack becomes moral. But they will never be asked, because the invasion has nothing to do with them.

It is bad enough to attack a country that is not attacking you. It is even worse to try to justify the attack as, ``moral.`` Chor ki darhi mein tinka applies here to the US.

``The bogey man of `anti-Americanism``
By Matthew Riemer


The term ``anti-Americanism,`` like its cousin ``anti-Semitism,`` has become the new mantra of an apologetic intelligentsia class: It`s used ritually to describe anyone or anything that does not obediently fawn at the feet of American exceptionalism. The most convenient and negative result of the term`s preponderance is its intentional blurring of the lines between ethnic and political criticism.

For example, to criticize American foreign policy is to be ``anti-American.`` And in the case of Americans themselves, to be ``self-loathing`` as well. But what does the teRm ``American`` really mean when used in this manner? Everything remotely ``American``?

When people gather in distant countries to demonstrate for peace or in support of their own nation`s sovereignty, which is incidentally being challenged by a hegemonic United States, it is ``anti-Americanism`` at work -- not people assembling of their own free will to address specific grievances.

One can see the benefit of this usage as highly specific, political criticisms and observations are misconstrued and transformed into broad and sweeping, social, ethnic, and cultural statements.

So now to criticize the actions of elite politicians in Washington is to criticize the American people and their way of life. If you have a problem with the U.S.` policy in the Middle East, you must hate baseball and apple pie. If you don`t support war with Iraq, you must not ``appreciate your freedom.`` If you say the U.S. has no right to threaten non-nuclear countries with pre-emptive nuclear war, then you must be jealous of America`s greatness. The keepers of the status quo and enshriners of America as the holier-than-thou empire are determined to have all such criticism deflected in this manner.

South Korea is an illustrative example that comes to mind. Following an incident that involved the killing of two young South Korean girls by a U.S. military jeep being driven by military personnel stationed in South Korea, the South was accused of ``anti-Americanism`` for expressing displeasure with the U.S.` handling of the incident.

Many a candle light vigil and protest have been held since in the name of the two girls and the misrepresentation of the affair continues. Radios can be heard blurting out ``Massive anti-American demonstrations in South Korea today.`` Newsprint headlines shout the same.

Such news, of an extreme sound byte nature, can be used to sensationalize the most mundane event. The use of headlines in this way adds to the alarmist air pervading much of corporate media today. Whether its Fox News with their never ending scrolling bar on the bottom of the screen displaying that day`s terror warning alert system color or sensationalist claims of rampant ``anti-Americanism,`` the media seems intent on frightening the American public as frequently as possible. Security has become the buzzword for a desperately mis-educated American public eager to cling to anything that makes them feel more secure -- including prettified illusions of what`s going on in the world perpetuated by their local press.

Cannot any criticism of the United States ever be accepted, or even faced, by the accused and those who apologize for them? The sentiment is clear in the American media: The South Korean ``protesters`` are young, disaffected, and jealous of the U.S.` role in the world. They have no legitimate gripe. No one middle aged or ``respected`` could ever be criticizing the U.S. for anything of substance.

This is one of the U.S.` worst attributes on the global social stage and one of the greatest causes of the impression of Americans as arrogant and condescending: A complete lack of respect for others` opinions and the systematic marginalization, delegitimation, and blackballing of those opinions.

Following the attacks of September 11th, crowds gathered to publicly and collectively mourn the dead and listen to fiery speeches about American pride and retribution. Were these events described as ``anti-Arab`` or ``anti-Muslim``? Surely not.

Americans, and more vitally the U.S. government, must learn to respect and pay heed to what other nations and cultures attempt to articulate through public demonstration.

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.

pmishra2: Thats exactly my point. Why march now? Will injustice start on the day Iraq is attacked?

I do not march today, as I did not march when the Soviets massacred, when the Chinese and the Iraqis and the Syrians did. My question is why did I not see similar protests when Saddam attacked Kuwait? Why did I not see thousands march in Europe and UK when the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan? Why did I not see thousands march when Taiwan was threatened by China?

These protests are not about Iraq. It is about looking for blaming the United States for anything and everything, whenever possible. It is about considering the US to be a source of evil rather than a source of good.

more on the kurdish question:

Frozen Out
The Kurds, Saddam, and Washington.
By Patrick Cockburn
Posted Friday, January 17, 2003, at 2:09 PM PT

http://slate.msn.com/id/2077135/


_ _ _Kurdish leaders fear that Saddam takes them very seriously and may retaliate against them if war comes. But they also worry that they are taken more seriously in Baghdad than they are in Washington, where it is a priority to avoid angering the Turks, with their traditional fear of all things Kurdish. President Bush recently found time to see three Iraqi opposition intellectuals, but not the Kurdish leaders who were in Washington at the same time, such as Barham Saleh, the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

Such slights, real or imagined, fuel a suspicion in the minds of the Kurds that the United States is happy to use them as a propaganda symbol but is determined to deny them any real influence before or after an American invasion of Iraq. The Kurds view this as deeply unfair. The Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, ruling respectively Western and Eastern Kurdistan, control a state the size of Switzerland and each have armies of 15,000 men (and these can be rapidly reinforced by tens of thousands of tribal militia). They point out that, alone among the Iraqi opposition, they are elected democratically and have strong popular support. The only other powerful anti-Saddam force on the ground, long allied to the Kurds, is the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite group based in Iran and Southern Iraq that is also backed by Iran and has about 5,000 fighters.

Because they are the one part of the opposition that is armed, organized, and in the country, the Kurds are bound to play a big role in a post-Saddam Iraq. In private, they deride Washington`s effort to build up an anti-Saddam army of 5,000 men (they have only recruited 300 so far), comparing it unfavorably with the tens of thousands of experienced fighters they can put in the field. But there are also limits to what the Kurds can do. Tempting though it might be, they lack the political and military strength to emulate the Tajiks in the Afghan Northern Alliance, who, having told Washington they would do no such thing, captured Kabul in 2001 and made themselves the dominant force in the country. But the Kurds don`t see themselves as the sole rulers of Iraq. They currently have a de facto independent state in Kurdistan, protected by a U.S. no-fly zone, and they hope to preserve it in a post-Saddam Iraq under a loose federalism.

If the Kurds are so important and so anti-Saddam, why doesn`t the United States like them more? Aside from Turkish objections, there is the fact that they are difficult to control and a fear that they might take the oil city of Kirkuk (long claimed by the Kurds). Having them on board also gives real muscle to the Iraqi opposition, making it difficult for the civilian wing at the Pentagon to promote its own chosen Iraqis to dominate the post-Saddam Iraqi political scene.

The rest of the Iraqi opposition—such as the Iraqi National Congress, favored by Washington`s neo-conservatives, the Iraqi National Accord, and the Iraqi Free Officers—exists only in exile. Such groups tend to depend on subsidies from foreign intelligence services. At the first big opposition meeting for many years in London in December, there was a telling sign of how long many of those attending had been out of Iraq: no cloud of cigarette smoke above these opponents of Saddam. It was indicative of the length of time the Iraqis at the London conference had lived in Los Angeles or New York that there was hardly a cigarette to be seen.

Kurdish opposition leaders resent these opposition groups for being divided, dependent on foreign subsidies, and without support inside Iraq. Given the impossibility of organizing an effective underground opposition movement under the eye of Saddam`s active and violent security services, such criticisms seem a bit unfair. But they echo a hostility toward U.S.-backed opposition that appears to exist inside the part of Iraq still ruled by Saddam, and that may well survive him. Could the United States get away with marginalizing the armed opposition inside Iraq? If the invasion and occupation went just right and provided immediate benefits for Iraqis, possibly. But if things don`t go according to plan, Washington may find that its Kurdish allies have turned into enemies.

ok...that was quick retreat from mountain gal to richa!


...two related pieces...the whispers and cries of anguish...so noticeable in edward said`s...

Why this helplessness?

``The clash of civilizations that George Bush and his minions are trying to fabricate as a cover for a pre-emptive oil and hegemony war against Iraq is supposed to result in a triumph of democratic nation-building, regime change and forcible modernization `a l`americaine. Never mind the bombs and the ravages of the sanctions which are unmentioned. This will be a purifying war whose goal is to throw out Saddam and his men and replace them with a re-drawn map of the whole region. New Sykes Picot. New Balfour. New Wilsonian 14 points. New world altogether. Iraqis, we are told by the Iraqi dissidents, will welcome their liberation, and perhaps forget entirely about their past sufferings. Perhaps.``

rest at:
http://www.dawn.com/2003/01/20/op.htm

and sohail`s post

http://63.194.130.82/cgi-bin/show_article.cgi?aid=00001787&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1#78

...t

ps: rozaiba...surely you do not think the marauding raiders will stop at iraq?... as sohail mentioned...it is nothing personal...

#9 Stuka

But can you deny that the cause of democracy and human rights will be furthered in a Saddam less Iraq?

Don`t know about human rights but democracy will certainly not be furthered in Saddamless Iraq. Puppetry might flourish or a straightforward Tommy Franks viceregality. Iraq, as far as I know, is an artificially created country by the leaving British and true democracy will lead to chaos there with a majority Shia population and a ruling Sunni elite. Exxon and Halliburton won`t like chaos in Iraq.

It is way too much risk to go to war in the Middle East for the sake of corporate interests. I hope Bush and co know something I don`t know.

Personally I think they are attacking Iraq because they can`t attack Saudi Arabia the real source of the 9-11 virus.

...this war is stupid for even america`s interests...i have no love for saddam, but frankly it is none of our business what he and his people want to do in iraq or in the neighborhood...there is no way saddam is directly threatening the US right now, so why go disturb the hornet`s nest?...

...the american economy cannot afford this war, both financially and in terms of the business uncertainty it creates..

...america does not need a generation of iraqis growing up to be the next osamas looking to terrorize america...

...polls show that most americans share this view...

...as for stopping the war, no, we cannot stop it at this point...blame that on the morons who voted republican...if you want to stop senseless wars, don`t vote republican next time and tell your friends the same...