US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It!

I would like to weigh in and clarify some of the points which have been raised. First of all, if you look beyond the title, this article is not really about supporting the war. The central theme of the article is that we should focus on the people of Iraq and what is good for them not just debate whether the President Bush is making a persuasive case or not.

Take the case of Afghanistan; it is very clear that the people of Afghanistan are better off today and have a much better prospects for the future than they ever had. If the US had not gone to Afghanistan, people would still be living under Taliban and Afghanistan would still be ‘Planet of The Apes’. If, for a moment, we just think about the people of Iraq, without over analyzing and over intellectualizing why USA is doing what it’s doing, it becomes very clear that removal of Saddam will be a good thing. I hate wars but I have no doubt that people of Iraq will be better off without Saddam Hussain. His empty rhetoric has brought nothing but misery and suffering to great people of Iraq. I really wish that United Nations would remove Saddam Hussain, but if they don’t do it, it does not really matter who does it. Once the nuances like Saddam are gone world should focus its attention to the ‘Nexus of Evil’ Saudi Arabia, which funds and promotes militant Islam throughout the world.

Only a psychopath can suggest that the US should attack Iraq simply because the failure of the US foreign policy is generating hatred in the Muslim world and as a result Muslim fundamentalists are growing in stature. ``Anything that gives hope for change should be welcomed``, yes even if results in thousands of civilian deaths! my number 7 foot. This article is the product of a mind infected with US imperialism.

Maz,s article is contradictory. he accepts that the USA has not been able to convince the world of its justification to attack iraq but should go ahead and do it anyway. is that not the law of the jungle? who appointed the usa as the policemn of this world ?. who is going to be next ?
in their desperation to convince the world the usa is getting more and more pathetic in its justifications. what is a weapon of mass destruction?
does a nuclear bomb not fall under this category? is not the usa the only country in the world to have used them?
americans are polarising this world in a manner that they shall regret later, for even they in all their glory will not be able to control it.

it looks like this one might be a simple pilot error in bad weather

PAF chief died in air crash. Odd that a lot of senior Pakistani generals die in plane crashes. It seems odd for an air force that boasts of an excellent safety record.

ana_dobara #1

Very true. It does need to be fixed-- by a vet!

thanks S.P. Wakil for the mother of all quotes:

````People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and
have a tremendous impact on history.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

re:#29 by ahmadzai
You seem to be on some kind of drug hallucinating all the time. Sangh Parivar in India exists because there is democracy there. It had to wait many decades before it gained in popularity. It was a banned organisation during much of first 2 decades following India`s independence. It has gained in popularity due to failure of pseudo-secularism practised by Congress party and more recently due to the bad image muslims are suffering from, where everything Islamic is looked with suspicion and every muslim is looked upon as a terrorist. BJP and the Sangh parivar thrive on this image now and do not seem to need the RJB/Temple issue anymore. Still, Sangh Parivar exists much the same way as Louis Farrakhan and KKK exist in US. India is a democracy and the good and ugly coexist. People will decide who is good or who is bad. You have problems with that? Tough luck.

``In India, under the leadership of Advanis and Modis, the fanatics are beating up the minorities and are becoming Saffron Holy Warriors. ``
Your country suffers because people like you do not have the intellectual honesty to see where your country is headed for. RSS and Sangh Parivar is not a threat to world peace. It is not even a threat to India`s peace. People of India and the democratic process will take care of the problems. Pakistan, OTOH, is fast becoming a pariah state. I would worry about Pak`s very existence now if i were a Paki (and i thank God i am not).
Sridhar

re:#80 by S.P.Wakil
It does not matter what George Bush is. He is still the head of one of the greatest democracies in the world and deserves our respect. What have the convent educated, anglicised bureacrats of India and Pak done? IAS in India is a corrupt organisation. People come to politics in India only to make money. In Pak, the situation is worse. Dubya may be a simpleton but at least he is not corrupt. The guy is religious. I personally like him. He has surrounded himself with smart people(as Dennis Miller, the comedian jocularly put it in a conversation with Phil Donohue recently, just like a hole that surrounds itself with a Doughnut!).
Sridhar

Found it in a corner of my ``Drafts`` folder. Somebody must have sent it to me as a birthday present. I
thought it should be shared with friends. Dubya is a namoona, tohfa for the world. It is a low-fat, low
calorie, low IQ treat. Enjoy Dubya!

The Village Idiot:

Irrespective of whether we believe in Nostradamus or not, this is really
hilarious....

In 1555, Nostradamus wrote: ``Come the millennium, month 12, In the home of the greatest power, The
village idiot will come forth to be acclaimed the leader``

George Bush Jr. speaks out....

- ``The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.``
...George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``If we don`t succeed, we run the risk of failure.``
....George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a
mother and child.``
Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``Welcome to Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same
distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen
pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is
water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can
breathe.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 8/11/94

- ``The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation`s history. I mean
in this century`s history. But we all lived in this century. I didn`t live
in this century.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/15/95

- ``I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and
democracy -but that could change.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 5/22/98

- ``One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and
that one word is `to be prepared`.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 12/6/93

- ``Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 11/30/96

- ``I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good
judgments in the future.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``The future will be better tomorrow.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``We`re going to have the best educated American people in the world.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/21/97

- ``People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and
have a tremendous impact on history.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``I stand by all the misstatements that I`ve made.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr. to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

- ``We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We
have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.``
...Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``Public speaking is very easy.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr. to reporters in 10/9

- ``A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the
polls.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr

- ``When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA,
my answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots?
The rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The
killers are to blame.
....George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``Illegitimacy is something we should talk about in terms of not having
it.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 5/20/96

- ``We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/22/97

- ``For NASA, space is still a high priority.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our
children.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr., 9/18/95

- ``The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that
George Bush may or may not make.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``We`re all capable of mistakes, but I do not care to enlighten you on
the mistakes we may or may not have made.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

- ``It isn`t pollution that`s harming the environment. It`s the impurities
in our air and water that are doing it.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

``[It`s] time for the human race to enter the solar system.``
....Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

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

Hari (Re # 42) : I`m not sure what you were trying to say in your post. If you mean the US presence will be for longer than 2 years, then I will give a qualified agreement ... They will have a presence there behind a compliant Iraqi government. More important is the ramifications of this for the rest of the region. Other rulers in the region are also taking note, as are the ordinary people of those countries (as evidenced by the rising dislike of the US not just here but across the world)

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

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

Millions join global protests against Iraq war

By Ellen Wulfhorst and Paul Majendie

NEW YORK/LONDON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - More than six million protesters took to the streets around the globe on Saturday to send a passionate message to U.S. President George W. Bush not to invade Iraq and to give peace a chance.

In a huge wave of demonstrations not seen since the Vietnam War era, anti-war marchers in more than 600 towns and cities from Canberra to Cape Town to Chicago called on Bush to back off his hawkish stance toward Iraq, which his administration accuses of hiding weapons of mass destruction that pose a global threat.

``This war is solely about oil. George Bush has never given a damn about human rights,`` said Mayor Ken Livingstone in London, where at least half a million people marched in the biggest peace demonstration in British history creating a major headache for Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush`s closest ally.

In New York, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu told demonstrators outside the United Nations that the United States should allow U.N. inspectors to finish their task of searching Iraq for illicit weapons.

``The just war says you have exhausted all possible and peaceful means, and the world says, `No, we haven`t,``` the Nobel Prize laureate said.
___________________________________________________
The largest outcries against war in Europe were in countries where leaders have vocally supported Bush`s position.
___________________________________________________
Bush and Blair suffered a setback Friday to their efforts to win international backing for early military action to rid Iraq of suspected weapons of mass destruction in a dramatic showdown at the United Nations.

France, Russia, China, Germany and other nations said U.N. weapons inspections should continue in statements that seemed set to slow the introduction of a resolution the United States and Britain want to authorize the use of force.

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin boasted of a triumph in France`s efforts to brake Washington`s push for war after the French foreign minister won applause for his call for at least another month of inspections.

`GIVING PEACE A CHANCE`

``France is giving peace a chance. France is giving hope to the world and all over the world people are looking to France ...,`` Raffarin told parliament.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz hailed the worldwide protests.

``They show the conscience of mankind against crime and against aggression,`` Aziz, Iraq`s most prominent Christian, told Reuters television in Italy, where he prayed for peace.

Saturday`s protests kicked off in New Zealand and Australia, where tens of thousands of people poured on to the streets. The rallies then followed the dawning day to more than 600 towns and cities stretching to California.

In America, authorities first estimated the crowd in New York at 250,000 people, but police later put the number at 100,000. Nonetheless it was the largest U.S anti-war protests that called on Bush not to invade Iraq.

Tutu said he believed the peace marches could make a difference.
_____________________________________________________
``People marched and demonstrated and the Berlin Wall fell. People marched and demonstrated and apartheid ended,`` he said.

``And now people are marching and demonstrating because they are saying no to war,`` he said.
_____________________________________________________
Smaller U.S. protests of several thousand each were held in Chicago, Philadelphia and Santa Fe, New Mexico, while in California, thousands of protesters demonstrated in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose and Sacramento.

In Mexico City, around 30,000 people took to the streets brandishing placards and banners emblazoned with such messages as ``Bush is an assassin`` and ``Yankee imperialism, murderers of the world.``

``Let`s say no to war, because war has never brought positive proposals for people,`` said 1992 Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu, a Guatemalan whose country`s 1960-1996 civil war saw 200,000 killings.

In Canada about 100,000 people demonstrated in frigid Montreal and on the west coast a long, winding march of 25,000 protesters clogged the streets of Vancouver.

In Buenos Aires, thousands rallied against the war in pouring rain downtown, where retired watchsmith Hector Rico said: ``We may be a long way from the action, but U.S. warmongering is putting all our lives on the line.``

`AMERICANS STRESSED`

At a protest in France, one of the staunchest opponents of war, one woman said: ``The Americans were stressed by September 11 and now they are going completely overboard.``

The French Interior Ministry estimated at least 300,000 people turned out to protest across the country. In Berlin, some 500,000 people attended a rally, the biggest protest in Germany since the end of World War Two, authorities said.

Some two million people turned out in Spain to rail against war, including nearly 1.3 million in Barcelona, making it the city`s biggest protest ever, and 600,000 in Madrid, bringing the city center to a standstill.

In Rome about a million people marched through the ancient streets under a sea of rainbow peace banners.

There were rallies in as far-flung cities as Ankara, Moscow, Glasgow and Jakarta.

The only reported incidents of violence flared in the Greek capital, Athens, where demonstrators burned a car and smashed several shop and bank windows in center of the city at the start of a protest march to the U.S. embassy by up to 50,000 people.

(Additional reporting from Reuters bureaux in Paris, Rome, Sofia, Moscow, Berlin, Johannesburg, London, Zagreb, Sydney, Tokyo, Islamabad, Stockholm, Helsinski, Barcelona, New York, Havana, Chicago, Tel Aviv and Damascus)

(Reuter)

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

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

nasah

I was referring to powell

````SO what is the alternative proposal? I guess there are no adult answers or solutions here, only the adolescent pleasures of protest. ```` (pmishra)

pmishra jee -- being an Indian -- of all the people -- u don`t know the obvious answers? -- the whole world knows it --

the ADULT answers are -- what the 12 out of 15 Security Council nations said -- yesterday -- Inspection and deweaponization of Iraq by the UN -- NOT by One country US taking LAW in its own hands –

a regime change – by Iraqis themselves – NOT by George -- the OIL MAN

NOT by WAR – but by Ispections and civilized NEGOTIATIONS --

now what`s so difficult for an Indian to understand – that?

yesterday in the Security Council -- WAR was the LONELY pleasure of that -- `ADULT` General -- acting like an ADOLESCENT rep -- of a bunch of Texas Juvenile Delinquents -- HELL BENT on a GANG WAR in Iraq.

so please revise your definitions -- PEACE is ADULT -- WAR is ADOLESCENT/JUVENILE -- DELINQUENCY.

pmishra2 #68
The issue is `solution` to what ? Its not clear what is the problem whose only advocated solution- war, justifies the certain death of thousands of Iraqis and the destruction of war?

If the problem is the condition of Iraqi society and the suffering of its children, war is not the solution. The damage to Iraq from war will make things worse not better from a humanitarian angle. Pro-war leaders donot bring up this issue at all, moreover. For instance, I don`t see Bush or Blair threatening Saddam, `use oil-for-supplies earnings to feed your children or we will attack`. These people donot even admit that international sanctions have hurt Iraqi children and are choking Iraqi society and culture, via Saddam.

If the problem is that Saddam is a cruel dictator and Iraqis are crying out for his removal and for political change, again war is not the solution. War can easily lead to fragmentation of the country and civil war between ethnic factions grabbing territory in resulting chaos. The pro-war lobby has not put out any concret roadmap for avoiding chaos or bringing meaningful change in the political system without the country imploding. There is not even a simple pronouncement from pro-war leaders to the effect that going into this war, US/UK govt. are committed to the territorial integrity of Iraq.


If the problem is that Saddam is a threat to the region and the US due to being a cruel and crazed megalomaniac, well, there has been no evidence of any imminent threat to any other country from Saddam for many years. If anything Iraq`s neighbouring countries will be adversely affected by a US-Iraq war.

If the problem is the deadly weapons Saddam is harboring with intent to use them, well where are they? Let them provide better evidence for waging war than the phone conversations they have provided so far(I heard only one).

Being anti-war simply means weighing the substantial certainty of deaths of the destruction of war against the uncertain vague unsubstantiated threat of `evil`.

Even the full force of a uniquely American self-righteous outrage which they display when they grandly prounounce something or someone `evil` is inadequate to provide substance to the case for war.

Is ``maz`` a person or a corporation? Please, Chowk Admin., let me know.

I have enjoyed nasah`s literary wiriting well. pmishra is the Chowk editors` ``plant`` [the kind upgrade auction houses use to raise the bid]. Enjoyed his #55; a real bang!

However, re.#68, pmishra2, there is an adult answer: in the adult section of the video rental stores!!

Thank you Chowk Staff --

for helping us burst this odious bubble of --``Pre Emptive Invasion`` -- of non combatant -- poor third world countries -- as an instrument of this new -- Imperial Foreign Policy -- by a gang of Texas War Lords --

who have -- temporarily -- HIJACKED MY BELOVED country.

THANK YOU -- THANK YOU -- for enhancing World Peace -- and actively promoting RULE OF LAW -- in International Affairs.

No country -- NOT even the Mightiest Country of the World -- the United States of America -- is or will be -- ABOVE THE LAW.

Might is NOT Right -- and NEVER will be -- for the World of 2002 --

we are NOT -- a bunch of SAVAGES.

SO what is the alternative proposal? I guess there are no adult asnwers
or solutions here, only the adolescent pleasures of protest.

Viva La France

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 -- The Bush administration faced broad opposition in the U.N. Security Council today to its quest for authorization for military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and destroy any weapons of mass destruction.

After hearing a measured presentation of pluses and minuses in recent Iraqi behavior by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, a solid majority of council members said the inspectors should be given more time to do their work before the world body considers the use of force.

The session dealt a severe blow to the administration`s carefully calibrated campaign to gain early approval for a U.S.-led invasion.

France, continuing to marshal opposition to an attack on Iraq, proposed that inspectors report again to the council on March 14, long after the White House had aimed to have Security Council support.

``We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq,`` IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

One after another, foreign diplomats took the comments of Blix and ElBaradei as a reason to give inspections more time.

Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin received applause -- rarely offered in the council -- for their remarks.

``There is one point of principle that we all must answer: Must the inspectors continue their work in Iraq in the interest of a political settlement?`` Ivanov asked.

``Russia answers yes to that question.``

De Villepin said U.N. pressure on Iraq is showing ``real progress`` and argued that a war poses great risks to Iraqis and regional stability alike. He warned against ``premature military action.``

``No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections,`` de Villepin said. ``No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world.``

De Villepin also challenged allegations made by Powell that Iraq has strong ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network.

``Nothing allows us to establish such links,`` he said, citing a French review of its own intelligence and the work of other agencies.

One sign of how badly things were going for the Bush administration was the declaration of Chile`s U.N. ambassador, Gabriel Valdes, whose government had been moving closer to Washington`s line on Iraq:

``I think that what the report has underlined is that the inspections are working and therefore inspections should continue.``

Only Britain, Spain and Bulgaria spoke in support of the U.S. position.
(Washington Post)

NO WAR -- George Bush -- NO WAR

No WAR -- George Bush -- Bring back our Boys -- Iraq is NOT a threat to World Peace -- YOU ARE -- YOU ARE a THREAT to World PEACE.

You are about to commit -- a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY -- THE WORLD IS WATCHING you commit a crime -- DESIST from WAR -- Remember Nuremberg -- and -- Remember Hague

LONDON (Feb. 15) - Thousands of Australians kicked off global protests on Saturday against a looming U.S.-led war on Iraq in the biggest mass peace demonstrations since the Vietnam conflict.

In the Australian city of Melbourne, 100,000 people demonstrated in a peace movement expected to spread to around 600 towns and cities around the world stretching from the far south to Iceland.

``This is a truly global movement. We are in contact with peace movements in the United States and across Europe,`` Stop The War UK leader Andrew Murray said.(Reuter)

where is that Aussie Zafar -- pretty good -- pretty good -- Zafar miaN -- mighty proud of ur mighty Melbourne -- eh

urs

like Killer Father like Killer Son -- Bush & Son Murder Inc --

the First EVER -- Father & Son -- War Criminals team -- one day will be dragged to Hague -- in handcuffs -- if the junior goes through the carnage in Iraq

````Men, women and children joined in the Melbourne protest, chanting anti-war slogans and waving banners that read: ``No blood for oil,`` ``Don`t bomb Iraq,`` and ``We are all one.``

The main target of the demonstration was President Bush and his thrust for war, but it was also directed at Australian Prime Minister John Howard who has joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair in committing troops.````(Reuter)

The drama at the Security Council -- Viva La France!

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 14 — It was supposed to be a moment for dueling bugles, with the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, rallying his troops against the rush toward war in Iraq, and the American secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, rallying his against any delay in the disarmament of a dictator.

The bugles did indeed sound the prescribed notes — but with a spontaneity that gave uncommon depth and resonance to the confusion, division and anger over Washington`s monumental war preparations.

Around the horseshoe table of polished Norwegian wood in the Security Council today, the debate sounded surprisingly personal.

Most of the diplomats transcended their scripts, bringing emotion and exasperation to an arena steeped in rote routines, and the audience responded in kind.

In a breach of decorum seldom witnessed in the protocol-conscious chamber, applause broke out as Mr. de Villepin concluded his bugle call by evoking the ideas and conscience of ``La France.``

``This message comes to you today from an old country, France,`` the translator of Mr. de Villepin`s remarks intoned through the large white earpieces that gave the roomful of more than 400 people a vaguely alien appearance.

``It wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. Faithful to its values, it believes in our ability to build together a better world.``

Before the translation ended, the applause began in the gallery; on the Council floor, only the Syrian foreign minister tapped his hands together.

At the head of the table, to the right of the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, the secretary general, Kofi Annan, pushed the points of his fingers against each other, bending and straightening them in a slow series of mini-push-ups.

Mr. Powell sat stone-faced as the momentary applause ended.

When it was Mr. Powell`s turn, he pressed his palms together prayerfully, tapped them on the desk for emphasis and, barely looking at his notes, began his impassioned appeal.

He called the United States ``a relatively new country on the face of the earth,`` but ``the oldest democracy that is assembled here around this table.``

He laced the rest of his remarks with personal references, declaring near the end, ``Force should always be a last resort; I have preached this for most of my professional life as a soldier and as a diplomat; but it must be a resort. We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out, as Iraq is trying to do now.``

But, as personal and as forceful as his remarks were, there was no applause for Mr. Powell. He was playing his bugle for the wrong audience.````(NYT)

``We cannot allow`` -- who the hell are `WE` -- the NEW OWNER of this World? -- or -- ``WE are the WORLD``? -- NOBODY ELSE EXISTS? -- what arrogance -- ``We cannot allow`` --

What? --

`WE` cannot ALLOW -- the concensus of the world 80% MAJORITY -- NOT TO GO to war -- against Iraq?

and `WE`` claim to be -- ``the oldest democracy that is assembled here around this table.``?

did it occur to that General that --

We are not `WE` -- `WE` are all ALONE -- (besides that english stray, that lap DOG -- what`s his name who blares incoherently)

-- in this Vulgar, Shameless, Mongoloid, Misadventure -- like a bunch of 5 Savages -- doing a Naked WAR DANCE -- BEFORE AN INCREDULOUS AUDIENCE OF THE WORLD?

today -- U were not `WE` -- U were a lonely pathetic forlorn sorry figure --Mr. Powell in the Security Council -- out of touch with reality around you -- and rightly deserved -- a stinging slap of -- NO APPLAUSE...

whether U like it or not -- U fell into that Texas Black Mud pool -- and today U look very soiled -- and very black -- Mr. Powell

Today -- in the Security Council -- that black mud man from Texas -- blackened your career before the eyes of the whole world -- for all time time to come --

Harry Belafonte was not off the mark -- in his remark about U -- mr. powell...

suhbatey `saaley` tora `saaley` koonud

Dear Bhitai #56
Your sense has brought you to Guantanamo Bay. Watch where else it carries you as the world wakes up to your discriminatory cultist fanaticism :)

The U.S. would not have had such a hard time finding `support` for it`s war on Saddam Hussain, had it not walked away from major international agreements, i.e., The International Criminal court, Arms reduction treaties with Russia and others, U.N. conferences on Racism, Trade, it`s continued immoral support to the racist zionist entity and it`s continued `belittling` of U.N. and the security council and the way it bullies nations and then calls them `allies`. Atleast the 41st had the ability to assemble a coalition. The 43rd doesn`t know the meaning coaltions and international support. Methinks, the 41st should be sued for raising such a dimwit.

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

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

No doubt Bush lacks leadership capabilities. He has been unable to present his vision of the future of the middle-east and indeed the world to us. Compared to Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Kennedy he comes across as a lightly educated Texas red-neck.

Accepting all of this, however, please tell me one thing. What should be done about Iraq? Should Saddam and his henchmen continue to rule Iraq and the world continue sanctions? And to hell with the Iraqi people then??? Should 10, 000 US troops remain permanently stationed in the Gulf waiting for Saddam to make the first move?

It is easy to diss Bush and even Powell. Linking al-Qaeda to Iraq was a really silly thing to do (you could link al-Qaeda more clearly to Tony Blair I think, given the free movement the British have permitted to hardened islamists!). All good points.

But what should be done to manage Saddam? Or do we just wait for a couple of years, while iraqi civilians continue to suffer, until Saddam declares he has WMD. And who will bell the cat then? Schroeder? I dont think so. The peaceniks in London? Ummm, ...I have a feeling they will be otherwise engaged.

#49
dear no_more_a_garden_slave_but_an_upgraded_kitchen_slave

please try a little harder to put some sense into your postings...
happy writing(or trying)..

for the rest of the crowd, I have a question:

``If the U.S. has solid evidence on Iraq`s link to Al Qaida, why does it offer Saddam Hussain a safe haven and protected departure? ``

Arjun, Sameer, anyone from the warmongers here...?

Nasah # 52

You are too soft on this war criminal. This butcher of baghdad is directly and indirectly responsible for over a million Iraqi deaths not to mention the war crimes comitted under his command in south america throughout 70s, 80s, and 90s. The indignity is well deserved.

There seems to be some interesting positive developments that have occured during these pre-war days:

- The anti-war movement in Europe and even in the USA has mobilized far before the war has even started.

- Certain European countries have openly challenged the USA and opposed it on this war.

- The USA is having far more difficulty than normal in forcing the UN to support the USA`s war.

- Massive anti-war movements have taken place in Europe.

- People are not buying the US media propoganda on making this war a, ``Saddam`` issue, rather than a US personal interest issue.

I doubt the USA will be restrained by all of the above. It will just act alone. However, if the USA is restrained by all of the above, then it will definitely be a victory for the anti-war supporters amongst us. This could set a new precendence under which USA (and other future superpowers) will be detered by human rights and by the peace movement.

I think it is the duty of every peace-lover to take a stance against the war supporters, anytime and anywhere - including against the war-mongers on this site, who are trying their best to encourage a war, by providing false information in its support.

Offensive wars should not be the first or the last option. They should not be an option, at all. The only legitimate violence is in self-defence, when one`s country, home, land etc. is attacked or occupied, colonised etc.

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

There is NOT going to be an attack on Iraq

Blix slaps Colin for providing FALSE intelligence to the Security Council --abut the `cleaning` truck at a so called WMD site.

Pathetic Colin Powell -- thought u were sooooo grrrrreat -- that Texas dimwit did u in -- didn`t he.....

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

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

Bhitai # 41

Those duct tapes and plastic sheets are not to carry your oil or do you cultists favors. They are to reduce damage from chemical and biological attacks from Islamic fanatics like you. If you could conspire to blow up the Twin Towers by flying jets into them, what can`t you do?

US Attack on Iraq: DON`T do It --

Bush, Colin, Cheney, Condoleezza and Rumsfield -- the GANG of FIVE -- the future WAR CRIMINALS -- DON`T DO IT --

Don`t SOIL the name of the United States -- don`t let our traditional friends turn into our enemies --

arrogant stupidos -- listen to the world -- Don`t break International LAW -

Don`t set a BAD Example -- a HORRIBBLE PRECEDENT -- for world peace.

Attacking a non combtant country is -- pure AGGRESSION -- and AGGRESSION IS A CRIME --

Iraq has been PUNISHED for its crime of Invading Kuwait ONCE -- thoroughly -- why punish the people TWICE -- for the same --?

JUST THINK IF EVERY COUNTRY STARTED -- doing the SAME -- TAKING law INTO ITS OWN HANDS -- WHERE THIS WORLD BE --

-- don`t push the world back to the 30`s -- George Bush -- DON`T

If we can NEGOTIATIE with North Korea -- that has just developed a missile CAPABLE of hitting Unitd States -- WHY CAN`T WE NEGOTIATE WITH IRAQ -- that is INCAPABLE of hitting the Unitd States.

INSPECTION not INVASION -- George Bush -- it is unchristian, immoral to attack a WEAK -- already BEATEN country --

````JERUSALEM (AP) - An outraged Israel recalled its ambassador and threatened political action against Belgium Thursday over a court ruling that would permit war crimes charges against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after he`s out of office.``(AP)

Beware -- Bush and his Gang of FOUR .......

Cultist lier, America has not been saying that. America has been saying that it can not tolerate the risk of nuclear weapons being in the hands of you fanatical cultists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh yea..nuclear threat..totally forgot about that..
so did you buy that duct tape HS folks told you about? I`d suggest taking some off your eyes and senses before you head out to the supermarket..atleast that will help you make some sense!

#20 wadera:

Re US will control Iraq approximately for 2 years and give it to civilian authorities.

While US control is welcome, 2 years is not realistic. Wherever, the forces went they are still there, south korea, japan, germany, turkey,
afghanistan, kosovo and you name it.

If someone is going to believe that, then they ought to believe that it snows in sri lanka.

For anyone who has a misconstrued notion that the Iraqis actually want the USA to attack them. And for those who want to spread such notions, to justify an unethical war, in complete violations of human rights:

The following are rebuttals from the Iraqi Peace Team, to the Bush`s State of the Union. For more details on the Iraqi Peace Team project, please see http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org

``Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. The day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.” (George Bush)

``Iraq Peace Team has lived in Iraq and has worked with Iraqi people for many years. So this is something we have first hand knowledge about. Iraqi people have a diversity of opinions on all sorts of political issues. Certainly not all of them like the way Saddam Hussein has ruled. Nevertheless, on the question of war all Iraqis are quite unanimous – they do not support it. They know the horrendous suffering that it will entail and they do not see a U.S. imposed puppet government as any improvement over their current situation. They prefer to work out their own problems themselves.`` http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/pages/IPT_state_union_response.html

Personally, I am truly amazed at the lenghts certain people will go to to justify wars and killings of innocent human beings:

Ras #16: ``War should always be the last option``

I cannot agree with this.

War should only be the last option, in defensive wars against occupations etc.

In terms of offensive wars, it should never even be an option.

Bhitai

>My point exactly, so why go around the globe claiming you`re care >about muslims, or are somehow not interested in their oil, but >just `trying to help out`!

Cultist lier, America has not been saying that. America has been saying that it can not tolerate the risk of nuclear weapons being in the hands of you fanatical cultists. Unless you behave, after Iraq it may be the turn of the cultists who have been selling nuclear weapons to North Korea.

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

Where was your concern for the lives of Afghans(muslims) when your wet dreams of strategic depth forced the taliban down their throats?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arjun
Sorry, I was waiting for more specific answers..

You didn`t give a SINGLE statistic backing up your earlier claim. So basically you were bluffing as usual..

Coming to your point of `strategic depth`, it seems like an attempt to evade my question. I don`t give a damn about Pakistan`s strategic depth to begin with - and Pak ISI`s dirty games are irrelevant to the discussion here.

``The US isn`t obligated to give anyone anything``
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My point exactly, so why go around the globe claiming you`re care about muslims, or are somehow not interested in their oil, but just `trying to help out`!

The truth is Arjun, with all your spin-doctoring, you cannot defend why the US is deserting the Afghanis for the 2nd time, a nation the US used as cannon fodder against russians. Did you know there was a famous saying in CIA during the cold war `we`ll fight the russions till the last Afghan`!

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

shah # 26

The cultist lies never stop.

“Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” - About Afghanistan.
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.”

ahmadzai # 29
Fanatical Muslim cultists who are taught to beat up others will get beat up. The beating up of Muslims who are taugh to beat up others and kiling of Muslim killers has just begun.

#31

I did not know countries give charities out of their defense budgets.

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

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

Guess which country has given more money for the welfare of poor muslims.. your choices are
1. US
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Pakistan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arjun:
First of all, we don`t know the answer, so please enlighten us with some figures, or will you like to keep us guessing here???

Btw..I happen to know some `other` figures, and have some queries, that I would like to put forth, for instance:

the US has spent 37 BILLION dollars on Afghan war already
Afghanistan was pledged 34 BILLION for reconstruction (by international community)..
How much did Afghans actually GET???

the US defense budget is going to be 400 BILLION dollars a YEAR.
Thats more than ONE BILLION dollars a day...

May I ask, how much %age of their military budget goes to MUSLIM charities???

Interestingly the national US debt increases by the rate of 1.2 BILLION per day! So far the total debt is some 6.4 TRILLION DOLLARS(!)
Doesn`t it mean most of their debts are originating from their military spending?

That doesn`t sound like a benign nation to me..

As of `98, The refugee/native ratio in the countries you mentioned was:

Iran - 1:33
Pakistan - 1:117
KSA - 1:157
US - 1:415 (fyi majority from non-muslim countries like vietnam and russia etc.)

So in short, I don`t see much coming out of the US pockets here for the muslim masses, or any masses for that matter (remember how much money was PLEDGED to the VIETNAMESE after the war, and how much did they actually GET?).

Will be looking forward to some answers here...

In response to arjun_m at # 25

``There is no such thing as an ethical/moral foreign policy...``

Talk about yourself and your saffron leadership.

``We will give back Aksai Chin to the Kashmris because the Chinese have high morals`` ain`t exactly moral or ethical... ``

I thought that you had chickened out on this argument as you did not post any response to my last post on this matter on another article. Please read those comments and revert.

``And what would you call Pakistan`s policy of forcing taliban down the throats of the poor Afghans? Ethical? Moral?``

Unfortunately, Afghan put the Talibans down their throat themselves. Pashtoons of Afghanistan still like the Talibans. This is why the coalition has not been able to control Pashtoons outside of Kabul yet, blaming it on regrouping of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the usual crap.

``And i told you it wouldn`t matter...Who do you think will get picked up after the next terrorist attack...? The usual suspectes of course... You are missing the bigger issue..Why were the pakis picked up in the first place? Why do 5 pakis jumping ship in the US make it to the fron pages when there are a hundred mexicans crossing the border every day.. ``

Thanks for agreeing that others are doing a crime but only Pakistanis are being picked. So one can safely assume that India might be conducting state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, but Pakistanis may be the usual suspect. Btw, not only Pakistanis, but also other Muslims are being arrested and freed and therefore, don`t you see any pattern of victimising Muslims alone?

``We don`t expect you to believe anything...just as the world doesn`t buy the standard paki line ``no infiltration only moral and diplomatic support`` line on Kashmir...truth be told, we don`t care if you believe..``

Even though I had used `we` as a figure of speech, hats off to you. If truth has to be told then you have to agree that Kashmiris want to be with Pakistan.

shah #26 We shall indeed find out soon enough what this war will be like and the immediate aftermath. It does appear from an article in the WP today, that this will not be a replay of 1991: The strategy then was to take out air defenses first, which meant air strikes. With effective Iraqi air and ground defenses now essentially limited to a small 50 mile wide corridor between Baghdad and Tirkit (100 miles north), the aim now appears to be to limit the air strikes to this narrow area, thereby avoiding disruption of civil life elsewhere in the country. If this turns out to be correct, then hopefully disruption of civilian life will be minimized AND saddam will be ousted. But let us wait and see...

arjun_m at # 7 wrote:

``Children are instructed to “mercilessly beat up” non-Muslims. “Every student should become a holy warrior,” the second grade textbook states.``

Now you must appreciate that Jamaat Dawaa, the biggest Islamic party of the world that CNN and BBC give at least 4 hours of coverage per day has some thing better than Indian IT revolution.

Its in Pakistan that children are instructed to “mercilessly beat up” non-Muslims and “Every student should become a holy warrior, but through some technique of meta physics this training is getting imparted to Sangh Parivar in India. In India, under the leadership of Advanis and Modis, the fanatics are beating up the minorities and are becoming Saffron Holy Warriors.

;)

ABDUL & HAMIDM STRIKE AGAIN

A Muslim family in an appartment was sound asleep when they were awakened by a loud bang on the door.

``Open up, FBI`` someone yelled from outside.

But as the man of the household was approaching the door to open it, the people from outside ramed the door open and a swat team barged in. Within seconds the whole family was dragged from their beds and made to stand in a line in the living room. Then at the order of the FBI incharge whole family was forced into the Murgha position . FBI learned this new investigation technique from Pak Police while they were working in Paksitan. (Those who do not know what Murgha position is, should ask their mommies and dadies, I am pretty sure that they know it very well).

So the whole family is in Murgha position, including the two year old little Fatima with pacifier in his mouth while the team is searching their apartment.

In a few minutes the team reports back to the in-charge that they couldn`t find anything.

``OK Abdul`` the in-charge yells at the man of the household ``tell us where the heck is the incriminating evidence so that we could dispatch your sorry asses to Gitmo?``

As the FBI man says that the whole family bursts into laughter, right in the Murgha position. The FBI agent really gets pissed off at this but also astonished.

``You Paki fukks, do you have any idea what kind of trouble you are in? We might shoot you at this very spot and you are laughing like morons? why are you laughing?`` FBI agent yells.

The man of the household raises his hand and asks for permission to speak. FBI agent permits.

``We are all laughing because we are not Abduls we are hamidms. Abduls live next door.``

Two interesting quotes made by Dubya, from Bob Woodword`s book -

“Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” - About Afghanistan.
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.”

Such quotes also give credence to a theory I read somewhere that GWB is very articulate when he is talking about baseball, killing, violence, and revenge.

re tahmed #23
We will know soon whether relentless bombing with B52s is ``good`` for the Iraqi people in the short and long run. Also, we will know if US ushers an era of peace and goodwill and democracy and human rights in Iraq or just captures the oil-wells and leaves rest of Iraq in chaos.

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

I think the US will in fact ``just do it``, as per the title of your article. And once they have done it, the pious Germans (of Nazi fame) and French (of Vichy fame, of Algerian fame, of 1958 Attack on Suez fame) and Belgians (of the murderous rule in the Congo fame), not to mention the pious Russians (of Chechnya fame) and Chinese (of Tibetan fame) and Saudis (of Friday Beheadings of poor immigrants fame) and even my fellow Pakistanis (of Bangladesh massacres fame), will quiet down.
All, that is, except us Pakistanis. Many of my fellow countrymen will keep applying for visas to the US and they will keep bad mouthing the US at the same time.
This article makes a good point in saying that regardless of US motivations (and anyone who says ``controlling Iraqi oil`` doesnt know a thing about), we should see what is good for the Iraqi people in the short run (and, I would add, for the world at large in the longer run). On both counts counts, the Iraqi people will be better off, and the world a better place, if Saddam is put behind bars (or worse, as the tens of thousands of people who have died as a result of Saddam`s pursuit of self-glorification would no doubt attest if they were still with us).

In response to arjun-m`s post at # 6:

You asked:
``Guess which country has given more money for the welfare of poor muslims.. your choices are``

I believe its the USA. But read carefully and note that when I say US Troika, I am referring to the current US Gov, establishment and media policy. USA earned goodwill of the Muslims on its aid to various countries e.g. Bosnia, but the current Troika is bent upon undoing all the goodwill.

Also, I believe that most help to Muslims per GNP dollars would have been given by Pakistan. This is a tall claim, but I am open to discussing this in detail later.

You also wrote:
``A clue...don`t go by what governments say publicly. India is behind the US war on iraq. It is just waiting to extract the right price. Even in 91 when India opposed the war on iraq, US planes were getting gas in Bombay.``

I would say then that India`s policy is unethical/hypocritical. This takes me back to an earlier argument with you - Pakistan has higher moral ground on the issue of Kashmir. Why should we believe India`s stance on Kashmir when its policies elsewhere are hypocritical?

You wrote:
``sure..you can question whatever you want..but might is right..as the great one said ``ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force``. You dont have a choice really..you have to accept what the US said...You pakis did accept that post 9/11 didn`t you? and you agreed again with the US when your president promised an end to the infiltration.. ``

I would say:
I agree with you 100% that might is right. However, do note that we did not wait for US to tell us after 9/11 to do whatever we did. Read my response to Romair on Righsizing the army where I have written that our policy of clamping down on the extremists started much earlier. General Musharraf had announced certain measures in August 2001. Since you are a good reader of newspapers, I would encourage you to confirm that yourself.

And when you are searching for confirmation, kindly update all of us as to what happened to the 28 Pakistanis arrested by Italian police? I had said that rest assured all of them are going to be set free. Italian police may have proven me wrong afterall ;)

#14 by arjun_m
//...So what`s the problem with globalization again? ...//

Globalization is a problem for losers like commies and pakis. For those who know how to leverage it, it works wonders - like getting out of debt traps, for example.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=37258546

1....India had last borrowed from the IMF during the balance of payment crisis in the early 1990s and since the country had fully repaid its loans, the IMF`s role had been ``considerably`` scaled down.....

2....With a foreign exchange reserve of $73 billion mop up within one decade, he said, ``frankly, something must have been done right``....

Ref arjun_m #14

[Indian firm to control London traffic

LONDON: The British capital is beginning the countdown to its ambitious congestion charging scheme, the largest and most technologically sophisticated traffic control system in the world, but it is an Indian software company that is nervously awaiting D-day.]

At least, Mastek doesn`t have a failure similar to Logica`s against it. Maybe the reason is there is no traffic control system in India ;)

[The software integration project, awarded to Mastek despite strong local competition from a leading British company Logica, will enforce a 21-square-kilometre congestion charging zone in an area visited by an estimated 40,000 vehicles an hour every single weekday.]

Logica is the same company that screwed up the contract with BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco) for traffic management. What was required was tracking of trains -- which is already being done anyway for safety reasons -- and reducing time intervals between trains so that more trains could be safely run. After about $42 million, the project was a resounding failure.

Um .... and after the deed is done the ruler is to be Gen Franks - this according to the Christian Science Monitor:

US General to Run Iraq

February 13, 2003
The Christian Science Monitor
Cameron W. Barr

SULAYMANIYAH, IRAQ -– The head of the US military`s Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, will rule Iraq in the initial aftermath of a US invasion to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.
Administration officials briefed senators Tuesday on postwar planning, stressing that the US goal is ``to liberate Iraq, not to occupy it,`` and last week a US envoy told leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to Hussein about American intentions.
The senators were told that even under good circumstances, it would take two years before the military could fully transfer control to an Iraqi government. As presented, the plan recalls postwar Germany and Japan, where American military occupations paved the way for transfers of power to democratic and constitutionally backed governments.
...Rather than allying itself with Iraq`s opposition, an ambitious and fractious collection of exiles and dissidents, the US seems to be gambling that large segments of the Iraqi establishment will cooperate in a American-led effort to rehabilitate the country and reform its political system. Makiya says with evident disappointment that years of collaborative effort with US officials - including US funding, an act of Congress promoting Iraq`s ``liberation,`` and a ``democratic principles working group on Iraq`` backed by the State Department - are ``all down the drain.``
But the US approach may increase the comfort level of some US friends in the Arab world, who preside over autocratic regimes and who may be uneasy with an effort to create a Western-style democracy in their midst.
``What concerns us a lot,`` Chalabi says, ``is the perception of the Arab governments and their friends in Washington about the effect Iraq could have by its example on the future of the Arab world.``

Someone is making sure of a long term compliant government ...

Only if the solution to all the problems were so easy. Just Do It.

Why not China just attack Taiwan. Why not South Korea attack N. Korea. Why not Just Crush the MMA (though they have democratically achieved victory). Why not India just attack Pakistan for Cross Border Terrorism.

The world will be left with lesser conflicts. For Gods sake, did u forget that US was supporting IRaq against Iran even when he was involved in ethnic cleansing of Kurds. OR Usama used to be their puppet in the War against Communism. Now when Saddam has been kept confined for the last 10 years, we want to attack him.

The US should first get the reconstruction work completed in Afghanistan like it promised then look for new avenues for propping up trouble elsewhere.

Re: Maz

I have to agree with Ras.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is not a good man or a leader is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that the Iraqis would be better off without him.

Unfortunately, the reality is not as simple as you would wish it. War is not a simple solution. There is no denying the fact that the United States would win this war, but winnning the war is not the problem. The problem is dealing with the aftermath of the war; the consequences, which have not been fully considered. Let me put things in perspective. If the intention of the United States is to disarm and end Iraq`s NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) program, then regime change is meaningless. If, on the other hand, it is to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein, then disarming Iraq is will not solve anything. Thus, both have to affected: disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.

This is the easy part. The real concern, with its tangible problems, comes after the war is over. Iraq has to be politically re-constructed and the different political-ethnic groups in Iraq have to be accomodated and intergrated into a new politically created framework. The United States has delineated a term of about 18 months for this task. According to it, it will occupy Iraq for 18 months and seek to implement drastic changes in its politics. It is doubtful if this change, as envisioned by the United States, can be realized in 18 months. It is even more questionable if the United States has the political will to commit itself to Iraq, both economically and politically after the war. The case of Afghanistan in which the United States won in a military sense, but was resisting political committment speaks volumes. The United States is already suffering from ``committment fatigue`` in Afghanistan and Iraq does not inspire any confidence in its abilities. The internal political dynamics of the United States eschews the idea of nation building and this is not the United States of 1945, which was committed to nation building as in the case of Germany and Japan.

The other problem, which is causing the French and the Germans to resist this march of the Lemmings, is that though the immediate results of this war may be limited to Iraq, but the long term consequences will not be limited regionally. Far from chortling the menance of terrorism, this war`s end will provide a perfect breeding ground for terrorism, because it will create more political instability than stability.

Maz, what scares most people is not the outcome of this war, but what will happen after it is over. There is no indication, and it is a valid assumption, that nothing untoward may happen, but the concern remains - how to deal with it, if it happens?

The United States may be a hyper super power, but it is not omnipotent. The United States can defeat and the destroy the world, but the United States cannot garrison the world. The United States may win all the wars it fights, but it cannot necessarily win the peace. In the present international situation, political stability stems from winning the peace and not wars; globalization is a medium of consensus and not intimidation and what the United States is attempting to do, flys in the face of its own past historic experience.

Ciao

I like an average American because of his honesty, simplicity and compassion. That is why I do not go along with the writer.

A war on Iraq would only hasten the downfall of the great American Empire. Colin Powel and Rumsfeld keep comparing it with Gulf War and the Afghan war; and how initially the people opposed them and later everything turned out to be OK. Those Wars had a justifiable cause and world supported them. The justification given here has many holes in it.

The biggest one being the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinian next door.

Mercifully, the French and German opposition to it has already taken out the bite in it with regard to this being a West-Islam conflict. But the Anti-American sentiment remains.

A war on Iraq will give another issue to the Islamic fanatics to exploit to the gullible average uneducated Muslim.

It seems that no one can stop this war and America will win it hanfds down.

This will be followed by an increase in the worldwide terrorist activity against the US. America will be compelled to take further security measures and spread its forces and resources thin worldwide. There could be a strong movement in the Middle East for oil embargo, cutting off trade with US and withdrwaing deposits out of US banks.

What good are you as a Super Power if your citizens do not feel safe in most parts of the world. The American economy will suffer and a downhill cycle will be triggered. With no fuel and no jobs, a cycle of unrest in America could begin.

China will be the biggest gainer and its rise to Super Power status will be accelerated. India will be closely following.

To conclude, I love the Americans and I do not want them to go to this war. First tackle, the Osama and the kind.

``US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It! ``

Wish it was as simple as a commecial for Nike shoes. But it is not.

War should always be the last option and there should be no hurry

to start such deadly games without thinking about the fallout.

Many agree that Saddam needs to go, but is the killing of thousands

the only way?

Ras

romair # 8

Of course you conveniently forgot how your alma matter Pakistani army sucked up to uncle sam for a few dollars. I won`t get into Pakistani army propping up Gulf emirates for a few dollars.

get over it !!!

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

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

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

temporal

Mazallah -- the rationale for this column is MORE to do with gulliblization -- than globalization:-)

dear chowk staff -- thanks for listening to Ana and correcting the repeating paragraphs -- but did u forget the repeating Maz Maz?

I agree with most of the things said in this article except the last paragraph about globalization which is big enough issue to be discussed separately and independent of current situation.

The USA has not succeeded in justifying the war to the world but that was not the most important thing for USA. The decision and planning to go to war preceeded any convincing effort. Once decision is made to go to war, most important concerns are to win the war with least casualties and extract other benefits in post-war period (I am not talking about Kargill and Mutt here. That is an exception).

All the efforts to convince the world and the UN are in the hindsight or afterthoughts. The attacking party in an offensive war has always been concerned about winning the war first and formost, and not the hearts and minds of the `liberated people`. That is a secondary concern for the long term benefit of USA. However, if Iraqis are asked to choose between war and Sadddam in power, I am sure that Shias and Kurds would definitely like Saddam to go and possibly majority sunnis as well. The sad fact is that Iraqi public is helpless on averting war either way. I hope it is short and brings quick end to Saddam`s power.

``US Attack on Iraq: Just Do It!``

Shouldn`t the people of Iraq be asked whether they want to be attacked? I am not quite sure why everyone else feels they have a right to decide the fate of the Iraqis. Maybe, they hate the USA even more than they hate Saddam.

If someone was to attack the author`s house to, ``liberate`` him, wouldn`t he want to be consulted first? If someone decides tomorrow to attack Pakistan to, ``liberate`` it, shouldn`t the Pakistanis be asked first, whether they want to be, ``liberated``?

Every single country in the Middle East that has been attacked, either militarily or politically has had a few things in common:

- The attackers always suggest they are doing it for the benefit of the people of that country
- The country is completely devasted for ages after the interventions

A few examples come to mind:

1) Afghanistan was invaded by USSR to, ``benefit`` the Afghanis. The USA then attacked it to, ``liberate`` the Afghanis. In the process, Afghanistan was destroyed completely.

The USA attacked Afghanistan again recently to democratize it. I am waiting to see how that goes......

2) Iran`s govt. was toppled by the USA and Britain, in favor of the Shah, to, ``assist`` Iran. We know what happened there. Now, Iran may get invaded again due to, ``axis of evil`` reasons to, ``free`` the Iranis from mullahs. Same thing will happen again.

Had the USA not brought in the Shah to begin with, Iran would be much better off today.

3) Palestine and South Asia were colonized, at various times, by the British to, ``civilize`` the natives. In the process, huge famines occured in South Asia. It was used to pump up the British economy. The British eventually left, leaving both regions in a perpetual state of war.

The Palestinians and South Asians remain as uncivilized as they ever were. Infact, they ranked far higher, ratio-wise, on the world`s civilization index when the British invaded, then when the left.

4) Kuwait was supposed to be, ``liberated`` and democratized, by the previous Gulf War. It was liberated, but I am still waiting for it to be democratized.

The way to, ``democratize`` or, ``civilize,`` or ``liberate`` a country is not by attacking and bombing it, and killing its peoples. Nor is it by conquering it and making it a part of one`s empire. Such phrases are only a smokescreen for achieving other purposes. Why in the world, would all of a sudden, the USA be worried about, ``liberating`` the Iraqis? Why such a heartfelt desire to help out Iraqis now? And why is that the USA only wants to, ``liberate`` countries that are in someway related to oil? How many Americans even knew where these countries were on the map, before they appear on CNN?

The only justification for any country to attack Iraq is if the people of Iraq want them to. And to the best of my knowledge, they do not want to be attacked. What they do want is for the USA to remove the sanctions against them, so they can eat.

Anyone supporting an Iraq is doing nothing more than supporting the killing of innocent people. It is truly a terrorist mentality. And just goes to show that terrorists can be religious and secular. Every terrorist, deep down in his heart, think he is doing something good. Then he goes around trying to convince the rest of the world of that. And when the rest of the world isn`t convinced, he/she states:

``Attack: Just Do it``

OBLs battle cry and Bushs` battle cry seem to have an eerie similarity. As do the supporters of both of them, in their war-mongering.

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

Maz:

“Globalization is the basis for all social and economic progress, isolation results into poverty, anarchy and terrorism.”

---globalization is the avatar of colonialism and the world is aware of unfttered colonialism

“ A war in Iraq would almost guarantee a long term US and global commitment to Iraq and would become a channel for change for the neighboring countries.”

---this unbridled power display will certainly cause change…though am afraid it will not be a good change…and our world may become even more unsafe place then it already is…

…have no doubt the US (current admin.) will abandon reason and caution and ‘do it’…also have no doubts that when