Three Arguments Against a War

gud article (even tho i didn`t it all) america`s intentions to wat she calls `liberatin` the kurds is not to liberate them ,but they r clearly followin their ancestors footsteps n workin on the policy of `divide n rule`.

n rozaiba, wat ever u do...DON`T WATCH FOX NEWS!!! they`ll brain-wash u like u never knew anythin else.

Thanks heavens - Pakistan has no oil!!!

Romair,
this one needed more creativity. You often do much better

in the replies section of CHOWK so one is not overly attentive to this.

America Vs Iraq is not really talking about war but a ``Duck Shoot``.

The world (except Tony Blair) knows that and is not receptive

to the idea of causing more suffering for the Iraqi people.

Saddam can go to hell, but unfortunately he does not want to travel

alone.


Ras

Feroze

``Clausewitz strongly suggested that wars are fought for political reasons and should be stopped immediately once that political reason is attained. He did not suggest either a defensive or an offensive war, but simply that wars should not be fought to justify a lack of a political policy``

A good point Feroze. Let me add that in the final chapters of his celebrated book ``On War``, Clauswitz emphasized that the defensive form of warfare is superior to the offensive form. But it should be kept in mind that the context was was not the ``moral superiority``, but the strategical/miltary superiority resulting from haivng to maintain shorter supply lines, a supportive citizenry and deeper knowledge of terrain. Mr. Romair could be referring to the concept of ``total war`` enunciated by Clauswitz. However that form of warfare was mentioned in the context of realizing clear political aims. So if USA has some unsaid political objectives that it can meet only through warfare, it could be called Clauswitzian in that sense. But the bottomline is ``clear political objectives``.

Raja sahib
The quality of this write up is exceptional. It should put the likes of Rafique Zakaria to shame..

Romair
As URStruly also said, your arguments need to be consistent. Following are my arguments on why this war should not happen -
1. Impact on economy - This war will result in more than 85 billion going down the drain. Major portion of this will just disappear as smoke from those expensive firecrackers. A big chunk will go in the pockets of middle east dictators what will never see light of day again. Another portion will just add lining in the pockets of arm producers. This money can better be spent in reviving economy.
Observation that stock morkets jump up whenever some indication of a peaceful solution appears and go down whenever war cries increase indicates that market players also share this view.

2. A major justification given by US and Britain for going to war is Iraq`s perceived non-compliance to UN resolutions. It would be a paradox if US goes against United Nations to punish someone else for going against United Nations.

Why isn`t author interacting? The article pretty much covers all aspects of the issue, however, I must argue that the logic presented in the arguments is inconsistent. Some of the inconsistencies are pointed out by friend below. As a matter of fact the incoonsistencies in the argument are not a result of flawed logic but that of political convictions of the author. I think author is still in need of chosing between ``principle`` and ``expediancy``. Tough choice, but at some stage of our life we all have to make that choice.

I don`t want to pretend like an expert on this matter but as the author said,`` In a realpolitik sense, the USA is going to war to serve its own interests. Plain and simple. I have studied military `` etc. etc., Let me submit a few lines.

1. Why does it hurt us so bad, to realize that US has some interests of its own, and wants to serve its own interest. All nations in the world have interests except one - i.e., PAKISTAN.

2. All selflessness (personal or national level) is preceded by selfishness. We were never selfish - therefore, we can not do much for any body else.

3. There can be no `WAR` Between US and Iraq. War happens between equals or almost equals. Iraq is no match to USA. Every body knows that.

4. What US wanted has been procured without war. For starters, US Army has been mobilsed and in the gulf region already.

5. My feeling is that ``There WILL BE NO WAR``. If US `attacks` iraq now, it will be a very quick strike, necissitated by the need to justify all the military that it has piled up in the gulf region.

6. This military presence will be maintained in the gulf - at all costs (Most of these costs to be paid for by the arabs;-). To maintain this presence, US will continue to keep the region in an unstable state. So unstable is what gulf will be for a long time to come.

7. To keep it unstable, saddam and other made up enemies will be required and created.

8. America has two types of enemies - real threats and made up. The real threats are to be sorted out lik ethe russians. The likes of saddam are created to allow US to do things as it pleases. (Remember Lawrence of Arabia).

9. Americans think outside the box. If you want to understand their actions and predict future, learn to think outside the box - learn to thik like them.

10. Prediction is difficult and valueable. Post Mortem is easy and useless. History has many lessons - here is my faviorite - use common sense, and think outside the box of your ego. We tend to get too comfortable within the boxes.

I don`t want to pretend like an expert on this matter but as the author said,`` In a realpolitik sense, the USA is going to war to serve its own interests. Plain and simple. I have studied military `` etc. etc., Let me submit a few lines.

1. Why does it hurt us so bad, to realize that US has some interests of its own, and wants to serve its own interest. All nations in the world have interests except one - i.e., PAKISTAN.

2. All selflessness (personal or national level) is preceded by selfishness. We were never selfish - therefore, we can not do much for any body else.

3. There can be no `WAR` Between US and Iraq. War happens between equals or almost equals. Iraq is no match to USA. Every body knows that.

4. What US wanted has been procured without war. For starters, US Army has been mobilsed and in the gulf region already.

5. My feeling is that ``There WILL BE NO WAR``. If US `attacks` iraq now, it will be a very quick strike, necissitated by the need to justify all the military that it has piled up in the gulf region.

6. This military presence will be maintained in the gulf - at all costs (Most of these costs to be paid for by the arabs;-). To maintain this presence, US will continue to keep the region in an unstable state. So unstable is what gulf will be for a long time to come.

7. To keep it unstable, saddam and other made up enemies will be required and created.

8. America has two types of enemies - real threats and made up. The real threats are to be sorted out lik ethe russians. The likes of saddam are created to allow US to do things as it pleases. (Remember Lawrence of Arabia).

9. Americans think outside the box. If you want to understand their actions and predict future, learn to think outside the box - learn to thik like them.

10. Prediction is difficult and valueable. Post Mortem is easy and useless. History has many lessons - here is my faviorite - use common sense, and think outside the box of your ego. We tend to get too comfortable within the boxes.

Tayyab Rashid

nasah:
Actually, I agree that it is useless to show such a strong show of fire power. The US military can just walk in and most Iraqi soldiers en masse will surrender at the first sight of US soldiers. My guess is that whole war could be over within a week with less than 50 US casualties.

Then US must quickly pull out of Iraq to not risk the gain in political mileage from some suicide bomber or snipers in the urban centers. I believe it will be more like invasion without war. There is outside chance that Saddam will be history even before the start of real invasion. Right now Iraqi generals can save Iraq from unnecessary devastation and hardships.

If you get chance, please read an article about Iraqi military in today`s edition of `The News` by Amir Tahiri.

US pursuing a regime change in Iraq is justified for the following reasons.

Let us face it. it is for oil. not so much to supply the US, per se. there are enough sellers. it is to control iraq`s supply and thus control other buyers, like china and even india.
it is also to marginalize opec. but i don`t think anyone wants cheap oil. post-war iraq would need oil revenue to rebuild and that would be the case if price remains stable.

post war iraq would need new military, military supplies, airplanes for its airforce. this would be a good opportunity for US defense/construction which are in slump now. somewhere i read that the leader for some ``free iraq committee`` was a retired ceo of lockeed martin and a Bush friend.
that is ok; he was doing for his own self-preservation.

i think deep down, there may be knowledge that iraq has more oil than what is known. perhaps only a few know where it is.

besides oil, iraq is the only country where people are somewhat secular, educated and get this, the country is fertile with two major rivers flowing through it.

on the bottom of all this, whys, Bush Jr is pretty upset that Saddam had tried to kill his father, Bush Sr when the latter visited Kuwait. So perhaps, it could be a personal grudge.

but the final outcome is always going to be good for the Iraqi people if the US were to declare Iraq as the 51st state.

Let us face it. Many citizens of many countries long for US ``invasion``of their countries and many of them already do without realizing it.

mechanics of war.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1059-599822,00.html

_ _ _The Pentagon is more candid than the British in these matters, or at least the American media are more searching. Official estimates are that roughly half the weapons dropped on Iraq in the past ten years missed their “primary aimpoints”. In one raid in February 2001, 26 out of 28 of the latest “smart” joint stand-off weapons missed their aimpoints.

The British Cabinet, including Ms Short, must approve these weapons. It must also approve the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs. There is so far no sign of Britain honouring the international plea for a global moratorium on their use. Now euphemised as “stand-off area munitions”, they are dreadful at the best of times. But between 5 and 10 per cent of their canisters fail to explode.

Whereas an anti-personnel landmine, disowned by all but the Americans under the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, blows off only bits of the body, a single cluster bomblet disintegrates anyone within 100ft. Each CBU87 cluster bomb leaves, on average, ten such bomblets unexploded in the ground. Unlike most minefields, they are also unmapped. How that is not a landmine is a secret known only to Ms Short’s conscience.

The real paradox is that the more one-sided “moral” war becomes, the less that side feels obliged to respect war’s moral disciplines. It is because America and Britain are certain of victory that they increasingly disregard the constraints that once underpinned battlefield behaviour. When winning is certain and almost all killing is done from the air, the overriding priority of the “post-heroic strategist” is to minimise casualties on his own side, at whatever cost in money, destruction or non-combatant deaths.

This priority is plainly rewriting morality out of the rules of war. Already the past year has seen Western states disregard the Geneva, Hague and Ottawa conventions, suspend habeas corpus, breach state sovereignty, authorise extrajudicial killing, abandon non-combatant immunity and abuse the doctrine of proportionate force. We use the concept of war crime only when it suits us. We are partial in our appeal to international law. President Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden may want to lead us back down the road to barbarism. We need not go so happily with them.

I have always accepted that Saddam might have to be stopped from developing offensive arsenals. I have no particular fixation that this should be via the UN, except that at present UN Resolution 1441 is the world’s chosen path. A pre-emptive attack on Saddam could have been justified in the 1980s, when he was using chemical weapons and really was preparing a nuclear bomb. That justification is weaker now than it was then. Saddam is not a threat as al-Qaeda was and is said to be. Diplomacy has plainly not reached its last resort.

Even if it had, that cannot suspend debate on how war should be conducted. Bombing cities has, for half a century, been considered abhorrent. Anyone who wants to know why should read W. G. Sebald’s new book, The Natural History of Destruction. They should read it before despising Germans for refusing to join in the bombing of Baghdad. This is not just because history shows that urban bombing achieves pathetically limited military gain. It is because such traumatic assaults on civil targets are considered wrong, a word much in Mr Blair’s lexicon these day.

Even in the theatre of war, moral considerations are entitled to a cameo role. It cannot be right to tear up every rulebook in fighting terrorism, just because bin Laden did. It cannot be right to cluster-bomb Iraqis just because Saddam did likewise. It cannot be right to use a weapon of mass destruction — 800 cruise missiles on Baghdad in 48 hours — because that is what Saddam “might do” if we do not get him first. The US Government, with British support, is behaving as if sheer power absolved states of the need to pose these questions.

I hear no plea for the slightest restraint from those vociferously in favour of this war. Some of them seem to crave the impending destruction, regarding Saddam as a spoilsport for even appearing to disarm. Others are embarrassed by the question, as if it were indelicate to discuss war in terms of smashed buildings and torn bodies. They feebly remark that soldiers cannot be told to show restraint.

Soldiers have been told that throughout history. They are told it in Northern Ireland. They were told not to bomb Argentina during the Falklands war. The West asked the Russians to “show restraint” in Chechnya. It was, to their credit, the Americans who questioned the morality of Harris’s civilian bombing during the war. That bombing, like Hiroshima, was at least a last resort. The massive onslaught of Operation Shock and Awe is not to be the last resort of this war. It is to be the first.

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

umair -- great piece -- very levelheaded -- very rational --

here is the glimpse of the MOAC -- (Mother Of All Catastrophes) -- that the White House -- MOAB -- (Mother Of All Bastards) -- is hell-bent to bring upon the innocent heads of already starved, malnourished, diseased, medicine less, defenseless -- children of Iraq.


Bombs and Blood
By BOB HERBERT of New York Times


PHILADELPHIA — They seemed like very nice people, the men and women, some with children, who dropped by to see the Liberty Bell, which is housed in a one-story, shedlike pavilion with large windows in the roof.

My mind wandering, I imagined the visitors as casualties of war.

I glanced up at the sunlight streaming through the roof and could visualize an incoming warhead, a missile that perhaps had strayed off course and was heading toward us.

It wasn`t hard to imagine the damage. The pavilion and everyone in it would be obliterated.

This is the fate soon to be visited upon a certain number of innocent Iraqi civilians (no one knows how many) if the president goes ahead with the war he has pursued so relentlessly.

We should outlaw the term (crude inhumane term) collateral damage.

Above all else, the damage done by the weapons of war is to the flesh, muscle, bone and psyches of real people, some of them children. If we`re willing to inflict such terrible damage, we should acknowledge it and not hide behind euphemisms.

I interviewed a number of people in the vicinity of Independence Mall about their views of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

No one I spoke with was particularly well informed. But what struck me about those in favor of invading Iraq was the cavalier way in which they talked about it.

Their message, essentially, was: ``Saddam`s a bad guy. It`s time for him to go.``

I got no sense that they thought of war as a horrible experience.

No one mentioned the inevitable carnage. No one spoke as if they understood that war is always hideous, even if it`s sometimes necessary.

The children in Iraq are already in sorrowful shape.

The last thing in the world they need is another war.

More than half the population of Iraq is under the age of 18, and those youngsters are living in an environment that has been poisoned by the Iran-Iraq war, the first gulf war and long years of debilitating sanctions.

One out of every eight Iraqi children dies before the age of 5. One-fourth are born underweight. One-fourth of those who should be in school are not. One-fourth do not have access to safe water.

This generational catastrophe is the fault of Saddam Hussein, no question.

But those who favor war should at least realize that the terrain to be invaded by the most fearsome military machine in history is populated mostly by children who are already suffering.

The American military has significantly improved the accuracy of its weapons, and the U.S. has gone to great lengths to develop war plans designed to minimize civilian casualties. But war, as anyone who has been in the military knows, is about killing people.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has already made it clear that the U.S. is planning to deliver what he calls a ``shock`` to the Iraqi system.

That shock reportedly will be delivered by 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours. The children of Iraq won`t be the targets, but that is what their country will face if America attacks.

(On Tuesday the Air Force tested the country`s largest nonnuclear bomb, the 21,000-pound Massive Ordnance Air Blast,`` gleefully nicknamed the MOAB (``Mother of All Bombs.``)

After the war will come the humanitarian crisis. There will be the dead to bury and the sick and wounded to tend to. And hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Two-thirds of Iraq`s 24 million people are entirely dependent on government food rations, and the remaining 8 million are dependent to some degree.

U.N. officials have said plans by the United States to feed the population after the war are inadequate and food supplies could run out in a matter of weeks.

Carol Bellamy, executive director of Unicef, told me: ``The area we`re very concerned about is water and sanitation.

There`s very little ground water in Iraq. At least half the water has to be treated. So if the major power facilities and water treatment plants were knocked out, there would be very significant consequences, and the children would generally be the most vulnerable.``

Most Americans will watch this war from the comfort of their living rooms, well out of harm`s way.

These are a few of the items they might consider as they make up their minds on whether an invasion is a good idea, or whether a search for a better alternative is still in order.(NYT)
__________________________________
After the Nazi’s -- this will be another CRIME of the Century against Humanity – the MOAB will dragged to the ICC -- International Criminal Court in Hague –

now I know WHY the would be Criminals of the Administration was dead against the establishment of that International Court –

the deceitful INTENT was to commit the CRIME of the Century - and escape the punishment –

very clever -- those shameless -- oil coveting -- sneaky bastards -- hiding behind the human tragedy of 9/11 -- using it as a camouflage for committing -- an Aerial Genocide -- against a poor third world country – being punished TWICE -- that never attacked us.

A inhumane MOAB used by an Inhuman MOAB!

Why didn`t these peaceloving Pakistanis spend as much time debating their own role in the war in Afghanistan? There was no BJP then. Hypocrites.

haha! Loved this! Carrots , sticks and shoulds.

ahmedzai #9 you write ``I have a weird feeling that it we arrange for two ships - one headed for Jihad for Iraq and the other for providing Green Card to the USA, a majority of our MMA followers (supporters of OBL and Saddam) will rush for the latter``
I think your weird feeling is on target.

Here is my take on these arguments:
First argument: you write ``In a realpolitik sense, the USA is going to war to serve its own interests.``
The issue is not whether or not this is in the self-interest of the US. After all, it is only an irrational person who would work against his own self-interest. The issue rather is two-fold: (a) Are the reasons presented by the US for going to war (and the accompanying casualties) justified. And (b) what is the expected outcome of this war as you perceive it, and how does that match with the interest of people living in Iraq and in the US.
Second argument: You see a conflict between Israeli goals and the goal of a democratic Iraq. I think this depends on whether Israel`s goal is to live in peace with its neighbors or it is to expand territory. What would be your goal if you were an average person who happened to be Israeli?
Third argument: You say the US, if it really seeks to introduce democracy in the middle east, should start with Saudi Arabia and Egypt because these are ``core countries``. You are clearly being arbitrary in naming these as ``core countries``, since Iraq is not exactly the size of a postage stamp either and Baghdad is a major city of 5 million people. And this concept of a ``core country`` is irrelevant anyway.

So, maybe you need to sharpen your arguments a bit, dont you think??

Romair,
Even though I actively agree with ``no war`` group, your arguments are flawed.
1. Where did you see Bush claiming that he is going to war exclusively ``to solve the problems of the country being attacked``. I always heard him saying that he thinks Saddam Hussain is dangerous for US and world security and peace. US is also publicly saying the decision of not to attack Korea is based on the interest of US and its allies.

Your first argument also appears to be biased when you write
``c) Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Egypt are America allies. The first eight on this list are hereditary dictatorships, while Egypt has an, ``elected`` dictatorship. ``

While using this line of argument, you ignored most prominent ally of US - Pakistan, and ignored to mention its ``democratic`` government. Also note that Saudi economy is based on Oil. Saudi will not get devastated overnight if they part ways with USA. Joined at hip argument does not hold here as US economy is joined at hip also with China, Mexico, Japan and many other countries.

2. what was your argument here? Is it that US`s declared aim of democratic government in Iraq will lead to real representative anti-US governments which will further lead to reduction in access to oil resources to USA? How do you know that US will not install a puppet government, like Afghanistan and than control all the resources? Or may be, use a stick like it uses with Pakistan and get all it wants.

3.Your third ``argument`` is not an argument. It looks like you suggestion for an alternative approach for USA. Even this suggestion appears to have flaws.


Your premise is based on a perceived ``clash of civilizations``. It might be a clash of civilizations, but it is not between Islamic and Christian civilizations. It is between a civilizations of terrorists and rest of the world.
You write that ``Saudi Arabia is the financial and religious capital of the Middle East, while Egypt is the intellectual capital of the area. ``.

Your suggestion would make sense if you also include ``theological capital of terrorists - Pakistan``. Of course Osama along with 14 out of 19 9/11 terrorists is Saudi and Al-Zawari is an Egyptian. But they all got their training in Pakistan. Their training camps are in Pakistan. Pakistan is no more a democracy than Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Defence forces of many of the states listed by you are manned by Pakistanis. Even if USA disinfects middle east states, source of infection will still remain active and keep spreading germs. For any meaningful democratization, USA has to first treat the source of infection. In this case - Pakistan.

I do believe that this can be done peacefully. To summarize, there are dozens of valid argument against Bush`s war. But your three arguments are in fact flawed.

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

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

umer # 2:

...depleted uranium has half a shelf life of 4,500,000,000 years...am glad you brought this up...and you must know the ratio...one US life is rougly equaly to 200,000 arab lives...give or take 100,000....


feroz:

....have yet to see an analysis comparing maulana bush as a mirror image of obl or am or mo...sans beard...

...bush and company are the US fundos and extremists no less than obl and company who have hijacked the US for their own (almost nefarious) beliefs...

rgds,

t

It is too late to discuss the genesis of US policies leading to this inevitable war. The bookies are not taking bets against the war. It is time to think and write beyond the looming war that might start within days. I respect those genuinely peace loving people who participated in peace marches and not those who have been overtly or covertly anti-American for other reasons.

The WMD, Al-Qaeda links, Oil, support for Isarel, liberation of Iraqis or democratization of middle-east has very little to do with this war. President Bush would have lost the next election because of poor economy and nothing much at home front to brag about in the next election. The war rpovides a real opportunity for re-election provided it goes well. The poor handling of Iran Hostage crisis brought down Jimmy Carter and President Bush is betting on good handling of foreign policy to score points in the next election.

That is why, this war is unavoidable no matter what peace marchers or UN says. It is all about winning at home on the cottail of a cheap victory abroad. It is similar to BJP planning in Indian politics. Near the national elections, they will stir up issues that can win them vote, like Ram Temple with few communal riots etc.

The main lesson of Iraq war for all third world elites is that you treat own people and your neighbors fairly. Don`t provide fifth columns like the Kurds/Shites and bases like Kuwait for USA. Of course make sure you don`t have too much oil.

The author`s skeptcism against US intentions is fine. I am skeptical of Bush`s rhetoric myself. But opponents of US war have failed to articulate alternate visions. Of course they share nothing in common other than the fact they oppose Bush`s war in Iraq.

Kurds have been betrayed by USA in 1975 and 1991. Their position must be desperate under Saddam if they choose to co-operate with USA in 2003.

Your solution is excellent and in line with the philosophy of the founding fathers of the constitution of the great nation that the USA is today.

However, you also wrote:
``Arabs treat Pakistanis much worse than Americans treat Pakistanis. At the same time, I have also written against American foreign policy escapades. Balancing out the above and given a choice, I would prefer to live in the USA over most Arab countries.``

I agree with you on this point. Having lived in dozen countries and having a permanent residence in Costa del Sol, Andalucia, Spain that I live in every summer, I believe that Europeans, Americans and Canadians treat Pakistanis much better than the Arabs. But the reason could be economic competition with Arabs from other countries in the host country. For example, while working in Oman, Omanese might treat Pakistanis well, but Arabs from Palestine, Egypt, Sudan may not.

I have a weird feeling that it we arrange for two ships - one headed for Jihad for Iraq and the other for providing Green Card to the USA, a majority of our MMA followers (supporters of OBL and Saddam) will rush for the latter.

Interesting article. Just one point of clarification.

Offensive wars are not, as you stated, Clausewitian but rather Jominian in their intent. Clausewitz never advocated an offensive war, but suggested that wars serve a political purpose and to win a war, the political rationale for its execution has to be crystal clear. Baron Antoine d` Jomini, on the other hand, favored offensive wars. Offensive war according to Jomini establishes a reason and clears all doubts as to what is the purpose of fighting a war - victory. While Clausewitz linked the role of politics in war, Jomini never linked the two, but merely advocated how wars should be fought - offensive instead of defensive.

The cult of the offensive based on the teachings of Jomini would institute the ideals of élan, and l`cran in the French army and would influence French generals such as Foch and Joffre in the First World War.

Clausewitz strongly suggested that wars are fought for political reasons and should be stopped immediately once that political reason is attained. He did not suggest either a defensive or an offensive war, but simply that wars should not be fought to justify a lack of a political policy.

What the Bush administration is attempting to do is justify a lack of political policy by continually seeking to fight a war. The question is not what are the political aims of Bush attacking Iraq, but how is a war on Iraq going to secure American interests? The concern is that American interests are not only linked to Iraq, but to the international consensus of its role in the world and the primary strenght of the American influence does not stem from its military power, that justifies it, but from the world`s acceptance of a beneign pax Americana. The United States may be able to secure its political interests by winning a war with Iraq in the short term, but will American interests remain secure in the long term, when its international position will be undermined by its unilateral acts?

Personally speaking, the United States does not have a coherent policy on how to deal with the events after 911 and is having problems selling the idea of its war on terror to the American people. The problem is terror is an abstract noun and no military power in the world can defeat a noun!!!! The war on terror is a war on an abtract noun. Hence, it needs a crediable and a tanigble victory to show its resolve and as a post to measure its success in the so called war on terrorism.

Best wishes, as always

Ciao

Pragmatically speaking Pakistan should back the US war against Iraq if they could muster some economic benefits out of their support to the forthcoming resolution at the UNSC.

Moral high grounds won`t earn anything. Pakis’ pangs on the plight of the Ummah have never been reciprocated on the issuing concerning Pakistan.

Umair,

Excellent article! Now, before t does this, I`ll ask the question since you have a military background. You must have heard of Depleted Uranium shells, which were used to destroy tanks in Southern Iraq during Gulf War the First. Following the war, there was an increase in the frequency of congenital birth defects etc. etc., which, although partially caused by the lack of nutrients (due to the sanctions), did not provide the whole story. A certain person theorised that the steep increase in the frequency of sufferers was due to the usage of radioactive depleted Uranium as a weapon. I was just wondering if you know whether there have been any actual studies which link the two things together?

Anyone?

Thank you
Umer M

good arguments. all of them.

it`s funny to see fox news `where the spin stops` go all out to show how this is `a necessary evil`, `a just war`, `a moral war` by having some unknown priests come on and justify going to war as an uprighteous and Christian thing to do.

though i don`t see why a `kurdish` state is a must- regardless of where salahudin ayubi was from. that`s sort of like asking for more trouble. a TNT like trouble.

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

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