French Fries vs Freedom Fries

Shankar #48: Too many inaccuracies in your reply:

``I dont think the US needs to apologise for what it does.``

Using the same logic, do you also think that OBL and Hitler do not need to apologize for what they did? Do you think Vajpayee and Advani need to not apologize for what they did in Gujrat? If you are basing your view on one principle, i.e. ``strategic importance,`` then you should not only support USA, but OBL, Hitler and Vajpayee also.

``By taking over Iraq, it will ensure that it has access to oil for the next 100 yrs.``

Are you seriously suggesting the USA will stay in Iraq for 100 years? Which American will want to live in the Arab desert for that long, against a violent population that hates him? Would you be willing to move there? How will the US then control Iraq for 100 years? It will obviously have to install another Shah or King Fahd or Saddam or Taliban there, and attempt to remote control him. We all know how successful that has been. My guess is that the USA will not be able to/nor will it have the stamina to control Iraq for more than 2 to 3 years, or till the first major attack (terrorist or otherwise) against a US contingent, ala Beirut - whichever comes first. It is already losing interest in Afghanistan.

``Oh! & please dont tell me other countries have taken the ``high road``

Actually, most countries have taken the high road. Canada, India and Pakistan to name three. The US threatened and bribed all three. And all three, at great personal risk, (specially Pakistan and Canada) took the high road. Pakistan was ready to vote against the US in the UN. The Prime Minister, feudal as he maybe, openly stated this. That takes a lot of guts, doesn`t it? So much so, that the USA was scared away from presenting a second resolution in the Security Council, because it could not get 9 votes - Pakistan`s being the key one.

``After the obligatory murmurs about taking a ``principaled stand``, Turkey et all are slowly getting more ``cooperative``.``

Surprisingly, Turkey took a hell of a principled stance. I was quite impressed. Its parliament voted (go check the results) to not allow US troops, despite being offered billions. The US wants a democracy in Islamic countries, well the two more democratic ones (Pakistan and Turkey) have provided it with a democratic answer based on the wishes of its peoples, and perhaps against the wishes of its ruling elite - they have voted against the USA. Turkey now wants to get involved because it does not want an independent Kurdish state in Iraq - this is a very unprincipled stance. After the US-Iraq war, there maybe a Kurd-Turk war.

``When did the frikking French suddenly become Islam`s knight in shining armor?! ``

Let me enlighten you about when this happened. The London Economist took a survey of Arabs asking them which three non-Arab countries they hated the most and which they respected the most. Israel, USA, and UK were on the first list. And France and Iran on the second. France and Germany now have 10 million Muslims and only 700,000 Jews. The Muslim population growth rate there is three times that of other Frenchies. I believe the ratio of Muslims in France is close to the ratio of Blacks in the USA. This, and the fact, that the German and French gora populations have heavily protested against the war has made their govts. oppose it,. Schroder actually won his election specifically on this stance, and I think Chirac will win the next one due to his opposition to the war and the Spanish premier`s party may lose their next one, since 80% or more Spaniards oppose this war (though their leadership supports it) i.e. France may not be Islam`s knight, but their population has a conscious, and does see the USA`s actions as unlawful.

``. I`ve heard more than a few Americans---ESP the WW2 vets (who, incidentally are a powerful voting block) lament why their buddys died on the beaches of Normandy.``

Actually, according to the great American author Mr. Gore Vidal (one of my favorites) - a WWII vet himself - (I hope you are not offended if I take his word over your experiences in WWII), 90% of the living American WWII vets are against the current US attack on Iraq. Please read his interviews.

``The Christian right has joined hands with the Jews in an unprecedented way, after 9/11.``

This has been the Christian right`s stance for a while. Perhaps you have just discovered it. It is quite an ironic stance, considering the fact that the Christians in Palestine are on the side of the Muslim Palestinians. And that the Israelis do not distinguish between Palestinian Muslims and Christians, when they kill - priests are beaten up just like maulvis by Israelis. Edward Said and Hannan Ashrawi, two of the most eloquent Middle Easterners and Palestinian spokespersons are Chistian. Infact, if I was the head of Palestine, I would appoint all the Christian Palestinians to the top positions, since they are far more impressive than the Muslim Palestinians, in opposing the Israeli occupation.

Only an idiotic Christian right supports the killing of its own co-religionists by people of another religion? If the US Christian right, under the leadership of Bush, has become the keeper of the flag in the USA (much like the Jewish extremists in Israel under Sharon), then I am afraid the USA and the world is not in good hands.

Hindu right in power in India, Christian right in power in the USA, Jewish right in power in Israel, Muslim right slowly coming into power in any Muslim democratic state paints a very rosy picture for the world. Doens`t it? Are you suggesting the current conflict in Iraq, initiated by the USA, will only make these groups weaker?

``On the contrary, when countries are terrorised, it only makes them hardened & stubborn.``

You need to apply this forumula both ways. This is exactly the logic behind the attack on the WTC. Had the USA govt. not tried to screw around in other countries, the people in WTC would still be alive - not to mention the people in the countries that the US screwed around in. The more the USA attacks other countries, the more hardened their people will become also, and the more they will target Americans. If the USA commits terrorism against other countries, through uniformed personnel, then what would stop people in those countries terrorising the USA through non-uniformed personnel? Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

Iraq and Afghanistan were easy targets, since these two were decimated countries already, under the control of unpopular regimes. Things will really start getting interesting when the USA targets countries like Iran, which can defend themselves to some extent.

In essence, this battle is the USA and Israel vs. the views of the people of the rest of the world. I cannot think of any other war, which one country fought in such an isolated manner. If you do not believe me, perhaps you will believe your own countryman (twice) and what he has written in Newsweeek:

``In fact, while the United States has the backing of a dozen or so governments, it has the support of a majority of the people in only one country in the world, Israel. If that is not isolation, then the word has no meaning.`` (http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0nw=n2d#BODY)

Somewhere in a cave, OBL must be smiling. Because he is getting exactly what he wants, i.e. a Clash of Civilisations. Luckily, European populations have shown a lot of far-sightedness, by siding with the Muslim civilization (in this case) and not with the USA.

If this cycle continues, then I would predict that within the next twenty years, someone will set of a nuclear explosion in New York.

More later.......

Veeresh:

I am in hotels, but in the sales side. Actually, I should say was, because I am making another transition soon. Moving to the ecommerce strategy side, so pretty disconnected from hotel operations per se.

Saminasha #54
The consistent use by leftists of `democracy` as reference point to criticise the US MORE and criticise out-and-out promoters of autocracy like Bin Laden LESS, is a bit inconsistent too I think. I don`t remember leftists protesting lack of democracy in the communist country of the erstwhile USSR, or China or Cuba for example.

China an unashamed autocracy run by its Communist party, does plenty of business with other autocracies such as in Burma, including helping arm dictators such as the North Korean one and Pakistani Zia Ul Haq with nuclear weapons, perhaps Iran too(the anti-nuclear cause keeps being espoused by leftists in spite of this). And the joke is that in China, Islamist-leaning activists are simply beheaded by the state and hey and behold there is nary a squeak from anyone, leftists, Islamists or Western promoters of `democracy`.

Obviously, I support alternate point of views being put out by left leaners or anyone else, but to me the `humanist` leftist polemic looks quite as self-contradictory as the evil capitalist polemic and the we-are-extremists-only-due-to-lack-of-democracy Islamist polemic.

uHHHHM Stuka, what are you, hotelier or PR type? Just curious . . .

Sadna,

I don`t get the impression that left press thinks that the autocracies in the Islamic world are legitimate. What they do tned to continually point out is that while the US consistantly talks about ``democracy`` they install, support and do business with regimes that in no way practice the kinds of democratic actions we do here. Jordan is a good example; dissent is dangerous for the average Jordanian citizen, let alone a Palestinian refugee dweller or a woman....and any honest lefty will acknowledge that...(however-there is also a school of Marxist thought that believes each region or country must evolve into democracy through trial and error...now this is an idea I am still evaluating.)

The other thing to remember is how the US`s interests in human rights and democracy increase manifold before we decide to invade a country to remove a tyrant we installed previously. Who cared about the status of Afghani women before we invaded, in terms of mainstream media?
Who was reporting about the sanction related deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children before Condi Rice came up with this ingenious rationale: ``We need to invade Iraq and remove Hussein so we can life sanctions`` . The left. Now the mainstream media reports these conditions of suffering to convince us that our coup d`etats will improve these conditions when it was our meddling that contributed greatly to them and installed the dictators that oppressed their own people!

Finally, I see very little among the left media that condones extremist Islamic govts-there is the idea that we have no right to impose democracy by the point of a missile-and that is a very different idea.

Samina #47
I don`t like what I have read of him, myself, because he comes down very hard on Islam, I believe. Its harder to dismiss the quotes from prominent leftists in this writeup though and his observation that prominent leftists donot raise a voice against Islamic extremism happens to corroborate my own impression.

I oppose the war due to the threat of potential grievous loss to Iraqis and their national interest and due to the increased threat of `unbridled` unilateralism from the US or any other country in future. At the same time, I don`t want to be blind to why others who oppose the war, do so.

Shankar:

I think Faisaluno has a pretty good grasp on the ground reality. Your post, while factual to some extent, does not really relate to what he is saying.

He says:

``u.s. by aligning so closely with regressive muslim governments, (a relationship arising out of cold war and oil) ``

cannot be denied. It is more useful in the short term for the US to have good relations with leaders who can deliver rather than democracies, though the latter is more fruitful.

``and by being so one sided on the issue of israel has become very unpopular in the muslim world (emotional impact of israel issue has been greatly minimized in u.s. media). ``

Here, I belive , one can keep on arguing about the chicken and egg question. During the 1956 Suez crisis, the US openly came out against UK, France and Israel when they attempted the invasion of Egypt. The US ``pro-Israel`` position came about because the Arab position right through the 60S was limited to the destruction of Israel.

By that logic, all of the west was pro Israel because nobody shared the Arab vision of throwing every Israeli man, woman and child into the sea. The wars of 1967 and 1973 were both designed to destroy the state of Israel, not to revert to any UN sanctioned boundaries.

In the US, the liberals tended to be pro Israel as compared to conservatives. It took the terrorism of the 70s and 80s to shift conservative opinion to a pro Israeli position. Ofcourse, Sept 11 was a turning point because now the christion right has started referring to the Occupied territories as Judea and Samarea, therefore not boding well for the Palestenians.

On a personal note, being a refugee is not a big deal. I am the son of refugees. So is Faisaluno himself. There are refugees in South Asia, The majority of the Israeli population in 1948 was not European, it was Jewish refugees from Arab lands in the middle east. The transfer of poulations is a reality. There cannot be a ``neutral`` US position if it involves changing the very nature of Israel.

BTW, the Indo-Pak thing, I will be very surprised if the levels of Hospitality last another 10 years.

Umm, last sentence of my previous post, I meant hostility, not hospitality..guess my profession caught up with me for a sec.

faisaluno,

On a related note, dont you think its time that the ``rest of the world``, notably the Muslim world, took a step back & reflect why Americans think & behave the way they do?

When push comes down to shove, foreign policy isnt a popularity contest. Its implemented to further a country`s strategic interests. I dont think the US needs to apologise for what it does.

US needs oil--plain & simple---for the forseeable future. They will make sure they get it--by hook or by crook. By taking over Iraq, it will ensure that it has access to oil for the next 100 yrs. Rebuilding Iraq will take a lot of money. Those contracts are going to American companies. Why the heck do you think the French & Russians are squealing their heads off? for HUMANITARIAN reasons?!--dont make me laugh! They are scarted sh*tless that all the sweetheart deals they`ve made ``under the table`` with Saddam will be null & void.

Oh! & please dont tell me other countries have taken the ``high road``! What happened last few weeks has really shown how low countries can go to ``sell`` their votes. For eg, Turkey was the most blatant--asking for 30+ billion dollars. It was plain & simple shameless horsetrading.

Now that the US has shown that its going alone, if need be--see how they are changing their tune. After the obligatory murmurs about taking a ``principaled stand``, Turkey et all are slowly getting more ``cooperative``.Even that piece of trash Chirac is saying that if Saddam uses WMD, France will join the coalition---too late; pal!

When did the frikking French suddenly become Islam`s knight in shining armor?! They are just out to protect their own interests. What France has done has angered America. Bush used that old Texan phrase---its time to show your cards. Yup, the French have shown their cards, alright. When their ass is in the slammer, the French have been known to go crying to the US--not once; but twice in the 20th century. Seems like they have a short memory. But the US doesnt. I`ve heard more than a few Americans---ESP the WW2 vets (who, incidentally are a powerful voting block) lament why their buddys died on the beaches of Normandy.

Its when a country is isolated, it gets to know who its REAL friends are. AS for all the countries who denounce American aqrrogance; look at your own faces in the mirror & ask yourselves how magnanimous their own foreign policy has been .

The US supports Israel not just because of the Jewish lobby now. The Christian right has joined hands with the Jews in an unprecedented way, after 9/11. The Christian right is now openly advocating Isreal`s right to be the guardians & stewarts of the Holy Land. You can thank the ``hero of the Muslim world OBL---& Al-Qeeda`` for that. When conservative Christians & Jews (who, historically have been liberals) have joined hands like this; there is NO way the US will turn its back on Israel. In fact, if Saddam attacks Israel, the US has NO problem with Isreal joining the coalition.

Its WRONG--terribly WRONG, to assume the US will bend to increased terrorism. On the contrary, when countries are terrorised, it only makes them hardened & stubborn. One more major 9/11-like strike & a Crusade will be declared---ofcourse with the usual US spin. But there is NO way that Americans will be blackmailed. They still remember those long lines during the oil embargo---& Americans DONT blame Israel for it!

There is also another trend that Pakistan should be wary of. By sheer numbers & socio-economic clout, Indian Americans are beginning to realise their political strenght in the US. Increasingly, the Indian lobby is getting politically active in the US. They are modelling their political strategy closely with the Jewish lobby. Just this past Nov election, I was surprised at the number of political fund raisers I was invited to, by the local Indo-American community.

I went to one--cos the Congressman was promising to give parity to mental health & was ``pro-medicine``. The dinner hosted by Indian physicians started out talking about health care issues; but soon turned into an anti-Pakistan bashing fest. The Congressman, who knew very little about India, was extremely pleased to note how openly pro-Israel Indians are & affirmed that he will pay special attention to champion Indian causes cos--``the worlds 2 largest democracies SHOULD have common interests``.

I know, these politicians will tell people what they want to hear, ESP during a fund raiser. But by sheer numbers, Indians far far outnumber Pakistanis in the US. The fact that many Pakis are making a beeline to Canada & the Pakistani politically active counterparts are far too few, it makes a difference. Maybe not so much today; but DEFINITELY tomorrow. If India is doing a lot of back office work for all the top US companies; it IS in their interest not to have Bangalore nuked.

If I`ve learnt anything these past few yrs, Indian diplomats have OUTCLASSED Pakistani diplomats in the international arena. Pakistan has a lot of advantages--``on paper``. Its America`s favourite poodle, its easier for Pakistan to get a sympathetic ear from Islamic countries. But, what is happening? NOBODY, including the Ummah is twisting her arm, even when anti-muslim pogroms haqve taken place, even when India & Isreal are openly cooperating in the arms arena.

You guys still think Kashmir is gonna get ``freedom``? India`s diplomats have successfully convinced the world that the Kashmiri sepratists are not ``freedom fighters``, but ``terrorists``--with direct links with Al-Qeeda! Heheh...Pakistan could do well if it hired some wily brahmins in her diplomatic corps:))

It all boils down to ``might is right``---esp when Allah isnt known to intervene in these frivolous matters. Now why in the world does the Islamic world complain so streneously when the axiom ``might is right`` is applied?

Allah is Almighty--so HE is Alrighty--no question about that!...

But almost every leader in Muslim countries grabs power by MIGHT!
If ANYBODY should understand (& appreciate) that axiom--its Pakistanis. Your awam has never challenged the might of your military. Your military has, in turn, behaves like a willing whore in front of Almighty Amrika. But somehow, when the kafir nations apply the rule ``might is right``; it seems your undies get all bunched up & you start squealing for JUSTICE!!!

There was some talk of the French dropping millions of pretzels on the White House (in reference to our Pres.select`s choking on a pretzel incident)...

Sadna,

Daniel Pipes...ugh....my husband refuses to read his work anymore; says its pretty bigotted...

#36 by bharatvaasi on March 20, 2003 7:00am PT

[Like Jay says, and other have said the same thing, ummah can be bought with a few dollars. That is what they are interested in.]

Post 9/11, a few days after Pakistan`s cooperation had been secured in the War on Terror by that famous midnight ``you`re with us or against us`` telephone call by George Bush to Musharraf, when Seymour Hersh, the respected American journalist, expressed surprise at how easily Pakistan`s nod had been secured, an unnamed intelligence officer said that Pakis would sell their mothers for a few dollars. The same applies to the Ummah as well.

stuka:

i beg to differ. ruling classes in muslim countries are much more regressive in comparison to ruling classes in india or even in latin america. only a small number of families have access to levers of powers in countries like saudi arabia, egypt, jordan, iraq, pakistan, indonesia. ruling classed have instituted a system of license raj to protect their interests and this in turn has resulted in a creation of an economic system that is not fulfilling the basic needs of large sections of the population.

u.s. by aligning so closely with regressive muslim governments, (a relationship arising out of cold war and oil) and by being so one sided on the issue of israel has become very unpopular in the muslim world (emotional impact of israel issue has been greatly minimized in u.s. media). mullahs and religious conservatives have exploited this resentment of ruling class and the u.s. to gain popularity and in most of these countries, mullahs will any elections hands down.

i believe that certain members of this administration have identified this threat especially with respect to saudi arabia. these people realize that there is a good possibility that the saudi government might loose power sometime in the future. this will result in u.s loosing control of saudi oil. in part, war in iraq is like an option that will payoff should the saudi government fall from power. democracy in iraq will be allowed to take root as long as pro washington government can be assured.

Hallo... I like the plain old FINGER FRIES name. And... French Toast (Freedom Toast) is also called Bombay Toast. Maybe the Indians make them better? I think Bombay eggs are tastier.

-zensufi-

Faisaluno:

``scene has been repeated many times over the last three hundred years and as long as muslim rulers continue to treat their own people with contempt, the scene will be replayed well into the future. ``

Why point out Muslim? The people of Panama ware not putting themselves on the line to save Noriega either. The same statement..

``scene has been repeated many times over the last three hundred years and as long as rulers continue to treat their own people with contempt, the scene will be replayed well into the future. `` holds true in a universal sense.

Urstruly Sahib,

You mullahs are making a fuss about this war because your enemy has bigger guns. You correctly described the horrors of war in details (post #9). Ironically, here’s a quote from your Maudoodi, which provides the blue print of the foreign policy of an “Islamic state”. Note how supportive he is of pre-emptive, unprovoked wars, carried out in the name of Islam. Enjoy.

“Human relations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action under its principles unless the same principles are in force in a neighboring country. Therefore, both for its safety and the general reform, a “Muslim party” will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone. It should try to expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology, on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.” Haqiqat-e-Jihad (Reality of Jihad); Lahore: Taj Company Ltd., 1964; page 64