Baghdad Lullaby

Geneva Convention

Just happened to come across this Siraiki poetry in this regard.



saaday apne munafiq taiday naal han
varna kaafi ha Saddam taiday keetay

jay kar aj vi zameeraaN ku jaag aa vanjhay
taidee maghrooree da sar qalam thee vanjhay



[translation: If hypocrites among our ranks didn`t side with you, just Saddam would have been enough for you. Beware! The awakening of slumbering conciense. The awakening may smite your pride].

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

faisaluno #24 Could you please state your point directly?

Apparently, the liberation parades by Iraqi civilians that every supporter of this war was pointing out, haven`t occured. Infact, the Americans forces are actually facing some resistance in the cities. They are definitely not being welcomed with parades.

These liberation parades are the basis of the latest argument presented to justify this war. If it becomes clear that the Iraqis may hate Saddam, however they hate the US equally or much more, then I am afraid Iraq is in for a long and terrible ride. At that point, hopefully all the supporters of this war will at least apologize.

The only Iraqis I have seen supporting this war are the ones in exile in the US, waiting to get into power in Iraq (and the Kurds). Other than that every Arab I have talked to and every Iraqi I have seen on TV is totally against the US led war. Infact, it seems like the only people who want Iraqis to be liberated by the Americans are Americans.

There was one Iraqi who I saw on Canadian TV who did support this war. However, even his argument was that the US was an evil, but a lesser and weaker evil than Saddam. Hence the Iraqis would eventually get rid of the US easier than they could get rid of Saddam.

Do the people who are arguing for the liberation of Iraq by the USA have any statitistics and opinion polls from Iraqis, on which they are basing their arguments? I have yet to see any such opinion poll.

tahmed sahib:

looks like your wishes are about to come true:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=275282&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

``After the war in Iraq, Israel will try to convince the U.S. to direct its war on terror at Iran, Damascus and Beirut. Senior defense establishment officials say that initial contacts in this direction have already been made in recent months, and that there is a good chance that America will be swayed by the Israeli argument.``

and the profound anguish your president went through before deciding to liberate iraqis:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html

``F___ Saddam. We`re taking him out.`` Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America`s Middle East allies. Bush wasn`t interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room.``

tahmed #22

to make things more clear, i should have said that the good general will never support it, as he knows his turn could easily come next based on the principle of ridding a country of dictators... the same would probably be true of most of the dictators i.e. most of the Muslim world...

#20 by stuka:


thank you friend for bringing this up here…here are my unequivocal thoughts on this:


I abhor and condemn the murderers…you know my views and have repeated it on many occasions in the past here…loss of even one life in these extra-judicial scenarios is senseless, counter-productive and must be condemned…my prayers for the dead and those left behind to mourn…

(a cautionary note: yes we know the perpetrators are not found or tried and depending on whom you listen to they could be from here, there, or there and here)

…I think I am in a vocal minority (from over there)…who vehemently opposes such extra-judicial acts…and recently the more I think the more convinced I become that isi is beyond the control of this government…they are a power unto themselves…even though by charter they are supposed to take their orders from the government…

now…more than ever…concerned Pakistanis have to think deeply to rid their country of the occupying army and its jayaz or na-jayaz aulad isi…

rgds,

t

Romair #15 So much anger over use of the term ``targetted bombing``! Tsk! Tsk!
On the avoidance of civilian casualties: Glad to know you army boys were so thoughtful as to risk your own lives avoiding civilian casualties. Of course, there were some unavoidable accidents, like the few thousand Bengali women who accidentally were raped in 1971 (no doubt they seduced our innocent boys), the Bengali students and teachers who were killed at Dacca University (no doubt they deliberately came in the line of fire). And somehow none of these could be brought to trial, bringing great honor to the entire nation. And need I mention the proxy wars with in Kashmir where we fight like real men (i.e. we send those half-brained mullahs to go and kill civilians in Kashmir). The entire nation stands in awe at these modern day Salahuddin Ayubis, the knights of chivalry and honor.
Maybe we ought to send these Yanks over to Pakistan to attend ethics classes and learn honor from General ``Tiger`` Niazi and ``Whipping`` Zia. (I wont discuss the Indian Army which you say also has risked its lives to avoid civilian casualties, although I do remember my brother telling me of the civilian railway shed near Lahore that was hit by a bomb from an Indian plane and he and his fellow medical types spent the next few days trying to put the body parts of these civilian humpty dumpties together again.)
Second: On targetted bombing. By this I mean the targetting of bombs with the help of Global Positioning Satellites that have rendered even the laser guided bombing (since these are more accurate and are not blinded by smoke) of the first gulf war out of date. Nothing to do with ethics or politics as you seem to think. Only technology.

ally #18 Does one have a different set of principles for one`s own country than one does for another person`s country? If replacement of dictatorships with democracies is good, then it is good not only for Iraq but for Pakistan as well. Of course, our generals are a lot smarter, and know when to step aside or step down or share power and so forth. Saddam only understands something when he is hit on the head with it.

ferozk #11 You are correct in pointing to (a) the deaths and destruction caused by war, any war; and (b) the damage done to international institutions (UN in particular) by this war.
These are of course the basic objections to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action. I think Bush is sincere in his formulation of this doctrine for the following reasons:
(a) In Texas, he was a strong ``law and order`` governor. This emphasis on law and order I think is rooted deep in US history: the Wild West was tamed by gun-toting sherrifs; waves of immigrants from time to time introduced gangs (e.g. the irish gangs on the 19th century, the mafia in the 1930`s), and the US took pre-emptive action that in many ways was not dissimilar to the approach taken to the war against terror (e.g. the shoot-out in Chicago that ended the dominance of the mafia in that town once and for all).
(b) the massive destruction and deaths caused on 9/11 was clearly a pre-emptive attack by terrorists on the US.
One may argue about the mishandling of the UN process, and throw in the additional motivation of trying to end the mid-east dispute once and for all by placing a strong US presence and a pro-US Iraq in the area. (The oil argument, most often presented on chowk, is probably the flimsiest one and reflects little understanding of the economic situation).
Based on the above, I think Bush tends to get a bad rap. In particular, given the lax manner in which law and order is treated in Pakistan (and the resulting misery caused to people in Karachi and other places), I think we should perhaps appreciate rather than ignore this emphasis on law and order in the US.
At least these are my deep thoughts on the subject. :-)

tahmad #8: ``the facts of the targetted bombing in Iraq (a totally different ball game),``

One always hears this comment about US bombings by certain Americans, not to mention the odd Pakistani-American.

Armament nowdays is infinitely more powerful than in WWII, hence bombing today is far more devastating.

Could I ask you your sources that suggest targetted bombings by the USA? Could I also ask you to explain the term, ``targetted`` bombings? Also, are you aware of the tactics, armaments, flight profiles, types of bombs and their accuracy ratios, etc. that are used by the USAF? Similarly, are you aware of the number of people that are actually killed by these bombings (for example in the last Gulf War, 100,000 to 200,000 is the direct estimate given)? Do you consider this targetted? This number is larger than the combined people (Indian and Pakistanis) killed in all the Indo-Pak wars. It is also near the figure of all the Americans killed in WWII.

And considering the fact that the primary aim of all such wars carried out by the USA is to minimize losses of its own soldiers (stated by US public opinion poles), how exactly can that be done while doing targeting bombings? Targetted bombings will lead to exactly the opposite, i.e. more US pilots and ground troops deaths, not less.

When India and Pakistan fought military battles (not civilian ones like Kashmir, Bangladesh etc.), to the best of my knowledge, they only targeted military installations. They did not bomb Lahore, Pindi, Delhi and Agra. Infact, I lived smack in the middle of a military station in Pakistan. And I remember Indian planes coming in and targeting only the runway and aircraft hangers - not even the housing inside the military stations. The Pakistani cities and even the housing areas of Pakistani military bases have survived two wars, almost unscratched.

All the Pakistani pilots I have talked to (perhaps NazarHayatKhan can provide more detailed info) have told me that they (and the Indians) went out of their way to avoid civilian targets, even risking their own lives.

Teh above is targetted bombing. This too, in a situation where neither country had air superiority and hence the pilots were under threat, and thus it was difficult to do targetted bombing. The US has complete air superiority in its wars. To the extent that their isn`t a single plane to challenge them in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Yet it bombs cities.

What is the need to bomb cities in Iraq, like Baghdad. Why not just bomb military installations? The reason is that the US needs to cripple the other country`s infrastructure to such a degree that when the ground invasion is done, not a single US soldier is killed. To do this, it has to wipe out the electrical, water, sanitation, industrial etc. complete structures of the whole country. It also has to do so without getting a single one of its pilots killed by anti-aircraft guns.

In the process, the civilian infrastructure is decimated also. The pilots do not come in low-level to target their bombs. They rely completely on technology from mid to high altitudes (some aircraft like B-52 cannot even do targetted low level bombings). Any bomber pilot (and I know quite a few Pakistani and American ones) will tell you that even if (a big if) the pilot tries his best, in such high intensity mid to high level bombings on targets in densely populated cities (which are far more difficult to target than runways etc.) a great deal of inaccuracies will occur.

The US armament intensity is extremely high. In the last Gulf War, it flew over Iand bombed Iraq for seven hours straight on many occassions. Was this for seven hours of targetted bombings? This cannot even be compared to WWII. Infact, even in Vietnam War the US dropped greater tonnage of bombs around Khe Sahn alone, in three months than it had dropped on Japan during all of WWII.

If you have detailed information (not of the CNN variety) proving that the US actually indulges in targetting bombing (which is the opposite of worrying about US casualities) then kindly provide the information. Otherwise, I fail to understand the point of justifying attacks on civilians without even taking the trouble to do some research.

When one assumes someone to be extremely perfect, one suggests that even, ``Their sh*t doesn`t stink.`` From your argument, in case of the USA, even when it decides to bomb other countries which have in no way threatened it, even, ``US bombs don`t kill civilians.``

In my opinion, anyone who actually believes that the US bombing strategy is to minimize civilian casualities, when it is actually to minimize US air and groud troops deaths, even if it leads to more civilian deaths (one can do one or the other - not both), is arguing along the same lines as those who say that Jews carried out the WTC attacks. Such people are in a state of denial.

This kind of support for the USA is no different than the hero-worshippers of OBL, i.e. their conviction about a leader or concept or (misguided) cause is so strong that they are even willing to justify or attempt to minimize the numbers of the deaths of civilians. There should be a limit to hero-worship. I knew there were people who thought, OBLs` sh*t doesn`t stink. I am amazed to find out so many who think the same about Bush.

semipreciousme #12 Agreed fully.
I dont think any democracy likes to go to war if it can avoid it, given that most people see things the same way you do, and thus try to avoid bloodshed, and thus demonstrate on the streets and otherwise try to pressure their representatives (as is happening in the US). Dictators on the other hand dont mind war: typically, these are ruthless men who live by the sword and die by the sword. It is for this reason that they say that democracies never fight one another. They only fight dictatorships, either in defense or pre-emptively (as I discuss in my post to ferozk).
Let us pray for the day there is democracy all over the world, particularly among muslim countries. I suspect we will then find peace in the middle east (and of course the Israelis would also need to revert to the mindset of people like Ben-Gurion, who sought accomodation with the Arabs, for this to happen).

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they also stated it was to liberate the country and to remove a bad leader (of course the actual cause was different). That set into motion a cycle of, ``liberations`` and bombings, that have ruined the country. The same is going to happen to Iraq.

There is only one long term way to remove a dictator, and that is through a popular internal revolt, i.e. one carried out by the people thorugh direct street power, or through their own military (not US military) etc. Those who think this is not possible, need to look at Iran, Indonesia and Phillipines (not to mention Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif). The Shah, Suharto and Marcos were removed by the people. The same would happen in Iraq eventually, if the people weren`t starved by sanctions.

The future of Iraq is going to be along the lines of Afghanistan - not the lines of Iran, Indonesia and Phillipines. This decline has already started since 1991. Iraq, a country Pakistanis used to migrate to (even when Saddam was ruling), is now a basketcase. This is due to Saddam and due to the USA. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge both parties` faults is being biased.

Whenever the US interests in Iraq are contradictory to Iraqis` in Iraq, the US will always support its own interests. Thus, I am thus convinced that the more the USA gets involved in Iraq, the more it will screw up the country - much like what the Soviets (and Americans - not to mention Pakistan, Iran, India etc.) did in Afghanistan. The ultimate sufferers are the people of Iraq.

Interestingly, Shah, Suharot and Marcos were strong US allies, when they were overthrown by their people.

Bina

very nice piece... thank you

tahmed #8

Both the Turks and the Pakistanis would have been far better off if their respective governments had whole-heartedly supported this war which (whatever the polticis behind it) is undoubtedly has the very positive result of getting rid of a cruel dictator and giving the Iraqis a chance to be a free and normal country again.

hmmm, Musharraf may not be cruel (publicly that we know about) but most def is a dictator... remember what goes around comes around...

``The bombardment of Baghdad, broadcast live on German television, has brought back harrowing memories for many elderly Berliners who survived the horrific siege of their city during World War Two. ``

Wow!! Does the smell of freshly baked bread remind them of the ovens of Sobibor and Dachau?

PMishra:

``Indian Police Say 24 Hindus Killed in Kashmir
By REUTERS


Filed at 9:41 a.m. ET

NADI MARG, India (Reuters) - Suspected Muslim militants shot dead 24 Hindus in Indian Kashmir, including a two-year-old and a four-year-old girl, in a raid which could stoke fresh tension with neighboring Pakistan.

Police and witnesses said militants wearing army fatigues lined up and shot the victims, who included 11 men and 11 women, on Sunday night after ordering them out of their homes in the remote village of Nadi Marg.``


Habe you not understood this basic fact yet? Some victims are more innocent than others. The victims to American weapons are especially more innocent than others.

Pakistanis will not write poems for Hindu dead; vice versa Indians for Pakistan (let us be honest here)

But both Indians and Pakistanis retain their sense of humanity for Iraqis, even if the killing is unintentional, and humanitarian aid follows. Those victims are especially poignant and articles and poems are written. If this is not a double standard, what is?