Open Letter to Those Opposing the Iraq War

This piece would serve as a good constitution for any country that wants to invade and colonise and occupy another.

Too many inconsistencies in this article and too much of a one-sided view to be taken seriously. Sounds more like a propoganda piece from the US govt. than anything else.

This line of thinking justifies all forms of colonialisms, and basically states that George Bush has a right to be the emperor of the world, even if the world does not want him to be its emperor. It is trying to justify the establishment of, ``democracy`` (read: US occupation) in Iraq without taking into consideration the point of the view of the Iraqis themselves and the point of the view of the world population as a whole - both of the above being against the US led war.

Since Pakistanis (and Indians) migrate to Saudi Arabia and thus, ``trust their life and the life of their children`` to the Saudis by migrating there, hence they should support every policy presented by the Saudis and every foreign policy escapade of the Saudis. Using the logic presented here, since three million Afghans have migrated to Pakistan and no Pakistani has migrated to Afghanistan, hence Pakistan has a right to invade Afghanistan, even if the Afghans and the rest of the world oppose it. And since more Bengalis migrated to Pakistan (and still do migrate) than vice-versa, hence Pakistan had a right to invade East Pakistan.

If one believes in the above-mentioned views, then the USA has every right to invade Pakistan, after Iraq. After all, it did do a good job in Germany and Japan after WWII. And UK has the right to re-colonize India, since it set up a secular democracy there. The fact that the USA has supported every tinpot ruthless dictatorship in the Middle East against democracy seems to be immaterial. And the fact that the British occupation of India resulted in massive racism and disenfranchisement against locals, not to mention the massive famines in Bengal and took a country (India) that had a pretty good sized GDP, in comaprison to the rest of the world, when the British invaded, and put it into a state two hundred years later where it was one of the most illiterate and poor in comparison to the rest of the world, is immaterial also.

Most of all, this does not take into account the human aspect. The hundreds of thousands of refugees that will be created due to this war. And the tens of thousands of people who will die due to bombings and starvations, due to this war. I think people who present the agenda of this article, need to be held morally and ethically responsible for each death that will occur in this war, since they have completely disregarded the views of the people whom they have attacked.

A country and its people have reached the height of arrogance when they feel that everything, including bombing others against their will, is actually an act of goodness. Even OBL`s supporters didn`t have the arrogance to state that they attacked the USA for the good of the USA.

It is extremely important that the Iraqis defeat the US in its aggression. A defeat would be bogging down the USA for months. That is the only way the USA will be rid of its arrogance. That will be good for the USA also, since it will force the Americans to realize that they cannot go around attacking any country they want, and that everyone considers them an occupier and not a liberator. And it will give them the answer to the question they are always asking, i.e. ``Why do they hate us so much?``

bat #8
You write:
1. bush is not the elected president; the election was a sham
My response: The election process was a mess. Agreed. HOWEVER, it was part of the lawful democratic process.

2. britis h raj is not the reason india is a democracy
My response: Dont kid yourself. If the Brits had not taken over India, you would still be kowtowing to some corrupt Mughal emperor in Delhi (unless the Mugahls had been replaced by some other dynasty).

3. what about other nations that were colonies and at present are ideal examples of Undemocratic regimes?
My response: The Brits generally left a middle class behind. In Pakistan, for example, one can hardly hold the Brits responsible for the failings of our politicians and generals.

4. Christopher Columbus is honoured and glorified in the US -how do you justify Columbus` starting the slave trade and consequent genocide? thats the legacy of the americans
My response: I dont justify Columbus for anything other than that he knew how to navigate.

5. why havent the americans been successful in introducing democracy in Afghanistan? they destroyed what little infastructure it had and faltered on their rebuilding commitments
My response: The stated aim of the US entering Afghanistan was not to introduce democracy there. It was to root out the nest of terrorists that had caused it so much destruction on 9/11.

6. you say the anglosaxons are pioneers of development and democracy. How do you explain the extermination of native americans and aboriginal peoples that they are responsible for?
My response: Agreed on the latter. However, that does not change the fact that the anglo-saxons have been at the forefront of introducing democratic processes.

gullu #9 There is nothing substantive I can respond to in your post. Thanks for writing anyway.

Tahmed,

Is there one truth?

nawaid #10 The war is indeed sad. The deaths and suffering of the Iraqis people are indeed sad, as are the deaths of US soldiers (and excuse me if my reference to US soldiers offends anyone on chowk who sees them only as faceless individuals and not as young people whose lives were cut short by the war). These are all fellow human beings, and I pray that the war ends quickly.
However, this does not mean that one ignores facts and takes the emotionally easy way out of blaming it all on US and ignoring certain inconvenient facts. That is why I wrote this article.

rozaiba #11 Actually, it started as a bit of chowk interaction. Then I decided that all the articles were taking a one-sided anti-US view of things, and the other side of the picture needed to be presented as well in the form of an article. I did chuckle a bit at Drumz`s heated post.

Harimau #4 Agreed that after the liberation of Kuwait there was no move towards democratization. But recall: the stated aim of that war was the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, NOT the replacement of the Kuwaiti Emir. And these limited aims were based on compromises needed to conduct the war under the US umbrella and with a broad coalition.
In Iraq, the stated aims are different.

UmerMurtaza #5 The mujahedeen were fighting the Soviet army that had attacked Afghanistan. The Soviets themselves were a totalitarian regime (as clearly demonstrated when they were overthrown by their own people). So it would not be realistic to expect them to introduce a democratic government in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the US contributions to the introduction of democracy across the world goes back 200 hundred years, as I try to explain in the article.
Incidentally, I am not calling the Iraqi army fighters terrorists. They have adopted partisan tactics, as the mujahedeen did when fighting Soviets. Partisan fight regular troops. Terrorists attack civilians.
Thanks for writing.

Studebaker #7 Could you identify any specific spots in the US record that you were not aware of when you applied for immigration to the US, and became aware of after living in this country?
Agreed on Pearle. Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are the fleas that cluster around democracies, and laws need to be tightened further in this area.

tahmed:

i think you started to write this article with a joking intention and sprinkled it with half-hearted arguments (chuckling while writing it down).

What does the war on Iraq have to do with democracy?? Looks like you have had an overdoes of Fox news.

As for your,
``Have the courage to see the truth. Because the truth will be still be there even if you close your eyes tightly shut to it. ``

haha.. get serious.. are u watching too much of X-files.

If Bush read this article he would be willing to make u the new `democratically` elected stooge in Iraq.

isn`t the whole war and its astrocities sad enough that now we are reading this article? Its a typical statesman expression where people think the democracy they have is ideal for whole world and they have authority to spread it all over the world.

Thanks to those who have read my article.

Drumz #3 I would appreciate if you would explain WHY you find this article stupid. I am afraid just your saying so is not going to be enough.
kamala #2 Same response as above to Drumz.
Rozaiba #1 ;-)

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

some facts:
-bush is not the elected president; the election was a sham
-british raj is not the reason india is a democracy
-what about other nations that were colonies and at present are ideal examples of Undemocratic regimes?
-Christopher Columbus is honoured and glorified in the US -how do you justify Columbus` starting the slave trade and consequent genocide? thats the legacy of the americans
-why havent the americans been successful in introducing democracy in Afghanistan? they destroyed what little infastructure it had and faltered on their rebuilding commitments
-you say the anglosaxons are pioneers of development and democracy. How do you explain the extermination of native americans and aboriginal peoples that they are responsible for?

the ``wmd`` argument failed, they came up with ``regime change``, that faltered they invented ``Iraqi freedom``. The sad thing is people buy into these faulty notions.

So, 12 years after the liberation of Kuwait from the iron grip of Saddam Hussein, what kind of democracy do we have there?

Dumbest mistake Saddam Hussein made was not holding free elections in Kuwait 3 months after occupying Kuwait and then walking out and have the US demonstrate its complete hypocrisy by installing the Emir back on his throne.