Open Letter to Those Opposing the Iraq War

tahmed32 @ # 107:

Since I think you may still be active on this topic, I would like to have your viewpoints on the following:

Applying your line to Afghanistan, it would have been much better for the USA/UK to concentrate on it fully before going into a War on Iraq and introduce democracy by giving people their right. Through democracy, the Pushtoons would have gotten their slice of the pie and would have been satisfied. This would have meant riddance from Talibans for good.

By over-depending on Northern Alliance (which now only comprises former communist Tajiks and Uzbeks) and pro-US Royalists, the USA has marginalized the Pushtoons. The result is that the latter have risen up in revolt and this is developing into a nasty situation. Pushtoons, who will be branded as Talibans soon, will make the job of the US harder as pro-Iran Hazaras and Farsi speaking Shi`as will support them this time around (see Iran has also learnt its lesson - evidence: Iran is not supporting Kurds and Shi`as in Iraq against Saddam).

I believe that the restlessness in Afghanistan will once again pave the way for Talibans in there and in Pakistan. This re-emerging force will destabilize the entire South and Central Asia.

Again, a little smart playing by the USA would have surely made our neighborhood better.

#122 by tahmed32 on April 2, 2003 2:56pm PT

Exactly why are you exhotring the people to wait to see what he does in Iraq. Bush as well as his group of Neocons have been pretty articulate about what they have in plan for the world. Democracy is needed to further their trade is what they say. Not because of their love of democracy. In fact they admit that it was the suppourt of the taryannies in mulsim countries that gave rise to the current situation and now they are trying a different tactic the goal is same to further their trade.

They are doing exactlywhat they have argued for.

What more do you want? Why is it that you overlook the statements of the various neocons inculiding the groups where Richard Perle, Rumsfield and Cheney are members of. Here are groups saying exactly what most of the posters are saying in this discussion. These groups have the current members of the administration in senior positions who are driving this war and have seconded at various times the visions and theories of these neocon policy groups.

What more do you want? why is it that you ignore the these self proclaimed objectives and prefer to analyse what happend in japan or germany or how India suffered or benifited etc..


Is it the fate of the people to be guniea pigs in the experiments of the business/political leaders of US?

If we make mistakes we can correct them if we allow the other to take over us it will take decades or centuries to overcome their grip.

Remember that when Britian took over India it represented 1/3 of the worlds GDP and when they left it was among the poorest. Even beliving in your argumnet for a moment that they left democracy in India (which is a false argument, there was no democracy in India when they left there was colonial rule) they runined the trades/crafts and business of India by their policy which prohibited goods from India being exported and gave a preference to goods from UK to be sold in India. this killed the Indian economic activity which has yet to recover from.

Democracy over seen by an outsider like in Turkey does not mean automaticaly that it people will prosper. In fact weak puppets will be dependent on US aid and will fall open up what ever wealth left of our countries to the US companies. Which is the exact aim of the neocons. Ultimately there will be improvrishment and then anarchy. When things get to hot and unprofitable they will leave leaving a socitey raped. Which is what UK did. Then a few decades there will be another tahamed decriying that US gave democracy and the country collasped into anarchy as soon as they left.

It is sad that some people cant learn from the lessons of history

#125 by tahmed32

I first of all must confess that my Brushing was indeed inappropriate, yet when I thought about why I said what i said i realised that there is a common kinsmanship between people from the same culture. And for someone to so blatantly ignore that kinsmanship angered me. But I except the fact that your have crossed the fence and now whilst you are on the other side, your heart is firmly for the other side as well. It is at this junction that the kinsmanship between us ends, and we become foes. I have answered your article, and you will see it shortly, if the chowk editorial clears it.

Tahmed Sahib,

You get an ``A``. And I hope some of your predictions are correct (even though history has told us another story)

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

Ras #126

Ahhh the infinite wisdoms of Arundhati Roy. That apart, it is really sad that India has some of the highest concentration of commies-gone-wild. The ultra elitist commies think about themselves as the greatest brainiacs in the world. What they don`t realize is, whereever they are, they create biggest sh!!!t and largest number of ``potholes of calcutta``. Honestly, it really beats me why India did`t donate calcutta ( or is it called kaala kutta now ) to cuba yet. I am sure Arundhati Roy will find her ultimate salvation in cuba.

This one is for Tauheed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927849,00.html

sri #111 Thanks for your supportive post. I had written a response earlier, but it appears it found its way to the ``dead letter box`` of chowk. I had written in that post that we should indeed give credit where credit is due. And that in doing so, we are not in anyway diminishing ourselves, as some of our insecure friends on chowk seem to fear. And I also agree with you that we should not give sympathy where sympathy is not warranted (as in case of those black american ideologues - and they by no means represent the many fine black people in this country - who keep trying to make a case to get money for 19th century slavery in the US regardless of the obvious absurdity of their case).
I had found most of the posts to be actually quite thoughtful (even though I did not agree with some of them), with the exception of a few gentlemen who seemed deeply offended that a nonwhite like myself should have the gall to think outside the limits of what is politically correct. To the former set of posters (the vast majority) I had offered my thanks for their contributions, and to the latter my sympathies.
Thanks for writing and really appreciate your supportive post.

saminasha: You never came back with a grade for my thoughtful answers to your questions. Did I pass?

Hxn #105: You had reminded Mr. Wajahat that he had started by painting me with a brush (i.e. namecalling). You had then suggested to him that in the article I had made some specific points and perhaps he should address those points.

I think either Mr. Wajahat is still busy studying history books in order to come up with a well researched response. OR perhaps he finds it easier to use the brush than to use the pen. :-)

PM #116 Yes indeed that is sickening. HOWEVER, coming back to the topic of this article, there is some good news on NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/worldspecial/02CND-AIRB.html

People (at Najaf) rushed to greet them (the US troops) today, crying out repeatedly, ``Thank you, this is beautiful!``

Regardless of what we think of the broader issues involved, I think Saminasha and some other sceptical friends will join me in agreeing that this is indeed the bright side of the picture (and without in any way wishing to ignore the deaths that result from wars). You may even agree that if Bush continues to do what he says is the plan in Iraq, this will be the start of a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

sri #111 Thanks for the support. What your write about people failing to recognize obvious facts of the contributions made by western civilization to the rest of the world is very true. I wish people realized that by giving credit where credit (e.g. to the British for building strong foundations for a democratic society in India, as well as some of the examples provided in the article) is due one does not in any way diminish oneself or one`s own community or nationality etc. Indeed the opposite is true.
Actually there were a number of supportive posts as well (e.g. hxn, nazarhayat, stuka, soldotna, and perhaps a couple of other people), as well as posts that did not contradict the basic points made in the article but pointed to another aspect of the war (deaths) that I had not touched upon in the article (e.g. saminasha, sadna). A few people tried to disprove, but could not in any convincing manner, the facts that I noted in my article (ferozk). And of course we had a few posts where the poster seemed to be in a state of shock at my having said anything good about the US. Except for this last bunch (to whom I offered my sympathies at their pathetic condition), I think the vast majority of posters made for an interesting discussion that enriched the subject (as I said earlier) much more than the article alone would have done.
Thanks again for your post.

ali87

>Dear Sri im sure your ancestors would have made similar conclusion a >few centuries back when the mulsim armies came.

A byproduct of the losers who made that conclusion then is you. The rest were more intelligent.

Saminasha #113

answering questions with questions?...geez. here goes...

Hxn:1. ``To what extent do you think pure anti-americanism (resentment of america) influences the thoughts of those protesting the war?``

S:a. What are the definitions and practices of being ``anti-American`` as agreed upon?

Hxn: my answer: definition of anti-americanism - dislike of america. practices - supporting illogical thinking or actions critical or harmful to america for no other reason then a dislike or resentment of america. example - comparing america to iraq, iran etc. and arguing that america is a bigger terrorist nation. to me, this is an anti-american statement b/c there isn`t any logic to it. the american gov. does not have a policy of paying families of suicide/homicide bombers. further evidence that this thinking is simply anti-american is that many of the people who think this are immigrants to america themselves (meaning how can america be a terrorist nation if they themselves are willing to come here?).

S: I tend to believe that majority of thinking thats critical of America is based on the policies America supports or manifests that have been injurious to the rest of the world. I am not supportive of the Islamacist ideas based on religious/cultural criteria, but the critiques of American domestic/international policy that directly affects the lives of people in other countries in negative ways.

Hxn: ``...and just to avert another question, i would define terrorism as acts of violence that randomly target civillians to communicate a political message or simply out of pure hatred....``

S: There are historians both in Latin America and the US who point to the assasination of Allende in Chile and the torture and genocide of its people so that the US could install Pinochet.
`` Iran and the Shah of Iran
`` Suharto in Indonesia
`` The School of the Americas in Central America
Please look these people and histories up and explain how the US policy that supported these events do not fit the criteria of ``sending a political message``.


hxn: ``... it is inconsistent (and revealing of anti-americanism?) to criticize america for certain actions, while allowing a pass for america`s enemies (i.e. hussein) to commit attrocities (i.e. the UN`s 12 yr failure to remove Saddam)...``.

S: There has been widespread and sharp criticism of Hussein, as there was bin Laden, the Taliban, the VHP, Turkey`s harrassment of the Kurds, ethnic civil war in Rwanda, the South African`s leader T. Mbeke`s bizarre ideas about AIDS. If you look through the archives of the Nation or any other respectable prog. news source, you`ll find that not only are these outlets often the only ones covering the story, but will provide as complete a viewpoint as possible.
While we have little control over the actions of leaders in other countries, we DO have control or a say in who OUR leaders support. I would argue that the anti war and moderate section of the US is tired of the US admin. being involved in short term beneficial deals with brutal dictatorships. That is precisely why we feel we need to influence local and national policy.
Also, can you guarantee that after we invade and bomb Iraq to bits, the Iraqi people will understand this attack as ``better`` than life under sanctions (which the US imposed, incidentally). What if they don`t? Who are we to tell them what to think?


s: ``.... What are the reasons that you imagine people in other countries >resent American economic and political policy? Please keep in mind
>1. South Asia; India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan
>2. Latin America
>3. Central America
>4. Africa
>5. Asia (i.e. Japan, Korea, China, Phillipines)
>6. why do you think economically struggling pops, middle class, >professionals, and the upper classes resent American policy? T(his will >take a bit more work >for you)

hxn:``...lack of understanding. these people find it easier to blame america for their problems then to acknowledge it is they themselves who are largley at fault. india is a case in point example as it has no one to blame (not the brits or the US) for its poverty but itself. ever notice that the most resentment usually comes from impoverished left-wing, socialistic states? no economic freedom - they all immigrate to the US...``

S: I`m sorry, but I cant accept that answer as it is simplistic without any fact as basis. I also find it hard to believe such a generalization applies to everyone mentioned in that list, dont you?

http://mobile.theonion.com/m_onion3912/m_i_should_not_be.html

I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America
By Ellen Dunst

As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It`s one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war. But it is another thing entirely to do it during a war. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood. We must remove the boxing gloves and put on the kid gloves. That is why, in this moment of crisis, I should not be allowed to say the following things about America:

Why do we purport to be fighting in the name of liberating the Iraqi people when we have no interest in violations of human rights—as evidenced by our habit of looking the other way when they occur in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Burma, Libya, and countless other countries? Why, of all the brutal regimes that regularly violate human rights, do we only intervene militarily in Iraq? Because the violation of human rights is not our true interest here. We just say it is as a convenient means of manipulating world opinion and making our cause seem more just.

That is exactly the sort of thing I should not say right now.

This also is not the time to ask whether diplomacy was ever given a chance. Or why, for the last 10 years, Iraq has been our sworn archenemy, when during the 15 years preceding it we traded freely in armaments and military aircraft with the evil and despotic Saddam Hussein. This is the kind of question that, while utterly valid, should not be posed right now.

And I certainly will not point out our rapid loss of interest in the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan once our fighting in that country was over. We sure got out of that place in a hurry once it became clear that the problems were too complex to solve with cruise missiles.

That sort of remark will simply have to wait until our boys are safely back home.

Here`s another question I won`t ask right now: Could this entire situation have been avoided in the early 1990s had then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie not been given sub rosa instructions by the Bush Administration to soft-pedal a cruel dictator? Such a question would be tantamount to sedition while our country engages in bloody conflict. Just think how hurtful that would be to our military morale. I know I couldn`t fight a war knowing that was the talk back home.

Is this, then, the appropriate time for me to ask if Operation Iraqi Freedom is an elaborate double-blind, sleight-of-hand misdirection ploy to con us out of inconvenient civil rights through Patriot Acts I and II? Should I wonder whether this war is an elaborate means of distracting the country while its economy bucks and lurches toward the brink of a full-blown depression? No and no.

True patriots know that a price of freedom is periodic submission to the will of our leaders—especially when the liberties granted us by the Constitution are at stake. What good is our right to free speech if our soldiers are too demoralized to defend that right, thanks to disparaging remarks made about their commander-in-chief by the Dixie Chicks?

When the Founding Fathers authored the Constitution that sets forth our nation`s guiding principles, they made certain to guarantee us individual rights and freedoms. How dare we selfishly lay claim to those liberties at the very moment when our nation is in crisis, when it needs us to be our most selfless? We shame the memory of Thomas Jefferson by daring to mention Bush`s outright lies about satellite photos that supposedly prove Iraq is developing nuclear weapons.

At this difficult time, President Bush needs my support. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld needs my support. General Tommy Franks needs my support. It is not my function as a citizen in a participatory democracy to question our leaders. And to exercise my constitutional right to”nay, my duty, to do so would be un-American.

Man, this is sickening!

On why Perle resigned...
http://truthout.org/docs_03/032903A.shtml

excerpt:

-----------------------------
Perle`s latest deal finds him on the payroll of Global Crossing. The bankrupt telecommunications company is struggling to win government approval for its proposed sale to Asian investors. The Defense Department and the FBI are both opposed to the $250 million deal since it would place Global`s fiber optic network -- which is used by the U.S. government -- under the control of Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong firm with close ties to those freedom loving folks in Beijing.

Enter Richard Perle. Global is hoping he can convince his good buddies in the Defense Department to put their national security concerns aside and let the dicey deal go through. And Perle is clearly confident that he can deliver: In a highly unusual arrangement for a Washington gun-for-hire, he`s agreed to make $600,000 of his $725,000 fee contingent on his bringing home the bacon.

I guess he figures: Hey, I convinced the president to toss aside 200 years of historical precedent and launch a preemptive war despite the trepidation of the majority of the world, how hard can it be to persuade a few government bureaucrats -- including my old pal Rummy -- to look the other way while I do an end-run around the public interest and bank a quick 725 grand? After all, you know what they say about casting Perles before swine.

This sleazy state of affairs has caught the eye -- and turned the stomach -- of Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who has called on the Defense Department to investigate whether Perle`s business dealings constitute a conflict of interest.

During his years in the Reagan administration, Perle was dubbed the Prince of Darkness because of his hard-line stance on national security issues. But I suppose when you toss nearly three-quarters of a million dollars into the mix, the gloomy Prince is more than happy to click on his halogen nightlight and refashion his hard-line into a squiggle.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that Perle`s windfall is coming from the coffers of a disgraced company that was among the worst of the corporate crooks. He`s lining his pockets at the expense of the 10,000 laid-off Global employees who saw $32 million in severance pay wiped out -- and the shareholders who lost $57 billion in equity -- when the company declared bankruptcy.

The hubris is unfathomable. In legal documents drafted in connection with the proposed Global sale, Perle couldn`t have been clearer about what the telecom company would be buying with its fat fee. ``As chairman of the Defense Policy Board,`` declared Perle in an affidavit, ``I have a unique perspective on and intimate knowledge of the national defense and security issues`` likely to be raised by the governmental review of the sale. Knowledge, he pointedly pointed out, ``that is not and could not be available`` to the other lobbyists trying to get the deal approved.

In other words: ``I`ve got Rumsfeld`s ear and access to all sorts of super-top secret information that none of these other jokers on your payroll do. I know more. I can do more. So I`m worth more.`` And he had the unmitigated chutzpah to put this all in writing. And sign it. I guess this is what the Bush administration means by ``transparency.`` And, to Perle’s credit, the whole thing is pretty transparent.

But, of course, when reporters began sniffing around the deal, Perle`s power plumage shriveled up faster than George in the ``shrinkage`` episode of Seinfeld.

First he tried the classic Bush administration Plan A -- the simple, 180 degree lie. He just told reporters that he never signed the statement. That didn’t work, so onto Plan B -- claiming ignorance, admitting that he had signed it but insisting he hadn’t read it. Finally, no doubt realizing this all sounded a bit too much like ``the dog ate my affidavit,`` Perle declared that none of it mattered anyway, since his position on the DPB actually, now that you mention it, had ``nothing to do`` with the Global deal -- so how could he possibly be using his public office for private gain?

-----------------------