Open Letter to Those Opposing the Iraq War

#111 by sri on April 1, 2003 7:47pm PT

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

Bravo!!

Saminasha #113

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

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

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

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?).

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. 9/11. accidental killing of civillians in war, while terribly tragic, is not terrorism b/c they were not being targeted, and i would even go as far as to say saddam`s soliders, sent on suicide missions, are not committing a terrorist acts when they target american military (again, targeting civillians is terrorism) - although it is a disgusting tactic that reveals more about the culture and mind set of the people who carry it out these attacks then anything else.

>b. How does a person who is critical of American policy that causes >accute suffering (bombing a marketplace, shooting a car full of women >and children), >political instability (US money to Hussein, bin Laden; >assasination of democratically chosen leaders)-in fact, lets stop here:

didn`t quite understand your question, but i`ll simply say that while there are many fair points about the US to be critical about, 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). btw, as horrible as the killing of women and children at the checkpoint was, given the suicide bombing against american soliders last week, and this van`s failure to stop, i can`t blame these soliders for openning fire. samina, i can`t imagine how awful that was, and i know those soliders will live with that for the rest of their lives, but i don`t know if i would have acted differently. you`ll get no argument from me in acknowledging how horrible war can be.

>c. Do you think assasinating the democratically elected leaders of >another country is ethical behavior? A simple yes or no, please.

No. Out of curiosity, which democraticly elected leaders has America assasinated recently?

>d. 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)

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.

>e. Why do you think that immigrating to America and wanting to >change certain policies are conflictual actions and desires?

I don`t remember saying I thought this, and I don`t. However, I think the majority of the people who immigrate to the US come here b/c they want a better life and feel they can achieve it in this country when they couldn`t in their own. and based on my own anecdotal evidence, despite their actions, they often harbor strong anti-american feelings - that is a contradiction.

>f. How do you propose that Americans who are critical of specific >international policy express their concerns?

Speak out, discuss, debate, vote.

>2. ``...and also, most people agree saddam hussein is evil and treats his >people horribly. is it your belief that the pain and misery accompanied >with this war (as >all war inevitably brings some pain and misery) is >worse then the collective pain and misery the iraqi people have >suffered under saddam and will continue to >suffer in the future if his >regime stays in power?...``

>Please take the time and effort to actually listen and understand that >Hussein was and is internationally reviled among most circles in the >international >community. No one is defending or supporting Hussein. >Take a minute and reread this passage.

Great. As i mentioned before, i know most people are in agreement about this - so why all the lashing out when America, at its on cost, is trying to remove him?

>Good. What the international community (in which I include Americans >who are against this military invasion) wanted/wants is for Hussein to ?>be forced to leave >Iraq through diplomatic pressure. There is ample >evidence showing that Hussein had begun de-escalating what weaponry >he did have.

This is one area where I would agree to disagree - meaning that I can understand your argument (while I believe other parts of your thinking are flawed) but just have a different opinion. Diplomatic pressure has been applied for 12 yrs and nothing happenned. The man has been in power for 20 yrs. he wasn`t moving. now, can you understand and at least acknowledge (if not agree with) my view and give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not a war-mongering, iraqi/muslim hating zealot for believing this?

>What I`d like you to do is to click over to the quotes board and read the >articles I`ve posted in which several policy makers are expressing their >fears of the >possible backlashes against this invasion, the kind of >monetary and diplomatic committment required in Iraq AND >Afghanistan, the possible outcomes of >democracy in Iraq. We are all >afraid that having subjected the Iraqi people to a brutal invasion, any >shirking of rebuilding (all kinds) will be considered by the >Iraqis and >the international community as the stupidest and barbaric kind of >superpower will.

i agree that the US should help rebuild iraq. i will take a look at the boards you mentioned.

>And as you well know, we who want out democratic process back want >an America that is a respectful member of the world community.

i want that too and believe america has been respectful. the problem is that in the UN you have dictorial nations (china, iraq, iran, etc.) being given a voice and telling america not to act but instead rely on that body for its security. its hard to have a meaningful debate with a body that allows libya to chair the human rights committee or calls for the branding of israel (the only middle eastern democracy - by no means perfect - but out of jordan, saudi, iran, iraq, syria, eygpt, and israel, where would you rather live in the middle east on the basis of freedom and standard of living?) as a terrorist state but says nothing about others (again libya??). what do you think of making the UN only for democracies?

now samina, i`ve answered your questions, and you didn`t really answer mine (nor have you really talked about this atricle`s points - does that mean you accept them?). if nothing else, please answer this: in aggregate, which do you think has caused more suffering for the iraqi people - saddam hussein`s regime or america`s war to remove saddam in which civillian casualites have been incurred (by america`s own admission)? please select one.

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

Hxn,

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

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

b. How does a person who is critical of American policy that causes accute suffering (bombing a marketplace, shooting a car full of women and children), political instability (US money to Hussein, bin Laden; assasination of democratically chosen leaders)-in fact, lets stop here:

c. Do you think assasinating the democratically elected leaders of another country is ethical behavior? A simple yes or no, please.

d. 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)

e. Why do you think that immigrating to America and wanting to change certain policies are conflictual actions and desires?

f. How do you propose that Americans who are critical of specific international policy express their concerns?

2. ``...and also, most people agree saddam hussein is evil and treats his people horribly. is it your belief that the pain and misery accompanied with this war (as all war inevitably brings some pain and misery) is worse then the collective pain and misery the iraqi people have suffered under saddam and will continue to suffer in the future if his regime stays in power?...``

Please take the time and effort to actually listen and understand that Hussein was and is internationally reviled among most circles in the international community. No one is defending or supporting Hussein. Take a minute and reread this passage.

Good. What the international community (in which I include Americans who are against this military invasion) wanted/wants is for Hussein to be forced to leave Iraq through diplomatic pressure. There is ample evidence showing that Hussein had begun de-escalating what weaponry he did have.

What I`d like you to do is to click over to the quotes board and read the articles I`ve posted in which several policy makers are expressing their fears of the possible backlashes against this invasion, the kind of monetary and diplomatic committment required in Iraq AND Afghanistan, the possible outcomes of democracy in Iraq. We are all afraid that having subjected the Iraqi people to a brutal invasion, any shirking of rebuilding (all kinds) will be considered by the Iraqis and the international community as the stupidest and barbaric kind of superpower will.

And as you well know, we who want out democratic process back want an America that is a respectful member of the world community.

here is the inimitable acid tongue Maureen Dowd on the crowd and the cabal of hanger ons and PARASITES -- who have BRAINWASHED the Stupido from Texas -- deep in an infantile Oedipal struggle with his own father about his own inadequacies -- acting like a Disoriented Drunken BULL destroying all the values and relationships that the US has assiduously built over the decades around the world and at home.


Warring Tribes, Here and There
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON

The president and his war council did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance in Iraq. And they really did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance at home.

But you can`t have transformation without provocation.

This was a war designed to change the nature of American foreign policy, military policy and even the national character — flushing out ambivalence and embracing absolutism.

As two members of the pre-emptive Bush doctrine`s neo-con brain trust, Bill Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan, argued in a book-length call for battle, ``The War Over Iraq``:

``Well, what is wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?``

So it should not be a surprise that the troubled opening phase of the war has exacerbated territorial and ideological fissures in the administration and the Republican Party.

Democrats are muter than mute.

But a dozen days of real war in the desert has turned the usually disciplined Bush crowd into a bunch of schismatics:

there is internecine warfare between the ``hold out a hand`` Bush I team and the ``back of the hand`` Bush II team.

There`s a feud between Donald Rumsfeld and some of his generals and ex-generals, and animosity between the Pentagon — where Rummy, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith spin schemes for intimidating the world and remodeling the Middle East — and the State Department. Colin Powell and his deputies wince as old alliances shatter and the Arab world seethes, and mutter that there had to be a way to get rid of Saddam without making everyone on the planet despise America.

The Washington Post reported on Monday that moderate Republicans were trying to do an intervention with the president to show him that hawks were giving him ``bum advice.``

The article was clearly referring to the Bush I realpolitik crowd of James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger and Mr. Powell and his acolytes at State.

These pals of Poppy Bush are alarmed that the Hobbesian Dick Cheney — who has been down in his undisclosed locations reading books about how war is the natural state of mankind —

the flamboyantly belligerent Rummy and the crusading neo-cons have mesmerized the president with their macho schemes.

``There is a behind-the-scenes effort by former senior Republican government officials and party leaders to convince President Bush that the advice he has received from Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz . . .

has been wrong and even dangerous to long-term U.S. national interests,`` The Post said.

One former senior Republican official noted: ``The only one who can reach the president is his father.

But it is not timely yet to talk to him.`` This raised the odd specter of the president`s being dragged off from running a war and taken to Kennebunkport for a Metternichian outing in the family cigarette boat.

Mr. Scowcroft and Mr. Eagleburger could pin W. down while Bar steered and Poppy explained the facts of international life.

The Oedipal struggle of the Bushes — a father who was an ambassador to the U.N. and an envoy to China, a globe-trotting vice president and an internationalist president, and a son who was a Texas governor with little knowledge of the world — was bound to be aggravated by an invasion of Iraq not sanctioned by the U.N.

Here was a son acting to correct his father`s ``mistakes`` in the first gulf war, when his father did not think he had made a mistake, but rather a great contribution to history.

Bush 43 is busy trying to do something his dad thought he`d done. The title of Bush 41`s book: ``A World Transformed.`` (NYT)

_______________________________________________
so all this killing and squandering of tax payers money -- for an INADEQUATE SON to PROVE to his ADEQUATE father -- holy cow!

this President needs to be in a Presidential asylum for mentally inane and insane -- ASAP -- definitely by November 2004!

Dear Tauheed Ahmed,

First of all I want to apologize for not reading this article soon enough. Looks like everybody here is out to get you and not even a single supporting voice for you here.

Well I am honestly one of those persons who totally realized the greatness and success that is called America. The losers, third worlders and various other namak harams will continue to hate America while enjoying/abusing it. It is the result of years of their resentment against success. They had it so bad in their home countries that they resented the luxury that western people created for themselves. They think that Americans somehow have an illgotten wealth. They imagine that all the luxuries just dropped out the sky in to the laps of westerners. This kind of thinking obviously consoles the losers and blinds them from their own failures of the highest order.
The same losers who resent America now would have licked the boots of American consul general if demanded so. They sub-consciously remember that it is all sh!!!t back home no matter whichever way they look at it ... politically, economically, living wise, etc,. That`s the reason if you demand them to put their money where their mouth is, they all scurry away like cockroaches.... The greatest danger from these losers is their loathing of success and love for mediocrity makes THE SOCIETY ON THE WHOLE susceptible to same kind of failure the way it is back home.
The muslim immigrants in Britain is a case in point. Inspite of growing up in developed western country this group of people barricaded themselves in a cloud of self pity, loathing white people, violence, un employment etc,. They self ghettoized themselves in to exclusive ``white no go`` neighborhoods.
The losers manifest their hate for success ( interchange it with ``hate whitey `` ) in their love for supposedly oppressed people. Some facts to set those stupid notions right :

1. The so called Native americans DID NOT CREATE the USA the way it is now. In fact Native americans had no nation state when christopher columbus discovered north American continent. The conduct of original settlers is no different from the wars of conquers fought all over the world through the ages. All wars in the those days were much more brutal than settlers conquer of Americas. It is the European settlers that brought the ``Civilization`` and made a powerful nation that we today call USA. If this place were still ruled by Native americans then this place still would be ``multiple countries of Anarchy``. These same points can also be made in the case of Australian aborigines.

2. Now coming to the issue of slavery and the shakedown artist called Rev. Jesse Jackson. How about a deal ? the whites pay ``repamations`` and all blacks re-locate to Africa ? Oh I know the answer .... hell no!!! Blacks know pretty well that they have it going pretty awesome in the land of USA. They fully realize the kind of crapola that is called Africa now. Americans saved blacks countless famines, AIDS, anarchy and genocides. Losers who still whine about the long abolished slavery should realize that nothing comes free and you can only leech a finite number of welfare checks from hard working Americans...

3. About India, if it weren`t for the British, a typical Indian would still be a loyal subject in Golconda fort frequently fighting the Maratha raja to the north and Tipu sultan descendants on the south. His mother would be sick and tired of putting that ceremonial Tilak on his forehead, not knowing if he is going come back fighting other rag tag armies. When not fighting he would be herding cows near a local hilltop.
The british created a cohesive country called ``India`` from a bunch of perenially bickering kingdoms. Not to mention Indian railways, indian postal, indian army, Indian every-western-style-institution. Oh, last but not the least, the same british level ``A`` style education system, that all of us are so proud to flaunt in the land of USA.

4. The same goes for the land of Arabia ( Ottoman empire ). It is the british influence that made atleast some of them land in high tech Silicon valley ( I know two guys who made it big there ). It is british influence that made them establish atleast some western style institutions. If it were not for the Anglo saxon inventions and appetite for vehicles, Arabs never would have it so good with their oil.

5. All the uppity south east asian America hating countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, china etc..... owe their illgotten wealth to the evil American capitalists who set up their manufacturing shops in those countries. The evil Americans can easily move their shops to India but as usual the infidels seem to be having some evil intentions in Indonesia, Malaysia, china etc...

hmmm.... the third worlders never cease to amaze me with their contradictions

We still don`t know if this war will bring democracy or not... but Americans have brought ``free market`` in one area controlled by them.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/71786p-66584c.html

``````The worst ruler in world history is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon said on Monday.``

it IS funny -- it`s uncanny -- it was the same argument Hitler used attacking USSR -- the worst ruler in world history for him was Stalin --

and that worst ruler turned out to be not only the savior of his own country -- it saved the behinds of Britain, France and the United States by whipping the asses of the Axis powers in Europe and Japan.

what the world is saying rigtht now -- is that the worst ruler in world history is George Bush the Junior attacking a country that did not provoke war -- invading and attacking like Hitler -- another worst ruler Saddam Hussein.

think about it -- it IS funny -- if only it wouldn`t have been SUCH a murderous affair.

now for some comic relief:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1503&u=/afp/20030329/ts_afp/iraq_war_civilians_030329211652&printer=1

``CENTRAL IRAQ (AFP) - Iraqi civilians fleeing heavy fighting have stunned and delighted hungry US marines in central Iraq (news - web sites) by giving them food, as guerrilla attacks continue to disrupt coalition supply lines to the rear. ``

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2482845

``The worst ruler in world history is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon said on Monday.

``The Iraqi people will be free of decades and decades and decades of torture and oppression the likes of which I think the world has not ever seen before,`` Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told a Pentagon news conference.``

ahmedzai #101 It is always a pleasure to read your reasoned and good-hearted posts. And thanks for the compliment on staying active on this board (although admittedly the post I just sent to wajahat isnt exactly designed to be particularly pleasant or complimentary. I am sorry to have strayed from the main topic here.
I have in fact enjoyed reading through the various responses, and indeed the discussion has resulted in fleshing out the subject much more than the article alone would have done. That is the great thing about an interactive board like chowk: the writer does not simply write an article in a newspaper or someplace, with the reader having no place to point out deficiencies, to ask questions, or to provide additional light to the topic. For this I really appreciate everyone who has taken the time to write posts to this article.
Although a panjabi myself, I have spent a lot of time growing up in NWFP, and had pathan friends in school and college. My father (who recently died) also married a pathan lady after my mother died, so I had chance to see you a pathan family from up close: and I think you guys are the greatest. :-)

wajahat # 103

you are the one who painted tahmed with a brush by implying he has a slave mentality just b/c he supports america. he made some pretty specific points in his atricle as to why he feels the way he does. why don`t you address them?

saminasha # 95

``Does questioning American international policy viz invasions make one an anti American?``

fair question. i agree with tahmed`s answer. now some questions for you:

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

and also, most people agree saddam hussein is evil and treats his people horribly. is it your belief that the pain and misery accompanied with this war (as all war inevitably brings some pain and misery) is worse then the collective pain and misery the iraqi people have suffered under saddam and will continue to suffer in the future if his regime stays in power?

you can probably guess my thoughts, but i`m honestly interested in yours.

US is a theek thaak baighairat i.e. immoral nation - now when it needs moral support from rest of the world for what it is doing in Iraq, it suddenly remembers that there had been severe human rights violations going on in India last year, which by another name is also called genocide.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/01us.htm

similarly, people there suddenly begining to remember after two years also that Paksitan has a nuclear research lab producing bombs and missiles. What a timing.

wajahat #103 I dont mind discussing an issue in an open and rational manner - and normally, one reaches conclusions that are often more mature and realistic than what either party started with. Unless of course one or both parties refuse to recognize that they are not gods and their opinions are based on limited considerations, personal emotions and so forth.
Your first post clearly reveals that not only are you closed to different views, you are find it inconceivable that a nonwhite man should think outside the bounds of what is ``politically correct``. Thus, in your first post, and also in your second post to a lesser extent, you inadvertantly but quite clearly displayed the mindset of someone who sincerely believes that nonwhites are inferior to whites and denies them the right to free thinking that he would have never dream of denying a white man.
I am not playing with words here, and I am not a lawyer, rest assured, but I have lived long enough to recognize such behavior from a mile away. Reality bites if you live in your own paradise, and what I am providing you is a glimpse of reality. So spare me your injured feelings about Iraqi deaths: those are real life tragedies, and you should be ashamed of now trying to hide behind them rather than facing your problem. I have nothing more to add. Thank you for your posts.

You must be lawyer who obviously likes to play with words yet the broader picture remains illusive and unillicited. I do not consider myself inferior from anyone, but I can refer to a Historic point of argument, the traces of which remains present in some people. As you say that I unknowingly have an inferiority complex, or I might just say that I disagree with you and just as you have painted me with a certain type of brush, I have indeed done the same. Yet the truth remains that you are defending immorality and unjust human behaviour. You can easily oversee that , I cannot and will not.

Tahmed 32:

In addition to admiring your ability to go where no one has gone before, I also appreciate your level of interactivity on this board to defend what you believe. It is a good example for other contibutors, who post artilcles and then disappear or interact too little to be of any meaning.

I regret for hurting any feelings, but once a Pathan always a Pathan - jo samajh main aey ga to kahay ga ;)

wajahat #100 Other people have already pointed this out in posts below, and I have already acknowledged (see my post #82) that the article does not address this aspect of the war. Your post does not indicate one way or another whether you really care about these real life tragedies, or whether these are simply a means for you to score points. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Even though your previous post indicates certain personality weaknesses: thus, in referring to americans as ``Masta`s`` above, having unwittingly exposed your mindset on matters of race in your previous post (as explained in my response), it is clear that you are being more sincere than even you probably realize.
As before, my sympathies. It must be hard going through life thinking of oneself as being of an inferior race. And hiding this problem even from yourself, but betraying it so easily on chowk.