An Answer to the Pro War Surrealists

dost-mittar ( #46 )

that ``entertaining piece`` by Bill Davidson picked up Saminashah is from a white supremacist ( neo nazis) website. Looks like Saminashah is a regular visitor to that site.

We all saw some happy people after the ``liberation`` of Baghdad. There would be some happy people in New Delhi and Karachi, too, if those cities were ``liberated`` also. What would that prove?
Compare the crowds in Baghdad to those in Dhaka in 1971, Tehran in 1979, Manila after the ouster of Marcos, Berlin in 1989, Buchaarest in 1991, Belgrade in 2000.....I could go on. There is a spontaneity of joy and celebration of a home-grown overthrow of a tyrant which is missing in the Baghdad scene. Foreign invaders with suspect motives have the bad odour of occupiers even if they do end the tyranny of a dictator as vile as Saddam.
Here is an entertaining piece for those of you who missed it on ``voices``, posted by Saminash:
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
PEACENIK
By Bill Davidson

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security
Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate
Security
Council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in
violation
of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It`s not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq
could
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun
could well be a mushroom cloud over New York.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had
no
nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for
attacking
us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn`t virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves,
didn`t
we?

WM: That`s ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that
has
an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry
lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is
the
one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn`t our
ambassador
to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of
Kuwait?

WM: Let`s deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell
its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden
himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving
a
partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn`t the point of invading Afghanistan to kill
him?

WM: Actually, it`s not 100% certain that it`s really Osama Bin Laden on
the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily
be
a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?

WM: You`re missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in
Iraq.

PN: But didn`t that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn`t that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate
student
paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren`t those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from
inspectors...

PN: Wasn`t that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector,
Hans
Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it`s not their JOB to find
evidence. You`re missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441
threatened ``severe consequences.`` If we do not act, the Security
Council
will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade
Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who`s that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its
will
by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it`s the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn`t elected by voters. He was selected by the
U.S.
Supreme C...

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they
were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is
about
being a patriot. That`s the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are
still
unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade
to
an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist,
we
must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach
the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND
threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That`s a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren`t you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow
the
inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,
and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of
millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn`t a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don`t these change the
way
we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has
called
on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now
face
the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as
find
a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By ``world``, I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By ``United Nations`` I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France,
with
all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It`s time to boycott
their
wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.

Story: A DISCUSSION WITH AN IRAQI AMERICAN WHOSE FATHER WAS MURDERED AND MOTHER WAS JAILED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN
As Saddam Hussein`s regime falls, Democracy Now! talks to an Iraqi America man who opposed the war although his family had been brutalized by Hussein. Salam Al-Rawi`s father was tortured and murdered. His mother was jailed.

As for Iraqis around the world yesterday was a day of mixed emotions for Al-Rawi. Regime change in Iraq had occurred but questions about where Iraq heads next remain unanswered.

Salam Al-Rawi, Iraqi American businessman who owns restaurants in New York.
www.democracynow.org

Feroz,

Well done. And it seems EVERYTIME an American who is against the BA`s international policy in the Middle East, we must find a million ways to explain to war mongerers why it is a democratic performance to support diplomatic methods. Why?

Also, what are your thoughts on Syria, Jordan and Iran as potential invadees?

Hxn,

1. About 10 years ago, I participated in a march on Washington at which I marched behind a group of Kurds who were trying to bring attention to the murder of their people. Where were you? Why were you not upset then? Did Hussein`s dictatorship become a ``moral`` and ``democratic`` issue for you in the last year? Why?

2.When Hussein was reported to be raping Iraqi women-why were you not bringing this up on Chowk? I was. I dont remember you writing one word against Hussein. Why not?

3.When there was a debate about a year ago on Chowk of the sanctions and the 500,000 children who had died as a result of US administrative and Iraqi dictatorship-where were you? Why was the plight of the Iraqi people not meaningful to you then?

4.When I wrote that the US was continuing to bomb Iraq over the last 3 years-where were you then? Did you think that this ongoing bombing was effective esp during sanctions? Was Iraqi life not important then?

Its tedious for some of us who have studied and kept up with global politics and the VARIETY of positions surrounding these issues to have EXPLAIN these issues to people who do very little to educate themselves about all sides of these matters-you should be doing a great deal more critical thinking and a lot less easy potshotting-that ability to see ALL sides of an issue is a valued function of prof. intelligence.

In the last post you wrote on another board, I had asked you several questions on historical and political issues-and you had not done any work to educate yourself on them. Instead, you mimicked every point and tried to skew them to suit your purposes. Should you write another post to me, I will not respond unless it is apparent in your post that you have done some reading from a diversity of critical sources.

wajahat #39 So we are in agreement that the primary responsibility for the spread of aids rests with the individuals who carry out such acts.
On the role of the large corporations: While I agree that they need to operate within a strong legal and accounting framework (of the kind the US is striving for in the post-Enron era), I would not go so far as you to call them evil. They are just a form of human organization, and over the past two centuries have changed the face of the earth in terms of providing a level of material comfort to ordinary people across the world. In particular, medicine produced by drug companies saves lives every day: the average human life-span before modern medicine (which in turn largely rests on corporations) was 40 years. Today it is over 70 years. This indeed has been the reason for the population explosion of the past fifty years: death rates have come down substantially, thanks in large part to these corporations.

On Anti-West Ideologues: You are entitled to your views in opposing the Iraq war, and that of itself does not make you an AWI (Anti-West Ideologue). You are entitled to your views as long as you are prepared to substantiate them with reasoning and are open to a different perspective and not sticking to one given viewpoint. And you have certainly demonstrated such open-mindedness in the AIDS discussion here. I was just reflecting on your earlier interaction with me (on my article) where you had some strong words to use for me for writing an article that discussed why the US has in fact been the leading nation in replacing kingships with democracy, and in serving as an inspiration for democracy around the world. Such a reaction to me indicated to me that I am dealing with an ideologue (aka a close-minded person). HOWEVER, if you tell me that I do not become labelled as ``being on my knees to the west`` (as Ferozk graciously put it) because I happen to share the joy of the Iraqi people who are hugging and kissing American troops and blessing Bush for delivering them from Saddam, or because I think the US military deserves great praise for the way it conducted itself in this war, then I will say I was mistaken and you are no ideologue of any kind. You may of course hold a different view, and that is fine, as long as you are prepared to discuss it in an open and civilized manner.

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

``Humanity cannot exist peacefully under servitude, it is not a natural state for any human being to exist in``

Ofcourse it can and it does - you may wish it were not the case but it is.

Did it not exist peacefully under Saddam? No? then what`s the problem? Oh that was hypocracy, so we don`t live in a perfect world and our choices are not limited to perfect and not perfect -
Is this a great war of liberation? No, not primarily, but if it`s a by-product why not welcome it like Iraqis have? That would be hypocracy?

#29 and #28

Accurate statements Ali and the facts that you state in your article 28 were new to me thanks for sharing them with us.

Keep Posting :)

tahmad #33

I dont for a moment disagree with on the Causes of the Aid virus. The attitude of the people is the first and foremost reason behind aids virus, BUT as the article pointed out, this is not about ``why`` the aids virus exist. But the fact that the current epidemic which is taking new heights in Africa cud have been contained if a few filthy rich corporate men in washington and other American states felt that they could give up a few extra millions to help a continent. but they did not , the article showed that are we suppose to trust these men to rule and govern us and think about civic improvements, the only improvement that the corporate engine behind american politics is worried about is improvements to its bottom line. And by the way France and germany are western nations but they r against this whole bigotist war, so you cannot say that I am anti west, viva la france....

Re: hxn

I would have to agree with you and that is, ``truth hurts``. However, the question is, what is the truth? If you take the reasons for invading Iraq and the reasons for fighting the war, I would simply say that Pakistan makes a better case than Iraq. Pakistan should have been the first and not Iraq. Pakistan is more dangerous to world peace than Iraq. Why are the Americans not liberating Pakistan and Pakistanis, who have suffered for the last 55 years? Hypocricy?

Hxn, I am a Pakistani and I have been influenced by the history of my country and that history has always been a justification of power and might. It has been a documented history of ignoring the law and making the law legalize illegal power. I am a child of martial law; born in 1965 and I grew up under another martial regime and that of Zia-ul-Haq. Between these two martial law regimes, I lived under the civilain martial administration of Z. A. Bhutto. I have never seen law and justice ever prevail over power and might and this indoctrination was so effective, that as a child I supported Pakistan`s actions in events, which would originate the 1971 war and I supported the military action in Baluchistan and I was a firm advocate and disciple of might is right policies.

In a proverbial sense, my eyes where opened, when we moved to Ottawa in the early 1980s. It was in Canada that I truly learnt what law and justice and rights meant and their value. Later on, when I went to study in the United States, I opted for pre-law, because law and its protection of the weak and the mechanics of an impartial law, which acted as a membrane protecting the society, really fascinated me. I will also be indebted and grateful to the Americans and the Canadians for telling me the difference, between right and wrong and educating me. In Pakistan, I was in an intellectual coma and it was only when I left Pakistan, that I realized, my own ignorance.

Throughout my life, I was denied access to a fair and just law and was taught to believe that might is always correct and it is a sin to question the excerise of naked power. The Americans and their legal constitutional history of the United States taught me that laws are for our own protection and when we erdicate laws in pursuit of justice, we will not get justice, but anarchy in which the rule of the jungle and the rule of the strongest will prevail. It was from this tradition that I ended up studying international law and I am, to this day remain, devoted to its cause. International law is a moral law and it has no real power, but the power of a conscience and it only works, when it is respected. International law, more than anything else, seeks to enhance cooperation between states and to avoid unilateralism in state behaviors. International law, like the ordinary criminal law or constitutional law, is for our own protection and its protects us from the ravages of a political/power Darwinism.

I am not against this war, because I appease totalitrianism, but because I believe in the principle of justice and that, the law should be common to all and not specific to one. I have supported every action of the United States` government from the bombing of Libya in 1986 to the Gulf War in 1990-1991. I have supported military actions in favor of international law, because they were designed to prevent the paradigms from breaking up into chaos. I still believe in the United Nations, even though it has been gravely undermined by the actions of the United States; a country that was one of the founding fathers of ithis nstitution of collective security.

I had to balance my idealism within the limits of realism and I always convinced myself that the actions of the United States, though they were flexing the spirit of the international law, were mostly right and would prove benefical in the long term, even though the immediate consquences were not going to be good. I still am of the opinion that United States does stand for good, like that ``city on the hill`` and I still cherish the throughts and the words enshrined in the American declaration of independence and the concept of ``we, the people`` in its constitution.

Having said that, I cannot support this war despite its noble intentions, because of the damage it causes to the idea of international law. I am fully aware that this argument sounds hypocritical and weak, but I honestly fear that it creates a flawed precedent. It creates and legitimizes the idea of extra-territorality, unilateralism, and it places the world in an untenable situation of chosing between extremes, with no middle ground for a compromise. This war and the precedent it creates, removes the specter of accountability in international relations and subsitutes it with the interpretations of the powerful and the mighty.

The actions this war legitimizes is no different than the actions of the Musharraf government and the debate over LFO. LFO will never be a subsitute for a real constitution and the Musharraf government, no matter what it does, will never be a dejure government. What the LFO is attempting to achieve is to legitimize the illegitimate. This war in Iraq seeks to pardon its illegal acts in the name of justice and I may accept the evitable, but please do not ask me to condone the hypocricy of the act.

You are absolutely correct. I am uncomfortable, because I see people accepting acts of hypocricy and I am uncomforable, because I have seen what a lack of law and justice does and what the rule of might and power really means. I have seen the damage the lack of law has done to my country and I fear, knowingly, what a lack of international law will to do to the world. No one will benefit and all will suffer. Hence, I do not celebrate today, because I know I will suffer tomorrow and I have the past to remind of the follies of today and tomorrow.

Hxn, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but that does not mean we have to journey on it!

Ciao

````Perspectives also differed yesterday. While Fox News described the Baghdad scene as ``filled with hundreds of joyful people,`` ABC`s Peter Jennings` characterized the throng as ``a small crowd.``(WT)

What differing perspective? -- ``filled with hundreds of joyful people`` -- IS --``a small crowd`` -- in a city of 4.5 million.

the spin doctors are busy –

but it still remains -- an illegal, an illegitimate, and an IMMORAL WAR of aggression -- committed against a non combatant country.

half a million ‘strong’ army -- invading and conquering -- a medieval, poor, pigmy, bankrupt, defenseless -- third world country -- with remote control – is INDEED -- a ‘BIG DEAL’ --

only a pathetic Texan draft dodger sissy can claim such bravado.

Ibtadaaye ishq hai hunstaa hai keya.......

Bush has fulfilled his promie to the Iraqi people -- he `liberated` Baghdad from the clutches of Tyrant Saddam -- and delivered it safely into the grateful hands of army sponsored LOOTERS of Basra and Baghdad –-

thank you Mr. Bush

ah the ‘Midas touch’ -- it also worked for the poor Ayatollah Khoei -- sent in a hurry by the ENFORCER -- TONY the Lapping Lap-Dog -- in a big hurry to Khomeinize the ‘liberated’ Najaf – but it did not work

.....aage aage dhekhiye hotaa hai keya

Military prowess is really effective in winning wars but it takes

this prowess and a great deal of wisdom to keep the peace.

Ras

ferozk #25 Why exactly does my noting the fact that the Iraqis are enjoying their liberation annoy you so much?

Are you saying that because their people died in this war, the Iraqis should not be celebrating their liberation? Or are you saying that you know better than the Iraqis on what is good for them and they have really not been liberated? Or are you saying I should not take note of the fact that the Iraqis are celebrating their release from Saddam, since this violates your ideology that this is a war for oil?

If you have a rational answer, I would like to know. If all you can respond with is cheap insults of the kind you just posted, then I suggest you dont bother to respond.

ali87: I am sorry but I have to ignore further posts from you since I feel I am merely going round in circles across different boards with you. Have a good day.

wajahat #22 Yes, I do think that the child born with AIDs in Africa should blame first and foremost the parents in case (as often happens) one or both of them knew they had AIDs but would not take precautions. The fact is that condoms are easily available for free to poor people in Africa (there are tons of donations - including $100 million for Bill Gates and $ 1 billion recently promised by Bush). However, these condoms are often not used because the men complain that it lessens the pleasure. Another factor is the prevelance of sexual promiscuity which is more widespread in Africa than Pakistan for example (nearly half the African population in Nairobi lives outside wedlock - I was told this by an African friend in Nairobi).
Also, many people in Africa are simply not too bothered by the fear of Aids (which kills only after several years) given the prevalence of other diseases: far more people die of malaria and TB in Africa than Aids. And then we have the African leaders who are either unconcerned, or (as in case of the South African president) actually block efforts by NGOs etc to prevent the spread of Aids by claiming that AIDs is not sexually transmitted at all and that the whole thing is a western fabrication. So, excuse me if I dont applaud the writer of this article for blaming the west for the spread of AIDs in Africa.

Bottom line: There is plenty of blame to go around, and it starts first, and rests largely with, the individual who knowingly spreads the disease to his or her sexual partners (and to offspring).

Now you can join Ferozk in posting insults to me because you dont like my pointing out a few realities that fly in the face of this blame-the-west for everything ideology.

#23
Ali
People are cheering because Saddam has been a monster for the shiites. He was a menace not only for Iraqi shias but even for the `zawwars`, the visitors, from Pakistan,India, Iran etc. My roommate`s dad, an indian, who used to take tours to Kerbala was thrown in jail for months, another relative who was put in jail later turned up dead. His persecution of the Al-Hakim family is a well documented episode, similarly, the execution of Ayatollah Baqir Al Sadr can be regarded as one of the darkest chapters of our history. The islamic world overall didn`t raise a finger when he raided iran, since I believe most of our brethren don`t care about shiites. This apathy on the part of ummah is deplorable, and I believe has been going on for 1400 years. Shiites have suffered enough Yazids, Saffahs, Hajjajs, Aurengzebs, and Saddams, I believe it`s time the `ummah` stops calling these people heroes!