An Answer to the Pro War Surrealists

#109 ferozk

Hope you are right. And, yes, we also need to deal with the fantasists on our side who think that the only problem in J&K is that it needs more army forces, or, even worse that by attacking their muslim neighbors they are striking a blow for bharat mata.

#100 tahmed32


I have no idea why you are ranting at me about insulting muslims in general. I have only commented on your bizarre analysis of J&K violence.

pmishra: You dont read too well do you.
Or maybe you find it convenient to keep dragging Kashmir in, while avoiding the point I made: your uncalled for INSULTS TO THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. THAT is what I objected too. I couldnt care less about where the border is drawn in kashmir.
And so far, between you and ferozk, I am demented, hypocritical and a murderer like hafiz saeed. If personal insults bothered me, I would be ignoring people like you (as most chowkies do).
I wont be writing anymore here (although if you write some really smart personal insults rather than these half-assed ones, I might change my mind). Meanwhile, for once I have brought the muslim chauvinist and the hindu chauvinist (you and ferozk) together. Not a bad day`s work.

Re: pmishra2 # 108

It is futile! Trust me, I know!

The good thing is that Kashmir will be sorted out once this mess in the middle east is over. I hope that India agrees to a settlement with Pakistan, because as sure as a snow ball melts in hell, the LOC is the reality of the situation and neither side can change that without a major disaster. The sooner Kashmir is solved, the sooner the caus celebre of these militants will disappear and sooner, the people of both the nations can concentrate on more important things.

Ciao

#108 tahmed32

Heh, heh ! Very good indeed. Yes, you are so-o-o correct --- the violence in J&K is somehow due to the indian goverment or at least the hindus. They are the guys responsible for all the violence. Even better,
``some Indian posters who had mentioned ....`` about something or the other related to J&K.

Case is closed. This is very high-level and even handed analysis.
Keep up the lectures on sincerity and honesty for the rest of us. Remind us of our secular and democratic heritage while you indulge in your ugly double-speak....


Question: What is the difference is tahmed32 and Hafiz Saeed?

Answer: Hafiz Saeed is a straight-talker and an open bigot, tahmed32 is not even that.

AlephNull #106 My point, as should have been clear to you on reading my post, was not about Kashmir (I leave that to the chowk warriors who can go round and round that same issue ad infinitum). My point was about the uncalled for insults to muslims that pmishra had posted, and I assume that such insults are OK with you too. So be it.

Not that it matters, I do recall that there was something about the BJP government making some moves to tie Kashmir more closely to India, and I believe it was some Indian posters who had mentioned that triggered this violence in Kashmir. But if that is not true, I stand corrected. I am simply not interested in these legalistic discussions by chowk warriors.

Tahmed #85 writes:

{{c. Recognize that the current round of violence in kashmir was triggered by the BJP govt when it came to power a decade or so ago and changed the constitutional status of Kashmir. …. }}

This statement lies squarely in the domain of fact, not opinion. The BJP-led government’s unbroken term in office dates to March 1998, i.e. five years ago plus a couple of weeks. ‘Lustrum’, not ‘decade’, is perhaps the word for which Professor Ahmed is groping. [There was a prior thirteen-day Vajpayee government in 1996, which resigned without facing a vote of confidence.]

As to changing the constitutional status of Jammu & Kashmir, I’m sadly unaware of any such move having been carried out in the last twenty years at least. It is a humbling experience to have my ignorance about my own country repeatedly shown up by some Pakistani panjandrum or other. So I implore Professor T. Ahmed to provide details of this legislation of which I am unable to uncover any trace. He is, of course, aware of the kind of parliamentary majority needed to amend the Indian constitution.

I would hate to think that the reason I was unable to uncover any constitutional change of the sort that Professor T. Ahmed refers to, is that there was none; and that this statement reflects the learned professor’s true grasp of a subject on which he lectures so authoritatively. That would gravely undermine my faith in the soundness of all his opinions on interstate relations in the Indian subcontinent.

pmishra2 #104 I will ignore your insults. And I will ignore your attempt to change the subject by cutting and pasting for discussion something I had written to someone else.

The reason I said people like you are a waste of education is, as you know quite well, because of that unprovoked insults to muslims that you posted on this board and which seems to be the only thing people like you seem capable of talking about. This hindu-muslim communalism belongs in the shit!ty streets you grew up in, not on on this board and not on chowk.

tahmed32 #85


I can see that you have passed from occassional delirium to complete dementia:

[quote]
c. Recognize that the current round of violence in kashmir was triggered by the BJP govt when it came to power a decade or so ago and changed the constitutional status of Kashmir. Then do what it takes to undo the hostitlity.
[end-quote]

Huh? I guess this is an event known only to you. But heh, whatever, after all folks like you are happy to argue that the indian goverment is behind all of the horrific civilian killings in J&K. And that mass murders like Hafiz Saeed and Azhar are ``freedom fighters``...

ferozk #102 This is the third time you have called me a hypocrite while ignoring for the third time the explanation I have provided on why India is not the US and Pakistan is not Iraq. You accuse me of ignoring your questions, when in fact I have (despite your namecalling) responded to your basic question as I just mentioned.

I try not to say anything on chowk that I would consider beneath me to say to a person in real life. I hope for your sake that you are a better behaved man in real life than you are on chowk. Since a grown up man would look very stupid calling people hypocrites and generally behaving as you have done on these interactions.

And spare me your ciao`s and sirs and ``my dear friends`` - since that doesnt make any sense when you call me names at the same time. Anyway, end of discussion.

re: tahmed

You say that I should ask questions. When I do, you do not answer them. Maybe the fault is not with the pupil; maybe the problem lies with the teacher; a teacher who is unsure of what he is teaching and does not understand the questions being asked of him. You say that I should undertand your ``lectures``, but how am I to understand without asking questions? I favor the socratic method over lectures. Lectures are for rote learning and all they do is tell a story, but not the reasons for its understandings.

Teachers, who lecture like to pontificate, look pompus and are impressed up their own egos. They like the docile pupils, who never dare to ask them questions lest their own ignorance be proven.

You instruct me, but you have always side stepped my questions and not answered one of them and then you have the gall and the insensitivity to tutor me. Sir, you are after all, what I said you were - a hypocrite!

Good bye to you, sir!

Ciao

Just like to say that sometimes you have to, in Bob Marley`s words,
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right,
Get up, stand up
Dont give up the fight.

ali87 #98 FINALLY you liked something I wrote. I think I better quit while I am ahead. :-)

#94 by tahmed32 on April 14, 2003 6:52am PT


All the same you have sidestepped the issue again.

You would do well in the PR business.

#94 by tahmed32 on April 14, 2003 6:52am PT

difficult to provoke you is it? :)

ferozk #96 you write ``do the North Koreans, the Syrians, Iranians, Pakistanis and others also deserve the good fortune, which is befelling the Iraqis?``

We already covered this lesson also. Please refer to my earlier lecture on why Pakistan is not Iraq (and Musharaff not Saddam - hint: the one where I refer to the absence in Pakistan under Musharaff of Iraq-like torture cells, Big Man Idols, snipping off of tongues of opposition; and the presence in Pakistan of a free press and a certain level of democratic institutions and traditions that will clearly grow with time).

This is why it is so important to take notes and understand the material that is delivered. And to ask questions if you dont understand anything. It is very embarrassing to have one of my students come back asking questions about things that have already been taught in class.

I know you dont wish me ill, but thanks for the best wishes anyway. We are not engaged in any life and death struggle on chowk, just passing some time when we should be doing our taxes or something.

Re: tahmed32

You wrote, ``... What stopped the Indian army from walking into Pakistan last year was not some judicial decision passed by the Delhi or Lahore High Court, but Pakistani missiles and nukes.``

Hence, what is stopping America from attacking North Korea is the missiles and the nukes and since Iraq had none, it was easy to attack.

Don`t you see the hypocricy in this? Are you even aware of the conterdictions? Tahmed, by all means defend the United States, but please defend the United States realistically. I will, as per your wishes, put the people first and ask you this simply: do the North Koreans, the Syrians, Iranians, Pakistanis and others also deserve the good fortune, which is befelling the Iraqis? If what you say is so noble and good, when is the United States going to fight a war and liberate and free us from the yoke of our oppression? Do we need oil in order to be liberated?

You may refuse to see the double standards, but that does not make them disappear.

Best wishes and a good life to you and may you always prosper.

Sincerely

Feroz R. Khan

Ciao

mohar #90 Ooops! Friendly fire! I`ll need to go back and re-read your post. (Actually, hopefully ALL our posts are friendly fire, directed not at one another but towards understanding issues).

ferozk #92 I think I have explained ad nauseum why India is not the US and Pakistan is not Iraq. You keep ignoring what I write, and come back repeating yourself.

So for the last time, I will ask you to forget your legal arguments and get real: What stopped the Indian army from walking into Pakistan last year was not some judicial decision passed by the Delhi or Lahore High Court, but Pakistani missiles and nukes.

You called me a hypocrite before, and I took the trouble of explaining to you why I am fully consistent in what I am saying. You ignore that explanation and called me a hypocrite again. Fine. Namecalling is not an argument. I have so far been trying to correct your factual inaccuracies, and providing the rationale for my views. Since these seem to be too hard for you to understand, I think this calls for remedial training: I will have to demote you to kindergarten!!

(Scene 2)

Now you are in kindergarten.

Lesson 1 (Repeat after me) : Only bad children do name calling!

Lesson 2 (Repeat after me): If someone challenges my views, that does not automatically make him a hypocrite.

Enough lessons for one day. Now close your eyes and take a nap, because these two lessons must have been very stressful and challenging.

ali87 #91 : That`s right. The reason I am not whining about the Iraq war is because I work for the CIA. I am here to change the hearts and minds of ali87, ferozk and Jay (oops, not jay. That was an ISI project). With you two individuals over on our side, our plans for world dominationand the formation of a Galactic Empire will be complete.

#60 by tahmed32 on April 11, 2003 7:56pm PT

BUT NOT because Saddam`s forces were swept away. BUT because these ``intellectuals`` have demonstrated their disgusting mindset - which is one of arrogance, of being macho men

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

So the intellectuals in US were not being arrogant and were not demostrating their arrogant mindset?

I wonder which world this man lives in.

-----

It is simply a way for you to hide from the truth.


-----

You must either be delirous or have a real sinster motive.

-------

The Iraqi people deserve the right to enjoy their day in the sun, after decades of watching their wealth being looted by Saddam.

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

Those palaces seemed a trifile thirdworld by saudi standards or even the standards of the ranches and yatches, Jets owned or used by Cheney, Rumsfield et al.

Get real Tahamed32 you have a point tell it straight dont get into propaganda. Lets see a list of poor senators in US then compare to Tariq Aziz`s middle class home accessed by an Alley.

I have noticed that in the many dozens of posts you havent answered about the issue of the cupabilty of the US and UK in installing regimes and pulling them down.

Your posts always skip the issue. YOu always start focussing on the propaganda Items. It is very suspicous behaviour. I have noticed that you have become particularly active on the disucssions posting the same stuff again and again but with differnt words and differnt context.

I was reading an article as to how the CIA has infiltrated the Journalist community as well as the Academic community. Reportedly there are at least 400 journlists of top level who are in some way connected with the CIA, Thousands of study programmes all over US Universities which are
being run with direct or covert CIA guidance.

I wonder if you are also looking for employment in a similar role or have already being co-opted into such a role.

That brings a thought could CIA be stupid enough to belive a forum like Chowk would have any influence at all on public behaviour or even behaviour of elite or professionals. But it could be a good enough ground for a freelancer to cut his milk teeth in.

re: tahemd32

Concerning the thread on Iraq, I disagree with you. Period.

In case you missed the point, that was sarcasm!

Tahmed, you said Pakistanis will fight the Indians and never surrunder. My point was not about the Pakistan`s fighting skills. I will give you a piece of advice you gave me. Think for yourself. Does Pakistan not fit all the requirements that Iraq did and if Iraq can be invaded, why cannot Pakistan be invaded by India? India has a very good case and the fact that India is openly calling American hypocricy by showing the double standards of the United States vis-a-vis Iraq and Pakistan, goes to the credit of the Indians.

If you felt so strongly about the American actions, why are you denying the same right to the Indians? Are you telling me that this war was, after all, not about principles?

There is no difference between Pakistan and Iraq and yes; India might not be the United States, but this is about the principle of pre-emption and what is good for the goose is also good for the gander!

How about Syria? Do you also feel that Syria should be invaded and the Syrians freed. Syria according to Bush has WMD and is harboring terrorists. If that case was good enough for Iraq, why cannot Syria be also invaded to bring democracy in the region and the Syrians also liberated? If Syria has weapons of mass destruction and harbors terrorsts, so does Pakistan. It is a common secret! Why cannot Pakistan be invaded? If American actions in Iraq were so principled and the costs in human lives justified, can same principle not apply else where?

Tahmed, why don`t you simply admit the hypocricy?

Ciao

#89 by tahmed32
//...But dont let me spoil your dreaming. ..//

I was not dreaming. I actually agreed with you on this one. Only if you have read my whole post you would have realised that.

mohar #86 you write ``So I desist. ``

Amen.

mohar #84 you write ``Exactly. Like India did in Dhaka in 1971. ``

In your enthusiasm, you forgot the ``if`` in my sentence (as in ``if India had the capacity to take over Pakistan it would have done so last year when it marched a million men to the borders``).

But dont let me spoil your dreaming.

Ref veeresh #63

[Straws in the winds:- an enquiry has been placed for almost 120000 English speaking teachers from India (various subjects, junior/middle/senior) for Iraq schools.

Go, Kottayam, Go!!]

My God, what did the Iraqis do to have Malayalam-accented English inflicted on them?

The only thing worse I can think of is Sangilikkaruppan alias Soysauce teaching them English and not being able to differentiate between `k` and `g` or `t` and `d`.

Oh, puhleeeeze, don`t send in the North Indian crowd either. Have you ever heard them say `thirty`?

#85 by tahmed32
//..c. Recognize that the current round of violence in kashmir was triggered by the BJP govt when it came to power a decade or so ago and changed the constitutional status of Kashmir. Then do what it takes to undo the hostitlity. ..//

-- You are totally off the mark on this one. As usual, when it comes to Kashmir - Pakis of all persuations, educated or not, unformly show amazing lack of ability to grasp even the basic facts.

But this is not the board for Kashmir. So I desist.

nasah #80 ``Answer it Tauheed Ahmed``
Already did, Hasan sahib (#81 and #82). Even before you wrote. :-)

You may now continue to weeping about US troops ejecting poor little Saddam from his grand palaces and explaining why Iraqi people have no business being happy.

#81 by tahmed32
//...But if it was militarily capable of doing this, rest assured sikhs would have marching down the streets of Lahore a long time ago...//

Exactly. Like India did in Dhaka in 1971.

At this point, India needs no ``precedent`` to march into Pakistan - after all that Pakistan has been doing in Kashmir. Only thing that is holding India back is the fact India is NOT US, militarily speaking.

Come to think of it - if India were like US, then the whole situation would have been different. Pakistan would have been like mexico or like Canada - either way it wouldn`t have participated in the anti-soviet Afgan Jihad. No Jihad means no Bin Laden, no taliban, no mullah omar and no 9/11. Which means - the current war in Iraq wouldn`t have happened either.

Talk about domino effect!!

In fact, India`s inability to properly control its own neighborhood has created this whole mess. If Nehrus and Gandhis of independent India would have taken care of even very rudimentary economic issues ( instead of grandstanding in NAM and imagining themselves to some kinds of global statesman out there to save the world) India would have been an economic and military power house by now.

And pakis, instead of bursting at the border with AK-47 in hand and Jihad in their minds, would be crashing the gates with degrees in their hands and money in their minds.

rsridhar #79 I think we have discussed this before, and neither you nor I can prove intentions. I base my views on public statements issued by indian rulers e.g. Advani jumped to say that the balance of power had been tilted vis a vis Pakistan after blasting those five bombs. In 1971 I heard Indira Gandhi`s victory speech, and her most prominent remark as I recall was that a 1000 years of humiliation has been avenged. Dont get me wrong - I think India has a lot to be proud of. The nonviolent philosophy of Gandhi is truly the one philosophy that can save mankind from itself. Only, many people in India dont know what greatness means, they dont recognize greatness in their own culture, and so are constantly doing stupid things. I lived through the nuclearization stage in the subcontinent. I know a man whom Bhutto himself asked over a one hour meeting to lead the Pakistani nuclear bomb effort as a response to India (that man turned down the request on grounds of conscience, although I think it is only these nukes that are now keeping the Advanis at bay). And whether the world fears an Islamic bomb rather than a Hindu bomb is neither here not there. I have had this discussion before on chowk on nukes, so I dont think there is much more to say than what I have said above plus what I had said earlier.

As for the Pakistan I am defending, this is the land of my birth. We have problems with our power-hungry generals, with our mullahs. But that is not an invitation for India to step into Pakistan. Musharaff, despite his coup d`etat and anti-India stance, is no Saddam (no statues, no palaces, no suppressed press, no torture chambers). And even if he were, I cant imagine Pakistanis ever coming to the streets to welcome a conquering Indian army, just as the Iraqis would never have come to the streets to wecome a conquering Israeli army. It is only the US military that is being welcomed, and this is because deep down these people trust that the US will conduct themselves in an honorable manner and then hand back power to the Iraqis. In case of India, the hindutva movement is too strong and the resentment against pakistanis for forming a separate nation too well known in Pakistan for us to welcome Indian troops. I hope one day we will welcome ordinary Indians as friends. But no thanks, we dont need the Indian army.

I am sincerely glad that India is moving forward. You are not quite USA though. The per capita income of India inched past Pakistan`s last year, but it is still in the ``extreme poverty`` range of less than $500. Economic immigrants have come from Bihar and UP in India to Pakistan - not vice versa. I hope India becomes a rich country some day. But let us stick with reality till then.

You keep saying war will come in the subcontinent. Easy to say sitting in the US. If war comes (and I pray to God it does not) rest assured it wont be pretty - not for Indians, not for Pakistanis. There is indeed such a thing as a nuclear holocaust, with cinder-burnt cities, cinder-burnt armies, poisoned winds, poisoned soil, poisoned water. Let us not learn this lesson the hard way. Even conventional war is no picnic, rest assured, at least not for the people on the front lines.

As expatriates, it is I think immoral on our part to talk so easily about war and to do this one-upmanship between India and Pakistan.

What is the option, you ask: Try this-

a. Drop this hostility towards Pakistan. When I see this TV station in Delhi that beams to the US (South Asia TV or something) I see nothing but demonization of Pakistan (always showing bearded mullahs and their bs, never showing ordinary people of Pakistan, never appreciating any cultural aspect of Pakistan) and glorifiaction of India. This attitude must change. Ignore Pakistan if you like. But act your size (India is a nation of 1 billion for Gods sake, not a tiny republic that must always prove itself to be something).

b. Promote democracy in Pakistan: Invite Pakistani journalists - even those opposed to India - to visit India and discuss and debate e.g. Democracies dont go to wars. Stop believing those in India who are too happy to brand Pakistanis as terrorists, and start showing respect for the rights of ordinary Pakistanis.

c. Recognize that the current round of violence in kashmir was triggered by the BJP govt when it came to power a decade or so ago and changed the constitutional status of Kashmir. Then do what it takes to undo the hostitlity.

I am not saying that we Pakistanis are innocent. Our govts have been at least as bad as yours in promoting hostilities. But rest assured, that the indian governments and the indian media have not been virgin mary`s either. Terrorist actions in Kashmir are as pleasing to the Advanis in India as they are to the religious fanatics and warmongerers in Pakistan.

>>Does India not have a right to invade Pakistan and bring democracy to that poor oppressed nation and will Pakistanis not also welcome the Indian troops marching into Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad? Why can India not attack Pakistan and the remove the present government of Pakistan with one, which will agree to its interests and just maybe, solve the issue of Kashmir in India`s favor?<<(Ferozk)

Answer it Tauheed Ahmed.

WHY -- what`s good for the United States -- is not good for India --

PREEMPTION -- is now the NORM of International Conduct established by that Texas MORON --

why it should be kosher for a US Bushwhacker but not for an India`s Masked Man?

ferozk #72 you say: ``why do think that India is not America and Pakistan is not Iraq``
I was thinking in the military context only, in response to rsridhar`s assumption that India could simply walk into Pakistan whenever it wanted. And I think I explained even this obvious fact already in that post.
You raise broader questions of political and legal precedent here.

On the political aspect: Do you seriously think that Pakistanis would welcome Indian troops into Lahore the way Iraqis have welcomed US troops into Baghdad? They would fight them with all their might, they would never surrender (and this is assuming that the Indian military was capable of entering Pakistan - which it clearly is not in this post-nuclear south asia). On pre-emptive strikes - sure India can claim that it is merely copying the Bush doctrine (and indeed many in BJP are clamoring for this). But if it was militarily capable of doing this, rest assured sikhs would have marching down the streets of Lahore a long time ago (you may re-read my post to sridhar to understand why).

On Bangladesh: the Bengalis had had enough of us and wanted to be separate. Even though as a Pakistani one of the saddest days of my life was the day Dhaka fell in 1971, I think the Indian army was as justified in liberating the Bengalis as the US army is in liberating the Iraqis. Rest assured that I mean it when I say that people come first, and politics and the legal framework are there to serve the people and not vice versa.

btw: Please dont call me a hypocrite and dear, dear friend in the same post. That does not make any sense. Call me a hypocrite if you wish, and if later you are convinced that I am in fact being quite sincere and rational, and it is you who were being irrational and had your priorities all wrong, THEN you may apologize for calling me names and call me your friend. (I incidentally consider ALL chowk posters to be friends - even Jay Thakeray who cannot refer to me without adding ``and his ilk``). Also, while you say I have castigated you, if you re-read my posts this is only through the logic of my arguments. Not by saying that you are on your knees to anyone or by speculating on your colonial mindset - both of which you have done, and neither of which bothers me.

You see, logic hurts and one feels castigated, while namecalling only falls back on the namecaller. Consider this to be today`s lesson from Dr. tahmed.

ferozk #77
On Realpolitiks: This is something that those responsible for political decisions are forced to do. You and I on chowk are not burdened by such politicial responsibilities, and as such can speak freely without trying to be politiciams.

On US/UK contributions to democracy: I wrote a whole article on this earlier where I of course pointed out the leadership role of the US and UK in the spread of democracy over the past 200 years. You challenged me, I responded by showing how your points were factually incorrect (e.g. democracy came to japan in 1945 under US occupation, not in the 1880`s as you said). You ignored my response, and simply come back with the same argument on this board. Does this make any sense?

On what the US promised Kuwait: Again, you are factually wrong here. The US promised to liberate Kuwait from Saddam, and it is for this that it received a US mandate. Neither the UN nor the US ever said anything about replacing the Kuwaiti constitution.

On the US being arrogant: Sorry, I beg to differ again. The US prides itself on its philosophical roots, on being a nation of nations, on its democratic traditions. This is genuine pride, not arrogance. If you are looking for arrogance, look at Saddam for example, whose statues were everywhere. Look at the Japan for arrogance: its doors are shut tight to immigration despite a declining population because of it does not wish to dilute its superior race (or ``mongrelization`` as a Japanese minister once said). The US on the other hand celebrates this as ``diversity``. Look at the average civil servant (immigration official, tax authority, police): This is a bit subjective, but I have seen arrogant German officials, and I have seen arrogant Pakistani officials. I have almost always found US officials to act like a public servant should act: in a cheerful, courteous and helpful manner.
And please dont follow, as you indicate, what Hamilton or Clausewitz said. Follow your own mind instead.
And please dont interpret this as castigating. That is not the intent. I spend time on chowk to speak my mind and to stand corrected if someone points out flaws in what I wrote (as some people sometimes do).

re:#72 by tahmed32
India became nuclear to defend itself from the Chinese threat. Pak became nuclear to defend itself from the Indian threat. India is comfortable with its nuclear status. The world has not made any noise (after the initial noise that has susided now) about a Hindu bomb but the world (especially USA) is definitely concerned about the Islamic bomb. Are the Pakistani rulers comfortable with the Islamic bomb?
Nations defend their integrity with all means. We have heard Z.A. Bhutto say one time that Pakis will eat grass but will make the bomb to neutralise India`s threat.
India has allocated a certain percentage of GDP for defense (and this percentage is far less than that of China and Pak). India has been growing at 5-6% for the last 10 years. It can afford the defense expenditure. Besides, no opposition leader has made this an issue.
Development of the country is now becoming as much a private enterprise as it is a govt one. Govt is slowly giving away controls, thereby unleashing private enterprise on a scale never seen before. Poverty will be reduced and eventually eliminated but it will take time. So, you are only repeating a cliche when you talk about India`s poverty and defense expenditure in the same breath.

What are you and other Pakistanis defending, Sir? Is it the country? Are you not defending the Army establishment, an establishment that has stifled all political discourse in the country and taken over every aspect of governance in its own hands? Paki Army has a one point agenda viz Kashmir. And, it is not willing to compromise on that. It somehow feels that it can get Kashmir if it goes on sending terrorists into India and killing innocent people. You only have to read the articles written by some enlightened people in your country to realise what is going on. Please read what Shaheen sehbai has to say in the latest SA Tribune:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/apr13_19_03/opinion_editorsdesk.htm
The article titled: Pakistan not ready to meet new challenges says:

1. ``Today while the Islamic world is in turmoil, threatened by informally declared Crusades on undefined or selectively explained justifications, Pakistan stands in line as a possible next target, as an ally of the Axis of Evil. In fact the opening shot has already been fired by Washington by imposing sanctions against Pakistan for exporting nuclear technology to North Korea. As the situation in Iraq settles down, the focus will shift fast towards Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Is then the country ready to meet the threat? My answer is No.``

2. ``All sane national voices have been drowned amidst self-praising claims from the military pulpit, a la Saddam Hussain, the Iraqi dictator who brought destruction on his country by placing his personal interest over that of his country.

General Pervez Musharraf has blocked and attempted to wipe out all liberal and moderate political forces.

He has played double games, which stand exposed. He promised elimination of extremism and terrorism from the country but his actions brought these forces not only into mainstream political power, they now threaten to take over the country. His Kargil misadventure thwarted the best chance Pakistan had for starting a serious dialogue to end disputes with ever impatient neighbor, India.``

He goes on and on. It is a painful read, painful for people who want peace in the subcontinent.

What are the alternatives then? India should do nothing even as terrorists keep killing the innocent people. This is not possible. As media relays this news thr` channels all over India, the hatred for Pakistan gets renewed a hundred fold. Indians should actually be hating the terrorists and the army of Pakistan and not its people but they do not know which is which. They have not seen common Pakistanis come to the street in support of peace with India or ask the jehadis to spare innocent people. There seems to be a silent acquiescence in the acts of jehadis.
So, a war will come. It will be a deadly war. It will be fought to finish off the Paki army. It will happen after India has secured guarantees from the international community that there will not be any interference. So far, US and others feel the war is not warranted. They think Mushy is doing his best and his hands are tied. They are mistaken. The day they see the true face of Mushy (or when Mushy gets assasinated or thrown out in a coup) will be the beginning of end-game for Pakistani army. Once Paki army is tamed, peace will return to the subcontinent.
Sridhar

Re: tahmed

We agree to disagree and let us leave it there. You have strong opinions on the issue and I feel strongly about the issue, though from an opposite side of the debate. The values, or one of them, being fought for was the right to freedom and freedom as Rumsfeld said, one of the few things I agree with him, is ``untidy``. This debate will go and being a debate, there is no right or wrong side in this discussions. Tempers flare and words are said, but they too will be forgotten and tempers will cool.

Legalistic arguments? Realism? Reality versus idealism?

Yes, there was a combination of all them in my posts to you. I, for the record, hail from the Hamiltonian school of thought, with its emphasis on strong central institutions of power and I have never been a populalist democrat. This war and all wars, are about politics and the continuation of politics, through the application violence. In this sense, I follow the dictums of Carl von Clausewitz and that is, wars should be fought only for political aims and they should be stopped immediately, once that aim is achieved. I fear that there is no political aim in this war and it will be needlessly be prolonged. In the process, the institutions of international security will be weakened and global security originates from stability, and not from chaos in international relations.

From a clinically realpolitik perspective, your agruments make sense and I share them, to a significant degree. However realpolitik is about pragmatism and knowing the limits of power; it is about combining and compromsing between opportunity and limitations. Realpolitik is not about a crusade to rid the world of evil and realpolitik is amoral; not moral as bringing in the virtues of democracy to the Arabs. Whether, the Arabs have democracy or not; whether the people die or not is immaterial to the precepts of realpolitik. What really matters in realpolitik is to exploit a prevailing situation, politically/militarily, within a paradigm, without actually destabilizing that paradigm. The Iraq war/conflict/invasion/liberation failed to meet this test.

What is happening in Iraq is not realpolitik. It is an attempt to foist an ideology as a sine qua non of global relations and that ideology is democracy and it is the United States interpretations of that democracy, which are being articulated as the dejure interpretation. I do not accept this argument that Iraq war was fought to bring democracy to the Iraqis and that too by British and the Americans. Both of these nations, have actively retarded the growth of democracy, when it suited their interests and now when it suits them, they appear as the champions of democracy. If freedom is untidy, then democracy has more than one interpretation and can never be strait-jacketed within one defination.

Colonialism is not so much about military conquests, mandates and condomimiums (a term that describes when two nations jointly rule a territory), but it is about a state of mind; a philosophical belief that suggests an arrogance. An arrogance that thinks that it has the monopoly on common sense and has all the answers to all the questions. If the United States is so committed to democracy that it is willing to fight a war for its sake and liberate an oppressed people, why is the United States supporting authoritrian governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf states and no liberating the people of those lands? Could it be that these nations are not interested in the Palestinian cause and are not a threat to Israel as Iraq was? Could it be that power is more important than freedom and democracy is a poor subsitute to a cordon santaire of United States power linched pinned upon its military bases in the region?

United States promised democracy and liberal rights to the people of Kuwait in 1990-1991 war. Where are those rights? The ruling family of Kuwait is still as despotic as before the last gulf war. What is truly important to the United States? Democracy, and freedom or the rights to military bases? It seems that rhetoric of democracy takes cold shoulder to the realpolitik imperatives and as long the United States has secured rights to military facilities, democracy is a polite conversation between friends, soon to be forgotten after the dinner is over. At one point in time, the United States used to lecture Pakistan on the virtues of democracy, After September 2001, when Musharraf joined the Bush administrations` war against an abstract noun, where are the American concerns about the lack of democracy in Pakistan? Why has the United States stopped admonishing Pakistani leaders about their snail paced steps towards reviving democracy? Is it because democracy is only viable when it agrees with the interests of the the United States?

Tahmed, you called my arguments legalistic and that is fine, but you still did not answer the questions I raised. You simply kept changing the contours of the debate and never directly tried to refute my arguments. You mentioned that I should stop being legalistic and start dealing with the siutation in a ``case by case`` context. Sir, with all due respect, it is you who is being legalistic, because such a methodology is a legal based one and the basis for case law and precedents, which are the spiritius santos of international law.

Contary to your assertions, I was not being legalistic. I have supported the use of force and military power, when they served a purpose. I will support armed force again, when it serves a tangible purpose. You are entitled to your opinions and I support your right to excersise them, but please do not ask me to believe a lie as blantant as the one told to justify this war. This war is not about democracy and you know it; this war is not about freedom and you know that perfectly well also. There was once a war fought to liberate and bring democracy to the oppressed people and those people are still waiting in Kuwait and Afghanistan and now, they will waiting in Iraq. I am not against liberations and ushering in democracies, but I am against hypocricy and throughout my posts, I have been rallying against the hypocricy of this war.

Sir, you want me to support this war and agree with your positions, and I will, but please do not tell me that this war is about freedom and democracy. Give me a reason that revokes the historic memory of all such wars and all such once proudly made promises, which availed to nought as the years passed by. The heavy memory of the years gone by makes me skeptical of such promises and a little bit leary to believe the words of Edith Pfiaf and that life will be simply, ``la vie en rosé."

Best wishes and regards

Ciao

Re: tahmed32 # 72

Sir, again with all due respect, why do think that India is not America and Pakistan is not Iraq? The United States has, in invading Iraq and instituting a regime/government change there, created a new precedent in international relations. It is called the precedent of pre-emption. It has done so, to liberate the people of Iraq and bring them democracy, and you have suggested yourself; the Iraqis have welcomed the Americans!

Does India not have a right to invade Pakistan and bring democracy to that poor oppressed nation and will Pakistanis not also welcome the Indian troops marching into Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad? Why can India not attack Pakistan and the remove the present government of Pakistan with one, which will agree to its interests and just maybe, solve the issue of Kashmir in India`s favor? Pakistan is threatening India and does India not have the right to pre-empt Pakistan and remove the Pakistani threat to its security?

You supported the United States and hailed its actions in Iraq, but sir, why are you not supporting India and hailing its actions, which are just what the United States did?

India has every right to do in Pakistan what the United States did in Iraq and to deny India that right is hypocricy and you, sir, of all people should be supporting India insteading of drawing hypcritical comparsions! Sir, if you agree to Indian pre-emption of Pakistan, you are supporting a principled policy and if you do not, then you are justifying a hypocritical policy.

Tahmed, my dear, dear, dear friend, how you have castigated me and informed me about the errors of my reasons, but then you go and repudiate all your agruments by a display of shallow national pride! Do you now see the hypocricy of your actions and believes? ROLMAO!!!!!!!!!

Ciao

#74 by Pankaj
It is interesting to see how people immediately take recourse to Gandhi, when they are getting thier a$$es whipped by a mighty aggressor. That is supposed to give them some kind of moral upperhand.

But at other times, when things are jolly and good - Gandhi becomes just another half-naked hindu fakir.

rsridhar #67 you write ``India does not have the ball$ to do to Pak what US has done to Iraq ``
And you know the reason why India (or rather, those in India who think they can walk into Pakistan) does not have the ball$? Because India is not the US and Pakistan is not Iraq.

If this seems hard to believe, remember last year when million man Indian army, like the army of the duke of york, marched up to the border and then marched away from the border.

Here is the complete nursery rhyme ``Duke of York`` (with some modifications I added for purposes of indigenization) for your reading pleasure:

Oh, the bald (sorry, balled as in ball$) old hindutvas of Delhi,
They had one million men,
They marched them up to the tip of
Pakistan and...
They marched them back again.

Chorus: Hai Modi! Hai Advani! Hai Jay Thakeray!!

And when they were up they were up.
And when they were down they were down.
And when they were only half way up,
They were neither up nor down.

(repeat)

PS: Thanks to your brilliant politicians for introducing nukes in the subcontinent in their ambitions to become a Great Power when they should have been concerned with the massive poverty in India.

ferozk #71 All your talk about going through the UN is legalistic, not based on common morality: Is the UN a representative body? Of course not. It is a hodge podge of democratic and undemocratic governments trying to stay in power. Do you think the iraqi ambassador to the US represented anyone but a handful of decoits who ruled over Bagdhad for 20 years? All your legalistic arguments amount to nothing, since I am not talking legalisms or politics. I am talking about the fact that the average Iraq is glad to be free. A nation of 25 million people has found hope after decades of living in fear.

Dont misunderstand me. I believe international agencies like the UN need to be strengthened not weakened. But as things stand, one has to look at things on a case by case basis. If the US had taken the legalistic route, Saddam would still be happily occupying one of his 32 Badhdad palaces, and his obscene statues would still be standing, and the Iraqi people would still be living in fear and under oppression. That is what I am talking about.

You started by putting ideology before people. When I pointed that out, you shifted by putting legalisms before people. I suppose if we argue long enough, you will at some point get my point and start putting people before anything else. Regards.

Ferozek

Since you seem to know quite a lot about Gandhi, I thought you may find the quote below interesting:

``What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty?``
— Mahatma Gandhi

harimau #70 ``Being the Observations and Remarks of Capt. Alexander Hamilton from the Year 1688-1723``

You need to invest in a new calendar. It is no longer 1723.

re: tahmed32

Interesting!

It was really interesting to see that you omitted all the references to the marine sniper killing innocent Iraqis and the treatment of the ``liberated Iraqis`` on the bridge by their so-called liberators. You did not even mention them. Was that a Freudian slip on your behalf? Ahmed, you may rejoice at the looting, but under Geneva convention, the occupying forces have a responsibility to prevent these sorts of things from happening. If you care to remember, when the pictures of the American POWs and the dead American soldiers was shown, the United objected and invoked the Geneva convention. Sir, law is for all and it is not meant to be selectively applied. If your nation opts to ignore the Geneva conventions, then it should not invoke its protocols for its own needs and interests. United States was the first nation to question the protocols of the convention and flout them by questioning the status of combattants and non-combattants. It refused to obey the conventions` strictures on the treatment of POWs. Then it objected and having objected to the violations of the Geneve convention by the Iraqis, the United States is bound to uphold it. If you were never interested in the Geneve convention and are not interested in preventing the acts of robbery, why did you object, when your POWs were treated in violation of the convention? You and your nation cannot decide, unilaterally, what is the law and when to obey it!

Sir, I refuse to condone this hypocricy and I will contiune to object. Like, M. K. Gandhi said, cooperation with evil is a sin and non-cooperation with unjust acts is an obligation. As Gandhi said, you may kill me for my disobedience, but then you will have my dead body and not my obdience! Sir, your nation and you may kill us all for not agreeing with you and rejoicing with you, but you cannot force us to agree with you!

This is the point. There has to be a process; call it justice or law or anything you like, which governs and regulates conduct. Otherwise, what we have is ``mob law``. International law, which you chide, also protects the interests of the United States. I agree with you that in the last half a century, international law specifically dealing with the issues of collective security, that is the United Nations, leaves much to be desired. Who is to blame for that? United Nations as an institution or the nations that excerise veto powers and use that power for the purposes of national egoism? Sir, law and justice being human creations are by defination flawed and being flawed, they should be improved upon and not discarded because of their flawed nature. A flawed system of law and justice is better than no law or justice. We live in a flawed world with limitations and not in an ideological nirvana, where everything is ideal.

Secondly, I agree with you. I wish that the United States and its ruling junta had also put the people before ideology. Sir, with all due respect, it is you, and not I, who is scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Ciao

re: stuka # 51

First of all, your post tell me that you are an ideologue, because you are dividing the issues into a ``republican versus democrat`` argument. I am a republican. I have served in the United States Congress as a republican staffer and with the Utah Republican Party. I am a card carrying republican and have been one, since 1987. I supported John McCain, because of the issue of campaign finance law and, because of how soft money was/is eroading the American democracy by making it a monopoly of power for the rich and the privileged. Since we are discussing party affiliations, it should be interesting for you to note that all of America`s foreign wars were started by a democract president and that George Bush is the first republican president to start a foreign war. Afghanistan was the first one and the first of the new century.

The case of Iraq and Jugoslavia have similarities, but they also have dissimilarities. First of all, the crisis in Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) started, when the Izoif Tito died and the Jugoslav federation started to strain under its many political and ethnic pressures. Taking advantage of this crisis and a lack of central authority in Belgrade, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence and broke free from the federation. To prevent them from leaving, Belgrade declared war on them and the end result was the Balkan crisis of the 1990s. That war, unlike Iraq, did not deal with issues of invasion and the violation of state`s sovereignity by another nation, but was basically, a civil war limited to within the geographic confines of Jugoslavia.

There were protests, world wide, not because there was a democrat president in office, but because the questions of a pax europa were being raised and the people, were protesting that the western governments, including the United States, were appeasing Belgrade and not doing enough to end the war/civil war in that country. That war lasted nearly the whole decade of the 1990s and it was, before the Iraqi crisis of 2003, the most widely protested war in European history.

There were UN resolutions seeking to end the war, but they were supplemented by the Dayton Peace Accords, hosted by the United States, which sought to bring peace in Jugoslavia and in the process, end the fighting. There were UN resolutions authorizing the deployment of peacekeepers and seeking to impose sanctions on the regime/government in Belgrade. Kosovo was never an intergral part of Jugoslavia. Kosovo was given to Jugoslavia in 1919, along with the Greek province of Macedonia, when the treaty of Versailles created Jugoslavia from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Prior to that, Kosovo was a Serb principality, which existed in a semi-autonomous state under the Hapsburg monarchy in Vienna. Presently, Kosovo is not an intergral part of Jugoslavia, because Jugoslavia ceased to exist and was replaced by Serbia. Kosovo`s autonomy from Serbia is being protected by an American expeditionary force and a force from the European Union.

Yes, you are correct. The air campaign last over two months in Jugoslavia, because of the Serb/Belgrade`s refusal to uphold their treaty committments under the Dayton Peace Accords. The air campaign was allowed by the United Nations and resulted from a consensus of opinion within NATO itself. NATO acted and spearheaded that campaign, because it was seen as a ``litmus test`` of NATO`s cohesion as a military alliance dedicated to preserving the European peace. There was no protest, because the air campaign was seen as a resolve of the western governments acting and after all, the protests in Europe, over the crisis, were on the western governments` lack of action. The people in Europe wanted that crisis ended by a show of force and to preserve the intergrity of the European Union and the United Nations and NATO as political institutions dedicated to the ideals of collective security. It was a multilateral response and not a unilateral one; hence it had the consensus of the popular European public opinion behind it.

Germany and France were involved in that crisis and had deployed troops in the region. A French general was heading the UN peacekeepers. Throughout the crisis in the Balkans, the United Nations had peacekeepers in the region providing humantrian assistence and security. During the seige of Sarajevo, which lasted over a 1000 days, the United Nations was airlifting supplies to the city and patroling the streets. The United Nations was visibibly present in Jugoslavia. The international precedents were never violated in the crisis, but maintained.

There was tangible outrage and it was directed at the actions of the Serbs and Belgrade government and their policies of ethnic genocide and its appeasement by the western governments. Stuka, there was a ``clear and present danger`` in that crisis, which was never clearly articulated in the Iraq crisis/war.

No; Milo is no better than Saddam Hussein, but that war, in the Balkans, was not about personalities. It was about the process called international relations and how to uphold its conventions on the issues of agression, soverignity and justice and that war was about protecting the international institutions and not undermining them, as the Iraq war is presently attempting.

A democrat president was supported, because he went to war to preserve security of the world and a republican president is called a war monger, because he went to war to undermine international security.

I know all of this, because one of my relatives, Rustum Sidwa, was a justice of Pakistan supreme court and was then apppointed to the Hague court on Jugoslavia. I still follow the events there and thus, unlike some, can speak with knowledge and authority on a subject I know. Unlike some!

Ciao

``The Dutch have fortified Manaar, and make use of it for a Prison for Indian Princes, whom they can overpower or circumvene, when they are suspected of making Treaties contrary to their Interest, or to such as would willingly reassume their lost Freedom, by breaking the unjust Yoke of the Company`s Tyranny, perhaps, drawn on themselves by too much Faith or Incredulity; for that honest Company has always had a Maxim, first to foment Quarrels between Indian Kings and Princes, and then piously pretend to be Mediators, or Arbitrators of their Differences, and always cast in something into the Scale of Justice to those whose Countries produve the best Commodities for the Company`s Use, and lend the Assistance of their Arms to him who is so qualified by the Product above mentioned, and, at the Conclusion of the War, make the poor conquered Prince pay their Charges for assisting the Conqueror; and, when all is made up, and Treaties of Peace ready to be signed, then the Conqueror, their dear Ally and Friend, must suffer them to possess the best Sea-ports, and fortify the most proper and convenient Places of his Country, and must forbid all Nations Traffick but their dear Dutch Friends, under Pain of having the Company`s Arms turned against them, in Conjunction with some other potent Enemy to the deluded Conqueror.

The King of Charta Souri, on the Island of Java, is a fresh Instance of the Truth of what I relate. In Anno 1704, I saw him at Samarang, a Sea-port on the said Island, in great Splendor, and in high Esteem with the Dutch Commodore; but in Anno 1707 he fell under the Displeasure of the General and Council of Batavia, and in 1708 falling into their Hands, he was brought their Prisoner to Manaar, and cooped up on that small Island, there to spend the Remainder of his Days in Contemplation or Comments on the Deceit of worldly Grandeur, and of the Power and Pleasure of Sovereignty, or in humble Thoughts on Confinement, Exile and Poverty.``

From ``A New Account of the East-Indies, Being the Observations and Remarks of Capt. Alexander Hamilton from the Year 1688-1723``.

re: What is wrong with India?
India is behaving like a juvenile deliquent kid: errant and unpredictable. I was shocked to read that Indian parliament has recently passed a unanimous resolution condemning the attack on Iraq and has asked for immediate withdrawal of coaliton troops from that country. This happened more thatn 20 days after the onet of war and is a mockery of the whole democratic process in India.
India thinks its pride is hurt. US of A did not agree to India`s belligerent threats to Pak and its attempts to find a parallel between the situation in Iraq and the one in Kashmir. Simply put, US has no reason to attack Pak as its dictator is bending backwards to do everything that US tells him to do. India does not have the ball$ to do to Pak what US has done to Iraq and is piqued that US finds Pak as a useful ally. Like a jilted lover, it is crying hoarse. What a shame! Most Indians lack self-pride. I have never heard of Israel ever asking permission from US or anycountry to meet its security needs. India, with its 1 billion population, is in a pitiable situation. Its corrupt people, inefficiency at every level have ensured that it will never be a big factor in international politics and its voice will always be muffled.
Sridhar

wajahat #59 Always glad to discuss things in a civil and friendly manner, and thanks for the apologies and harsh words from both me and you can now be forgotten.

You raise a number of points:

a. ````White`` (and I use this word in purely an anthropological point of view) have always viewed the rest of the world as they would have their plantation only a hundred years ago.

I think you should forget these distinctions of white, black etc. These had meaning only for the past 3-4 centuries, but not before that. And they are becoming increasingly meaningless in today`s world. THEREFORE, if we think along racial lines, we will not properly understand what is happening in the world today, nor will we understand future trends.

If you dont believe me on the hollowness of concepts of black and white, here is a bit more on it: Anthropologists (this is from a Scientific American issue last year) now believe that the skin color was uniform. Racial distinctions appear to have started around 10,000 years ago. And there has been a great mixture of people since then. To focus on the Arab vs. White distinction that you seem to be looking at, here is a bit of history on it:
Many Arabs are descendants of, or have significant blood of French, German, English crusaders in their veins (there were crusader kingdoms all the way from what is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, for a few hundred years between the 11th and 14th centuries AD). On the hand, many Europeans have Arab blood in them. This is most pronounced in Sicily (where azans could be heard at one time, even under christian rulers) are often descendants of Arab settlers. In Germany, the emperor Frederick I (great grandson of Charlemagne), had Arab ministers for advice, Arab soldiers as bodyguards, (and also a few muslim women for company, it is said), WHILE he ruled from the heart of Germany (Mainz or perhaps Aachen). In Spain, many muslims converted to christianity after the fall of granada when they only option they were given was death, and thus many Spaniards carry Arab blood. I could go on, but I hope I have made my point clear. Forget black, white, brown. Think of people as people.

b. On Bush: It is fashionable to ridicule him in the muslim world. He has however shown himself consistently to be a decent man. Yes indeed he is religious - but he is religious in the finest sense of the world. They kind of religious man that the Quran exhorts us muslims to be. For example: After 9/11, in his famous speech before congress after 9/11, he made it a point to distinguish between ordinary muslims (whom he characterized very positively as a ``good and decent people``). He visited mosques and made sure his picture was taken visiting mosques. And he did this to reassure muslims within the US. And by any reasonable standard (despite the whining of some muslims of being profiled at airports) he has provided the leadership to make sure that muslims have nothing to fear. This is in the tradition of the finest of muslim leaders like Hazrat Omar (who visited the the temple of the sepulchre in jerusalem to reassure the priests after conquering jerusalem) and Saladin (under whom jews and christians had nothing to fear). So, dont just go by what is fashionable among the ``intellectuals`` or paris and new york (with that fashion being copied in the drawing rooms of karachi and lahore) - look at the facts for yourself. And you will see that Bush is a far better man than he is credited for. And far smarter. Saddam never understood this either, it seems.

This is a long enough post already. I better do some real work now. Regards. :-)

All men are equal before God. And in a democracy too. One day we muslims will start understanding these basic things and stop worshipping ideologies and maulvis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#61
nice lecturing..but does it change ground realities? Ayatollah Hussain Fadlallah was the inspiration behind Hezbollah, who knows what Ayatollah Baqir Al Hakim is up to??

these are facts my dear, I hope your war-party did keep these in mind. I have some more info for you: 12 years of sanctions have actually RADICALIZED iraqis, now don`t blame them if their loyalties lie with their local mullahs rather than the `gora` mullah called Bush!!!

Bush says let`s not get too happy too soon about the Victory -- wait till Tony Franks says: rejoice -- such modesty such humilty

riding the Smart Bomb was easy Victoy -- let`s us see how the Dumbo gets off the back of the tiger without losing his behind.

Ibtadaaye ishq hai huNstaa hai keya
aage aage dhekiye phuNstaa hai keya

If the `rebuilding` of Afghanistan is an indicator of the rebuilding SKILL and Honesty of that Destroyer cum Liar President -- Iraqi rebuilding is not eons away -- it`s taking place right now in Basra and Baghdad and Mosul -- by the Army sponsored Iraqi Looters.

the Iraqi black gold is under the UN control of Oil for Food program which feeds only 60% of the Iraqi population -- Bushy Boy has to shell out his daddy money to sweep the mess of destruction the Juvenile Delinquent has created in his fit of delusional paranoid schizophrenia --

btw -- what happened to the bastard hallucitating about the Iraqi WMDs -- did the psycho find any --

these days the only channel I watch is the Animal Channel -- because the animals on the Animal Planet are much better animals than the animals that have infested the White House.

#46 dostmittar
Were I an Iraqi, I`d be celebrating too in the hope that the oppressive sanctions regime would come to an end and that I would be considered a human again. There has never been a satisfactory explanation why the new humanitarians destroyed iraq`s infrastructure towards the fag end of the gulf war and made sure that Iraq stayed crippled and how they have become suddenly concerned about the welfare of the Iraqis. If recent past is any guide, the Iraqis will be shafted by their new colonial masters.
The pro-war crowd stands exposed having its repeated lies (al-qaeda connection, WMD, threat to the USA) called to question and its stance is propped up with a single, solitary tottering leg of an argument about introducing democracy. If they hadn`t lied repeatedly searching for excuses, they`d have some credibility left. When all else failed, they invented the `road map for peace` for the middle east. There`s total mayhem in Gaza and not a peep from the humanitarians. Their gun is trained on Syria now. Expect to hear about black september and all that in the coming weeks and months.

Straws in the winds:- an enquiry has been placed for almost 120000 English speaking teachers from India (various subjects, junior/middle/senior) for Iraq schools.

Go, Kottayam, Go!!

Sri, stuka, tuntunia,

Oye! Where were you 10 years ago when Hussein was attacking his own people? Where are your posts condemning him before the last 6 months?

Lets see some proof before you gloat.

#45 by tahmed32

I am glad that atleast we can answer each other`s posts in a civil manner. I did indeed use strong words for you in your article but it was meant at that time and I have apologised to you once already for using the harsh words....and for nothing else. The point being cleared let me first begin by saying that the West as an entity is not evil. It is a certain portion of the ``White`` (and I use this word in purely an anthropological point of view) have always viewed the rest of the world as they would have their plantation only a hundred years ago. My absolute anger at the current American Government is that it is filled up to the neck with these White Supremecist like your president and Zionists like Perle and Wolfowitz. I use the two words and I indeed am going to give you the evidence, their is a certain tract that flows within families. I am sure a lot of posts would have pointed out that Bush`s Grandfather was Bankrolling the nazis. Now you may say that doesnt make bush a supremecist, its true and therefore we will ignore the argument. But lets look at other evidence, Bush is a born again Christian and the preachers around him represent the Fundamentalist America that professes violent means to attain the Holy Land for the second coming of christ. The preachers that surround him like Franklin Graham( Who incidentaly is in Iraq Now) have an extreme hate for the religion of islam. We move to the next argument, the zionists, as we can see that Israelisation of America is complete. A gentlemen used a few words against the jews in another post and the anger by the other Chowkies was amazing. Mr Perle and his comrades were all present in Reagan`s time advising upon how to reenforce Israel. You cannot go anywhere in the United States where you will find unfavourable view of Israel, the universities have watchdogs that basically report any anti Israel behaviour and terms it as Anti Semite. Forgetting that the Arabs were the descendents of Shem , Son of Abaraham as well. Anyways moving back to the zionists, we see Mr Perle and Rumsfield and Wolfowtiz, publishing a paper that called for US intervention in the middle east as early as the 70s. Nasserite Pan Arab era was a deterant at that time. Saddam remained the last Pan arab force in the region. The man was evil , so the west professed , he was placed there to contain the Shite Khomeni Revolution, the west does not profess. We move on, now this christian zionist government controls the US. It has conducted two wars on Muslim Countries to date. Israel has lost its only foe in the region, the illegal settlements continue.

Therefore when the American public as innocent as they maybe in your opinion become party to this illegal war. The lines are drawn. I do believe that my youth takes the better of me sometimes. But i have been given a world by our fathers where we are reduced to a level of absurd nothingness. Where the only way we get the west`s attention is if some of our more violent and obssessive young people fly planes into their trade centres. Now it is called the worst thing that could have been done to humanity in all history. I disagree, i think its far lower than the bombing of Hiroshima , Nagasaki...., the rape of Vietnam and the carpet bombing of Nicaragua to name a few. I am angry because sometimes that is all that i have left. So yes you might say that our anger is misdirected that we should open our eyes and let the Americans do what they want, as in the end, we too will be dancing in the streets of our own baghdads. Smiling at our occupiers, hugging and kissing. Like the shites did in lebanon, two year before they drove a truck into an american military compound, killing hundreds, and driving the americans out. But many of us will not make it to the dancing, and beware as when the dancing stops , the chaos begins, as it begins in Iraq today. Is the only way forward for the rest of the world is to accept the butchery of the west and dance on their streets once they are savagely bombed/liberated?

So how do you feel that we should contain our anger????

ferozk #49 A country of 25 million people is freed from a brutal, pharaoh-like dictator after decades of oppression. And all you can tell me in your post that property is being looted? That the embassy of germany is worried about its furniture?

I think you are scraping at the bottom of the barrel, trying to defend your ideological belief that this is a war of colonialism. Forget your preconceived notions for a day. Put concern for people before ideology.

For myself, I was thrilled to see Saddam`s palace being looted. When I saw this smiling young Iraqi man walk away from Uday`s palace with one of Uday`s horses - a beautiful white stallion - I was very happy. When I saw the woman carrying a table on her head and a big smile on her face, I was happy. When I saw the man walking away with some more furniture from one of Saddam`s palaces saying ``Thank You, Thank you, USA``, I was happy. The Iraqi people deserve the right to enjoy their day in the sun, after decades of watching their wealth being looted by Saddam.

I have seen a number of Arab intellectuals on TV saying that they feel this is a day of humiliation for Arabs since Saddam was so easily defeated. I agree with them for once. It is indeed a day of humiliation for these Arab intellectuals. BUT NOT because Saddam`s forces were swept away. BUT because these ``intellectuals`` have demonstrated their disgusting mindset - which is one of arrogance, of being macho men. In expressing their sorrow, they have exposed their lack of concern for the feelings of the ordinary people in Iraq. This is the true shame of these Arab ``intellectuals``. Their arrogance and inhumanity. The US troops did not expose this arrogance. The Arab intellectuals did it themselves on TV. Just as Saddam exposed his arrogance with his pharaon-like statues that now lie in dust, spat upon and kicked by the people he oppressed and whose wealth he looted for so long.

I hope you will think about this a bit, and while you may feel offended by what I write, I hope at some point you will understand the point I am trying to make. Dont let ideology blind you to reality. And put people first, not ideology.

PS: We all know that this euphoria will not last for more than a few days. We all know that law and order will have to be restored and things put back to business as usual. We all know that looting can easily get out of hand and ordinary Iraqis can also fear for their property. So I too hope this will stop in a day or two, once people have let out their feelings against Saddam by looting, by destroying his pictures. However, that is no excuse either for ignoring the feelings of the ordinary people of Iraq or for avoiding the truth. Just saying that I am on my knees while you are on your feet isnt going to get you to the truth. It is simply a way for you to hide from the truth.

Bhitai #55 The political situation in Iraq has of course been destabilized. As it should have been, since stability meant starting a Saddam Hussein dynasty of evil kings in that country (Uday was being groomed). Stability meant that anyone who dared to challenge Saddam - shiite clergy, kurds, even his own sons-in-law - were killed. This is stability from hell, and good riddance to it.
Democracy is indeed messy. Many people say many things. And God Bless them all, as far as I am concerned. Democracies in the long run come through in shining colors.

PS: Incidentally (and I am exerting my democratic right on chowk to speak up) when you write ``Ayatollah Sistani and Saeed Al-Hakim are the two most revered religious figures in Iraq``, that does not impress me. As muslims, we should revere only God, and good values of honesty and truth. Not men. All men are equal before God. And in a democracy too. One day we muslims will start understanding these basic things and stop worshipping ideologies and maulvis.

Anyone following the Indian press? I chuckle every time I see lefties talk about this war. One of the most bitter lot of people on earth these days only second to Jihadists. Both groups accuse others of double standards and hypocrisy but are Himalyas of hypocricy themselves. Some of them cloak themselves under the name of Progressives here in US. America is a sore thumb sticking in the behinds of these groups. One thing common in them, all want America down and on its knees. Dream on guys!

Sri,

re:

``...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...``

Actually, someone emailed it to me and I posted it on Chowk. Are you familliar with how that works? Ironically enough even sickos like white supremacists can have the brains enough to post something witty and yet just beyond their comprehension-kind of like the logic you displayed in your post.

And how did YOU know the source of the post? My emailer didn`t...unless of course you got it off some BJP website to which you are frequent visitor...

#48
Tahmed sahib
despite all the media hype, the shiites in Basra aren`t happy anymore with the colonial tactics of their liberators. Let`s read what Newsweek has to say:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/898518.asp?0cl=c1
`It’s all a pretty scary preview of things to come throughout Iraq—especially in the Shiite areas—as Iraqis and Coalition forces try to unravel the tangle of tribal politics, Baathist collaborators, and religious passions. Unless they do, they won’t be able to restore much needed civil order in Basra and many other cities as well. `

- So, the British imposed a `sheik` on Basra, they hate him already.
- the British airlifted a `shiite scholar` from england, THEY KILLED HIM!!

Janab Ahmed sahib, iraq seems to be all set for the birth of the next `party of God`. Ayatollah hakim (who lost 7 of his brothers to Saddam regime) remains the MOST POPULAR opposition figure in Iraq, even according to the western media. Ayatollah Sistani and Saeed Al-Hakim are the two most revered religious figures in Iraq, both aligned with the SCIRI folks , who aren`t particulary fond of characters like Garner and Chilabi. Beghad isn`t the political powerhose it used to be, if there`s any city that needs to bless the coalition, it`s Najaf, and Najaf ain`t doing that.

#44 by Saminasha on April 11, 2003 8:07am PT

These people who suppourt the war not just suppourt the war in context of a particular issue (ie the Iraq issue) their suppourt comes from advancing the american agenda. The context is irrevalent to them. If you have noticed that they always say that US made mistakes always in the past thus can be forgiven/forgotten etc. they committed mistakes in 1948, in 1960, in 1970, 1980, 1990 and continue doing so now. We are suppossed to always view these mistakes in retrospective manner, not in a preventive manner. the result of their mistakes are of course not felt by the US unless it is a 9/11 or a saddam in which case they are free to do what they want. That a few lakhs or millons die because of it is irrelevant as US is a democracy and has free press. I am yet to see any critical analysis of the US acts (not being balalnced by its democracy or free press, after all what benifit is US democracy to people suppressed by their favourite tyrants) by the likes of tahamed`s of this world.

Just in a hypothecial scenario would it be right for anyone to bomb US and liberate Black people from seggeration in the 1950ies? In fact this rule does not apply to the white people. When Nelson Mandela was similarly waging a largely peacful war against the White regime in South Africa US and UK (axis of evil, for decades!) he was labelled as terrorist.

if african children are responsible for aids, then americans are responsible for their drug consumption. and if unhindered capitalism is the highest form of human activity, why then stop these people from earning a living?

http://financialtimes.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=5969963&fb=Y&partnerID=1741

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: A distant world for which Bush cares little
By Jeffrey Sachs
Financial Times; Apr 09, 2003

``_ _ _In recent years, Bolivia made a fateful, perhaps fatal, mistake in implementing a US demand to eradicate coca leaf, which was processed and sold in the US as cocaine by Colombian traffickers. Bolivia complied by reducing coca cultivation other than for traditional uses from more than 33,000 hectares in 1997 to below 8,000 hectares in 2001, according to the United Nations. For about 50,000 peasant farmers and their 200,000 dependants, growing this indigenous crop was simply a means of subsistence in the midst of crushing poverty, not an act of geopolitics.

_ _ _The peasant coca growers mobilised and nearly secured victory for Evo Morales, their leader, in last summer`s elections. The US ambassador in La Paz was especially reckless, intervening in the campaign with a warning to the Bolivians not to vote for Mr Morales, which led to a dramatic surge in his popularity. His party won a fifth of congressional seats and influence over the other parties.

_ _ _He appealed for $150m (£96m) in US emergency aid, when several times that would easily have been justified. But the US refused him even this small sum and simply sent him to the International Monetary Fund for lectures on the marvels of austerity.``

re: Saminasha# 44

First, it is unlikely that the Bush junta will invade these nations, and if it does, Syria will be the more logical target. Iran has a government elected through a popular consensus and elections, which is representative of the Iranians. Jordan, though it is a monarchy, is a popular monarachy even though there is no parliamentary democracy in Jordan. Unlike, Iran and Syria, Jordan has an established diplomatic treaty with Israel and does not pose any threats to Israel. Jordan`s achilles` heel is the Palestinian population that lives there and according to many Israeli pundits, Jordan and not Palestine should be the prefered homeland of the Palestinians. Hence, to facilitate this, the Jordanian monarchy has to be removed as an obstacle to this scheme. Syria, with an appointed head of state and being a limited democracy remains the best option and on top of the totem pole.

Secondly, the regime change in these nations is required to stabilize the region and secure Israeli interests in the region. War is always an option, but the governments might be more easily changed through political engineerings than actual invasion. I am not sure, whether there is an invasion on the cards for these nations, but I am certain that Bush junta would seek a political change in these nations. Remember, the Bush junta is an ideological cabal and being ideologically motivated, they are more attuned to a messianic zeal than to the considerations of realpolitik. Realpolitik is about affecting change without destabilizing the paradigm and ideological wars are zero-sum affairs, whose end result is an ideal, for which any political price is considered as justified.

Will the United States embark on another misadventure? Yes; for two reasons. Historically, nations have resorted to war in order to cover up and distract attention from their domestic problems. Secondly, a perpetual war hysteria, as it exists in the United States, narrows the political debate and invaribly raises the issues of patriotism and nationalism, which makes it very difficult to question an incumbent administration. War hysteria is a very effective means of silencing dissent and through this, governments are able to secure their policies from being challenged.

Hence, I do think that the United States will embark on another misadventure, because the Bush junta will always to try to distract the domestic attention from that fact that it a government nominated by the Supreme Court of the United States and not elected by a popular vote! Domestically, this government is insecure and it has brilliantly used the crisis of September 11, 2001 to create an issue of legitimacy for itself through the continuation of war. Even a glance at the opinion polls proves that its ratings improved, after the 2001 tragedy, when serious questions about its ability/inability were subsituted by issues of patriotism and ``rally around the flag`` rhetoric.

Another point, which needs to be made is this: patriotism in the United States is another name for nationalism and the Bush junta and the Americans will never admit to the charms of nationalism, because it is a word associated with the wars of twentieth century and given the American rhetoric, in the guise of Wilsonian idealism, about making the world a safe place for democracy, the United States will never admit that its interests are as base as were once the interests of European nationalism.

Best wishes, as always

Ciao

dost mittar #46 I am sorry, but I fail to see any absence of sponteneity in the crowds in Iraq. In town after town, you see them. Old men, young boys, even smiling women. The old man with a big smile beating Saddam`s picture with a shoe. The young chap running after Saddam`s statue head in Baghdad beating it with a shoe. People waving to American troops, yelling ``welcome``, ``thank you USA``, ``thank you Bush``.
All these are real my friend. Dont let your preconceived notions fool you. Believe what your eyes can see.

And btw, no one claims nirvana is here. Of course things will be rough. But dont take the AWI path out of this by blaming the US for everything. Here are some governments which in my view deserve to be condemned for their cynical game-playing with the lives of ordinary people: (a) The Turkish government: It does not want Kurd malitia to enter Kirkuk in Iraq and become politically empowered. Ever wonder whether this is because it cares about Kurds, or about the ``sacred``ness o