Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?
Moeed Pirzada October 17, 2003
#78 Posted by wasim_abbas on November 2, 2003 6:41:53 am
Pakistan should not send troops in Iraq. Iraq is an Islamic country, we can not fight with our muslim brothers. We love our army. Pakistan Army is best in the World, they are educated and professional.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#77 Posted by ijaz_gul on October 28, 2003 6:44:55 am
i called you my gaurdian angel. what are your comments to my post at #27. So far no one has responded to it.
Ijaz
Ijaz
#76 Posted by SR on October 23, 2003 10:46:55 pm
In 1915, the second year of World War I, British columns drove confidently into was then Mesopotamia, a remote Ottoman province. Stopping short of Baghdad, they retreated down the Tigris to the well-protected town of Kut, where their troops, scandalously ill equipped, dug in. Britain was astonished when more than 500 soldiers were killed in skirmishes and another 500 died of poorly treated wounds, while about 700 died of disease and malnutrition. No one had foreseen the necessity of providing a decent field hospital.
Does this absence of preparation sound familiar? The Turks were the principle foe, but they were supported by Arab scavengers and scouts, who hung about on the horizon, poured in to take advantage of the chaos and confusion, picked off stragglers, and inflicted heavy damage on the invading forces. The Arabs, improvising against an enemy who was better trained and equipped, fought as what is currently regarded as ``guerillas``, though some would less generously call them ``terrorists``.
After the war, the victorious British pasted together three incompatible Ottoman provinces - Shi`ite, Sunni and Kurd - into a state, to which they imparted the ancient name of Iraq. But they had no idea how to govern it.
Britain had earlier given the Arabs solemn pledges of independence, without mentioning that they intended to confine that independence within imperial limits. But as occupiers, few of the British saw reason for any independence at all.
``The country was so obviously unready for self-government that no one on the spot could possibly have advocated anything ... but the substitution of British and Turkish control,`` wrote one high official from Baghdad. Another claimed condescendingly, ``The stronger the hold we are able to keep here the better the inhabitants will be pleased.``
Though a laudable effort was made at what would today be called ``nation building``, Iraqis rode through a wave of resistance to the European colonialism that was rising throughout the Arab world. By the summer of 1920, Iraq was in open revolt.
The first postwar killing of British troops took place in Mosul, in the Sunni north, but disorder spread quickly to Najaf and Karbala in the Shi`ite south. Normally antagonistic, these two regions, despite British efforts to divide them, bonded on the common ground of Iraqi nationalism. The rebels specialized in hit-and-run warfare. Conceding the cities to Britain`s military power, they did not initiate pitched battles, but instead attacked installations throughout the countryside, undermining colonial rule by disrupting communications and services.
Rebel casualties were about 8,500, as against 1,000 for the British - but that was far more than London was prepared to suffer. No less important, the rebels tied up an army of 100,000 men, at a cost that the British treasury could ill afford.
The uprising ended in a compromise, in which the British with their natural preference for ``royalty`` created a throne on which they placed an Arabian chieftain. They hovered so tightly over him, however, that few Iraqis came to think of him as one of their own. The British built a government on their own model, with a parliament, political parties and a press - a government no worse than colonial regimes elsewhere - and for nearly 40 years it reigned over a more or less stable society. Pleased with their achievement, the British assumed that the Iraqis were too. One report to London noted that under British guidance, the Iraqis
had even learned to eat with knives and forks. Yet the Iraqis` resistance to accepting the monarchy as legitimate doomed it to eventual destruction.
In 1942, this resistance exploded in a pro-Axis coup. Though spread thin by the war, the British had to divert a contingent from the Pacific, reinforcing it with units originally deployed against the Nazi army then advancing across North Africa. It took a month of fierce fighting for the British to regain control of Iraq. Baghdad`s response to defeat was an orgy of looting and killing, with the main victims being Christians and Jews.
Restored to office, the powers behind the king proceeded to execute officers who had participated in the coup, confirming in Iraqi eyes the monarchy`s image as an agent of the colonial oppression. An officer named Khairallah, cashiered by the throne, angrily took a job as a schoolmaster. He later adopted a nephew named Saddam Hussein, whom he raised in his home.
By 1948, Britain, its empire echoing the Ottoman death rattle of 30 years earlier, had concluded that it was time to offer Iraq a new arrangement. But throughout the Arab world, nationalists knew that neither colonialism nor the regimes it supported could hold on much longer. The fight against Zionism in Palestine (nothing has since changed much) only inflamed them further. Britain proposed to cede some political power and cut back on the troops and bases it maintained, but few Iraqis were willing to accept such a deal. When a treaty foisted on Iraq`s prime minister was announced, Baghdad erupted into a general strike. The prime minister fled into exile, and only after thousands more vanished into prisons was calm restored to the streets.
Nothing more was heard of the treaty, but the massacre left the public without doubt that the dynasty had become indistinguishable from the foreign oppressors.
The revolution took place in July 1958, amid a period of turbulence throughout the Middle East that included a nationalistic Arab leader`s seizure of power in Egypt, the Suez crisis and heightened Soviet-American tensions. Headed by an army junta, it was a bloody affair. But, unlike Nasser`s, it was far more that a military coup. After the army gunned down the young king and his entourage in the streets, all of Baghdad rose up. Crowds seized the most powerful officials, killed them and dragged their bodies through the streets.
Most symbolic was the burning of the British embassy. Though the present conquerors were not welcomed with the flower petals that US Vice President Dick Cheney predicted for America`s forces last spring, there was - in contrast to Baghdad today - a sense of exultation, with banners and dancing in the streets.
But it is important to note that what Baghdad cheered was not impending democracy or liberty - which Bush keeps promising today. Under the British they had those things - or at least some resemblance of them. Instead, they cheered the freedom to pursue their own destiny without foreign intrusion, particularly the intrusion of a Western Christian power. Notwithstanding the unspeakable cruelty of the regimes it produced, the 1958 revolution is still regarded by most Iraqis as a huge leap forward. Though the Iraqis may have loathed Saddam, he embodied their nationalist yearning. Did Americans believe that Iraq was willing to trade him in for a return to foreign hegemony? Such a belief, is, without a doubt, self-deception.
History has a strange way of repeating itself. The ``axis of evil`` in Washington - made up of the Pentagon, the Jewish lobby and the neo-conservative Christian-right - having hijacked the White House and US foreign policy, remain the chief proponents of the adventure of illegal and unjustified war against a sovereign nation, and continue steering a great nation like America down a perilous path. Mounting casualties, the cost of occupation and post-war reconstruction, increasingly negative public opinion at home and abroad, not to mention the fact the Iraqis - whether Shi`ites or Sunnis - clearly despise the idea of being ruled by a foreign power. Open hostility towards the occupying troops patrolling the streets of every major Iraqi town, should be a wakeup call for the US/British leaders to start accepting the realities of failed misadventures in Iraq, and exit gracefully.
The irony of the whole affair is that of all foreign powers, Britain once again sent its own troops to be slaughtered alongside the American forces, in the same part of the world half a century later - lessons of history all but forgotten!
The question then needs to be asked not if history will repeat itself in Iraq, but at what scale. Almost 100 US soldiers have been killed, and thousands more wounded just since the end of ``major combat``, as declared by President George W Bush. Countless Iraqis have needlessly perished trying to resist the occupation. Billions have been spent trying to pacify the resistance. Billions more will be spent to reconstruct Iraq from the ashes. As things stand today, the outcome this time around is not likely to be any different than that suffered by the conquerors of the Ottoman and British empires.``
The above piece was written by IFTHIKHAR MALIK in ASIA TIMES ONLINE
Does this absence of preparation sound familiar? The Turks were the principle foe, but they were supported by Arab scavengers and scouts, who hung about on the horizon, poured in to take advantage of the chaos and confusion, picked off stragglers, and inflicted heavy damage on the invading forces. The Arabs, improvising against an enemy who was better trained and equipped, fought as what is currently regarded as ``guerillas``, though some would less generously call them ``terrorists``.
After the war, the victorious British pasted together three incompatible Ottoman provinces - Shi`ite, Sunni and Kurd - into a state, to which they imparted the ancient name of Iraq. But they had no idea how to govern it.
Britain had earlier given the Arabs solemn pledges of independence, without mentioning that they intended to confine that independence within imperial limits. But as occupiers, few of the British saw reason for any independence at all.
``The country was so obviously unready for self-government that no one on the spot could possibly have advocated anything ... but the substitution of British and Turkish control,`` wrote one high official from Baghdad. Another claimed condescendingly, ``The stronger the hold we are able to keep here the better the inhabitants will be pleased.``
Though a laudable effort was made at what would today be called ``nation building``, Iraqis rode through a wave of resistance to the European colonialism that was rising throughout the Arab world. By the summer of 1920, Iraq was in open revolt.
The first postwar killing of British troops took place in Mosul, in the Sunni north, but disorder spread quickly to Najaf and Karbala in the Shi`ite south. Normally antagonistic, these two regions, despite British efforts to divide them, bonded on the common ground of Iraqi nationalism. The rebels specialized in hit-and-run warfare. Conceding the cities to Britain`s military power, they did not initiate pitched battles, but instead attacked installations throughout the countryside, undermining colonial rule by disrupting communications and services.
Rebel casualties were about 8,500, as against 1,000 for the British - but that was far more than London was prepared to suffer. No less important, the rebels tied up an army of 100,000 men, at a cost that the British treasury could ill afford.
The uprising ended in a compromise, in which the British with their natural preference for ``royalty`` created a throne on which they placed an Arabian chieftain. They hovered so tightly over him, however, that few Iraqis came to think of him as one of their own. The British built a government on their own model, with a parliament, political parties and a press - a government no worse than colonial regimes elsewhere - and for nearly 40 years it reigned over a more or less stable society. Pleased with their achievement, the British assumed that the Iraqis were too. One report to London noted that under British guidance, the Iraqis
had even learned to eat with knives and forks. Yet the Iraqis` resistance to accepting the monarchy as legitimate doomed it to eventual destruction.
In 1942, this resistance exploded in a pro-Axis coup. Though spread thin by the war, the British had to divert a contingent from the Pacific, reinforcing it with units originally deployed against the Nazi army then advancing across North Africa. It took a month of fierce fighting for the British to regain control of Iraq. Baghdad`s response to defeat was an orgy of looting and killing, with the main victims being Christians and Jews.
Restored to office, the powers behind the king proceeded to execute officers who had participated in the coup, confirming in Iraqi eyes the monarchy`s image as an agent of the colonial oppression. An officer named Khairallah, cashiered by the throne, angrily took a job as a schoolmaster. He later adopted a nephew named Saddam Hussein, whom he raised in his home.
By 1948, Britain, its empire echoing the Ottoman death rattle of 30 years earlier, had concluded that it was time to offer Iraq a new arrangement. But throughout the Arab world, nationalists knew that neither colonialism nor the regimes it supported could hold on much longer. The fight against Zionism in Palestine (nothing has since changed much) only inflamed them further. Britain proposed to cede some political power and cut back on the troops and bases it maintained, but few Iraqis were willing to accept such a deal. When a treaty foisted on Iraq`s prime minister was announced, Baghdad erupted into a general strike. The prime minister fled into exile, and only after thousands more vanished into prisons was calm restored to the streets.
Nothing more was heard of the treaty, but the massacre left the public without doubt that the dynasty had become indistinguishable from the foreign oppressors.
The revolution took place in July 1958, amid a period of turbulence throughout the Middle East that included a nationalistic Arab leader`s seizure of power in Egypt, the Suez crisis and heightened Soviet-American tensions. Headed by an army junta, it was a bloody affair. But, unlike Nasser`s, it was far more that a military coup. After the army gunned down the young king and his entourage in the streets, all of Baghdad rose up. Crowds seized the most powerful officials, killed them and dragged their bodies through the streets.
Most symbolic was the burning of the British embassy. Though the present conquerors were not welcomed with the flower petals that US Vice President Dick Cheney predicted for America`s forces last spring, there was - in contrast to Baghdad today - a sense of exultation, with banners and dancing in the streets.
But it is important to note that what Baghdad cheered was not impending democracy or liberty - which Bush keeps promising today. Under the British they had those things - or at least some resemblance of them. Instead, they cheered the freedom to pursue their own destiny without foreign intrusion, particularly the intrusion of a Western Christian power. Notwithstanding the unspeakable cruelty of the regimes it produced, the 1958 revolution is still regarded by most Iraqis as a huge leap forward. Though the Iraqis may have loathed Saddam, he embodied their nationalist yearning. Did Americans believe that Iraq was willing to trade him in for a return to foreign hegemony? Such a belief, is, without a doubt, self-deception.
History has a strange way of repeating itself. The ``axis of evil`` in Washington - made up of the Pentagon, the Jewish lobby and the neo-conservative Christian-right - having hijacked the White House and US foreign policy, remain the chief proponents of the adventure of illegal and unjustified war against a sovereign nation, and continue steering a great nation like America down a perilous path. Mounting casualties, the cost of occupation and post-war reconstruction, increasingly negative public opinion at home and abroad, not to mention the fact the Iraqis - whether Shi`ites or Sunnis - clearly despise the idea of being ruled by a foreign power. Open hostility towards the occupying troops patrolling the streets of every major Iraqi town, should be a wakeup call for the US/British leaders to start accepting the realities of failed misadventures in Iraq, and exit gracefully.
The irony of the whole affair is that of all foreign powers, Britain once again sent its own troops to be slaughtered alongside the American forces, in the same part of the world half a century later - lessons of history all but forgotten!
The question then needs to be asked not if history will repeat itself in Iraq, but at what scale. Almost 100 US soldiers have been killed, and thousands more wounded just since the end of ``major combat``, as declared by President George W Bush. Countless Iraqis have needlessly perished trying to resist the occupation. Billions have been spent trying to pacify the resistance. Billions more will be spent to reconstruct Iraq from the ashes. As things stand today, the outcome this time around is not likely to be any different than that suffered by the conquerors of the Ottoman and British empires.``
The above piece was written by IFTHIKHAR MALIK in ASIA TIMES ONLINE
#75 Posted by UmerMurtaza on October 22, 2003 3:34:24 pm
Moeed,
Sorry for taking up your space.
To those interested: Please go to the `publish and discuss articles on social and cultural issues` board for further details on Hudood Laws.
Thank you.
Umer M.
Sorry for taking up your space.
To those interested: Please go to the `publish and discuss articles on social and cultural issues` board for further details on Hudood Laws.
Thank you.
Umer M.
#74 Posted by ZahraJ on October 21, 2003 9:43:15 pm
Indeed, Pakistan should send out and plant its troops everywhere in the world.
Why should not it? By sending out the troops to Iraq, at least the troops will get to see another country and will get to do something substantive in their lives. Slowly and steadily, Pakistan should get rid of all its troops. By doing that, the armed forces will have no one left behind to maintain their strong standing. Having no troops and just khaki uniform by itself will deprive the senior officers of any support.
To avail this opportunity, a few roguish civilians with bulging bellies, long curly moustaches, bushy eye-brows, hawkish eyes, and giant-killer`s physique - all well-wrapped in 10 - 12 yards of fine raw-silkish material and latt`hae kee pantaloons - will emerge from nowhere. Background Siren: ``take over...take over...``
!
Chalo, Good for everyone!
At least, now the focus will be civilians & the yards of material used to cover them. No more mention of troops/ shroops, armed/ sharmed forces and migs/shigs for sometime.
Thanks.
Why should not it? By sending out the troops to Iraq, at least the troops will get to see another country and will get to do something substantive in their lives. Slowly and steadily, Pakistan should get rid of all its troops. By doing that, the armed forces will have no one left behind to maintain their strong standing. Having no troops and just khaki uniform by itself will deprive the senior officers of any support.
To avail this opportunity, a few roguish civilians with bulging bellies, long curly moustaches, bushy eye-brows, hawkish eyes, and giant-killer`s physique - all well-wrapped in 10 - 12 yards of fine raw-silkish material and latt`hae kee pantaloons - will emerge from nowhere. Background Siren: ``take over...take over...``
!
Chalo, Good for everyone!
At least, now the focus will be civilians & the yards of material used to cover them. No more mention of troops/ shroops, armed/ sharmed forces and migs/shigs for sometime.
Thanks.
#73 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 21, 2003 10:36:44 am
#69 by Romair on October 19, 2003 10:04pm PT
Airmarshall!!!
++
And please, relax, chill out. This is only a website. I get the feeling if you had the chance you would jump out the monitor and start killing everyone who disagreed with anything you presented.
++
huh!... You of all people should accuse any one of such a thing!!!
If I c one guy would grab the chance ... it would be capitan clueless...
now reg your joke!!!
``Pakistan is .................... Hamidm``
Did you realize the there was some truth in the first and last sentence!!! ... though you shold have excluded Hamidm ....
I guess hamid had a severe indigestion problem as a result of an overdose of Romair.... mmm...
-cc
Airmarshall!!!
++
And please, relax, chill out. This is only a website. I get the feeling if you had the chance you would jump out the monitor and start killing everyone who disagreed with anything you presented.
++
huh!... You of all people should accuse any one of such a thing!!!
If I c one guy would grab the chance ... it would be capitan clueless...
now reg your joke!!!
``Pakistan is .................... Hamidm``
Did you realize the there was some truth in the first and last sentence!!! ... though you shold have excluded Hamidm ....
I guess hamid had a severe indigestion problem as a result of an overdose of Romair.... mmm...
-cc
#72 Posted by sigalph235 on October 20, 2003 7:21:28 am
Re Airmarshal 63
Your utter lack of basic knowledge of the American legislative system has been already addressed in # 66 and I have no desire to expound on it. In the future, instead of going thru a plethora of websites and interest group articles, I`d recommend that you consult the United States Constitution (art. I and II especially) about how the process works.
In the past when I had been guilty of inaccuracy, I had no problem offering an instant apology. But your accusation of me questioning your integrity is patently uncalled for and inaccurate. Questioning the veracity of your statements is not the same as questioning your integrity-at least not in the civilized world. I stand by what I said in the post that you responded to.
``First of all, were your references to doctrine of necessity, a reference to the Martials Laws in Bangladesh?``
Actually it is in reference to Mr. Justice Mohammad Munir`s pronouncement in the Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan vs. Federation case. Now, remind me again what country was Munir Chief Justice of?
``...then kindly be more careful, before opening your mouth next time.``
In these great United States we have something called the First Amendment.
Your utter lack of basic knowledge of the American legislative system has been already addressed in # 66 and I have no desire to expound on it. In the future, instead of going thru a plethora of websites and interest group articles, I`d recommend that you consult the United States Constitution (art. I and II especially) about how the process works.
In the past when I had been guilty of inaccuracy, I had no problem offering an instant apology. But your accusation of me questioning your integrity is patently uncalled for and inaccurate. Questioning the veracity of your statements is not the same as questioning your integrity-at least not in the civilized world. I stand by what I said in the post that you responded to.
``First of all, were your references to doctrine of necessity, a reference to the Martials Laws in Bangladesh?``
Actually it is in reference to Mr. Justice Mohammad Munir`s pronouncement in the Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan vs. Federation case. Now, remind me again what country was Munir Chief Justice of?
``...then kindly be more careful, before opening your mouth next time.``
In these great United States we have something called the First Amendment.
#71 Posted by sigalph235 on October 20, 2003 7:21:28 am
Re Hamidm 65
Point well taken and understood. No hurt feelings here.
As for the Airmarshal, he speaks from his heart. As you infer, one cannot entirely fault the individual for the forty year indoctrination of an institution.
Point well taken and understood. No hurt feelings here.
As for the Airmarshal, he speaks from his heart. As you infer, one cannot entirely fault the individual for the forty year indoctrination of an institution.
#70 Posted by veeresh on October 20, 2003 12:00:45 am
Hello Moeed . . . yes, I think Pakistan should send its troops to Iraq. Also Korea, Ireland, NATO bases, Falklands, the works.
a) It will correct the gene pool, currently over-dosed on violence.
b) It will be good for Pakistani women and the Pakistani economy.
c) Each returning soldier will be entitled to get one more RHD SUV from Japan at a cheap price, which they can then re-sell in Afghanistan and smuggle back.
d) India can get along with life and business without worrying too much about Kashmir and Siachen.
e) Arms industry internationally will remain satisfied.
f) In another 20-30 years the world will be dependant on Pakistanis for all forms of security, internal, external, preventive, offensive.
I can think of more reasons, but this should be enough to get them started?
a) It will correct the gene pool, currently over-dosed on violence.
b) It will be good for Pakistani women and the Pakistani economy.
c) Each returning soldier will be entitled to get one more RHD SUV from Japan at a cheap price, which they can then re-sell in Afghanistan and smuggle back.
d) India can get along with life and business without worrying too much about Kashmir and Siachen.
e) Arms industry internationally will remain satisfied.
f) In another 20-30 years the world will be dependant on Pakistanis for all forms of security, internal, external, preventive, offensive.
I can think of more reasons, but this should be enough to get them started?
#69 Posted by Romair on October 19, 2003 10:04:45 pm
Hamidm: I had some free time on my hand, and decided to go through all the replies (usually only go thru the replies of the people I interact with) It turns out you have been having a one-sided interaction with me, without my knowing about it. I feel privelaged :-)
I apologize for ignoring you. I had started skipping your replies, since you were not adding any new material to your comedy. But it seems you have turned serious now. It is a healthy change. But why so much anger :-) Has the supply of merlots run out :-)
``romair mian lives in a world of his own``
``he lives in a fantasy world where he has breakfast with najam sethi, lunch with imran khan and dinner with mushy``
``and if this sounds like a personal attack it is - he must be stopped``
````eat fish``???? .......what about last night ?.........you are beginning to sound like romair``
`` i sure am glad marshall romair is not in the pak air force any more ............here is another of his gems: ``
I would agree with all of the above. You have read me like an open book :-). But do keep in mind, I prefer the titles of Grand Scholar or Great Poet or Chief Software Engr. over Field Marshall (or even Air Marshall).
A piece of friendly advice: Live and let live. And skip my replies, if they make you so uneasy. You are taking this site way too seriously. I am really concerned you may have a heart attack. I would like to point out that you have a wife and kids. And too much anger isn`t good at this age. And I don`t want to be the cause of you keeling over one day, due to the stress created by Chowk. How will I explain it to Bhabi :-)
Just to lower your blood pressure, I will state the following, along your lines of thought, if you agree to answer one question:
I, Romair, solemnly state, in an effort to keep Hamidm from having a heart attack:
``Pakistan is a terrible place, going to hell. It should be bankrupt in a year or two. Benazir is the savior. Nawaz Sharif is a democrat. We all hope that someday the USA can come and liberate us from Musharraf. A dead gora is worth twice as much as a dead Muslim and three times as much as a dead Arab. Americans should have killed many more people in Iraq, while liberating them. Paul Wolfowitz should be the next vice-president. Laser guided bombs have 100% accuracy, even when fired by a 25 year old pilot, who is scared sh*tless, because this is the first time he has experienced combat. We should have killed more Bengalis in 71. I should have never left the military to come to the USA and make ten times more money. And of course, Islam, is a pathetic religion, which is keeping all us Abduls from reaching the heights of Bill Gates and Kanwal Reki and Hamdim. ``
Now, hopefully that will make you feel better :-) Even though your Pushtu speaking grandfather maybe rolling in his grave, after reading it.
Now my question: Was your father in the military. If yes, was he a General? There is a rumor (probably false) going around that he was. Just curious.
And please, relax, chill out. This is only a website. I get the feeling if you had the chance you would jump out the monitor and start killing everyone who disagreed with anything you presented. That doesn`t suit a fortysomething like you :-)
I apologize for ignoring you. I had started skipping your replies, since you were not adding any new material to your comedy. But it seems you have turned serious now. It is a healthy change. But why so much anger :-) Has the supply of merlots run out :-)
``romair mian lives in a world of his own``
``he lives in a fantasy world where he has breakfast with najam sethi, lunch with imran khan and dinner with mushy``
``and if this sounds like a personal attack it is - he must be stopped``
````eat fish``???? .......what about last night ?.........you are beginning to sound like romair``
`` i sure am glad marshall romair is not in the pak air force any more ............here is another of his gems: ``
I would agree with all of the above. You have read me like an open book :-). But do keep in mind, I prefer the titles of Grand Scholar or Great Poet or Chief Software Engr. over Field Marshall (or even Air Marshall).
A piece of friendly advice: Live and let live. And skip my replies, if they make you so uneasy. You are taking this site way too seriously. I am really concerned you may have a heart attack. I would like to point out that you have a wife and kids. And too much anger isn`t good at this age. And I don`t want to be the cause of you keeling over one day, due to the stress created by Chowk. How will I explain it to Bhabi :-)
Just to lower your blood pressure, I will state the following, along your lines of thought, if you agree to answer one question:
I, Romair, solemnly state, in an effort to keep Hamidm from having a heart attack:
``Pakistan is a terrible place, going to hell. It should be bankrupt in a year or two. Benazir is the savior. Nawaz Sharif is a democrat. We all hope that someday the USA can come and liberate us from Musharraf. A dead gora is worth twice as much as a dead Muslim and three times as much as a dead Arab. Americans should have killed many more people in Iraq, while liberating them. Paul Wolfowitz should be the next vice-president. Laser guided bombs have 100% accuracy, even when fired by a 25 year old pilot, who is scared sh*tless, because this is the first time he has experienced combat. We should have killed more Bengalis in 71. I should have never left the military to come to the USA and make ten times more money. And of course, Islam, is a pathetic religion, which is keeping all us Abduls from reaching the heights of Bill Gates and Kanwal Reki and Hamdim. ``
Now, hopefully that will make you feel better :-) Even though your Pushtu speaking grandfather maybe rolling in his grave, after reading it.
Now my question: Was your father in the military. If yes, was he a General? There is a rumor (probably false) going around that he was. Just curious.
And please, relax, chill out. This is only a website. I get the feeling if you had the chance you would jump out the monitor and start killing everyone who disagreed with anything you presented. That doesn`t suit a fortysomething like you :-)
#68 Posted by arjun_m on October 19, 2003 10:03:43 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#67 Posted by arjun_m on October 19, 2003 10:03:43 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#66 Posted by arjun_m on October 19, 2003 10:03:43 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#65 Posted by hamidm2 on October 19, 2003 8:30:32 pm
sigalph,
.... sorry, i didn`t mean to be insensitive with that comment about drowning bengalis ............ but i can remember the time when i had to take a rupee to school once a year to give to the president`s flood relief fund - it was a traumatic experience for a school boy who could have bought a coke and a bun-kabab for that kind of money ............
.......... as for romair, you have to understand where he is coming from - he is a typical pakistani fauji who knows everything and expects civilians, and other lesser creatures, to fall in line just because he says so .......... this fauji mule-madness is worse than the feudal mindset that he often bemoans on the chowk when he is not pontificating on everything from pakistan`s economic boom, the it boom on abbot road, and the virtues of the clowns in the ghq ..........and of course imran khan and the dead asghar kid ..........it is the same mindset that has brought pakistan to the brink of disaster ..............
.... sorry, i didn`t mean to be insensitive with that comment about drowning bengalis ............ but i can remember the time when i had to take a rupee to school once a year to give to the president`s flood relief fund - it was a traumatic experience for a school boy who could have bought a coke and a bun-kabab for that kind of money ............
.......... as for romair, you have to understand where he is coming from - he is a typical pakistani fauji who knows everything and expects civilians, and other lesser creatures, to fall in line just because he says so .......... this fauji mule-madness is worse than the feudal mindset that he often bemoans on the chowk when he is not pontificating on everything from pakistan`s economic boom, the it boom on abbot road, and the virtues of the clowns in the ghq ..........and of course imran khan and the dead asghar kid ..........it is the same mindset that has brought pakistan to the brink of disaster ..............
#64 Posted by hamidm2 on October 19, 2003 7:50:53 pm
..... i sure am glad marshall romair is not in the pak air force any more ............here is another of his gems:
``Even the most accurate of weapons dropped from the air, in perfect conditions, has many errors.``..........how many? .........satellite or laser guided bombs rarely go wrong unless they malfunction and i doubt if too many malfunctioned - they were not made by the geniuses at kamra and 502 workshop ! ........... most of these civilain causulaties were caused by conventional munitions dropped from B-52`s .......... we could have used expensive smart munitions, but who is going to pay for it ?............. i am sure abdul`s mother loves him, but i am not willing to pay more taxes to save his sorry behind ............. sorry, i know it sounds cruel, but that`s the way it is ........
.............of course there were civilians killed in iraq, but even if the number is 3000, it is a small price to pay for liberating 26 million people ..............heck, we killed more people in one night in chittagong and nobody gave a hoot ............ but of course they were bengalis who would have drowned in the next flood anyways ................
``Even the most accurate of weapons dropped from the air, in perfect conditions, has many errors.``..........how many? .........satellite or laser guided bombs rarely go wrong unless they malfunction and i doubt if too many malfunctioned - they were not made by the geniuses at kamra and 502 workshop ! ........... most of these civilain causulaties were caused by conventional munitions dropped from B-52`s .......... we could have used expensive smart munitions, but who is going to pay for it ?............. i am sure abdul`s mother loves him, but i am not willing to pay more taxes to save his sorry behind ............. sorry, i know it sounds cruel, but that`s the way it is ........
.............of course there were civilians killed in iraq, but even if the number is 3000, it is a small price to pay for liberating 26 million people ..............heck, we killed more people in one night in chittagong and nobody gave a hoot ............ but of course they were bengalis who would have drowned in the next flood anyways ................
#63 Posted by Romair on October 19, 2003 7:36:22 pm
sigalph235: ``Romair`s self-contradictory statements are to be welcomed because they give away the truth: in his passionate rhetoric, he often takes liberties with accuracy.``
Now, normally, I let this kind of nonsense pass. I consider it childish acts, which suit people over the age of forty and facing a mid-life crisis; and not the brighter lot, who are younger. But, I don`t like it when individuals (even if they are from Bangladesh) try to take potshots at my integrity - specially by providing false information and logic of their own.
If you are bent upon wasting your energies trying to find inaccuracies in my replies, I would suggest you concentrate on the parts of my replies, in which I am not quoting others. Otherwise, you will unnecessarily waste your time, and may get a hernia, due to your misdirected intense efforts.
I have neither your experience nor knowledge of the US legislative system, but I am hoping Peter Galibrith does. Which is why I quoted his piece in my previous reply, to make my point. I specifically quoted the URL and article ([Peter W. Galbraith, ``The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq,`` The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]).
Though I will admit, I consider it a complement, that you scrutinize my replies so closely. Hopefully, you are reading them for more constructive reasons, than just trying to prove me wrong.
Now over to the smug inaccurate claims about my, ``liberaties with accuracies``:
``According to the United States Constitution (which, unlike some other countries, cannot generally be doctored by generals and justices based on the `doctrine of necessity`) a bill has to pass BOTH chambers of Congress before the President has the opportunity to sign or veto it. Only when the President signs it or when his veto is overriden in a prescribed fashion, can the bill become an ACT.``
First of all, were your references to doctrine of necessity, a reference to the Martials Laws in Bangladesh?
I believe the name of the Bill can be called an Act, in its name, even though, it has not become an official Act. According to Galibrith, himself, who authored the Bill, it was called that,
``The Bill was called the Prevention of Genocide Act (download the Act). It would have imposed the harshest American economic sanctions against any country in twenty years. But Galbraith had to move quickly because Congress was about to adjourn and if he didn`t get Senate and House Approval the Bill would die.`` http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html)
If you go on the following website, http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/genocide.pdf, you will see the copy of the Bill, and it has the word, ``Act`` in the title, even though it is still a Bill. In fact, the exact words in the title of the actual Bill are:
``A Bill
Titled The Prevention of Genocide Act, 1988``
``Now how can a bill be vetoed if it was `defeated` in the House? A basic perusal of any government studies textbook anywhere will inform the student that a veto is excersized when a bill passes all the legislative hurdles and hits the executive`s desk``
Once again, I possess neither your knowledge nor intelligence, but I do watch West Wing, every Wednesday. This is how I think, everything works:
``Presidential Action
A bill approved by both House & Senate is sent to the President. The President may comment on the bill and then sign or veto it. If he signs it, the bill becomes law. If he vetoes it, it may go back to Congress for redrafting or Congress may override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses. If the President does not return the bill to Congress with his objections within 10 days, the bill automatically becomes a law. If Congress adjourns before the 10 day period, the bill is vetoed (pocket veto).`` (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/usgd/legproc.html#Bill)
So maybe, just maybe, a bill could pass the Senate, and be vetoed by the President. And then maybe, just maybe, it could go back to the Congress. And then when it is back in the Congress, then ``Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.``
Now my knowledge is based on the West Wing and Galibrith, but I believe when the President vetoes something, his boys try their best that it does not come back to his desk, and try to get rid of it in the Congress, because,
``The Constitution allows the president to veto any bill passed by Congress. If both the House and the Senate repass the vetoed bill by a two-thirds majority, the bill becomes law despite the president`s disapproval. But Congress has overturned only about 4 percent of all vetoes. (http://www2.worldbook.com/features/features.asp?feature=presidents&page=html/rolespres.htm&direct=yes)
So, do you think, the bill could have been defeated the second time, it ended up in Congress, after the inital veto. So that is one way, the above can happen.
Also, it has to pass both House and Senate and can be defeated in one, and not the other. And sometimes, the President threatens a veto early on, which is actually considered a, ``verbal Veto,`` thereby letting the House or Senate know that he is going to veto it, i.e. scaring them away, early on. This helps in the bill getting modified or not being passed, at all, the first time around. That is another way it can happen, though in this case the Veto is not official, but in the lingo, apparently is considered a Veto (at least according to Tommy Schlamme and friends).
Hopefully this will address your accuracies. If you want to genuinely debate this, I would be more than interested. Since I want to learn from your well of knowledge. If you just want to prove me wrong, then I wish you better luck next time.
P.S. Please do not try to question my integrity, without proof, again. I can only be polite to impolite individuals once. I would expect an apology, since you have hopefully seen your errors. If you are unwilling to apologize, then kindly be more careful, before opening your mouth next time.
Now, normally, I let this kind of nonsense pass. I consider it childish acts, which suit people over the age of forty and facing a mid-life crisis; and not the brighter lot, who are younger. But, I don`t like it when individuals (even if they are from Bangladesh) try to take potshots at my integrity - specially by providing false information and logic of their own.
If you are bent upon wasting your energies trying to find inaccuracies in my replies, I would suggest you concentrate on the parts of my replies, in which I am not quoting others. Otherwise, you will unnecessarily waste your time, and may get a hernia, due to your misdirected intense efforts.
I have neither your experience nor knowledge of the US legislative system, but I am hoping Peter Galibrith does. Which is why I quoted his piece in my previous reply, to make my point. I specifically quoted the URL and article ([Peter W. Galbraith, ``The Wild Card in a Post-Saddam Iraq,`` The Boston Globe Magazine, December 15, 2002]).
Though I will admit, I consider it a complement, that you scrutinize my replies so closely. Hopefully, you are reading them for more constructive reasons, than just trying to prove me wrong.
Now over to the smug inaccurate claims about my, ``liberaties with accuracies``:
``According to the United States Constitution (which, unlike some other countries, cannot generally be doctored by generals and justices based on the `doctrine of necessity`) a bill has to pass BOTH chambers of Congress before the President has the opportunity to sign or veto it. Only when the President signs it or when his veto is overriden in a prescribed fashion, can the bill become an ACT.``
First of all, were your references to doctrine of necessity, a reference to the Martials Laws in Bangladesh?
I believe the name of the Bill can be called an Act, in its name, even though, it has not become an official Act. According to Galibrith, himself, who authored the Bill, it was called that,
``The Bill was called the Prevention of Genocide Act (download the Act). It would have imposed the harshest American economic sanctions against any country in twenty years. But Galbraith had to move quickly because Congress was about to adjourn and if he didn`t get Senate and House Approval the Bill would die.`` http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html)
If you go on the following website, http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/genocide.pdf, you will see the copy of the Bill, and it has the word, ``Act`` in the title, even though it is still a Bill. In fact, the exact words in the title of the actual Bill are:
``A Bill
Titled The Prevention of Genocide Act, 1988``
``Now how can a bill be vetoed if it was `defeated` in the House? A basic perusal of any government studies textbook anywhere will inform the student that a veto is excersized when a bill passes all the legislative hurdles and hits the executive`s desk``
Once again, I possess neither your knowledge nor intelligence, but I do watch West Wing, every Wednesday. This is how I think, everything works:
``Presidential Action
A bill approved by both House & Senate is sent to the President. The President may comment on the bill and then sign or veto it. If he signs it, the bill becomes law. If he vetoes it, it may go back to Congress for redrafting or Congress may override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses. If the President does not return the bill to Congress with his objections within 10 days, the bill automatically becomes a law. If Congress adjourns before the 10 day period, the bill is vetoed (pocket veto).`` (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/usgd/legproc.html#Bill)
So maybe, just maybe, a bill could pass the Senate, and be vetoed by the President. And then maybe, just maybe, it could go back to the Congress. And then when it is back in the Congress, then ``Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act.``
Now my knowledge is based on the West Wing and Galibrith, but I believe when the President vetoes something, his boys try their best that it does not come back to his desk, and try to get rid of it in the Congress, because,
``The Constitution allows the president to veto any bill passed by Congress. If both the House and the Senate repass the vetoed bill by a two-thirds majority, the bill becomes law despite the president`s disapproval. But Congress has overturned only about 4 percent of all vetoes. (http://www2.worldbook.com/features/features.asp?feature=presidents&page=html/rolespres.htm&direct=yes)
So, do you think, the bill could have been defeated the second time, it ended up in Congress, after the inital veto. So that is one way, the above can happen.
Also, it has to pass both House and Senate and can be defeated in one, and not the other. And sometimes, the President threatens a veto early on, which is actually considered a, ``verbal Veto,`` thereby letting the House or Senate know that he is going to veto it, i.e. scaring them away, early on. This helps in the bill getting modified or not being passed, at all, the first time around. That is another way it can happen, though in this case the Veto is not official, but in the lingo, apparently is considered a Veto (at least according to Tommy Schlamme and friends).
Hopefully this will address your accuracies. If you want to genuinely debate this, I would be more than interested. Since I want to learn from your well of knowledge. If you just want to prove me wrong, then I wish you better luck next time.
P.S. Please do not try to question my integrity, without proof, again. I can only be polite to impolite individuals once. I would expect an apology, since you have hopefully seen your errors. If you are unwilling to apologize, then kindly be more careful, before opening your mouth next time.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: The JUI of Shabbir... Living Gandhi and King
- sadna: "It is significant that... Living Gandhi and King
- majumdar: Sadna, If YLH is correct,... Living Gandhi and King
- majumdar: Muthu, i can understand if... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: No one is asking... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Ok nautanki champion answer... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Ok nautanki champion answer... Living Gandhi and King
- jayp: Re: # 200 You forgot... Living Gandhi and King
