Should Pakistan send troops to Iraq?

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

fuzair #40: I agree with the basic theme of what you said, with some differences, which I will point out below:

``As I`ve said before, and probably will say again, the only objection I have to the Pax Americana is that its run by idiots.``

I actually agree with this, assuming Pax-Americana is held to the same standards as those practiced in US domestic policy. However, I don`t think it is a matter of idiocy, that it isn`t. The general notion about an American`s naivete is accurate. But the experts in specific areas are actually quite knowledgeable. But the difference is that the USA is a pluralistically democratic society. Hence it is greatly influence by pressure groups. These pressure groups can overshadow the US public opinion, which is (used to be prior to Sep 11?) generally moral. Specifically on issues which the US public has little knowledge. Hence Exxon and Haliburton and the American Jewish Council influence Pax Americana, far more than Joe Sixpack on the street. And those running Pax Americana maybe helpless against such pressure groups.

``also supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians. Both were stupid policies but you are in favor of one and against the other. Hmmmm.``

I agree. I have opposed US jihad in Afghanistan. But probably not enough. So I must admit I did disagree with much of what you had stated on that issue, earlier. I have since then changed my opinion, and am more inline with your opinion, on Afghanistan and the USA. I guess I am moving out of my phase of thinking everything done by the USA is great.

``Certainly France helped Hussein much, much more than the US ever did but I don`t see you criticizing the last 25 years of French policy regarding Iraq.``

True. France and other, maybe even Pakistan, are equally guilty. But France has not invaded Iraq. If the USA wants to support an Iraqi leader, that is one thing. But to invade a country and completely destroy its people and infrastructure is another. You need to keep in mind that 7000 or more Iraqis have probably died. These are non-soldiers. Imagine if Iraq had attacked the USA and killed that many people. Or if India invaded Pakistan and killed that many people in Lahore. Would you be willing to use the same standards, and give Iraq and India a clean chit?

``Winston Churchill (I think it was) said that you can always count on the US to do the right thing, once it has exhausted all the other possibilities.``

I used to strongly support this. Moreso than perhaps even SameerJB and Hamidm and Tahmad support it now. But since then, I have grown a bit wiser. The USA, on foreign policy affairs is controlled far more by lobbies. NRA is the strongest lobby locally and no one can take it on. Similarly the second most powerful lobby in the USA is the American Jewish (Israel) leage?. Nothing in US foreign can be done, vis-a-vis Middle East, without their approval. Just look at all the neo-cons. They are not a true reprsentative of the US demographics. And they are the ones who planned the US Iraq policy, under the shadows of Sep 11. Hence, while the USA public, itself, can be counted on to do the right thing on domestic issues. The USA foreign policy, under the influence of the pro-Likud party neo-cons cannot. I really believe Mahathir` words, that in the Middle East, the USA has always been fighting a proxy war for Israel. This was now has a life of its own, in which the USA is now directly involved. Other than Israel, realistically speaking, what enemity does the USA have with Arabs? They have no geographical disputes. Arabs, pre-Israel, used to admire the Americans. They heavily need each other with parasitical dependencies due to oil and dollars. They should be strong allies, and would be if it wasn`t for Israel`s conflicts with the Arabs.

``I would say that the US war on Iraq is stupid (not evil, big difference) because one can`t know what the final outcome will be``

I disagree. I think it is evil, because people have gotten killed. And those people`s kin consider it to be evil. Also, it is evil, because it has been done under the precedence of pre-emptive strike - and that too, without just cause. It basically gives the benefit of the doubt to the USA, in all its wars, of the future. No country, should ever be given this right.

Basically, the USA can now attack any country it wants, as and when it wants, with or without reason, even if it is not threatened. So if tomorrow the USA decided to attack Pakistan, no Pakistani supporting the USA`s war in Iraq could oppose USA`s attack on Pakistan.

Similarly, other countries, if they have the power can do the same. This is the law of the jungle. Using this law, any attack on the USA, including WTC, becomes legal, also. Since, both attacks (Iraq and WTC) were carried out knowing fully well that thousands of civilians would be killed.

If one follows this logic, then I could come and kill you, and justify it by saying that I thought you were going to attack me, because I felt you had guns in your house, pointed at me. If it was discovered that you had no guns, I could then say that I was trying to save you from an abusive father. Even though, you never asked me save you. I maybe the nicest guy in the world, but I don` think anyone is so nice as to be given such a license to kill.

``BUT, now that the US is in, I am as opposed to it leaving as I was to it going in.``

I would agree with this. Now that the forced surgery has started, the patient cannot be left to die. However, I think the USA should hand over the management to the UN, though. If it was truly concerned about Iraqis, it would hand it over. However, that would completley put the USA out of its prime objective, i.e. controlling Iraq`s oil resources, and the region itself. I think the USA will try its best to place a Challabi type govt. or King Fahd type pro-USA govt. and we will be back to square one.

The more people support the USA, the more they are encouraging such cycles. If the aim was to get rid of Saddam only, an assassin`s bullet would have done the trick. Or an internal coup. The CIA is a master at that. Taking control of the whole country was not necessary.

I think the USA is caught in a bind now, and is paying a price for trusting the neo-cons. Iraq will soon have a pro-Iran Shia govt., if fair elections are held. And don`t be surprised if the USA is again invading Iraq, in a decade or two, much like it invaded Afghanistan again.

Anyways, it is a pleasure interacting with you, as usual.

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

everyone hates a winner .........

...... you know why everyone hates the yankees?............. the same reason a lot of idiots and canadians hate america - they are winners!............ never the less, we are all rooting for the under fish....... but it just tells you something about human psychology - people just hate the top dog for no good reason ........... for years and years everyone hated tom landry and the cowboys, pittsburgh and terry bradshaw, oakland, pete rose, the bear and bama ............. but it didn`t make one bit of a difference - they rolled over everyone and their peanut galleries and amen corners ................... go bush and the neo-con boys ! yippie da doo (or whatever they say down on the farm in texas)!...........................

SameerJB: #39: I think part of your reply is correct. But part of it is inaccurate.

``Why did they spent so much money? Because they wanted to decrease american casualty? Not really. Saving another 50-100 soldiers from death using high tech weaponary is only part of the reason. The high price of war due to very expensive and top of the line accurate weapons used to minimize civilian casualties more than saving few US soldiers.``

This part is incorrect. The reason the US spends so much money in its wars is to minimize US casualities. US casualities in major wars are now barely in three digits (around 100). This is unheard of for most countries. The way the USA is able to keep its casualities so low is that it relies completely on air attacks to destroy the enemy and its infrastructure. Once everything is completely decimated, that is when it sends its Army in. And its air attacks are generally carried out from alititudes where its aircraft cannot be shot down. And this actually leads to a high number of civilian casualities.

This is where all the US money is spent. Since it costs a lot of money to carry out air strikes. Many times more than it does to carry out ground invasions. This is also why the number of civilian casualities is actually quite high. Not low. The AP figures put the civilian casualities reported from half the hospitals to be around 3,500. That means the real figure could be 7,000 or more. Compare this to the civilians casualities in the wars between India and Pakistan, in say 65. Both countries were facing a much tougher opponent that Iraq, but the civilian casualities were much lower.

``high price of war due to very expensive and top of the line accurate weapons``

This is a myth that has been created and apparently accepted by ever American civilian. Even the most accurate of weapons dropped from the air, in perfect conditions, has many errors. During wars, these weapons go all over the place. Could you point out some of the accurate weapons the US uses, which do not kill civilians.

``To make this design work, US can not afford alienating Iraqi population through forceful and deadly submission.``

This does not make sense. The US cannot afford alienating the Iraqi leadership it installs. But it can afford alienating the Iraqi population. If you look at all the countries in the region, every single one of them, except Israel, has a population, that is completely alieanated from the USA: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Iran, Jordan, Turkey etc. Yet the USA has been able to control most of thee countries, through good relations with its kings. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

``One of the thing happened to Iraq since the occupation of US is tremendous rise in the freedom of human rights, freedom of movement and freedom of expression being the obvious ones.``

This is the American point of view. This is interestingly the same argument used by the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. This has not proven by the survey results I mentioned in my previous reply. A big majority of Iraqis believe that the USA will hurt Iraq in the next five years. Apparently, they distrust the USA as much as they distrust Saddam Hussain.

``Pakistan should send forces in Iraq if asked. US is going to be around as superpower for at least another 100 years and Pakistan will always need US in the forseeable future. More US and Pakistan cooperate, better it is for Pakistan`s security, economy and even for the human rights of women and minorities in Pakistan.``

This is exactly the opinion, that was proposed by certain individuals during the Afghan war. People wanted to jump at the opportunity to get Zia to join hands with the USA. Eveyone imagined that Pakistan would be a utopia by helping the USA. Look what happened. Interestingly, many of those people are now the biggest critics of Zia.

The same thing will happen again if Pakistan helps the USA, without doing a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

Fuzair #53

The ``French/Germans/Indians/Pakistanis/Brazilians/Chinese/etc`` did a lot. The sat back and hated the US with a passion that arises only from these countries.

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

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

Re: The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

The bill died in the House after very intense White House lobbying. And, yes, the White House OKed $1 billion in aid/loan guarantees etc to Hussein less than a year before the invasion of Kuwait. So what? The point is not that the US is as pure as the driven snow, obviously it is not. Not even as pure as the slushy, muddy stuff you get when it begins to warm up and the snow melts.

The point was that no one else, not even the oh so pure French and the highly moral Germans, was even trying to do anything about it. So, all the anti-US people out there, how about being an equal opportunity criticizer and taking the French to task? There is more than enough blame to go around, why pick on just the US? At least the US finally did something about it. What did the French/Germans/Indians/Pakistanis/Brazilians/Chinese/etc do?

...even as a new yorker, i hate that fat basta$d steinbrenner and was sad to see the BoSox lose...i hope the fish stink up yankee stadium until the mets can get their act together next year...

Sending Troops to Iraq sure is a tough decision!
I was totally for-the moves that our (Pakistani) troops
should be send to Iraq but now because of post Isreal-India
nexus it`s very difficult for any Pakistani to fully support USA
because here is a nation who seeks our troops for Iraq and refuses
to give us F16 or radars? here is a nation who seeks our help and refuses
to help us!
*some taughts* Pres.Mushraff is the best man to decide I guess..!

The Air Marshal`s aero-batics

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.

``The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 unanimously passed the US Senate just one day after being introduced. So what did the Reagan Administration do? Reagan vetoed this Act, of course.``

And

`` 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 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. 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.

So, AirMarshal, which one are you arguing-that Regan vetoed the bill or that the bill died in the House of Representatives?

re: manto

{I think to accuse General Musharraf of still having links with international terror is laughable}


...do you seriously think he has changed his policy on pushing jehadis into kashmir?...even the US does not believe him on that account...he`s done that with the taliban perhaps, but def not kashmir...

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

President Musharraf has already spoken categorically that Pakistan is under no pressure from the USA to send its troops and we will not send any.

He has spoken on behalf of Pakistanis since he enjoys the support of all the moderate parties and people who constitute an overwhelming majority in Pakistan. These include:

1. Moderate parties like all factions of PML (excluding Nawaz), NDA, MQM, PPPP, PPP-Sharpao, minority representatives, etc. whose vote bank is:

2. Moderate Sunni Muslims, minority Muslim sects, other minorities.

President Musharraf`s and PM Jamali`s statements have to be respected.

Similarly, when an extremist like Advani speaks, he speaks on behalf of all Indians, because he and other extremists like Joshi and Modi have been elected by majority of Indians, even though these elected heroes are killers of innocent Muslims, Hindus and Christians.

Country versus country, its moderate Government in Pakistan supported by moderate Pakistanis and an extremist and fundamentalist Hindu Government in India supported by Indians. The words of both need to be respected.

so much for Pirzada`s ``disciplined Muslim troops`` of Pakistan:

Rogue Army General Bloodies the Law in Public.....

LAHORE: This is the bloodied face of law, and civil society, in Pakistan under the military government of General Pervez Musharraf.

This poor man is a police cop who just did his duty under orders. But since he did not know (and how could he know) that the occupants of the car he had stopped were members of a General’s family, he had to face this torture and humiliation.

But the officer, Major General Sabahat Hussain, is so drunk with power and is displaying such lack of respect for the country’s law that he is not content after beating this poor man blue and red. He has used his clout to get the Superintendent of Police and his Assistant Superintendent first suspended and then transferred from their posts. The SHO has also been punished.

So much was the Police Chief of the province under pressure that he had to ring up newspaper offices himself at 11 pm at night on Tuesday, October 14, to give the news that the officers had been removed from their posts.

And all this display of arrogance and notoriety because this constable, Nazir of Mandi Bahauddin, just did what he had been ordered to do – remove the coating from all tinted glasses in cars as the Punjab government had launched a drive in Lahore to catch the killers of Maulana Azam Tariq, the slain leader of Sipah Sahaba Pakistan.

Hundreds of cars had been stopped and each one had received the same treatment, removal of the tinted coatings. So was the car of the General, a private car carrying family members and no one in uniform. That turned out to be a major crime.

A case has been registered against Constable Nazir. He was first beaten, handcuffed and then locked in the Police Station. Not just the lowly constable was to be taught a lesson but the entire police force was to be sent a message. They were to be told that messing with a General, or even his car, would mean loss of blood and a punishment all future generations will remember. Never stop a General’s car ever again.

The entire police force of Pakistan is stunned at the incident and not one officer, of the highest or the lowest rank, is ready to talk about it with the Press, fearing that the out-of- control army would crack down further. It is the height of lawlessness, and shamelessness........(SAT)

may be the illdisciplined army of that illdisciplined General Musharraf SHOULD go to Iraq to learn some discipline under the Colonial General Abizaid......then come back and overthrow its own General......