Resistance is the first step towards Iraqi independence

sigalph #15 Fully agreed. your post is on the mark in exposing the hypocrisy of Tariq Ali - spent his entire life comfortably in the west and ridiculing it at the same time. Dont expect him to give a second thought to the tens of thousands of iraqis killed by Saddam or anything like that though. The pompous, superficial and one-sided nature of this article is testimony to the complete waste that his education at oxford has been.

the gist of the matter is that american ass has been thouroughly whipped in the streets of iraq. one lesson that american war planners will learn is that it is better to keep their boys in home or in some secured locations where they are protected by F-16`s, AWACS and all the technology in the world because once the advantage of technology is gone they are in trouble.

as regards the freedom struggle of iraq, it must be supported by all the nations that were once the victim of colonialism. americans are in iraq today for the same reason that the british were in india some time back. there is no altruism here, liberation and all is crap, what is in play is dollars and pounds.

hats off to brave iraqis who have the audacity to take on the sole superpower with courage and defiance. they took on the best army of the world with IED`s, RPG`s and other outdated weapons. definately they have not won and nobody knows what will happen next but they have certainly become a pain in the ass for american troops.

Wahi-to


they took on the best army of the world with IED`s, RPG`s ............

I am not very sure about that the Us Army is the best in the world. Only in last two years they have attacked two countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was the weekest nation of the world ravaged by 20 years of colonial invasions and then civil war. Same thing is with Iraq. They fought a ten year war with Iran first which was immediately followed by Gulf war-I and then after that they were subjected to a slow genocide thru sanctions by the western colonial powers for the past ten years. No wonder the ``conquest`` of these two nations by world`s greatest army was ``spectacular``.

But fact on the ground remains different. Despite killing somewhere between 60k to 100k Muslims in last two years alone, and inspite of attacking and ravaging two Muslim countries in absolute terms, America has lost both wars. These people who started a war of civilizations - a long war - have already lost the first two and started peeing in their pants. Some army they have.

Further to # 19

Oh by the way; both US and Britain used United Nation`s weapon control program to make sure that Iraq did not possess any weapons that could pose any danger to their soldiers before going in. Both Afghanistan and Iraq had zero airforce; no artillary and an abysmal cavalery. Iraq was not allowed to have a missile that exceeded the range of 80 miles (or kms?). All their heavy artillary was destroyed through weapons control program. It is like comparing Mike tyson who is made to fight pope in the wheel chair and declared champion of the world when he knocks the bejesus out of pope.

Tehsenabbassi #11: ``Countries like people have a background. America just does not have the make up of becoming a colonial power. It would continue to move towards elections however unsuitable they may be.``

I would be interested in your views on the following:

1. Removal of Mossadaq and installation of Shah in Iran
2. Unconditional support to Saudi Monarchy in Saudi Arabia
3. Re-installation of Sabah family in Kuwait, after they had been removed in the first Gulf war
4. Support of Saddam Hussain throughout his war with Iran
5. Support of Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan
6. Support of Taliban in Afghanistan
7. Support of Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (which is as evil as Taliban)
8. Attempted installation of Chalabi as the new ruler of Iraq
9. Support to Al-Thani ruling family in Qatar
10. Support to the Hashemite ruling family of Jordan
11. Support to Al-Nahayan ruling family in UAE

In fact, I cannot think of a single country in the Middle East where the US has not opposed democracy, and has outrightly supported the ruling dictator family. Some of these dictators have been better than others, but they are dictators just the same. This is how colonialism is carried out after WWII. No county now goes and physically occupies others. I doubt UK would try to physically occupy anyone now. Countries just control the resources of other countries, through autocratic regimes.

There has really only been one criteria used by the US, and that is: the dictator has to be pro-USA. As long as he is pro-USA, he is not only supported by the USA, in some cases he is actually kept in power by the USA. Saddam was a US ally, when he was pro-USA. No one was too worried about the plight of Iraqis at that time. Neither was anyone worried about the plight of Afghan women, when the Taliban were pro-USA. All these worries, pop up, all of a sudden, when the rulers becomes anti-USA.

I doubt the USA would have invaded Iraq, had Saddam remained pro-USA. They would still be providing him sattelite photos of Iran, like they did in the Iran-Iraq war. And Donald Rumsfeld would still be doing photo-ops with Saddam, like he did in the Reagan days.

If one is going to make sweeping statements like, ``It would continue to move towards elections however unsuitable they may be,`` one has to have some precedents and examples to back them up. Currently all the examples, in the Middle East, point exactly in the opposite direction. I would, however, be interested in any examples from your side, backing up your stance.

The only way the USA will move towards elections, and towards leaving Iraq in one piece, is if the enormous pressure on the USA is kept in place. Otherwise, the original USA plan of installing Chalabi - a convicted bank frauder in Jordan - will kick into action.

Countries do not just get up one day and start, ``liberating`` other countries from dictators, whom they supported at one time. And replacing one dictator with another, is never the answer. When the Soviets attacked Afghanistan, this is the precedent they used, as well, i.e. they were, ``liberating`` Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn`t have the greatest of govts. at that time, but it would have been much better off, had it evolved naturally, and not been invaded by the Soviets, with them installing their own dictator.

Even now, I am quite sure that Dostum and Fahim and Co. of the Northern Alliance, who have complete US support, will destroy Afghanistan, just like Taliban did. And I am quite sure Chalabi and Co. will do the same to Iraq, if they are allowed into power.

Just out of curiosity, if the USA was to invade Pakistan, under the same precedent, as it invaded Iraq, i.e. Pakistan has WMDs (which it does), and Pakistani population needs to be liberated from a dictatorship, would you support it? Using this (il)legal precedent, the USA has every right to attack Pakistan, and any other country, that it feels needs to be liberated.

Do keep in mind that according to surveys, only the citizens of two countries out of 190 or so in the world supported this war. Even the citizens of Kuwait, which was invaded by Iraq, did not support it. Nor did the citizens of Iran, which was invaded by Iraq, also. Nor did the citizens of Saudi Arabia, which was threatened by Iraq.

In fact, the opposition to the Iraq war, is one of the only things that citizens and leaders of India and Pakistan both agree on. And if Indians and Pakistanis, who never agree on something, agree on this, it must have been wrong.

Other than some expat Pakistanis, I have not met any Pakistani who supports this invasion. Even the Iraqi(s) I have met and heard, who hate Saddam, do not trust the USA either.

Re Urstruly

``Both Afghanistan and Iraq had zero airforce...``

Mullah sahib is inventing facts again to paint tyrants into heroes. According to Global Security.com in 2002 Iraq`s airforce had at least 192 combat aircraft (add up the fighters, fighter bombers, fighters and combat recon planes). Similar figures exist for their infantry and artillery. It is not for nothing that the Iraqi army was considered the fifth largest in the world at the beginning of the Kuwaiti occupation. That they never put up a fight when confronted by professional soldiers (as opposed to civilian Kurds and Kuwaiti babies) is because the moral bankruptcy of genocidal maniacs turns to cowardice at the first sign of a real battle.

urstruly #20 I admire your skill at coming up with excuses. also i have good news for you: there is a sale on Saddam idols. Buy one get one free!! the more you shop the more you save!!

But wait....there is more

Just for one day you also get a free Osama video. You can play it five times a day to remind you that it is time to worship the Saddam idol.

So run, dont walk, to your nearest Used Idol Dealer and pick it these once-in-a-lifetime deals. (remember, only two Saddam idols per worshipper).

hamidm & sigalph235

Imagine the anger of a man who has spent his life raging against the political model most successfully (and occasionally, belligerently) represented by the United States of America. Then imagine his anger at being so utterly humiliated when his devoted Soviet system collapsed, and the paradise and heaven it was supposed to lead to turned out to be a rancid wasteland. Imagine his humiliation and rage against what represents his humiliation, failure and idiocy. How can you stop the laughing and pointing of fingers at you, the amusement and contempt shown towards the village fool? (see my last post)

By raging against America, your nemesis and destroyer.

A Trotskyite Marxist Communist dies hard, I suppose. Give him the respect he deserves, though, he is tenacious, at least.

Sigalph235

I am always interested in hearing the opinions of people from a wide range of political perspectives. I personally was opposed to the war. But I think other writers make better advocates.

One should always concentrate on what is written in hand. But my image of Mr Ali is clouded by the fact that for thirty years he was an absolutely unabashed Trotskyite Marxist who believed in violent action to overthrow the capitalst state and believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Now that is a legitimate, if stupid, position to hold, but I can remember watching interviews with him from the 1960`s and 1970`s (whilst safely ensconced in England, please note, not Soviet Russia or Pyongyang) in which he predicted the IMMINENT ending of the western capitalist model and its replacement with the workers state.

Now it is not that he might be wrong on this particular issue. It is just that I find it hard to read, without keeping in mind, that this man was so hugely, collossally, irrefutably, HUMILIATINGLY, incorrect on the central thesis and holy plank of his whole life, that he had staked his entire political and human struggle on.

When the Berlin Wall fell such people were exposed as akin to the madman that stands at the street corner yelling that the sky is green, that the grass is blue, and that the world will end tommorow.

It is one thing to be incorrect on minor details of history and politics. But to be so utterly, abolutely, and fundamentally CLUELESS is really quite audacious.

I would again like to express my satisfaction on the conduct of the elected Government of Prime Minister Jamali on the matter.

As stated by PM Jamali and recently seconded by FM Kasuri while on air on ARY Digital from UK, Pakistan is having a relationship with the USA that is based on mutual trust and on ground realities and that Americans never pressurised Pakistan for any decision on sending the troops. Unlike the reports published in the American media routinely under the influence of extremist Jews and extremist Indians, American Government, establishment and mainstream media fully understood the ground realities of Pakistan i.e. Pakistanis don`t want to send their troops to Iraq.

That is what Pakistan needs to do. We have to be pro-Americans, siding with them whole-heartedly on matters based on sound principles and eschewing from others. Expecting least in return from them i.e. be prepared for the worst, we should be able to accept whatever economic benefits come out of this relationship with open arms.

An average Pakistani has more to gain from a friendly America than otherwise. There is no room for any emotionalism in the international arena. This message is also for those who are settled in the USA, but find excuses to blast its policies every now and then. From a purely Islamic point of view, you have to be loyal to your land. You cannot be living in a land and castigating it all the time.

IRAQ IS ARABIC FOR VIETNAM,

There are many a pakistanis who believe fervently in the above saying. No sir, it the first assault to contain jihadic terrorism. Look at afghanistan, for a long time pakistanis maintained that no one can contain the tribals of pak-afghan border, even the alexander and the british failed. Now pakistanis are building fences, they are in the tribal areas, where alexander failed with his horsemen, littele pieces of paper with a dead mans image is winning, that is called $.
There is fencing in the pak afghan border, fencing in the indo-pak border. India will opt for iran-india under sea pipe to transport gas, and indo iranian navy will be just outside pak waters. At last the monstrocity will be fully fenced in. The same will happen to the countries bordering iraq, all will be fenced in so that no jihadi can come to the land of milk and honey. It is called Us colony of Iraq.

re: Tariq Ali

Welcome to Chowk. I have a question for you, but I doubt if you will answer it.

There is no denying the fact that the United States is caught in a trap of its own making in Iraq and there is no denying that the situation in Iraq is complex and dangerous.

The concern is not that the United States will leave Iraq or when it does leave Iraq. There is no joy to gloat over the American experience in Iraq even though the urge to say ``I told you so`` to Uncle Sam is strong. The real question, in the present sense, is not reasons which led to the war or the reasons why the situation is turning nightmarish for the Americans in Iraq.

The real question is what is the best methodology to re-create the Iraqi civilian society since it has been bruatalized between Saddam Hussein`s rule and the United Nations` sanctions and the American occupation. The issue of empathy is the plight of the Iraqis and how to end their political, social and economic desperation. It is time to forget about the political spin and old college ideological passions and patriotic rationales and consider the simple fact of how to reconsitute the Iraqi polity as a viable state, which serves the best interests of its population.

My question is simple. How do we help the Iraqis and in the process, not cover ourselves in rags of own narissistic glory?

Ciao

Ref Tehsinabbasi #11

[Countries like people have a background. America just does not have the make up of becoming a colonial power. It would continue to move towards elections however unsuitable they may be. What America does have is a background of rebuilding and turning previous enemies into well-wishers. Even now Americans enjoy deep gratitude and admiration from both Germans and Japanese.]

Well, the Cubans and the Filipinas might have a different opinion about the non-colonial nature of American rule. And so might the people of Central and South America.

romair,

..... let me answer on behalf of my friend tehsin, who i have known before you were even a gleam in your mother`s eye.......... like all other good americans he has better things to do - make money and read plato!

..... your silly list of 11 charges is simply answered by one phrase: `` lesser evil`` ........... during the cold war while folks like tariq ali were running around ranting and raving, the us did what it had to do to bring about the collapse of the evil empire .......... and it worked - didn`t it? ............ now it is faced with the equally evil islamists and if it supports the northern alliance, or ali baba, to defeat the taliban it is a perfectly good choice ....... right?

.........your questions are best answered by dinesh dsouza in his wonderful book ``what`s so great about america`` which, according to my sixteen year old, is the best book she ever read .......... it reaffirms your faith in the future of mankind .........

tahmad & saigalph

All I am arguing is that US army is good at destroying countries but not good at winning wars. Wars are won by a delicate combination of politics and military muscle. On the political ground America lost the war when it refused the Taliban offer to hand over America`s wanted men to a third country for a fair trial. But America wanted vengeance; so that is what it got - the vengeance and lost the war. The war on Iraq was based on out right balatant lies and half truths that whole world refused to accept. This caused the defeat at political level way before when the first shots were fired. Having defeated politically on both fronts, America is left with no option but to use its military muscle to the full extent. All the armies in the world are designed for only one thing i.e. to kill. They cannot build roads, or hospitals, or democratic institutions. It is not in their job description. During the years of military training a soldier is trained and mentally conditioned to do one thing and only one thing i.e. to kill his enemy before he kills him. Even in countries like Pakistan where Army faces virtually no violent opposition they are pathetic to build democratic institutions or end corruption - what to talk of when an army is in enemy territory. So US army and US government is left with one option and only one option i.e. to kill as many gooks and ragheads as they possibly can. Empires are always established on fear and intimidation. American Empire cannot survive without employing the terror which is so much in the core of nature of colonialism.

It is not the first time that it is being done in history. Take for example British occupation of Hindustan. In order to control the local population during and after war of independence of 1857, British had to unleash the most brutal force that subcontinent had ever seen. From Meerut to Delhi and from Delhi to Kanpur and from Kanpur to Oadh they had to hang every any living soul that they came across onto the trees by the road; they had to burn down whole villages alongwith their people along the way; they had to tie innocent people in front of their canons in city centers and display the blown up pieces of their bones and flesh to the general public; they had to confiscate the properties of affluent and rape their women in front of them to break their will; and they had to send thousands in exile and into forced labor to the islands like Andeman, and Mauritius, and Indies which were the equivalent of Guantanamo of this time - the kala paani. The local Indian population refer to this reign of terror, that lasted for almost three and a half years after 1857, as ``Kaali Aandhi``. This brutality of 3.5 years did break the will of the people so much so that at times only 16,000 british soldiers stationed in whole Hindustan were controlling 600 million Hindustanis. From time to time they had to display their power like in Jalianwala bagh or shooting down of Khaksars protestors on the Lahore streets with machine guns, but they did succeed - didn`t they. Like Saima Shah said ``It is not difficult to learn how to be a colonial power``.

Americans have no other option but to do exactly that. That is exactly what French, Italians, Spaniards, Japanese, Belgians, and Dutch did in their respective colonies. There is too much at stake for Americans in Arab countries. If they evacuate now from Iraq the fallout will not contain itself to Iraq. They will have to evacuate all occupied territories - from Gulf states, to Saudi Arabia to Egypt and to Palestine and also Afghanistan. What would world say - that what a chutia and wuss nation America was that it couldn`t conquer two of the weakest nations of the world? What is more pathetic than that.

ferozk # 28

That is an excellent question that you posed.