One Down Two to Go

There are some wierd reasons, that are thrown around to justify this war. The reasons keep changing, as each one loses its credibility.

1. People keep pointing to the fact that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. Could someone highlight exactly how this conclusion has been reached.

Iraq has Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran as its neighbors. Which one of them considers Iraq a threat? Any opinion poll in these countries indicates that their populations heavily opposed this war. This includes Kuwait and Iran, which were actually attacked by Iraq. Not to mention Turkey, which has been one of the most pro-USA countries, traditionally. Through a popular vote, it didn`t even allow US troops to be stationed there.

Now all these countries citizens maybe idiots for not considering Iraq a threat, and our expatriate strategists maybe geniuses for considering Iraq a threat to its neighbors. But, in the end, shouldn`t it be the people of the neighboring countries who should decide, whether Iraq is a threat to them, or not?

2. The second reason was that Iraq was a threat to the world. Yet nearly the whole world at the UN was trying to convince UK and USA that Iraq was not a threat to them, while the USA was trying to convince them that it was a threat to them. To the point, that a Security Council resolution was not even presented by UK and USA, on this subject, fearing that the whole world openly state that Iraq was not a threat to them.

According to Newsweek, only the populations of two countries (Israel and USA) supported the war on Iraq. Every other country in the world did not consider Iraq a threat.

Now, our expatriate holier-than-thous maybe right again, and maybe the rest of world is an idiot (including all the goras), and Iraq is actually a threat to them. But shouldn`t the rest of the world be allowed to decide that?

So this argument is out also.

3. Next is the WMD argument. Where the hell are they? Even on this issue, the rest of the world wanted the UN to inspect and find them. If Iraq had WMDs, does anyone really think the USA would have invaded. It is a set rule that countries with WMDs do not get invaded, because they can bomb the living daylights out of the invaders. Does anyone really think George Bush would have sent US soldiers into Iraq, knowing fully well that Iraq could launch chemical weapons on them. Obviously, Bush knew they did not exist. And if they exist, why didn`t Iraq use them on the US soldiers?

So this one is out also (even our holier-than-thous cannot argue this one).

So what are we left with. The following:

- Remove Saddam since he is a despot. Did people just realize this, all of a sudden. Where the hell was everyone for thirty years. American planes flew over Iraq for years. The whole place was a no-fly zone. Why not bomb him. Why not shoot the guy. 140,000 soldiers and 70 billion dollars to catch one guy.

- Invading Iraq for the betterment of Iraqis is the next argument. This is the cover-all argument that never fails. The Soviets used it in Afghanistan, also. Once again, where the hell was everyone for thirty years. And if it is for the betterment of Iraqis and the Middle East, why in the world is every Arab (including Iraqis) against the Americans.

So we know what wasn`t the reason. What exactly is the reason? A strange war, which is over, yet no one can put their finger on what the reason is.

The best chance to install democracy in the Middle East, was after the first Gulf War. Not in Iraq but in Kuwait. The Sabah ruling family had been kicked out. They could have easily been replaced with a democratic system. But they were given refuge in USA and reinstalled.

The living standards in the Middle East have tradiitonally been pretty good. Certainly far higher than in South Asia and in Africa. Even now, Indians and Pakistanis migrate to the Middle East, in a heartbeat when their visas arrive, and not vice-versa. So it a bit odd that Indians and Pakistanis, on this site, are bent upon discussing the backwardness of the Middle East, as a reason to justify the invasion.

The whole area is soaking in oil. Sooner or later, the people of the area will find a way to use this to their benefit. The only thing that is needed is for the superpowers to stop playing their games in the areas. And to stop supporting and opposing despots as and when it is convenient.

Luckily, due to the opposition of Europeans, the next despot-in-line for Iraq, Mr. Chalabi has not been installed. He was, of course, the chosen one. Even though he is wanted in Jordan. Free and fair elections will result in a win for the Shia clerics. Which will turn Iraq into Iran. So, they won`t be allowed to get into power. The USA cannot stay their forever, with the number of soldiers it is losing. The Baathist aren`t going to come back.

So, who the hell will run the country now? Is it going to turn into another Afghanistan, with everything and every power imposed on it from the outside, by superpowers and through its neighbors? With one despot replacing another....

I nominate Hamidm as the next leader of Iraq. I think he has the most clear vision for the area. However, is he willing to move to a place with no plumbing :-)

More humiliation for Saddam!!

Saddam removed from list of descendants of Mohammed Agence France-Presse
Baghdad, December 18

The name of Saddam Hussein has been removed from the list of descendants of Prophet Mohammed, the head of the union of Ashrafs, who guard the genealogical tree, told AFP on Wednesday.

Al-Sherif Najeh Mohammed Hassan Al-Faham Al-Aaraji admitted that the ousted dictator had been able to cheat despite the great value and honour attached to the line which is guarded in Baghdad.

``Saddam had forced the origin experts to falsify his genealogical tree so that it went back to the Prophet,`` he said.

``We will inform all the experts, and particularly those who yielded to Saddam and agreed to falsify his genealogical tree. But the real trusted experts are very few in number and all refused,`` he added.

Aaraji showed AFP a photo of Saddam`s tree including a large book of origins which go back to the imams Hassan and Hussein, sons of the imam Ali bin Abi Taleb by his wife Fatima, a daughter of the Prophet.

The cancellation of Saddam`s noble lineage was decided three days after his capture by the US forces on Saturday night near Tikrit, in northern Iraq.

The Ashrafs` union was set up after the fall of the old regime on April 9 by the men who under Saddam were part of councils of the sayeds, or lords, descending from Hassan and Hussein.

sadna #154 i think i have had enough interaction with you for the rest of this year. have a happy new year.

re shobuz 151

``Should the new generation of Bangladesh will not heal from the old wound. ``

We will forgive but not forget. There can be no real `healing` until there is an apology and those involved are held to account. Generations will come and go but rest assured this will not be forgotten, no matter how hard the Islamists try. Don`t expect Pakistanis and their Arab patrons to be given a free pass at genocide just because they are Muslims.

Pakistanis have not lost their right to criticize anything. Decency would demand, however, that they pull the mote out of their own eyes before pointing the speck in others`. Time after time they have shown a proponsity to granstand. They harp on the supposed atrocities in Judea/Samaria/Gaza and Iraq but always have excuses for the genocide that preceded the `fall of Dhaka`. They go hysterical about NSEERS registration but care not a whit that Pakistan does the same thing with `brotherly` Muslims coming from `brotherly` Bangladesh-and they are not even as professional as the INS. They ask the world`s sympathy for housing 3 million Afghan refugees but do not lift a finger to take back their own 3 lac refugees rotting in Bangladesh for 32 years. You will forgive me if I, therefore, find Pakistani outrage over such issues to be somewhat less than completely convincing.

Re Mahesh G
``If not, how exactly does the US invasion of Iraq differ from the German invasion of poland? ``

1. Poles did not go around giving money and succour to suicide bombers working against Germany`s closest allies

2. Poland did not execute a million plus of its own folks

3. America did not finish off ten percent of Iraq`s population (Germany did it to Poland)

4. America did not gift Turkey half of Iraq (Germany gave half of Poland to Stalin)

5. America didn`t open concentration camps in Iraq

ArjunM

“
#16: it`s the muslims who have a problem...something`s not screwed on right...

#26: The people in America don`t live by oil alone, as much as the camel jockeys might want to think

#41: Does the heart that bleeds for iraqis also bleed for the dead East Pakistanis?

#44: the fall of dhakka..the place where muslims were killed as collateral damage by the soldiers from a certain army and no one has ever been prosecuted....

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
First you disrespect all Muslim, then make fun of Arabs, and then take on Pakistan.

The very people you praise (Americans) were also with Pakistanis during 71. Had it been few more months your present friends would have done God knows what in Bangladesh. Are they equally at fault of joining Pakistanis then? You mention none of those. Let me guess, “Hate first, find reason later”

Should the new generation of Pakistan be ridicule for a screw up in past. Should the new generation of Bangladesh will not heal from the old wound. Should they not coexist in friendship & brotherhood and look to move forward. Have Pakistanis lost their right of sympathizing to the death of a fellow Muslim now, because of 71. How does imposing such thought or lingering a bitter past between two nations help what cause? Let me guess, “divide people, bore hatred”.

“Disrespect, make fun of people, hate, divide” are easy stuff, how about some thoughts on peace and reconciliation.

Stuka: Yes indeed, thin men are dangerous. dangerous to others. while fat men are dangerous to themselves. who is this mullah sandwich?

Sigalph #94

Why not? International law is good enough.

If not, how exactly does the US invasion of Iraq differ from the German invasion of poland?

Obviously, it`s for the humanitarian purposes blah blah.

The end result this time around has been good. Does this condone the US action in general? What happens if the US invades another country to prop a dictator of its choice by citing WMD as the reason?

Can you guarantee that such a thing will not happen? You can not because the US admin has used some excuse or the other to get its way in the world by hoodwinking its own citizens into supporting its actions under the label of righteousness blah blah.

tahmed32 #141

``quality time``
So abusing unknown people(and their mothers) for their views is the way grownups spend ``quality time`` according to you. I see.

rsaxena: intervention in iraq makes the US safer as follows: it changes the status quo (which has bred the hatreds and fanaticism that was responsible for 9/11) in the middle east.

the status quo was represented by corrupt governments (of which Saddam`s was among the worst) which were only too happy to make the US the scapegoat to divert attention from their own autocratic rule. as saddam tried to do.

if Bush succeeds in his goals (and this will require time and dedication), iraq would represent a major step away from this dysfunctional status quo, thus channelling arab frustrations into something more productive and progressive. if he fails, it would at least have gotten rid of saddam who was irreconilably driven to militarism and towards scapegoating the US, by his ambitions of becoming an arab hero, a modern day nebuchadnazzer.

That is how the US is safer with saddam`s removal.

PS: you asked too narrow a question incidentally - the important thing is how intervention in iraq makes the world a better place. and the above reasons apply all the more strongly when viewed in a global context and not in a narrow US context only.

Act 1, Julius Ceasar, Shakespeare

re. RSaxena #145
``....can some rocket scientist explain the connection betwee iraq and 9-11?``

Doncha know?? ``Sad-dam Hussein has links to Al-qyder.`` the Brits even have a dossier on this! Just don`t ask them for it anymore, ok! Umm.. u can ask Cheney though. I htink he still believes that one.
umm... or maybe now that halliburtons got all them contracts, he`s forgotten all about it.

re soysauce:
``Of the half dozen or so soldiers who were with Jessica Lynch during the time of her capture, three have met with violent death on their return to the USA. ``

What?!? Sources please. Thanks.

#144

It`s usually polite to acknowledge the source:

``Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous``

re. OrdinaryMuslim:

``If the capture of Saddam won`t change anything then why is it good to see him being caught?``

Same reason why, whether Santa comes around this or not wont change anything but seeing a filled stocking over the fireplace will be good for the kids to see. :-)

{If there had been no 9/11 there would have been no afghanistan and no iraq either. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Reflect on this. }

can some rocket scientist explain the connection betwee iraq and 9-11?...where is osama?...who gives a $hit about saddam as far as american safety is concerned...