One Down Two to Go

Since we are only now finishing up with Slobodan Milosevic trial after Wesley Clark’s testimony last month, there is a reasonable argument over how long would it take to bring Saddam to justice? But rest assured that Saddam’s trial would be speedy for several reasons: we (Americans) are there to do it right this time. To guide the process through with help from U.N. and respected judges of Iraq as well as other countries. Since at present it’s too big a case for fragile Iraqi judiciary to handle. I also have hope that Osama be next, though I’m cautious to bet on it because he’s got too many supporters in Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. We will let our troops add to his misery.

actually 303 does not sound bad either.

Oye Sheehdeya, pharha meri 3 nuT 3 di ruffel te dou chaar hawai phayar kar ke nawaN saal manayeye.

...look what you did killjoy....now i have to post another 99 inane posts to make it round 400... :(

khamkhwa #300 in other words, the information content of your post is zero. hmmmmmm.....after due deliberations, you are awarded the MVP (Most Valuable Poster) award for this board!! (the information content in the remainng 300 posts being less than zero).

We need more thoughtful posters like you on chowk.

...i aint interested in any of this political bullshit. i just wanted this article to have a nice round figure of 300 than the awkward 299....that`s all i have to say ...;)

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

re:hamidm2 # 293

The end never justifies the means.

Ciao

naqshbandi,

.......... don`t blame the white man for your problems .......... even god is white - or at least his son appears to be .............

shobuz #286 You make the important point that people who do not wish muslims well (and there is no shortage of those, as we can also see on chowk with examples like arjun and jay) were delighted with 9/11.

Muslim conspiracy theorists are like the boy who cried wolf: they cry ``wolf`` (e.g. by bad mouthing the US or the west at every opportunity; by complaining loudly at the extra safety precautions that the US has rightly introduced at airports; by cooking up conspiracy theories out of thin air) when there is no wolf because they think it is fun.

When a real wolf appears (like a Milosovic perhaps, or a Modi, or in the form of a Chinese crackdown in Sinkiang, or in the form of sectarian killings as in Pakistan), these conspiracy theorists are nowhere to be found. By pointing fingers to people who wish muslims no harm, these conspiracy theorists are perhaps the worst enemies of the ordinary muslim who has to suffer the consequences.

Naqshbandi (who has popped his head on this board) is a perfect example of such individuals who are the true enemies of the muslim people because they enjoy crying wolf: this man spares no opportunity to bad mouth the west and to separate the muslim community from the west - all the while himself living comfortably in the west, safe from harm because he is protected by western forces of law and order. While living their lives in hypocrisy, these people engender negative feelings towards muslims which ultimately translate into the real wolf emerging - in the form a of a milosovic or a modi. Individuals like naqshbandi represent the most despicable among men in the world, the only true enemies of the muslim people.

for people like sigalph/hamidm and other Uncle Toms/slaves etc.:-

``...
[As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven`t got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it`s true...To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good `cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master`s house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, ``We got a good house here,`` the house Negro would say, ``Yeah, we got a good house here.`` Whenever the master said ``we,`` he said ``we.`` That`s how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master`s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, ``What`s the matter, boss, we sick?`` We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself``...
quote from the great shaheed of America Malcolm X al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz (rahmatullah alayhi).


You see you are still Uncle Tom`s and slaves of the white man. When the white man sleeps with your women for you its an honour. When he rules your country and destroys your culture he is civilising you! You are slaves. You will always be his slaves--mentally. And I just use the phrase ``white man`` as an archetype not in a racist way to refer to those who call the shots in the USA and elsewhere. Thus Colin Powell is also ``white``.

for people like sigalph/hamidm and other Uncle Toms/slaves etc.:-

``...
[As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven`t got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it`s true...To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good `cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master`s house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, ``We got a good house here,`` the house Negro would say, ``Yeah, we got a good house here.`` Whenever the master said ``we,`` he said ``we.`` That`s how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master`s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, ``What`s the matter, boss, we sick?`` We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself``...
quote from the great shaheed of America Malcolm X al-Hajj Malik al-Shabazz (rahmatullah alayhi).


You see you are still Uncle Tom`s and slaves of the white man. When the white man sleeps with your women for you its an honour. When he rules your country and destroys your culture he is civilising you! You are slaves. You will always be his slaves--mentally. And I just use the phrase ``white man`` as an archetype not in a racist way to refer to those who call the shots in the USA and elsewhere. Thus Colin Powell is also ``white``.

ferozek,

......... you keep on harping about on the stated reason for going to war ............ isn`t it possible that the bush administration actually believed that iraq had wmd`s ?........ i believe that they had bigger and better reasons also (like sowing the seeds of democracy and cleaning up the mid-east) but the wmd reason was one that they felt could be sold most easily to congress and the public - hence the emphasis ........... in hindsight, they could have played a different hand, but it really doesn`t matter - the result would (and should) have been the same .......... all it would have done is proplonged saddam`s murderous rule by another six year ............. what would that have achieved?

............. it is silly to wring your hands and go on repeating the same old line - what does it prove?.......... the deed is done and everyone in better off ............ whether the administration embellished the truth doesn`t matter - the end justifies the means ............. and anyway, since when did honor become a virtue with thieves and politicians?.......... so quit parroting the same old line like other saddam apologists and fat girls who can`t say anything good about the blonde babe ............

re: Sigalph

Sorry, for the typo. The P.S. should thus:

``Given your reasons, the North Koreans are wondering when will you and the United States bless them with democracy?``

Ciao

re: Sigalph

Every time you mention ``blonde``, you take an additional step in trivalizing your own agruments. Since you remarked on my gentility once, hence I will say this with the utmost respect: you have not made an argument; all you have done is made an apology for the Bush administration. Did the Bush administration do some thing so gulity that you need to justify it by harping all the time that it was right? Why, because deep down in the core of your conscience you know that what you are defending, is and was wrong?

Every time you mention the word ``blonde``, it seem as if some hidden phobia simmers beneath your conscience. Every time you mention the word ``big``, one wonders if you suffer from a dysfunctional problem of the Freudian persuasion. You are so fixiated on the terms ``blonde`` and ``big``, that one has to wonder if you are sub voce suggesting a personal wish? It happens all the time. A boys plays with a big blonde soldier and soon wishes he could be that big blonde doll of his dreams. He does not like the fact that he is not big and he is not blonde and he goes into and starts to live in a world of Walter Mitty.

Calling those, who disagree with you as ``Saddam apologists`` shows a very immature person, who is insecure about the ideas he is trying to defend. if you are not convinced by the arguments, then openly state such a declaration. Calling people as a ``Saddam apologist`` is not going to make you win an argument.

My friend, you do not have an argument, but I will give you credit where credit is due. You have adoritly tapped danced your way around the issues and have side stepped all the arguments, given contary to your proposition, as you justified your rhetoric as a subsitute for reason. I will tell you a secret; I think in the long run and it will be painful, but Iraq will benefit out of this war. No one will cry for Saddam Hussein and no WMD will be discovered and accidently, there will be democracy in Iraq, but it will be accidental since this war was not started to bring democracy to Iraq; it was started to prevent the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction from threatening the United States.

If you do not believe me, just research the archives of all the newspapers before March 2003 and see what reasons the United States was giving for attacking Iraq?

Ciao

P.S.: Given your reasons, the North Koreans are wondering when will you and the United States bless with democracy?

Sigalph #285,

You are the one to talk. All you could come up with as a way of argument was call everybody who disagreed with you a Saddam apologist.

#285 Sigalph.

Sigalph-The Blonde lover

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

Sigalph,

I am not found of Hussein, but I love you man (your style I meant)

You sensed wrong on my word ‘big’. All War materials of Blonde, like Aircraft Carrier, C-130, missile, ….are not only big they are huge. With these massive equipment blonde can literally tear a nation and thus won big. Did I get it right now?

TAhmed:

I lost a friend and lost two I knew. I know Bangladeshi women who later came in a TV Show with newborn baby, wearing head scurf with others whose husband perished. Emotional impact of such devastation is overwhelming. But as soon Muslim name came up as culprit, even you could not stop worrying about your daughter in NJ, and the president of the US was concerned for backlash. How does then fearing of backlash equate not to feel for families who lost in 9-11? It was a double jeopardy for Muslims.

If I may allow myself, I will go little off track. After 9-11, I joined a Hindu festival, where a person was expressing his delight ness of what may happen to Muslim till he was told that we are Muslim. Air traveling of some of my Arab friends was nightmare with one expression only ‘it ain’t fare’. Shikh Hindu of NY came forward in support of Muslim. Some Hindus in offices became immediate expert on defining Muslim and Islam. Jokes flew, “If I were Muslim I would not stay in a Muslim nation now, because AB is eminent”, “you look like terrorists”, “Muslim culture is a culture of terrorists”, “Muslims are like cults”, “nuke solves problem”, “vermin needed to be exterminated”…………. You do not hear this much because Muslims does not have ADL like institution. But again, please contact the institution name CARE if you have doubts.

Writing only from one corner of view, while ignoring or minimizing other part will not take away the issue and the issue is, Muslims in USA cannot sit idle any more. 9-11 was a wake up call. A wake up call not only to face mullahs but also for average peace loving Muslim in USA too. What can be done with mullahs in Pakistan, Bangladesh…. also are issue, but Muslims in USA must work hard to have a solid representation in mainstream. May I say that beauty of America is practicing peaceful living among pool of diversity? Look at NY, people of so many nation, religion, culture are doing fine. Do you think people who wears added piece (Jews the cap, hindus the red stripe, Muslima the headscarf) of means are for attention only. If there believes make them to wear certain things or to practice certain thing, should those faith and believes be always put in scrutiny under logics and rational. Americans were not much aware of what ‘Muslim’ is, nor they were in need. But 9-11 certainly has changed that. Presently, fear of backlash has reduced to minimal level (Bush deserves thanks for this), but please look at the media of how many times word Muslim, Islam, Arab are added to every piece of derogatory happenings. Why Wolf Blitz brought a ‘Muslim expert’ asking this question “please explain why Islam is not a violent religion” when John Allen Muhammad was caught. Do you believe this sort of ‘orchestrated defense’ helps? Any avenue where word ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ can be used in derogatory fashion is used. Did you watch “John Stuart’s nightly show” or (can not remember now) “ we hate Muslim parody song (this song was absolutely refreshing on addressing hypocrisy practiced towards Muslim by media)”. How about that Hindu dude who was caught of buying arms for AQD. You did not heard word “Hindu XYZ”, you only heard “XYZ”. Imagine how the news would have played if it would be a Muslim from Pakistan.

Incident like these are in ample. I do not amuse myself in conspiracy theories, but I do believe that bad PR can lead to serious abuse. Practice of fairness dictates let give a chance to hear all, before concluding, “Muslim are paranoid because of their tradition and how they are taught”. All most all-major news media has hired Islam/Muslim/Middle-East/Palestine expert. How about coming up with a TV or Radio show, where a practicing Muslim will be seen of how he/she speaks, deals, applies logics & rational and Muslim view of Palestine and Kashmir. May be our neighbors if cares and in need, will have an alternate view points along with what “Middle East, Muslim & terrorist Expert” are providing. I cannot take face value on reports of Muslim or any terrorist happening from WP, NY Times who has proven big time already how they lie and manipulate news.

Ms of Deshi Muslims loves this nation. If a borne white American can criticize USA, why a ‘Deshi Muslim US citizen’ be ridicule when he objects and being critical on certain issues and policy of USA, why he/she gets put down via comparing to what goes on in Bangladesh or Pakistan.

It is silly not to acknowledge that some deshi people have problematic mindset, reminding that continuously helps inner one. You deserve thanks for that.

The sum total of apologist arguments is to call the adversary:

childish (MaheshG), homosexual (shobuz), and racist (arjun).

And all of that trying to explain why you guys hate Saddam but hate it more so to see him go.

Re Dost mittar 274

Should be the same but I may have used more colloquial intonations (should catch myself doing that).

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

#271 Sigalph

“you guys are just plain jealous that the beautiful blonde won and won big”


Why should your acquaintance with ‘blonde (guys)’ and your knowledge of their ‘big’ would make GUYS jealous?



“And I won`t anymore on this board”.

What is it ! no more chit-chat, no more fact twisting, need a fix in CPU, need a re-format of your brain with new installation. Damn those viruses from ‘blondes’. ……Paging Dr. Afghan mullah.

shobuz #280 no doubt the examples i gave have to do with one kind of pakistanis only. there are indeed many decent pakistanis too who are hospitable and friendly to foreigners as well.

You ask if i had spoken to the average muslin in NY on how they felt - i am not sure what you mean by an ``average`` muslim (is he an african, an arab or a pakistani, for example), but i have a brother in that area and immediately after the attacks i called to see if he was OK - NOT because I was worried at all about his being attacked in an anti-muslim backlash, but because i was concerned he may have been one of the victims of the terrorist attack on the WTC (fortunately, he was OK). I did worry a bit about my daughter (in a university in new jersey), and this is what she told me: not only was she fine, a number of american students had asked her to let them know if anyone harassed her. This was a constant theme i heard from other places - my nephew told me his teacher approached him and told him to let him know if any student said anything negative to him due to 0/11; and US politicians went out of their way to set an example of tolerance (Bush, who is fashionably reviled by so many muslim ``intellectuals``, to his credit maee a number of very public visits to mosques to reassure muslims and also noted his appreciation of the muslim community in a major speech he made to the congress after 9.11).

The familiies I was concerned about on that day were the families of the VICTIMS of these attacks. When I saw one of the towers starting to collapse before my eyes on TV, I knew that I was watching thousands of lives being suddenly wiped out. And my heart seemed to sink to the ground at this thought. These were mothers and fathers, the best and the brightest from around the world (including over a hundred from pakistan) who were lost that day. It is THEIR families i am concerned about - the sad faces of teenagers carrying pictures of their fathers or mothers in case someone had seen them are the faces of 9/11.

NOT these stupid, self-centered ``muslims`` (they are a disgrace to the name) that you are thinking of who can only think of themselves and their fears of a backlash - they deserve nothing but contempt. Have they no concern for anyone but themselves?

I am not interested in these hypothetical images of Auschwitz - I am only interested in real life images of 9/11; office workers jumping to their deaths from skyscrapers to escape death from fire; wives calling husbands over the telephone from hijacked planes moments before they were vaporized; the 70 or so bright young pakistani professionals lost that day, unremembered and overlooked by the pakistan press, the pakistan government and the pakistan people. I am ashamed i cannot name even one of them, and have scoured the internet and found not one memorial to them - they are merely numbers to all except their close relatives who mourn their loss quietly in pakistan. What kind of a people are we if we shed no tears for these real victims, but have no shortage of tears for ``muslim families`` in the area whose only concern even on that terrible day was only that of a backlash?

Tahemd,

Your points are taken.

Yes there exist some bad examples of what happened in Pakistan. But I am sure there also exist some good experience in Pakistan too.

However; have you spoke to average muslim in NY of how they felt after 9/11? How about the registration process. Ask average Muslim if they were worried about a backlash of the 9/11 incident. Sure President Bush felt and spoke about it. Things simply do not end there. The way public were notified about future possible threat of bigger disaster, it has caused concerns to the Muslim that indeed these disaster ever happens via Muslims then future of Muslimism will not be easy in USA. Jews never expected an Auschwitz could ever happened in Germany until it happened, Japanese and Germanys didn’t think they would be in problem during 1945. Yes it has passed long ago, and an Auschwitz type in this era of America is un-thinkable, but stories are there. I am ‘this type of Muslim’ and ‘not that type of Muslim’ did not help Jews and Japanese. Wearing hizab or not wearing hizab may not be a major deal, but sure is a tool of measurement of average public feelings towards Muslims.

I guess what I am trying to get is that there exist a genuine effort by some powerful groups who are working very hard to equate this: “Muslim are doing bad things hence it is the religion and culture itself that is bad, hence they should change it”.

If definition of ‘integration of Muslim in American culture’ equates to ‘wearing tight jeans, no hijab, drinking and mingling with actives that are not allowed in Islam’ then what can I say. I personally do not think that is what all Americanism means, but that is exactly some people are trying to equate. If Richard Pearl and many like him gets upper hand in administration then please read what they wrote of Muslim and Arab and how they will be corrected. Sure one can ignore these, or concern of Muslim over these can be defined as ‘Muslim Paranoia’.

America is not Bangladesh, Pakistan or India. One principle that rose above all mottos is that any US citizen has right to defend himself using judicial system against any accusation. No nation including America could not have perfect record on this, but how much off it is from this principle is a tool to measure if any individual, group, minority have suffered backlash or not. Please then go to CARE and other sources, find out of incident that you will never find in mainstream media. You simply cannot put all these people in “mullah basket” and “case is over”.

Blacks did not get there equal right via aligning with White believes. They hammered whites until whites realized (some came to sense and some gave up) that they couldn’t practice it any more. Muslims in America should take a hint from these historical events. Simply not wearing hizab, drinking, mingling with non-Muslim and cursing of other Muslim nation will not be enough to aware people that Muslim does not equate to bad synonyms.

Alhamdulliah, Muslims are working on it (At least in NY area) and successes are coming in. People are working to get into politics with keeping usual Muslim tradition and practicing faith. They are man and women from all background. No one is perfect, but this practice is as good as exposing hypocrisy of people who use Islam. Happening of these is the beauty in the ability of American system.

Andy Ronnie doesn’t agree but there are reasons why people are called as ‘African American’, ‘Spanish American’ and ‘Muslim American’.
………………………………………………………………………………

I am working on my writing. Thanks being patient.

Sigalph #271,

``Because Iraqis were being murdered and there is a difference between premeditated murder and dying from disease, hunger what. Wait for the article on AIDS/Hunger/Africa to discuss this. I will not further comment on this Africa theme. ``

What about the Genocide in Africa, Sigalph? That is not hunger or disease?

``you guys are just plain jealous that the beautiful blonde won and won big. There is nothing I can say to make you guys feel better about the doom you`re feeling with the downfall of Saddam. And I won`t anymore on this board. ``

What the hell? Nobody is feeling the gloom about Saddam falling. I wish you would stop being childish in using such arguments. I am neither a Muslim nor an Arab and I have no love lost for the people in middle east. It`s like me calling you racist for no reason whatsoever.

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

re: arjun_m # 270

``So again: Was the war in iraq about WMDs or about salvation from tyranny for the iraqi people? If it was the later, why were the iraqis picked for deliverance before the starving AFricans?`` -

Good Observation!

Ciao

re: hamidm2 # 261

Valid questions and to the point, indeed.

Like they say, some times the questions have more of a grain of truth than the answers.

Ciao

re: tahmed32

Tahmedji, I am in agreement with you. In fact, I opt to differ with you on the interpretation of an issue, ``even though we are on the same page``.

re: Sigalph

The issue was not the personalities of the a given president or a particular administration, but rather the policies of the United States over a period of time. No one is denying the need to evict Saddam Hussein and no one is shedding tears over his eviction. What I am simply saying is that the United States must accept the responsibility for its past actions and stop spining a tale of morality and goodness. Secondly, As Arjun_M has said; this war was never about Saddam Hussein - it was about WMD. The United States had to justify the invasion of Iraq to its own public and in the absence of the WMDs, it latched on to the moral about bringing democracy to Iraq.

Iraq was not in material breech of UN resolution 1441 because Saddam Hussein was in power nor because he was not cooperating, but the Bush adminstration thought that Iraq presented a ``clear and present`` danger to United States by possessing the weapons of WMD.

Ciao

sigalph235:
I dont fully understand your bangla but it sounds more lyrical than the bangla I heard in Dhaka. Is there a difference?

one down, 140 million to go,

There was a time, only a few weeks ago, when pakistanb offered to treat indian victims of rape in kashmir. Suddenly there is cease fire in loc, the idea that kashmiris sjhould have Un documents have been dropped.
What has changed, the change has come from a few pieces of paper found in iran. The screws are tightening, and pakistan will be allowed to keep the bomb, only if it becomes a civilised society, certified by indians.

Well, I am ready to recommend one pakistani, for the civilised stamp. That is a good beginning for pakistan, 140 million more to go.

Tumbling heros,

Pakistan has quitely started dismantling the ghouri missile models named after a person who did not represent the modern values. Changes are being forced on pakistan by the explosive charged winds from the deserts of iraq, the blasts from the daisy cutters from afghanistan.
Slowly, and unnoticed another hero has fallen from the pedestal. Aperson who stole sevtrets from a dutch facility, and got fame and fortune in pakistan bsed on that act, continued with it for more riches, and he has become the next fallen hero.

Re Arjun

``So again: Was the war in iraq about WMDs or about salvation from tyranny for the iraqi people?``

Welcome to reality. Who cares? We won, apologists lost, Saddam is behind bars, Iraq is free. You can whine till kingdom con about legality/illegality and it will be as irrelevant then as it is now.

``If it was the later, why were the iraqis picked for deliverance before the starving AFricans?``

Because Iraqis were being murdered and there is a difference between premeditated murder and dying from disease, hunger what. Wait for the article on AIDS/Hunger/Africa to discuss this. I will not further comment on this Africa theme.

As much as I sometimes find Hamidm`s posts rather too comic, I must say his message to the apologists is much suitable to their whininess than mine is: you guys are just plain jealous that the beautiful blonde won and won big. There is nothing I can say to make you guys feel better about the doom you`re feeling with the downfall of Saddam. And I won`t anymore on this board.

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

shobuz #64 One could discuss the rest of the points, but lets get one thing straight: you write ``These fixes will help a Muslim parent of US Citizen to come out of paranoia that if their daughter wears hijab will not be ridiculed by classmates or being harassed``.

No, my good friend, these fixes will not help muslim parents come out of their paranoia. Because their paranoia is caused by their own screwed up personalities. The fact is that no one cares one bit whether they wear the hijab or not in the US. And americans are far too civilized to harass girls wearing hijab - unlike Pakistan where i recall as a student every foreigner was harassed:

it started in class 3, when british student student i remember in school in rawalpindi was getting into fights every third day because boys were teasing his sister; an american student joined us in class 8 and he was in tears the third day because the fellow sitting next to him kept abusing him in urdu; an african student in college had me as his only friend - once i saw a group of pakistani students around him having a great time poking fun at him; and not just college - as a civil service probationer, we had an elderly scotsman instructor who went with us to a field trip in peshawar: the probationers started poking fun at him in urdu (and of course he understood all that) until he left us and went head down to his room - i followed him there and apologized on behalf of the students: the man actually broke down and started crying that even though he had taken pakistani nationality, he was still treated like a foreigner.

I am telling you all this because I am fed up of these hypocrites who come to the US, have no appreciation for the hospitality and tolerance shown to them (particularly after 9/11), start putting on hijab not because their mothers wore them in pakistan but because they want to get attention - and then whine about people making fun of them and whine about the patriot act (when in fact they have a degree of freedom in the US to follow their faith that they would never dream of giving anyone in pakistan). If the tables are turned (as in cases above) these same people would behave like animals towards westerners or blacks or anyone else who doesnt look like them. They are only fooling themselves with their ``paranoia`` and their ``pain`` at having to take shoes off at the airport - americans are ten times smarter then these morons. and i know their hypocrisy better than the americans since i grew up watching their behavior towards foreigners.

So, excuse me if i am not impressed by your post.

Re Ferozk

I answered the questions that you posed in your last query; you asked me to defend W`s actions, I did. What a previous president did or did not do does is not necessarily incumbent on this president. And yes, it is a matter of which admin is in the White House because it is the prez who directs defense policy.

``I disapprove of the manner in which it was carried out``

As I said, Saddam would not have left promptly after receiving a Fedex letter requesting him to depart. Laaton ke bhut baaton se nahin maante.

Re arjun

``That`s a specious argument.

There are many people dying of hunger in Africa: ...``

Yes it is. It is also rather extraneous if not irrelevant to the current debate about removal of an atrocious dictator in Baghdad. Perhpas we can revisit this issue when there is an article about hunger and AIDS in Africa.

re shobuz

Actually I don`t watch Fox; it`s style is a bit too sensational for my sensibilities.

``kothai Islam ar musolmun der gali diben...``

Islam ar musolmaan der gaali deelam kothai? Sontrashi ar soiroshashak der ninda kora ar Islam ke gaali debar maajhe anek parthakka aachche.

I have never claimed myself to be an expert but I thank you for twice mentioning that on my behalf:)

Few more fixes Americans are working on.

1. Stop passing Patriotic Act II.
2. Getting rid of Paul and Rummy for lying and spending billions of dollars on Iraq
3. A think tank that includes not only Israelis, but muslim too.
4. Stop putting too much attention on what muslims are or are not, and have confidence that we can take care of them or any body, if necessary.
5. Exposing the special interest people in DC who are using our assets, people, strength to make moves based on false intelligence.
6. Come back to negotiation rather building new weapons.
7. Be clear that not only the oil, but a true sense of humanitarian need also drives our foreign policy.
8. We will not support Hosnai Mubarak and Kings of Saud via declaring the 11 pages.
9. We will stop getting support from nation via bribing money or incentive to them.

Mostly
10. Bring some tangible, sensible proof on exposing terrorist cells in North America, rather based on rhetoric’s, junctures and finding Arabic magazines as a source of proof. Thus speculation, confusion and conspiracy theories will be at minimal level.

These fixes will help a Muslim parent of US Citizen to come out of paranoia that if their daughter wears hijab will not be ridiculed by classmates or being harassed, or that if Allen Muhammad and Joe Ismail does bad thing it will not Islam be on trial by Fox and CNN.

What the hell? #241 was not by me.

There was a story a few days ago on how Geroge Schulz directed Rumsfeld to tell Saddam that the US was condemning the iraqi use of chemical weapons against iran in public because the US was opposed to the use of CW in general. Schulz went on to say that, however, in this case the US was determined to see that Iran was defeated. In other words, use CW if you must. This is the level of hypocrisy in the US administration. The hawks supporting the war also are hypocritical in many ways. Use of force against others is OK so long the others doesn`t include my country of birth. The arabs are dirty and need to be reformed. The arabs need to be saved from the monsters that rule them, once the monsters have outlived their usefulness against us, etc. etc. Conservatives are supposed to have an abiding faith in the rule of law and the Constitution. Not the neocons. To them selective suspension of constitutional rule is justified if it threatens their hold on power (in this they are no different from Saddam or any other dictator for whom self-preservation is the first priority), the US can flout international law but other countries may not, the US can dictate terms to the world community but the reverse is not acceptable. The focus actually is on us. If these people were to have been born or immigrated to another country then that country presumably would have all these superior rights. It`s a selfish policy, one that degrades the rule of law and is damaging to world peace.

ferozk #257 So, we are in agreement that the US is overall a force for the good in this world. I agree with you that the US has an imperfect past - and so do the american people themselves! And what is more, the american people have done something about making sure they fix these problems they inherited from their past (racism, treatment of american indians, excesses of capitalism, backroom politics, law and order - there is not just general sentiment against these, there are specific actions taken by the US government to effectively fix thes problems:

1. racism was fixed via integration in the military in the 1940`s, enforcement of federal laws to desegregate the south in the 1950`s, culminating iin the civil rights act of 1964 and countless programs designed to help blacks help themselves after that)

2. american indians have the option of joining the mainstream (as many have - including incidentally Churchill himself who often referred proudly to his amercian indian great grandmotehr, and countless ``white looking`` people who proudly proclaim their american indian heritage) or living on reservations (where they get governemnt aid and also scalp visitors with their casinos);

3. excesses of capitalism: FDR`s New Deal and activist federal reserve ensured that the negative aspects of capitalism were curbed while the positive aspects (encouragement of individual initiative) thrived - making the US the prime economy of the world for the past half century, while marxist intellectuals failed miserably.

4. democratization: FDR again gets credit for clearing the air off these smoke filled backrooms and going directly to the public.

5. law and order: law was brought to the wild west in the 19th century, and to the city streets in the 1930`s when FBI agents shot it out with the mafia in the streets of chicago and new york.

This record of fixing problems is something any nation would be proud to have. Compare this to the miserable performance of the pakistan government (in addressing OUR problems like poverty, law and order, democratization), and I think you will agree that one cannot take success for granted. The US is today engaged in a fight to protect its citizens from a repeat of 9/11. This is a fight in which US victory will have positive affects on all other countries. The positive affects on Pakistan are apparent even now: the military is being forced to curb terrorist camps; for the first time in history the pakistan military has sought to bring law and order to our ``wild west`` (the tirbal belt).

Thus, while agreeing with you that the US has an imperfect past, I hope you will agree with me that the US also has an outstanding record of fixing such problems.

ferozk,

the aei has suggested many ways to skin a cat - it is not always necessary to invade and occupy a country ............ libya is a case in point, russia is another ........... pakistan must be reconstructed and democracy has to be brought to it - the question is how do you do it?............. very, very carefully because it is a powderkeg with a short fuse ........... if the aei doesn`t come up with a plan, who will?............ the horrible hindoos or the god-crazed mullahs?............ i will take the aei any day.........

#Sigalph

You seem to understand & believe everything that Fox tell`s you.

Valo likh te paren valo kotha, kintu kothai, kothai Islam ar musolmun der gali diben, khora jukti dekhaben, ar protibaad korle raag koren | Valo mando shob dharme, jati ar deshe ache. E to buzhen to e ta buzhte to ashubidha hower kothan na| ta hol e to ar torker proyozon nei.


Your ‘expert understanding’ is not owed to your neuron’s firing rather imprinted by CNN & Fox mullah.

re Airmarshal 254

As far as Ramsey Clark is concerned, his true character consists of kow-towing to every genocidal maniac, including his pal Slobodan Milosevic, as depicted by a San Fancisco Chronicle columnist in

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/4/132313.shtml

Second to that Grand Ayatollah of Anti-Americanism Noam Chomsky, Clark is probably the Hojjateleslam of the Anti-Americanism crowd.

Airmarshal, you can do better than quote known Anti-American activists. I mean there must be a dozen or so looney left Democrats in Congress or your own Canuck Liberals who can be quoted more credibly to basj America, no?

#220 TAhmed,

As long you won`t byte, I am coming down!!

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

re: Sigalph # 249

Sigalph, you still have not answered the basic question. Why did the United States allow Kurds rebellion to be crushed by Saddam Hussein in 1991? It is not the issue of which administration is residing in the White House. In 1991, George Bush, Sr. was the president and he failed to support the uprising against Saddam Hussein. Why?

The question is not about George Bush, Jr`s. failure to act; it is about his father`s failure to act and why he did nothing to aid the Kurds in 1991?

As to realpolitik of the situation in 1980s, I agree with you and I do not fault the United States for the actions it took. I fault the United States for denying that it took the side of Iraq against Iran in the 1980s and in doing so, indeed aided and abetted the rule of Saddam Hussein.

The United Nations` resolution 1441 could have been implemented without any problems. I support military action only as a last resort and like to give diplomacy as much leeway as possible. In this case, I think there was a rush to war on the part of the United States and diplomacy was sabotaged on purpose. I know you will disagree with this statement, but again, we differ in our interpretations.

For the record, I do not oppose the over throw of Saddam Hussein; I disapprove of the manner in which it was carried out. War and the invasion of Iraq, no matter how noble a cause it was claiming, was illegal. Laws, and that goes for international laws, are designed for security of the people and societies. Laws are like trees, behind which we can take shelter when the winds of anarchy and chaos blow and granted the Devil hides behind the same trees, it still does not give us the excuse to cut down the trees to get to the Devil. For, when we have chopped down all the trees and the winds blow, how will be prevent ourselves from being blown away?

In Pakistan, there are no laws and it is the law of the jungle, which exist in everyday life. You live in a society of laws and you may have a disdain for those laws, but those of us who live without laws really appreciate what laws mean and how important it is to have them in our midst.

As to placing the blame; I can easily place the blame. Placing the blame is not the problem, but the problem is when people, who think they hold the monopoly on truth disagree with those who have a different opinion.

Concerning the November elections, I will tell you after the first Tuesday in November! ;)

Ciao

re: Ordinary_Muslim # 255

Nice twist on that old NRA logic! LOL

re: tahmed32 # 251

I will agree with you that the enemy is not the United States and despite my stance against the United States` role in Iraq, I still hold the view that the United States is a force for good in the world. Off course, the enemy is not the United States and like I have said in the past, the worst enemies of Islam are its own followers just like I have said that Pakistan has more to fear from Pakistanis than India. We in Pakistan are our own worst enemies. I have no disagreements with you on this score.

The agrument was to never to label the United States as a considered enemy. The comment was simply to highlight the fact that in this case, the United States seems to be acting against its own interests. The United States has a past and nothing will/can gloss over that imperfect past and make it perfect.

re: hamidm2 # 248

As to Wolfowitz and the cabal at AEI, if you think that is the way to proceed, then I suggest that you lobby for Pakistan`s turn after Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia and like Jay and Arjun suggest, reconstruct Pakistan and bring democracy to Pakistan and have an American occupation in Pakistan, which improves the life of the average Pakistani. Pakistan has WMD and they need to be removed; Pakistan is aiding a resurgent Taliban and for the sake of democracy and women`s rights in Afghanistan, Pakistan has to be occupied and the forces of destruction destoryed within Pakistan. The real battle and the real battleground for the war against the Taliban is not Afghanistan; it is Pakistan and the war for Afghanistan`s future will be won by defeating the forces of regression in Pakistan.

Please tell your friends in AEI that Pakistan deserves a favor out of turn and please support AEI with your donations and help being democracy and prosperity to Pakistan by attacking it, invading it and occupying it with American troops.

Ciao

#247 by ferozk on December 21, 2003

``The war on Iraq was about the WMD and not Saddam Hussein.``

What`s the difference?


BOTTOMLINE:
You must have heard the saying, guns don`t kill people, people kill people. In this context, WMD didn`t kill people, Saddam Hussein killed people.

Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction. The solution to this problem was to take him out -- as Bush did. Were you a part of the solution? If not, then you were a part ...

Ramse Clark is an ex-Attorney General of the USA. His report, titled, ``The Ramsy Report`` is a must read on the amout of damge caused by the USA in Iraq since the First Gulf War. It acts a good pre-requisite on why the Arabs dislike the USA, and why the USA opposes the Internaional Criminal Court:

The complete copy can be seen at: http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm.

It gives a good idea on why the Arab and Turks, and Iranis an Pakistanis etc. oppose this war in percentages reaching higher than 90%. While apologists for this war, happen to exist only in the USA and Israel, who are bent on stating that they are actually concerned about the betterment of the Iraqis. Apparently they are more concerned about the betterment of Iraqis, than the Iraqis themselves.

Following are some excerpts

``January 26, 2000

Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations

Dear H.E. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, KCMG,

A delegation of U.S. citizens from twenty states has just returned from Iraq. On January 17, we observed in Baghdad the 9th Anniversary of the beginning of the January 17 - February 28, 1991. U. aircraft flew 110,000 aerial sorties against Iraq, averaging one every 30 seconds, dropping 88,500 tons of explosives, the equivalent of 7 l/2 Hiroshima bombs.

This was by far the most intensive bombardment in history. It killed tens of thousands of people, injuring many more. Medicines and medical supplies were exhausted. It devastated water systems from reservoir, pumping station, pipeline, filtration plant to kitchen faucet as well as urban sewage and sanitation systems nationwide. Food production, processing, storage, distribution, and marketing facilities were widely destroyed. Poultry was nearly wiped out by loss of electricity and lack of grain. Animal herds were decimated. Fertilizer and insecticide plants and storage structures were destroyed. Communications systems, telephone, radio, TV, were shattered. Transportation was badly battered. Vital industries were attacked everywhere. Electric power was knocked out across the nation in the first 24 hours of the assault. Petroleum production, refining, storage and distribution from well to service station were attacked across the nation.

The combined effect of this vast destruction of essential goods, services and industries with the most comprehensive economic sanctions of modern times, first imposed on Hiroshima Day, August 6, 1990, has caused more than a million and a half deaths.

I have traveled to and within Iraq ten times since sanctions were imposed, once during the bombing in 1991. Each year, the death rate has risen radically....The annual number of deaths of children under age five grew more than tenfold from 1989 to 1999. Total deaths of children under age five from these selected causes alone during 1990 to November 1999 is 502,492. `` (http://www.iacenter.org/rc12600.htm)

``Throughout the seventy-five year period from Britain`s invasion of Iraq early in World War I to the destruction of Iraq in 1991 by U.S. air power, the United States and the United Kingdom demonstrated no concern for democratic values, human rights, social justice, or political and cultural integrity in the region, nor for stopping military aggression there. The U.S. supported the Shah of Iran for 25 years, selling him more than $20 billion of advanced military equipment between 1972 and 1978 alone. Throughout this period the Shah and his brutal secret police called SAVAK had one of the worst human rights records in the world. Then in the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in its wrongful aggression against Iran, ignoring Iraq`s own poor human rights record.[l]

When the Iraqi government nationalized the Iraqi Petroleum Company in 1972, the Nixon Administration embarked on a campaign to destabilize the Iraqi government. It was in the 1970s that the U.S. first armed and then abandoned the Kurdish people, costing tens of thousands of Kurdish lives. The U.S. manipulated the Kurds through CIA and other agencies to attack Iraq, intending to harass Iraq while maintaining Iranian supremacy at the cost of Kurdish lives without intending any benefit to the Kurdish people or an autonomous Kurdistan.[2]

The U.S. with close oil and other economic ties to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has fully supported both governments despite the total absence of democratic institutions, their pervasive human rights violations and the infliction of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments such as stoning to death for adultery and amputation of a hand for property offenses.....

In 1989, General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief of the Central Command, completely revised U.S. military operations and plans for the Persian Gulf to prepare to intervene in a regional conflict against Iraq. The CIA assisted and directed Kuwait in its actions. At the time, Kuwait was violating OPEC oil production agreements, extracting excessive amounts of oil from pools shared with Iraq and demanding repayment of loans it made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Kuwait broke off negotiations with Iraq over these disputes. The U.S. intended to provoke Iraq into actions against Kuwait that would justify U.S. intervention.
In 1989, CIA Director William Webster testified before the Congress about the alarming increase in U.S. importation of Gulf oil, citing U.S. rise in use from 5% in 1973 to 10% in 1989 and predicting 25% of all U.S. oil consumption would come from the region by 2000.[6] In early 1990, General Schwarzkopf informed the Senate Armed Services Committee of the new military strategy in the Gulf designed to protect U.S. access to and control over Gulf oil in the event of regional conflicts.

In July 1990, General Schwarzkopf and his staff ran elaborate, computerized war games pitting about 100,000 U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions.

The U.S. showed no opposition to Iraq`s increasing threats against Kuwait. U.S. companies sought major contracts in Iraq. The Congress approved agricultural loan subsidies to Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit U.S. farmers. However, loans for food deliveries of rice, corn, wheat and other essentials bought almost exclusively from the U.S. were cut off in the spring of 1990 to cause shortages. Arms were sold to Iraq by U.S. manufacturers. When Saddam Hussein requested U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to explain State Department testimony in Congress about lraq`s threats against Kuwait, she assured him the U.S. considered the dispute a regional concern, and it would not intervene. By these acts, the U.S. intended to lead Iraq into a provocation justifying war.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq occupied Kuwait without significant resistance.

On August 3, 1990, without any evidence of a threat to Saudi Arabia, and King Fahd believed Iraq had no intention of invading his country, President Bush vowed to defend Saudi Arabia. He sent Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf almost immediately to Saudi Arabia where on August 6, General Schwarzkopf told King Fahd the U.S. thought Saddam Hussein could attack Saudi Arabia in as little as 48 hours. The efforts toward an Arab solution of the crisis were destroyed. Iraq never attacked Saudi Arabia and waited over five months while the U.S. slowly built a force of more than 500,000 soldiers and began the systematic destruction by aircraft and missiles of Iraq and its military, both defenseless against U.S. and coalition technology. In October 1990, General Powell referred to the new military plan developed in 1989. After the war, General Schwarzkopf referred to eighteen months of planning for the campaign.``

Sigalph #249 and #250,

For all your passion you are still glossing over the fact that the US stood by and let the Kurds get massacred.

If you really feel that badly for the gassed Kurds did you stand up and implore the US govt to go to the Kurds` aid and topple Saddam?

Why this sudden bout of conscience? Does the conscience go to sleep whenever the US`s strategic interests are being served? Can you explain this to me?


``As I told Mahesh, if God-forbid your family was one of the millions of his victims, I doubt you will be upset because a new UN resolution wasn`t passed to request Saddam to politely leave. ``

If God forbid your family was one of the millions of Saddam`s victims, I doubt you will be sitting around and saying things like:

``As an afficiando of realpolitik, you should know that during the Iran-Iraq war, Khomeinism was considered a greater threat and it was. One has to choose their battles wisely and referably one at a time. That does not mean that realism replaces idealism but just that for idealism to triumph, the timing must be right so that idealism and realism coincide at some point.``

Don`t use emotional arguments because they cut both ways.

``Let`s assume I buy your argument. Even then, just because someone failed to do the right thing in the past does not mean that the resultant remorse should paralyze him from doing the right thing in the future. Remember the `subha ka bhoola....` line? ``

Are you being serious? Did you ever acknowledge that the US failed to the right thing in the past? You are coming up with all kinds of sorry ass excuses. An ``apologist`` to the core, I should say.

If you are such a fan of realpolitik you would know that there never was and never will be a moral reason for going to war. If Saddam`s atrocities were overlooked then because he served US`s strategic interests he has been made the target for precisely the same reasons.

``Didn`t you hear the President`s policy speech last month where he committed America to never again `buy stability in the region at the price of liberty` and directly cautioned allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia to start opening up the political process? ``

LOL! Let`s see how serious the US is in straightening bigoted countries like Saudi Arabia.

If this is indeed the case of the US foreign policy turning over a new leaf then I welcome the Saddam chapter wholeheartedly. But, you and I know quite clearly that monsters will be condoned and overlooked as long as they look to the US as their master.

I will believe that you really feel for Saddam`s victims if you had implored the US govt to intervene in Rwanda, Burundi where hundreds and thousands were massacred, if you had implored the US govt to go to aid of Kurds when Saddam was gassing them in thousands, till then I say you are just using the victims to further your agenda and care two hoots for their lives.

``And yet, for such is the nature of the real world, had the apologists carried the day, Saddam`s ass WOULD have been saved. ``

Thanks to the ``realists`` like you Saddam was able to gas tens and thousands of innocents and you have the nerve to take the moral high road!

FerozkeK #247: I agree.

I wonder if Saddam will spill the beans, about his US alliance, if he is given a fair trial. And I wonder how the USA is planning to handle that. Those of us who opposed Saddam, even when the USA was pals with him, would be very interested in hearing the whole story.

Another new event that is interesting is the case of Qaddafi. I don`t know how poorly or well he has treated the people in his own country, but it seems like he has figured out how to extend his dictatorship for another few decades.

He has be welcomed back, ``into`` the community by the USA, after he has started aligning his foreign policy with the USA. I think if he opens up his country`s oil fields to the USA completely, he will become an ally. And of course, if he attacks a country like Iran etc., he will become a full-fledged ally.

I think the recent welcome to Qaddafi indicates what I have been stating for a long time. How these guys treat their own public is of very little importance. What is important is how willing they are to keep their foreign policies in line with the USA`s.

As long as Saddam Hussain was inline with the USA, he was considered an angel, by the USA. I still haven`t figured out why he decided to stop towing the USA`s foreign policy line. Had he continued doing so, I am quite sure Rumsfeld would still be having lunch with him, not attacking him. After all, that was the case, when he was attacking Iran.

I think the Arab dictators have now finally figured out how to extend their rule. They will all start aligining their policies with the USA`s. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and now Libya are inline. Syria will be next.

After that, no one will be bothered about how the citizens of these countries are treated by their rulers. After all, no one is really too concerned about how Mubarak treats Egyptians, and how Saud family treats Saudis.

However, there is a built-in imbalance in this whole strategy. All these rulers are going against massive public opinion in the Arab world. That public opinion was able to throw out people like the Shah of non-Arab Iran. But I don`t know if it can throw off the Mubaraks and Qaddafis, with the USA on the later`s side.

I think the invasion of Iraq sent a clear message to all Middle East Arab dicatotors. If you keep your foreign policies in line with the USA`s, the USA will assist you in doing whatever you want to to your own public. However, if your policies are not inline with the USA`s, then you will be toppled in the interest of, ``democratizing your country,`` and will be replaced by another ruler.

There is however another huge snag in this. And that is that the invasion of Iraq was opposed by more peoples of the world than any invasion in the history of mankind. There has never been an event, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq`s invasion of Kuwait etc. that was so unanimously opposed. Even Hitlers invasions were not opposed by so many countries.

The American public first had to be falsely convinced that Iraq had links with Al-Qaeda. Otherwise there would have been more opposition to this war in the USA, as well.

The Arabs, in an Economist survey, voted Israel, USA and UK as the three most disliked non-Arab countries (with France and Iran being the most like non-Arab countries). How is it possible that the only two populations in the world, Israel and USA, supporting this war, would be doing so to benefit the Arabs themselves.

When a tiny minority of ideologues is convinced they have met Mr. Truth, and the rest of the world hasn`t, they become very dangerous. No amount of facts can convnice such ideologoues. They can even justify the killings of humans.

Supporters of OBL and supporters of this war, fall in that category. They are an overwhelming a tiny minority of the world (around 1% of the total countries in the world), yet they have a lot of power and desire and commit violence. And they have convinced themselve of their righteousness to the point that they are ready to kill others to force them to follow their ideologies.

They met Mr. Truth, somwhere along the line, and want the rest of the world to meet their version of Mr. Truth also. And they will use any amount of violence to ensure their Mr. Truth wins out.

Such individuals are very difficult to stop in the short run. But they are very vulnerable in the long run. So it is important that opposition to them be continued. Otherwise they will lead the whole world into a cycle of violence.

So to all the supporters of OBL and Bush, I would like to say that I have seen your Mr. Truth. And he is a hypcrite. That is why he cannot get anyone to follow him. I don`t like him, and would prefer that you keep him to yourself. If you want to implement peace thru strenght, kindly do so in your own families and neighborhoods. Don`t kill others to justify you lusts. At least don`t be condescending enough to say it is being done for their own beneift. Did you ever take the time to ask the people you killed if they were being killed for their own benefit?

ferozk #247 One day you will realize that your enemy is not the US, or India or any other country for that matter. That day, like the great Greek philosopher Pogo-ardoo (Pogoardese in Greek), you will jump out of your bathtub and go running down the streets of Lahore in your birthday suit proclaiming:

``Eureka! Eureka! We have found the enemy! And he is us!``

ferozek,

.......... your whiney litany is the same old stuff trotted out by the anti-american crowd over and over again ........the fact of the matter is that these people are hand wringing fat girls who just can`t stand the beautiful blonde ............ and don`t the ends justify the means?.......... arn`t the iraqi people and muslims in general better off now?.......... do you really think the impotent third world types led by the french and the germans were really serious about removing saddam?.......... we would still be talking about it if we let those fools have their way ................thank god for wolfowitz and the aei - folks who have a clear vision of what the world should look ike ............

Re Ferozk 247

I am sorry to observe that your passion has somewhat compromised the traditional gentility in your posts. Be as it may...

Let`s assume I buy your argument. Even then, just because someone failed to do the right thing in the past does not mean that the resultant remorse should paralyze him from doing the right thing in the future. Remember the `subha ka bhoola....` line?

Of course that does not take into account that in the US, unlike in many of the apologist societies, administrations can change thru elections every four years meaning that the shortfalls of a previous administration are not necessarily the responsibility of the incumbent one(even if a previous admin was headed by a parent!). President GW Bush, the 43rd pres, was not in office during the Iran wae or the 1991 rebellion or the Kurdish rebellion. He is perfectly free to make his own policy choices.

As an afficiando of realpolitik, you should know that during the Iran-Iraq war, Khomeinism was considered a greater threat and it was. One has to choose their battles wisely and referably one at a time. That does not mean that realism replaces idealism but just that for idealism to triumph, the timing must be right so that idealism and realism coincide at some point. As the Bible says, `to every thing there is a season, to every purpose under the Heavens a time`. Summer 2003 was Saddam`s time to go.

As for international law, the less said the better. My reading of 1441, which is the same as General Powell`s, is that once Iraq was in material breach, certain eventualities will come into play without further express authorization of the Security Council. You may not like that interpretation but then that`s understandable.

Please save me the nonsense of the sanctions lecture. Sanctions were not why Iraqis suffered; they suffered because the oil for food money went to pay for the 35 or so palaces with gold plates and swimming pools. WHy cannot the apologists put the blame where blame is due?

Calling Saddam evil and brutal, accepting that he was killing hundred of thousands and then opposing his overthrow is like...well I don`t know because the logic is simply so bizarre. As I told Mahesh, if God-forbid your family was one of the millions of his victims, I doubt you will be upset because a new UN resolution wasn`t passed to request Saddam to politely leave.

I have news for you: dictators like Saddam Hussein do not leave power because the UN sends them a polite `Dear Sir` letter by Fedex. We will find OBL too and then you can regale me with the necessity of having another UN resolution or perhaps the story of how CIA built him and all that. That`s fine because unlike Saddam`s Iraq, we can have these debates in public in the United States.

BTW, I guess you`ll be one of those Republicans switching sides this fall:)?

Re MaheshG

``Hey, if the US says it`s going to rid the world of all monsters I will be first one to hail the decision. ``

Didn`t you hear the President`s policy speech last month where he committed America to never again `buy stability in the region at the price of liberty` and directly cautioned allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia to start opening up the political process?

``The reason ``apologists`` oppose the war is not to save Saddam`s ass``

And yet, for such is the nature of the real world, had the apologists carried the day, Saddam`s ass WOULD have been saved.

``but to save some other innocent country`s ass in case the US decides to upset the apple cart to serve its strategic interests.``

Iraq was not exactly an `innocent` country. When was the last time the US military invaded an `innocent` country? BTW, Panama and Grenada are not answers that fly.

re: Sigalph

The war on Iraq was about the WMD and not Saddam Hussein. It was about limiting Iraq`s capacity to deploy these weapons and not to bring democracy to Iraq by ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. To resist the logic, which led to war does not mean and does not suggest an appeasement of Saddam Hussein and its brutal regime. The war was an illegal act in international law and it was for that reason, why there was such a resistence to it internationally. No one ever said that Saddam Hussein was an angel, and no one, who has seen the acts of this inhuman man, will ever testify to that account.

The United States tolerated this man and gave him aid and comfort against the war with Iran from 1980-1988, because it suited American interests to deny an Islamically resurgent Iran a regional role in the Middle East. France and Germany and Britain and the whole of western Europe supported Iraq against Iran. If that was not awful, in 1991 President George Bush, Sr. called upon the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein and when they rebelled, the Americans stood silently aside as Saddam Hussein massacred them. The United States could have aided the Kurdish rebellion in the north and it could have toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, and yet it did nothing.

Why?

Throughout the 1990s, the United States arm twisted the United Nations to impose a sanctions regime on Iraq and the intention of those sanctions was to stop Iraq from building a capacity for WMD and those sanctions never entertained the idea of removing Saddam Hussein. If the United States and the west was so morally concerned about the plight of the poor Iraqis, as it claims presently, where were those moral qualms when Iraqis were suffering as the result of the sanctions?

The answer is that the United States is a hypocritical power and it is only making a mountain out of the capture of Saddam Hussein, because its prima facie case for the invasion of Iraq has been a failure so far. No WMD have been discovered and to divert attention from that dismal reality, it has re-weaved the arguments from a realpolitik motif to a moral claim - that Saddam Hussein was evil and had to be removed. If he was so evil, then why was the United States supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and why did it not do anything to end this inhuman suffering of the Iraqis, when there was a popular revolt against Saddam Hussein in 1991? Why, please answer if you can.

I, and most of the people, can understand the reasons of realpolitik to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but we will not tolerate hypocricy no matter how noble a cause it espouses. We also not tolerate those who claim that the United States` hypocricy is the Holy Grail of morality and should be condoned because the end justifies the means and therein lies our disagreement. For, unlike you and your ilk, we believe that means justify the end and had Iraq been invaded legally, under the United Nations`s resolutions and Saddam Hussein removed accordingly, none would have bemoaned his exist from power.

How can we applaud, when the United States and you and those who supported this blinded march to folly broke every rule and disowned every international law and discredited each international institution in your avarice for war. You have a right to your opinions and we, who resisted the war and considered it illegal, have a right to our opinions and we may disagree.

Sir, that still does not mean that you have the right to tell us what what our memories should remember and our memories remember that once upon a time, Saddam Hussein was your wunderkind. If you care not to remember a past, which is shameful that is your concern, but we care to remember a shameful past in hopes to warn the future not to repeat the mistakes of the past and coddle dictators. It is like saying that when the urge was strong, you did not mind the mole on her face, but afterwards you made fun of her, because of her mole. United States did not mind Saddam Hussein, when urge to punish Iran was strong or when the urge to please the Saudi Arabia and Turkey was strong in 1991. Now, it is too late to feign morality and try to hide the mea cupla of your past sinful acts.

Ciao

Sigalph #245

``Don`t say I am ignoring you!!!``

You got it! :)

I don`t know about all but I bet you that most of the ``apologists`` were pointing out how ``bad`` Saddam was while he was gassing his own kurdish population and the US was looking the other way.

You scream about how bad Saddam was but none of the ``patriots`` have ever made a mention of how the US was completely overlooking Saddam Hussein`s ``monstrous atrocities``. It`s funny how selective the conscience is as far as Saddam or any other monsters are concerned. Seems like the conscience is awakened only if the US`s strategic interests are satisfied.

The so-called ``apologists`` would have implored the US not to back any dictators irrespective of whether they serve US interests or not. ``Apologists`` don`t have the selective conscience that ``patriots`` possess.

The reason ``apologists`` oppose the war is not to save Saddam`s ass but to save some other innocent country`s ass in case the US decides to upset the apple cart to serve its strategic interests.

I hope you see the difference.

Hey, if the US says it`s going to rid the world of all monsters I will be first one to hail the decision.

Re Mahesh 244

Don`t say I am ignoring you!!!

I call them apologists because they are busy dissecting the technicalities of Iraq`s liberation while totally ignoring Saddam Hussein`s monstrous atrocities. With all due respect to your feelings, I don`t think that the term `side effects` describes the removal of a million-times over-murderer/looter/rapist. God-forbid if your family was one of his victims, I doubt you would have used `side effects` to describe his removal or clamored for additional UN resolutions before his rear end was put in a holding cell.

Sigalph #242

Why do you keep calling people opposed to this war based on flimsy reasons like WMD ``apologists for Saddam``?

None of these people is shedding tears for Saddam. It feels like you are trying to browbeat these people under the guise of patriotism. This seems to be your last refuge because you don`t have any genuine arguments left.

As I said before just because there are positive side effects to criminal actions doesn`t make them right.

Re MaheshG

No disrespect intended if I overlooked your previous posts :(

As for # 233, I am just glad and so are Iraqis that a tyrant comparable only to Stalin and Milosevic is gone. They are unlikely to get into semantics going on the ludicrous theme of `he was bad and a murderer but there were no WMDs...` It is time for the apologists to come to terms with reality: WMDs or no WMDs, an excessively evil man is gone and nobody other than these apologists is shedding any tears.

hamidm #240 i would say that the ``al danda`` dialect works with power seekers only (regardless of nationality), and not with entire populations - indeed Sharon had assumed that the arab understands force only (and i recall had publicly stated as such), and time has proved him wrong. he is now under increasing pressure from within israel (including israeli military pilots, many of whom refused in writing to launch any more attacks on palestinian leaders given the large number of civilian casualties that resulted) and from the US (which i am quite sure encouraged the recent vienna peace talks that sidelined sharon altogether).

i am with you on the myth, superstition and stupidity of the ummah. in fact i see this as a far bigger problem in one way (the nonummah aint all that hot either, particularly in the third world), and a smaller problem in another way (the ummah isnt completely out to lunch either). thus, on the latter, to use your example, while one can point with one finger to the banning of new years parties in nwfp, the other three fingers point to panjab, sind and baluchistan where the provincial governments understands that there are more serious issues to be dealt iwith than banning merriment.

whether the muths, superstitions, and stupidity of mankind will cause it to destroy before mankind is able to move out of this stage of its evolution is indeed the big question. i shall check with my astrologer and get back with the answer ;-)

haramiU
Where R U? Jus when U turned tail & ran away Uv Bcum a star!

tahmed,

....... the us colonel was right - the arab mind does understand and respect the language of force............ gaddafi, ghaddifi, gaddhafi or whatever opening up his bedouin robe for the world is wonderful, even though he still needs to get a haircut and stop borrowing from michael jackson`s wardrobe ................ but it is still one small step in the right direction ..............

................ the bigger problem is the mindset of the ummah which is still mired in myth, superstition and stupidity - the biggest wmd of all .............. gaddafi might have come clean but the nwfp government just passed a law against new year parties ............ you might ask, ``how is that relevant?``............ it is, because the insidious ideology that gives rise to petty stuff like this can also produce wmd`s, inspections or no inspections .............the civilized world cannot trust gaddafi`s promise to come clean - he might be simply following the example set at the treaty of hudaibiya ..............

............. in any case, congratulations - two down with twenty three to go! ..............it is still a long, hard road ..........

hamidm: Looks like another one of your ``fat girls`` (Col. Gaddhafi) checked into the gym. I suppose those ``Before`` and ``After`` pictures of Saddam (i.e. Saddam as King Nebuchadnazzer vs. Saddam as Homeless Man) encouraged this one as well.

Three cheers for George W. Bush - the man speaks the dialect of Arabic (called ``al-danda`` that these would-be kings and gods understand.

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

jay #235 Lets pray together they find a new, improved pill for you next year. Amen.

tahmed

``Last Eid we had US congressmen and local politicians come and mingle with the largely pakistani crowd, and there was a general spirit of being part of the same community. ``

Above is a quote from a post by tahmed, to show how appreciatve pakistanis in the US are of the local kafirs, they are even allowed to be with the pakistanis.

This is precisely the problem, if you had said that there were so many pakistanis in the christmas party, that would have been some proof of pak tolerance, in fact the acceptanse of other religionists by pak muslims.

It is the same with all pakistanis, I have seen, if I remebr by urstruly, a long list of people, from bertrand russel to monica luwinsky on how great islam is.

There absolutely no record of any musl