2004: One Year Closer to Nineteen Eighty-four

Thank you for your comments. Yet, again, my gender is male.

Ms. Shiralli, I dont want to be rude..but Im truly sick of reading about the war on iraq. Most of the points you have raised have already been dealt with by countless articles all around the world, and even here on chowk. Look we all know theres stuff going on out there that isnt right. However, most of us are not American citizens, and there is no point going on and on and on about how Bush is a big bad white man - John Kerry will not be much different!
Lets concentrate on ourselves - and believe me theres plenty of material. Still I applaud your effort and look forward to your next article.

arjun,

This sudden fit of realpoltic demonstrates exactly the same mentality as the terrorist. Idelogy-schmedology...that`s a laugable way of linking two unrelated conflicts.

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

arjun_m,

``Some would claim the Indian army is using a ``disproportionate application of power`` in Kashmir...do you oppose that too?``

I most certainly did when they were...as I would if they did the same in any other area of India. But you and I know very well that the terrorism in that area is pretty much Pak Irregular soldiers. But, since a state backs it, I suppose that makes it ``all right``...

``A decency that was in short supply when iraqi civilians were being killed by saddam...how many marches were there in India against that? zero.. ``

My point exactly. Why the sudden orgasm of righteousness when terrorism is involved, but if some state does worse, everyone turns the other way? And look at how they get rid of him…when he was pretty much de-fanged, the world continued to starve his people, left this idiot in charge, then started to invoke his past history (when he was the good guy) and killed some 10k more Iraqis….and it’s the 2.5k deaths we’re all declaring a war on terrorism on!!! Duh…it doesn’t add up.

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

arjun,

``My feelings?...i have no feelings..couldn`t care less...``

Exactly...all sympathy is with the small number of Russians dead...at this point I tune you out....needless to say, armies that use a disproportionate application of power and slaughter hapless civilians do indeed share an idelogy. You just happen to agree with it. Why sugar coat it?

``Your stronger feelings on the killings of civilians is because of your adherence to your religion..to me, it reinforces my belief that in a conflict between a non-mulim entity and muslims, muslims are required to come down on the side of their co-religionists``

Actually, it`s called ``common decency``....

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

arjun_m,

LOL, why on earth would I read a book by some idiot anonymous CIA dude (``duh...dere be bombs in dere!``) who proclaims to know Islam?!

Dude, given a list similar to OBL`s list of grievances most states would react through military actions. They wage war. Screw this business of trying to pin this on Islam...any person with a heightened sense of sovereignty would act the same way if he was feeling sold out. The Americans settle for no less, and have waged war for much less...the only difference between contemporary neo-con America and OBL is that the Americans have the might of the worlds most powerful war machine on their side. The attitude is the same. And that`s scary.

Insofar as chechnya is concerned, what do you feel for the 25,000-80,000 chechen civilians (and those are conservative numbers) who died during the first chechen war alone? It takes an ass to sympathize with terrorists, but an even bigger one to overlook this and pretend it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Beslan.

Pat Buchanan is one of the biggest neo-con opposers in the USA. Pat Buchanan is a conservative from the old Regan school of thought. He has a must-read book out, ``No End to War.`` http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

``No End to War

The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the “intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.”

The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.”

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

“[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.”

Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?.....

Say the authors: “We must hunt down the individual terrorists before they kill our people or others .... We must deter all regimes that use terror as a weapon of state against anyone, American or not” [emphasis added].

Astonishing. The authors say America is responsible for defending everyone, everywhere from terror and deterring any and all regimes that might use terror —against anyone, anywhere on earth.

But there are 192 nations. Scores of regimes from Liberia to Congo to Cuba, from Zimbabwe to Syria to Uzbekistan, and from Iran to Sudan to the Afghan warlords of the Northern Alliance who fought on our side—have used torture and terror to punish enemies. Are we to fight them all?

Well, actually, no. Excepting North Korea, the authors’ list of nations that need to be attacked reads as though it were drawn up in the Israeli Defense Ministry. By the second paragraph, Perle and Frum have given us a short list of priority targets: “The war on terror is not over, it has barely begun. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas still plot murder.”

Now al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. But when did Hamas attack us? And if Israel can co-exist and negotiate with Hezbollah, why is it America’s duty to destroy Hezbollah? Iran and North Korea, the authors warn, “present intolerable threats to American security. We must move boldly against them both and against all other sponsors of terrorism as well: Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. And we don’t have much time.”

“Why have we put up with [Syria] as long as we have?” the authors demand. They call for a cut-off of Syria’s oil and an ultimatum to Assad: Get Syrian troops out of Lebanon, hand over all terrorist suspects, end support for Hezbollah, stop agitating against Israel, and adopt a “Western orientation”—or you, too, get the Saddam treatment.

But what has Syria done to us? And if Assad balks do we bomb Damascus? Invade? Where do we get the troops? What if the Syrians, too, resort to guerrilla war?

Bush’s father made Hafez al-Assad an ally in the Gulf War. Ehud Barak offered Assad 99.5 percent of the Golan Heights. Why, then, must Bashir Assad’s regime be destroyed—by us?....Indeed, it is because Americans cannot see the correlation between the wars the authors demand and security at home that Frum and Perle must resort to fear-mongering about holocausts, the end of civilization, and our demise as a nation.

If it is America we defend, An End to Evil makes no sense. The Perle-Frum prescription for permanent war makes sense only if it is the mission of the armed forces of the United States to make the Middle East safe for Sharon—and here we come to the heart of the quarrel between us.``

VERT
//...Stop freakin` meddling where you`re not wanted...//

That`s too simplistic for a viable solution, I think.

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

mohar11,

Yarr, no one is jumping into bed with terrorists here. What gets me is when people play dumb and start wondering ``oh dear God, why us!!!`` when the actual incidents happen. The cause for terrorism and it`s efficacy are two different things.

As for your suggestion to trade as an alternative to terrorism. You missed a crucial point: terrorists are radicals...they`re non-state actors. The major claim here is that corrupt govts. are propped up and strengthened by Uncie Sam. Your advice is golden, however it is exactly these inept and corrupt dudes that are screwing everything up. Now, OBL and his types think they can do better...probably not...however they are dead-on right about Uncie Sam`s role in their, and the people they forcibly want to represent, misery.

I mean, let`s get a clue...it is not a coincidence that the most friendly regimes to the US have the most virulent terrorists commin` out of them...yet the ones the US has a no-touch policy on has the most pro-US populations. Duh...could this possibly mean something?! You think neo-con dink wads would actually learn something here? Nooooo...they`re solution is to even get closer...like raping up the arse close...and here I`m talking about invading, and occupation. Ohhhhh dear....

``Anyway - you never mentioned your proposed solution out of the mess. Would you care to mention that?``

Well I think it`s OBVIOUS! Stop freakin` meddling where you`re not wanted....sheesh. ;-)

vert
//...Yes, pakis do meddle in Afghanistan for example. If indeed they suffered terrorist violence as a response, Indians would be the first to thumb their noses at the pakis. What is your point? Everyone`s doiing it...?! Root cause dude, root cause... ///

Good one. Except that the terrorist violence inside pakistan is not being done by Afgans. They are being done by arabs and disgruntled home-grown jihadi foot soldiers spawned for ``stratetgic`` purposes...

Anyway - forget about what Indians say - they are the third party. My point is, from the Afganis point of view - would it make sense to keep attacking inside pakistan as a renvenge for the meddling??? Would you ask them to do that??? Not really.

It would be better to move on. Get monies and trade from surrounding nations and build up the country - that would be a sensible option. Of course - Afgans must make sure the pakis never again meddle in their country - for that they can employ various options. But blowing up buildings inside pakistan wouldn`t be one of them - not that afgans are actually doing it.

Same for Arabs. Time to move on. Meddling was partly your own fault and you folks are no saints anyway - you are doing exactly same thing elsewhere. You must get that simple fact. So no moral outrage. So no victim mentality. No chest-beating about ``root cause``. Employ the good side of american coin. You will see better results.

Anyway - you never mentioned your proposed solution out of the mess. Would you care to mention that?

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

Bush will, going by current estimates, win in the coming elections. This will be quite good for Pakistan, since Bush and Musharraf have developed a close friendship. Bush seems to be quite pro-Pakistan at the moment. He tends to over-rule anything and everything that the Israeli lobby (and the upcoming Indian lobby) try to do against Pakistan. They tried hard to get him to give up on the 3 billion dollars that the US is giving to Pakistan, but he refused. And they have going from pillar to post in the press to make Pakistan a target, yet Bush continues to counter every statement by them. The neo-cons have not been successful against Pakistan, primarily due to Bush, himself.

However, is Bush good for the rest of the world? To get the answer, one needs to ask the rest of the world. In surveys of around 35 countries of the world (published on BBC website) nearly every country`s citizens (including UK) picked Kerry over Bush. I think only three picked Bush over Kerry. This should put to rest all the arguments of those who state that Bush is good for the world. The world`s citizens are saying he is not. In addition, according to Newsweek, the citizens of two countries in the world (USA and Israel) supported the war in Iraq. There are around 200 countries in the world. The Iraq war was thus the most opposed war in human history. Within South Asia, the citizens of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh were overwhelmingly against this war. Other than a few holier than thou expatriates, you will not find too many people from any political spectrum of these three countries, who actually still live in these countries, who supported this war.

Is Bush good for the USA? Apparently a lot of Americans think he is. Many think so, because his opponent, Kerry, seems to have nothing better to offer. I don`t think Bush is good for the USA. The whole basis of the success of Western civilization has been its use of logic and facts to make decisions. While South Asians make decisions on religious/ethnic/national emotion, the Western nations base their decisions on reason. As an example, if the facts indicate that something will hurt their economy etc. they do not pursue that course. And generally they do not let their country`s policies be hijacked by pressure groups; specifically religious and ideological pressure groups. America/Canada etc. have been ahead of even Europe on this, because they do not have the historical baggage of Europe.

Yet nearly every piece of information being given by Bush and his govt. about the USA economy and Iraq (two most important issues) is not based on fact. Consider the following info being fed by this govt:

1. Iraqis are liberated. (Actually over 90% of Iraqis in any poll say they are occupied by the USA. And their support for USA, according to Newsweek is down to 5%.)
2. Iraq had WMDs (Obviously it did not)
3. Iraq had links with Al-Qaeda (This has been declared by the US review panels, itself, to be false. Yet over 50% of the Americans still believe that it is true. This is probably a higher percentage than the number of Muslims who believe that Jews targeted the WTC)
4. USA is winning the war in Iraq (USA has already lost the war in Iraq, to the point it is having difficulty figuring out an exit strategy. It has had to go to the UN to try to get it out. And it has had to negotiate with every anti-US group, like Sadr’s militia).
5. Israel has no influence on US foreign policy (Everyone from Pat Buchanan to Gen Zinni has highlighted, in great detail, the direct links of the neo-cons with Israel. And the fact that the USA is fighting Israel’s wars.)
6. US economy is growing despite Iraq (USA has now spent close to 200 billion on maintaining its troops in Iraq. This is nearly four times the annual US education budget of 57 billion. US military actions are never-ending pit, which has put USA into historically high deficits. Warren Buffet, for the first time in his life, is betting against US currency)
6. USA is safer now from terrorism (OBL, himself, could not have hoped for more. He had no place to go. Now Iraq is a hub of violence, where any organization can gather and make its plans to attack Americans)

Bush seems to be making all his decisions on South Asian style emotionalism, combined with a religious streak. His strongest supporters are the Christian right of the USA, and the Jewish right, i.e. the two most ideological groups in America. As well as the NRA (another ideological group, though due to different reasons). He is completely indebted to these groups and they are on a warpath. When a country gets so deeply involved in ideology, it feels a temporary level of elation and victory, because facts on the ground do not matter. One can brush them aside, with religiously motivated emotional mumbo-jumbo. However, in the long run, it is the real facts that decide what will be successful or unsuccessful. And the real facts, on the ground, are not being presented to the American public. Sooner or later, that will catch up with them.

Most of all, it has now becoming blasphemous to say anything in favor of the USA in any Muslim country (infact even in European countries). The religious right in these countries is now defining the agenda, since the general population is against USA’s policies. If this cycle of US policies continues, and democracy spreads in the Muslim world, invariably, religious parties will become more and more popular as they are openly anti-USA. It will be the USA’s Christian right and Jewish right vs. the Muslim countries Islamic right. Not a very safe world.

One can already see this happening. Iran has a religious govt. Iraq will now have a religious govt. and a religious opposition, once elections are held. Religious parties are popular there, because they have openly resisted the USA’s forces. Pakistan, for the first time in its history, has religious govts in two provinces. Saudi Arabia will have one if the Kingdom is toppled. Egypt will have one if the dictator Mubarak is kicked out. Jordan will have an extremely anti-Israel and anti-USA govt. if the King is kicked out. Turkey already has a religious govt. which is slowly sidelining the pro-USA military. Algeria elected a religious govt., which was toppled in a coup. It will elect it again. So on and so forth.

Bush’s policies have left the liberal Westernized groups in Muslim countries helpless. Based on Bush’s policies the religious right is now telling them, “I told you so.” And the liberal pro-West groups in these countries have no answer to give them, because they themselves oppose Bush’s policies.

I don’t see how the USA can be any safer, if even its supporters in Muslim countries no longer support it…….