America’s Moral Compass

....... i don`t mean to interrupt marshal romair while he is on a roll, but it is perfectly fine with me if bush invades pakistan to remove musharraf, pick up the garbage on the streets, make abdul take a bath, let the women out to get some freh air and reopen the liquor store on canning road ........ i am sure most pakis will welcome the marines with flowers and ladoos ............ look, we welcomed every ghauri, ghazni and qasim so why not bush ?

godot,

``
You cannot accuse Americans of being “ignorant.” That’s unfair and an easy way out. I don’t really know how many societies are enlightened, including Pakistan’s and Canada’s (or of Holland, for that matter.) ``

I accused certain Americans of being ignorant. Certianly not those who see through the absurdities of American policy. Further, I explicitly stated why I found these people ignorant, so no need to speak in the abstract.

Why are they not ignorant, and why is it worth my while to understand them? I can sympathize with them because I think they are being led astray. I am ignorant of many things myself, however no one is asking me to take their word on a matter that involves life or death that hinge on exactly that I am ignorant of.

I can fully understand what they went through on 9-11...I felt the same when they started bombing Iraq. I see the irony, most likely they don`t.

Re: # 127

SR

I did not expect someone as bright as you to come up with such incriminating comment and a hasty conclusion. Nevertheless...

I suppose what escaped you was the operating word “sometimes” in my post re the end justifying the means. Further, I do not see an analogy of a revolution to bring about a drastic change in a nation and a society to rape of a woman. Hope you can elaborate on the correlation given it is not only “sometimes,” but the premise of the argument as well.

anil:128
Your answer is as expected and you have a 1000 year history to back it up.
My answer is a categorical and unambigous NO!

It is not subject to discussion either.

Hi Echoboom:

``#125 by echoboom on February 3, 2005 11:09am PT

Before asking Romair please give your answer and just replace Pakistan with India. ( Just remember it is a ``pretend`` scenario in BOTH cases.) ``

My answer is categorically yes, no ifs, no buts. Almost always construction follows destruction of some sort. Please do remember that I am not a religious person, so if you will keep the exchange non-religious, I would love to hear your views too.

Thank you.
Anil

Re: # 116 godot [``...I was against Bush invading Iraq. But if democracy takes hold in Iraq, then Bush is vindicated. ...``]

Let us suppose that someone were to rape my sister or daughter and that she were to have a baby as a result of that crime. The baby, indeed would be innocent and maybe my sister / daughter would hold it very precious. Would you then say to me that I should forgive the criminal for is vindicated? Do ends justify the means? Any and all means?

Just wondering.

...SR

Bush stakes ground in Germany

From our special correspondent in Berlin:

Police in Germany are hunting pranksters who have been sticking miniature flag portraits of US President George W. Bush into piles of dog poo in public parks. Josef Oettl, parks administrator for Bayreuth, said: ``This has been going on for about a year now, and there must be 2,000 to 3,000 piles of excrement that have been claimed during that time.`` The series of incidents was originally thought to be some sort of protest against the US-led invasion of Iraq. And then when it continued it was thought to be a protest against President George W. Bush`s campaign for re-election. But it is still going on and the police say they are completely baffled as to who is to blame. ``We have sent out extra patrols to try to catch whoever is doing this in the act,`` said police spokesman Reiner Kuechler. ``But frankly, we don`t know what we would do if we caught them red handed.`` Legal experts say there is no law against using faeces as a flag stand and the federal constitution is vague on the issue.

[editor`s note: in light of the very heavy ongoing discussion, this news item was deemed to have light hearted merit, if not relevence.]

...SR

124;anil
[Is it possible for you to respond to this exhcnage between you and Godot, just as precisely as he has done. I am interested in your answer to such a scenario?]

---

Before asking Romair please give your answer and just replace Pakistan with India. ( Just remember it is a ``pretend`` scenario in BOTH cases.)

Only THEN you would have earned the right to ask Romair.

If Romair wants to answer even without this protocol by all means

Godot #120

From Romair - Godot exchange

``”Let me ask you a simple question also: ``If tomorrow the USA attacked Pakistan and destroyed and killed people in the same fashion as Iraq, to establish, ``democracy,`` would that be justifiable, if an opinion poll in the USA supported such an attack?`` Using your logic on Iraq, it should be completely justifiable”

Yes it will be. If Pakistan were an oppressed nation ruled by a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist, allowed no space for one to express himself, tolerated no criticism, killed people at will and with impunity, hogged all the national resources for his own personal interest, poisoned the village wells to kill his own people, then yes, that government in Pakistan should be overthrown by external forces, violently if necessary, and democracy and rule of law should be established. ````

Is it possible for you to respond to this exhcnage between you and Godot, just as precisely as he has done. I am interested in your answer to such a scenario?

Thank you.
Anil Kapuria

Godot #117: “Is outrage in response to violence, of unnecessary killing of innocent bystanders, morally incorrect? Does the ensuing anger reflect “ignorance”?

Outrage in response to violence is correct, if it is directed toward the entity that committed the violence. It is incorrect when it is directed towards someone who had nothing to do with the violence. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, according to the findings of the 9/11 commission, itself.

“Why is it morally incorrect when Israelis kill Palestinians and Indian Army commits atrocities in Kashmir, but is morally correct when Palestinians suicide bombers and Kashmiri Jihadis kill innocent people? Is violence perpetuated by an “underdog,” ie, the Muslims, “morally correct”?”

Anyone killing another innocent person in wrong, and should be considered a terrorist. It doesn’t matter what religion they are. This is what I am trying to convince you of. You seem to be ready to apply this rule to OBL, but not to Bush. I tend to apply it to both.

““What if” is an assumption for both of us, albeit on the flip side. You and I should discuss this in about ten-year time.”

One cannot just support killings and justify them by saying, “Let’s wait to see what happens in ten years.” What about the 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed (according to Johns Hopkins survey)? You completely refuse to take them into account. If you can provide a method of bringing them back to life, perhaps we can wait for ten years………..Is someone comes and kills your son and says, “Just wait for ten years and you will be better off.” What would your reaction be?

However, lets take your argument: What if even after 10 years, it turns out that the Bush administration had ulterior motives for invading Iraq, and it was forced to hold elections, because its plans had gone haywire and it needed an exit strategy (and reasonings to satisfy individuals like yourself). Should Bush then by tried for war crimes? Or would you forgive him, at that point also?

On should not buy all the propaganda thrown at you by the US media and govt. In actuality, the USA govt. has been trying its best to avoid holding real elections in Iraq, including this January one. It was forced to hold them by Sistani. Please read reply #95 (I would be greatly interested in your comments on it).

“Yes it will be. If Pakistan were an oppressed nation ruled by a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist, allowed no space for one to express himself, tolerated no criticism”

Who should make that decision? George Bush or the people of Pakistan? What if the people of Pakistan overwhelmingly hated the USA and they overwhelmingly considered a USA military action to be an occupation (this is the case in Iraq), and they did not want a single US soldier on their land because they mistrusted the USA. But the govt. of USA and its people felt they just had to invade? Should the USA still invade?

godot: I admire your patience in explaining to romair that outrage over the targetted killing of innocent people is not morally incorrect.

Oh Oh Oh!
AbdoolAmreekaas drool in ecstacy when:

1) Shah of Iran is installed and supported by their whipping Master.
2) Marcos is feted & praised and given asylum in ThuGGland
3) Getting Castro murdered and attempt to overthrow a superior civilisation.
4) Support Pinochet and get Allende murdered
5) Bolster up Suharto so that Islam stays under a lid.
6) Tolerated the 25th year of dictatorship of Mubarak (a.k.a Laughing cow in egypt)
7) Invade Vietnam
8) Ruin Cambodia
9) Spread Terror & Thuggery in Nicaragua
10) Tried to Install puppet dictator in Venezuella

This is not even half the list of places where the U.S Thuggs have not been messed around.
Until & Unless these Thuggs learn a lesson to stay within their own borders these Thuggs will keep on bullying the world. Such a change will come from inside. Spanish speaking people are gaining ground in the south so much so the the anglo-ancestories are running away in droves because of ``language problem``.

Within next ten years the banner will be non-english and predominantly brown(desi), black(afro), and olive (arab). The fizz of anglo-colonial arrogance and patting of AbdoolAmreeka pets will be gone. USSR was there just ten years ago!Smart people are already enrolling in spanish, arabic, and chinese language classes.

Its collapse is just aroung the corner. The din of demolition can heard even now.

Re: # 117

Romair

“I never said that reaction would be moral or correct.”

Is outrage in response to violence, of unnecessary killing of innocent bystanders, morally incorrect? Does the ensuing anger reflect “ignorance”? Why is it morally incorrect when Israelis kill Palestinians and Indian Army commits atrocities in Kashmir, but is morally correct when Palestinians suicide bombers and Kashmiri Jihadis kill innocent people? Is violence perpetuated by an “underdog,” ie, the Muslims, “morally correct”?

”What if [democracy] doesnt` take hold [in Iraq]?”

“What if” is an assumption for both of us, albeit on the flip side. You and I should discuss this in about ten-year time. As for Bush trying to control oil, well, the elected government, chosen by the Iraqis, cannot be a stooge of Bush. Whatever that government decides to do, give all of its oil to Bush or kick the Americans out, will be in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqis.

”who gave you or Bush (or me) to decide that they can invade a country and kill people, as and when they want?”

No one. I was against it. However, sometimes the end justifies the means. If Middle East turns democratic and becomes an open society because of lives lost in Iraq, then those who have lost their lives are heroes who gave up their lives for a noble cause. No revolution has come about without sacrificing lives. The overthrow of Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq is not short of a revolution brought about by the US. Can you name a revolution in history that did not involve human lives?

”Let me ask you a simple question also: ``If tomorrow the USA attacked Pakistan and destroyed and killed people in the same fashion as Iraq, to establish, ``democracy,`` would that be justifiable, if an opinion poll in the USA supported such an attack?`` Using your logic on Iraq, it should be completely justifiable”

Yes it will be. If Pakistan were an oppressed nation ruled by a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist, allowed no space for one to express himself, tolerated no criticism, killed people at will and with impunity, hogged all the national resources for his own personal interest, poisoned the village wells to kill his own people, then yes, that government in Pakistan should be overthrown by external forces, violently if necessary, and democracy and rule of law should be established.

Charging #115 you write ``I was not claiming that Muslims are very powerful today, but actually they do have a lot of resources of this world and manpower. ``

I am glad we both see the same reality, i.e. that muslims have no political power and so there is no question of the US trying to break something that does not exist.

On the second part above (that they have a lot of resources and manpower), I think you have an overinflated sense of the riches of arab nations. Please consider the following:

1. The most important resource by far for modern economies is - an educated, hard-working, manpower. The arab nations are basically a desert in this field: the oil rich countries have become rich through (to put it bluntly but accurately) ``mooft-khawri``. They never had to work to become rich, never had to use their ingenuity to come up with new inventions, new ways of organizing production lines and so forth that the true advanced nations of the world did. They got rich through dumb luck: they were living in a region which had oil deposits. The rest of the muslim nations are educationally among the most backward nations on earth - spain alone publishes more books than the entire middle east. If it is manpower that the US wants, in fact the middle east would be the last place on earth. Thus today, it is towards India and China that the US companies look for trained manpower - and there is not a single US military base in either country!!

2. The arabs need the US and other rich nations, not vice versa, to maintain their standard of living as you seem to think. At best oil rich countries can cause some short term disruptions in the world economy (including the US) if for some foolish reason they chose to stop selling oil. However, advanced nations can easily switch to alternative fuel sources if the supply of oil was to dry up. Hybrid cars (that have the capacity to run on either oil or electric power) are increasingly available in the market. It is the oil-suppliers who depend on oil sales to maintain their standard of living - not the buyers.

Re: # 117 by Romair

[What if someone kills my brother and I go and kill you, in return? Is my killing justified just because someone told me that you had done the killing.]

Why don`t you apply this argument to the Paki Jihadis who have made a profession of killing Indians because the Paki govt. told them that the Indians are killing Kashmiris?

godot #116: ``Your comment on “what if you were an American” is about half right, that your reaction would have been the same. But then you tangent off to “Because I would not have known any better”``

I am saying my reaction would have been the same, because you equated me with an American. I never said that reaction would be moral or correct. It would obviously be wrong. Being deliberately ignorant of a situation is not justification for killing anyone. It will never hold up in a court of law or of morality. What if someone kills my brother and I go and kill you, in return? Is my killing justified just because someone told me that you had done the killing.

``I was against Bush invading Iraq. But if democracy takes hold in Iraq, then Bush is vindicated.``

What if it doesnt` take hold? Then would it be justifiable to try you and Bush for mass murder? Shouldn`t the flip side be true also? Or do you disregard that? What if it turns out that Bush`s intentions were to control oil? What should happen then, in your opinion?

More importantly, who gave you or Bush (or me) to decide that they can invade a country and kill people, as and when they want? I am sure it wasn`t the people who were killed. Can you point out where the Iraqis stated they want to be attacked? Shouldn`t they have a say in it also.............Every survey of Arabs I have seen, indcates a strong hatred of the USA.

Let me ask you a simple question also: ``If tomorrow the USA attacked Pakistan and destroyed and killed people in the same fashion as Iraq, to establish, ``democracy,`` would that be justifiable, if an opinion poll in the USA supported such an attack?`` Using your logic on Iraq, it should be completely justifiable..........