Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

#55 by ntsyed
“We`re discussing ``legitimacy`` of this war,”
Syed,
Yes that is exactly what we are doing but your idea of legitimacy is a conspiracy theory and I am providing you a specific reason for the war. I had already discussed the WMD issue in my post #9 and you can read my comments about the stupidity of the WMD rational of the war. I had also said that the real reason of war was the fear that Iraq would fall to the terrorists. You have yet to provide any argument to discredit my theory which is not a theory but a fact. This view was shared by both Clinton and Bush admin and therefore, a view supported by both parties of the US and the US establishment.

The real problem is that you don’t understand your own comments because you have been indoctrinated comprehensively by the Islamic fundamentalists. When I translate your own comments to the political reality you just run away as you really don’t know the logic of your own comments yourselves. Go back to your murshid and ask him why the US was fighting on the both sides of the fence. We will take it from there.

#49 by SR
“You make bold predictions.”

No! Actually I was really conservative, which I always am.

I don’t agree with the use of the term Empire. I think it is an archaic term and comes from people who learned their politics in the feudal background and never graduated to the modern times. The empires ended with first the British and then the Russians. The US was never in the history called an empire.

You seem to borrow heavily from the cold war terminology. This world has moved way beyond the cold war. The US is not an Empire it is the leader of the modern world, a modern world that started with the demise of the cold war.

I don’t know what you pin your hopes on but the US economy is not about to break up because there is no substitute to replace the most astutely build economic, fiscal and financial system that the US has developed over the years. If you believe that China or the Euro would make a dent in the US economy then you are sadly mistaken.

Since the end of the cold war and in the last 15 or so years the US has turned the world upside down by throwing in a huge economic bonanza to so many countries that is unprecedented in the whole human endeavor of the last few centuries.

This world has never seen an economy that summarily outsourced some three million high tech jobs at the drop of the hat without impacting its own economic system barring a few burps. The world does not have enough high tech people to take care of all the jobs that are coming its way from the US alone. If the countries outside of the US can provide educated people the US still has the capacity to send more than ½ million jobs outside every year without a blink.

Just look at the monumental revolution that is taking place in communication alone that is sponsored by the US. Cell phone, internet, and other communication devices have opened up the world and it was only possible because the US wanted to do it. Look at the economic revolution that countries like India, china and the countries in East Asia are going thru since the end of the cold war, all sponsored by the US.

What this world would have been without the cold war? What a waste of time and energy that was for the world.

There are political issues in the US that stem form changing over of the economy and the system from the cold war ideological battles. That is part of the democracy and these issues are being fought every where in the US and that shows the vibrancy of the country, its economy and its political system.

Thanks.

Apparently, common courtesy is in short supply at Chwk. Many chowkies wrongly believe that courtesy is a sign of wimpishness. However, an intelligent person can make his/her point quite effectively without being rude.

To walk away from an impudent situation (ignoring a rude inter-actor, in other words) is a better part of misplaced valor. It is good that the disputants (combatants) seem to have put down their (c)rude weapons; the next step should be a show of some courtesy. Difference of opinion is healthy; there is no need to bulldoze others to win a point. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

beej,

i wasn`t apologizing to you. but if that`s the way you want to look at it, feel free to.

and about you never attacking individuals, only topics. . . . thanks very much for the comic relief. can always count on you for that, can`t we?

enough said. i`m respecting gill sahib`s wishes from now on.

Beej Bhai, please don`t bother with this brain straining stuff and keep your politics restricted to stuffing ballot boxes with your ``all so powerful`` votes.

No need for you and your loved ones to join the American Armed Forces either, since your Commander in cheif and his cabal never did so either. Rummy also joined the navy after the war. And I`m sure you don`t want to betray your leaders. Besides, there are so many others to die unnecessarily for your comfort anyway.

Kindly enjoy your sabji and keep your `helping` hands busy with them. In spite of the insufficient relief aid for the earthquake stricken Pakistanis, we`re managing on our own just fine with whatever resources we have available. Only if one could see with his/her own eyes, the way Pakistanis have rescued their own puts the Americans to shame in the wake of Katrina.

HP, please don`t waste your time with hollow textbook theories. Instead, please try to learn to discern what is being said, even if it goes against your grain. Then learn to connect the dots with real events and see who benefits under each circumstance to figure out the whole picture. Besides, what`s 3,000 for a serial killer who gets to kill 100,000+ as a so-called revenge and make barrel loads of money while doing it, too?

Please read my post again to understand what is being said there...and try not to twist anything lest you end up twisted like your logic. For example, you`re stuck on the mismanagement of the war. That`s a non-issue now, in case you never noticed, i.e. everyone agrees it`s been mishandled. We`re discussing ``legitimacy`` of this war, which was instigated by the debate on outing of the CIA operative Ms Plame as a revenge against her husbands bold opposition of war and discrediting the GWB rationale for it way in the beginning.

I will however respond to a couple of points you`ve raised, now that you`ve alienated yourself from your defunct Taliban propaganda.

People in your quarters first said it was the WMD, then Saddam-OBL links, then freedom, then democracy...what`s next reinstalling Saddam?

Saddam did want to sell OIL...to everone...to rebuild his economy. That was the reason for his invasion of Kuwait when he wasn`t allowed to sell. If the world had offered him a deal then Israel would have had to deal with a reestablished pissed-off Saddam whose nuclear installation she illegally took out earlier. Not to mention her expansionist wet-dreams would have become much difficult if Saddam had regained his strength. Why do you think she`s so keen on realizing her dream of Greater Israel that includes Makkah and Madina? To control Muslims and to change their qibla from Jeruselam to Ka`aba? Think OILY my friend.

So my dear gullibalized, amrikanized desi dost, the OIL theory is not just about the uninterrupted supply, but also who controls it. The one who controls it, gets to the play with every other country`s balls without any restriction...like late Kind Faisal did back in the 70s when he used his pliers on American balls. Not to mention, western faggots never could resist a set of firm Asian balls. And remember, Asia is not limited to Middle East.

The actual resistance in Iraq - as in Ramadi, Tal Afar, Falluja, Basra etc - is not US sponsored. Because seldom do these insurgents cause civilian casualties. But I wouldn`t be surprised if the attacks on civilians are, which primarily take place in Baghdad - the American stronghold in Iraq. The US certainly has a history of such behavior. Please do some research on Salvadoran Option.

Again, your theories are extremely out-dated in today`s fast paced age. These mainly focus on American angels, even if they`re wearing red leotards and hold pitch forks.

Kindly bring something fresh to talk about. Otherwise, let the others have some meaningful discussion.

:-)~~

Re#52 Ana

Okay, Ana - I accept your apology - even though you tender it through Dr. Gill.

I only attack topics - NEVER individuals - and individuals only feel so if they are so passionate about their topics that they lose their individual objectivity.

Simple as that!

Sometimes, people need to be hit on their heads before they realize that things which appear highly complicated to them are basically very simple.

Sincerely,
Beej.

Romair #21

`` When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise.

The USA, over the past four decades has gone through a social revolution. It is the only influential country in the Western world that has gone from Liberalism to Conservatism, socially. It is the only influential country in the Western world, which has gone from being less religious to more religious. It is, infact, going against the trend of where the Western world is going. As an example, according to Pew, 45% of Americans now want religion in the State, i.e. they are against Secularism. While 35% of Britishers feel that David Beckham has more influence on their lives than God! ``

There is always a constituency for social conservatism and pro-business market policies.
Do you really think every wealthy Pakistani Americans will oppose Republican Party ?

`` The conservative movement in the USA took a lot of effort, and reached its zenith during the Regan days, and took control of the Republican party. After which it was only matter of time, till it took over the USA. Five out of the last seven US Presidents have been Republican. And only a President of Clinton`s calibre was able to make a dent for the Demcrats. ``

Republicans have a lock on the presidency because a lot of White folks in the South dislike Democratic party courtship of Blacks and a lot of Whites in Western states dislike Democrat stances on gun control/moral issues/environment. There is 220 electoral votes in these states.

`` The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA. ``

Democrats controlled the House, Senate, Executive and Judiciary under Rossevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.


`` This is what the situation would and should have been in the USA for the Conservatives and Republicans. In a USA, where 2 out of every 3 citizens claims to be conservative, the Republican party should be undefeatable. However, Bush seems to have ruined it for them, in a quick 6 years.........``

There exist a lot of conservative Democrats. I am one. I have plenty of Democratic friends who are conservative either in fiscal or social domain.

gill sahib,

i apologize. the personal attacks had already begun. i should not have continued with it. and yes mirmir is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, i wasn`t doing him any favors. he also happens to be a newcomer who is not desi like us, but north american like some of us. there are other interactors here who speak up for each other, and i don`t know why i should be described as uptight for speaking up not just for mirmir, but against something i have seen enough of in this country. khair. . . the conversation seems to be continuing just fine, and i have nothing further to add to this, because i have no time to argue with folks who believe that the occupation of iraq is to ``save`` the iraqi people, and who think that criticising dubya is tantamount to blasphemy.

and whoever told you i was capable of intellectual sophistication has no clue what they`re talking about :)

regards,
ana

Re: # 48

``In situations like that, dictators can and will accept help from anywhere. Terrorist did not have to fight war with him but could have offered him support in exchange for political help in Saudia. ``

in 91 the u.s. amassed ~ 1 million troops with the help of other nations and humiliated/drove out million strong iraqi army. also 30% (?) of iraq was under no flying zone. Amid this scenario don`t you think that saddam would think twice before thinking of supporting someone trying to create mischief in saudi/kuwait. saddam was like a wounded tiger hated by his neighbours but didn`t pose any threat to them.

You say the terrorists would have offered him support, can you tell what kind of support?

the current charges that saddam is in the court for, if i am not wrong, are for killing shias during a religious uprising against saddam. the shias of karbala are more islamic fanatic than what saddam was.

Re: # 48

HP:

I agree with you that saddam was simply a dictatot and would have gone to any extent to support himself/his regime. but i would still say that connecting him with jihadis/OBL is far-fetched. If he wanted, he could have done that after the humiliating defeat of first gulf war, when OBL was searching for a base. He must have realised that jihadis are as much a threat for his dictatorship as americans were. Also, i don`t think israel considered him a threat as it consider iran. He was so detached with the mainstream muslim fundamentalist that his cry for ``jihad`` against the invading americans in 2002-03 (?) was laughed at.

only time will reveal what was in bush`s mind, may be in 20 years time when the documents are declassified.

i did read somewhere that saddam was going to replace dollars for euros as the currency for oil trade. Don`t know much or whether it was real or would have made an adverse effect on dollar trading.

Re: # 33 HP {``...There is no way ... theories and quotes ... are to going to bring this modern Empire down from within, not in the next 300 years. ...``}

You make bold predictions. Theories and quotes never bring anything down, I agree. But theory or not, Great Powers have always peaked and fallen, and always will... unless, of course, you are willing to declare that the wheel of history has stopped turning.

Three centuries is a very long time. Perhaps you meant 30 years and mistakenly added another zero. If that`s the case, in the interest of harmony I will concede half of that to you, ie, 15 years. No doubt, it is highly unlikely that the empire will come totally unravelled within 15 years. But 30 years? I don`t know. I kinda doubt it.

It is quite possible that the Federal government of the United States may no longer be the unified central authority in three decades. The five federal districts may, by then, have become semi-autonomous federating blocks of their respective states.

The present incarnation of the US Dollar may no longer be the common currency of the realm in three decades. It might have joined its predecessor the Continental, or gone the way of 30 year Confederacy Bonds.

The bulk of the military establishment (particularly logistics, intelligence, communication), might no longer belong to the government but instead be fully privatized and thus beyond the scrutiny of ``elected`` public representatives.

Like I said, three decades is a long time.

Only 45 years ago the US was the world`s biggest creditor... 25 years ago it was still a net creditor... Today, the US needs to borrow money (by auctioning off its paper) to be able to pay interest on its accummulated debt.

Only sixty years ago the Third Reich was supposed to last for a thousand years.

Only 30 years ago Mao`s Cultural Revolution`s benefits were going to last for 10 thousand years.

So if I were you, I`d reconsider the predicted lifespan (300 years) you are so generously estimating for the US as the pre-eminent world super-power ... aka: Empire.

...SR

#37 by Netizen

“iraq under saddam had no chance to come under jihadis. Saddam ruled with an iron hand and didn`t tolerate muslim fundamentalism either. the country was weakened but the republican guards/iraqi army was capable of dealing with any jihadi.”

This is an old argument it also includes this cliché that Saddam was a secular leader.

Saddam was a dictator and his first impulse like any dictator was to support himself. As I have argued in my other posts, the Iraqi government was weak and he probably was losing support in the Iraqi army too. In situations like that, dictators can and will accept help from anywhere. Terrorist did not have to fight war with him but could have offered him support in exchange for political help in Saudia. OBL definitely cut some deal in Afghanistan with the Taliban to stay there.

Just to give you one more example. Libya’s Qadafi posed as a revolutionary, anti American for a long time. He went to the extremes to help in blowing up an American plane. But when he saw he was going to lose his power, he turned real fast. Now, he is a staunch American supporter in the area. Dictators like Saddam and Qadafi have no ideology. They would do whatever it takes them to keep power.

So the assumption that Saddam would make a deal with the Terrorist was not unfounded but actually had very strong footings.

Romair,
Please read post #9 too.

#43 in fact most airports did not even ask for photo ID for domestic travel in US....it was like taking your local bus.

ntsyed,

I am glad that you got upset as what I wrote actually it hit some raw nerve there. Yelping part was not bad really as it got you doing your thing…yelping!

Now let me take all your point apart w/o going into the abuses that is a part of Islamic fundamentalists’ arguments and I know it pretty well as eik omr guzri hai iss dasht ki saiyahi mian.

1 and 2 is actually one long drivel without any substance to it. Actually you are saying two things there.

First, you are implying that it was the US itself that attacked its own country thru some proxies who may not be Muslims. If translated into political terms, it means that the US was fighting on the both sides of the fence. It attacked itself on 9/11 and then it attacked Afghanistan. I think that is a very “rational” approach and that’s why most of the Islamist believe in it. So hearing it from you doesn’t startle me a wee bit. I let you ponder on just one thing here. If 9/11 was planned by the US itself, how many Americans were part of that conspiracy that was pulled off so successfully. None of the American involved in killing 3000 American has squeaked yet out of guilt for killing his fellow citizens. Are you claiming that the US government employees are so unconscionable that they would murder their own fellow countrymen to get to some cavemen?

Next,

I like this part of your post even better. “Everything OBL and his cohorts have done thus far has harmed the Muslims and helped the uniformed high-tech bandits of the West and Israel.”

So now Muslim holy warriors are disowning OBL. Calling him a US shill and again implying that it was the US that attacked itself thru OBL and his followers.
You are saying that the US needed such an elaborate arrangement-getting OBL, getting Taliban to capture Afghanistan, then training some people, and then attacking the US mainland in the broad daylight- to get what—Afghanistan? Sir, is there any rational behind such an elaborated scenario?
Just sit back and think before you write anymore lyrical conspiracy theories.

3 and 4,
In my posts I pointed out the reason for the US attack on Iraq and I also mentioned that the war is badly conducted and I also believe to some extent, the US has lost its way in Iraq and it would be better to leave Iraq as soon as possible. So I agree with the anti-war crowd in a sense that the war in Iraq was badly conducted and the Bush admin perhaps is inept. My point that I think I made very clear was the fear that the Iraq would fall into the terrorist hands was valid and nowhere do I see you deny that. The whole anti-war crowd is talking about the conduct of the war and not the reason for the war. These two things are separate from each other. I don’t know how hard it would be for you to follow this but I will try again. I support the purpose of this war but not the conduct itself.

Some in the anti-war groups have developed thesis and you are supporting that too that the whole war was for the OIL. Nobody has ever answered one simple question. Would Saddam had refused OIL supplies to the US or Europe if the West had offered him some deal? Sir, if the US was so interested in OIL, it would have made a deal with Iraq right after the 1991 war. Saddam was down then and would have signed on anything.

Before I spilt, one more question. Would you say that the resistance in Iraq is also US sponsored as it is allowing the US to stay longer in Iraq? You know your US fighting on the both sides theory…

Re#42 by ntsyed

NTSyed sahib,

Since WE may not have interacted before, let me introduce myself – I am Beej – not to be confused with any other interactors who may have assumed similar sounding nicknames (some of them obviously quite devious people, since they appear to have done so even BEFORE me) just to confuse simple souls like you who so peacefully inhabit these premises and do minimal damage – with the possible exception of raising the blood pressure of certain other highly serious interactors!

(And unlike certain others, I think your emoticons are fine, JUST the way they are!)

I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the Iraq war. In this day and age, people have become so self-centered and countries so focused on their narrow interests, that they think of nobody but themselves. The USA is a true exception and therefore it stands out – baffling many “run of the mill” individuals and countries – and even you (Note: I’ll NEVER categorize you as “run of the mill” (nor “run of the mule” as some nasty interactors may suggest))!

The freedom of the Iraqi people from the oppressions of dictatorship is a noble objective – that the US gets some uninterrupted oil supplies in the process (and for which supplies we do PAY, mind you) is a mutual side benefit – for everybody.

The American people have been steadfast in their support of the US invasion of Iraq! Please do not go by the example of peaceniks and other outdated creatures who inhabit the crevices of this chowk cave and make dissenting noises in the wild!

Individuals like Dr. Gill (occasionally fondly referred as the “Gillster” – a term specifically designed for him to reflect his newly developed carefree personality and his retried attitude toward life!) are just as steadfastly opposed to the invasion!

Always were, always will be!

But they have no clout – because the American people wanted to go in! and the American people want to STAY in!

Always had, always will!

Therefore, having been beaten in their designs – such individuals try a sneak attack!

They try to trip the Veep over a trivial trip by a CIA hubby – and make the case file deliberately chubby!

They improvise, they devise, they surmise, and they romanticize, fantasize, supersize – all to get to their prize!

To prize the veep from his duties – such are our peace-loving beauties!

And they all synchronize – much more than ANY kharboozas ever could – or should!

Your consternation regarding the western intelligence not doing its job PRIOR to 9/11 is understandable (and contrary to what you imply – they usually do not hire sleeping donkeys and horses to those positions – the closest animal approximations are the K-9 officers) – and we have come up with a whole new cabinet agency to address that problem.

I think you should be especially commended for requesting individual interactors to eschew their deeply-rooted prejudices and for being concerned regarding the moisture contents of their undergarments!

Your extreme confidence in the abilities of Israelis is to be marveled at! As somebody who is absolutely enamored of what that tiny little country has been able to accomplish – and not just in the battlefield but also in such areas as science and technology (I am sure the Gillster’s earlier board explained that to you at length) – I must sincerely thank you! I have every confidence that your faith will continue to be justified down the road as that tiny country continues down that path of success and accomplishes all its objectives in the future, too.

Your lack of faith in government is shared by vast number of Americans who use the popular joke to ridicule – “I am from the government, and I am here to help you!”

NT Syed sahib, kindly consider our (US) efforts in Iraq as our very own little tribute – our heartfelt hands of help – coming to you and other such warm-hearted individuals who really NEED the help (alas many of you just don’t know about it yet – or are just too intimidated to admit it or ask for it openly – it can hurt the pride of many males in certain patriarchal societies– we understand!)

I could go on further – in considerable detail and address the many (alas so many) points that you have raised – but the lady of the house has asked me to procure some vegetables – and even though a case can be made that dipping into the vast chowk stock of interactors one could come up with quite a few of those – I am still required to head toward the local “sabji-mandi” which closes shortly!

Therefore, kindly accept this meager ration of my humble offerings until we have another opportunity to revisit some of these highly important topics of the world affairs!

May your beard continue to flow gracefully and to regale us with many, many stories down the road!

Sincerely,
Beej.

HP #33: ``There is There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. . ``

How exactly have you come to this conclusion? ``No doubt?`` Those are strong words. No doubt in whose mind?

The Iraq war was opposed by the majority population of all the countries in the world, except two. The two were USA and Israel. Now even the majority population of the USA is against the Iraq war. So that leaves only one. Israel.

This was, infact, the most opposed war in world history!! Every single country that has been invaded by Iraq, was against the USA invasion of Iraq. Countries at hot and cold wars against each other, like India and Pakistan, both opposed it.

How can you so casually state that there, ``is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists,`` when out of the 190 or so countries in the world, the majority population of 188 (now 189) is agaisnt this war?

There has to be more to the world than a US leadership getting up, claiming someone a terrorist, and then killing 100k of its citizens.