Cut and Run

#26 bolta_aaina: I think HP is right wrt Afghanistan. At some point, the Americans will have to pull out or make a deal with the Taliban - unfortunately Pak will be back in control or ensure that there is chaos again. While the US and world media is focusing on US problems in Iraq, it is Afghanistan that is more important - given that Osama and co are still operating in Pak/Afghan region.

If only the US had not gone into Iraq, but focussed on Afghanistan/Pakistan, the world would have been much better off and the US would have had more support from the rest of the world.

#23 urstruly: I wouldnt be too hard on the Paki authorities for this one. The way I understand it, someone downloaded this poem off the Internet and included it in the text book, since it was thought to be a good one. But probably missed out on the fact that the first letters of each sentence spelt President GWB. Or maybe overlooked it since the poem was `good`. In any case, I dont think one can indoctrinate anyone in this way - if people dont get the connection to GWB, they dont get indoctrinated, if they get the connection, they will either laugh it off or get pissed (as seems to have happened).

One change to the process of writing text books should be to not lift stuff off the internet, esp anonymous writers. Always include poems of established writers.

#33 by masadi

[The ``zealot`` Arabs met the ``mighty`` Persians in the battlefield, and not in the form of a fear campaign of `bogeymen`` built around nonsense.]

The difference is accountability, dear Asadi Sahib. In your tirade against the US, how conveniently you ignore the fact that the US has to account for every soldier killed, while its foes simply don`t have to account for its canon-fodder? And no terrorist organization can be held accountable for the civilians killed in a suicide bombing, while all hell breaks loose if a US plane drops a bomb mistakenly.

[The technological difference in firepower that exists between the US and its so-called foe (which is actually its own creation in the 1980s) is also hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than that which existed between the Arab armies and the Persians. These are facts.]

Also, I`m sure you know the difference between an open war and a guerilla war. So let the Al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations come out in the open and fight a war and we shall see how long they last. As you said, these are facts too, which you chose to bypass.

#34, are you capable of forming a decent argument? I mean, your ramblings are not even worthy of a junior high intellect. You mean to tell me that modern mathematics and its development relies more on the Pythagorean school than the Arabs? Even the basic number system got to the Europeans THROUGH the Arabs, regardless of origin. They are not called Pythagorean numerals but Arabic numerals. Geez

Anything is possible in your fantasy world but what is going on in REALITY that is what I am concerned with. Your ``type``, the hypocrites, always siding with thsoe whose tide is up are well know, not only in the West but in all regions- they are the parasites, the leeches that destroy all regardless of truth or honesty, while they seek to benefit themselves even as they kiss the behind of one group or the other, changing with the tide, ``fair weather friends``, back stabbers- HYPOCRITES!

#33 masadi: You are crazy with your thoughts. It is you who has sold your soul to your fanatic masters. You are slave to your theory that no one accepts anymore. Your theory of your enlightened society has been discredited. You are just a bipolar rambler. Your thoughts are just stuck on a few jargons…. US elite, bureaucrat, master, slave, etc. You are a liar, a trickster, and a deceiver. And you assume that all on this site accept your evil thoughts and your evil words. You are the darkness that the enlightened society can do without.

You take credit where credit is not due. The origin of mathematics was with the Ionian and Pythagorean schools some 600 BC. This was much before the Islamic world.

As the rag tag Arabs defeated the Persians of yesteryears, it is possible for today’s psychology of terror that your masters promote to destroy today’s enlightened world.

You can continue your bipolar brains in the glory of yesteryears, but the enlightened world always moves forward, and will continue to move forward removing the rubbish that you and your ilk promote.

No, SHAME ON you. You and those like you, who benefit from the freedom of the enlightened world and then incessantly talk about conspiracy, about hate, about bringing down the west. Your type do not belong in the west.

#32, you’re wrong once again. The ``zealot`` Arabs met the ``mighty`` Persians in the battlefield, and not in the form of a fear campaign of `bogeymen`` built around nonsense. The technological difference in firepower that exists between the US and its so-called foe (which is actually its own creation in the 1980s) is also hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than that which existed between the Arab armies and the Persians. These are facts. Also, the Persian empire was not like the US empire, never before has the entire world been dominated by such a bureaucratized setup of economic, military and political links so your comparison is moot,i.e. of no significance or relevance whatsoever.

Your use of the racist term ``enlightened societies`` describing the house of your masters, is also garbage, when the Islamic societies were laying the foundations of science and math, your ``enlightened`` masters were figuring out how to get rid of their sewage, and failing in their attempts and thus suffering from countless diseases like the Bubonic plague- they were anything but enlightened. Post World War 2, the US has, in a savage manner, attacked numerous countries and destroyed several ecologies- that is not enlightened by any definition of the word. Soon after the Soviets had defeated the Nazi`s, yes the Soviets and not the US and UK defeated them and lost 20 million of their people in the process; the US invented a ``cold war`` by needlessly (again in a savage manner) dropping two Atomic bombs on civilian cities in Japan.

Calling the Iraq war that was based upon fake pretexts that even the officials in the Bush Administration don’t deny now (they call it faulty intelligence), as a just war is truly an amazing phenomenon. You are outdoing the Bush Administration in your support of this war, similar to how the house slaves of old used to; outdo the master in concern for him. I wonder how you are able to respect yourself after selling your soul to the American elite. You are a total slave to them, and for what? A chance to live in the capitalistic heaven, some dollars here and there, a car, a job, etc, what else can they offer you? SHAME on you and people who have no self-respect and sense of truth and therefore act in this despicable manner

Re: # 30: Obviously, masadi, you are back at it again. The war on terror is a just war. If only Clinton would have sent in the marines, instead of those stupid missiles to those caves in Afghanistan maybe there would not have been 9/11.

Regime change was already approved by the Clinton administration since 1998. The UN had passed 17 resolutions against Saddam’s regime. It takes only a few rag tag militias to bring down mighty empires. Of all people, you should know how the zealot Arabs brought down the mighty Persian Empire in the 7th century.

Today’s Islamic fundamentalism is no different. Enlightened societies must take these threats seriously and continue this war on terror until we can get it under control. The enlightened societies are better served by eradicating the liars, the tricksters, and the deceivers amongst us, who are constantly spreading unfounded conspiracy theories against this just war.

#29 atif2: In case of Nikko the elapsed time between ``going in`` and ``pulling out`` is less than a minute. So it should be a moot point. By the time Nikko`s sentence is getting completed this johnie already has a happy face.

#26 right on! The whole ``war on terror`` is a farce designed to feed the US permanent war economy. Just like the CIA was convincing the Afghans of the countryside that fighting the Soviets was a sure ticket to heaven, they are using this ``war on terror`` farce to steal massively from their public by in a paranoid atmosphere of fright. According to the 2006 US budget, the government`s discretionary spending on Defense almost $450 billion is greater than its discretionary spending on ALL other programs combined. Add to this discretionary spending the non-discretionary part and you come up with a whopping $800 billion figure. Over half of the globe`s military spending is done by the US alone, and after spending so much and causing misery over the world with wars started using fake pretexts, they put up a disgraceful performance, like the totally disgraceful performance of the US military in Iraq. A few thousand insurgents are keeping them in check. Tell me if this isnt a totally disgraceful performance after spending over $800 billion on the military and giving it the most massive fire power and technology??

Only idiots would believe that a country (US) with the most massive military power in the world is ``threatened`` by a few people roaming around in caves brandishing ak-47s and world war 2 vintage RPGs- yet this FARCE has been sold not only to the US public but world wide. We must REJECT it, and REJECT it openly.

bolta aaina #1 writes ``Hastily going to Iraq was a mistake.....hastily pull-out will be a bigger mistake.``

This ``going in`` and ``pulling out`` is a tricky business. Let me try to explain to you in a way I understand it the best.

Imagine you were in lust for a girl, lets call her Nikko. So one day, while she was sitting in a wheat field minding her own business, you grabbed her and proceeded to do what Iraqiologists would call ``going in``.

In order to protect herself, she whispered in your ears that due to her frequent visits to wheat field after sunset, she had every STD that village men could muster, and proceeded to suggest what Iraqiologists would call a ``pull-out`` strategy. To lend credence to her claims, you even felt a few things crawling on your johnnie.

Now would you tell her ``Nikko, its true going in was a mistake....but hastily pulling out would be a bigger one. So I’ll stay put and get the job done``? Or would you rather opt for cut and run?

I hope this simple example puts US` dilemma in Iraq in clear perspective.

Re: # 27

kamath on December 8, 2005 5:46am PT

You say, ``Now ,`Cut loose and Run` philosophy is dangerous . If it happens rest of the world will have no repect or confidence in US at all. It will spell disaster for every one! It will strengthen the hands and ideology of religious fanatics and terrorists everywhere.``

I wonder how you know this, with what authority you speak. I`ve suggested that Chowk readers would profit from reviewing reliable, trustworthy reports. One that I`ve previously suggested (I`ve posted the credentials of the author) only requires that you click on the URL below. You would at least have the benefit of the opinions of a man whose experience and accomplishments qualify him to speak out. If you disagree with him I would hope that your qualifications and experience would give your opinions some measure of credibility.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

Here are a few paragraphs from the article, but Gen. Odom goes on to refute all 9 of the hypothetical arguments against pulling out, one by one. Anyone truly interested in reasoned arguments will find the article interesting. mirmir

What’s wrong with cutting and running?
ASK THIS | August 03, 2005
Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom

diane@hudson.org

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq`s neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

You say, ``..This is a prelude reminiscent of the retreat from Vietnam. ...``.Others who have been the observers of Vietnam Era would agree with you on this isuue- Mohammed!

There are many aspects of domestic and foreign policiies of USA are simply and can not be defended on ethical and moral grounds.

Now ,`Cut loose and Run` philosophy is dangerous . If it happens rest of the world will have no repect or confidence in US at all. It will spell disaster for every one! It will strengthen the hands and ideology of religious fanatics and terrorists everywhere.

#6 HP

``With India hitting the skids in stupid political fights and its inability to convince the US of its role in the International and regional politics, Pakistan has certainly emerged as the force to reckon with in the area. ``

India is playing its cards in this game from behind and reaping good returns. Pakistan, though visible from the front, does not get anything in return, as compared to what India gets. It is only Prez.Musharaff who gets his seat.

``Two things that are working for Pakistan: 1) The US grip on Afghanistan and the Karzai govt in Afghanistan are now completely dependent on Pakistan. 2) Pakistan holds all the big guns of Alquaeda thus making it impossible to end the war on terrorism without its support and capture of the Alquaeda leadership. ``

Pakistan, unfortunately, is a mere pawn in the hands of USA in this game. Do you really think a few men sitting in some obscure mountanious caves can control and launch such an operation, worldwide? Even after four years of WOT and with the latest technology and equipments at their disposal, the ``allies`` cannot even trace the foot-steps of these men. Do they really exist or they have been made to be existing?

#23, read the first letter of each line in that poem and it makes ``President George W Bush``- typical trickery, aiming at indoctrinating the youth of Pakistan about a damn criminal and an idiot president.

#23, truly disgraceful what they are doing, praising that criminal in this fashion, but that is how the CIA sponsors indoctrination- were they not telling the Afghans that killing the Soviets would be a sure ticket to heaven, back in the 1980s? Proves my point about the slave mentality of the Pakistani elite- and most other elite in the developing world. They not only sell their souls to their masters in America but also the lives of their people.

The following poem appears in the text books of Pakistan, praising President Bush as the greatest vsionary and leader. I am glad that Pakistani faujis have once again beat the hindu baniya in the fine art of ball licking


Patient and steady with all he must bear,
Ready to accept every challenge with care,
Easy in manner, yet solid as steel,
Strong in his faith, refreshingly real,
Isn`t afraid to propose what is bold,
Doesn`t conform to the usual mold,
Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won`t do,
Never back down when he sees what is true,
Tells it all straight, and means it all too,
Going forward and knowing he`s right,
Even when doubted for why he would fight,
Over and over he makes his case clear,
Reaching to touch the ones who won`t hear,
Growing in strength, he won`t be unnerved,
Ever assuring he`ll stand by his word,
Wanting the world to join his firm stand,
Bracing for war, but praying for peace,
Using his power so evil will cease:
So much a leader and worthy of trust,
Here stands a man who will do what he must.


http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/12/20051207.shtml