Cut and Run

Hastily going to Iraq was a mistake.....hastily pull-out will be a bigger mistake.

gutless fags show why it`s so easy to manipulate the aam junta into supporting a war...

Is it any surprise that the hildebeast, the dem hope for 2008, is a bigger supporter of the war than any of the neocon warmongers? Now we have the SOB Joe Lieberman getting in the Dick ``I`ll say anything Hannity wants to hear`` Morris bandwagon..

The gatekeepers of the status quo rule DC..The best hope if for the focus to shift away from Iraq giving Dubya the room to sneak US forces out by next year...

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders` rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean`s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ``the idea that we`re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.``

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Op-Ed Contributor

The Next Iraq Offensive

By WESLEY K. CLARK
Published: December 6, 2005
Doha, Qatar

WHILE the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America`s friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush`s new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It`s a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.

While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq`s neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran`s power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.

The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.

If this critique is correct - and it is difficult to argue against it - then we must face its implications. ``Staying the course`` risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.

We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country`s borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq`s several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won`t be ``sealed``; they`ll just be more challenging to penetrate.

We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops.

But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.

Iraq, for its part, must begin to enforce the ban on armed militias that was enshrined in the new Constitution, especially in the south. Ideally, this should be achieved voluntarily, through political means. But American muscle will have to be made available as a last resort. The Iraqi government should request that for the next two years, six to eight American brigades serve as a backup, available as a last resort if there is trouble in cities with large militia factions like Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. And it is vital that the Pentagon provide our forces with better crowd-control training and many more translators than they have now.

As important as these military changes are, they won`t matter at all unless our political strategy is rethought. First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week`s parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.

Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue. The elections, in which Sunnis will participate, will help; but the government must do more to ensure that all ethnic and religious groups are represented within ministries, police forces, the army, the judiciary and other overarching federal institutions.

And we must start using America`s diplomatic strength with Syria and Iran. The political weakness of Bashar al-Assad opens the door for significant Syrian concessions on controlling the border and cutting support for the jihadists. We also have to stop ignoring Tehran`s meddling and begin a public dialogue on respecting Iraqi independence, which will make it far easier to get international support against the Iranians if (and when) they break their word.

Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration`s attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.

Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done. After the elections, we should be able to draw down by 30,000 troops from the 160,000 now there. Don`t bet against our troops.

What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late.

Getting rid of Saddam`s rule was the right thing to do. Pulling out of Iraq right now would be catastrophic. The Coalition Forces should first establish law and order and an Iraqi government before any pull out. As President Bush has correctly stated...``As the Iraqi forces stand up, the Coalition Forces will stand down.``

For more on Joe Lieberman and Iraq click on the URL below:
http://www.alternet.org/story/29108/

Here are a few excerpts from the story...

Carrying the `White Man`s Burden` in Iraq
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on December 7, 2005, Printed on December 7, 2005
Last week, on the precious real estate of the right`s flagship, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Iraq war-hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (D?-CT) let slip another unspoken reason why we remain in Iraq more than two and a half years after achieving our stated goal of ``disarming`` Saddam Hussein.

Lieberman wrote that the Iraqis are on the brink of transitioning ``from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood.`` That is, ``unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.``

It`s noteworthy that Lieberman portrayed the old government as ``primitive,`` despite the fact that we were talked into attacking Iraq because it had what President Bush called the ``deadliest`` weapons ``known to mankind.`` They were, presumably, quite modern.

And that fits reality. Iraq under the Baathists was many things, but primitive wasn`t one of them. Before two decades of infrastructure-smashing war, Iraq was considered to be as advanced as many countries in Western Europe. Its universities were the envy of the Arabic world, as was its health care system, which featured the most modern hospitals in the region.

Lieberman contrasts this ``primitive`` Iraq with the ``modern`` self-governance that the ``great American military has given them.``

If this strikes a familiar note with students of history, it should. In earlier iterations, the notion that the West had an obligation to drag their primitive charges into the present was embedded in the ``civilizing missions`` undertaken by the French and British in India and Africa, it was in the White Man`s Burden invoked by Kipling and the ``Hamitic Myth`` favored by German intellectuals to justify its colonial possessions.

There is no clamor to “cut and run”. Even Murtha hasn’t called for cut and run.

Iraq is now a bitter pill that no one is ready to swallow. Bush can’t get out of it easily so he will continue his rhetoric. The dems are testing waters, sending out trial balloons to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

People that can take the heat in elections or have safe seats will continue to speak for withdrawal. But the other part of the dems would just continue to hold the line until they are sure which way the wind is blowing.
The US public is going against the war but the sentiment is still very soft. Any incident, minor or large, would send the war support skyrocketing again.

Dean is right when he says that US can’t win this war because there is nothing there to win in Iraq. The real issue is that this war is linked with the war on terrorism- would leaving Iraq means losing the war on terrorism? That is where the problem lies. The Bush admin or even establishment Dems are not ready to close this chapter.

Has anybody ever thought of who is the biggest beneficiary of the War on Terrorism?
Unbelievable; but it is Pakistan! Pakistan lost a big stake in Afghanistan in 2001 but GWOT turns out to be an even bigger winner for Pakistan.

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.

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.

Mohammad Gill quotes Rep. Murtha:

``Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region…Our military has done everything asked of them, the US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. (John Murtha)``

I wonder why it is that U.S. combat veterans like John Murtha and I think that ``it is time to bring them home`` while the most belligerent of the hawks (Bush, Cheney, Rice) who never served in the military and, in the case of Bush and Cheney (variously called draft dodgers, chichen hawks, etc.) actively and successfully avoided the draft while the U.S. was at war in Vietnam, insist on ``staying the course.``

I also wonder how many of the ``Chowkies`` who insist on ``staying the course`` have experienced combat in any of the U.S.`s wars.

mirmir #7:
The war in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war; Shiites and Kurds are pitted against the Sunnis, the so-called insurgents. The US is fighting on the side of the Shiites. It is causing a great deal of frustration in the army. Murtha has the inside information of the army`s frustration. The generals are terrified by the administration and they don`t vent this frustration openly. If the American army succeeded to put down the insurgency and install the Shiite government, it is feared that the new Iraq will be another Iran in the Middle East. The argument for staying the course may be true but the outcome also is not very favorable for the US. I have developed this argument in another article which is under review with Chowk. It appears that the US is caught in the horns of a dilemma.
Mohammad Gill

#8 by freethinker on December 7, 2005 12:15pm PT


The war in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war; Shiites and Kurds are pitted against the Sunnis, the so-called insurgents.


Fantastic...

Arm the shias and kurds...they`ll pay us back in oil...They`ll use the arms to take care of the sunni ``insurgents``..American forces back by xmas 2006...


Americans get out and get to buy oil and sell weapons.
Shias and kurds take control of their own destiny.
sunnis insurgents get to meet their designated 72 virgins..


Sounds like a win-win-win..

# 7 mirmir: {I also wonder how many of the ``Chowkies`` who insist on ``staying the course`` have experienced combat in any of the U.S.`s wars. } You are totally stupid to wonder this thought on Chowk. This is totally irrelevant and absurd.

It is absolutely critical that the US stays the course and installs a freely and democratically elected government in Iraq. The US must pressure Shias and Kurds to bring the disenfranchised Sunnis to the central government. The Sunnis must realize that they are no longer the ruling elite and must accept their minority position. These three major communities must share the oil revenues proportionally. The coalition forces should then invite NATO forces to help out, and to gradually move out of the urban areas. Muslim nations could help out with their forces. UN can become the guarantor of an effective regime in Iraq.

And here`s what another combat veteran says about U.S. presence in Iraq (go here for the full story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051201-054122-4745r):

General Odom Calls for Immediate Exit from Iraq
United Press International

Friday 02 December 2005

Washington - The US general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.

Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the US armed forces to get out of Iraq now.

Odom, one of the most respected US military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, ``We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill`s glib observation, `the only thing worse that having allies is having none,` was once again vindicated.

``There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq,`` he wrote. ``... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there.``

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html


Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders` rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean`s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ``the idea that we`re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.``

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president`s growing political problems on the war and other issues. ``Dean`s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,`` said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean`s famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi`s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush`s hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

``What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president`s policies have led to,`` Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, ``the how and when gets buried`` and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.

Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party.

Democrats, who have not controlled the White House since 2000 and the House in more than a decade, have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush`s unpopular war management.

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush`s policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush`s handling of Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy and persuaded most Democratic senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 ``a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty`` and to compel the administration ``to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq.`` While Republicans introduced the resolution, it was prompted by a Democratic plan.

Democratic Reps. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position during a closed-door meeting today that is to include debate on the Pelosi position.

Despite Pelosi`s claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.

``We have not blown our chance`` of winning back the House but ``we have jeopardized it,`` said a top strategist to House Democrats, who requested anonymity to speak freely about influential party leaders. ``It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it`` by playing to the liberal base of the party.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today`s meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.

Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that terrorists will prevail ``if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission,`` saying such precipitous move ``would be unwise in the extreme.`` Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said that ``any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.``

In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president`s optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. ``There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory,`` Bush said in response to a question about Dean`s comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. ``Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win.``

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean`s comments were taken out of context. Dean, she said, meant the war was unwinnable unless the Bush administration adopts a new strategy. Still, a number of Democrats distanced themselves from Dean. ``I think Howard Dean . . . represents himself when he speaks,`` Tauscher said. ``He does not represent me.``

Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush`s handling of the war as criticism of U.S. troops who are fighting in Iraq. ``I absolutely disagree`` with Dean, said Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who is running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. ``The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq,`` he said. ``We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace.``

Here`s more of Gen. Odom`s commentary (go to this URL for his complete statement: http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0063&stoplayout=true&print=true )

Withdrawal is the Precondition to Progress

Once we recognize these two realities, it becomes clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the precondition to winning the support of our allies and a few others for a joint approach to the region. Until that has been completed, they will not join such a coalition. And until that has happened, even we in the United States cannot think clearly about what constitutes our interests there, much let gain agreement about common interests for a coalition.

By contrast, any argument for ``staying course,`` or seeking more stability before we withdraw -- or pointing out tragic consequences that withdrawal will cause -- is bound to be wrong, or at least unpersuasive. Putting it bluntly, those who insist on staying in Iraq longer make the consequences of withdrawal more terrible and make it harder to find an alternative strategy for achieving regional stability.

Once the invasion began in March 2003, all of the ensuing unhappy results became inevitable. The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In any event, the longer we stay, the worse it will be. Until that is understood, we will make no progress with our allies or in devising a promising alternative strategy.

``Staying the course`` may make a good sound bite, but it can be disastrous for strategy. Several of Hitler`s generals told him that ``staying the course`` at Stalingrad in 1942 was a strategic mistake, that he should allow the Sixth Army to be withdrawn, saving it to fight defensive actions on reduced frontage against the growing Red Army. He refused, lost the Sixth Army entirely, and left his commanders with fewer forces to defend a wider front. Thus he made the subsequent Soviet offensives westward easier.

To argue, as some do, that we cannot leave Iraq because ``we broke it and therefore we own it`` is to reason precisely the way Hitler did with his commanders. Of course we broke it! But the Middle East is not a pottery store. It is the site of major military conflict with several different forces that the United States is galvanizing into an alliance against America. To hang on to an untenable position is the height of irresponsibility. Beware of anyone, including the president, who insists that this is ``responsible`` or ``the patriotic`` thing to do.

Ref: Cut and Run by Mohammad Gill

By all means no one here should fail to read this article by Gen. Odom:

``What`s Wrong With Cutting and Running?``

You can find it at this address: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

As for Gen. Odom`s creditials, they could be superior to those of Mr. Gill or anyone else contributing to Chowk. Here are a couple of paragraphs that ought to support that contention (go to this URL for the entire resumè: http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86)

``Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation`s signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army`s senior intelligence officer.

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President`s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970.

General Odom’s latest book, America’s Inadvertent Empire, co-authored with Robert Dujarric, was published in early 2004 by Yale University Press. His previous book, Fixing Intelligence For a More Secure America, was published in January 2003 (Yale University Press). His book, The Collapse of the Soviet Military (Yale University Press, 1998), won the Marshall Shulman Prize. General Odom has also written America`s Military Revolution: Strategy and Structure After the Cold War (American University Press, 1993); Trial After Triumph: East Asia After the Cold War (Hudson Institute, 1992); On Internal War: American and Soviet Approaches to Third World Clients and Insurgents (Duke University Press, 1992); and The Soviet Volunteers (Princeton University Press, 1973). He coauthored Commonwealth or Empire? Russia, Central Asia, and the Transcaucasus with Robert Dujarric (Hudson Institute, 1995).``

I refer to #3, the article posted by behram1, written by Wesley Clark:

The Wesley Clark article is useless. We don`t expect peace-talk from a warlord like Wesley Clark. All he knows is war. His whole life has been war. He is a damn warlord. That is how the power elite in the US come to be of a single world view- the military metaphysic, Mills called it. Clark started off in command of the military institution, wanted to become president (command of the political institution), and will probably end up as CEO or board member of one of the corporations of the Military Industries, like Raytheon, Northup Grumann or Lockheed Martin etc. Yes, they want to perpetuate war, and suffering. Iran emerging as winner, so what, they play one side against the other anyway there is nothing new in this; in Afghanistan the group Iran was siding with was supported by the US, so also in Iraq, because the Sunnis are challenging the American imperialism at present. Tomorrow, it might be some ohter group that they support and benefit (once they supported Osama`s people, remember Afghanistan in the 1980s?).

The fact is the US might go along with one group or the other in the short run, but in the long run they ensure their own benefits and hegemony. Clark`s article just tries to confuse using short run analysis even as his main goal is to perpetuate the conflict that feeds the US permanent war economy and ``footprint`` (an official US term) in an oil rich region and as well the protection of Israel from a God forbid developed Arab world! This they want to avoid at all cost. They do not even hide these reasons, the Project for the New American Century (they now populate the Bush Cabinet, or other high ranks in his Admn) wrote all these reasons to Clinton in their 1998 letter asking him to take military action against Iraq, back in 1998 same reasons and same excuses that were resurrected after 9/11 by Bush and co to lie to the American people to invade Iraq. Their 1998 letter to Clinton can be read on their website at
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Eventually, the truth always ruins falsehood. That is what is going to happen. The US will be forced out of Iraq, with its tail between its legs. And if Israel doesnt make a just peace with the Palestinians, it will lose big time. Mark these words, it is going to happen eventually.

I recommend this presentation to get a good background of the Iraq war, http://war.asadi.org

And I would like to end by stating, the US is not the world`s policeman, neither does it have any moral superiority or authority (given its track record of won ton killings post World War 2), to talk about human rights.

# 17 masadi: And now you are posting the same rubbish on this site as well, eh!

Since your logic works backwards, I will answer your last para first.
[...to talk about human rights.] Oh yeah! And you with your kind in Sudan would know about human rights. Yeah right! You must have your upper chamber examined. But, the indoctrination you got from the liars, tricksters, and deceivers would be hard to be removed from your hard disk drive.

Which Islamic society would say has any appreciable human rights? For that they have to consider their people that they rule over as humans first.

[...the US is not the world`s policeman,] No, and the US does not want to be one. But the US is the last hope for humanity. Just look at what happened after World War I when the US entrenched and all hell broke lose in the world. Today, God forbid, if the US entrenches then all the leftists and commies will have a field day.

[.... neither does it have any moral superiority] You are absolutely incorrect. If any country has any moral authority in today`s world it is the US...Or do you want to say that Iran has the moral authority? Or, that stupid idiot Hugo Chavez has the moral authority?

The rest of your post is so rubbish that it does not deserve a response at this time.

#18, unlike behram1, who is busy kissing his American master`s behind, when I post items, I give historical references for sources you can check up. He, on the other hand, just as he has been doing on the other posts about Israel/Palestine, makes claims that are illogical and ahistorical and as usual lack any documentation whatsoever. Regarding the US entry in World War 2, let us see the hypocrisy of the US elite:

The United States’ entry into World War 2 against Germany was marketed to the public as a move to defend helpless countries against an evil foe that had violated the principles of nonintervention into the affairs of other countries. Considering the track record of the U.S. at the time of entry, this appeal to “liberation and freedom” was hypocritical to the extreme. The historian Howard Zinn in his, “A People’s History of the United States: 1492 –Present” (1995), summarizes U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other countries prior to World War 2:


The U.S. had instigated a war with Mexico and taken over half that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and right of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats…It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years… It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the canal. It sent 5000 Marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution and kept forces there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years… Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America. Just before World War 1 ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia and remained there until early 1920. Five thousand more troops landed at Archangel, another Russian port…”.(Howard Zinn 1995, People`s History of the US:399-400)

My sincere advice to all of you readers here, go through behram1`s posts and look at the claims he makes, without any references to back him up, except for insults and allegations that further lack any references or documentation. He should change his name to FOX NEWS- they do much the same even as they deceive tens of millions in the US. Because of such baseless propaganda most in the US believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and the number of those who watched Fox News was EVEN higher, over 80% of their viewers believed that nonsense.

Re: # 19 masadi: You have gone crazy. First you start your post with [ Regarding the US entry in World War 2, let us see the hypocrisy of the US elite: ]

Then you post [...summarizes U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other countries prior to World War 2:]

Only a corrupt mind like yours can come up with this. But, again you are surrounded with liars, tricksters, and deceivers. And you are surrounded with the forces of darkness and forces of evil.

[... without any references to back him up, except for insults and allegations that further lack any references or documentation.] The above is just one sample of your stupid references. Talk about ``flowers`` and then give references of ``cauliflowers``.

Sub tau laye phool bhuda ghobi lay kar aa gaya......Now that is the quality of your references.

[.... He should change his name to FOX NEWS- ] Stop worrying about what I should or should not do, but, you must change your name to Aljazeera. You are the aspiring writer!!!!!.... Blah, blah, blah....US elite has done this and US elite has done that....There is probably a US elite hiding in your toilet.... Blah, blah, blah

This is laughable. Do you know how to comprehend a simple sentence behram1? The US presented an excuse to its people on why it was entering WW2. That excuse was just that, a hypocritical excuse because of the track record of the US prior to WW2. What is so difficult to understand in that?

Re: # 21 masadi: You are definitely laughable. The question on the table was thank god that the US involves itself in world politics. The only time that it did not was after World War I, and we got in WWII. The US isolated itself from world affairs after World War I and the world was in ruins.

Your deceiving self, however, [ presented an excuse to its people on why it was entering WW2. ] And this is not the question on the table.

And then, as usual, you presented all kind of bogus references that had nothing to do with the item of why we need the US to exert its moral authority over the entire world.

[What is so difficult to understand in that?] Obviously it is very difficult for you to understand.

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

#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.

#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.

#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?

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.

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?

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.

#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.

#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.

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.

#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

#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.

#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 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.

#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.

#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.

#36, what you state has NOTHING to do with the facts; it’s just based on the ``holy`` picture of the US that you’ve come to accept, based upon indoctrination by the corporate media, the great “American Celebration” that they are busy with 24/7, which has nothing to do with the facts or reality. It was General Tommy Franks, the commander of the invasion who said ``We don’t do body counts,`` - that is the fact. When the US fires dozens of cruise missiles (more than 40) into the heart of the city in order to ``assassinate`` Saddam- that does not amount to premeditated mass murder of civilians in your estimate? Or when it knowingly drops 4, 2000 lb bunker busters on a civilian restaurant in the heart of a civilian neighborhood to kill Saddam based on flimsy intelligence, that is somehow more ``holy`` than a suicide bomber blowing himself up. No they both are criminals, the suicide bombers however are ``lower level`` criminals than those sitting in the Whitehouse, the ``higher`` criminals. Remember Madeline Albright said that the half a million Iraqi children killed directly as a result of the sanctions in Iraq was a price that was ``worth it``; or should I remind you of cancer rates that have gone up 700% since the first Gulf War due to Depleted Uranium used by the US in its armaments. Or should I tell you about the slaughter of thousands of fleeing civilians on the ``highway of death`` during the first Gulf War? Or the fact that according to research carried out by John Hopkins University, Columbia University and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq, with the vast majority of them having died in US air strikes and not as a result of suicide bombings! These my friend, are the cold hard facts!

Your and behram1`s comparison of the Arabs armies vs. the Persian empire, and the ``rag tag`` as behram1 puts it, so called Al-Qaeda- a creation of the CIA, vs. a US that spends more on its military than what the rest of the world combined spends simply doesn’t hold, it is simply nonsense.

Re: # 29

good one.

Re: # 30

Even after four years of the best men, best soldiers, best armaments, best equipments and what have you, these supposedly few men living in caves are still roaming the mountains in their ``chappals`` is something difficult to digest.

They might be existing at one point of time, but they are no more now. Only their ghosts are being kept alive to continue an imaginary war which only benefits a few arm merchants.

Re: # 38

The picture, particularly at Afganistan/Pakistan border is so tricky that it defies any kind of logic. Osama is alive, Taliban is regrouping etc. One thing could be that Prez.Musharaff is playing a double game which many would like to believe. But I dont think he can dare double-cross the US on whose his survival depends. The second could be that Musharaff is not in full control..may be his own establishment down the line is helping these elements..which is quite likely. And the third could, which is gaining more credance as the time passes, is that this all Al-qaida business is a hoax. It existed one time, no doubt but now it does not exist anymore. Its ghost is being kept alive to justify the US presence in the region and further expansion in the Middle-east in future.

USA rests on the premise that wars and conflicts elsewhere in the world benefit it. It gained enormously after WW-II. Then it had the god-sent foe in the form of USSR and it continued to battle it in Europe, Afganistan etc. for four decades. Now it is at loggerheads with Islam. You can mind my words that for another two-three decades it will keep on grappling with this real or imaginary foe. After that, China will be ready. It is will then lock horns with China for another three-four decades. Then it will catch hold of some other chicken.

That way this American Century will pass off peacefully.

#43 right on again! Back in the 1950s, C. Wright Mills, American Sociologist, wrote about the Military Metaphysic- the military definition of reality deeply espoused by the US power elite, based upon the transformation of its economy post world war 2 into a ``permanent war economy`. See this http://war.asadi.org

You are right on about China as well, look at the Neo-Cons of the Project for the New American Century, authors of the Iraq war, people like Rumsfeld and they are at it about China now. The CIA translated a Chinese book titled ``Unrestricted Warfare`` written by a couple of Chinese colonels and they are using that in a typical FOX NEWS manner to suggest that China is going to wage an Al-Qaida style war on the US, some are even linking it to 9/11 ! All throughout this war nonsense of the US elite, the U.S. ``elephant`` under ``permanent threat`` by ``ants``, human suffering becomes a mere background noise, legitimized by slogans of democracy and freedom. These criminals, and criminals they are by any definition of the word- have perfected the art of ``polite`` killing and their cheerleaders on here like behram1 talk about ``enlightenment`` even as they justify their barbarism clothed in moral symbols. Keep up these fantastic posts, we must challenge their military metaphysic and their lies or we become part of the same drift to the coming ``human hell`` (as C. W. Mills put it).

#44

The problem with USA is that its arms lobby is very powerful. To the extent that it controls almost the whole of administration.

Otherwise America and Americans still command a lot of respect in the world..even in Islamic countries. But only if it changes its way and goes to the other countries with the right message of democracy, freedom of tought, liberty, justice and brotherhood. Instead, it prefers to show its muscles every now and then and nobody except the arms lobby benefits from it.

Re: # 35 masadi: That is exactly the point, which you are beginning to understand. Arabs were just a ruthless invaders of the Persian empire, stole everything the Persians had and passed in on as merchants.

[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.] Calling it Arabic numerals or Arabic script shows the extent of their ruthlessness. They were the world`s most ruthless occupiers of the Persian territories, and robbed and pillaged the Persian enlighted history. And that is a fact.

Mathematics started with Paythagoras, a Greek....Persians gave astronomy to the world......And the Arabs became slave merchants....They were always merchants. Giving something innovative to the world requires brains, which they never had and they still do not have. Even God must be surprised that after sending over 124,000 prophets to educate the Arabs they are still not enlightened.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL01Ak01.html

What `staying the course` really means
``Far from bringing democracy to Iraq and defeating ``Islamofascism``, the 150,000 US troops there are acting as the Praetorian Guard for a real ``Islamofascist`` regime that is already in power. And if the US ``stays the course`` with its utterly paradoxical and self-defeating strategy, much of the rest of the Middle East is also likely to end up in the hands of theocratic extremists who rule by terror, torture, and armed might.`` - Robert Dreyfuss

Ref: #42 by bolta_aaina

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GL09Df01.html

Taken for a ride in the `war on terror`
``Pakistan is under constant pressure to keep up its end of the bargain with the US in the ``war on terror``. In return for juicy material rewards, Islamabad has to deliver on a plate al-Qaeda-linked suspects. This it has done with zeal, in quantity if not in quality. Now US intelligence has cottoned on, and is turning away Pakistan`s ``useless`` prisoners.``
Syed Saleem Shahzad

Re: # 44

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GL10Ae01.html

Why Southeast Asia is turning from US to China
By Tim Shorrock

WASHINGTON - The United States is rapidly losing its influence in the Southeast Asia region to China, thanks to an overly narrow focus on terrorism and a propensity to place bilateral ties above multilateral relationships, according to US and Chinese analysts.

``China makes a point of dealing with Southeast Asia as a region and has a very aggressive ASEAN policy,`` said Catharin Dalpino, an Asia specialist at Georgetown University who served in the Clinton administration. ``This also helps its bilateral relationships with Southeast Asia quite a lot.``

ASEAN is the acronym for the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations that includes Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Brunei.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL10Ak01.html

Badr`s spreading web
By Mahan Abedin

``The recent discovery of a supposedly secret prison allegedly run by elements in the Iraqi Interior Ministry loyal to the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), has raised fears of an escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq. Leaving aside the sensational reporting on this incident, there is nothing particularly new or even secret about this development.

Certainly the American authorities in Iraq are not only well aware of aggressive counter-insurgency tactics, but in some cases even oversee them. The timing of the so-called secret prison`s ``discovery`` is also interesting, coming at a time when the US is trying to diminish the influence of the Shi`ite Islamist bloc in the government.

The elections scheduled for December 15 are seen as a perfect opportunity by the Americans and their main ally in Iraq, former premier Iyad Allawi, to curtail the electoral clout of SCIRI and other Shi`ite organizations and personalities, including Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi. The ``discovery`` of the secret detention center and the sensational reporting that followed is part of this American-led electoral strategy.

In the security field, though, there are unlikely to be any changes to the way the Shi`ite-dominated security forces conduct the war against the Arab Sunni guerrilla movement and the Salafi-jihadi extremists. However, the events of the past month have highlighted a potentially fatal long-term flaw in the development of new Iraqi security forces, and that is the emergence of two separate security/intelligence structures: one which is entirely overseen by the Americans, and the other entirely led by Shi`ite Islamists with strong ties to Iran.

The Badr Organization

As the Interior Ministry detention center, where about 170 prisoners were being held, was allegedly controlled by elements either belonging to or strongly connected to the Badr Organization, it is worthwhile examining the emergence and evolution of this paramilitary and security organization.``

#48 by mirmir on December 9, 2005 5:46am PT

So that`s why maulana urstruly can`t go back to Pakiland...He might be picked up and handed over to the feds as an AlQaeda #3..next stop: romania or poland...

Re: # 51

Don`t worry about me. I have a perfect cover. I use nicks like arjunm, rsridhar and hamidm etc and post hateful anti-Muslim propaganda on the internet to divert people from my my real identity.

Interactors:

The following cut and paste news item may be of some interest to you.

The Abdus Salam
International Centre
for Theoretical Physics
© 2005
http://www.ictp.it — home > newsICTP News22/12/2004

New Templeton PrizesFiled under: Prizes— editor @ 3:59 pm
The John Templeton Foundation, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, has announced that it will fund five new awards designed to recognize and assist young ’scholar-leaders’ who have vigorously examined the ‘creative interface’ between traditional Islamic culture and modern science. The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) in Trieste, Italy, has been asked to administer the programme. Each prize will carry a cash award of US$20,000.

“In these difficult times,” says Charles Harper, the John Templeton Foundation’s executive director and senior vice president, “we are pleased to sponsor a series of prizes that we hope will help promising young scholar-leaders better establish themselves as opinion makers within their own countries and regions. We also hope our efforts will help these young scholar-leaders build ties with their peers worldwide.”

“Our aim,” adds Barnaby Marsh, who directs the Foundation’s Venture Philanthropy Strategy and New Programs Development, “is to support scientists engaged in exploring the critically important challenges posed by the intersection of the worlds of science and religion in a critical part of the world.”

The five prizes, to be given annually, include the:
• Abdus Salam Prize for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Physical Sciences.
• ICTP Prizes (2) for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Applied Sciences.
• Ahmed Zewail Prize for Leadership in Islamic Thought and the Biological and Chemical Sciences.
• Ahmed Zewail Prize for Leadership in Science and Islamic Life.

Pakistani-born Salam, founding director of the ICTP and Egyptian-born Zewail, professor of chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, are the only two scientists from the Islamic world to have won the Nobel Prize.

“We are delighted that the Templeton Foundation has decided to launch this initiative,” says ICTP director K.R. Sreenivasan, “and we are happy that it has chosen the Centre to implement the programme. The goals of the initiative fit well with the Centre’s expanding agenda to not only assist individual scientists, which it has done so well over the past 40 years, but also to improve the environment for research in their home countries. The ultimate aim is to ensure that science becomes an integral part of the larger agenda for economic and social development not only in the Islamic world but throughout the developing world.”

Candidates will be selected on their ‘demonstrated’ ability to insightfully and sensitively examine the relationship between Islamic culture and modern science both in scholarly and popular writings. The hope is that recipients of the prize will have displayed—and will continue to display—the talent and drive necessary to engage their colleagues and the larger public in exploring this complex issue, especially their colleagues and the public in the Islamic world.

“This initiative,” says Harper, “builds upon several recent exploratory workshops and conferences that the John Templeton Foundation has convened in France and Morocco over the past few years that have focused on religion and science in the Islamic world. Our ultimate objective is to develop a core group of scholars and scientists who can emerge as experts and intellectual trend-setters both within their own countries and regions and throughout the world.”

Comments (0)
15/12/2004
Gabriel Olalere Ajayi (1941-2004)Filed under: General— editor @ 5:22 pm
Gabriel Olalere Ajayi, an ICTP Associate 1992-2004, died on 12 December 2004, in Abuja, Nigeria. He was 63.
Ajayi played an essential role in developing ICTP’s activities for the advancement of information and communication technologies in Nigeria and he lectured regularly at the Centre’s annual schools on digital radio communication. A former professor at Obafemi Awolowo University in Ile-Ife, Nigeria, Ajayi was the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of the National Information Technology Development Agency, Federal Ministry of Science and Technology. His professional experience covered a wide range of activities in telecommunications, broadcasting and computers, including teaching, training, research and development. His friends at ICTP extend their condolences to his family and colleagues.

Gabriel Olalere Ajayi at ICTP’s 40th Anniversary Conference

Comments Off
9/12/2004
Strings in NYTFiled under: Science Media— editor @ 11:19 am
A feature article in the New York Times (7 December 2004) has examined the state of string theory 20 years after the concept was first introduced as a theoretical construct depicting the make up of the universe as intertwined strings and not single points. The scientists quoted in the article have been among the most active participants in ICTP high energy research and training activities over the past two decades: former SISSA (International School for Advanced Studies) director Daniele Amati; Dirac Medallists Michael Green (Cambridge), David Gross (Kavli Institute, Santa Barbara), John Schwarz (Caltech) and Edward Witten (Institute of Advanced Study); and course directors Brian Greene (Columbia), Robbert Dijkgraaf (Amsterdam), Juan Maldacena (Institute of Advanced Study) and Cumrun Vafa (Harvard). Of the 24 scientists mentioned in the article, 19 have visited ICTP.

Comments Off
Faheem Hussain RetiresFiled under: General— editor @ 11:17 am
Faheem Hussain, head of ICTP’s Office of External Activities from 1998 to 2004, will retire on 15 December. Born in India and educated in the United Kingdom, Hussain first came to ICTP in June 1970 to attend a summer school in high energy physics. During the 1980s, he became a frequent visitor to the Centre, initially as an Associate and then as a visiting scientist in the High Energy Physics group. In 1990, he was hired as a permanent staff member and given the task of helping to launch the Diploma Programme while continuing his research. He was a representative of ICTP’s staff union for two terms. Hussain will also be remembered for organising weekly cricket matches on the Carso for visitors and staff. Hussain will be relocating to Pakistan to teach physics. He will be missed.

Comments (0)
8/12/2004
Canada’s Science Advisor Visits TriesteFiled under: Visits— editor @ 11:38 am
Arthur J. Carty, the Canadian government’s National Science Advisor, visited Trieste’s scientific institutions on 6 December to discuss possible avenues of international scientific cooperation, especially in nanotechnology. Carty learned about the full range of scientific research in Trieste through a series of presentations that included talks by ICTP director, K.R. Sreenivasan, and AREA Science Park president, Maria Cristina Pedicchio. He also toured the Synchrotron Light Laboratory and the Centre for Molecular Biomedicine in AREA Science Park. The last stop on his day-long tour was ICTP on the Miramare campus.

Comments Off
2/12/2004
Minister of Science at ICTPFiled under: Visits— editor @ 5:50 pm
Pius Yasebasi Ng’wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of Tanzania, met with ICTP officials and staff on 30 November. He was accompanied by his Private Secretary, Sylvester A. Matemu. Discussions focused on ways ICTP could be of even greater help to sub-Saharan Africa. The Minister acknowledged the enormous contribution that ICTP had made to the physics and mathematics communities throughout the region. But he believes that more can be done, especially in areas where science can be put to use to improve the lives of the region’s most impoverished citizens.

Pius Yasebasi Ng’wandu, Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education of Tanzania, and Claudio Tuniz, Special Assistant to the ICTP Director

Comments Off
ICTP, Iran Ministry Sign MOUFiled under: Visits— editor @ 5:48 pm
Jafar Towfighi Darian, Iranian Minister of Science, Research and Technology, visited ICTP on 22 November to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Centre that calls for (1) the creation of two joint postdoctoral positions cosponsored by ICTP and the Ministry in basic physics and mathematics; (2) the expansion of the existing federation agreement between ICTP and Isfahan University of Technology to include an additional university; and (3) the admission of up to two Ph.D. students each year in a ’sandwich’ programme funded jointly by ICTP and the Ministry. ICTP and the Ministry also agreed to explore the establishment of cooperative regional activities.

Comments (0)



©2005 ICTP || news.ictp.it || site statistics || Powered by WordPress

#53 wasn`t my post, it was inserted by the chowk software even as it messed up my original post

#46, your understanding is totally skewed. Just because the Muslims cherished the learning of other cultures, translated it, built upon it and shared it, you say that is theft? Garbage. Theft is what your colonial masters did in India when they destroyed its industry, an industry that was more developed -under the Muslims that is- than the British textile industry- that is theft!

#44. It is not merely the arms lobby. It is the entire economic structure of the US that has been transformed post world war 2 into a ``permanent war economy``, look at the 2006 discretionary budget of the US, it spends more on defense than on ALL other programs combined. Similarly the interchangibility that exists among the leaders of the military, industry and government eg those that are CEOs like Cheney become vice presidents or cabinet members, those in the military like Powell become industry captians being on the board of Time Warner etc and then enter the president`s cabinet etc results in a fusion of views- that regardless of the regime in charge, democratic or republican, results in similar outcomes on the world scene and foreign policy. There is no substantive democracy in the US. A rationalized bureaucratic society, with rules governing every aspect of life from birth to death cannot be a free society, it cannot be a democratic society. Modern sociologists like Ritzer refer to it as the McDonaldization of Society. How the world preceives America, through the media propaganda and what America is in fact are two different things- sometimes the reality becomes all too obvious when, as you mention, it flexes its muscle.

What has happened in modern bureaucratic societies, that parade as democracies (like the USA), is that the chance to reason and the ability to be free has been lost (see http://robots.asadi.org) that is the nature of a bureaucratic society: a society where standardization is the norm and the person is surrounded by rules that govern behavior from birth to death. Such ``democracies`` exists in form only and not in essence, here choices are not formulated by a ``public`` but rather insinuated upon a highly propagandized ``mass society`` that knows next to nothing regarding public issues. This is achieved by control of the ``cultural apparatus`` by a small aristocracy, the Power Elite. The ``cultural apparatus``- language, education, status and technology- with the media and the formal educational institutions playing a dominant role, thus ensures that this elite achieves cultural hegemony. The person thinks he or she is free and living under a ``democracy`` but the reality of the situation is much different.

# 55 masadi: Arabs have never cherished anything in the earlier years. They were ruthless as was shown abundantly clear in Karbala....

[Just because the Muslims cherished the learning of other cultures, translated it, built upon it and shared it, you say that is theft? Garbage.] Wah reh wah... Only the converted Persians knew then and they know it now, how to develop from within. Arabs knew none of these enlightened ways of living in the modern world at the time. And that is why they robbed and pillaged, and attacked. So much so that Haluka had to be called for help from distant place. And these Arabs still don`t.

[Theft is what your colonial masters did in India when they destroyed its industry, an industry that was more developed -under the Muslims that is- than the British textile industry- that is theft!] What Arabs did, you do not call it theft. BTW, Arabs could not steal astronomy/astrology from the Persians because it conflicted with their new belief system. And what the British did you call it theft. Why?

#56, I address viewers on here not the hypocrite behram1. The British destroyed India`s industry, stole its resources, ruthlessly killed the indigenous people, treated them like vermin, pushed them back a hundred years, implanted their sick capitalistic culture on them, played one group against the other, cultivated religious hatred and then when they left, they left an unfinished mess that has described the lives of the region ever since.

#57 masadi: Abbey oye magaz ka bawaseer.... So when are you going to address my post #56? I want in simple English and not some stupid academic BS, stating empirical study and all that crap. As I had a very simple question.... why is it different when Arabs attacked and destroyed the Persian dynasty? Have you read Firduasi`s Shahnama? And how glorius the Persian Dynasty was? eh!

masadi: You will not be allowed to weezel out of this one. Answer some of the questions on the historical country that you called Palestine (on the other site)

PALESTINE THE COUNTRY???

If you are so sure that Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history, I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country:

· When was it founded and by whom?
· What were its borders?
· What was its capital?
· What were its major cities?
· What constituted the basis of its economy?
· What was its form of government?
· Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
· Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
· What was the language of the country of Palestine?
· What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
· What was the name of its currency?

· Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.

· And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

· If you are lamenting the low sinking of a once proud nation, please tell me, when exactly was that nation proud and what was it so proud of?

· And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day Palestinians to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history will not work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned t