USA and Muslims

#196 by sameerJB on January 17, 2003 9:01am PT

I think that more than the material losses it is the loss of experience of collective decision making that has effected these countires.

This is some thing that is learnt by doing and observing. You remove this for a few generations add to it problems in education, poverty, and the dominance of the west you have a very deep problem.

I wouldnt blame people too much for their present situation. Also remember that all socities evolve find mechanisms to cope with present needs. Colonised socites have not done that.

If you see most coutries got freedom around 50ties and quite a few got it in 60ties a couple of decades is spent in just coming to terms with the nature of the new borders and to get simple food security. If add geopolitical isues which lead to outside interference you have disaster. To this you add religous tussule with traditiolist who want to go back in time and with modernists suggesting abandonig the past completely and start copying the west you have the situation that is present today.

I have hope that solutions will be found even though it will take time. Iran, malaysia, Singapore, to some extent India have traveled quite far in this path others will too only it will take time.

establishment of a modern state is a very complex task. But all starts with self governing mechanism. Just see how difficult it is to even have a semblnace of normality in a residents welfare association in any place inthe world especially in our countries and you will realise the complex nature of getting people to work collectively.

#194 by AmericanExpress on January 16, 2003 10:52pm PT

That would be left wing paper

#199 by rsridhar on January 17, 2003 6:48pm PT

I think this talk of democracy taking root in arab/ muslim countries after saddam is rubbish.

There were attempts to modernise very early. Also remember that Eqypt and trukey moved to constitutional monarchy afew years after the demoractic experiments in Europe. Ie more than a hundred years back only to be invaded by european powers and dissoving the parliments.

Im quoting from an aritcle by sahid alam

``The Ottomans, the Maghreb and Egypt faced another handicap: they were only a few day`s sail from Europe. This made them tempting targets for European capital and cupidity, mixed with some of the old zeal for eradicating Islam. This mission was taken up successively by France, Britain and Italy. An early and deter-mined Egyptian effort to industrialize - initiated in 1810 - was dismantled by the British and French in 1840. When the Egyptians mobilized again in the 1870s, it led to their colonization in 1882. Britain, France and Israel mounted another invasion of Egypt as recently as 1956.

This suggests some sobering reflections for those who would blame the present troubles on Islam`s antipathy to modernity. Imagine if the Egyptian bid to industrialize had not been dismantled by imperialist Britain and France; it is then likely that an industrialized Egypt would eventually have led the entire region to industrial growth, prosperity and power. This thought experiment explains why Egypt`s industrial drive had to be aborted. An industrialized Middle East may have renewed the old threat of Islam to Europe
``

#191 by keshto on January 16, 2003 6:55pm PT

Dream on keshto.... Dream on...

#193 by AmericanExpress on January 16, 2003 10:52pm PT
:)

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

PM
Sorry I missed seeing your remarks earlier. Its good to see you too and hope that you are well.

I wish to thank all who participated at this thread. It is time to move on to more current threads for me. Those who wish to discuss anything may use it for the rest of active life of this thread.
Changa fer.......

rsridhar/ bbabu: As the discussion here and other threads indicate, the case for or against in this case is not so simple. But emotionalism has no place in modern world. One needs to look at both sides - as I have been doing right now by watching to very articulate antiwar activists, Larry Holmes of ANSWER and Medea Benjamin of Green Party and Unted For Peace.

If this war is looked in isolation, in an enclosed situation, no justification of war could be made, not here not in India/ Pakistan or elsewhere. But another way to look at it is on the basis of outcome. War should never be fought on doubtful outcome, nor for the sake of standing up only. Same arguement should be applied to antiwar efforts. They should not be for the sake of standing up or doubtful outcome only.

Basically it boils down to positive contribution for the good of larger picture. In larger picture, governments and foreign policies come much lower than people of the world and those whose lives are directly effected by the war. For governments it might be a chess game but for public, it is life or death situation.

Therefore, it is imperative to calculate both short term and long term gains and losses for Iraqi and American public. I forsee a win-win situation in two to three years down the road while praying a win-win situation without war, although I understand that prayers are for self satisfaction only. Once the situation is analyzed by factoring in public interest and for the sake of making up one`s mind, the blame for creating the current volatile situation - rightfully the USA - becomes insignificance and academic.

The USA is definitely responsible for upping the ante in this situation but Saddam Hussein stupidity can not be ignored completely. One whose chips are down have to exhibit more responsible behavior. They should tread the path much more carefully so as not to get into a suicidal situation.

The US hegemony is an undeniable fact whether liked or disliked. Plenty of nations and people around the world dislike it, yet USA does not consider them security threat. The reason is that only certain foolhardies with suicidal ambitions take upon themselves challenging without proper preparations, strategy, training and planning. There is big difference between `live free or die` and `deathwish before living`.

It may or may not be about Saddam but it definitely is between oil wealth of a nation and its people. The people are denied the fruits of their wealth in a game where Saddam is the main hurdle and people are kept out of the game. The probability of people getting part of their wealth goes up many fold once Saddam is out of the game.

Ref PM #183

[Iraq sure as hell didn`t send scuds into SA in `91....]

I believe you are in error here. One Scud missile was fired towards a Saudi base, probably near Riyadh, and the US fired Patriot anti-missile missiles at it. The Scud broke apart in the air before it hit the target and of course the Patriot missiles didn`t hit the warhead or the missile casing either. The Scud Stud (Arthur Kent of NBC) was broadcasting some distance away from the base and was visibly startled by the explosions behind him and of course this got him his nickname.

Ref PM #184

[harimau, re. #153
Now I know what I`ve been missing away from chowk. You rock! Bless your egalitarian soul. ]

Thank you for the kind words.

One thing I forgot to put in my post #153: while the Western TV reporters went to several madrassahs in Pakistan after 9-11 and got the students there to say that they were willing to fight and die for Osama bin Laden, we forget the interviews at Aitchison College, which is certainly not a madrassah and certainly not a place where the poor send their kids to school. Students at Aitchison said that they considered Osama to be their hero and would be willing to engage in jihad against The Great Satan.

We all know that those words are nothing but empty rhetoric and at the first opportunity, Daddy would pack the would-be jihadi off to the US for further study. But it is those same jihadi-wannabes who spout off on Chowk from the safety of their homes in Fortress America while, with their rhetoric and their contributions, they send the slum-dwellers` kids to torture, loss of limbs or merciful death at the hands of the Indian Army in Kashmir.

The heartlessness of the rich. No wonder Jesus said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter heaven. To think that things haven`t changed in 2000 years!

shah # 198

Thailand has an unfortunate record of sex industry. But they have moved past it. They are building a large electronic manufacturing base much better than any country in the subcontinent.

The point is that thailand was independent. It is better off the india or pakistan even accounting for negatives of the sex industry.

re: #165 by sri
It ain`t easy to just kill Saddam. That guy has at least 7 duplcates. No one knows where he is at a given time. He knows how to save his A$$ well.
The bigger question is: is it all about Saddam or are we fighting a system? If Saddam goes, what is the guarantee someone else,who is worse than Saddam, will not fill the vacancy?
US and the world need to get rid of such dictators who think they are God`s gift to earth and do so much harm. I would also say here that US would do well if it got rid of Mushy and let a real democracy take roots in Pakistan. But US will not do anything of the kind since Mushy is the strongest dictator-ally US has in the islamic world. US only acts against such dicatators who are a pain-in the-A$$.
Sridhar

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

sameer # 196

very true in general.

Thailand may be an exception.

Patrick: The pride of standing up and winning against imperialism or colonialism has historically very poorly - rather inversely - translated into progress for third world Asian, African and Latin American countries. A very good example in the Americas would be that of Haiti.

Haiti was the only country where African slaves rose up against French slave masters, successfully broke the chains of slavery and kicked out French colonialists. Unfortunately, Haiti is the poorest country in western hemisphere with nothing working. All the mostly black dominated nearby Carribean (sp?) island nations who did not fight are better off today.

All freedom movements do wish to create win-win situation for present and future but somehow a precious win in present has often proven to be major loss situation for future.

With so many examples in Asia and Africa, it is difficult to keep balming imperialism and colonialism for crisis after crisis some 50-150 years later. Afghanistan was least colonised nation around south Asia and see how they are faring in comparison.

The reason is perhaps coming in contact with multiculturism even at the ruling elites level ending up strengthening and adding vitality to isolated/ enclosed cultures, irrespective of intellectually and academically despicable colonialism.