An Answer to the Pro War Surrealists

re:#72 by tahmed32
India became nuclear to defend itself from the Chinese threat. Pak became nuclear to defend itself from the Indian threat. India is comfortable with its nuclear status. The world has not made any noise (after the initial noise that has susided now) about a Hindu bomb but the world (especially USA) is definitely concerned about the Islamic bomb. Are the Pakistani rulers comfortable with the Islamic bomb?
Nations defend their integrity with all means. We have heard Z.A. Bhutto say one time that Pakis will eat grass but will make the bomb to neutralise India`s threat.
India has allocated a certain percentage of GDP for defense (and this percentage is far less than that of China and Pak). India has been growing at 5-6% for the last 10 years. It can afford the defense expenditure. Besides, no opposition leader has made this an issue.
Development of the country is now becoming as much a private enterprise as it is a govt one. Govt is slowly giving away controls, thereby unleashing private enterprise on a scale never seen before. Poverty will be reduced and eventually eliminated but it will take time. So, you are only repeating a cliche when you talk about India`s poverty and defense expenditure in the same breath.

What are you and other Pakistanis defending, Sir? Is it the country? Are you not defending the Army establishment, an establishment that has stifled all political discourse in the country and taken over every aspect of governance in its own hands? Paki Army has a one point agenda viz Kashmir. And, it is not willing to compromise on that. It somehow feels that it can get Kashmir if it goes on sending terrorists into India and killing innocent people. You only have to read the articles written by some enlightened people in your country to realise what is going on. Please read what Shaheen sehbai has to say in the latest SA Tribune:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/apr13_19_03/opinion_editorsdesk.htm
The article titled: Pakistan not ready to meet new challenges says:

1. ``Today while the Islamic world is in turmoil, threatened by informally declared Crusades on undefined or selectively explained justifications, Pakistan stands in line as a possible next target, as an ally of the Axis of Evil. In fact the opening shot has already been fired by Washington by imposing sanctions against Pakistan for exporting nuclear technology to North Korea. As the situation in Iraq settles down, the focus will shift fast towards Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. Is then the country ready to meet the threat? My answer is No.``

2. ``All sane national voices have been drowned amidst self-praising claims from the military pulpit, a la Saddam Hussain, the Iraqi dictator who brought destruction on his country by placing his personal interest over that of his country.

General Pervez Musharraf has blocked and attempted to wipe out all liberal and moderate political forces.

He has played double games, which stand exposed. He promised elimination of extremism and terrorism from the country but his actions brought these forces not only into mainstream political power, they now threaten to take over the country. His Kargil misadventure thwarted the best chance Pakistan had for starting a serious dialogue to end disputes with ever impatient neighbor, India.``

He goes on and on. It is a painful read, painful for people who want peace in the subcontinent.

What are the alternatives then? India should do nothing even as terrorists keep killing the innocent people. This is not possible. As media relays this news thr` channels all over India, the hatred for Pakistan gets renewed a hundred fold. Indians should actually be hating the terrorists and the army of Pakistan and not its people but they do not know which is which. They have not seen common Pakistanis come to the street in support of peace with India or ask the jehadis to spare innocent people. There seems to be a silent acquiescence in the acts of jehadis.
So, a war will come. It will be a deadly war. It will be fought to finish off the Paki army. It will happen after India has secured guarantees from the international community that there will not be any interference. So far, US and others feel the war is not warranted. They think Mushy is doing his best and his hands are tied. They are mistaken. The day they see the true face of Mushy (or when Mushy gets assasinated or thrown out in a coup) will be the beginning of end-game for Pakistani army. Once Paki army is tamed, peace will return to the subcontinent.
Sridhar

Re: tahmed

We agree to disagree and let us leave it there. You have strong opinions on the issue and I feel strongly about the issue, though from an opposite side of the debate. The values, or one of them, being fought for was the right to freedom and freedom as Rumsfeld said, one of the few things I agree with him, is ``untidy``. This debate will go and being a debate, there is no right or wrong side in this discussions. Tempers flare and words are said, but they too will be forgotten and tempers will cool.

Legalistic arguments? Realism? Reality versus idealism?

Yes, there was a combination of all them in my posts to you. I, for the record, hail from the Hamiltonian school of thought, with its emphasis on strong central institutions of power and I have never been a populalist democrat. This war and all wars, are about politics and the continuation of politics, through the application violence. In this sense, I follow the dictums of Carl von Clausewitz and that is, wars should be fought only for political aims and they should be stopped immediately, once that aim is achieved. I fear that there is no political aim in this war and it will be needlessly be prolonged. In the process, the institutions of international security will be weakened and global security originates from stability, and not from chaos in international relations.

From a clinically realpolitik perspective, your agruments make sense and I share them, to a significant degree. However realpolitik is about pragmatism and knowing the limits of power; it is about combining and compromsing between opportunity and limitations. Realpolitik is not about a crusade to rid the world of evil and realpolitik is amoral; not moral as bringing in the virtues of democracy to the Arabs. Whether, the Arabs have democracy or not; whether the people die or not is immaterial to the precepts of realpolitik. What really matters in realpolitik is to exploit a prevailing situation, politically/militarily, within a paradigm, without actually destabilizing that paradigm. The Iraq war/conflict/invasion/liberation failed to meet this test.

What is happening in Iraq is not realpolitik. It is an attempt to foist an ideology as a sine qua non of global relations and that ideology is democracy and it is the United States interpretations of that democracy, which are being articulated as the dejure interpretation. I do not accept this argument that Iraq war was fought to bring democracy to the Iraqis and that too by British and the Americans. Both of these nations, have actively retarded the growth of democracy, when it suited their interests and now when it suits them, they appear as the champions of democracy. If freedom is untidy, then democracy has more than one interpretation and can never be strait-jacketed within one defination.

Colonialism is not so much about military conquests, mandates and condomimiums (a term that describes when two nations jointly rule a territory), but it is about a state of mind; a philosophical belief that suggests an arrogance. An arrogance that thinks that it has the monopoly on common sense and has all the answers to all the questions. If the United States is so committed to democracy that it is willing to fight a war for its sake and liberate an oppressed people, why is the United States supporting authoritrian governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf states and no liberating the people of those lands? Could it be that these nations are not interested in the Palestinian cause and are not a threat to Israel as Iraq was? Could it be that power is more important than freedom and democracy is a poor subsitute to a cordon santaire of United States power linched pinned upon its military bases in the region?

United States promised democracy and liberal rights to the people of Kuwait in 1990-1991 war. Where are those rights? The ruling family of Kuwait is still as despotic as before the last gulf war. What is truly important to the United States? Democracy, and freedom or the rights to military bases? It seems that rhetoric of democracy takes cold shoulder to the realpolitik imperatives and as long the United States has secured rights to military facilities, democracy is a polite conversation between friends, soon to be forgotten after the dinner is over. At one point in time, the United States used to lecture Pakistan on the virtues of democracy, After September 2001, when Musharraf joined the Bush administrations` war against an abstract noun, where are the American concerns about the lack of democracy in Pakistan? Why has the United States stopped admonishing Pakistani leaders about their snail paced steps towards reviving democracy? Is it because democracy is only viable when it agrees with the interests of the the United States?

Tahmed, you called my arguments legalistic and that is fine, but you still did not answer the questions I raised. You simply kept changing the contours of the debate and never directly tried to refute my arguments. You mentioned that I should stop being legalistic and start dealing with the siutation in a ``case by case`` context. Sir, with all due respect, it is you who is being legalistic, because such a methodology is a legal based one and the basis for case law and precedents, which are the spiritius santos of international law.

Contary to your assertions, I was not being legalistic. I have supported the use of force and military power, when they served a purpose. I will support armed force again, when it serves a tangible purpose. You are entitled to your opinions and I support your right to excersise them, but please do not ask me to believe a lie as blantant as the one told to justify this war. This war is not about democracy and you know it; this war is not about freedom and you know that perfectly well also. There was once a war fought to liberate and bring democracy to the oppressed people and those people are still waiting in Kuwait and Afghanistan and now, they will waiting in Iraq. I am not against liberations and ushering in democracies, but I am against hypocricy and throughout my posts, I have been rallying against the hypocricy of this war.

Sir, you want me to support this war and agree with your positions, and I will, but please do not tell me that this war is about freedom and democracy. Give me a reason that revokes the historic memory of all such wars and all such once proudly made promises, which availed to nought as the years passed by. The heavy memory of the years gone by makes me skeptical of such promises and a little bit leary to believe the words of Edith Pfiaf and that life will be simply, ``la vie en rosé."

Best wishes and regards

Ciao

Re: tahmed32 # 72

Sir, again with all due respect, why do think that India is not America and Pakistan is not Iraq? The United States has, in invading Iraq and instituting a regime/government change there, created a new precedent in international relations. It is called the precedent of pre-emption. It has done so, to liberate the people of Iraq and bring them democracy, and you have suggested yourself; the Iraqis have welcomed the Americans!

Does India not have a right to invade Pakistan and bring democracy to that poor oppressed nation and will Pakistanis not also welcome the Indian troops marching into Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad? Why can India not attack Pakistan and the remove the present government of Pakistan with one, which will agree to its interests and just maybe, solve the issue of Kashmir in India`s favor? Pakistan is threatening India and does India not have the right to pre-empt Pakistan and remove the Pakistani threat to its security?

You supported the United States and hailed its actions in Iraq, but sir, why are you not supporting India and hailing its actions, which are just what the United States did?

India has every right to do in Pakistan what the United States did in Iraq and to deny India that right is hypocricy and you, sir, of all people should be supporting India insteading of drawing hypcritical comparsions! Sir, if you agree to Indian pre-emption of Pakistan, you are supporting a principled policy and if you do not, then you are justifying a hypocritical policy.

Tahmed, my dear, dear, dear friend, how you have castigated me and informed me about the errors of my reasons, but then you go and repudiate all your agruments by a display of shallow national pride! Do you now see the hypocricy of your actions and believes? ROLMAO!!!!!!!!!

Ciao

#74 by Pankaj
It is interesting to see how people immediately take recourse to Gandhi, when they are getting thier a$$es whipped by a mighty aggressor. That is supposed to give them some kind of moral upperhand.

But at other times, when things are jolly and good - Gandhi becomes just another half-naked hindu fakir.

rsridhar #67 you write ``India does not have the ball$ to do to Pak what US has done to Iraq ``
And you know the reason why India (or rather, those in India who think they can walk into Pakistan) does not have the ball$? Because India is not the US and Pakistan is not Iraq.

If this seems hard to believe, remember last year when million man Indian army, like the army of the duke of york, marched up to the border and then marched away from the border.

Here is the complete nursery rhyme ``Duke of York`` (with some modifications I added for purposes of indigenization) for your reading pleasure:

Oh, the bald (sorry, balled as in ball$) old hindutvas of Delhi,
They had one million men,
They marched them up to the tip of
Pakistan and...
They marched them back again.

Chorus: Hai Modi! Hai Advani! Hai Jay Thakeray!!

And when they were up they were up.
And when they were down they were down.
And when they were only half way up,
They were neither up nor down.

(repeat)

PS: Thanks to your brilliant politicians for introducing nukes in the subcontinent in their ambitions to become a Great Power when they should have been concerned with the massive poverty in India.

ferozk #71 All your talk about going through the UN is legalistic, not based on common morality: Is the UN a representative body? Of course not. It is a hodge podge of democratic and undemocratic governments trying to stay in power. Do you think the iraqi ambassador to the US represented anyone but a handful of decoits who ruled over Bagdhad for 20 years? All your legalistic arguments amount to nothing, since I am not talking legalisms or politics. I am talking about the fact that the average Iraq is glad to be free. A nation of 25 million people has found hope after decades of living in fear.

Dont misunderstand me. I believe international agencies like the UN need to be strengthened not weakened. But as things stand, one has to look at things on a case by case basis. If the US had taken the legalistic route, Saddam would still be happily occupying one of his 32 Badhdad palaces, and his obscene statues would still be standing, and the Iraqi people would still be living in fear and under oppression. That is what I am talking about.

You started by putting ideology before people. When I pointed that out, you shifted by putting legalisms before people. I suppose if we argue long enough, you will at some point get my point and start putting people before anything else. Regards.

Ferozek

Since you seem to know quite a lot about Gandhi, I thought you may find the quote below interesting:

``What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty?``
— Mahatma Gandhi

harimau #70 ``Being the Observations and Remarks of Capt. Alexander Hamilton from the Year 1688-1723``

You need to invest in a new calendar. It is no longer 1723.

re: tahmed32

Interesting!

It was really interesting to see that you omitted all the references to the marine sniper killing innocent Iraqis and the treatment of the ``liberated Iraqis`` on the bridge by their so-called liberators. You did not even mention them. Was that a Freudian slip on your behalf? Ahmed, you may rejoice at the looting, but under Geneva convention, the occupying forces have a responsibility to prevent these sorts of things from happening. If you care to remember, when the pictures of the American POWs and the dead American soldiers was shown, the United objected and invoked the Geneva convention. Sir, law is for all and it is not meant to be selectively applied. If your nation opts to ignore the Geneva conventions, then it should not invoke its protocols for its own needs and interests. United States was the first nation to question the protocols of the convention and flout them by questioning the status of combattants and non-combattants. It refused to obey the conventions` strictures on the treatment of POWs. Then it objected and having objected to the violations of the Geneve convention by the Iraqis, the United States is bound to uphold it. If you were never interested in the Geneve convention and are not interested in preventing the acts of robbery, why did you object, when your POWs were treated in violation of the convention? You and your nation cannot decide, unilaterally, what is the law and when to obey it!

Sir, I refuse to condone this hypocricy and I will contiune to object. Like, M. K. Gandhi said, cooperation with evil is a sin and non-cooperation with unjust acts is an obligation. As Gandhi said, you may kill me for my disobedience, but then you will have my dead body and not my obdience! Sir, your nation and you may kill us all for not agreeing with you and rejoicing with you, but you cannot force us to agree with you!

This is the point. There has to be a process; call it justice or law or anything you like, which governs and regulates conduct. Otherwise, what we have is ``mob law``. International law, which you chide, also protects the interests of the United States. I agree with you that in the last half a century, international law specifically dealing with the issues of collective security, that is the United Nations, leaves much to be desired. Who is to blame for that? United Nations as an institution or the nations that excerise veto powers and use that power for the purposes of national egoism? Sir, law and justice being human creations are by defination flawed and being flawed, they should be improved upon and not discarded because of their flawed nature. A flawed system of law and justice is better than no law or justice. We live in a flawed world with limitations and not in an ideological nirvana, where everything is ideal.

Secondly, I agree with you. I wish that the United States and its ruling junta had also put the people before ideology. Sir, with all due respect, it is you, and not I, who is scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Ciao

re: stuka # 51

First of all, your post tell me that you are an ideologue, because you are dividing the issues into a ``republican versus democrat`` argument. I am a republican. I have served in the United States Congress as a republican staffer and with the Utah Republican Party. I am a card carrying republican and have been one, since 1987. I supported John McCain, because of the issue of campaign finance law and, because of how soft money was/is eroading the American democracy by making it a monopoly of power for the rich and the privileged. Since we are discussing party affiliations, it should be interesting for you to note that all of America`s foreign wars were started by a democract president and that George Bush is the first republican president to start a foreign war. Afghanistan was the first one and the first of the new century.

The case of Iraq and Jugoslavia have similarities, but they also have dissimilarities. First of all, the crisis in Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) started, when the Izoif Tito died and the Jugoslav federation started to strain under its many political and ethnic pressures. Taking advantage of this crisis and a lack of central authority in Belgrade, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence and broke free from the federation. To prevent them from leaving, Belgrade declared war on them and the end result was the Balkan crisis of the 1990s. That war, unlike Iraq, did not deal with issues of invasion and the violation of state`s sovereignity by another nation, but was basically, a civil war limited to within the geographic confines of Jugoslavia.

There were protests, world wide, not because there was a democrat president in office, but because the questions of a pax europa were being raised and the people, were protesting that the western governments, including the United States, were appeasing Belgrade and not doing enough to end the war/civil war in that country. That war lasted nearly the whole decade of the 1990s and it was, before the Iraqi crisis of 2003, the most widely protested war in European history.

There were UN resolutions seeking to end the war, but they were supplemented by the Dayton Peace Accords, hosted by the United States, which sought to bring peace in Jugoslavia and in the process, end the fighting. There were UN resolutions authorizing the deployment of peacekeepers and seeking to impose sanctions on the regime/government in Belgrade. Kosovo was never an intergral part of Jugoslavia. Kosovo was given to Jugoslavia in 1919, along with the Greek province of Macedonia, when the treaty of Versailles created Jugoslavia from the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Prior to that, Kosovo was a Serb principality, which existed in a semi-autonomous state under the Hapsburg monarchy in Vienna. Presently, Kosovo is not an intergral part of Jugoslavia, because Jugoslavia ceased to exist and was replaced by Serbia. Kosovo`s autonomy from Serbia is being protected by an American expeditionary force and a force from the European Union.

Yes, you are correct. The air campaign last over two months in Jugoslavia, because of the Serb/Belgrade`s refusal to uphold their treaty committments under the Dayton Peace Accords. The air campaign was allowed by the United Nations and resulted from a consensus of opinion within NATO itself. NATO acted and spearheaded that campaign, because it was seen as a ``litmus test`` of NATO`s cohesion as a military alliance dedicated to preserving the European peace. There was no protest, because the air campaign was seen as a resolve of the western governments acting and after all, the protests in Europe, over the crisis, were on the western governments` lack of action. The people in Europe wanted that crisis ended by a show of force and to preserve the intergrity of the European Union and the United Nations and NATO as political institutions dedicated to the ideals of collective security. It was a multilateral response and not a unilateral one; hence it had the consensus of the popular European public opinion behind it.

Germany and France were involved in that crisis and had deployed troops in the region. A French general was heading the UN peacekeepers. Throughout the crisis in the Balkans, the United Nations had peacekeepers in the region providing humantrian assistence and security. During the seige of Sarajevo, which lasted over a 1000 days, the United Nations was airlifting supplies to the city and patroling the streets. The United Nations was visibibly present in Jugoslavia. The international precedents were never violated in the crisis, but maintained.

There was tangible outrage and it was directed at the actions of the Serbs and Belgrade government and their policies of ethnic genocide and its appeasement by the western governments. Stuka, there was a ``clear and present danger`` in that crisis, which was never clearly articulated in the Iraq crisis/war.

No; Milo is no better than Saddam Hussein, but that war, in the Balkans, was not about personalities. It was about the process called international relations and how to uphold its conventions on the issues of agression, soverignity and justice and that war was about protecting the international institutions and not undermining them, as the Iraq war is presently attempting.

A democrat president was supported, because he went to war to preserve security of the world and a republican president is called a war monger, because he went to war to undermine international security.

I know all of this, because one of my relatives, Rustum Sidwa, was a justice of Pakistan supreme court and was then apppointed to the Hague court on Jugoslavia. I still follow the events there and thus, unlike some, can speak with knowledge and authority on a subject I know. Unlike some!

Ciao

``The Dutch have fortified Manaar, and make use of it for a Prison for Indian Princes, whom they can overpower or circumvene, when they are suspected of making Treaties contrary to their Interest, or to such as would willingly reassume their lost Freedom, by breaking the unjust Yoke of the Company`s Tyranny, perhaps, drawn on themselves by too much Faith or Incredulity; for that honest Company has always had a Maxim, first to foment Quarrels between Indian Kings and Princes, and then piously pretend to be Mediators, or Arbitrators of their Differences, and always cast in something into the Scale of Justice to those whose Countries produve the best Commodities for the Company`s Use, and lend the Assistance of their Arms to him who is so qualified by the Product above mentioned, and, at the Conclusion of the War, make the poor conquered Prince pay their Charges for assisting the Conqueror; and, when all is made up, and Treaties of Peace ready to be signed, then the Conqueror, their dear Ally and Friend, must suffer them to possess the best Sea-ports, and fortify the most proper and convenient Places of his Country, and must forbid all Nations Traffick but their dear Dutch Friends, under Pain of having the Company`s Arms turned against them, in Conjunction with some other potent Enemy to the deluded Conqueror.

The King of Charta Souri, on the Island of Java, is a fresh Instance of the Truth of what I relate. In Anno 1704, I saw him at Samarang, a Sea-port on the said Island, in great Splendor, and in high Esteem with the Dutch Commodore; but in Anno 1707 he fell under the Displeasure of the General and Council of Batavia, and in 1708 falling into their Hands, he was brought their Prisoner to Manaar, and cooped up on that small Island, there to spend the Remainder of his Days in Contemplation or Comments on the Deceit of worldly Grandeur, and of the Power and Pleasure of Sovereignty, or in humble Thoughts on Confinement, Exile and Poverty.``

From ``A New Account of the East-Indies, Being the Observations and Remarks of Capt. Alexander Hamilton from the Year 1688-1723``.

re: What is wrong with India?
India is behaving like a juvenile deliquent kid: errant and unpredictable. I was shocked to read that Indian parliament has recently passed a unanimous resolution condemning the attack on Iraq and has asked for immediate withdrawal of coaliton troops from that country. This happened more thatn 20 days after the onet of war and is a mockery of the whole democratic process in India.
India thinks its pride is hurt. US of A did not agree to India`s belligerent threats to Pak and its attempts to find a parallel between the situation in Iraq and the one in Kashmir. Simply put, US has no reason to attack Pak as its dictator is bending backwards to do everything that US tells him to do. India does not have the ball$ to do to Pak what US has done to Iraq and is piqued that US finds Pak as a useful ally. Like a jilted lover, it is crying hoarse. What a shame! Most Indians lack self-pride. I have never heard of Israel ever asking permission from US or anycountry to meet its security needs. India, with its 1 billion population, is in a pitiable situation. Its corrupt people, inefficiency at every level have ensured that it will never be a big factor in international politics and its voice will always be muffled.
Sridhar

wajahat #59 Always glad to discuss things in a civil and friendly manner, and thanks for the apologies and harsh words from both me and you can now be forgotten.

You raise a number of points:

a. ````White`` (and I use this word in purely an anthropological point of view) have always viewed the rest of the world as they would have their plantation only a hundred years ago.

I think you should forget these distinctions of white, black etc. These had meaning only for the past 3-4 centuries, but not before that. And they are becoming increasingly meaningless in today`s world. THEREFORE, if we think along racial lines, we will not properly understand what is happening in the world today, nor will we understand future trends.

If you dont believe me on the hollowness of concepts of black and white, here is a bit more on it: Anthropologists (this is from a Scientific American issue last year) now believe that the skin color was uniform. Racial distinctions appear to have started around 10,000 years ago. And there has been a great mixture of people since then. To focus on the Arab vs. White distinction that you seem to be looking at, here is a bit of history on it:
Many Arabs are descendants of, or have significant blood of French, German, English crusaders in their veins (there were crusader kingdoms all the way from what is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, for a few hundred years between the 11th and 14th centuries AD). On the hand, many Europeans have Arab blood in them. This is most pronounced in Sicily (where azans could be heard at one time, even under christian rulers) are often descendants of Arab settlers. In Germany, the emperor Frederick I (great grandson of Charlemagne), had Arab ministers for advice, Arab soldiers as bodyguards, (and also a few muslim women for company, it is said), WHILE he ruled from the heart of Germany (Mainz or perhaps Aachen). In Spain, many muslims converted to christianity after the fall of granada when they only option they were given was death, and thus many Spaniards carry Arab blood. I could go on, but I hope I have made my point clear. Forget black, white, brown. Think of people as people.

b. On Bush: It is fashionable to ridicule him in the muslim world. He has however shown himself consistently to be a decent man. Yes indeed he is religious - but he is religious in the finest sense of the world. They kind of religious man that the Quran exhorts us muslims to be. For example: After 9/11, in his famous speech before congress after 9/11, he made it a point to distinguish between ordinary muslims (whom he characterized very positively as a ``good and decent people``). He visited mosques and made sure his picture was taken visiting mosques. And he did this to reassure muslims within the US. And by any reasonable standard (despite the whining of some muslims of being profiled at airports) he has provided the leadership to make sure that muslims have nothing to fear. This is in the tradition of the finest of muslim leaders like Hazrat Omar (who visited the the temple of the sepulchre in jerusalem to reassure the priests after conquering jerusalem) and Saladin (under whom jews and christians had nothing to fear). So, dont just go by what is fashionable among the ``intellectuals`` or paris and new york (with that fashion being copied in the drawing rooms of karachi and lahore) - look at the facts for yourself. And you will see that Bush is a far better man than he is credited for. And far smarter. Saddam never understood this either, it seems.

This is a long enough post already. I better do some real work now. Regards. :-)

All men are equal before God. And in a democracy too. One day we muslims will start understanding these basic things and stop worshipping ideologies and maulvis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#61
nice lecturing..but does it change ground realities? Ayatollah Hussain Fadlallah was the inspiration behind Hezbollah, who knows what Ayatollah Baqir Al Hakim is up to??

these are facts my dear, I hope your war-party did keep these in mind. I have some more info for you: 12 years of sanctions have actually RADICALIZED iraqis, now don`t blame them if their loyalties lie with their local mullahs rather than the `gora` mullah called Bush!!!

Bush says let`s not get too happy too soon about the Victory -- wait till Tony Franks says: rejoice -- such modesty such humilty

riding the Smart Bomb was easy Victoy -- let`s us see how the Dumbo gets off the back of the tiger without losing his behind.

Ibtadaaye ishq hai huNstaa hai keya
aage aage dhekiye phuNstaa hai keya

If the `rebuilding` of Afghanistan is an indicator of the rebuilding SKILL and Honesty of that Destroyer cum Liar President -- Iraqi rebuilding is not eons away -- it`s taking place right now in Basra and Baghdad and Mosul -- by the Army sponsored Iraqi Looters.

the Iraqi black gold is under the UN control of Oil for Food program which feeds only 60% of the Iraqi population -- Bushy Boy has to shell out his daddy money to sweep the mess of destruction the Juvenile Delinquent has created in his fit of delusional paranoid schizophrenia --

btw -- what happened to the bastard hallucitating about the Iraqi WMDs -- did the psycho find any --

these days the only channel I watch is the Animal Channel -- because the animals on the Animal Planet are much better animals than the animals that have infested the White House.