America’s Moral Compass

...... comparing the liberation of iraq to the rape of an innocent woman is indeed one heck of a leap of imagination ........... how silly can you get ? ........

........ what about the liberaion of france, bosnia, south korea, kosovo, poland, hungary, nicaragua, honduras, and panama .......... are the people of cuba, vietnam, iran, syria, north korea and saudi arabia better off than the people lin those countries iberated by america ? .........

............... i guess there is no limit to silliness when one is driven by envy or religion ...........

Re: # 130 godot [“… such incriminating comment and a hasty conclusion. …

… I do not see an analogy of a revolution to bring about a drastic change in a nation and a society to rape of a woman. Hope you can elaborate on the correlation …”]

My comment may be quite “incriminating” but please do not think that it was concluded in haste.

While I can understand your bright-eyed optimism for the ”drastic change in a nation and a society” it befuddles me that someone with your astute insight faisl to see the analogy.

This wonderful miracle that goes on in Iraq, which you and others celebrate, is analogous to the wonderful, cute and precious baby that I mentioned in my rape analogy. The point there being that even if there is a wonderful outcome that is the consequence of a criminal act, it does not retroactively absolve the perpetrator of the crime.

Now whether the original act was a crime or not is another debate that cannot be resolved because it is an emotive issue. Opinions will differ. I, of course, consider the original act as a criminal one whereas you seem to have changed your mind in the sway of positive press generated by the corporate media.

It is always easy to decipher something positive in political crimes when viewed through the telescope of history. Pakistanis (like most others) are quite good at such revisionism. The Ghaznavi example (a Chowk staple) leaps to mind. Some will say that the British Raj was a blessing in disguise because we got English language in the deal (imagine the nightmare of surfing the web when all you could read or write was Gurmukhi).

One can argue (correctly) that might is the ultimate right. Always have been, always will be. That would be a realpolitik argument and I would not challenge it. But the argument you seemed to be making was a moral and ethical one. It was in that context that I questioned it.

Let me end with the words of another criminal from days past.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” (Reich Marshall Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials)

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

…SR

Hi Echooboom:

``#137 by echoboom on February 4, 2005 2:27pm PT
anil:135

............

I withdraw. You cancel.

OK? ``

Aap ki marzi....
Anil

anil:135

Hey take it easy buddy.

My answer to you was as absurd as the postulate by Godot. Only because you , as an `observer` wanted sparkle it , I felt like stepping in.

I withdraw. You cancel.

OK?

romair,

........ firstly, i am glad you left the us - we have enough trouble with the likes of urstruly ................ secondly don`t keep on harping about canada which, as i explained to you in an earlier post, is a country still in the process of being put together and once ontario and bc are annexed by the us there won`t be much left ......

........ as for arabs hating the us, i guess you haven`t talked to john abizaid, george mitchell ralph nader, kasey kasem or those 300,000 arabs that live in the detroit area and continue to pour in ........... they constitute the largest arab community outside the middle east and are thriving ...........half the doctors and hair dresser are arabs and they own all the gas stations and party stores within a fifty mile radius and nobody messes with them - their kids are terrorizing the poor jewish children in west bloomfield (payback for the wes bank, i guess) and the black gangs from detroit are afraid to cross the line into dearborn where streets look like the souks in cairo or beirut ................. at this wednesday`s swearing-in ceremony in detorit there were six indians (one of them a friend of mine), two pakis, and a hundred and fifty iraqis ......... go figure ! ............ you want middle eastern food, come to detroit where you are never more than two miles from an arab restaurant .........

Hi Echoboom:

``#129 by echoboom on February 3, 2005 4:11pm PT
anil:128
Your answer is as expected and you have a 1000 year history to back it up. ``

Construction following destruction points toward the future, and not the past. My statement was not to prove the past, but to build the future.

Have a great day.
Anil

hamidm
//...we welcomed every ghauri, ghazni and qasim so why not bush ....//

No you didn`t. Ghauri, ghazni took over you by sheer force. The ``welcome`` part came later - sometime after 1947, when Ghauri was declared the ``first citizen of pakistan`` or something like that :)

But you made the point. If ghauri is good for pakistan, why not Bush?

People keep trying to portray the previous US regimes, from WWII onwards, and their actions in the Middle East as ill-thought out policies. When, in fact, that is not the case. There is a reason those regimes, and the current one, supported dictators in the Middle East. To the point of ensuring any democratic force was not allowed to raise its head.

The reason is simple. The average Arab on the street hates the USA. Maybe he/she shouldn`t, but he/she does. One doesn`t get the true feel of this, when one lives in the USA, because it is difficult for Arabs to express their emotions about a country that they are actually living in, and benefiting from (unless they are Urstruly).

However, one definitely sees it amongst Canadian Arabs. I have started listening to a lot of Arab music. It has now replaced Indian music as my favorite. As a result, my wife and I, have started going to Arabic restaurants, music shows, etc. We now run across a lot of Canadian-Arabs. Most of them are yuppie Westernized Arabs. They are all quite pro-Canada. One doesn`t see the phenomenon of dislike of their adopted country that one sees amongst Arabs in the USA.

But they all hate America. This includes Christian and Muslim Arabs. I have not seen this kind of hate in the eyes of Indians for Pakistanis, or Pakistanis for Indians. Or Iranis for Iraqis and Iraqis for Iranis. It is something different. It is a mixture of impotence, frustration, vulnerability, fear and most of all extreme anger. An Arab Christian fixing my house told me again and again that OBL is his hero, right in front of everyone. An upscale Arab restaurant with live music, attracts the yuppiest of Arab youth. Girls in small skirts, guys in SUVs. I can`t understand what the singer is singing, but the moment he says the word, ``Baghdad`` in his song, the whole crowd erupts, everytime. The list goes on and on.

This is why the USA has always supported dictatorships. This is also why it will attack any Arab country, that has an anti-US dictator, like Saddam, and try to install a more pliable govt., like Challabi and Allawi. This is also why it will always support pro-US dictators like Shah, King Abdullah, Al-Sabahs of Kuwait, Mubarik of Egypt, the Qatar amir, King of Morroco, Musharraf, Saddam of of the 80s, and most of all the Saudi monarchy.

The moment any of the ones above turn anti-USA, they will be taken out. Saddam biggest mistake wasn`t lack of democracy, obviously. Rumsfeld shook hands with him before. It was the fact that he turned anti-USA, for some reason. Had he kept selling oil at cheap prices and recognized Israel, I am pretty sure he would not have been attacked.

Any democracy in the Middle East, today, will be very anti-USA and anti-Israel. A democratic Jordan will break its treaties with Israel. As will a democratic Egypt, with a relgious govt. A democratic Saudi Arabia has more chance of electing OBL than Prince Abdullah. A democratic Iraq, as we are seeing, will be pro-Iran, with a religious govt.

There is, thus, an inherent contradiction for the USA. If it wants democracy, it will be facilitating govts. that will be nationalistic (at least to their own provinces, if not to complete countries), they will be religious, and they will be very anti-Israel and anti-USA. Oil will become more difficult to get, most of the bases will be gone. As an example, a democratic Turkey with a religious party as its head, refused to provide bases to USA, for the invasion of Iraq, even though it is part of NATO. A semi-democratic Iran did not allow bases either. However a monarchy-based Qatar and Kuwait did allow it.

This is why the USA needs to realize that it is part of the problem in the Middle East and can never be part of the solution, until it solves the above-mentioned contradiction. One cannot just support pro-USA dictatorships for decades, and the moment one of them turns anti-US, go and bomb the country to the stone-age, under the umbrella of WMDs, Al-Qaeda and democracy. While hamidm, tahmad and godot may not be able to see thru that, apparently, all the Arabs have seen through it. And in the big scheme of things, expat Pakistani opinion is not what is important.

The solution to this problem lies in:

- The USA pressurising Israel to accept a Palestine, within 67 borders. The whole world, including the Arab world, has accepted this. Yet the USA continues to veto everything that is presented in the UN, even though the European countries do not.

- The USA needs to disengage itself from the Middle East. And stop propping up kings. If the Saudi monarchy gets toppled by a populist Wahabbi uprising, let it get toppled. If the a popular Islamic brotherhood takes out, ``the five time elected with no opposition`` Mubarak in Egypt, let it happen

- Instead of bombing countries, it needs to get rid of its gigantic military cantonments in the fiefdoms of the Arab kings. For all the rhetoric about how people would even tolerate a US attack on Lahore, I can make a bet their feelings would change if one of their own family members was to be a casuality. A Lahore bombed by the massive military might of America would result in a million Lahoris asking for revenge (not asking for elections)......The same is the case for any human beings, including Arabs.

The world is turning into an extremely dangerous place. This cycle could and may lead to a situation, where one fine day, a nuclear device goes off in New York, killing 10 million people. Those who don`t believe me, should read Clancy`s books. He wrote one about an airliner being flown into a US building. No one thought that was possible. He also wrote one about a nuke going off in Colorado.......

What will the US contigency plan be if a nuke goes off in New York? Will it attack Pakistan or India or France? Will it deport hamidms and tahmads to their countries of birth? Will that make any difference? It won`t. Becuase it is useless to get into a pissing contest with terrorists; specifically those who have no fear of death. They will always win, because they have nothing to lose.......

The USA has spent and/or sanctioned $240 billion for the Iraq war. 4/5th of it has gone to just support its military machine. In addition, Iraq has been destroyed worth an amount of tens to perhaps hundreds of billiions. All this money spent on destruction. If America had simply pressurised Israel to hand over the tiny 3% of land that it is refusing to, and given it $50 billion dollars, most of these problems would have been solved.

However, now it may not be possible. The Evangelical Right in the USA is convinced that the second coming of Christ will not occur until certain events occur in Israel, which include the deportation of Muslims. And it controls the US govt. and foreign policy now (it even controls hamidm)...........And the anti-US feeling rises by the day amongst the Arabs in direct proportion to the number of bombs the USA drops on them..........

In the process, the rest of us, who are neither, ``With us nor against US,`` will get destroyed also..........

....... i don`t mean to interrupt marshal romair while he is on a roll, but it is perfectly fine with me if bush invades pakistan to remove musharraf, pick up the garbage on the streets, make abdul take a bath, let the women out to get some freh air and reopen the liquor store on canning road ........ i am sure most pakis will welcome the marines with flowers and ladoos ............ look, we welcomed every ghauri, ghazni and qasim so why not bush ?

godot,

``
You cannot accuse Americans of being “ignorant.” That’s unfair and an easy way out. I don’t really know how many societies are enlightened, including Pakistan’s and Canada’s (or of Holland, for that matter.) ``

I accused certain Americans of being ignorant. Certianly not those who see through the absurdities of American policy. Further, I explicitly stated why I found these people ignorant, so no need to speak in the abstract.

Why are they not ignorant, and why is it worth my while to understand them? I can sympathize with them because I think they are being led astray. I am ignorant of many things myself, however no one is asking me to take their word on a matter that involves life or death that hinge on exactly that I am ignorant of.

I can fully understand what they went through on 9-11...I felt the same when they started bombing Iraq. I see the irony, most likely they don`t.

Re: # 127

SR

I did not expect someone as bright as you to come up with such incriminating comment and a hasty conclusion. Nevertheless...

I suppose what escaped you was the operating word “sometimes” in my post re the end justifying the means. Further, I do not see an analogy of a revolution to bring about a drastic change in a nation and a society to rape of a woman. Hope you can elaborate on the correlation given it is not only “sometimes,” but the premise of the argument as well.

anil:128
Your answer is as expected and you have a 1000 year history to back it up.
My answer is a categorical and unambigous NO!

It is not subject to discussion either.

Hi Echoboom:

``#125 by echoboom on February 3, 2005 11:09am PT

Before asking Romair please give your answer and just replace Pakistan with India. ( Just remember it is a ``pretend`` scenario in BOTH cases.) ``

My answer is categorically yes, no ifs, no buts. Almost always construction follows destruction of some sort. Please do remember that I am not a religious person, so if you will keep the exchange non-religious, I would love to hear your views too.

Thank you.
Anil

Re: # 116 godot [``...I was against Bush invading Iraq. But if democracy takes hold in Iraq, then Bush is vindicated. ...``]

Let us suppose that someone were to rape my sister or daughter and that she were to have a baby as a result of that crime. The baby, indeed would be innocent and maybe my sister / daughter would hold it very precious. Would you then say to me that I should forgive the criminal for is vindicated? Do ends justify the means? Any and all means?

Just wondering.

...SR

Bush stakes ground in Germany

From our special correspondent in Berlin:

Police in Germany are hunting pranksters who have been sticking miniature flag portraits of US President George W. Bush into piles of dog poo in public parks. Josef Oettl, parks administrator for Bayreuth, said: ``This has been going on for about a year now, and there must be 2,000 to 3,000 piles of excrement that have been claimed during that time.`` The series of incidents was originally thought to be some sort of protest against the US-led invasion of Iraq. And then when it continued it was thought to be a protest against President George W. Bush`s campaign for re-election. But it is still going on and the police say they are completely baffled as to who is to blame. ``We have sent out extra patrols to try to catch whoever is doing this in the act,`` said police spokesman Reiner Kuechler. ``But frankly, we don`t know what we would do if we caught them red handed.`` Legal experts say there is no law against using faeces as a flag stand and the federal constitution is vague on the issue.

[editor`s note: in light of the very heavy ongoing discussion, this news item was deemed to have light hearted merit, if not relevence.]

...SR

124;anil
[Is it possible for you to respond to this exhcnage between you and Godot, just as precisely as he has done. I am interested in your answer to such a scenario?]

---

Before asking Romair please give your answer and just replace Pakistan with India. ( Just remember it is a ``pretend`` scenario in BOTH cases.)

Only THEN you would have earned the right to ask Romair.

If Romair wants to answer even without this protocol by all means