Open Letter to Those Opposing the Iraq War

This snake tahmed is responsible with the US elite of all the killings of civilians and the maiming of men women and children that has occurred as a result of this barbaric / illegal invasion by the US

``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``.

#157 by tahmed32 on April 5, 2003 7:03am PT

If it didnt matter I woundt be wasting my time posting. Hope you take it as my frustration.

Saminasha # 151

“Democracy by the tip of a missile or bullet or electrode taped to your genitals or rape loses its luster “

not quite sure which democracies you think are doing this – its usually left-wing, socialist dictatorships (you know, the type of gov. you advocate?) that’s guilty of this abuse.

Aren’t the above arguments the same ones that pres. Bush has used to advocate removing saddam? And you’re trying to use these same points to argue AGAINST america removing him? Stunning

“people who have not experienced war…have no idea what war is. I dont think you particularly have any right or credibility in deciding what is ``okay`` in Iraq since you are sitting safely behind your monitor. Really. And its a bit obscene that you think you do.”

I’m not sure you need to experience war to know its awful, just like I did not need to be in the WTC on 9/11 to imagine the horror of those died that day. The difference between you and I is that I am much more aware (even without the 1st hand experience I know you will pompously claim to have of cavorting with people who like to protest trade meetings and attack people working in corporations) of why I have been lucky enough not to have experienced this. That is why I support those Americans (and other allies) who risk their own lives to protect their own citizens and free Iraqis from these horrors.

I know through some sort of cognitive dissonance, you will manage to ignore the accounts of Iraqi torture under saddam and the support for allied forces by Iraqis that is already beginning to trickle in. I don’t know if “obscene” is the right word to describe your thinking…maybe I’d ask, “samina, how can you live with yourself for arguing that these people should go on living in such misery, when a group of Americans (and others), risking their own lives (not yours), were willing to free them? How could you oppose that?”

What would you say to these Iraqis? – the Iraqi lawyer who walked 6 miles to find U.S. forces and lead them to the American POW, after he saw how she was being treated by Saddam’s thugs? What would you say? What would you say to that rescued solider? I know you’d probably give some tripe about how you support her, just not the US leadership – but US soldiers are the ones who you claim have “bombed Iraq to bits.”? Somehow, I doubt most of these soldiers are just “following orders,” but believe in what they are doing. What would you say to these people if you met them?

You know, on 2nd thought, maybe “obscene” is a good word to describe you’re thinking.

“Go and read the Constitution and get back to me...”
I have read the constitution. I keep a copy of it in my desk. And after reading it, I came to the conclusion that people with you’re views (left-wing) have been trying undermine it, stripping out inconvenient liberties that prevent you from imposing you’re vision of a state-controlled socialist society on everyone.

I think it was Lenin who referred to people, living in the west, holding left-wing, pro-collectivist (anti-everything else) views as “useful idiots.” Any of that description apply to you?

“I think the Iraqi people have suffered enough and dont need to suffer more”

so do i. God bless the people who have liberated them…and the people who looked the other way?...God save their souls…

tahmed321
``Saddam came to power with the Ba`athist party by riddling Kassem`s body with bullets``

And with CIA help, one must add.

Tahmed # 158

Another great post. Great questions. I really respect your dedication to having an open (and patient) dialogue with those you debate.

Saminasha # 156

Thanks for the advice on where to focus my reading – I take it in good faith (really!), and will try to seek out some of what you suggest.

I might humbly offer some authors of my own for you to try out – Fred Hayek (The Road to Serfdom), Milton Friedman (Free To Choose), Paul Johnson (a British historian who’s “A History of the American Peoples” is outstanding). I try to do a fair amount of reading of those with viewpoints I disagree with (at least in columns and articles) - i rather enjoy it.

Sometimes, with all your mentioned readings of authors in “progressive” magazines and 1st hand accounts of laborers in sweatshops, etc. I’m not sure you’ve read people with views contrary to your own. Did you hear about the Berkeley TA who wrote in the course catalogue that students with conservative thinking should not take his class on Palestinian poetry? I would hate for you to paint yourself into that corner.

Or if you have found time hear the views of others from different angles (not just the authors I mentioned), I’d love to hear your thoughts – as opposed to just telling posters to read this or that….

Saminasha #156 Another quiz! But then last time I got an A, so maybe I wont do to badly again.

Answer to your question: No. Afghanistan does not enjoy the type of democracy that Bush promises for Iraq.

Now my turn. :-)

1. Is the Karzai government more representative of the ethnic divides in Afghanistan than the Taliban?

2. Are refugees coming out of Afghanistan or going back?

3. Is the Karzai government more accountable for its actions within the limits of civilized behavior than the Taliban?
Hint: Ask yourself - Would the Karzai government be able to get away with the kinds of actions that the taliban took (e.g. destroying centuries old Buddha statues, requiring nonmuslims to wear special tags on their clothes, beheading women oin sports stadiums, and - most horrifying of all - shaving the heads of our poor Pakistani soccer players as punishment for wearing shorts, thus ruining their good looks)?

4. Does Afghanistan possess the same percentage of educated, professional people (the backbone for democracy) as Iraq?

The above questions are asked with full respect for your views. Indeed, these would be too tough for certain chowk posters I could name (but will not, until their kin have been informed of the disabilities these folks suffer from), but I suspect they will be a breeze in your case.

Tahmed,

With all due respect, is Afghanistan enjoying the kind of democracy that the Bush Adm. has promised the Iraqi people?

hxn,

Look at the articles, essays and text written by historians, intellectuals and writers of those countries and get THEIR narratives of what happened in THEIR countries, to THEM.

ali87 #154 Like I said, time will tell. Not you or me or anyone else. I have stuck to the facts as I know them, and not taken the easy way out of accusing you or anyone else of being brainwashed by propoganda. You have to a larger extent than others provided me the same consideration, and therefore I have been glad to discuss this further. You do slip up at the end where you think I am taking a cheap shot at Iraqis when I refer to a more civilized post-Saddam Iraq.
This is not a cheap shot: it is a statement of fact that you need to face up to - Saddam came to power with the Ba`athist party by riddling Kassem`s body with bullets. Kassem came to power after dragging the prime minister he had deposed behind a car through the streets of Baghdad. This has nothing to do with the history of this region, which indeed is long and has at times led the world in civilization (as I noted in my earlier post). But one needs to have the courage to accept facts as they are, the good with the bad. By accusing me of being brainwashed by white propoganda you are merely lowering yourself in my eyes at least - my article and my interactions speak for themselves. And please dont tell me that my opinion of you does not matter one bit, since I already know that. Most of your interaction was somewhat reasoned, and so I presented you with my honest assessment without in any way claiming to having a monopoly on all wisdom and knowledge.

#153 by tahmed32 on April 4, 2003 11:40pm PT

First statements that came were that US planned to rule there by appointing a general to over see the administration, Later statements said that 23 people had been apointed as ministers to the ministries for Iraq. Duration was not given.
The contracts that were awarded the 4.8 millon contract to stevedoring corporation of America. It was indicated that confisicated Iraqi money will be used to pay a noncompettive and costly contract award. Basically using Iraqi money to pay US companies to make profits without the concurrence of the Iraqi people. Hardly Democracy. Like I said the nature of colonialism has changed. It is no longer the same it used to be 60-70 years back. The aims of colonialism remain the same to supress the local trade/industry at the favour of the colonialist country. Only now you dont need to occupy the land directly to do that.

Imagine Using Iraqi money to give aid to Iraqis and saying that america has right to use to give the contracts because they are being paid by the American tax payers!! Pictures of poor Iraqis are shown scrambling for food and water while the americans on TV and real life gloat that see what would these people do without America. While the reality is that a rich people were improvished by cruel sanctions and the lack of food shortages was caused by the military campaign and the money that is being used is Iraqi money which filters down after american companies have made their profit.

After all people dont conquer countries to supress people. They supress poeple go gain benifit. If it can be done in a sophisticated manner why go thorugh the messy process of occupation.

It isindicated that US will the cost of reconstruction will be about 20 billon and will be paid for by Iraqi oil. So first destory, then rebuild and then charge.
The end result will be the american military companies (which account for 1/3 of the US GDP) will get 100 billion at least to form Iraq and subsequently they will gain by showcasing their weapons after their battle worthiness is proved.
All the while americans and their apologists will keep saying that americas economy is the largest and its prosperity is unprecendted because of the democracy and innovation of its people . While role of this kind of earning through war goes unheralded.
I think that taking the cheap shot of ``civilzed Iraq`` emerging was in bad faith. Any ordinary Iraqi will display better halmarks of civilization than the the policy making killers like Rumsfield etc. Civiizations are not defined by the state of brutality but by the resilisence and grace of people despite it.
I think you have taken in too much propoganda from the whites.

hxn

re: after i asked, you gave 4 examples to back up your implication that ``...the US gov assasinates democratically elected leaders. out of the examples you provided, i only saw one who was actually assasinated (in Chile) while the others, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, some school in Central America(?) were not assasinations (to the best of my knowldedge)...``

Had you read about these leaders and their policies more carefully, you would have noticed a similarity: that these regimes were dictatorships that subjected their peoples to abuses; Savak in Iran, Suharto`s reign needs no clarification and ``some school in the Americas``? Have you understood what the purpose of that ``some school in the Americas``? Who that ``some school in the Americas`` were funded by and what their curriculum was? This conversation is pointless unless you understand these basic realities and how these US INSTALLED leaders and organisations wreaked havoc in civillian lives by imposing on them these political ideals through terror.

``Futhermore, is it accepted history (to more magazines then just ``the nation``), that america is behind this? in the case of the deposed shah, he was our ally! look, i won`t defend all US policy but your implication and evidence is clearly wrong.``

Yes, Reza Pahlavi was ``our ally``. And what kinds of underground activities was Mr. Pahlavi involved in that discredited his regime? Why do you think such a broad swath of Iranian society supported his ousting? So, when you continue that you ``wont defend all US policy`` at least have the ethos to admit that US policy in those cases was based on actions that are less than noble. Democracy by the tip of a missile or bullet or electrode taped to your genitals or rape loses its luster, and no amount of Machiavellian justification makes that reality go away.

re: ``...2ndly, america has not and will not ``bomb Iraq to bits`` american armed forces are going out of their way, putting american soliders at risk, to prevent harming civillians by avoiding (to the best of their ability) civillian targets, not taking out power and other infrastructure, etc...that`s not to say innocents won`t be hurt (they have already), but why do you lay this at america`s door before saddam`s?...(pssst: anti-americanism?) ...``

Susan Sontag put it best when she said ``war is an elective, not an eventually``. She also maintains that people who have not experienced war themselves as soldiers, civillians, aid workers and journalists on site really have no idea what war is. I dont think you particularly have any right or credibility in deciding what is ``okay`` in Iraq since you are sitting safely behind your monitor. Really. And its a bit obscene that you think you do.

In addition, I know it hurts to be reminded that you are basically talking out of your er...ear, lets not resort to the tired, overflogged ``anti american`` bs...its whats said when y`all have flimsy rebuttals. If you are going to build a strong rhetorical model, please come up with something original. Go and read the Constitution and get back to me...

re: ``...finally, you still haven`t answered my question! i didn`t ask you what iraqis will think about the war vs life under sanctions...i asked YOU which YOU THINK is worse - the misery and suffering endured by iraqi people under saddam`s regime or the suffering caused directly by american forces trying to remove saddam?...``

I think the Iraqi people have suffered enough and dont need to suffer more because our current admin is trying to bail itself out of a fiscal crisis, a presidential coup d`etat and a pathetic record of non cooperation with international initiatives on enviromental, social, economic and development issues. This could have been handled thru diplomacy. I sincerely hope you war mongerers have the decency to accept what the Iraqi people have to say after this is over-whether you like it or not. THEY are the only CREDIBLE voices in this outrageous chapter of US-Iraqi history.

ali87 #150 To say (as I did in my last post) that no one can foretell the future, and to hope for the best, does not mean that one is taking a position based on emotion (as you indicate). I can think of hardly anything more realistic than saying that Bush is sincere in stating that elimination of the Saddam regime is the immediate aim of the campaign. And I base my confidence that Iraqis will be better off with US administration based on the realities that I mention in my article. While a number of posters have been unhappy with what these facts indicate, no one has seriously challenged their veracity.
Nor am I depending on ``goodwill`` alone: as I indicated in my discussion earlier on with Sadna, the Iraq situation may be one of those times when we have a confluence of US realpolitik and US democratic ideals (which you correctly note are practiced to a very large extent within its shores). Examples of other such times of such confluence include the US post WWII support to Japan and Germany as indicated in my article.
The case of Cuba you provide is certainly correct as an example where the US has kept that nation isolated. Until recently, I think that was consistent with the application of the 19th century Monroe Doctrine (whereby the US warned the European powers not to try and spread their influence in Latin America) to the Cold War (with Cuba being isolated as a way to keep the rest of Latin America isolated from Soviet influence). After the fall of communism, I think it is a question of time before this isolation ends. Also note that Castro is not a democratic leader (there have never been free elections in Cuba in the 40 years or so that he has ruled Cuba), and in that sense even this case represents a convergence of realpolitik (as represented in the Monroe Doctrine) and democratic ideals. But I will agree with you on the broader point that when realpolitik and the spread of democracy abroad are seen to be in conflict, the former tend to dominate.

ali87 #150 Further to my note below, I thought this early glimpse of the next steps in post-war Iraq as reported today in CNN support the point I am making: ``The postwar, post-Saddam Interim Iraqi Authority envisioned by the White House would include a mix of Iraqi dissidents and exiles, Kurds and other ethnic groups from within Iraq, senior administration officials told CNN. The officials said at no point would Iraq be solely administered by exiled Iraqis, who have been angling for postwar power. ``
So, while Saddam misruled for 20 years with the help of his cousins, Tikrit friends, and lately his sons, we now have a glimpse of the democratic post-Saddam administration that would replace him immediately after the war. Soon this war will be over, and soon posters to this article will take forget how negatively they greeted the prediction in my article that US is likely to introduce a civilized government to replace Saddam.
But, as this article slips off the front page of chowk, I thought it useful to take note of this emerging reality of a more civilized post-Saddam Iraq as a kind of epilogue to the article and the discussion that took place.

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

#145 by tahmed32 on April 3, 2003 9:53pm PT

the differences in our positions are perhaps becaue of our response to this issue. Yours it looks like it is based on emotions. Perhaps you more of an Idealist than a realist. Hoping for the best is the right thing I too hope so.

But doing an analysis requires looking at hard facts. measuring at the intentions or goodwill is not part of realism, instead look at the actions the give a more clearer picutre of what is likely to happen. I belive that to improve our lot we cannot resign ourselves to the (hoping for)good intentions of the others.

An analogy would be like considering a neighobour hood dada to do the right thing. As is seen in our socites these people do some good acts usually using their money and power to help some of the people who in turn become loyal to him ingnoring his other deeds.

Though this analogy cannot be applied to countries stirctly I think it gives you a picture of what I consider the US.

It has created a equitable socitey inside it shores. It has helped a few countries, but primilarly outside its shores it is mainly taken care of its intrests. Usually they are served by having their henchmen work for thier beinifits. I dont think the US cares much about it, except to oppose communsim, that to not because of any moral reasons but because it hurts the economic benifits of the elite in US. For every japan there are a few panama`s.

When it helped japan and germany and Korea it was not love of those countries like you said, neither was it love of democracy. It was a strategic counter to communiusm of Soviet Union and later china.
No such need exists today. That is why you will find no willingness to pay for reconstruction, no willingness to transfer technology either in afghanistan nor in Iraq. These things were the two key inputs without which none of these coutries could have come up. Also in case of Japan as well as Germany earlier people were quite advanced in technology.
What ever saddam was till US decided to impose sanctions, had it not encouraged (indeed compelled) Iraq to fight the war with Iran. Iraqi people were quite prosperous I have reports from friends who had lived there It was a pretty good place to live. If anyone is responsible for the current poverty of Iraq the blame first rests on US for its delibatiing sanctions. and later on saddam hussein on the Iran-Iraq war.

I do not know how much you are involved in business activity. I have met many business leaders of my country. I have had discussions with a few economists. Every period of time differnt way are employed to futher their intrests.
With todays technology and dominance of Trade and business and technology. US need not sit there in any country to rule it. It does through the means of proxies and even weak govt are forced to obey dictates of US. Else US starts up suppourt to the disaffected and the threat is obey else there will be no govt(democracy or otherwise). Only larger and more economicaly and politicaly stable countries have been able to standup to this kind of neo colonnialism.
Take example Cuba. Why does it need to blockade it when it does business with China. Is blockading of Cuba benifiting the people it wishes to have democracy. For more than 3 decades this blockade has continued is this the love the US has for people else where? Isnt it browbeating people into choosing democracy.
The argument is clear. either you live in poverty or topple the govt. The blockade is addressed to the people of cuba not to the govt which wouldnt care less. It is obvious that people are as yet not convinced that they need democracy over their present comforts. So US sets about removing those comforts so as to make the choice more easy to take.
I think you overlook this in your defence of US.

Dont think Im a reactionary or I dislike US or its people or even its achivements in the social as well as technological sphere. These people are humans they will think first about themselves. Our job is to think about overselves.
If you what to achive something first thing you should do is recognise the reality then understand its implications. Once the implications are clear a path should be found towards soultions. Never resign yourselves to good will of others. Also never underestimate the power of one.