The Wages Of Death

tahmed32:

What Bush says and what Bush does are two different things. I have watched both mainstream and independent news. Sure there are mentions of protestors, but they never show just how strong those demonstrations are. Never do they show how strong they are or how many. They show us more anti-American demonstrations from the middle east. Bush does not want dissent or the laws they have tried to pass to make dissent illegal would not have and not be before any body of government for consideration. Do you have any ideas what laws they have tried to pass here in the US? I don`t know where in the world you are, but since you are probably not in United States perhaps you see different news than we do here. And Bush of course needs the Islamic to see him in a good light. He will say what it takes to make himself the good guy. But if you think you can trust him, try investigating him with an open mind. All his connections and names and corporations.

As for my comments about the war...Psychology book 101 can explain it better to you perhaps? I am not denying Hussein is monster, but what monster is replacing it? Can you answer that? And how many mothers whose children are now dead because Bush and clan wants some oil would say Yay, Bush did a good deed for us! I hope the best for Iraq and I would prefer I am wrong and you are right, but the history books tell me otherwise.

It is a world of chaos in Iraq now. Iraqis are already getting angry with the United States for being there. The coalition protects the oil and does not bother to protect the people or those incredible museums and libraries. There is already the talk of the next war on the horizon. Look at the bigger picture. It is not just about Iraq, it is about Asia and Middle East. This war is not over. What country are you in? If you are in Pakistan there has been talk already that Pakistan is proliferating weapons mass destruction and selling them to North Korea by the United States. Do you think Pakistan should be bombed?

Plain and simple, this war must be stopped. I don`t find myself or Feroz to be wrong about that.

re: tahmed32

Principles? I have been concentrating on the principles!

Speaking of democracy, why is it a retired American general, who will rule Iraq? Are the Iraqis not entitled to chose their own leaders of their own free will, without America telling them who their new leaders are?

Sir, think about it! If getting rid of law and order will make the people happy, should we then get rid of the justice system? Will the people be more happy living in a state of jungle and surrounded by anarchy? Shall we do what pleases the people and if the people are happy burning witches at the stake, shall be allow that too? After all, it makes the people happy? If the people loot and ransack hospitals, shall we let them, because it makes them happy? Tahmed, if you are not willing to be legalistic, atleast be realistic and stop living in an uptoian fantasy world!

Yes, we should put people before ideology. Why is it, then, that republicans are forcing their right wing political ideologies on all of us? Why are the Americans forcing their democratic ideologies on us? Why is it that the Anglo-saxon ideology of the world view is the only acceptable form of ideology? Why is the world being forced to accept the economic ideology of capitialism at gun point on the pain of death? Should the people not come before the ideologies of the Bush administration and Richard Pearle, Carl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld and Condy Rice and Dick (pun intended) Chenny? Should the American people not come before the ideology of the Christian Coalition? Should the people not come before the corporate ideologies, which are fuelling this illegal war?

Yes, you are right! Let us put the people first!

Ciao

Cindy #23 You are attributing to Bush words that are the opposite of what I have heard him say a number of times. Only a couple of days ago I heard him say that dissent is a natural part of a democracy. If you seriously think that Bush is trying to curb dissent in US, or that he CAN curb dissent even if he wants to, then I think you and I are living in two different countries. Just look at the number of articles in newspapers and anti-war marches on streets, and then tell me that you know what you are saying.

And when you say that the Iraqis are jumping on the streets because it is a ``natural euphoria when a war ends``, you clearly indicate that you (like Ferozk) are ignoring the feelings of those people since it runs counter to your anti-war ideology. Anti-war sentiments are fine when you are sitting safe and secure in the US. But it has been a cruel world for the Iraqis, and they are dancing because they now have something they did not have before - hope.

I think you and Ferozk should just admit that you were wrong in opposing this war, and join the Iraqi people in their moment of celebration. And, if you feel strongly about it, write to your congressmen to voice your support for the other stated aim of this war: to make sure that the voice of the Iraqi people is heard through a democratic process, and that they enjoy the same freedoms from here on that the American people enjoy.
But dont just pretend this joy is for a reason that fits with your anti-war ideology when anyone can see Iraqis beating Saddam`s statues, tearing his pictures, and thanking the USA for ``this favor`` as one of them said.

ferozk #19 you write ``whether, the Iraqis dance in the streets or cry in the streets, makes no difference to to me. What concerns me is that the war, despite its noble intentions, is an illegal act of aggression.``

This is exactly the point I made on your post on the same topic on the other board: you are putting legalisms before people. If the people of Iraq are joyful that Saddam is gone, that SHOULD make a huge difference to you.

Incidentally, I am all for a strong legal framework. However, today such a framework is possible at the national level only. At the international level, any legal framework is easily blown away by the concept of the sovereignty of states. The only place where that concept of state sovereignty is being eroded is in the EU states, and that too in very specific areas (e.g. common currency).

Instead of focussing on legalities, at the international level I think you should consider focussing on principles. The most important principle being the rights of ordinary people. And so we come back to the point I make above: the fact that the people of Iraq are clearly happy SHOULD be important. People come first. Politics and ideologies are there to serve the people, not to rule over them

``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: Ras # 21

Thank you, for your comments!

Re: Urstruly # 22

Urstruly, on the surface I will agree with you. Sadly these corporations have diversified over the years and now they too intergrated in the society. Boycotts will only work to an extent and it will not cause any financial loss.

Ciao

Tamed32:
You sound like President Bush when you say I should be silent. He would also have us that dissent with his war be silent. Media shows that since there are many many more here in the US who do think just like me and not too much about it on the news.

Why are Iraqi`s jumping in the streets? The natural euphoria when a war ends. Afghani`s did the same thing. Are they dancing now?

I beg to differ Feroz. What do you think why Iraq was attacked? Only because of the pressure from the corporate oil and weapons cartels of America, isn`t it. It’s the Corporations who are currently running America and in the process they are making the lives of billions around the globe miserable. And if you want to change what America does to the rest of the world then you have to go to the source of evil i.e. the corporations.

If you are following the Agusta Golf Course debacle now a days, you must have seen that some of the most powerful men in America today are supporting Augusta`s no women policy. Some of the biggest corporations in the world sponsor the Golf course, but as this controversy has started the first one to back down were the corporations, because controversy hits the sales. What is this? Just two hundred picketing women can bring the mightiest of corporations down to their knees? Yes.

Similarly, how do you control a corporate driven consumer culture, which has declared war on the rest of the world? The answer is `only by not consuming`. In this corporate driven culture of mass production where competition is cut throat every penny counts towards corporate profit. This is their Achilles heel. So every individual on this planet is potentially a David who can stand up to these Goliaths. And remember people who are determined to move mountains, start with small pebbles.

Feroz,

this writing of yours has finesse AND shows personal

involvemtnt (which in the past, some of your articles have lacked).

Although I may not agree on a few points that you have made here and

am not suprised at the reaction of some readers, in my opinion

this is your best work here on CHOWK.

Enjoyed the language and the emotion.

Please write more on what the man in the street in Pakistan is thinking.


Ras

In all this talk of war does any know that the Iraqi Information minister was last spotted in Egypt.
Apparently he was living in denial.

re: tahmed

I am not sure, whether your emotionalism has clouded your judgement or not, or you are simply rationalizing your inner insecurities, when you applaud this war. I am not, in writing this article, crying over the demise of Saddam Hussein`s reigme and whether, the Iraqis dance in the streets or cry in the streets, makes no difference to to me. What concerns me is that the war, despite its noble intentions, is an illegal act of aggression.

I hope and pray that Saddam Hussein is the first in a series of Arab/Muslim leaders who have to give up power and thus, their people truly are freed from their dictatorships. The fact that the Iraqis are celebrating does not make this war any more legal or right; and that is what Cindy and I were suggesting. To put it another context, it is like suggesting that just because Nawaz Sharif`s actions were illegal, Musharraf`s illegal coup d` etat of 1999 was justified. Two wrong do not make a right! Muffin is right: wrong is wrong and right is right. What you are saying that a wrong with right intentions can be right! That is justification and rationalizing a wrong act.

You are right! I agree with you! I cannot rationalize this illegal act.

Ciao

re: kamala # 12

Yes. There is a lot of hypocricy in this war. On one hand, nations protest the war and on the other hand, they secertly make sure that they are not left out of the ``power/influence loop``. I agree with you that my points are weak and they do not make sense; but then again, nothing makes sense in this crisis and all the agruments used to justify this war are weak!

Re: Urtruly # 9

I do not support a boycott of American goods or of America itself. I believe in free/fair trade and I am a firm supporter of the process of globalization. The world needs a process that brings it together and not one, which divides it. Sanctions and economic boycotts only create more misunderstandings and resentments and will not solve anything in the long run. True; in an emotional sense, it will feel good, but in a realistic sense, it is bound to be a flawed policy. I honestly believe that international fianancial and trade institutions need to be reformed and made stronger and independent from outside interventions, but I do not think that destroying them via trade sanctions and boycotts will help the matter.

Global trade is too interlinked and it is has become so seamless in the the last 50 years that it cannot be so easily delinked and to do so, will only cause a massive malfunction in the system.

re: sameerJB # 10

Sameer, your points are well taken and to a signficant degree, I would second them and agree with them. I wish tahmed32 would understand your agruments that power might, indeed be right, but it is not always correct. Personally speaking, your observations are more cogent and realistic than tahmed32`s, who is simply relying on an emotional euphoria. This is the point most people do not understand. Granted that America is too powerful to be stopped, but American actions should not be condoned just because of the fact that American power is too over whelming.

In this sense, there is no difference between the acts of George Bush and Perwaiz Musharraf. Both pre-empted their actions and both of their actions were illegal and no matter, what the end result, the illegality of those actions cannot be denied. Musharraf acted illegally, when he staged the coup d` etat in 1999 and regardless of this good intentions and all the good he has done since then, the prima facie act of the coup was illegal and nothing will change that. It makes no sense to suggest that one must break the law in order to uphold it and protect it. Just like it makes no sense to destory the village in order to safe it. In the end, the law is broken and the village is destroyed.

I am very glad that the Iraqis are celebrating in the streets, but that is not the point. This war destoryed the canons of international law and Bush`s argument that the international law was not working is at best dishonest. Just because a law does not work or has flaws does not suggest that it should be ignored or broken. Even if the United States actions end up being a boon for the region and the world in general, it will not lessen the fact that a precedent has been created, which undermines all international obligations and subsitutes them with an national egoism.

I am, and remain, against this war not because I support Saddam Hussein, but because international law is more important than Saddam Hussein and because I fear, like you do, that the end results of this war will not be good for anyone. America has pre-empted in Iraq and now will any nation listen to America, when she asks them not to pre-empt? If she does ask them not to pre-empt, it will be sheer hypocricy. In this sense, I have to say that America has no business telling India not to pre-empt Pakistan in Kashmir, or else where because the United States has created the precedent and it cannot deny the same rights to others. India, now, has the legal right, based on precedent case law, to pre-empt and attack Pakistan. It is India`s sovereign right and no one can deny it. That is the law. This is what I am against and that is, creating an example that will only make a bad situation even worse. I am not against Iraqis dancing in the streets, as tahemd32 seems to think, and when I question the wisdom of this war, I cannot rationalize it, given its long term consequences.

This war has destroyed more than Saddam Hussein and sadly, tahmed32 does not seem to understand, or is incapable of understanding, what this war has really destroyed.

Ciao

Cindy #16 You must be F Khan`s silent partner. You were better off remaining silent.

You make a lengthy post and make big assertions, like F Khan. But nothing you or F Khan have written can explain the joy the Iraqis demonstrated on the streets of Baghdad. The term ``Iraqi Freedom`` for this campaign explains that joy very well.

This war is absolutely illegal on an international level. It is inappropriate on the national level as Bush should have never been given permission by Congress to declare war. It is a racist war. Mostly this war is about hegemony of the region and destabilization of Asia.

Turkey is being used against its will. I heard some Turks being interviewed that asked why Bush even bothered to ask for permission since they are using their space anyway without permission.

Though there are the people definitely for and definitely against the war, there is a larger majority of people who no longer know what to think. They may not support the war in their hearts but do not know of anything they can do to stop it, so in their complacence and eventual acceptance due to being overwhelmed, give their silent consent. When Al Jazeera showed the US troops being interviewed and dead on TV, Bush made the comment Americans are too compassionate and would not want to see such pictures on TV. Well, he is more likely afraid of that compassion. It could end his war.

Though this war is obviously a war against Islam, it is not to abolish religion. It is so much easier to control people through religion. Besides that, they need different religions and races to keep their divisions so that focuses remain off the larger agendas. In The Road Map for National Security Phase III that Bush follows so closely and was written before he was in office, states that they could remove borders but they won`t. There are benefits to the pride of nationality.

This war is about hegemony which they will achieve by controlling the world’s power source, oil. This war is not about national security for the people of the Coalition nations, it is about the corporate interests based in these nations.

In the United States, Bush is using this time of war as a diversion to pass bills that further undermine our Constitution. If he is undermining the American Constitution, how much liberation can we hope for the people in Iraq? Is Afghanistan liberated?

It does seem the United States believes that they can invade any country they want. No one is stepping up to stop them anyway which gives consent. But is it right? No.

No WMD have been found. Lots of ``may have founds``, but nothing concrete or proven. However, if the United States wants to prove that this war is to liberate Iraq, then let the Iraqi people decide what will happen with their country and their oil. Iraq is full of educated people. They can handle themselves and the oil just fine. But as I saw on a documentary yesterday, it is educated Iraqis that scare the governments of the coalition.

F Khan: I see you are having trouble rationalizing this war. Perhaps you should ask the Iraqis who were cheering in the streets of Baghdad today. And throwing their shoes at Saddam`s statue.

PS: Glad you have silent partners. Seems like they are as confused with reality as you are.

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