Posted on: 03-03-05 11:26:33
Thought I'd make this vanity post on the lines of the threads on MKG and Nehru. A bit closer to our times.
I've always supported the war on Iraq(I know i'll get brickbats for this 
). I probably know 2 other Canadians who do . Only one of them is a desi. I'm the black sheep, in my family too. However, since the other threads...and many others have always touched on this topic...I thought its worth the bandwidth.
On the outset I want to make clear that I dont agree with many of the republican stances like
1) Anti-gay
2) Anti-Abortion(I personally dont believe in it but I dont think I have a right to oppose it since I do not have an uterus)
3) Us vs Them, ideology.
However, I believe that someone like Bush was needed to check some extremist tendencies that were gaining acceptance. I personally dont like the scales tilting to either side for too long.
So Lets discuss Bush
I agree totally that the war was about resources...as all wars are. We would not go to war because Musharraf called Vajpayee or Singh a few choice names. We would go to war to combat any threat to our interests...i.e.resources(including land). Yes realpolitik dictates that we cannot be so direct about it and so its cloaked in all sort of moralistic jargon. Politics is hardly about morals but about self-interest. So considering this
PROS of the war
1) Democracy in Iraq. Yes, not all people voted but an overwhelming majority did.
2) Libya: contained
3)Pakistan: even more contained...atleast for the time being.
4)Palestine-israel: ever closer to making a deal
5) Its not as 'cool' to be a martyr anymore(inspite of the awaiting virgins)
6) Lebanon: democracy looks like a reality...all the arab world is watching with repurcussions likely to be felt all over. I was not too sure about the US right-wing 'domino theory' but thats what seems to be hapenning.
7)Saudis: contained
8)The Americans have proven that they have the backbone to go in and get the job done...at any cost. A central theme of Al-qaedas philosophy was that the US would blink...as it did in beruit and the iranian revolution.
The BJP similarly did not blink during Kargil and after the attack on parliment.
To sum it up: Consolidation of Americas self-interest in the world. This is what all heads of govt are expected to do and Bush seems to have accomplished that. This is what a lot of desis were complaining about in the other threads...that MKG and Nehru did not aggressively further Indias self-interests.
Cons:
1) Suffering and Death of innocents
2) Several trillion dollars in deficit.
3) A huge divide between Americans
4) A mentality of paranoia.
The cons seem to be a necessary evil if and not many changes come without a cost. e.g: the nuclear bomb was one ofthe reasons why the whole world...let alone India and Pakistan...wanted to make sure the neighbours did not go to war. Another example is that Reagans mad push to the arms race was one of the reasons that drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and ultimately the fall of the Berlin wall.
Also posting below an article by a right-wing columnist along the same lines.
Your opinions please.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
MARK STEYN: 'I hate to say it, but... I told you so'
Jerusalem Post ^ | 3-2-05 | MARK STEYN
Posted on 03/03/2005 5:35:27 AM PST by SJackson
Three years ago – April 6, 2002 – I wrote: "The stability junkies in the EU, UN and elsewhere have, as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable... So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not Iraq? Once you've got rid of the ruling gang, it's the west's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane polity...
That's why the unraveling of the Middle East has to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."
I don't like to say I told you so – well, actually, I do like to say I told you so. What I don't like to do is the obligatory false self-deprecatory thing to mitigate against the insufferableness of my saying I told you so. But nevertheless I did.
Consider just the last couple of days' news. Not the ever more desperate depravity of the floundering "insurgency," but the real popular Arab resistance the car-bombers and head-hackers are flailing against:
The Saudi foreign minister, who by remarkable coincidence goes by the name of Prince Saud, told Newsweek that women would be voting in the next Saudi election: "That is going to be good for the election," he said, "because I think women are more sensible voters than men."
Four-time Egyptian election winner – and with 90% of the vote! – President Mubarak announced that next polling day he wouldn't mind an opponent. Ordering his stenographer to change the constitution to permit the first multi-choice presidential elections in Egyptian history, His Excellency said the country would benefit from "more freedom and democracy." The state-run TV network hailed the president's speech as an "historical decision in the nation's 7,000-year-old march toward democracy." After 7,000 years on the march, they're barely out of the parking lot, so Mubarak's move is, as they say, a step in the right direction.
Meanwhile in Damascus, Boy Assad, having badly overplayed his hand in Lebanon and after months of denying that he was harboring any refugee Saddamites, suddenly discovered that – wouldja believe it? – Saddam's brother and 29 other bigshot Baghdad Ba'athists were holed up in north-eastern Syria, and promptly handed them over to the Iraqi government.
And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press:
"Palestinians expressed anger Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."
No disrespect to Associated Press, but that one I was wary of. However, Charles Johnson, whose Little Green Footballs website has done an invaluable job these last three years presenting the ugly truth about Palestinian death-cultism, reported that he went hunting around the Internet for the usual photographs of deliriously happy Gazans dancing in the street and handing out sweets to celebrate the latest addition to the glorious mound of Jew corpses – and, to his surprise, found it much harder than usual.
AND THEN there's Lebanon. Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30th. Don't take my word for it, listen to Walid Jumblatt, big-time Druse leader and a man of impeccable anti-American credentials: "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world... The Berlin Wall has fallen."
Just so. Left to their own devices, the House of Saud – which demanded all US female air-traffic controllers be stood down for Crown Prince Abdullah's flight to the Bush ranch in Crawford – would stick to their traditional line that Wahabi women have no place in a voting booth, though they are permitted to dress like a voting booth – a big black impenetrable curtain with a little slot to drop your ballot through. Likewise, Hosni Mubarak has no desire to take part in campaign debates with Hosno Name-Recognition. Boy Assad has no desire to hand over his co-Ba'athists to the Great Satan's puppets in Baghdad.
But none of them has much of a choice. In the space of a month, the Iraq election has become the prism through which all other events in the region are seen.
Assad's regime knocks off a troublemaker in Lebanon. Big deal. They've done it a gazillion times. But this time the streets are full of demonstrators demanding an end to Syrian occupation.
A suicide bomber kills five Jews. So what's new? But this time the Palestinians decline to celebrate. And some of them even question whether being a delivery system for plastic explosives is really all life has to offer, even on the West Bank.
Mubarak announces the arrest of an opposition leader. Who cares? The jails are full of 'em. But this time Condi Rice cancels her visit and the Egyptian government notices that their annual check from Washington is a month late.
Three years ago, those of us in favor of destabilizing the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clich s, bring me some new clich s. The old clich s – Pan-Arabism, Ba'athism, Islamism, Araftism – brought us the sewer that led to September 11th. The new clich s could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the shadow of the cautionary tale of the former.
BUT SOME of us – notably US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz – thought things would go a lot better than that. Wolfowitz was right, and so was Bush, and the Left, who were wrong about the Berlin Wall, were wrong again, the only difference being that this time they were joined in the dunce's corner of history by far too many people who should know better. No surprise there. The EU's political establishment doesn't trust its own people, so why would they trust anybody else's? Bush trusts the American people, and he's happy to extend the same courtesy to the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Iranian people, etc.
Professor Glenn Reynolds, America's Instapundit, observes that "democratization is a process, not an event." Far too often, it's treated like an event: ship in the monitors, hold the election, get it approved by Jimmy Carter and the UN, and that's it. Doesn't work like that. What's happening in the Middle East is the start of a long-delayed process. Eight million Iraqis did more for the Arab world on January 30th than 7,000 years of Mubarak-pace marching.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
I would disagree there, Jake. IMHO, the situation that Steyn describes portrays only a certain cross section of the reality today. Another cross section by someone with a different angle on this could be equally gruesome.
The problem is that the change today is abrupt and it will go the other way as abruptly. I don't think the little victories make up for the huge losses in the process of attaining them.
I have absolutely nothing against the toppling of Saddam. He was a tyrant and deserved to go. However the temporary stability achieved by this IMHO will be short lived. And the right wing forces behind Bush's ascent aren't exactly offering their services FOC. To me, honestly, the worst thing that could come out of this is a drastically altered American landscape leaning heavily towards the right. Because with all its flaws, I still think that America is the world's best hope for a stable future.
I guess time will tell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you there?
Quote:
Orginally posted by BlueLobster
To me, honestly, the worst thing that could come out of this is a drastically altered American landscape leaning heavily towards the right. Because with all its flaws, I still think that America is the world's best hope for a stable future.
I guess time will tell.
I agree with all three sentences. I have faith in democracy...which imo, in the long run cancels out the effects of opposing forces. The play between the left and right in a democracy ultimately(hopefully) leads to arriving at a balance. I dont think either the Republicans or Democrats OR any of us know what that balance is.
However, intead of judging the current occurences as good or bad, I think its that balancing act that is currently being played out. Exactly like the Pro/Anti Canada posts on this site . A tilt to either side, all the time, distorts reality.
Ofcourse, the results as always...and like you said...are slaves to time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Jake --
I know this debate can go on and on, but here's my take -
Quote:Voted for what?
Orginally posted by jake3d
PROS of the war
1) Democracy in Iraq. Yes, not all people voted but an overwhelming majority did.
A puppet Govt., who strings are being held from Washington.
Democracy is different from elections.
If you recall, on the day of Iraqi elections, GWB in the press conference said - We are having elections.
He did not say They are having elections.
Some newspaper editors noticed this and picked up its significance.
The Iraqi elections were a facre - a smoke screen to fool the rest of the world that the Americans are bringing democracy to Iraq.
What are the Iraqis really getting - they are getting prison torture - Abu Gharib style !
Quote:Oh please - contained from what?
2) Libya: contained
A bankrupt country, with no resources, no money and no future and a leader with one leg in the grave.
Like Cuba.
Contained from doing what?
Invading Washington DC with a large army and colonising North America?
Quote:Oh come on.
3)Pakistan: even more contained...atleast for the time being.
Conflict between India and Pakistan goes in waves and troughs - what we are seeing now is a dip in the conflict.
We have seen this before as well - it is like the economic cycles of boom and bust.
Very similar to the Arab/Israeli conflict, although nowhere near as bloody and dangerous.
Quote:Just like they have been for the past 50 years.
4)Palestine-israel: ever closer to making a deal
Always "close" to making a deal.....
Quote:LOL !
5) Its not as 'cool' to be a martyr anymore(inspite of the awaiting virgins)
Quote:You mean pacified.
7)Saudis: contained
Quote:All this proves is that the ruling elite (GWB and Co.) will go in and get the job done for themselves - and their cronies....any any cost to the country and the world.
8)The Americans have proven that they have the backbone to go in and get the job done...at any cost.
I don't see any pros to the war.
The "war on Terrorism" is a myth, in my view - perpetuated by GWB and Co.
The world today is a more dangerous place than after 9/11.
GWB has opened the legendary Pandora's box.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
Hi Patrick,
I agree with most of the comments you are making.
Quote:
Orginally posted by pratickm
Some newspaper editors noticed this and picked up its significance.
The Iraqi elections were a facre - a smoke screen to fool the rest of the world that the Americans are bringing democracy to Iraq.
What are the Iraqis really getting - they are getting prison torture - Abu Gharib style !
This I disagree...the shia who form the majority..have voted...with the blessings of Sistani. Some sunni have also voted. This is the best chance that they have ever had at elections. Previously there was just one choice
. Quote:
Oh please - contained from what?
A bankrupt country, with no resources, no money and no future and a leader with one leg in the grave.
Like Cuba.
Contained from doing what?
Invading Washington DC with a large army and colonising North America?
LOL
Nope, but from doing anything washington does not want it to..."strings are being held from Washington."
Quote:
Oh come on.
Conflict between India and Pakistan goes in waves and troughs - what we are seeing now is a dip in the conflict.
We have seen this before as well - it is like the economic cycles of boom and bust.
Again when I say contained...I mean..."strings are being held from Washington."
Quote:
Just like they have been for the past 50 years.
Always "close" to making a deal.....
I think the chances are better without arafat...this again...time will tell..I admit.
Quote:
You mean pacified.
No...Saudis again....."strings are being held from Washington." Only this time they are ropes
.Quote:
All this proves is that the ruling elite (GWB and Co.) will go in and get the job done for themselves - and their cronies....any any cost to the country and the world.
I don't see any pros to the war.
The "war on Terrorism" is a myth, in my view - perpetuated by GWB and Co.
The world today is a more dangerous place than after 9/11.
GWB has opened the legendary Pandora's box.
If you look above...the US are the ones pulling the strings. I think their interests are more secure than before the war or even before Afghanistan.
The world was always a dangerous place. All everyone was doing was jockeying for the best position. Looks like GWB has accomplished that at the present time. How can this be bad for the US?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:You are assuming that USA = GWB.
Orginally posted by jake3d
If you look above...the US are the ones pulling the strings. I think their interests are more secure than before the war or even before Afghanistan.
The world was always a dangerous place. All everyone was doing was jockeying for the best position. Looks like GWB has accomplished that at the present time. How can this be bad for the US?
That is not true.
GWB (and his cronies - Rumsfeld, Paul W. Dick Cheney, etc.) represent the most reactionary right wing in the USA.
As you yourself pointed out - the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-everything reactionary group.
They have well fed - and well paid - mouthpieces in the form of opionated, arrogant, bull-headed writers, speakers and orators like this Mark Steyn, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, etc.
However, despite everything, GWB is not = America.
There is a significant part of the population that do not like, do not agree with GWB.
A lot of them voted Kerry, but most "middle Americans" voted Bush simply because there was no convincing alternative.
Kerry stands for nothing - neither good nor evil; Bush at least stands for one of those (no prizes for guessing which
All throughout Bush's tenure the more moderate Republicans have been uncomfortable with GWB's stance on these issues.
But because GWB has won a second term, they are keeping their mouths shut.
I don't agree that this kind of war-mongering serves USA's long-term interests - it may serve GWB's dynasty well, but not America.
After Bush is gone, he would have left America with a huge fiscal deficit, a weak dollar, a bankrupt social security system, and a world that is rife with conflict, extremists and terrorists.
He has done nothing to rid the world of terrorism - which was partly their own Frankestein in the first place !
But that was part of the plan anyway - he is smart enough not to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
When Bush leaves offices 4 years from now, he would have left the world a worse place than before (unlike Clinton).
And that can never be good for the USA, or anyone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Mah deah, there is much more money to be made in the destruction of civilization than in building it up."
-- Rhett Butler in "Gone with the Wind"
