PDA

View Full Version : The good, the bad, and the war.



vivek
March 22nd, 2003, 06:58 PM
The war in Iraq is on TV, and I must admit that I have been occasionally drawn to the fascination of watching the war like a video game, not realizing that there are real humans being blown behind the explosions.

What does the war mean to the world and India? Lets put emotions aside and analyze the situation. The war is obviously not about UN resolutions that Iraq violated, as many others have done similarly, and US is not concerned about them.

Lets look at the seeds of war. There is a conservative political think tank in the US called PNAC (Project for New American Century). Its members have included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and several other influential members of Bush's cabinet. They wrote a letter to president Clinton in 1998, which is very illuminating about their intent. Here's a link.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

In short, it attempts to define the threat posed by Islamic Fundamentalism, and ways to deal with it...which is by attacking Iraq.

Lets now look at Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic fundementalism is dedicated to the concept of Ummah. This concepts calls for creation of a single Islamic state stretching from Morroco to Indonesia. A brief introduction to the concept is in the link below.

http://www.fear-allah.com/Other Articals/Muslim Ummah.htm

Bin Laden was/is ferociously dedicated to this concept. Bin laden and his ilk feels that Allah has given the precious wealth of Oil to muslims, and that the current regime around the Arab world are squandering this 'gift' away for pennies on a dollar to the western civilization. They argues, that if the oil is depleted, the lands will be left as barren wastelands, and muslims will have nothing to show for it. He has disdain for all rulers that currently rule the oil rich arab states. He would like to unify all the muslim oil producing countries (and thus the bloody conflict in chechnya), and charge ten to hundred times more for a barrel of oil. There would be a transfer of wealth from western countries to the muslim ones. The wealth would be used to further the muslim empire through the use of madrassas, conflicts etc.

Where does India fit in. India is regarded as 'Darul harb' by the muslims. The concept of Darul harb states that if a land is once ruled by the muslims, it is the duty of every muslim to convert it to muslim rule or a 'Darul islam'. This is direct from the Koran. The muslim clerics have openly refused to condemn this concept as requested by VHP. A little more on this on this link.

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/kafir.html

In short Bin Laden would have used this wealth to trouble India. He would have no compulsions about starting a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, whereby both are destroyed. He would justify the sacrifice of Pakistan in order to secure India...after all the purpose of all muslims is to serve arabia...the mecca of it all.

Now lets get back to the current situation. If US manages to secure Iraq, The countries of Pakistan, Iran, Syria are all surrounded by non muslim forces, and the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism can be contained. More importantly for the US. The immediate threat of control of oil routes by Islamic fundamentalist is controlled by US, as Iran and Syra are both surrounded by US forces, and Saudi Arabia already has a US base.

The elimination of continuous geographic link between Iran and Palestine also means that terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jehad can be controlled as funding them would be more difficult. This gives peace a chance between moderate Palestinians, and Israel.

To people, who say this is about oil, I say its true, but not in the way they describe it. For one thing, if the price of oil were to drop, it hurts the US oil companies.

In my view India gains from all this, as Islamic Fundamentalism is contained. Hopefully US will concentrate on containing the Pakistani nukes and the terror factories in Pakistan after Iraq. they should as that would be the only dangerous hot spot troubling their safety.

The casualty from all this is the UN. However, if anyone has observed UN for its existence, its nothing more than a debating society. It has not solved anything in Rwanda, Sudan, Kashmir, Kosova (Another Unilateral action by the NATO, without UN approval - Russia would have vetoed any action against Serbia). The only thing is that the 'feel good' pretense of having a UN is over. I believe Russia, France and Germany will move to counter US power, in the new world order, which could be a good thing, as too much power always corrupts....

...and that is my opinion.

singhkapoor
March 23rd, 2003, 06:37 PM
Nice article Vivek

To anyone/everyone reading this article..I would highly recommend visiting the following link

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/kafir.html

Even the most secular amongst us will be filled with anger, indignation towards the believers of this faith and start detesting them.

vivek
March 23rd, 2003, 07:42 PM
The criticism that I have received on my views is supported by Vir Sanghvi's article in Hindustan times today.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_219374,0000.htm

Here is my response. India Pakistan relations are more on par with US Soviet relations during the cold war. US did not attempt to invade Soviets, but dismantled it by making it 'broke'. There is no winner in a nuclear conflict. I would tackle Pakistan's proxy war by waging a proxy war of our own. Sind and Baluchistan want independence. I would send RAW agents to do just what Pakistan is preaching is Kashmir. I would start construction on a canal system and holding lagoons to divert water Ravi and Beas (in order to flood or starve their irrigation). I would attack their infra structure (electric sub stations short circuiting, trains de- railing etc.)

Make no mistake, that Pakistan is at war with India. India should wake up and give Pakistan a taste of their medicine. This war of bankrupting Pakistan will of course have its cost (Pakistan trying to strike back)...but would be a lot more winnable than a nuclear one. Now if Bangladesh was troubling India, I am sure India would already have attacked that country.

There is another alternative...is to follow Israel's example and somehow have the US declaw Pakistan for us. US is currently using Pakistan like a cheap whore. However, how long are you willing to wait on that one?

amitdahiya
March 24th, 2003, 05:39 PM
Dear Vivek
To beat Osama because you have other values that make you different from him and which you would like to fight for because they are worth saving and keeping. It is important that you prevent yourself from falling into his trap of trying to make you think like him. Start thinking like him and you start to lose the difference between yourself and him why would any one then pick up arms to defend you unless of course youre all set to go it alone. The fight against terror is going to be won by good quality mindwork, clarity of vision. specific targeting of measurable objectives and teamwork last but not least.

Sothink this thing through and maybe your plan b willbe better than plan A if youve got one Id love to hear it.
Amit



Vivek Singh Tomar (Mar 23, 2003 09:12 a.m.):
The criticism that I have received on my views is supported by Vir Sanghvi's article in Hindustan times today.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_219374,0000.htm

Here is my response. India Pakistan relations are more on par with US Soviet relations during the cold war. US did not attempt to invade Soviets, but dismantled it by making it 'broke'. There is no winner in a nuclear conflict. I would tackle Pakistan's proxy war by waging a proxy war of our own. Sind and Baluchistan want independence. I would send RAW agents to do just what Pakistan is preaching is Kashmir. I would start construction on a canal system and holding lagoons to divert water Ravi and Beas (in order to flood or starve their irrigation). I would attack their infra structure (electric sub stations short circuiting, trains de- railing etc.)

Make no mistake, that Pakistan is at war with India. India should wake up and give Pakistan a taste of their medicine. This war of bankrupting Pakistan will of course have its cost (Pakistan trying to strike back)...but would be a lot more winnable than a nuclear one. Now if Bangladesh was troubling India, I am sure India would already have attacked that country.

There is another alternative...is to follow Israel's example and somehow have the US declaw Pakistan for us. US is currently using Pakistan like a cheap whore. However, how long are you willing to wait on that one?

rajiv7
March 24th, 2003, 07:48 PM
American psyops here on Jatland too?

vivek
March 25th, 2003, 05:54 AM
[quote]Amit Dahiya (Delhi) (Mar 24, 2003 07:09 a.m.):
<<<Dear Vivek
To beat Osama because you have other values that make you different from him and which you would like to fight for because they are worth saving and keeping. It is important that you prevent yourself from falling into his trap of trying to make you think like him. Start thinking like him and you start to lose the difference between yourself and him why would any one then pick up arms to defend you unless of course youre all set to go it alone. The fight against terror is going to be won by good quality mindwork, clarity of vision. specific targeting of measurable objectives and teamwork last but not least.

Sothink this thing through and maybe your plan b willbe better than plan A if youve got one Id love to hear it.
Amit>>>


If I understand your argument correctly (as your writing is grammatically challenged despite very noble thought), you feel that in order to fight OBL, you will invariably kill and become like him. That is a very insightful dilemma. It was the same dilemma Arjun was facing on the battlefield against Dhritarashtra. In Bhagvad Gita Arjun pose similar questions to Krishna, and I will paste the relevant answers below. In short I find Bhagwad Gita to have extremely thoughtful answers to common dilemmas. It emphasis the development of military art, something the Buddhist influenced India started forgot in the Maurya Dynasty and eventually succumbed to Islamic invasions.

Below is relevant answers from Lord Krishna in a translated version of Bhagvad Gita by swami prabhupad:

Having spoken thus, Arjuna, chastiser of enemies, told Krishna, `Govinda, I shall not fight,' and fell silent.

O descendant of Bharata, at that time Krishna, smiling, in the midst of both the armies, spoke the following words to the grief-stricken Arjuna.

The Lord said:
While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

O best among men, the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.

The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.

Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

O Partha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

If, however, you think that the soul is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.

Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

O Partha, happy are the ksatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets.

If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.

People will always speak of your infamy, and for a respectable person, dishonor is worse than death.

The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you insignificant.

Your enemies will describe you in many unkind words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful for you?

O son of Kunti, either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore, get up with determination and fight.

Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat - and by so doing you shall never incur sin.

Thus far I have described this knowledge to you through a

amitdahiya
March 25th, 2003, 11:33 PM
Mr Tomar from demonstrating a juvenile strategy for war, a demonstration of intellectually challenged thought and finally to regressive logic youve come a long way in just one post so I will ignore your snide comment about my serious response to your important but topical post. Are you aware that the international movement of water is governed by treaties and solemn national undertakings, so rock solid that to tamper with them arbitrarily can result in an instant declaration of war. This can only happen inside India in between states, it doesnt happen internationally any where. About your idea to send RAW agents to Baluchistan and Sind what makes you think this hasnt been tried and discarded as impractical for various reasons to simple to even list here for you. Please, your post is important lets stick to the issues and expand the thinking line on it.

yours etc


Vivek Singh Tomar (Mar 24, 2003 07:24 p.m.):
[quote]Amit Dahiya (Delhi) (Mar 24, 2003 07:09 a.m.):
<<<Dear Vivek
To beat Osama because you have other values that make you different from him and which you would like to fight for because they are worth saving and keeping. It is important that you prevent yourself from falling into his trap of trying to make you think like him. Start thinking like him and you start to lose the difference between yourself and him why would any one then pick up arms to defend you unless of course youre all set to go it alone. The fight against terror is going to be won by good quality mindwork, clarity of vision. specific targeting of measurable objectives and teamwork last but not least.

Sothink this thing through and maybe your plan b willbe better than plan A if youve got one Id love to hear it.
Amit>>>


If I understand your argument correctly (as your writing is grammatically challenged despite very noble thought), you feel that in order to fight OBL, you will invariably kill and become like him. That is a very insightful dilemma. It was the same dilemma Arjun was facing on the battlefield against Dhritarashtra. In Bhagvad Gita Arjun pose similar questions to Krishna, and I will paste the relevant answers below. In short I find Bhagwad Gita to have extremely thoughtful answers to common dilemmas. It emphasis the development of military art, something the Buddhist influenced India started forgot in the Maurya Dynasty and eventually succumbed to Islamic invasions.

Below is relevant answers from Lord Krishna in a translated version of Bhagvad Gita by swami prabhupad:

Having spoken thus, Arjuna, chastiser of enemies, told Krishna, `Govinda, I shall not fight,' and fell silent.

O descendant of Bharata, at that time Krishna, smiling, in the midst of both the armies, spoke the following words to the grief-stricken Arjuna.

The Lord said:
While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

O best among men, the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.

The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.

Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

O Partha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

If, however, you think that the soul is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.

Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

O Partha, happy are the ksatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets.

If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.

People will always speak of your infamy, and for a respectable person, dishonor is worse than death.

The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you insignificant.

Your enemies will describe you in many unkind words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful for you?

O son of Kunti, either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore, get up with determination and fight.

Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat - and by so doing you shall never incur sin.

Thus far I have described this knowledge to you through a

vivek
March 26th, 2003, 06:03 AM
[quote]Amit Dahiya (Delhi) (Mar 25, 2003 01:03 p.m.):
<<<Mr Tomar from demonstrating a juvenile strategy for war, a demonstration of intellectually challenged thought and finally to regressive logic youve come a long way in just one post so I will ignore your snide comment about my serious response to your important but topical post.>>>

Let's ignore your dillitente attempts at name calling and analyze the argumentative portion of your post.

<<<Are you aware that the international movement of water is governed by treaties and solemn national undertakings, so rock solid that to tamper with them arbitrarily can result in an instant declaration of war. >>>

I state that India is already at war with Pakistan. Even the deputy prime minister shares my view. Some people may call it a 'proxy war', but what difference does it make whether 60,000 people die in ten years, or a similar amount perish in two weeks. Pakistan has declared this war, and has been on the offensive. Defensive posturing by India has not worked for past 13 years, and there seems no indication that it will work in near future.


<<About your idea to send RAW agents to Baluchistan and Sind what makes you think this hasnt been tried and discarded as impractical for various reasons to simple to even list here for you. Please, your post is important lets stick to the issues and expand the thinking line on it. >>>

I know sending RAW agents to Baluchistan and Sind has been tried, but the policy has never been supported as vigorously as Pakistan supports Kashmir infiltration. (My father was a deputy director at RAW). I understand India's reluctance to undertake this venture at this time (USA troops etc.), However the measures I had laid out were seriously being considered by the administration prior to 9/11.

Its easy to criticize the strategy of war, as the whole concept of war is juvenile. However, to be ignorant of the realities is a bigger sin than merely being juvenile.

Its quite typical that you have offered no solutions. This attitude has resulted in a 'wait and see' thinking prevelant in Indian politics for last 20 years.

When Chaudhary Charan Singh was the home minister in 1978, it was arranged to have Pakistan's nuclear facilities destroyed by using Israel. However, first Morarji Desai got cold feet. Then the plan was put in action again when Charan Singh was Prime Minister, only to be derailed when Indira Gandhi took over. (How do I know...family close to the situation) It is this 'wait and see' and 'do nothing' attitude by spineless leaders that has brought us this situation

Nobody wins in nuclear confrontation, so the next option is to bankrupt Pakistan via a proxy war, and hit the terrorist before they begin their campaign. You got better ideas?

anujkumar
March 28th, 2003, 03:57 AM
[img="http://www.columbia.edu/~ak2108/pak.jpg"]

rajiv7
March 28th, 2003, 09:25 AM
Anuj Kumar ji,

Brilliant post. Nothing more needs to be said on the subject.

Looks like the US psyops are an utter failure here on Jatland!

Rajiv Lather

shokeen123
March 29th, 2003, 07:31 PM
Saddam Hussein
Oilfields

************************************************** ******************** Pervez Musharraf
Poppy weeds

vivek
March 30th, 2003, 03:27 AM
Well said Sujata. Pakistan is really inconsequential to US and world's economy, while saddam has potential to cripple it for posterity.

Saudi Arabia is simultaneously an US ally and an ideological enemy. The Saudi regime and the US are in a marriage of convenience in which the US offers protection in exchange for a stable oil supply.

The US stands for secular democracy, pluralism, religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The Saudis are an Islamic theocracy that does not separate mosque and state. It does not allow other faiths in Saudi Arabia and shariah law is held to be supreme.

Saudis are taught in school to hate unbelievers and encouraged to take part in jihad to expand the borders of Islam violently. It is no wonder that Osama bin Laden is seen to be a hero, a holy warrior and not as a terrorist. They are spreading their wahhabi world-view through the world by using petro-dollars to build madrassahs and mosques.

Such differing ideologies as that of Wahhabism and American secular democracy are bound to clash. But Bush knows that it needs Saudi Arabia to maintain a stable oil supply. Otherwise, the fragile world economy will fall into a recession. So it cannot press Saudi Arabia to rein in the militants in their midst.

While the Saudi government is doing something, the Bush administration clearly wants them to do more. Private charities in the desert kingdom continue to provide funds to terrorist organizations and the government blocks investigations. The main source of Islamic terrorism is Arabia.

The Saudi regime is walking a tightrope between US pressure and its own militants. It needs the cloak of religion to gain legitimacy and has for centuries relied on the Wahhabis to provide this. It can only do so much to appease Washington without provoking a backlash.

I think Bush knows the terrorist problem lies more with their ally, Saudi Arabia than with their enemy, the secular Saddam Hussein. But the key to Riyadh lies in Bagdag. To pressure the Saudi regime, Bush needs Iraqi oil.

Right now, only a trickle of Iraqi oil reaches the world markets because of UN sanctions. To get more Iraqi oil in the market, Bush needs a friendly regime in Iraq.

With more Iraqi oil, dependence on Saudi oil would be lessened. This means that Bush would be able to wave the big stick at the Saudi regime.

I think the Saudis understand all this and they are therefore not enthusiastic about the idea of regime change in Iraq.

Pressure from the US to rein in their militants may provoke a backlash and threaten the Saudi regime. They may not survive.

Of course, there are other good reasons for Bush to attack Iraq. Besides the need to take control of Iraqi oil, there is the genuine fear of allowing a madman like Saddam to possess a nuclear weapon. Had he possessed one in 1990, the Gulf War may not have been fought.


Sujata (Mar 29, 2003 09:08 a.m.):
Saddam Hussein
Oilfields

************************************************** ******************** Pervez Musharraf
Poppy weeds

vivek
March 30th, 2003, 03:35 AM
My support for the war should in no way be construed as support for Musharraf. Mushharraf is a lying, two faced, thug, and I believe US knows it. US needed Musharraf to get rid of Taliban, and Bin laden hold over Afghanistan. Pakistanis are being treated like criminals in the US...all have to go to INS to be fingerprinted, and this tells a lot about how US treats Pakistani regime.

amitdahiya
March 31st, 2003, 06:53 PM
Bhai Rajiv
We Indians dont need to learn Psy Ops from the Yanks we practically invented them here in the orient. Iraq has been the cradle of 3 or is it 5 empires what can they learn from the Yanks but it seems to me that your mention of Psyops is actually meant to say something else. Not clear what youre trying to say pl elaborate.






Rajiv Lather (Mar 27, 2003 10:55 p.m.):
Anuj Kumar ji,

Brilliant post. Nothing more needs to be said on the subject.

Looks like the US psyops are an utter failure here on Jatland!

Rajiv Lather

amitdahiya
March 31st, 2003, 07:02 PM
Mr Tomar you are simply going to have to give up on the snide asides having started with that eminently forgettable one liner about gramatically challenged English. But coming back to the more important subject of this very important post I promise to respond seriously with practical thoughts if you forsake the snide asides. Is that a deal? We could use a good debate on Jatland and your post is the most promising subject at hand so why not.
Regards ( and I mean it)
Amit







Vivek Singh Tomar (Mar 25, 2003 07:33 p.m.):
[quote]Amit Dahiya (Delhi) (Mar 25, 2003 01:03 p.m.):
<<<Mr Tomar from demonstrating a juvenile strategy for war, a demonstration of intellectually challenged thought and finally to regressive logic youve come a long way in just one post so I will ignore your snide comment about my serious response to your important but topical post.>>>

Let's ignore your dillitente attempts at name calling and analyze the argumentative portion of your post.

<<<Are you aware that the international movement of water is governed by treaties and solemn national undertakings, so rock solid that to tamper with them arbitrarily can result in an instant declaration of war. >>>

I state that India is already at war with Pakistan. Even the deputy prime minister shares my view. Some people may call it a 'proxy war', but what difference does it make whether 60,000 people die in ten years, or a similar amount perish in two weeks. Pakistan has declared this war, and has been on the offensive. Defensive posturing by India has not worked for past 13 years, and there seems no indication that it will work in near future.


<<About your idea to send RAW agents to Baluchistan and Sind what makes you think this hasnt been tried and discarded as impractical for various reasons to simple to even list here for you. Please, your post is important lets stick to the issues and expand the thinking line on it. >>>

I know sending RAW agents to Baluchistan and Sind has been tried, but the policy has never been supported as vigorously as Pakistan supports Kashmir infiltration. (My father was a deputy director at RAW). I understand India's reluctance to undertake this venture at this time (USA troops etc.), However the measures I had laid out were seriously being considered by the administration prior to 9/11.

Its easy to criticize the strategy of war, as the whole concept of war is juvenile. However, to be ignorant of the realities is a bigger sin than merely being juvenile.

Its quite typical that you have offered no solutions. This attitude has resulted in a 'wait and see' thinking prevelant in Indian politics for last 20 years.

When Chaudhary Charan Singh was the home minister in 1978, it was arranged to have Pakistan's nuclear facilities destroyed by using Israel. However, first Morarji Desai got cold feet. Then the plan was put in action again when Charan Singh was Prime Minister, only to be derailed when Indira Gandhi took over. (How do I know...family close to the situation) It is this 'wait and see' and 'do nothing' attitude by spineless leaders that has brought us this situation

Nobody wins in nuclear confrontation, so the next option is to bankrupt Pakistan via a proxy war, and hit the terrorist before they begin their campaign. You got better ideas?

shokeen123
April 1st, 2003, 07:26 AM
Vivek, most of what you have said is true, until we dissect this bitter piece of truth a bit further, "I think Bush knows the terrorist problem lies more with their ally, Saudi Arabia than with their enemy, the secular Saddam Hussein"

Before US could take on to Saddam Hussein, there are two significant developments of overriding importance lurking on the horizon.

1.Al Kaeda and ABL are still at large; (whatever happened to hunting ABL?)
2. North Korea's subtle and bold gestures about nuclear war -- I am not sure if diplomatic approach alone will iron the wrinkles…?

However, the biggest truth is that never in the history, has UN Charter allowed any nation to take unilateral action against another (as ruthless as the regime may be); never in the history has a there been a preemptive military strike of this nature; never in the history has there been such massive, international antagonism about war. I must highlight a few concrete points in support of my stand against the war with Iraq.

1. Congress did not have the authority to override the UN Charter.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that international treaties like the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the U.S. in 1945, are the "supreme law of the land." The UN Charter, which was designed with the intention of preventing future wars, prohibits all wars of aggression and threats of such aggression. Therefore neither Congress nor the President has the constitutional authority to attack Iraq.

2. UN Security Resolution 687 does not authorize the use of military force in the event that Iraq refuses to admit the UN inspectors. UN Security Council Resolution 687, which ended the Gulf War and required Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, does not authorize the use of military force in the event that Iraq fails to uphold the mandate - nor do any subsequent resolutions passed by the UN Security Council.

3. UN Security Council Resolution 1154 leaves authority of enforcement of UN Res. 687 in the hands of the UN, not the U.S.

Even though UN Security Council Resolution 1154 threatened Iraq that its continued refusal to abide by Res. 687 would result in the "severest consequences," the UN Security Council clearly stated that it alone was authorized to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."

4. Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is the responsibility of the UN, not the U.S. The resolution states "that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council"

5. An unprovoked, preemptive, unilateral strike would violate several provisions of the United Nations Charter. Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to militarily enforce any resolution without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, the UN Security Council must explicitly authorize the use of military force.

6. Article 51 does not apply to the present situation with Iraq. It does not allow for a nation to preemptively 'defend itself' against an alleged threat - for that is not self-defense. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. Furthermore it only provides this military solution as a temporary one -until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary, its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war. The U.S. is certainly not under an ongoing attack…

While I am not endorsing the dictatorial brutal regime of Saddam, 250,000 Iraqis were killed in the first Gulf war (courtesy of Bush Sr.) and you can see the death and destruction from the current war in the privacy of your own living room, 24/7! No one ever talks about the collateral damage as much as winning the war by hook or crook. Can we genuinely decipher the civilian loss of life? The answer is resounding no! Why should the price of freedom lead to massive death and destruction? Why couldn't there have been more UN consensus?

And if reality is perception, the war is also being played in the Arab world and on their TV sets. The US may win the war, but might loose the hearts and minds of Arab/Iraqi people. And think about the long-term consequences (which you and I know too well) will give way to a much dangerous place to live. For every Muslim fanatic/militant that dies, 15 suicide terrorists are born out of sheer hatred for the US. I think the phrase that "The Muslim militants hate US more than they love their life" sums it all. How does that fit in the equation of a safer world? How will one eradicate the breeding Pakistani madrasas?

For law abiding citizens like you and me, and for all of us who chose to take refuge in our newly adopted homeland, the reality of that truth is already changing the landscape. There is no sense of freedom, indeed the sight and sounds, from hogging on to the duct tapes, plastic sheeting, to storing canned food and water bottles in the basement, there is an uncanny and gut wrenching fear of an impending doom. Everyday that I go to work, I have to go through a barrage of security procedures. It begins with my car being scanned by bomb sniffing K9s, then a smear of the interior of my car for potential traces of explosives, followed by a x-ray scan of my body and belongings. And God forbid for a humble Indian woman like me, a piece of metal should beep, that is all it takes to raise their antennas for further examination! I have stopped wearing jewelry lest I draw unneeded attention!

So I am not sure how this war is justified? As a human being I am more empathetic to preservation of human life and humanity, than victories tainted with blood of innocent casualties. For once, even the Washington pundits have a slightly different view than George W., case in point Andy Rooney's extremely polite but firm assertion on 60 minutes.

I hope you understand my point of view? I am sure we will be exchanging more notes on the aftermath, as the war draws to a close.....err whenever that may be...

vivek
April 1st, 2003, 09:36 AM
Sujata..

No UN charter was broken as there was no vote taken. Bush administration legal experts have claimed that 1441 gives US the authority to act...Further, if push came to shove, the Congress could have voted to leave the UN (and there have been strong rumors that US should do just that, as it contributes 25% of all the operating expenses). However, that's neither here nor there. The situation is exactly the same as when Clinton and NATO attacked Kosovo. For some reason that was politically correct. UN security council resolution would not have passed as Russia would have vetoed the resolution.

There was another body in 1920's called a "League of Nations" that did not enforce its resolution, just like the current UN does not have the stomach to enforce theirs (I will not go into the facts that peace loving French have a 90 billion dollars worth of oil futures contract that would be rendered worthless if Saddam is removed). The parallels between the two situations are frightening. There were not nearly the WMD's then as now, and 55 million people were killed in Europe alone...(even if it was not brought in color to your TV). The sad fact is that UN has solved not one problem in the world, and is merely nothing more than a debating society. Their actions are an afterthought...eg setting up refugee tents.

Saddam has been quoted as saying that 'only regret he had about the Gulf War is that he did not have nuclear weapons'. He's obviously not content about ruling Iraq. He invaded Iran, and then he invaded kuwait after realising that he had spent too much money invading Iran. He's a meglomaniac who is vengeful and spiteful. (I am sure you have read various accounts from Iraqi exiles).

Back to the Iran Iraq war. The outbreak of hostilities in 1980 was, in part, just another phase of the ancient Persian-Arab conflict that had been fueled by twentieth-century border disputes. Saddam Hussein, feared that Iran's new revolutionary leadership would threaten Iraq's delicate SunniShia balance and would exploit Iraq's geostrategic vulnerabilities--Iraq's minimal access to the Persian Gulf. Further, he mistakenly thought that he had a tremendous advantage as the Iranian equipment was mostly US made, and US was not supplying any spares to Iran.

Iraq and Iran had engaged in border clashes for many years and had revived the dormant Shatt al Arab waterway dispute in 1979. Iraq claimed the 200-kilometer channel up to the Iranian shore as its territory, while Iran insisted that the thalweg--a line running down the middle of the waterway--negotiated last in 1975, was the official border. The Iraqis, especially the Baath leadership, regarded the 1975 treaty as merely a truce, not a definitive settlement.

The seeds of Iraqi/Iran war were sown a lot earlier than when US entered the picture. US had good reason to oppose Iran's fundamental islamic state (Diplomat held hostage etc.), and did not want this spreading...so they supported Saddam.

US has supported many dictators, but the alternative has been a communist regime, or hard core Islamist, and the choice has frequently been lesser of the two evils. Its easy for the liberal egalitarians to overlook the millions killed by both Stalin and Mao in the name of communism, but the hypocrisy is shown in the shrill criticism of United States when it defends its own interests...perhaps its a praise that its held to a higher standard.

Lets not forget that if the 9/11 terrorist had nukes, they would not have hesitated to use them, and you and your offsprings would have been vaporized, rather than complain about the small discomfort you go through when being searched by security police. You complain that you are a slight Indian woman, who could do no harm, but wasn't it a slight woman that blew up Rajiv Gandhi. Terrorists look for this very weak spot to attack a system. I welcome the search, as I know those guys are doing their jobs, and I can sleep better at night.

Its good for a leader to be peaceloving, but it would be a sin for him to ignore the realities that could destroy his population. I suppose the Buddists that carved the statues in Baniyaan in Afghanistan were extremely peace loving too....Where are they now?

I believe that we have a difference in ideology that is shaped by life experiences. I am a realist, and believe in a strong military. I doubt if I could convince you as you are essentially an idealist. So let's agree to disagree, as I am getting a headache and I have said all I intend to say on this topic.

vivek
April 1st, 2003, 09:57 AM
One last comment. The battle against Taliban was not UN sanctioned either. If you are going to do legalize, the Congress gave Bush broad rights to fight terrorism in the resolution passed after 9/11. I believe, Bush is acting under that authority which is completely independent of the UN resolutions. We could argue this till sun comes up, but the fact is that war is on.

rajiv7
April 1st, 2003, 05:49 PM
night is lit
day is dark
freedom on march

night is gone
day is past
freedom at last

rajiv7
April 1st, 2003, 05:51 PM
before it cools
a smouldering hole
is bombed again

disguised as embers
the enemy hid
in the smoking ash

rajiv7
April 1st, 2003, 05:53 PM
'
thirsty child -
the ruptured oil pipe
causes a flood

rich sand
unable to soak
the extra blood
'

rajiv7
April 1st, 2003, 05:55 PM
to save the world
for every life
they drop a bomb

sticky stains
wont wash away
for years to come

amitdahiya
April 1st, 2003, 06:23 PM
Bhai Rajiv, Your poetry makes so much more sense than your cryptic references to Psy Ops. My humble advice to you stick to the poetry we are all better off for it.

Regards good wishes
Amit

Rajiv Lather (Apr 01, 2003 07:21 a.m.):
before it cools
a smouldering hole
is bombed again

disguised as embers
the enemy hid
in the smoking ash

shokeen123
April 2nd, 2003, 07:00 AM
Vivek:

I do believe we have ideological differences! Idealist or not, I am somewhat inclined to agreee to disagree.....Amen!