BUSH TO DELAY STRATERGY ON IRAQ UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
Let some more destruction occur .Aisi bhi kya Jaldi hai
After the colossal misadventure named IRAQ, America is looking forward to the report to be submitted by Mr. James Baker (an aide of GB senior) for its future course of action. Its dilemma is understandable. That is like being caught between a hard rock and the sea. If America stays in Iraq, things will worsen. If they get out of Iraq, things will worsen. On one hand, you have your own people, calling for the withdrawal of troops for the fear of more casualties, on the other hand, we have the Bush Administration abeying all calls for a retreat, for the fear of inciting a’’ civil’’ war
What civil war????? What has been civil about the entire invasion anyway? The systematic torture of innocent civilians in the name of extracting information about the so-called Terrorists was not civil. The doctored verdict, which resulted in the death sentence of Saddam Hussain, was not so civil. Moreover, the fact that according to the study conducted by one of the most respected Universities in the world (John Hopkins), more than 600000 Iraqis have died since the Iraqi debacle.
Though these figures were dismissed as exaggerated by the US Govt, they do no wink an eyelid on quoting the very own figures given by the same university while talking about the problem in Sudan. Body count estimates quotes the minimum number of Iraqi deaths to nearly 53,000.We can imagine the ceiling figure. Moreover, the American Troops have not been left untouched .According to the reports, more than 2500 American troops have died for the greater good of the world .That’s a lot more than the people killed in the 9/11 attacks.
If I remember correctly, Bush and Blair were one of the nominees for the Nobel Peace prize 2 or 3 years ago. How could the Nobel peace prize committee even think of nominating the two bloodthirsty, power hungry cowards for a noble cause?
America, with its “Saving the World “thing has indeed made the world a more dangerous thing to live in than the terrorists have. When the Anglo American invasion started, there were calls from the French, German socialists and other European countries to the Iraqi’s not to resist it. Was it a ploy to appease the US or was it that Iraqi people are of lower breed and inferior people who prefer to be ruled by a foreign power than by a tyrant. Whatever it is, the Europeans were disappointed. The Iraqis gave the Americans the taste of their own medicine. What bitter medicine it was!!!!!. They say that they have encountered a bloody and violent resistance to the invasion but WHEN YOU HAVE AN UGLY OCCUPATION, YOU CANNOT HAVE A BEAUTIFUL RESISTANCE. (According to Mr. Tariq Ali and am sure we all agree with that)
.
The Iraqi people have a very weird way of expressing their gratitude towards the Americans for emancipating them from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussain and giving them an opportunity to enjoy the true pleasures of life in Iraq and for the fortunate few, in the lap of God himself. .The people of Iraq are indeed very ungrateful. On the other hand, are they? There must be a reason behind the generosity of the Americans. What was it then?
Genuine concern for the Iraqi people?? Weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Was it Oil. Or for that matter that it was just a pro bono for their Israeli friends. Here George Bush helps us out.
The Americans were, according to Mr. George Bush, on a mission of God. At the beginning of the invasion, Big George confessed to have received the Stamp of God’s approval to pursue Saddam, to pursue Osama Bin Laden and to get rid the world of them. To quote his own words
“I am driven with a mission from God”
God would tell me “George, Go and fight the terrorists in Afghanistan “
And I did.
And then God would tell me “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq”
And I did. (The Hindu October 2006, date between 5-10th cannot remember exact date)
Imagine, if Hitler had told the same thing if he were tried for war crimes and the pogroms of Jewish people (60 lakh Jews to be exact).
Therefore, who are the Iraqi people to interfere with MISSION OF GOD? What about the after effects of this ugly war .The prisoner of so-called WAR AGAINST TERROR (read war against Islam) and the torture cells in Abu Gharib and Guantanmo Bay. Just to narrate a few incidents which make a shameful reading:-
“Jane Mayer writes about the death of an Iraqi prisoner Manadel al-Jamadi in Abu Gharib.His head was covered with a plastic bag and he was shackled in a position that led to asphyxiation (suffocated to death).
Humiliation and indignity were also very helpful tools in the process of interrogation. A prisoner in Guantanamo Bay was questioned for as long as 20 hours, forbidden to urinate until he ‘went’ on himself and made to bark like a dog. His treatment was an exercise in humiliation. There were also other reports of prisoners being chained hand and foot to the floor for 24 hours until they urinated and defecated on themselves.
Did GOD ask Big GEORGE to do this too?
How was this torture better than the ones conducted by the Saddam regime .The torture conducted by Saddam was one of a tyrannical, power hungry despot, while the Democratic, Liberal and Oh –so concerned about the world America, is conducting the present one. It is in true words PURE TERRORISM. Which one is better is anybody’s guess.
These were the incidents, which “have been reported”. ‘God’ knows what other hellish incidents occur at the detainee camps and the secret torture cells in Eastern Europe courtesy the CIA, under the guise of the war against terror.
And what did they get out of it, an increase in suspicion among the Islamic countries, a toll greater than 9/11, practical fear of being forced to leave Iraq to dogs, loss of sympathy from some, if not all of its admirers, a massive loss in popularity among its own people and complete lack of direction on what to do next. Poor dear, what an IGNOMINIOUS END TO A NOBLE MISSION.
SOURCES:-
The Hindu
New York Times
Google.com
Works of Tariq Ali
bbc.com
POST SCRIPT: For those interested I would suggest a reading a poem by the Syrian poet Nizar Kabbani titled I AM WITH TERRORISM.
46 comments:
the other day i was having a GD with my friends n who is winning the war in IRAQ ... it was interesting and a few points came forward
1. its is neither Afghanistan nor America nor the people of Afghanistan who are winning, its George bush who is
2. the war has been a total failure as it neither could achieve any NOBLE US objectives( of democracy blah blah ) nor could it achieve any of the US objectives of controlling the country and its oil resources
3 The US justification of staying back now to prevent a civil war could only come from a person as moronic as bush , even the presence of American forces has not been able to prevent the civil war already raging between Sunni and Shiite communities.the US talks of giving people rights n liberties now that they are free from the rule of Saddam Hussein .... but as you cited above ... i think they have more frights than rights
4.in the near future, there is no hope for Americans to withdraw and no scope for democracy .... IS THIS THE FORM OF US JIHAD OR THE HOLY CRUSADES... the same war of terror the us keeps talking of protecting the world about .......
lots of questions n no answers
anyways a very well compiled n written blog .. keep up the good work
all I want to say.. keep up the good work.. alot of research has been done on this blog.. I can see that.. was really nice to read.
Hi Adwait,I had a long debate on this issue with someone in my blog comments.I totally agree with you and i also remember reading those words of Bush (of God asking him to attack iraq) in news paper and also in many web sites.
One question keeps poking me whenever i see Bush - Whats the difference between Bush and Osama ?
See how much death and masaccre Bush has caused http://islam-peace-brotherhood.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-cnn-and-bbc-do-not-show-you.html
Look at those pics and tell me whats the difference between Bush and Osama.Is this what they call "fighting terrorism"? If Osama is called a terrorist for killing civilians instead of fighting US army,what should Bush be called ?
hi mr r1
it would be better if we corrospond in terms of first names
thanks for the comments
in reply to ur question on what bush is to be called, Mr Imran khan once said that bush was not intelligent enough to be a terririst. america has no plan and stratergy.it has only bombs and guns.
This is in reply to your comment at islam-peace-brotherhood.blogspot
The author of the blog has already refused to post my last statement.
He thinks I am insulting Islam and Muslims. I did not know which points. And even if he felt insulted, he should apply the proper manner to correct my statements.
He did not refute point by point and I had no chance to reply.
But I saw your comment on atomic bombs dropping over Japan.
Here is my response:
To Adwait;
You are generalizing and are looking at the surface only without digging deeper into reasons. Nobody knows what it was like to be under Japanese occupation other than Chinese and Korean people. You missed the significance of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Even towards the end of World War II in 1945, Japan was still a considerable force to fight. Their mainland was still a fortress. The Japanese had hundreds of first-class airplanes powered by Mitsubishi engines to guard their homeland. There were ready suicide pilots for both submarines and planes. Not to mention, the Japanese imperial forces occupying Southeast Asia. In short, even in July 1945, Japanese were still tough to defeat.
The Japanese military leaders knew this. They threatened to prolong the war with the allies. They vowed to fight to their last man in their homeland, knowing very well that the allies would have lost many lives had they attempted to invade Japanese homeland.
A military report suggested that it would take over a million allied soldiers to die had the ground invasion was to proceed – a million people of young fathers and sons. Yet throughout the war and prior to the dropping of atomic bombs, the Americans had been asking for unconditional surrender.
Throughout this time also, Chinese, Koreans and the rest of Southeast Asian people were being tortured and murdered everyday. Had the bombs been dropped earlier by even a month, hundreds if not thousands of these poor victims of Japanese army would have been saved.
The Americans did not drop the atomic bombs just to show their might. Prior to the bombings, consultations were taken. Allied powers such as France and Britain were informed. The Chinese nationalist government had also been informed and asked for opinions.
And perhaps it is important for you people to understand, Chinese people were pressing hard for the quick resolution of the war with Japanese. No where were the murders and tortures worse than in China and Korea. No other people suffered more than Chinese and Koreans. These people were being decimated day by day by the sadistic Japanese imperial forces.
The decision to drop the atomic bombs was a collective decision. It looked like the Americans are doing it alone. The bombs were dropped after the executive order from President Truman from American planes piloted by Americans. But the truth was it was not. The Americans were just like hired hands. There were the hands of Chinese, Korean and other allied nations in it.
The bombs were an answer to Japanese military’s stubbornness. It saved many Chinese lives especially, not to mention others under the Japanese occupation. The atomic bombs were dropped out of necessity. It was a choice of lesser evil. There was no other option.
Yes, there was. That was to fight for every inch of every Chinese soil, Korean soil, Indonesian soil, Malaysian soil and every other land the Japanese army occupied.
You do the estimated sum for casualties.
I, as a Chinese, endorse the decision by the allied forces to drop the atomic bombs on Japanese cities because I believe the benefits far outweigh the costs. Chinese people were free. And I believe that Koreans and the rest of indigenous Southeast Asians were relieved from the fear of Japanese sadism when the Japanese generals signed the surrender agreement on September 2nd 1945.
We escaped unspeakable horrors.
I have seen your blog profile. You have an interest in international affairs. All the more reason you should bear with me with my opinions. I have little respect for R1 because he single-handedly declared himself a winner in a debate at his blog without allowing me to present my closing.
I say he needs to learn manners. I was invited by himself. And he wasted my precious time when he rejected my article.
If I am wrong in my position, corner and assault me with real arguments. I don't see that quality and guts in R1.
I hope to see more tolerance and response here.
Thanks.
so mr true conscience u feel that killing of a few lakh people to "save the world" is a valid reason to drop the atom bomb on a country however evil it may be.
i gave an example of the atom bomb to drive the point about double standards of the americans.so when it comes to human life a loss of one life is as bad as loss of hundred lives.u talk about the situation under the cruel japaneese rule .
""And perhaps it is important for you people to understand, Chinese people were pressing hard for the quick resolution of the war with Japanese. No where were the murders and tortures worse than in China and Korea. No other people suffered more than Chinese and Koreans. These people were being decimated day by day by the sadistic Japanese imperial forces""
remember that india was under british rule for more than 200 years and the british literally sapped away all the wealth and the conscience of the indians.
untold tragedies had taken place under the Queens rule what is ur take on that. the britishers had india , canada ,south east asia ,parts of africa ,thats a lot more than the japaneese occupied territory .do u think they treated all their captured locals in a good way.in the name of bettering the lives of people there.why not drop a bomb on britain then
you talk of no option in the world war , then what do you think of the iraq war .according to american experts containment had always and would have worked in Iraq instead of the illegal invasion.
and about lesser evil., do u think the people of iraq feel liberated and free after the american invasion .have their lives changed for good.or are they so lowly people who prefer to live under the foreign rule, rather than a homegrown leader.
Mr Adwait,
We all do not want wars. But I believe there comes a time when a war becomes the only option to get rid of evil. Let me quote my previous post in R1’s blog;
“War is bad but, under certain circumstances, can be a necessary evil. We have to admit there are bad powerful people who can only be disposed of by war. Hitler was an infamous example.
Our lives at present might not be perfect but this life has been made better by those people who chose not to make peace with Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese government in Asia. Had they chosen to appease those dictators, humanity would have taken a few steps backward by endorsing the perverted view of racial superiority championed by those evils. A worldwide caste system (based on racism) would be born and those being at the bottom will suffer the most.”
Do you really think that a person like Hitler could be removed by ordinary Germans? He gripped the society so tight that fighting from inside was virtually impossible. The Allied freed Germany from Hitler. Look at what it is today! Prosperous and free, and best of all, it has a gracious society. A racist Germany under Nazi would never absorb Turkish immigrants. Don’t you think the World War Two was worth fighting?
What happened to India also happened to Chinese. Americans, British, French, Germans, Italians and Japanese took turns and sometimes worked in cahoots to force concessions after concessions from Chinese people. They demanded free ports, imposed their own laws and those foreigners were immune from laws if they committed crimes on Chinese soil. They enslaved Chinese people for hundreds of years too. And the most painful memory was the Opium War. Those wicked traders virtually poisoned several generations of Chinese – from grandfathers to grandchildren.
Do I still hold grudges against them? No more because their humiliation allows us (Chinese people) to realize our own stupidity and backwardness. Our people learnt to get rid of our bigotry and move forward.
I accept the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan not because I hate them, but it was because the world was dealing with a different kind of Japan at that time.
You were talking about Indians who suffered for hundreds of years in the past. I too, like you, do not choose to dwell in the past colonialism to get even with the western powers now.
The issue of dropping atomic bombs was about saving MORE lives THEN.
When the dropping of atomic bombs could help save lives AT THAT TIME, it became a different matter. I am talking about the enslaved Asian people under Japanese imperial rule in 1945. There were people who were not dead yet. These are the people who could be saved. And they were saved because of the atomic bombs. I am talking about the people who were still alive then.
When Japanese imperial government signed the unconditional surrender agreement on September 2nd 1945, the killings ceased from then on. You realize how many were saved? If you delayed a day, how many more could have died?
The dropping of atomic bombs was a big decision. It was NOT revenge. It was to pressure the Japanese to cease fighting and surrender. The Allied (I refused to say that it was solely American decision) powers dropped one bomb on Hiroshima and then quickly demanded the Japanese government to surrender. Don’t you think that was fair enough? The Allied powers had given the Japanese time to think before the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
But what did they do in response? The Japanese authorities then mobilized the whole population for (what they then thought) a possible ground invasion. The Chief of Staff of the Imperial Army even called for a national suicide attack (Kamikaze)!
Mr. Adwait, sometimes a tough situation does demand a tough response. Let us not pretend that the Allied powers were conscience-less at that time. These leaders had families. On the day when both atomic bombs were dropped, not a single American leader clapped their hands. They all mourned. Nobody celebrates that day till today.
You think Chinese people celebrate that day? No, we do not. If I have the chance to go to Hiroshima, I too would observe a moment of silence to honor those innocent Japanese civilians. I know many Chinese do.
It was a tragic loss but considering the military fanaticism of the Japanese army at that time, (if the bombs were not dropped), the war could have dragged on even longer and more that could be saved could have died.
Let me remind you, I am talking about a different Japan.
Yes, it was a choice of lesser evil. The dropping of atomic bombs was still evil no matter how we justify it. But it had been a necessity at that time – a necessity that nobody is proud of (even for a victim of Japanese torture).
Mr. Adwait, in your blogger profile, you expressed your ambition to serve in the civil services. I do hope you realize that in politics certain matters can be very complicated and often times, there would not be an easy way out. Sometimes, it boils down to serving a greater good. And while serving for a greater good, there are times when you would find yourself battling with your own conscience.
Do not think just because I endorse the atomic bombings, I am a man without conscience. I place a special care not to lose my humanity, but the reality has been really harsh. Bad people often use our conscience to defeat us. They often play cunning games.
I wish you good luck in your studies and good luck to your ambition too.
You are a good man, but sometimes goodness does not necessarily lead to the right actions.
Regards,
True Cons
PS: I will write articles to answer your queries. I am glad you asked. But due to time constraints, I will have to post one at a time.
Mr Adwait,
Before I proceed to discuss the current Iraqi war, I would like to inquire a certain insight to your belief.
Do you believe in just wars? I would like to assume that you do. A country should have armed forces to defend itself from aggression.
I don’t want to engage a discussion with lunatic pacifists who dismiss all wars as evil. There is no point in talking to them. To this type of people, even having an army is wrong.
I hate wars, but there are times when wars are the only way out in settling conflicts. There are bad people out there testing our guts every now and then to compromise the values we hold dear.
I will explain to you what is wrong with this war and why the blame should not be solely on Americans.
In my following articles, I would compare Iraqis to the Japanese, both occupied people at different times by the same power, the Americans. Why Japanese can make it, and why Iraqis cannot.
Now, answer me; are you a pacifist? if you are, please ask your country to disband the Indian army. Even supporting them will be a wrong thing for you to do.
But if you are not, then we are ready to talk.
Thanks
True Cons
Mr. Adwait,
I came across this rather interesting analytical article from a web site. Your blog viewers have read the article "Circus in Iraq". I hope this could help balance the critics of Americans.
Like I have debated in islamic-peace-brotherhood blogspot, it is time to put the responsibility of nation-building to Iraqis themselves. Iraqis have a lot to learn from Japanese. It is time for Iraqis to grow up and be mature men.
IRAQ: Did It Have To Be A Mess?
By: Mumin Salih.
Who can forget the scenes of jubilant Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad in 2003? Who can forget the cheerful Iraqis around the falling statue of Saddam, symbolising the fall of the dictator’s regime?
Indeed, the majority of Iraqis were supportive to the efforts of liberating Iraq from the tight grip of Iraq’s worst dictator. That includes the vast majority of Kurds (about 20% of the total population) and the Shia (about 60% of the total population), as well as many sunni Arabs (about 20% of the total population). All these groups had suffered badly and sadly at the hands of Saddam’s Baath regime. They considered the war as a liberation war, rather than an occupation of Iraq. The American and British forces fought skilfully and won an easy military victory with minimal losses. Although Saddam and his Baath regime collapsed having provided minimal resistance, the jubilation soon started to fade away as the situation deteriorated rapidly. With so many killed, kidnapped and so many scandals spreading around, even the most sincere supporters of the war had to reconsider their positions and admit that Iraq is in a mess. But did not have to be?
The success or failure of America in Iraq is of significance to both America and Iraq, the final outcome from this war may have a lasting effect on America’s standing in future conflicts. I can take this even further and say that many of the principles of the western civilization may be at stake. Failure in Iraq may signify that the seeds of destruction of the western civilization may be growing faster than had been previously thought. Let us briefly review the most recent history on this.
The first gulf war in 1990 caused the most serious division in the Arab world. The war ended with Saddam’s humiliating defeat and left him with a tarnished image in the Arab world. The late King Hussein of Jordan, who was widely believed to be the most influential Arab leader in his time, was initially in the pro Iraq camp, which gave Saddam a badly needed moral support. After the war, the King distanced himself from the Iraqi dictator and then turned his back on him. Even some of Saddam’s own generals, including his own two sons-in-laws and high-ranking aids defected to Jordan, leaving the dictator politically isolated. The few years that followed the gulf war defeat were Saddam’s worst years, especially after the attempt to assassinate his eldest son Uday, which left the flamboyant playboy crippled for the rest of his life. The future of Saddam looked very bleak indeed, and many observers predicted his imminent downfall.
Then the tide started to change with the launch of Aljazeera TV in 1996 with its pro Saddam agenda. The Iraqi issue was always central to Aljazeera, especially the sanctions issue. They propagated that tens of thousands of Iraqi children die every week because of the sanctions. Time and time again, Aljazeera repeated the claims frequently quoting sources from the American and European left, until they brain washed their gullible audience with this lie. The more sophisticated Arabs turned to the American and British media in an attempt to get the full picture, only to find a mainly neutral media that is contented with only echoing the Iraqi claims with no real effort to investigate and refute them. Even today, most Arabs still do not know the fact that food and medicines were excluded from the sanctions from the beginning.
Issues like the careless management of the Iraqi money, the various financial privileges to Arab and non-Arab journalists, the ‘Saddam vouchers’ and the massive palaces that were built under the sanctions, were never mentioned by Aljazeera, and only briefly came to light by the western media. The dominant news of the time was about a starving nation and dying children because of the ‘unjustified American sanctions’. I am still puzzled, even today, about the way the western media handled the Iraqi issue, and why the Iraqi claims of dying children were allowed to be repeated without ever investigating its truth or drawing the attention to Saddam’s responsibility on all this. I am afraid the Americans did not present their case well to the world and left their opponent’s point of view to enjoy an almost unchallenged dominance.
The result? By the end of the 1990s the majority of the Arabs became supporters to Saddam, not because they liked him but because they hated America and its ‘unjustified sanctions’, thanks to Aljazeera and the dumb American media!
The west is obsessed with the values of democracy and freedom in the same way fanatic Muslims are obsessed with Islam. Both groups are unable to believe that in certain circumstances, there can be more suitable alternatives. I am not suggesting for a minute to abandon these highly cherished human values, but extremism in anything can be counterproductive. Work is good but excessive work is not, resting is good but excessive resting is not, eating is good but excessive eating is not. In the case of Iraq, the Americans became so obsessed with applying democracy to where it doesn’t belong or valued.
On the other hand, The Arabs have no real love for democracy and not ashamed to say it. Strict Muslims openly dismiss western style democracy as a sin that should be avoided. Their version of democracy is called shoura, which is a council of advisers appointed by the head of state. It is not a secret that Islamic parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, use democracy to seize power but once in control they plan to eliminate the infidel non-Islamic parties from the political field.
The Iraqis, and the Arabs in general, are dictators in their nature. They regularly practice their dictatorship in their daily lives; parents in their homes, teachers in their schools, managers in their departments and so on. They strongly believe in the stick and carrot rule and advocate a system of incentives and penalties to make their subjects do what they are asked to do. They follow the example of the Quran, which, to make people listen to Mohammed, promises paradise and threatens with hell.
It is important to understand that no matter how cruel or kind the Americans are in Iraq, is not going to change what the brain-washed Arab masses think of America. The Arabs, and Muslims in general, think of America as the great Satan whose mission is to destroy Islam and kill Muslims. In this sense, scandals like Abu Ghraib or the desecration of the Quran bring nothing new, but only confirm the already established misconceptions, because what the Muslims already believe about the Americans is far worse. The American efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims cannot be more futile.
The Hypothetical Iraq
In considering Iraq, one cannot help but to draw some comparisons between the Americans’ management of Iraq and that of Saddam’s. We already heard some comments from all sides that Saddam’s Iraq was a better one, with which I disagree completely. But the fact the comparisons have been made is in itself an indication of the gravity of the situation.
The comparison doesn’t have to be only with Saddam’s rule; the government of Saudi Arabia is ruling a vast country with a population of mainly Muslim fanatics who oppose the Saudi regime, yet many see the country as icon stability in the Middle East. At this point, one may start to think of the unthinkable and ask the questions no one dares to ask; can autocracy succeed where democracy fails? And can repression succeed where freedom fails?
Let us make a hypothetical assumption that the control of post war Iraq was given to a ruthless general, say one with an Arab mentality similar to any Arab dictator like the late Hafez Al Asad of Syria or Saddam Hussein himself. Let us call that hypothetical personality General Ruthless and, based on the past experiences of the Middle East, let us see how he would have handled the post war Iraq.
From the outset, General Ruthless would make it clear he doesn’t tolerate any leniency in the liberated country. He would enforce a curfew for the first few days while his forces establish their hold on the country, he might give his forces the power to capture or even shoot looters and others who do not comply with law. Scores of innocent civilians get killed, injured or imprisoned as a result of such violent policy, which only confirms the ruthlessness of the new governor. The outside world would only know very little about what is happening because General Ruthless would impose complete censorship on reports coming out of the country. Any leaks of bad news would be strongly denied.
Suicide bombing, kidnappings and other terrorists’ activities that flourished in real life, would become harder to carry out and would not get the wide publicity they enjoyed in the real war scenario. Lack of reporting would deny the terrorists of an important source of information and feedback. The few terrorists’ activities that do get through would go largely unnoticed and unreported, therefore have little influence on public opinion inside and outside the country. People would perceive a sense of reasonable stability, which encourages more people to turn to work confirming the sense of stability even further. On the other hand, terrorists would get frustrated because the lack of media coverage denies them an important communication tool with regard to the full impact of their activities. It becomes even harder for them to recruit young Iraqis.
Incidents like Abu Graib scandal would be dealt with harshly but secretly avoiding the incalculable damage it has caused to the real war effort. Remember that publishing the disgusting pictures for every one to see just added salt to the wounds of the victims and the Iraqis in general, without doing any good to the Americans with the terrorists being the only beneficiaries. The various sporadic rebellions like the Shia rebellion led by Muqtada Al Sadr or the Sunni rebellion in Falluja would probably not happen at all.
General Ruthless might even take steps to deny the terrorists any access to the Internet or satellite television, denying them of their most important weapon- propaganda. After all, the Internet is an American property.
General Ruthless’ harsh measures would undoubtedly result in angry criticism from various groups inside and outside America, but nothing in the scale of criticism we have seen in the real life scenario, stability of Iraq would silence many fierce opponents. Such heavy handed approach would undoubtedly result in considerable loss of lives but, again, nothing on the scale we saw in the real life scenario.
America started losing the war before it even started, the slow build up to the war that preceded the military operations only played in the hands of the anti-war groups worldwide. General Ruthless wouldn’t allow this to proceed in the way it did. It was clear, then and now, that the secular Baath regime started to make alliances with the Islamic radical groups and actively sought the destruction of American targets by all means, therefore it has become a serious threat. America has the right to defend its people and its interests. Playing polite and trying to make it a legal war was like a joke and led America to nowhere. How many wars in history we agree to be legal wars? We must not forget that from the Iraqis’ point of view, it was a moral obligation of the west to remove Saddam. The Iraqis believed the West is largely to be blamed for supporting the dictator and creating from him the demon he was. Therefore, from the Iraqi point of view, the West had a moral responsibility to help to get rid of the dictator. Ironically, the possession of weapons of mass destruction, from the Iraqi and Arabic point of view, was not a point against Saddam, but a point in his favour!
I am afraid even the ruthlessness of General Ruthless would have scored more success and caused less damage than the Americans had done. This purely hypothetical assumption only exposes the weaknesses of the West more than it reflects the wisdom of our hypothetical ruthless General. If America cannot win this war then it is hard to believe it can win any war. America’s failure in Iraq may leave a long lasting scar, but the Americans have can only blame themselves before blaming the others.
In later response, the author of the article further added;
"I agree with you that AlQaeda wants us to believe that the US (I don’t think you meant the UN) made a mess in Iraq. They are using killings, kidnappings, and sectarian tensions to prove their point. It seems to me that the majority of people agree with them, even Tony Blair, in his recent interview with Aljazeera’s David Frost described Iraq as a disaster!"
"And let me say this: if you give the Iraqis, or any Arab nation, the choice they will choose the Islamists. Look what happened in the Palestinian authority and the Egyptian elections. The trend now in the Arabic opinion is more and more of Islam, and more hate to the Jews and America. I say this with total confidence, and first hand experience.
Also I must point out that it is hard to see how a free democracy in Iraq can survive when all the surrounding countries are opposing to it. You see, it is not that the countries which are radicalised, it’s the people. The problem is not only Syria but the Syrians, and the Egyptians and the Jordanians…
In the Article, I mentioned briefly about Aljazeera. Previously I wrote about the role of this channel, and will never get tired of saying that Aljazeera is the Arabic lethal/nuclear weapon which America does not seem to want to recognize or face.
The war against terror is a propaganda war, a clever business of brainwashing the masses which Aljazeera has perfected. Islamic Terrorism itself is a result of brainwashing. Some may say Aljazeera influences only the Arabs, so what about the majority of non-Muslim Arabs? My answer is that the Arabs are in control of Islam, which is based on an Arabic language book. Sadly, the majority of non-Arabs are usually happy follow."
My comment:
Bush is not cruel, he is naive just as the rest of the world.
These draconian acts of bush are condemnable to the core.. His job was over the moment he restored democracy but he is still dithering.. Inclusion of robert gates at the expense of donald rumsfeld does not seem to have any damn impact.. killings are still continuing.. well researched adwait..
Unbelievable! Garcia wanted Bush to restore democracy in Iraq but blamed Bush for the war there. How can democracy be restored there when Saddam was still in power?
Didn’t he know that before this current war, embargoes after embargoes had been imposed on Iraq? What other peaceful options are available? Unless you think that Iraqis do not deserve democracy like India!
For me, article of Mumin Salih had answered what is wrong with Iraq. Again in the opening of his article, he reminded us how jubilant the Iraqis were when American troops arrived in Baghdad. I even still remembered how the ordinary Iraqis were too happy to help American soldiers topple Saddam’s statue in the middle of the city. They were all enthusiastic about being freed after bounded for so long.
This is one reason why Americans were able to occupy Iraq very fast. They reached Baghdad in no time because most of the populace there saw them as liberators.
The trouble only started when Al-Qaeda, Syria, and Iran agents began infiltrating the Iraqi society to instigate insurgencies. These groups have every reason to destabilize Iraq. These groups fear that under America, Iraq could be a success story just like Japan. Worse, Iraq could well be the only perfect and prosperous democracy in the region.
This outcome is simply too much for the neighboring dictators to swallow. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy, the neighboring people will want it as well. Authoritarian governments in Syria, Iran and the rest in the region will fall.
In his comment, Garcia blamed America for the killings. My Gosh! So the current sectarian violence was also Bush’s fault? If more killings are done in the name of religion, it becomes Bush’s business? Sunnis and Shias dispute cost more than 100 people a day. Terrorists also kidnap young people who joined the new Iraqi armed forces and kill them with a bullet in the head. Bush’s fault?
Yet Garcia, you want Iraq to have democracy?
When America occupied Japan in 1945, they got rid of the worst element in the government. They removed and tried those military and civilian leaders responsible for the war and subsequent murders. Japan had a clean start. Americans had no responsibility to make Japan successful. Japanese itself realized that success or not, it would depend solely on themselves.
The Japanese could very well choose the path that stupid Iraqis are taking today. Form bands of insurgent guerilla forces to fight American invaders and waste the precious time of nation-building. But they did not.
The Japanese listened to the call of their emperor and their new leadership elite. They vowed to revive Japan and make it prosperous again. In just ten years, their national GDP was back to the pre-war level. It was a miracle! It shows that when a people are united, nothing can stand in the way. The collective Japanese’s decision to rapidly build their economy under America was not only smart, but wise as well.
The Japanese are lucky that it had a far-sighted leadership at that time. They have proven to themselves and the world, they can act responsibly and be mature when the situation called for such an attitude. It was commendable. This alone should be ble to put Iraqis to shame.
America has no business to make Iraqis successful. Success or not, it will depend on Iraqis themselves. Nobody is responsible for making me rich. It is absurd to think that Americans should be responsible for building every tall building, every home, and every airplane for Iraqis. These should be the work of Iraqis themselves.
America has helped Iraqis get rid of their obstacles – Saddam. It is up to Iraqis to decide what to do next. I am truly disappointed with Iraqis. They are so different from the Japanese.
Imagine if you have a friend. One day, your friend gets killed in an accident. Would you go back to your friend’s son to tell him that he is going to be poor from now because his dad, the family’s sole breadwinner, had died in an accident? No! You would ask the son to fight for his life and show to the world that he could make it even without his father!
The more we blame Bush for everything, the more we lend credibility to Iraqis that their failure now is not their own making, but Bush! These Iraqis would never get up.
They will never become mature adults. They will have this mentality to blame others for their failure. And each of us who is blaming Bush for the war helps their doom.
It is unforgivable sin.
The stories of Iraq and Japan are not only interesting but also inspirational. I will tell every kid I know, every son I meet about it. It is a story of the correct attitude in life. When Japan started their new life under America, their situation was far worse than Iraq now. Almost all Japanese cities were flattened out, Tokyo was a flat land. They did not have even oil to start with – no wealth whatsoever.
Japan had only one thing – a united and determined people who refused to look back and blame for their devastation on any scapegoat they could find.
They made it!
On the other hands, Iraqis choose not to.
Only now I realize that Iraqis are not Japanese. And I want my kids to be Japanese in spirit.
I want them to be smart, wise and mature.
Mr. Adwait,
You asked;
"Do u think the people of Iraq feel liberated and free after the American invasion .have their lives changed for good?"
I answered;
Yes, the people of Iraq felt free and liberated after the American forces came to town. You can search for pictures of jubilant Iraqis celebrating Saddam’s fall.
As for your second question about their lives changing for good, I am sorry to say that nobody is responsible for making anybody’s life good. You Indians have no responsibility to make Chinese people like me prosperous. Neither have I had such an obligation towards you Indian people.
Each of us should stand up on our own. Let’s not encourage beggar mentality among ourselves.
The war is not about making the Iraqis’ lives better. It’s about freeing Iraqis from a dictator who have been killing many of his own people. After that, the Iraqis are to decide what to do themselves. Americans are not there to baby-sit them.
If you think that this war is not worth fighting, think of the Kurds massacre that happened after the First Gulf War. It was preventable if only the coalition forces had decided to remove Saddam in 1991. But they did not.
The blood of innocent Kurds shall be on their conscience. Saddam used inhume methods to exterminate them with poison gas.
One can decide to oppose wars just like you do now. But realize this, silence kills. Inaction kills. The longer you wait, the more people will die. You think this war is not worth it, but what if Saddam were to finish off the remaining Kurds?
Can you sleep well with such a conscience?
Saddam can say YES to his murder plans, but it takes the world to say “NO to war” for him to have a free ticket to carry it out.
If you are interested in international affairs, you should consider all these. That’s why most governments around the world don’t put priests in charge of their foreign affairs portfolio – because more often, it is about the choice of lesser evil and greater good than a mere conscience.
mr true conscience
First, what u told is partially correct about the Iraqi people rejoicing the fall of saddam and pulling down his statue. If u were careful enough to notice, then the people pulling down the statue were not the common Iraqis but the messengers of the puppet government, which was soon to be installed in Iraq.
U say Saddam used inhuman methods to exterminate them with poison gas.
Let me give u a brief list of methods used by American to torture live people
Bush sent a directive that the resistances in Iraq were to be treated as terrorists, unprotected by the Geneva conventions. This left the fighters and POWs open to any conceivable torture.
• Killing wounded prisoners
• Murder
• Kicking prisoners to death
• Sodomy with a broomstick and chemical light.
• Water-boarding where a suspect is strapped to a board, turned upside down, and immersed in a wet towel to simulate the feeling of drowning until he loses consciousness.
• Throwing off bridge into river and drowning
• Near suffocation
• Parents forced to watch son being tortured.
• Government documents show soldiers were ordered to “beat the fuck out of” prisoners.
• Chaining to the ceilings of cells for days at a time.
• Common personae strike aimed at a point just below the knee and intended to disable. Pulpifying the legs so they look as though they had though they had been run over by a bus.
• Starvation
• Sleep and sensory deprivation: Covering the eyes, ears, wrapping the body in bubble wrap. After a few hours of this, hallucinations set in then eventually permanent insanity.
• Claustrophobic technique: stuffing POWs into a sleeping bag and winding them with an electrical cord.
• Water pit in which detainees have to stand on tiptoe to keep from drowning.
• Breaking a teen's jaw, then wiring it shut.
Is this not inhuman????
United Nations secretary-general for one, has concluded that the “average Iraqi’s life” is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein and that the situation in Iraq is now "much worse" than a civil war. Even some republicans now say openly that Bush's war in Iraq may be 'criminal'. Only President George W. Bush and his Rasputin-like vice president, it seems, continue to think that their wrecking-crew the Middle East policy makes any sense. Even departing Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejects bluntly their stubborn "stay-the-course" and “must-complete-the-mission” policy.
The reasons behind the war, in their own words were as follows
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The weapons have still not been found. Nader emphasized, “Until the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was our government's anti-communist ally in the Middle East. We also used him to keep Iran at bay. In so doing, in the 1980s under Reagan and the first Bush, corporations were licensed by the Department of Commerce to export the materials for chemical and biological weapons that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney later accused him of having.” Those weapons were destroyed after the Gulf War. President Bush's favorite chief weapons inspector, David Kay, after returning from Iraq and leading a large team of inspectors and spending nearly half a billion dollars told the president “We were wrong.” See: David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, 2004-01-28.
Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's Europe division, revealed that in the fall of 2002, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq's foreign minister — who agreed to act as a spy for the United States — had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program.
""The trouble only started when Al-Qaeda, Syria, and Iran agents began infiltrating the Iraqi society to instigate insurgencies. These groups have every reason to destabilize Iraq. These groups fear that under America, Iraq could be a success story just like Japan. Worse, Iraq could well be the only perfect and prosperous democracy in the region."" thats wat u say
Iraq Ties to Al Qaeda. The White House made this claim even though the CIA and FBI repeatedly told the Administration that there was no tie between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They were mortal enemies — one secular, the other fundamentalist.
Saddam Hussein was a Threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam was a tottering dictator, with an antiquated, fractured army of low morale and with Kurdish enemies in Northern Iraq and Shiite adversaries in the South of Iraq. He did not even control the air space over most of Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was a Threat to his Neighbors. In fact, Iraq was surrounded by countries with far superior military forces. Turkey, Iran and Israel were all capable of obliterating any aggressive move by the Iraqi dictator.
The Liberation of the Iraqi People. There are brutal dictators throughout the world, many supported over the years by Washington, whose people need “liberation” from their leaders. This is not a persuasive argument since for Iraq, it is about oil. In fact, the occupation of Iraq by the United States is a magnet for increasing violence, anarchy and insurrection.
We know he has been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons,.
Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 2003-03-16
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW convention, 2002-08-26
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair Interview, 2003-05-28
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-21
But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-04-10
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2002-12-02
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
General Tommy Franks, Press Conference, 2003-03-22
I have no doubt we are going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Ken Adelman, Defense Policy Board member, Washington Post, 2003-03-23
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Patricia Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman, Press Briefing, 2003-03-22
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Washington Post, op-ed, 2003-04-09
The war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
Donald Rumsfeld, 2003-02-07, apparently not.
Senator Sam Levin released formerly classified documents that undercut top Bush pre-Iraq war claims of a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
These documents are additional compelling evidence that the intelligence community did not believe there was a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, despite public comments by the highest-ranking officials in our government to the contrary.
Senator Carl Levin, 2005-04-16
The Atomic Energy Commission said Saddam had no nuclear program. They could tell because sensitive instruments checking rivers and ground water would detect one if there were. See Chain Of Command
Weapons inspectors including American inspectors declared Iraq had no weapons.
His traditional allies did not believe his solid proof. That includes Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and Russia. If none of these military allies bought it, how could it have been so solid? Surely, you don't take chances with someone about to nuke you with drones, yet still America's allies insisted Bush's was bluffing. France denounced Bush's claim as completely fraudulent in the UN. Others were more diplomatic.
The UN had repeatedly searched Iraq and found nothing. There were American members on that U.N. team whom Bush could have told where to look if he actually knew anything. They still found nothing.
Bush used the vague term WMD instead of being specific about just what is was he suspected Saddam of having. If he truly knew he could have said, “Saddam has X kilograms of sarin poison gas” or “enough plutonium for three Hiroshima sized nuclear bombs.” However, he did not, thus covering his ass so that if he found even one rusty canister of the poison gas Rumsfeld sold Saddam on credit for the Iran war, it would count as a WMD.
CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees have been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.
“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
What’s your take on that???
Mr. Adwait,
I shall reply your concerns in the following separate articles.
-----------------------------------------------------
CAN A FREELY ELECTED GOVERNMENT BE A PUPPET?
First you said:
(“First, what u told is partially correct about the Iraqi people rejoicing the fall of Saddam and pulling down his statue. If u were careful enough to notice, then the people pulling down the statue were not the common Iraqis but the messengers of the puppet government, which was soon to be installed in Iraq.”)
You are accusing the people tearing down symbols of Saddam Hussein as messengers of the puppet government. That’s pretty harsh.
I am wondering how you had noticed that. Can you tell the difference from the pictures which ones were common Iraqis or the messengers of the puppet government? Did those puppets have different facial features?
I have read testimonies by Iraqis-in-exile of how brutal Saddam was. Are you telling me that despite those things he had committed, the people of Iraq were still behind him? I know that before this current war started, Saddam had tried to convince the West that he was a legitimate leader of the Iraqi people by staging an election that gave him 100% full support.
But surely you don’t believe that too?
I very much would like to maintain that those in the pictures are common Iraqis. You single-handedly claimed that those are American puppets. So you decide which one should be the right feeling of the Iraqis? You dismissed those who genuinely seek freedom from Saddam as traitorous Iraqis?
I think that’s a bit of overdone.
Another thing is what you said about a puppet government that would soon to be installed in Iraq. That puzzled me. How do you know that it was a puppet government?
Even at the beginning of the war, Bush had told the world repeatedly that the American occupation will not stay in Iraq forever. Elections will be held. Iraqis are to decide their leaders themselves.
If even by free elections, you still claim that the government to be in power as an American puppet, I would not know how else Iraqis should have a genuine independent government.
We know that some terrorist groups have threatened to gun down those who participated in the elections. We also know that they have killed a number of prominent politicians capable of rallying the Iraqi people back to nation-building. Their aim is to throw Iraq to chaos. And these terrorists are definitely NOT Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------
NOBODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYBODY’S WELFARE
You said;
(“United Nations secretary-general for one, has concluded that the “average Iraqi’s life” is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein and that the situation in Iraq is now "much worse" than a civil war.”)
Of course at this point in time, the average Iraqi’s life is much worse than under Saddam, they are having a civil war!
It is absurd to enjoy an afternoon tea comfortably in a live war zone. Iraqis should not even think of peace when this war is not over yet.
The only thing that could make their lives better is to stop this civil war first. Americans perhaps started this war, but definitely NOT this civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
Again, my point is to compare the Iraqis to the Japanese. I mean, look at how the Japanese rebuilt their country back. It is not difficult for the Iraqis to follow. Just be united and be determined to do what is right – set aside the bloody stupid religious differences and start setting priorities for nation building.
Unlike Japan which was completely flattened out in the aftermath of WW II and had absolutely no natural resources, Iraq was better equipped even at its worst. It had oil to kick start its economy and not all infrastructures were destroyed.
Why can’t they make it? Just like I said earlier on, I realize that Iraqis’ hearts are not all for IRAQ. After the war, the Japanese also had differences among themselves; some were down right capitalists, others communists, republicans, monarchists. But they all managed to set these aside and work for a common goal.
Why can’t Iraqis do the same? Is it fair to blame the Americans for this failure of theirs - the failure to unite and work together for nation-building?
Only Iraqis themselves could make things going better. No one else can.
And if you really need to find scapegoats, better find them in the upper echelons of Syrian and Iranian governing elites.
Their agents created chaos in Iraq. They blew up bridges, oil pipelines.
They killed Iraqi youth who want to be part of New Iraqi armed forces and government. They practically cowed the population.
They planted car bombs and blew others at crowded places.
The Americans do NOT commit all these!
Why should pressure be applied on Americans? Why shouldn’t it be on these neighboring countries? Everyone knows that this Iraq war has turned into a proxy war for the competing interests of the above-mentioned countries.
You are blaming the wrong guys. These neighboring countries that I mentioned, they are not nice guys.
You missed my point when I said;
(“The trouble only started when Al-Qaeda, Syria, and Iran agents began infiltrating the Iraqi society to instigate insurgencies. These groups have every reason to destabilize Iraq. These groups fear that under America, Iraq could be a success story just like Japan. Worse, Iraq could well be the only perfect and prosperous democracy in the region.”)
I did not say that Saddam and Al Qaeda were friends! What I meant was when Saddam fell, Iraq was in chaos. The Al Qaeda operatives took this opportunity of lawlessness in the land to infiltrate the fragile Iraqi society to spread the seeds of civil wars. The same went for the Syrian and Iranian agents.
These terrorists went in when Saddam was already gone!
None of these terrorists want Iraq to succeed. If Iraq becomes prosperous in a new democracy, these terrorists would lose their momentum to spread their radical ideology. It is in their best interest that Iraq fails.
As for Syria and Iran, it will be a show of a failed democratic state in Arabia. If Iraq fails in this new era, the people of Syria and Iran would not want the same, their governments will have a legitimate reason to preserve their kingdoms, suppress their critics and curtail freedoms.
Still, the blame of the current civil war should be squarely put on the shoulders of the Iraqi people. If they can set aside their religious differences and be united, nobody can infiltrate them and cause chaos.
There are Korean agents, Chinese agents and communist agents who wanted to wreck havoc the Japanese. But they could not because the Japanese unity was water-tight.
Learn that.
-----------------------------------------------------
GENEVA CONVENTION - EVERY COMMANDER’S NIGHTMARE!
Here is where we differ a lot. You come from a family of poets, I am a military man.
You have an idealistic kind of war – one that kills no civilians, involves no torture, no house damage and only kills the right villains.
Guess what! That’s absolutely unrealistic dreams.
You should come down to a war zone to feel what the pressure of a working army is like.
Everyday is a nerve-wrecking experience. There is enormous pressure for the intelligence to produce results to minimize losses and to finish off fast. We all want to go home.
Put yourself in a commander’s shoes and feel the responsibility burdened on your shoulders. Fathers put their trust that you will bring their best sons alive from war. Wives and children are putting the same hope that their fathers will come back alive.
You have responsibility towards these people. And yet you are only an instrument of the state carrying the policy of the ruling government. You don’t have a say in the government. You can only do the best you could – do your duty and bring your boys all back.
Mr. Adwait, no army boys are well paid. Yet, they put their lives for their country. Their fate lies in your hand. Surely you will do your very best to make sure that none of them die under your command.
I will break every leg of the defying prisoners if it is what it takes to ensure that my boys are safe in their missions. I would have beaten those prisoners to a pulp if it is what it takes to extract valuable information to minimize my losses.
Mr. Adwait, the war in Iraq is not a conventional war, it is a guerilla war! The terrorists are using the hit and run tactics to wear the army down. They disappear and blend in with the population.
With a war like this, every information is valuable. Ironically, those information can also help reduce the civilian losses. The invaders do not have to flatten the whole town if they know which houses are to be hit.
Intelligence is not in the business of entertaining prisoners-of-war. The commander does not go to the interrogation room with MacDonald’s happy meals for the interrogated. These captured people are often tough. They will not give out important information easily.
It’s every soldier’s worst nightmare if their commander comes out from the interrogation room with nothing and yet they still have to go on a big and dangerous mission like searching house to house!
Mr. Adwait, perhaps Geneva “conventions” only works for “conventional” wars where armies face other armies in open battles, but definitely not guerilla warfare.
Do not think that if you honor the Geneva conventions, you will go home with a clean conscience. You will kill your own boys – many of them.
I prefer to extract as much information as possible even at the risk of killing the captured enemies rather than exposing my men to dangerous missions. The patriotic families of my country count on me for their men’s safety. I cannot let them down.
At least I could go home knowing that I have done my very best for my country and men. In a war, you just don’t have the luxury of easy choices. Better the enemies than my men.
Maybe you would choose honoring the Geneva Convention and treat the prisoners well. But still you will have to answer to your country and the families about how you lost your men due to lack of intelligence.
Perhaps my choice would make me a murderer of my enemies. But yours is not only about murdering your own men; it is also about betraying their families’ trust and your country.
Again, this is just another case of lesser evil. Yes, I will disregard the Geneva Convention and do those Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo because every information extracted can save my men’s lives.
And if you think that my opinion is wrong and twisted, why don’t you go to Kashmir and lecture the Indian armies there about your alternatives - about that Geneva Convention?
-----------------------------------------------------
THE MOST STUPID REASON OF IRAQ WAR: OIL AND REVENGE
Mr. Adwait,
You are a man of science doing an engineering course. You believe it?
The opponents of this war often cite oil as the prime reason of this current Iraqi war. To me, that’s absurd and shows ignorance on their part.
If you study about energy development in recent years, you will notice that every country is looking for an alternative energy to oil. They have been perfecting the research on solar, wind and nuclear powers.
Oil is not only dangerous due to its political sensitivities, but also detrimental to the global environment. Kyoto Protocol was urgently established precisely to encourage the world to burn less fossil fuels to avoid global warming.
Mr. Adwait, the world is moving rapidly from oil, much sooner that you thought is possible. In islam-peace-brotherhood blog spot, I wrote;
(“R1, perhaps you don’t know, public transport in Brazil is now running on sugarcane alcohol. In twenty years’ time, oil is not going as important as you think right now. The world has seen the ugly and dirty politics of oil and countries around the world are looking for alternative energies and it would not be long before they will discover something cheap.”)
Right now, many more countries are converting their public transport to use natural gas as fuel. Car makers are furiously vying to produce the best hybrid or even electric cars. It will just be a matter of time before we leave oil. I have heard scientists mentioning the sun as the infinite energy source and they are currently researching to further maximize the full potential of this solar energy.
Indeed, a prime minister of a certain country has said that in just twenty years’ time, this world would be a lot different from now. We will be using technologies different from what we have now.
Right now, I think the world has already had a realistic alternative – nuclear powers. Let me list down the advantages of nuclear power over oil.
1) No greenhouse emission during normal operation.
2) Does not pollute the air.
3) Small solid waste generation during normal operation
4) Low fuel cost because little fuel is needed.
5) Large fuel reserves in Canada and Australia.
6) Very big power output!
Who said the world is in desperate need of oil? Even if oil stops dripping tomorrow, that will not be the end of the world. Alternatives already exist and the world will adjust.
Don’t you know that Japan is considering nuclear power plants for its energy sources? The Japanese want to depend less on oil and is gradually adopting nuclear powers. All the latest US submarines and aircraft carriers are also nuclear powered.
You still think oil will make countries go nuts?
You know why Arabs could easily swallow this terrorists’ lie that this war is about oil?
It is because oil is the only thing that Arabs have to ensure their good lives. These people could do nothing aside from giving out licenses to foreign companies to pump up their oil. There is no single accomplishment that is worth noting from the Arabs.
Imagine their lives without oil? They would be poor. Unlike India who is well known for IT and China for its manufacturing power, the Arabs have nothing to depend on for a living.
And the best lie that can make them hate the Americans is to tell them that Americans want to rob their oil. It makes them go nuts!
The anti-war supporters just do not make sense when they said Americans are out there to steal the Iraqi oil.
As far as I know, even if Americans are in control of the oil production (which is very unlikely, there are other companies like Chinese and European already in Iraq), they will still need to pay a certain percentage as a royalty to the Iraqi government. There is no way they could have avoided that. It will make a lot of Iraqis angry and go on riots.
It just does not make sense – this allegation about the Americans trying to steal oil. My friends and I could not buy this lie. Or perhaps we could be wrong. Who knows?
As for even funnier reason that this is about war of revenge, I have already replied to Mr. R1 which he refused to post. Here it is;
(“It is stupidity to think that this is war of revenge. It is almost as stupid as thinking that this war is about oil. Over 3000 American soldiers have died and close to one trillion dollars have been spent on the war. Is the oil worth that much? I am sure if that money is spent on energy research, we will be less dependent on oil in near future. Oil may not worth much by then.
Also, that war money can be used for the welfare of Americans and the world at large. Bush would have a better opportunity to build a better legacy than his father with that kind of money if spent on social welfare issues.
And legacy is much more precious than revenge. It is about PERSONAL accomplishments. Hey, by the way, the old Bush is still alive and well.”)
Think it over…
-----------------------------------------------------
THE WMD LIE - STUPID STUPID INTELLIGENCE.
One thing you must understand about intelligence; intelligence sucks!
In my reply to Mr. R1 in his blog, I argued that;
(“When you are a president of a BIG government like the USA, you can be deceived very easily. There are numerous interests vying for your attention and sometimes intelligence does fail, not just once but a few times, and I believe, many more times in the future.
Don’t tell me you have never been cheated by your schoolmates in your life time? You must have had a very nice life then. You must give room for mistakes. And perhaps Bush was indeed misinformed. We will never know. You and I should not draw one-sided conclusions if this discussion is to continue fairly.”)
It is hard to decide on something when your best friend said one thing and your subordinates said another. In your reply to me, you quoted various people’s statements.
Put yourself in a position of leadership, when you have many people saying contradictory statements, you will get confused. Inspectors can be bribed. Even Kofi Annan got accused of a scandal. Saddam had lots of money. During this time, I bet Bush rather trusted his friend Rumsfeld as many other ordinary people would. Or perhaps, even Donald was also duped by his subordinates. Who knows?
This is one reason why organizations fail, why companies fail and why states fail. You just don’t know which information is right and Bush could not get it right all the time. He is not God.
But if let’s say Donald’s words turned out to be truth, Bush will get the blame anyway. I am sure a nuclear Iraq under Saddam will be an aggressive Iraq. He would have wallowed up Kuwait again.
India has only been on the rise recently. What had it been doing since its independence? It’s been stagnating for decades. Poverty is rampant and the economy then was going either no where or down hill.
Is Indian leadership that stupid? Not at all! More often, it is a case of wrong information or wrong influence that got into the government. However smart you are, if you are wrongly informed, you are going to make mistakes. Perhaps Bush just did that.
For India, it has been years, if not decades. Only when other countries have prospered by engaging the global economy, India saw its mistakes and move on from there.
You cannot trust European Union; they got lucrative contracts from Saddam. It secured their energy policy for the time being. They were understandably soft with Saddam.
If you are the president of USA, would you trust a UN inspector who comes to you to report that he had searched the whole Iraq and found nothing?
You would check with him, asking questions; what about secret bunkers, secret underground places? I remember reading an article that said Saddam had built extensive tunnels to house his whole armed forces!
Did the UN check those? I doubt it. It would have exposed all Saddam’s military secrets. No country would do that.
I am sure India too has military secrets.
Mr. Adwait, what many concerned people fear the most is not that Saddam would build a nuclear arsenal. I doubt that Iraqi scientists are capable of achieving such a feat.
Saddam could very well buy a nuke from the black market from a then-bankrupt Russia. It could make him from zero to hero – a weak dictator like you said to a super strong opponent. Nukes do have Viagra effects on military.
It would take just a much smaller room to hide it and fewer people to hold the secret. Iraqi foreign minister then perhaps was not aware of the plan either.
Again, who knows?
I believe this is the case with North Korea. I think North Korea bought their nuclear weapons. Those extensive nuclear research complexes perhaps are just there to deceive the Americans and their own local people that North Korea was indeed capable of manufacturing their own nuclear weapons.
Who knows?
I really sympathize with George. It is not easy to be a president of USA. He ought to be extremely concerned since these rogue states are likely to point their nuclear warhead at the American soil first.
Well Bush named the Iraqi Invasion as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and it could not have been any more ironic.
I would not like to judge President Bush personally but the stats does prove that it was a total mistake for the invasion and the the making of interim government.
Maybe they wanted to:
A) establish their supremacy in Middle-east
B) Oil(untapped Kurdish oil reserves)
C) economic market for american brand(Coke to condom)
D) for the heck of it - it's been a while they had to test their military prowess.
History seems to rewrite it's own course rather than than allow a mighty super power to create one.
Mr. Ravi,
Indeed, it was a war that liberated Iraqi people from the iron-fist dictator Saddam Hussein. But as for the current situation, Iraqis are also responsible for its failure. Let’s not justify this blaming on Americans for everything that has gone wrong. This loser’s culture has got to stop and be discouraged.
You are right on not judging Bush personally. I do think there are a lot of American people really and sincerely trying to make Iraq a livable place.
The invasion is not a total mistake. Again it freed the Iraqi people from a dictator. Now, it is up to the Iraqi people to make it good. Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese and Japanese have shown to the world that they can get out from the rubbles of war with a much more united, stronger and determined people. These nations shall be examples for Iraqis not to despair.
There is still hope, but it takes Iraqis themselves to work it out.
Mr. Ravi, the Americans have always had a not-only-strategic partner in the Middle East; Saudi Arabia is an influential, richest and one of the biggest player in the region. And so far, I have not heard any news that the Americans are about to break up with the Saudis. They are not about to be chased out from Arabia.
By this, I mean, the Americans have already had an undisputed strong position in the Middle East. Why would they need another country like Iraq to make their position stronger? In fact, this war weakens their standing in the region.
It is absurd to incur so much cost in terms of money and human losses to get something that is completely unnecessary.
As for the Kurdish oil, again I have covered this in my previous reply to Mr. Adwait. I think I must add one more fact that could well be interesting to you. If there is one country that really is in desperate need for oil, it might probably be China.
China is growing too fast for even its officials to cool down. The energy shortage due to the booming economy has caught its government unprepared. Right now China is digging coal mines, building dams, anything to cover those shortages.
Its state-owned oil companies are given blank checks to acquire overseas oil fields. I have never known any country desperate for oil such as China. Not in the history I that know.
The US economy, on the other hand, has been growing predictably. If China does not go to war for oil, why would the Americans need to?
It just does not make any sense.
Your assumption that Americans are going to war so that they could market their consumer products is even more impossible. The global market has got more people to offer than Iraq.
Plus, when you go to war, the people in the targeted country tend to be poorer. War always does make people poor. And Right now, I have yet to see Coca-Cola executives surveying the Iraqi markets.
I fear they will pee in their pants as soon as their plane touches down in Iraq. It is currently the most dangerous place to be. They would rather be home with less money.
Mr. Adwait,
I have contributed several replies to your blog. I think you probably are interested in getting to know me better. I think it is not only right but also fair that I introduce myself to you.
I am just an ordinary Chinese who happens to have a great interest such as yours. I always want to be a journalist. If only the job pays very well, I would probably have concentrated on the profession.
But as we all know, journalism is never good enough to make good money. Hence I rather focus myself on my own business. My journalistic dream had taken a backseat.
Now journalism is just a passion left in me. But I still treasure it. And writing has always become my favorite past time.
I love international politics; it is a field that is fun to be in. Politics is very dynamic and perhaps, it is also a very man thing. By the way, I hold a bachelor degree in international relations.
I love your blog and have seen the rest of your articles; they are very humanistic. You love social issues, so do I. I check your blog everyday to see new comments.
I perhaps sound like an American propaganda agent to you for defending the Americans. The truth is I am not. My views are as honest as it sounds.
The American government is perhaps not as good as an angel. But even if you want to brand the US government as evil, I think in most times, they have been the lesser evil. Remember, in every situation, there are always two conflicting sides.
There are a lot worse evils than them.
Glad that I can contribute.
indeed it is my pleasure and my good luck to corrospond with you
i was infact going to write and ask ur name and the kind of work u do
and about me, i can say that though my understanding of international politics may not be as profound as yours , but i hope i will improve with time .surely i can hope to improve my understanding of foreign affairs by means of regular corrospondence.
Mr. Adwait,
Actually I am surprised by you. You are just 21 and yet you have shown great interests in socio-cultural issues. Most people about your age that I know would rather spend more time playing computer games.
You are a young idealist and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is commendable to many young people who are too ignorant to take part in social thinking. I also realized that most of your blog viewers are in their 20s as well.
I am surprised that young Indians are so much politicized and actually do care about the wider world. I always thought that being a developing country, young Indians would rather deal with socio-political domestic issues like poverty, corruption and how to earn a living.
Mr. Adwait, a man’s viewpoint is very much dependent on his surroundings and social circle. You and I definitely have different exposures. This resulted in different viewpoints. It is good that we can share.
I am 32-year-old Malaysian who frequently traveled for business and has some Japanese friends in my social circle. It was them who pointed to me what might have gone wrong in Iraq.
Years of befriending the Japanese has given me an insight to their mentality. They are very proud and patriotic people. These people love their country very much. As such, they tend to develop a natural instinct to be able to judge the patriotic sentiments of other cultures. One thing that they hate most is unpatriotic people who destroy the future of their own country.
They sensed this in Iraq. My Japanese friends would often argue that no matter how worst or messy the condition a nation is in, as long as its people remain united and determined to do the best for their beloved nation, a success will be guaranteed.
A Japanese friend of mine even gave this hypothetical challenge; put the Japanese in Iraq even in this current situation, they will build a great oasis in the middle of the desert.
This Japanese friend of mine guaranteed that no Syrian, no Iran, no other neighboring Arabs would be able to infiltrate their society and sow the seeds of disunity. The Japanese will forever be of one mind – to work the very best for their nation.
Such is the level of confidence that the Japanese have in themselves. And this should tell you something about the Iraqis.
I do not know your opinion, but I learned a lot from the Japanese. They are indeed formidable people. They will succeed wherever they are.
If you keep your mind open and always seek balanced facts before passing a judgment on an issue, you will definitely improve with time. In the future, I am sure you will travel to other parts of the world. This alone will help expose you to how other societies work and how their people think – you will learn about the strengths and the weaknesses of their respective cultures. I am sure you will be a wiser man. You will see what I perhaps haven’t.
And we could enlighten each other.
Benny Kwok
PS: if there is time, I would like to discuss what might have driven Bush to engage wars in the Middle East. Remember, I am not in Bush’s inner circle, so what I am going to write in my future articles will only be hypothetical theories. It will be my analysis based on the various facts that I know. And perhaps if you see some holes in my analysis, you could correct me.
But I want you to bear this in mind; I defend Bush not because I love wars. It will be a recognition to the fact that there are probably greater dangers that we will soon face if we don’t act now. I no longer see war as a black-and-white thing. There is too much grey in it, so much so that we are now forced to pick the whiter grey.
It’s a sad thing to choose a lesser evil, but we all want the best for our future generations.
Let us be bloody now so that our future need not.
Mr Benny Kwok
firt of all thank u for the wholesome praise .(actually i am blushing ..he ..he)
u are indeed very right n pointing out that ones viewpoint is indeed
dependent on his surroundings and there are lot of factors which shape a persons personality and beliefs.it is lot more complicated than it seems.
moreover, i have a lot of respect for the japaneese people , who have risen like a phoenix from the ashes and taken their country from where it was at the end of world war 2 to where it is now.
though we, in india were far more privilaged , at the period around 1947-1950, we are nowhere in competition to the japaneese.it is rightly said that country doesnt make its people , it is the citizens which make the country.japaneese are far more resilient than the indians.
looking forward to your blog and playing our part in mking this world a little better.
adwait deshpade
Mr. Adwait,
I don’t plan to start a blog. My views are not the mainstream view. Not many are defending the Americans now. Most people think that the Americans are the main problem. So if I start a blog, people will just ignore it, thinking that my blog will be some kind of America’s attempt to brainwash people who read.
I rather put my views on blogs such as yours. People will see it. At least, you will be reading.
I fear this world is getting darker by the minutes. I can sense that the real bad guys are winning this war.
Mr. Adwait, the world is about to see a great revolution - one that will catch us unprepared. The current booms in many regional economies such as China and India have made us complacent; we think that no one is crazy enough to start a revolution when the going is still good and is getting better.
But underneath this beautiful picture, REAL TROUBLE is brewing. And it is boiling faster than we could possibly imagine
-----------------------------------------------------
LIBERAL & GLOBALISED ECONOMY IN QUESTION
Cold war is over; the capitalists had won. The Communist system practiced for decades by Soviet Union states had left them bankrupt. People now realize that communism is unworkable. The capitalist economy immediately became a role model. We have heard the word liberalization over and over again ever since.
However, the capitalist model of a globalized economy is not without its costs.
It widens the income gap between the poor and the rich. The rich is getting richer, the poor poorer. The number of poor people is increasing rapidly. Underneath those beautiful monuments, tall buildings, neat streets and nice cars lies millions of people who are being left out in many economic booms.
Unchecked capitalism favors the rich and the skilled; these are select groups that are highly likely to get most of the fortunes in a globalized economy. On the other hand, more and more, the poor, the unskilled, the old and handicapped are thought to be socio-economic burdens. They tend to be side-lined.
It also has one other important weakness as well. It forces us to put monetary value on almost everything, including time and relationships, the very core of our socio-cultural system is under stress. Public services that were designed and intended for the welfare of the common people are being privatized now.
Yes, we are all driven towards materialism.
This destroys social values and family relationships. I do not have to elaborate more on its effects; I am sure you are well aware of those by now. If goes unchecked, ultimately this capitalist liberalized economy will cause a complete breakdown in socio-cultural values that make humans human. We will all just be economic animals who put utmost value on money. It creates emptiness inside every human heart.
People are now responding to these negative effects. Many are looking for alternatives. Most attractive and idealist often come from religions; we all haven’t got alternative political ideologies left. The world is seeing a surge in religious ideals and fanaticism.
There are certain groups which have taken their religious fanaticism to the next level. What is supposed to be the basis for a peaceful spiritual relationship with God has turned into a violent political conviction.
Islam, the second largest religion in the world with an estimated 1.3 billion faithfuls, is now in danger of being radicalized. While I admit that most Muslims are peaceful people and are not interested in war, there are certain militant elements from within who want to change the current world order by force.
These people are best known as Al Qaeda type.
And right now, the world is having an intense war with these people. What looks like localized Iraqi and Afghanistan wars is in fact a much wider war. It is a world war against terrorism.
Yes, I believe we are seeing the beginning of World War Three – very ugly.
PS: (I have to mention Islam if this discussion is continue objectively. Mr. Adwait, I don’t know what your religious beliefs are, but if it happens that you are Muslim, I hope this article could be an insight to what I, as a non-muslim, view what this war is really about. No offence intended.
In fact, I am glad that with the current fight against terrorism, many Muslims take this opportunity to question radical beliefs. Everywhere moderate Muslims are beginning to distance themselves from the terrorists. What was considered taboo is now put on the public table for discussion. Moderate Muslims now dare to criticize their radical fellows.
No longer Muslims swallow blindly what their radical imams are teaching. It is indeed a good sign.)
-----------------------------------------------------
AL-QAEDA: A NEW WARFARE
Al Qaeda terrorists are not like many dumb ones that we saw in previous decades. These people are smart and sophisticated. They are engaging a different and difficult war to fight. They are very patient too. Osama knows that his victory might still be years away and that he perhaps would not be able to live long to see it, but his conviction to make it happen remains.
These people know that to take over the world, they must beat its hegemonic superpower first – the Americans. This is the only vocal power that is capable of fighting back their radical system. The rest do not have such guts.
They know that they cannot win a conventional war with the Americans so they had worked out a different concept of warfare - long ago before today. It is a genius step-by-step encroaching warfare that appeals to the religious sentiments of the Muslims. It had begun long ago when we did not even realize it.
This war will see no conventional armies. In fact, ordinary but radicalized Muslims will be dedicated soldiers without military trainings. These people will have no military bases. Ordinary homes and Mosques will be their barracks. They need no military orders. They will response violently to anything that is considered un-Islamic acts. Osama needs not pay them. The terrorists will work on voluntary basis; still the conviction is ever strong.
We have an ugly future.
Al Qaeda knows that empires wax and wane. I believe they have several strategies to deal with the Americans to hasten its waning.
1) They are going to over-stretch the American military to the limit by causing conflicts around the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already bogged the Americans down, not to mention the smaller, less-publicized ones in Africa. It exhausted their military power and the longer these wars drag on, the lower the morale of the US marines will be.
2) The wars, coupled with constant threats of terrorism, have put huge costs on the American economy in terms of beefing up its national security. Heavy measures to ensure public safety in all aspects of society have consumed much of Americans’ productivity. In the long run, I believe these terrorists are trying to bankrupt the US.
3) These terrorists are trying to portray US as a source of evil. For years, through carefully-planned well-camouflaged campaigns, the US is gradually being associated with socio-cultural liberalism and economic materialism.
For conservative societies in Middle East and Asia, this becomes a direct challenge to their existing socio-cultural values and infrastructure. Slowly but surely these societies have began developing suspicion towards these rather naïve promotion of American cultures.
Some even begin to see this as an attempt to insult and destroy their native cultures - completely unacceptable. And I very much blame the Americans themselves for their insensitivity.
These stupid Americans are dancing to the terrorists’ tune without even knowing it.
So far, I think the terrorists are having the upper hand.
Hello Adwait.How can people who support dropping of Nuclear bombs on cities where civilians live picturise themselves as concernees of world peace.Germany killed people slowly in fast and swift wars.America killed millions in a night and is invading nations in the name of war against terrorism.
Those bombs are still causing lot of congenital malformations in japanese people and the land has become more unstable with frequent earth quakes and valcanos.
How can peace lovers support an atom bomb being droped on a city killing millions over night and making their future generations suffer.
How can these shameless guys defend the war on Iraq after there were no weapons of mass destruction.
It seems that America can invade any nation on earth and show some lame reason and its supporters will carry that reason and brain wash the public which is unaware of what is going on.
Mr Adwait,
On the surface, the argument of R1 looks very good, a typical peace-lover’s argument.
But again, we are living in a rough world where in most times, silence also kills – even in greater numbers. And Let me stress this even stronger, inaction DOES kill.
R1 must have read the prior comments on this blog and have deliberately chosen NOT to address the plights of the victims of the Japanese Imperial Army (in the case of Japanese’ atomic bombs). He also dismissed this threat of terrorism as an illusion; propagandized by the Americans. He thinks the Americans are conducting this war because of oil and revenge despite my facts and reasonings. He did NOT address my doubts and insisted on repeating his baseless suspicions.
I say R1 is a sneaky fellow.
Mr. Adwait, here I am NOT justifying any bombings. Again, if you look from the morality perspective, of course ATOMIC BOMBS were wrong.
But WHAT IF it could save more lives than it kills? My only defense on this matter is that those two atomic bombs could save the butchery of millions of helpless Asians from the Japanese torture.
At least, we know that 1945 was the end of the war and 1946 was the start of a new peace.
Imagine without the atomic bombs! The war with the then Japan could last perhaps another one or two years – at a greater cost in term of human losses and environment.
Here I stress on the importance of choosing the lesser of two evils. Even Japanese now think they deserved the bombs. I have yet to see Japanese who bitterly complained about it.
Japanese are not like Iraqis. Now a growing number of them are blaming themselves for the war and the sufferings of the occupied people. A Japanese Ace pilot, Saburo Sakai, even went as far as blaming Emperor Hirohito for failing to deal with the aggressive militarists and prevent the war at that time.
If Japanese are not complaining and blame themselves for the bombings, why should R1 be concerned?
This R1 is dreaming of an ideal war; one that kills no civilians, involves no torture, no house damage and only kills the right villains.
Or, he is one of those shameless pacifists who think that they could sleep without guilty conscience just because they oppose any type of wars. Guess what! Millions of people die because of this kind of people – of all people; dictators love the pacifists the most. It makes their job easier.
Based on my analysis, the war in Iraq is indeed a proxy war against terrorism. We can choose to act now or later when it is too late. If we act now, we fight on the Arabian soil.
If we act too late, we would be forced to fight on our soil; Chinese on Chinese soil, Indians on Indian soil, Americans on American soil.
We can deny terrorism now, but sooner or later, these terrorists will come back for us. R1 has chosen to deny, but I don’t.
I say,” fight it now!”
Mr. Adwait, an ex-president of USA, Gerald Ford, had just died days ago. I read an interesting article on Sydney Morning Herald’s website and decided to keep it for you. I think you should read it;
-----------------------------------------------------
Sydney Morning Herald, 28 December 2006
Paper clip from the article on Gerald Ford’s view on the war in Iraq:
The interview with Ford, who died on Boxing Day, was embargoed until his death.
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the President made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said.
"I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
Ford, who presided over the bitter end of the Vietnam War, took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict to spread democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the US has a "duty to free people." But Ford was skeptical
"Whether you can detach that from the obligation No.1, of what's in our national interest."
-----------------------------------------------------
Here, Ford thought that there is a problem in justifying the war; not a problem in the war itself. It is hard for the world to believe that Bush had wanted to just “free the Iraqis” without any concern for US’ interests.
At first I believed, and then I doubted it when the Americans could not find any. Now I suspect that “weapons of mass destruction” was NOT the real issue here.
Now, I am more inclined to think that Bush is trying to address a BIGGER concern.
The fall of Soviet Union has caused a boom in the black market for modern weaponry. The government and the military of the Soviets were bankrupt and some people are willing to trade anything for food. And this is no exception even to the guards at nuclear bases.
With the crumbling Soviet Union, the security at these nuclear bases has been reportedly deteriorating. There was a concern that the terrorists have been vigorously trying to purchase nuclear weapons.
I had read articles that covered the stories about the invention of nuclear bombs “in suitcases” by the Soviet Union scientists and how these scientists and their families had been thrown into unbelievable poverty since the Soviet Union’s collapse. The temptation to sell the technology or perhaps the bombs itself was very real.
Right then, I thought, well; Saddam did not need to build a big research complex that can be exposed to American military attacks. He could simply buy it in the black market. Just buy one of those suitcases!
All he needed was just a reliable
contact.
And guess whom he would blow up first? Of course, the Americans and their allies.
Now, Mr. Adwait, what would you do if you are Bush? Will you just wait at the White House until that possibility becomes a reality? Or you go straight to solving the problem?
Another thing, I believe, Bush is equally concerned with is Terrorism in the Middle East, which if left unchecked, could spread like a deadly virus to other parts of the world. It gives a bad name to good Middle Eastern people.
Terrorism thrives on closed and simple-minded societies; a common characteristic of most Middle East countries. It thrives even better with religious appeals.
I believe (and I think Bush also believes) that the best way to counter terrorism is to free these people and expose them to the world.
Under democracy, there are a free flow of information, alternative thinkings, other cultures, etc. With these, come the appreciation towards other peoples and greater tolerance.
It is the only way to get rid of the Arabs’ bigotry.
And therefore, a much peaceful world.
PS: unfortunately, it has to start in Iraq.
'Would have saved' 'Possibility' 'May be' 'I thought so' those words carry no weight when compared to the actual massacre and invasion taking place out there.
Today's Killing of Saddam Hussain showed that Bush was no different from him.His death wont change anything.It will only make things worse in Iraq.
What people are saying about his exicution.http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5096&&&edition=2&ttl=20061230071837
After Bush said "After all,this is the guy who tried to kill my daddy" It is vivid that his true intension was nothing else but revenge.He would now go to his dad and jump in joy 'dad we did it, I killed him'.
Another reason for this war was Saddam wanted to deal in Euros and stop dealing with Dillars which wil bankrupt US in two years.Because dollar is in bedt to Euros already.If other Arab nations followed this,US dollar will lose its value and US economy will fall down like a wall of cards.
Read this entire article and the links in it http://home-r1.blogspot.com/2006/12/war-on-iraq.html
R1,
So you don’t take “possibilities” seriously? I have been in business for a few years. As far as I know, every good business has scenarios to act on. I believe all armed forces around the world too. Don’t tell me Indian armies have never carried out any military exercises based on scenarios?
I have been observing institutions, even professions such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, and engineers. These people work on “possibilities”; to prepare themselves for the unexpected.
Your dismissing “possibilities” shows nothing serious about yourself. I don’t know what kind of job you are planning to have later, but if you always want to wait for something “definitive” to happen, I can assure you, you will be left far behind.
You can say good bye to promotions.
Perhaps, you never heard of the word “intuition”. It is worse than possibilities. Intuition never needs facts or intelligence, not even scenarios. It’s based on guts feeling.
But more and more people are saying that good intuition is part of every successful person. But since even possibilities carry no weight, why care about intuition?
You will go nowhere in life.
Sorry I don’t share your sentiment about Saddam. You said “his death will only make things worse in Iraq”. I said justice has already been done for the helpless and innocent victims he had massacred. Saddam had paid its fair price.
As for worse things in Iraq, I have little regards for people who betray their country, using Saddam’s death to justify terrorizing their fellow Iraqis.
Those traitors should be hanged as well. The new Iraqi government will have to be firm with them if it wants to earn respect and establish a strong working government.
R1, you have the mind of a dictator, that’s why you swallowed blindly the terrorist’s propaganda that Bush is conducting this war out of revenge.
Remember! USA is a democracy. Bush’s signature alone cannot mobilize the American armed forces. He needs the Congress’s consent to pass his war policies.
The fact that the Congress gave their consent indicated there was a greater concern about Saddam and Iraq.
Why would Bush go back to his daddy jumping in joy? His daddy is busy helping the tsunamis victims in Southeast Asia. These father and son are serious people in serious business.
They have their supporters too. I don’t know about you, but I think the supporters of Bush are smart people and they have plenty to worry about international security issues. You are ridiculous.
About the US economy.
The fact that the US economy has been in debts is nothing new (people knew this since China has been profiting from the US in 1990s), but their resilient never-give-up economy is perhaps most legendary.
People have been talking about the US economy’s doomsday for so long but it has not materialized yet.
You know why?
Because these doomsday talkers and you have something in common. You all are basically stuck in the old redundant economic theories. You all still think that economy is the same as state. If states can fall, so do economies.
But NOT so anymore. If you read the latest economic theories by well-observing economists, you will realize now, economy is no longer dependent on currencies alone. Now the main drive of modern economy is no longer raw materials or gold bars, it is the people! The modern economy is not as rigid as the old, it is fluid.
Welcome to the real world!
I wrote in your blog earlier on;
(“You underestimated their will to excel, Americans are special people, and they don’t give up easily. These are survivors.
And they are PLENTY SMART. The world needs their expertise in all major industries, the motors of economy.
Even if America is to crash one day, other economies will pay big prices for American brain drain. And these highly paid professionals will never forget their homeland.
They will go home and rebuild.”)
R1, perhaps you don’t know this interesting fact. Although the US economy is in deep debts, its private-sector companies are not.
Let me list US biggest companies in terms of assets. Citigroup – 1.3 trillion dollars. Fannie Mae – 1 trillion dollars. JP Morgan Chase – 800 billion dollars. Freddie Mac – 750 billion dollars. Bank of America – 736 billion. And there are Microsoft, Wall-Mart, General Electric, Ford, Prudential, Goldman Sach, Coca-Cola, etc. I wish I could name all.
The assets of these profitable American companies could very well be in several trillion dollars in total.
That’s one huge economy on its own. Unlike the Indian economy which is driven by its public/government sectors, the American economy is not. If the American economy indeed collapses, these companies will be there to back it up, I can assure you.
Do not underestimate the patriotism of the American people.
The Japanese made a mistake about it during the World War II; they thought Americans are too lazy and too fun-loving to attack back. But they were proven wrong.
I believe in times of trial, the Americans will put their nation first and they will make themselves proud. Americans are not like some Iraqis who rather destroy their nation for their self interest and bigoted religious views. The American leaders will and can rally their people when the need arises.
R1, you also have absolutely no idea about the workings of global economy. That’s why your views are completely obsolete. You think this world is still about the old theory of economy vs economy in a win-or-lose game.
It is NO longer so. In fact now, when major economies fight, both lose; when they support each other, they win together.
You think everyone will be happy if the US dollar weakens? Hell no! In fact, the Europe will find itself coming to a major depression if the US dollar persists its weakening. A cheap US dollar means cheaper US products. And cheaper US products could send European factories and businesses to massive closures.
Just imagine, with a weak US dollar, it means cheaper US manufactured planes, electronics, automotives, and even software!
The European economies will collapse in no time. In fact, every time there is a major correction in US dollar, those European central bankers would lose their sleep!
This is one reason why both China and Japan had refused to have stronger currencies. Everyone knows that China has been keeping its YUAN artificially low. We also know that Japan always intervenes in international money markets every time its YEN shoot up!
These two countries are the very ones that are keeping the US dollar strong and they are likely to remain so if they still need the US market to absorb their export products.
Only the US is willing to absorb their goods. You think India would want the Chinese to flood the Indian markets with their products? And take away your hard-earned foreign reserves?
Weak US dollar will mean stronger Chinese Yuan and Japanese Yen. That also means that Chinese and Japanese products will be more expensive and the Americans will buy less. It means less profit for Chinese and Japanese companies, ultimately their economies.
You think the Chinese and Japanese would allow that to happen? Fat Hope!
George Bush could relax and sleep well, while the European, Chinese and Japanese businessmen are sweating about their survival. Without the healthy huge US markets or an alternative equally huge as the US markets, their businesses could collapse anytime.
R1, in the world of business, perhaps you need to understand this. The debtor usually has a good sleep. It is the creditors who cannot because they are constantly worried about not being able to recover their money.
You said “US economy will fall down like a wall of cards”. O boy, you just don’t get it, do you?
You are not the first time telling me this, and I chose not to believe because I have basic ideas of what a globalized economy is.
You let yourself be duped over and over again by some stupid journalists.
My advice – BE SMART!
And stop that cut and paste other’s articles! Do your own research.
well another good piece of writing man...your articles are are like wine...getting better with age :)
1. If Bush doesn't give a damn to politics in the country, US can pull out of Iraq and save many more from being dead. The political situation in Iraq, the civil war is purely a reason to fight it out, given a free country to decide properly, all the religious Shias & Sunis will form their bodies, elect their leaders, let there be an interim allied government, with absoultely no international hand (esp Unc Sam), and things will get better
2. US needs to understand that to wage a war or use violence and troops at every mention of a terrorist act is not governance.
3. Sr. Bush screwed up, Jr. doesnt seem to learn from past misatkes, he seems to make worse mistakes.
4. Saddam Hussein being given a doctored trial is uncertain, I will not trust the political system in US, but I am in general inclined to believe in the judicial system of US. Yes, it has been and might have been influenced by the higher-ups, but less likely.
5. Saddam in his own right deserves to be handed over to United Nations Jundiciary, and not US judiciary if not the Iraqis. If India apprehends Laden, would India be allowed to undertake trial and convict and sentence him, or would it give him up to US or to the International judiciary body.
6. The surveys conducted by the oldest research university of the world JHU is an indication, and the US govt pays heed when it wishes to do so. It might pay heed to cloning/same sex surveys but will chose to differ on terrorism.
7. Afghanistan has been reduced to a rubble, and either it will be completely destroyed and take decades to come back alive or it will wreak vengeance on US and as claimed US might see more terrorist attacks
8. It is high time the US public are also out of their slumber that their president is not some war hero, or nobel peace prize nominee but an arrogant chair-saving politician.
As of this article it has been well drafted and certainly conveys itself real good.
Despite running huge debts, the US economy still prevails. Here’s why;
1)It has one of the most intelligent workforces with good professional ethics. Undeniable! We still need American brains to run the global economy. They are still the best in legal system innovation, capital markets, and at certain sciences.
2)It is relatively more stable, if not the most stable, politically and socially among developed economies. With democracy, people are less likely to cause national chaos.
Most billionaires, even foreigners, are likely to keep their best assets in the US. Let’s face it.
3)Unlike other countries, especially developing ones, US has high respect for its laws and keep them independent from government’s interference.
This is very significant and as long as other countries do not strengthen their legal systems and make them independent from the government, most HUGE legal contracts will still be signed in US.
In the US, private companies can sue the government if necessary - a privilege not available in many other countries where governments often act extra-judicially.
4)Its scientific and commercial researches are outstanding. You can see it for yourself. US is the country with the most patents so far. And lots of businessmen are vying for them.
5)It has most developed capital market. It is a lot easier and cheaper to raise capital for businesses in the US than other parts of the world. Most investors are confident with the US regulatory and supervisory agencies (despite recent big scandals such as Enron) and can safely put their money in investments already approved by such agencies.
As such, businesses could easily obtain funds – sometimes even with just convincing business plans – and expand faster than its competitors in other countries.
New York is still the busiest capital market with half of foreign investments flowing through its accounts.
6)The US has the most developed infrastructures in almost every commercial and industrial field. You name it; transportation, telecommunication, stock exchanges, etc.
Everything has been prepared and geared to make businesses and industries as efficient as possible.
To bankrupt, the terrorists would have to bomb all these infrastructures and kill all the US’s smart brains.
Possible?
Highly unlikely.
R1, the only way to avoid a brainwash is to learn and study everything by yourself. Do not just swallow other people’s articles.
It is the beginning of endless stupidity.
To response to sriram’s post, I think I need to comment on the opening article that Mr. Adwait posted.
With due respect, Mr. Adwait, what you posted was indeed a good piece of work – but only limited to a satirical work.
I would not classify that as a well-balanced, well-thought out analytical article because it failed to cover the Bush’s side of the story.
But again, the article that you posted did have some valid points.
Now, let me refute sriram point by point;
1) Yes, sriram is indeed right. Iraqis should be allowed to elect their own leaders. What he forgot was that the election that he was proposing was in fact already delivered.
In post-Saddam era, the Iraqis have voted twice. The first was for the ratification of their new constitution on 15 October 2005.
This was followed by the first free parliamentary election on 15 December 2005 to return 275 new representatives.
But sriram’s dream has not materialized.
The terrorists had usurped the Iraqis society and terrorized those wanted to participate in the elections.
They murdered and murdered.
They kidnapped young Iraqis who have joined the new Iraqi army which could have played a crucial role in maintaining security in the new free Iraq.
Each of the kidnapped young Iraqis got a bullet hole on his head instead.
I see sriram’s dream as only a wishful dream - not more.
2) Sometimes, a show of force is necessary for the terrorists. If the US shows that it fails to act tough, the terrorists could become emboldened. The US cannot let itself be cowed by the terrorists.
3) Older Bush screwed up? I don’t understand this part. Sriram meant to say that Kuwait should be surrendered to Saddam without a fight?
4) Saddam’s trial was doctored? Did Sriram mean that Saddam did not deserve the hanging for killing the inhabitants of Dujail? Perhaps Saddam should get a ten-year sentence at a Thai massage parlor instead.
I don’t see how the trial could pass a fairer verdict. Come on, that guy signed death warrants for hundreds of innocent Kurds and Shias.
5) If I were an Iraqi, I would vote for Saddam to be put on trial at home. It’s a matter of national dignity. I would want to show to the world that Iraqis are people capable of meting out justice to wrong-doers and need not others to carry it out for us.
If Saddam was tried outside Iraq, it only showed that Iraqis cannot be trusted for fairness. Saddam was tried over the massacre of Dujail which is well within Iraq. It should be an Iraqi justice.
6) I don’t see how that surveys have something to do with the current Iraqi affairs.
7) Yes, Afghanistan has become piles of rubbles – but not entirely the US’s fault. There was a long war with the Soviets, and then the civil war between the Northern Alliances and the Talibans before the Americans went in.
In fact, the Talibans should have no business in Afghanistan. Those people are mostly Pasthun from Northern Pakistan, I heard, not Afghans. If not for Talibans, the two Buddha statues that was the cultural heritage to the Afghans would not be destroyed.
8) Bush is chair-saving politician? He is already in his second term. What more can he do? The US, as I understand it, is not a monarchy. Bush has to leave after this. He knows it. And again, it is crazy to wage a war just to hold on to power.
What many had forgotten was that Bush did NOT win his first term in office by war policies! In fact, Bush was elected before the Americans were at war – the year was 2000.
According to wikipedia, Bush won his first presidential election on the following campaign platforms;
(“Bush labeled himself a "compassionate conservative," a term popularized by University of Texas professor Marvin Olasky, and his political campaign promised to "restore honor and dignity to the White House".[2] Bush proposed lowering taxes in response to a projected surplus. He supported participation of religious charities in federally funded programs, and promoted education vouchers, national education reform, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and structural changes to the United States armed forces.[citation needed] Bush's foreign policy campaign platform supported a stronger economic and political relationship with Latin America and especially Mexico, free trade and reduced involvement in "nation-building" and other minor military engagements indirectly related to U.S. interests. Bush also pledged to expand the National Missile Defense initiative and to reform Social Security and Medicare.”)
If you realize, Bush’s foreign policy in his first presidential election was focusing more on Latin America, especially Mexico!
There was neither Iraq nor Afghanistan.
Had he campaigned for war in Middle East, he would have lost to Al Gore!
Again Mr. Adwait, with due respect, I would like to maintain that your article was a good satire indeed, but not necessarily a good analytical piece that you could count on for a balanced presentation of facts and viewpoints on the issue of Iraq.
Mr. Adwait,
I came across this article at yahoo.com, titled “Curfews Imposed after Saddam’s Execution”. I am going to quote two responses of the Iraqis interviewed in the same article.
Here is a very wise opinion from a sober-up Iraqi - a really good sign.
(“But some Iraqis — like 34-year-old Haider Hamed, a candy store owner in east Baghdad — wondered what would really change with the execution of Saddam, who was just four months shy of his 70th birthday.
"He's gone, but our problems continue," said the Shiite Muslim, whose uncle was killed in one of Saddam's many brutal purges. "We brought problems on ourselves after Saddam because we began fighting Shiite on Sunni and Sunni on Shiite.")
Haider Hamed finally realized that the problems in Iraq were brought by the Iraqis themselves. But unfortunately, he would have to deal with someone like this.
(see the comment below)
(“Um Abdullah, a Sunni and teacher in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad, said she would wear black to mourn the city's favorite son.
"Saddam will be a hero in our eyes," she said. "I have five kids and I will teach them to take revenge on Americans.")
What kind of madness is that? A teacher wants to teach her five kids to take revenge on Americans? This type of mother would waste her kids’ entire lives with hatred.
I hope you all recognize the problem now.
One is a candy store owner, the other is a teacher. Which one do you think will be a better generation for the new and free Iraq?
True Conscience-R1, the only way to avoid a brainwash is to learn and study everything by yourself. Do not just swallow other people’s articles.
Reply-Look who is talking about manners and guts.I dont know who you are and you say i invited you so funny.Your personal and insulting attacks (which show your guts and manners) wont affect me.you talk nonsense and crap about muslims i deleted tha post.even in this blog you have posted insulting words about me.I never declared myself as a winner.Its not about winning or losing.Ofcourse this is how exactly Bush and his father felt.Killing thousands of people in Iraq and america just for their pride and revenge.
I did not read these comments of yours before.Because I dont have that much time.I prefer reading trust worthy and well recognised sites than someone's personal views.
It is clear that the war was for revenge.And Bush's statements 'after all this is the guy who tried to kill my daddy' is the direct proof.
If have noticed carefully, no one except me is responding to your posts.Because everyone knows this famous saying ' dont fight with a fool '.
Also am not the one who is taking articles as they are and obviously am not the one who is brain washed here because i take things from both the sides.while you act like a hired agent of CIA (or Bush himself)
I am giving the links of news and statistics but not just articles.Your posts are just what you feel and nothing else.It is clear that you are passing your ignorant comments about me without even reading to the links i posted.You are just forcing your views to others with the lame reaons.And no one will take ideas with force no matter how many long messages you post.
Arabs have only oil and nothing else. true.But this entire world is fighting for oil and without oil no modern mechinary would work.Even to develope some alternate source of energy,you need oil first for the experiments and developing the technology.Without fuel even mercedez is just a piece of metal crap.
about the jubiliant Iraqis,even more people will celebrate if Bush dies (Bush was unanimously eleccted with a huge majority as the Villain of 2006 in a survey conducted by AOL).Does that mean that bush should be killed?Ofcourse not.Even if our prime minister is killed,there will be people who will celebrate.The killing can not be justified on this ground.
War and killing was not the answer for this situation.Kilings will only lead to more killings.The american invasion only made the lives of Iraqis worse.The killings and voilnce has increased at present than it was at the time of Saddam.So what you are saying is prooved wrong.War was never the answer.The condition will only degrade day by day.
Allied forces gave time? It only looks like America was dictating Japan.It was just a war of supremacy.No one was good or bad in world war 2.It was just a war between the imperial countries.Britain took away most of the parts under German rule after the world war one and Hitler started taking them back by his lighting wars.The imperial countries believed that the more countries they rule,the more their countries pristage.In this course, they conquered the entire world.Each one competing with the other.Hitler showed tremendous improvement in Germany.Germany was the only nation which was free of the world wide famine of that time.Even he sent grain to India and china.Again am not taking sides here.
America stayed away from war for long but was busy in importing slaves from Africa and collecting african diamonds along with the british.It focussed more on building its economy as America and Russia were the newly independent countries competeing for supremacy.These black africans were chased deep into the junlges,treated them like animals and families were sheared aparart.They used to carry them in ships which had no enough space.these africans were pushed and locked up tightly like live stock.Many of them used to die by the time they readh the american coast.The more bodied and strong were chosen for tough jobs just like horses.They used to shoot the african who tried to escape.
There was no good or bad side in the second world war.Each one of them wanted to be superior.It was all about being superior.British did the same thing as hitler did in the first world war.The only difference is Hitler's progress was very fast.So fast that the Europe was alarmed with its progress.Soon Hitler got enough power, he started taking back the territories like spain back into germany which was taken away from germany in the first world war. then he invaded and occupied the entire europe except in britain.Even france was taken.
British maintained appeasment just because they were not sure if they could defeat hitler.Hitler was defeated not because the allied nations were powerful but because of his own mistakes.He attacked Britain,Russia at a time and his troops suffered the unexpected severe russian winter.Hope everyone is aware of it.The land routes were blocked with snow and there was no means of transportation for his troops.
Japanese used to torture the troops.So did british people.they tortured Indian freedom fighters in Indian prisons and scoltish people were tortured to death in scotland.In the andaman and nicobar prisons,life was hell for them.New varieties of tortures were experimented on them.It was not just in India or scotland but this torturing of prisoners was everywhere.Japanese used these prisoners as experiments for their scientific researches.Both were inhuman acts.
Hitler was just Queen elizebeth of Germany.Even british people killed millions of people all over the world who were fighting for freedom.So did Hitler.He killed Jews because thye were secretly supporting the americans and this alarmed him.He wanted to be the supreme.It was in his rule the the beatle was invented.This was the first car in which people moved on the roads.Again am not taking any sides here.
Just because Hitler lost,the world came to know his bad side.If hitler would have won,the evils of allied forces would have been spread all over the world.After the war was over,feared with the war,europe and america made the UN.What did they do with Germany?split it into two.Thousands of families were split.(go and read on this topic if you dont believe me)
Americans are special?In what way? By killing the red Indians and driving them away from their home land? By 'buying' slaves from african.Who are americans? America is full of settlers from outside. Britishers killed the true american race, Red Indians who were the natives of america and settled there calling themselves as americans.Slowly other europeans settled there.It was because of great people like Abraham Lincon that the once slave africans are able to live happily today.And in return what did he get?Killed by his own people.
What has private sector to do with the war.Private sector did not go on a war.It was the givernment which was in debt which went on war.regarding the democracy LOL everybody knows how well polititians decieve people man.there is no true and ideal democracy.Clinton was releaved from his charges of raping monika just because he was a president is democracy?
Bush was elected unanimously as the villian (most of them were americans and europeans.Only a few arabs use internet).You can also go to the 'BBC Have your say '
and check out what people are saying.You will find one supporter of bush from 50 haters(americans).
The entire world knows and is talking about Bush saying 'This was a guy who tried to kill my daddy'.Look at this guy acting like a small kid.He brought Saddam's pistol and kept it as a sovinier,behaving like a serial murderer collecting soveriers after each muder.This is not how a decent and responsible head of a nation should act.This clearly shows his personal hatred on Saddam Hussien.
No country was ever completely good or completely bad.The imperial countries just wanted to be supremer and that is what exactly Saddam did and that is what exactly Bush did.I can do nothingelse but laugh at people who see Bush as a freedom fighter and life saver for Iraqis.
I believe in possibilities and i was also cheated by schoolmates.But school,business is different from a war.How sick of you to compare lives of people with some business.When you are a head of country like America,you must be more cautious.When the UN was saying there were no weapons of mass destruction,Bush blindly believed that the Stupid CIA said.Is this not an act of irresponsibility on his part.
Like I already said, the links i give are not just articles and personal views like yours but it contains news from trusted news sites.Like I said you did not read my articles and are just blindly forcing your views.This is called brain washing.In the links i posted,there is a link which will take you to the news that 'Blair already knew there were no weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq.Now dont tell me that Blair did not tell this to Bush and kept it a secret.
R1, I had to comment on your character because I think you are getting more and more impossible to deal with. Many of your facts are plain wrong and one-sided, deliberately or not.
You said you blocked my articles because I insulted Islam? Can I just ask a few questions about Islam? You accused me of insulting Islam and on the other hand, you said I know nothing about Islam.
All the more reasons for you to answer all my questions, but instead of addressing, YOU REFUSED TO POST MY ARTICLE.
By rejecting my articles, you made light of my views, you insulted me first. I don’t mind if one day you can present me with a logical view that I cannot refute, I will admit defeat.
If your reasons are higher than mine, defending my views will look ridiculous. I wouldn’t want to be in that position.
Now I am going to expose your lies,
They are;
1)You lied about me - Personal attacks on me; you said I talked nonsense and crap about Islam.
Where is the proof?
2)You lied with your statistics – in your blog, you deceitfully wrote;
("You are talking about the 9% Kurds and shias in Iraq who felt happy and am talking about the 91% Iraqi people who are still fighting for their freedom.")
When I countered your lie with facts from wikipedia stats, you refused to post it. Here, at Mr. Adwait’s blog, fortunately I am able to present a much more accurate statistics
-----------------------------------------------------
A July 2005 estimate of the total Iraqi population is 26,074,906.
Seventy-five to eighty percent of Iraq's population are Arabs; the other major ethnic groups are the Kurds at 15-20%
Most of Iraqis are Shi'ite Muslims (60%), and Sunni represent one third of the total population (35%) made up of mostly Arabs and Kurds.
Proportions: There are no official figures available, mainly due to the highly politically charged nature of the subject. Source: Britannica: Shi'a 60%, Sunni 40% Source: CIA World Fact Book: Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%
-----------------------------------------------------
3)You lied again about no one is actually reading and responding to my comment except yourself. You know very well that I have been corresponding with Mr. Adwait in his blog.
My posts are my response to his articles.
4)You lied again with world’s energy. You said oil is everything and no modern machinery could work without it.
You have read my article on nuclear powers as an alternative. Even in your blog, I have even presented you with a fact that Brazilian public transport has been running on sugarcane alcohol fuel.
Right now, major motor companies have been successful in inventing electric car technologies. They are currently perfecting it for mass production.
Unless you are living in a cave, you should be aware of this fact.
5)Again, you lied when you said “British maintained appeasement just because they were not sure if they could defeat hitler.”
The real reason why British maintained appeasement was that the politicians at that time have become pacifists. The memory of bloody WWI was still fresh in their memory. They did not want to waste another generation for war.
As for their being unsure if they could defeat Hitler, I can answer this very easily. They were always SURE that they can beat Hilter.
The fact that British stood alone in the Battle of Britain said something about their conviction. They knew Hitler would never be able to cross the English Channel and overrun the British mainland.
And one of the famous quotes of Mr. Churchill was “We have won the war!”
It was said when the United States entered the War after Pearl Harbor. All along, the British were aware of the US’s enormous war materials and human resources.
They were confident that the US would always stand behind them. It was just a matter of when the US would join in. When The US did, Mr. Churchill knew that Hitler was already defeated.
That’s real history you are trying to cover up.
6)You lied about UN splitting post-war Germany into two. Since you said you have read the topic, you should know that East Germany was created as a communist outpost by the Soviet Union who refused to have a joint-administration.
Hence, the Berlin airlift.
The West had always wanted the Germany in a whole. That's why they worked towards a United Germany.
In fact, Reagan's challenge to Gorbachev was "Bring Down This Wall!"
7)You lied again when you said of Hitler “He killed Jews because they were secretly supporting the Americans and this alarmed him.”
Hitler’s hatred towards Jews was legendary. He hated them even before he was the Chancellor. His hatred towards Jews had nothing to do with his war plan.
You said Jews’ treachery alarmed him? That’s most hilarious! Even when the Nazi party was still small, Hitler already expressed his hatred towards Jews in his book Mein Kampf.
And it was not even War yet!
8)You lied again about the automotive invention. You said “It was in his rule the the beatle was invented. This was the first car in which people moved on the roads.”
I don’t know who you are trying to kid here. But all I know is that the first car in which people moved on the roads was FORD in America.
He built his first car in 1896. Later on, he successfully mass produced his cars cheaply to the American public. The most famous was the T-Model.
R1, You are a plain LIAR!
Man your hatred for me has made you blind.
1.Personal insulting posts were - My posts were stupidious,I am a sneaky fellow,I dont have guts,I have a mind of a dictator etc.Now who is the liar.
2.Yes I said only 9% of shias In Iraq are enjoying his fall and that is right.All the shias in Iraq did not hate him.And shias in rest of the world are celebrating his fal.If you read the news,most of the Iraqi shias said Saddam was better for tham than the foriegners.Even I hated some of my leaders but that doesnt mean that i will enjoy if someone attacks my country and takes it over.Only those shias whom Saddam has tortured and did injustice were celebrating.
And all the sunnis are not fighting on his side.91% sunnis are fighting with him or supporting him.Some sunnis in Iraq do no like his actions.
I was not talking about the population statistics man.
3.Well you take Adwait into account?If his article was not here then you wont be able to post here.Also i see he responded to you just once and no one else responded to your responses to their comments.May be someone will respond in near future.
4.Regarding Alternative energies, read what I said.I said even to develope some alternate source of energy,you need oil for reasearch and developing suitable technology so that we can use the alternate source as energy.
5.I still say that Britain was not sure if they could defeat Hitler.The royal british force was able to defeat Hitler's army only because the news that Hitler lost in the battle of stalingrad spread to britain.The armies got weak from within and british armies got an inspiration and trush that Hitler was not undefeatable.
I still believe that Hitler lost the battle because of his own mistakes.If he would have sent his armies on one country after onother instead of at a time, he would have won the war.This is just an opinion and an opinion can never be a lie.
6.Regarding Germany's division, Soviet union was a part of UN at that time.They just shared Germany to nutralise it which the termed as denazification.Go and read this at wikipedia article if you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_since_1945
7.Well he was a patroit from the beginning.He had his own opinion about jews and may reasons to hate them.During the World War I, members of the Zionist Jewish elite bartered with England and promised to bring the United States into the war in exchange for Palestine. This is the root cause of the belief that the Jews contributed to the defeat and subsequent economic rape of Germany in the post-war years.But he did not kill them as soon as he came to power.The killings started only after he started his war campaigns and started feeling that these guys are his largest enemies.He thought that Aryan race was superior and that Jews were inmpure and unclean.Some believe that Jews while killing jesus said 'let this fall on our head and our childrens' out of their disbelief and hatred to Jesus(pbuh) so some say that God had sent down Hitler on them as a calamity.I did not supported these killings anyway.But was just mentioning the reaons.He paid for it.He suffered a lot for taking away jewish possesions and ruthlessly killing them.Lot of scientific advances came to a halt and faced severe political pressure.
8.Man even a primary school kid will tell you who invented the first car.I was talking about german people.The first car in which german people moved was todays volskwagen.Hitler wanted a better vehicle than ford which would be available at an affordable cost.And he did it he was able to deliver cars to middle class people.While in rest of the world,only rich class used to have cars in those days.
I wont call you a liar nor i will judge your character.But you need to improve a lot to be able to handle civilised well mannered discussions.
R1,
You still lied, unrepentant liar!
1) You have not pointed out how I insulted Islam and what crap and nonsense I have posted.
2) From where did you get the number of 9% and 91%? You wrote “All the Shias in Iraq did not hate him”. Wow, what a statement! I let the readers do the judgment.
3) Mr. Adwait responded me a few times. In fact, he invited me to correspond regularly. I am not sure why the others are not replying. Perhaps they are considering my views as well. It takes time to decide. And for difficult issues like Iraqi war, it will never be easy.
You are trying to corner me by saying NO ONE will be taken in by my BRAINWASH.
4) To develop alternative energies, one need oil for research? From where did you draw that conclusion?
Nuclear plants need oil? Dams need oil? Or Wind and solar batteries need oil? You really need to do more research on alternative energy development.
The popular theme for new alternative energy is “environment-friendliness”. The world is moving towards it.
Your insistence on “oil for research” shows how far behind you are in reading the latest scientific discovery on alternative energies. Don’t you know that nuclear plants only need uranium to run? And these are in huge reserves in Canada and Australia – staunch US’ allies.
Don’t you know that the scientists are now perfecting nuclear batteries? In the future, I believe they would invent batteries that can fit in automotives – for both commercial and military purposes)
Like I said to Mr. Adwait, the world will adjust.
5) You said (“The royal British force was able to defeat Hitler's army only because the news that Hitler lost in the battle of Stalingrad spread to Britain.”).
You even said (“The armies got weak from within and British armies got an inspiration and trush that Hitler was not undefeatable.”)
You know, you are good at inventing stories – for toddlers!
For real facts, come to papa!
Hitler’s venture to Russia started with Operation Barbarossa – June 1941 – December 1941. The defeated German army under Field Marshall Paulus surrendered Stalingard on 23 February 1943.
Now, Battle of Britain ran from around August 1940 till May 1941. So how could the British armies draw an inspiration from a Stalingard war that “is yet to happen in 1942”? I see, British must have had a 007 agent on a time machine.
British were a proud people still. They stood firm because they knew Hitler could not takeover the mainland. In fact, all Hitler could do was to bomb England from above. Nothing more. Not one Nazi soldier was able to set a foot on the British mainland.
Mr. Churchill maintained a strong relationship with US President Roosevelt and therefore knew that the US was equally concerned with Nazi expansionism. Mr. Churchill was confident that sooner or later, the US would join the war with the right excuse. The stake was too high to ignore. The US would not want to lose Europe to Nazism.
With the US’ resourcefulness, it was a matter of time before Hitler lost the war. And he did.
You also said earlier on that British appeased Hitler because they were unsure about defeating Hitler. Not at all!
Appeasement was largely the fault of that coward Chamberlain, had he been stern with Hitler, Hitler perhaps would have backed down. But Britain under Churchill never ever doubted that they would ultimately win the war.
You also wrote (“If he would have sent his armies on one country after another instead of at a time, he would have won the war.”)
It all depends on whom you are fighting with. In 1940s the US was unbeatable. And frankly speaking, I don’t think Hitler’s Germany’s resources could match the Americans’.
I believe WWII was essentially an American fight. Most major European countries were overrun. Britain was bankrupt. During the war, the British and other Europeans were just contributing their manpower, but it was the US’s resources, military hardware and money that made the difference.
No! Hitler could never defeat the Americans even if he were to fight one-on-one.
6) Nope! The UN had never intended to split the post-war Germany. It was Soviet Union’s coup against the UN. Stalin just wanted to keep every piece of his winnings.
7) You called Hitler a patriot?! That guy even cursed the Germans at the closing of the war when he realized that he was defeated. He said the Germans are not worthy of him! Bottom line; HE WAS A MAD MAN.
I don’t buy Jewish conspiracy theories because almost all that I know are full of holes. German Jews bartered Germany for Israel? Come on!
Contrary to Arabs’ beliefs, most powerful and rich Jews would want to remain in their adopted countries. Well, be realistic! You stay in where your wealth and influence are.
If I were Steven Spielberg with good business in the US, why would I want to risk everything and settle for less in Israel? The fact is lots of rich Jews like Steven Spielberg never plan to move to Israel. There are still rich German Jews in Germany.
Why would they want Germany to lose and pay huge war money to the Allies? In fact, when Germany lost the war and had to pay huge money to the victors, Jewish businesses were equally hurt; they had to pay higher taxes.
All this craps about Zionist conspiracies; they are for toddlers who can barely think.
8) Oh boy, you believe in a sincere Hitler? A Hitler whose heart is for the best interest of his German people?
Hitler’s mind was all about conquest – European first, the world ultimately. The real reason for building the first autobahn (highway) across Germany was to make sure that when his armies moved, they would move speedily. The real reason why he wanted Germans to own cars, I believe, was also to increase the mobility of his people-armies. There was nothing good in that Devil.
---------------------------------------------
R1, the real reason why I call you a liar, it is because you are a LIAR. You tried to cover up facts as much as possible to support your baseless accusations. You are deceitful man, deceiving whenever possible.
The real reason why you don’t want to call me a liar, because I am NOT a liar!
A civil and well mannered discussion must come from mutual respect. A person earns respect from his integrity. His integrity rests on how he presented his argument – on reliable data.
You have not got a real data, yet you barge in like a mad man.
There is something you need to know. To cover up a lie, one have to lie even more.
And I am going to expose each and every one of them!
plz plz
this is turning into a mud slinging match
plz take it away frm my blog
LOL Kiddo True conscience.I can prove that you are a liar and show that my statements are not baseless.
"For real facts, come to papa!" - Look at this.You are behaving like an ill mannered high school drop out and you talk about manners and integerity.
It was you who was complaining about me because you could not just discuss with me.Its ironical that you are talking about integrity.
I showed the wikipedia link about denazification policy the allied countried adopted,splitting Germany into 4 parts.you still force your baseless views that Soviet union did it.Even soviet union is a part of UN.In that case my statement was not wrong.
For alternate powers like water and other,you need oil for machinery to work and to built the required infrastructure.The very Steam Engine can not be nuilt without the help of oil.You need dams to be constructed from which water can be used as alternate source of energy.After all the producsion using oil and natural gas,the natural power equipment will be ready to use.
I have answers for each and every line of you silly childish comments (even about Britishers and hitler).But i respect the blog owner so am not prolonging this issue.
You can have your childish enjoyment or you can again yell at me with frustation like a kid.I wont mind.Bye
Adwait I was not talking about the battle of Britain that took place in 1940.That battle was just to terrorise and wound britain psychologically.Hitler was planning about more severe war with britain.
Battle of britain was not a full fledge war.British just saved themselves.They knew that Hitler would come back.
Hitler made a mistake by attacking Russia along with the weak britain instead of the britain alone.
Battle of stalingrad changed the tide of war.Britain royal airforce suffered severe losses and this is what i said that Hitler made a mistake.He went to Russia instead of attacking the wounded Britain.
Hitler attacked britain again with his V weapons called (vengeance weapons).V1 and V2.For details
The V-2 was first used in September, 1944. Like the V-1 Flying Bomb it carried a one ton warhead.this 14 metres (47 feet) long, liquid-fuelled rocket was capable of supersonic speed and could fly at an altitude of over 50 miles.As a result it could not be effectively stopped once launched.Over 5,000 V-2s were fired on Britain.of which only 1,100 reached Britain These rockets killed 2,724 people and badly injured 6,000.This shows that Hitler's war with Britain was not over by may 1941.
Reference for kids - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWv2.htm.
Battle of Britain did not end the war with britain.But with the defeat in stalingrad,the inspired allied forces united and were able to stop Hitler.
Hitler would have surely won if he took one nation at a time.
Mr. Adwait,
This will be my closing for this the topic; I wish to move onto the next one.
R1, you are a coward. You know very well that only in Mr. Adwait’s blog that my posts will be uncensored. You have deleted my posts in your blog TWICE.
And you put a warning in your blog against me! You said you would reject all my articles without even reviewing it. Mr. Adwait had the knowledge.
How could I present my arguments fairly if you have the liberty to censor? You are acting like a dictator in your blog.
I never fear any debate with you. I have seen your worth.
Open up your blog and pledge NOT to censor. I tell you, I will make a bloody long war in your blog and along the way I shall expose every little lie you designed. You stand no chance to even hold your ground.
1) On Divided Germany.
There was a record that showed the Allies wanted to have a joint-administration in post-war Germany. The fact that the Allies were dividing Germany into 4 was only a temporary military governance policy. Over time, these Allied powers would hand over the power back to German people through democracy. This was truly demonstrated by the fact that West Germany had only one central government in Bonn.
Stalin feared that over the long run, Allies’ democracy and freedom would loosen his grip on Eastern Germany. That’s why he pulled out. Soviet Union did not respect the UN decision. The building of Berlin Wall was in fact his act of defiance against the UN.
By sealing the Russian part of Germany, Stalin had effectively launched a coup against the UN. And it was successful.
2) This R1 is totally nuts over oil. Luckily the world’s scientists are not as desperate as him. These scientists will make sure that the world civilizations will move on and away from burning fossil fuels.
There will be a time when oil will only be found in a jar in museums. There will be a time when every electrical motors will run on batteries supplied by either solar or nuclear energy because these are the only powers that preserve our environment.
3) On Britain in WW II
R1 was the General Hitler dearly needed. R1 would teach Hitler how to boat his massive armies across the English Channel. R1 would supervise the swimming lessons for the soldiers. All these would bring about the Nazi victory over Britain.
Check “Battle of Britain” on wikipedia. You will find that “German planes were no match to English Spitfires”. German planes have been operating blindly without much intelligence. There was little chance for them to win the airspace over English Channel.
The wikipedia also mentioned that German Navy was no match to British. There was no way that German navy could have guided massive troop’s deployment for English Channel.
Why would the British fear Nazi?
R1’s most hilarious phrase (“But with the defeat in Stalingrad. the inspired allied forces united and were able to stop Hitler.”)
The Allies had united long ago against Hitler. Their forces were complete when the US joined them in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor attack. That December 1941, Allied powers have made up their mind to finish Hitler off; whatever it took. Stalingard fell in February 1943. It did nothing more but boosted their morale.
Actually Stalingard was not the only major Nazi’s defeat. Hitler also lost disastrously on the African front!
Perhaps you are NOT aware that Hitler also faced numerous coup or assassination attempts by his own army officers. These military people were sure that Hitler was bringing Germany to the path of destruction when the US joined in. They were aware of the US’ resourcefulness. They knew in the long run, Germany would be defeated.
Just to give you an idea of how powerful the US was in WW II. At every war front opened by the Nazi (except for Russian front), the Americans would be there to engage. And still at the same time, the Americans were fighting a lone war in Far East against the Japanese, half the globe away!
Nazi Germany did not even go as far as the Suez Canal.
With an Ally such as the Americans, who needed to be unsure of victory against Hitler?
-------------------------------------------
R1, you should write a book – a hypothesis on how you would teach the Nazi soldiers to swim across the English Channel. That would be a major best seller! The Olympic swimming contestants will definitely be interested.
All these nonsense that you talked about are just exposing more of your butts than your brain. And I shall be a stern schoolmaster who will spank your butts for every lie you said.
O My Goodness! You deleted your own topic in your blog! I can no longer find “WHAT CNN AND BBC DO NOT SHOW YOU”! I always thought you are proud of it!
Fear that everyone will see through your stupidity?!
Adwait,I knew that some childish ignorant blind supporters of america who keep forcing their views upon others even after all the facts were shown (i clearly said i was not talking about 'battle of britain'.The Germans themselves finally announced the V-2 on 8 November 1944 and only then, on 10 November 1944, did Winston Churchill inform Parliament, and the world, that England had been under rocket attack "for the last few weeks".If britishers won in 1941's battle of britain, how come they were under attack?A country is declared as victorious only when the enemy is completely destroyed or the enemy surrenders completely.You cant call Britain victorious when the enemy is still attacking it.Britishers just saved their lives in that battle nothing else.Adwait you can know more about the V2 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket)
would start abusing after being prooved wrong.That is why you need to moderate your blog comments.Because am good and mature enough that am not returning the same abusings some people are using for me.But dont expect that everybody will be like me.
I removed that post of 'What CNN and BBC do not show you' from the Islam blog and placed it in news blog of mine because i did not want to spoil the peace of that blog.I thought it would be better to carry on such topics at news blog.
Adwait,I have decent replies to all the abusive arguements but i dont want to spoil your blog.
Its better that you moderate your comments.It is not always cowards who avoid a fight,sometimes smart people also do.
I want to stop but am being pressed to respond by the continious abusings by some kids.tc
Adwait,I just wanted to educate people who are reading me (ignoring all the silly abusings)the authours of "Battle of Britain" article at Wikipedia are mostly britishers or americans and we dont know the german side of the story.
And regarding the statement 'Hitler's troops were of no match for british navy', it was just an opinion by the authours.
Opinions wont carry much weight in a war because anything can happen with the changing tide of the war.May be they were true or may be they are wrong nobody knows.
I never took any sides, i was just trying to see the situation from both the sides.
I dont know why some people are getting so angry (acting like generals of dictators) when i say 'Hitler would have won if he took one country at a time'.It was just my opinion,it might happen or may not happen.
Hitler took most of the territories which were occupied by britain.Britain surrendered Hong kong to Japan.Based on his advancements in Europe,If hitler would have attacked one country at a time.
It was not that Hitler lost because of lack of technology or fleet.He made simple mistakes which gave the british royal force a break and turned out to be a boon for them.http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/Battle_of_Britain/AP22.htm
Also see people who have same opinion as mine - http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/battleofbritain.htm .
Read those articles and tell me if i was taking any sides.I always said that the war was for supremacy and there were no completely good or bad sides.
Mr. Adwait, I am sorry that I broke this promise.
But I promised you that this will be my very last one in "Circus in Iraq".
I just could not help but to laugh when i casually went to the website R1 pointed
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/
battleofbritain.htm
The essay on Battle of Britain WAS written by Hassan, a Year 9 student at Laisterdyke High School!
Bros! Check out the kid's grammatical mistakes and his lack of logic.
The boy wrote in his first sentence. German Air Forces were superior but got beaten by RAF which was outnumbered.
Now which one is SUPERIOR? German or British?
I shall speak no more.
I am surprised that the page i provided was written by a 9 year class student.For me age does not matter nor the grammar provided that the content is true and relavent.
Luftwaffe was the most feared air fleet all over eaurope having 2000 fighters in those days.
A superior and outnumbered army can be defeated in a war.Thta is why i said anyting can happen with changing tide of war.
If you go through the previous link i gave,you will find what mistakes luftwaffe commited and how royal air force took advantage of it.
Churchill ordered bombings on germany and this made hitler mad he said "If you bomb our cities,we will burry yours".So hitler ordered ruthless bombings on the cities of britain.This gave the wounded RAF enough time to retaliate and fight back.There are other mistakes which the link i provided explains.If you cant read the entire article then dont comment.Because you are talking without knowing the entire facts and just forcing your views.
Even britain boasts of defeating a superior air fleet than theirs.But people who are blinded with hatred can not see this truth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6649248.shtml?sectionId=0&articleId=6649248 - This is a BBC fact file saying that Luftwaffe was far superior to RAF but still the raf was able to defeat it.
Adawait.I can see that this comment section is going out of hands.Even i am very frustrated with the constand abusings taking palce here.I had no intension to fight in your blog.I was just justifying false accusings made on me.I can explain them at other place like you said but it doesnt make any sense.If someone calls me a liar here,i should be given a fair chance to defend myself infront of the readers of this blog where i was called a lair,coward,mannerless etc.Ironically you talk about democracy.If you cant stop people abusing me then you should not stop me from defending myself this is democracy.
As usual, i will always have answers to any comment passed at me.But i wont be comming here anymore so people who think i dont have the answer can have their childish enjoyment.
And to the person whoever is abusing true conscience.Stop it man it will only creat negative impression towards people who are agaisnt his ideas.
Adwait,bye to your blog forever man.
Sorry Mr. Adwait, I am not going to make any promises now, now that I know I cannot keep them.
I believe in fighting to the finish line! And I would not tolerate a lie or deceit.
Luftwaffe was not what Europe then feared. It’s the new and unknown Nazi tactic called Blitzkrieg that frightened many old-thinking Allied generals.
And Blitzkrieg did not depend on Luftwaffe alone. It was a combination of furious air attacks that send the waiting army to disarray and it was to be followed with motorized infantries and other army units that quickly occupied the land. The motorized land units were the important part of Blitzkrieg because its aim was to occupy. Bombing alone could not do it.
Yes, Nazi Germans were the first to replace the horses with motors in their infantry units and that helped the armies advanced much faster than the old thinking Allied powers had anticipated. Those motors helped the Nazi Germany won much of Europe in the onset of the war.
Luftwaffe alone was not fearsome.
Why did I doubt the year 9 student’s writing? It was not so much for his grammatical mistakes. The kid just got the facts wrong, and his story did not make sense.
The kid wrote that the superior Luftwaffe was beaten by the outnumbered (definitely inferior) RAF! How can?
You can switch your bombings from airfields to cities, but as long as you are stronger (much superior) than your enemy, why back down?
British Hurricanes and Spitfires scored many hits on Luftwaffe, that’s the answer! The British were fighting back! Luftwaffe finally realized that the Battle of Britain could not be won.
That year 9 student also wrote “Hitler wanted to finish Britain off quickly and the quickest way was invasion…The German's had codenamed their invasion plan of Britain Operation Sea Lion, which was divided into five separate Phases.”
But then later on he wrote “Phase 5: The Luftwaffe wait for the British reaction.”
Now, my question is – how do you invade your enemy’s land by waiting? The fifth phase was the last one, let me remind. The kid did not mention any sixth phase.
Then the kid also wrote “If Hitler had continued with Operation Sea Lion it is quite possible that Britain would have been defeated.”
The kid never mentioned how the last phase of Sea Lion (waiting for British reaction), if continued, could defeat Britain.
Somebody has got to explain to me.
Nazi Germany had no record of a big military operation to cross the English Channel! How can you invade Britain without getting your armies over the other side?
It is a known fact among historians that the objectives of Operation Sea Lion were unrealistic. Hitler’s Nazi was only good with land conquest, never the seas.
Yes, these exchanges have definitely gone out of hands. But I did invite R1 to open up his blog and have the fight there. He did not respond.
R1, I am judging your character because I found you coming up with lots of unreasonable debates. You switched and dragged topics.
You said at first “British appeased because they were unsure they could fight Hitler.” When I countered with the fact that that appeasement ended with the resignation of Chamberlain and the British were sure of their victory with the US as an ally, you bragged about Hitler’s military power which had nothing to do with British’s confidence.
Hitler’s military power, however big, never cowed the British. In fact, Churchill never once begged Hitler to stop. He was determined to fight Hitler till the end.
You talked about the US economy falling like “a wall of cards”. When I countered with many factors of the US economy’s invincibility, you then said the US government has lots of debts. Economy and government have never been the same.
I found you deliberately misleading.
Post a Comment