Topic started by Tamilnadu Interest Group (@ pcp02515613pcs.arlngt01.va.comcast.net) on Tue Apr 1 01:39:24 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

This is for those who oppose the war, thinking that the US is wrong in invading Iraq :

Read this article
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030326-73869520.htm

And don't refuse to listen why they are invading.

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: cat (@ 203.127.227.242) on: Wed Apr 23 05:58:36 EDT 2003
  
  It is my personal preference that the US and other
  Western/developed nations have as little to do with the Islamic world as
  possible. It has become a dysfunctional culture and I'm not sure that any
  type of therapy no matter how kind or brutal can cure it. Frankly I know of
  
  no culture that has ever come away "whole" after being confronted with
  Islam. The Balkans, the Sub-Continent and the former Christian/pagan
  communities in the Middle East all seem to suffer from constant violence
  and
  upheaval and this goes back long before the US came on the scene. Then you
  have the "troubles" in the Philippines and Southern Thailand which have
  been
  going on for decades also.
  
  Yet, sometimes if there has to be dealings with various troubled socities
  you have to support the least of two bad alternatives. Is it bad that Sadat
  
  made peace with Egypt after being bribed by the US? Is it bad that Israel
  returned the Sinai to Egypt as part of that deal? Is it bad that Egypt and
  Israel are not locked in a shooting war today, which since Israel has
  nuclear weapons could have ended in mass destruction of millions of
  Egyptian
  people? Surely Kamel, you can see that there would be no need to bribe a
  man
  like Sadat to make peace with the Israelis if Egypt were willing to cut its
  
  losses and make peace with the Israelis in a democratic and peaceful way by
  
  itself.
  The same is true with Mushareff in Pakistan. Yes we know he supports
  terrorism on the sly while the US looks the other way but it is better than
  
  having a hardcore Islamist in power with his finger on the button of
  Pakistan's nukes. Is it a bad thing that India and Pakistan are today not
  lobbing nuclear weapons at each other? In the case of the Sub-continent I
  think this is the best thing we can hope for at the moment. Yet, there
  would
  be no reason to bribe Mushareff if the Pakistanis were capable of settling
  their differences with India in a peaceful, democratic fashion. After 1948
  they had the chance to build a successful society like South Korea or
  Japan.
  Instead they chose to pour all their energies and resources into fighting
  with India over Kashmir (and Bangladesh) for the past 50 years. Like Egypt
  and the rest of the Arab world over Israel, Pakistan could have chosen to
  cut their losses over Kashmir and concentrated on fixing their own internal
  
  problems. But they didn't. It's all blame India, blame the US, blame the
  British colonialists for their failed state, but never blame themselves, or
  
  take action to fix their problems themselves.
  
  The US did not create the pathologies that afflict the Middle East or the
  Sub-Continent. US policies may have exploited some of these for its own
  ends
  but they are not a US creation. But as long as there is the convenient
  scapegoat that "US foreign policy" is responsible for all evil in those
  areas, the situation is hopeless, and the people will not take
  responsibility for changing.
  
  In the case of selectvely supporting dictators, sometimes this has worked
  out well and sometimes it has been a disaster. In Korea the US supported a
  right-wing dicator as the best alternative to a Communist government. Today
  
  South Korea is a democracy and the people are among the wealthiest in the
  world after only 50 years, while the people under the Communist
  dictatorship
  are starving to death and hundreds of thousands are imprisoned in a Korean
  gulag. The South Korean "miracle" did not happen overnight but it happened.
  
  The same with Taiwan and the same with Japan. Surely Chiang Kai Sheck was
  no
  one's idea of a committed, tolerant democrat. But somehow Chiang's
  descendents and cronies have managed to turn Taiwan into a realtively free,
  
  First World, peaceful and successful nation.
  
  All of these nations started out as "US-supported" right-wing
  dictatorships.
  (Contrast this with the development -- or rather non-development -- of the
  Middle East over the same period of time.)
  
  Perhaps the difference is that the South Koreans and Taiwanese saw an
  opportunity to improve their societies, as bad as they were at the time,
  and
  worked hard to achieve success, while those in the Middle East did not?
  What
  would have happened to Japan if it had spent all of its resources and human
  
  capital into avenging its "lost honor" in WWII instead of building itself
  into an economic super-power? Do you think that Japan would be as wealthy
  and peaceful as it is today?
  
  Neither you nor I can say what would have happened in those countries if
  they had been left to themselves. Nor you nor I can say what would the
  Middle East look like if the US did not play its hand in that area either.
  
  
• From: sankar (@ sdn-ap-036ilchicp0218.dialsprint.net) on: Sun Oct 3 00:36:22
  
  why this debate? muslim countries should be taught a lesson by other powers! look sudan now. look what is happening to those poor farmers there! do muslims anywhere know how to govern a country without civil war? without letting loose atrocities on it's own citizens?
  
  and don't ever sympathize with middle east thulukkans. they ill treat third world labourers, especially coolie women from srilanka/India. the rich sheikhs think they "own" the coolie employees working for them. do we really need these kind of people in the 21st century?
  
  

Want to post a response?