USA part 2, at a country near you

by **vivek** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:21 pm

Look, this whole Iraq war thing is something only the forces of the coalition are aware of. The new reports which we get see are either skewed or censored. It\'s a great long term strategy of the \'coalition of the developed word\' to add one more nation in the list of \'doomed third world nations\'. Analysts belonging to neutral nations believe that but for the oil wells and natural resources, USA would have gone the UN council way, gotten a rejection and then settled for some \'bi-lateral diplomatic talks\'. What\'s US\'s business anyway to \'liberate\' people of other nations? And why go about gathering support, making a coalition\' and bombing - it\'s oil for sure. Fine, the coalition is taking precautions to protect the civilians, but today\'s sophisticated weapons aid is doing just that. Today, the US and the UK are talking about letting the Iraqis decide to appoint a democratic government. So here\'s what\'s going to happen. The Iraqis would appoint a government, which would be remote controlled from the US and the UK. The Iraqi \'government\' would oblige as the US and the UK would have been providing lots of re-construction support. For Iraq, it\'s an obligation, but for the US it\'s an investment with the returns being - OIL. This alone is sufficient for them to remain developed and finger everyone else for 100 years. Nostradamus is supposed to have said that \" while the iron bird thing hits the two towers of ego, the third anti-christ would pose a threat to the kings of the properous\" - or something like that. Looks good, but what he also added to it is that the end of the third anti-christ would bring a war of 27 years! Interesting? So to be politically correct, it\'s USA part 2.

by **vrinda** » Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:43 pm

Hey man, you should post boards like \" will true love produce intelligent babies or nature\". Not these serious ones pal. Its way over head for most who wanna know what true love and marriage and senti things in life is all about. Just for the record anyway, i agree with whatever you wrote in this board!

by **All Claws** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:12 am

Hey,check out http://www.guardian.co.uk It\'s quite informative and bold esp in this day and age where our media is trying to be only patriotic and maybe a lil biased.

by **bull** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:19 pm

Hey!! Interesting write up Vivek!! America has done what it wanted to do long time ago; their longing desire to actually own an oil country rather than just buy oil (at the same time they are sick and tired of being called infidels, unwelcome and unwanted guests and so on), so now they don\'t have to face all that; by the way Israel inc. is also one of the prime beneficiaries in the Iraqi conquest. They will be doing the oil pipeline job. This is a major break for Israel, now they will be practically involved in the mainstream oil business, something that they could only see from a distance so far!!!

by **vivek** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:45 pm

Ya, heard something on those lines. Oil is of strategic importance for USA, at least that\'s what they say. Now the question is how would they do that. It\'s important that they do something which \'looks\' legitimate under the watchful eyes of the hard liners. I am not counting UN here, simply because US\'s permanant membership and the power of VETO just add to the super lobbying that US does. If they get oil now, the dollar value on the markets would like sky rocket, might get past euro and pound sterling. Then one can imagine the economy. Good thought, provided the US does not have to face any terrorist attack within the next year after the war is over.

by **S....d** » Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:10 pm

\'Will true love produce intelligent babies or nature\'. I think people have discussed and fought a loton this topic a couple of months before, isn\'t it miss lu.....e?

by **Samata** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:20 pm

If I am not mistaken the Nostradamus thing was made up after Sept 11th but I do agree with the substance of post.
I would venture futher and ask: if we agree that the US led war is unjust and self-serving then is there something we can do other than just sit and talk about it. One thing we can do is not cooperate - we can stop using US and MNC products and register our disapproval. An economic war needs an economic protest.

by KK » Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:05 am

Guys, I don\'t think there will be a TRUE democratic situation in Iraq. Have you seen today\'s headlines?? Iraqis want an ISLAMIC state... now everyone can understand how difficult it is to change the mindset.

by **Samata** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:59 pm

Why do we assume that an Islamic state and a democracy are fundamentally incompatible? Our own country is supposed to be a democracy and we have a Hindutva based Government. And America\'s president has proclaimed often enough that he takes inpiration from God and his rule is based on Christian principles. When two of the largest democracies in the world are avowedly faith based, then why deny Iraq the same?

by **Kishore** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:36 pm

The examples are not relevant - the leaders may follow whatever, but the constitutions in both the countries are independent of any faith, and that is what matters. Then, I don\'t have a great understanding of Islam or the Quran and so my comments might appear half-baked and unreasoned, but whatever we popularly understand of Islamic states is that they have archaic rules that infringe on human rights. Like someone else pointed out, most Islamic laws (as we consider them to be) were made about 2,000 years ago in the deserts of the Middle East in completely different contexts, and aren\'t relevant anymore today, but several fundamentalist leaders still subscribe to them. It\'s like following sati today - it was relevant in the age of the kings, the Rajputs, where if the ruler lost, then the women got raped by the marauding enemy and so had to preserve their honor in perhaps the only possible way. How would we react if the same practice is followed today anywhere? (I am giving an example of an archaic Hindu practice since I am a Hindu and talking about an Islamic practice may make me appear biased.) The most difficult problem is the fundamentalists - in any religion. Usually these are power-mongers who use religion to further their ambition for power. In Islam, they seem to be much more prominent and successful than in any other religion, which is the reason that Islamic states have a propensity to be dangerously cruel to basic human rights. I have always felt that whether a person follows all rules of his religion or not is absolutely his prerogative - the only thing that the state should have control over is anti-social behaviour and anti-national behaviour.

by **naz** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:58 pm

Very true!!!!

by **vrinda** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:19 pm

true and agreed, these are contentious issues. Islam has been interpreted in many ways, the fundamentalists state that what they do is what is bein said in Quran - which the Islamic hardliners deny. However, the issue of Iraq is more economic than religious. Iraq as an Islamic nation cannot loose its identity, but what needs to be looked at is whether the coalition is going to put a puppet government in place or are they actually going to help iraq establish a true democratic regime. Having waged a war, there is no point if US and UK does not gain anything economically. USA is now loosing its hold on several trade related matters, the dollar value has gone down, if not by much. Now it needs a source of income or a source to generate income, thats oil.

by **popesmokesdope** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:03 pm

Conflict, in the name of religion, has been around forever. The crusades set the ball rolling. No one here is trying to justify violence of any kind. I am not saying that anyone being Muslim would make him support jihad, or whatever it is that they call it. Religion here is a cloak, a convenient one at that. Even while recruiting, asking young people to lay down their lives for one man\'s cause is ineffective. Whereas saying, \"Come join us, be a martyr. Die for the sake of Allah\" is far easier, and much more effective. In this case, the struggle stops being isolated, it becomes transnational, surpassing every geo-political boundary there ever was. As simple as that. And people have always religion as a cloak with good effect - the IRA, the VHP, RSS, Marx in communist Russia, Milosevic in former Yugoslavia. Different contexts, differing results and ambitions. But, bottom line... religion is the most fertile ground for friction. People just exploit that fact. Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

by **popesmokesdope** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:14 pm

I think the responsibility should lie with every human being to rationalize emotion especially in a time of raging passion. The association of any community with their respective fundamentalist groups operating out of remote corners of the world is not justifiable. Every collectively marketed religion has its own share of extremism, perpetrated under the cloaks of reformation.Fundamentalists go back to their essential norm of the ends defying the means. But the human casualties, more specifically the civilian deaths cannot be ignored . And in any war, it is the innocent bystander who has borne the brunt of the intense hatred between the warring factions(look at IRAQ!!!). It leads to another question of whether this war is transnational, going beyond the political constraints and to a higher level of global integration; or if the term ‘war against terrorism’ is merely an excuse for the more intricate local logistics to be tackled(IRAQ, IRAQ, IRAQ!!!!). Ethnocentrism and hypocrisy are definitely leading us towards global dysfunction…

by KK » Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:16 pm

Samata, we need to look at the practical aspects of this issue. It is very good to think that IRAQ can have a succesful democratic set up. But, the fact is Islamic clerics will not allow that to happen just for obvious reasons and religion plays a major role in any muslims mind more than anything. To add to this last statement of mine.. how many hindus perform pooja daily or go to temple, christians go to Church once a week.. but 99% of muslims go to masjid every friday and they do Namaz atleast 3 times a day if not 5... so that is the effect of following and that is the major difference between people who follow Islam and other religions. I am neither trying to compare nor say good or bad about the commitment towards the religion, it is one of many factors that will show that it is very difficult to change the overall mindset. The clerics play a major role and we all know that they don\'t believe in Democracy or secularism or in other words freedom for all.

by KK » Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:01 pm

Check this out...http://www.msnbc.com/news/903808.asp
this article clearly shows how things are shapig up in IRAQ.

by **h2amgeneral** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:46 am

wat type of BS are u circulating? u say it as tho u dont want oil.. what type of hypocrisy is that? do u kno history? What does conquest mean? is it so wrong to go and take ove a counrty which has oil fields? if it is .. what the hell do u fill in ur petrol tank? cant u use lower prices at the pump.. quit being so hypocritical.. fine, if u want to boycott American products, go ahead. no 1s stoppin u, but keep in mind that if u screw around with Americans theyll screw u ovr double time...CALM DOWN!!

by **vivek** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:20 pm

buddy that does\'nt mean going to war with a \'hidden agenda\', we all fill fuel in our tanks and so do you, but image when the oil is the control of what would then truely be called as the super power. The oil barrel prices go up and you end up paying 50 bucks for a ltr of petrol, if ur in India. Thats the kinda situation we don\'t wanna be in. Petrol price hike gradually hikes up cost of living, then inflation, then lower of subsidies, then hike in fertilizer prices along with hike in LPG prices simultaneously transportation costs soarup, so your cigarates would cost more!. I am not stating all this would happen, but if you let monopoly in oil in the excavation stage it would trigger a chain of events.

by **bull** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:37 am

Hi Vrinda!! Your views sound pretty balanced and educated... Sure, as you have pointed out, the Iraqi situation is more economical or political and we know the American plan, but the question is will it work or not. Only time will tell. As Vivek has pointed out, if the atmosphere is calm and friendly for the near future, it will be good for everyone, you know!!

by **Arch** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 9:34 pm

I needed to know what you feel about this: Every human being thinks about the same issue in a different perspective depending upon whose side they are on. One country\'s hero/patriot could be another country\'s arch enemy. Yet, again, for example,the shites and sunnis could be dead against each other, but the hatred towards jews could be much more. So, they could be working together against Jews yet hating each other.
Keeping this in veiw, \'global\' \'collective\' \'community\'.. where do such feelings stand, PSD?
incidentaly, Can u pl. change ur name to something else? I find your messages to be interesting, informative and fun.. but your name makes me cringe, each time I have to read it !

by **Kiran** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:35 pm

Nice discussion ppl. I was only thinking if the issue is as black and white as we make it out to be. Is it just the oil...I am no xpert, but as far as i know bulk of oil exports to the US are from venezuela. but i also heard that the present political situation in Venezuela is pretty fluid...so the US is looking for another source of oil. There is another viewpoint that says the real threat is Saddams capability to produce WMDs (if he hasnt any) and the terrorists need for WMDs. And there is this whole theory of war-kickstarting-the-economic-growth goin around here.

by **vivek** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 11:17 am

ya,war always kickstarts the economy, history has it. Infact, most of markets around the world have shown increase in activity post war. More so, its the pre-war build up thats a turn off for markets. Markets have grown even during war times. I can illustrate further. Anyway, one need not think too much to conclude that the Iraq was very much an oil driven war. The real time has now come, its now to watch if US does what they have been stating pre-war. About establishing a free democratic government. The strategy they adapted was good, just after Um Qasar was captured and secured, ships with medicines and supplies docked for civilians. A great attempt to win public trust. Plus, the kurds and other anti - saddam groups have been taken in by the coalition forces for restoring peace. Although they are small in numbers, but they serve a vital purpose of being the link between the coalition and iraqi civilians. This is the first step towards building a country, from now on its purely political will. Time will tell.

by **popesmokesdope** » Thu May 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Hatred begets violence and violence begets death. A dead person is a dead person and a murderer is a murderer irrespective of his faith. Talking of who\'s more peacefully violent and who\'s righter or who was unjust and who wasn\'t doesn\'t get us anywhere, because it\'s all just w-r-o-n-g, no matter which group of sheep does it. Personally, I wish these fanatics would just go to war and kill each other, and leave people who are trying to live a life alone. About religious faith, It won\'t hurt to keep it personal, but I would still call it blindness. If I really thought someone was watching over me, I\'d be pissing all over the place. You kill a man - you are a murderer, you kill ‘em many - you are a conqueror and kill ‘em all - you are GOD.
b t w … happy cringing.

by **Arch** » Thu May 01, 2003 9:34 pm

atheist, um?! lots later to ur reply. gotogo.

by **Arch** » Fri May 02, 2003 1:22 am

When two people get together, there is bound to be a diff of opinion. It may turn to just abt anything... fights, hatred, violence, murder or a simple handshake over \'you may be right too!\'. What you suggest is more utopian, more ayn-rand ish (that\'s a compliment. take it.) Whereas, this is in between several contries, several faiths, several cultures, several whatever. How can it possibly be anything else other than wars and the whole lot of humbug with a sprinkle of peace here and there?
You are speaking abt lots and lots and lots of people on Earth to one single person, yourself... PSD? ;) For the sake of ur excellent sense of humor, at times; intelligence, when u r really serious, I will get to cringe, for a while...

Who is online