PDA

View Full Version : Powell pushes new UN Iraq role



Ironduke
04 Sep 03,, 06:22
Powell pushes new UN Iraq role

The US secretary of state has said Washington will begin circulating a draft resolution on giving the UN a bigger role in Iraq to Security Council members in the next few days.
Colin Powell said after contacting the foreign ministers of Russia, France, Germany and the UK that initial reaction to plans, which include transforming the coalition into a UN-approved multinational force, had been "positive".

"We are asking the international community to join us," he told reporters.

In America, concern over the costs of the occupation is mounting while in Iraq itself the US-led coalition is under criticism for failing to prevent recent terror attacks.

Mr Powell said the new resolution would ask for the creation of a multinational force under unified, American command.

It would also ask the US-backed Governing Council (GC) in Iraq to draw up an election timetable.

While the US would retain the "dominant" role politically and militarily, the UN would have roles to play in such areas as reconstruction and organising elections, he added.

Officials in London predicted no "sudden dramatic vote within days" at the Security Council but it is widely believed that America wants a resolution tabled before President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly in three weeks' time.

The BBC's David Bamford at the UN says the scene is set for hard bargaining with much concern that the new resolution should not be seen to endorse American actions in Iraq so far.

US burden

On Wednesday, the US transferred responsibility for security duties in a region of central Iraq to a 21-nation force led by Poland.

Marines formally handed over control of the area, which includes the troubled city of Najaf, to Polish commanders at a ceremony in Babylon.

The idea of asking the UN to give legitimacy to the US-led occupation of Iraq has been bitterly opposed by Bush administration hawks, says BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb.

But, he adds, President Bush now appears ready for compromise if it means the burden of reconstruction can be shared.

The US Congressional Budget Office warns that the number of American troops in Iraq will have to be more than halved if threats elsewhere in the world are to be confronted.

Iraq operations currently cost the US about $3.9bn a month.

US officials have been meeting colleagues from the European Union, Japan and the United Arab Emirates in Brussels to discuss Iraq's reconstruction.

International aid donors at the meeting expressed concern about the deteriorating security situation in Iraq.

Representatives of the UN, the World Bank and Iraq's GC are also present at the talks, designed to lay the groundwork for a formal international donors' conference in October.

Shia unrest

The US chief administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has said he is willing to give more authority to GC members once they consolidate their position.
But one GC member, Shia Muslim leader Muhammad Bahr al-Ulloum, has suspended his participation and threatened to set up armed militias, accusing the coalition of failing to provide adequate security.

He acted after Shia cleric Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim and more than 120 other Iraqis were killed by a bomb in Najaf on Friday.

Mr Bahr al-Ulloum told the BBC Arabic Service that such militias would be in charge of security in holy places in the cities of Najaf and Karbala.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3078016.stm

Ray
10 Sep 03,, 07:27
It is too late in the day to chalk out any UN involvement. The large majority of the international community have been antagonised for reasons as below:

1. By embarking on this war rubbishing UN as a defunct organisation.

2. The little legitimacy that could have even now forced other nations to contribute is if there were any WMD found. So many months have passed and not a single shred of evidence! Therefore, it appears that the Coalition of the Willing fudged the facts and had an imperialistic agenda to occupy the territory, foist a pliant regime, bolster their own sagging economy by doling out lucrative contracts to own preferred companies and finally obtain a stranglehold on the oil reserves and manipulate the world economy to serve their country's purpose. Nothing illegitimate about it since that would be in their nations' interest, but to look upon the other Nations as a bunch of imbecile who will swallow hook, line and sinker the garbage swilled out for justifying the war is galling!

Personally, if Saddam's regime has been sent to Kingdom Come, so much the better it is. But, the Islamic world does not think so. I have explained the Islamic mindset in the Afghanistan thread in detail. Briefly, the Islamic mindset controlled by the Mullahs' interpretation of the Koranic laws based on societal norms of those times cannot be changed. Islam is too dogmatic. Had they not been so, then the Islamic world would not be solely ruled by tinpot dictators and repressive monarchies. Apparently, they prefer an iron hand without a velvet glove. That is why Saddam was OK. There has been no revolution or rebellion in any Islamic state. Therefore, the concept of Freedom and Democracy is alien to the Islamic culture.

Hence, in Iraq they are still converging to their Imam and Mullahs and figureheads of the dictatorial Baathists. Nothing will change it and Bremmer should understand that fast. What they would grudgingly accept is electricity, water, medical facilities and schooling - something that was there even when Iraq was under siege. That is why the Iraqis are dissatisfied with the Coalition. The Democracy, Freedom and all such values no matter if they have come has no meaning to the Islamist Iraqis. If it did, they the Shias who were repressed by Saddam would have been the best champions of the Coalition's cause. They aren't. They incredibly hold the US with contempt.

Who will contribute to the UN Force? Europeans will send their notional representatives if at all. The impoverished East Europeans and the foot soldiers of EU will gleefully assist to show they are more loyal to Caesar than Caesar himself! And then, the impoverished Asians and African nations will join the bandwagon. But will the latter do so?

Let's explain the Asian and African mindset since it is pertinent as they will be the major contributor of UN troops. Asian and the Africans have been under colonial rule except for Thailand. They are chary of the 'whiteman' not because of colour but because as the Red Indians say 'Paleface speak with forked tongue'. None actually trusts a 'whiteman' because of their dubious past record and enslaving the people of Asia and Africa through deceit and double dealings. Therefore, the UN, created by the 'whiteman', gave some legitimacy to the aspirations of the decolonised. They are aware that the UN is a defanged pet of the 'whiteman', but at least it gives some comfort in this big bad world of 'whiteman's' manipulations and skulduggery! I am sure that many on this thread would feel discomfit and even livid and my sincere apologies to them but this is the uncomfortable fact and I am not a bigot. Therefore, when UN was spurned, it did not gel. It maybe worth noting that the first Iraq War did not have such a resistance as the second one had. The reason was simple. Saddam attacked Kuwait without good reasons. The second one, the Coalition attacked without good reason - no one was convinced that Iraq had WMD and those who understood Islam realised that 'Democracy' and 'Freedom' was all bullshit to the Islamists!

While all are aware that nothing can stop the US Juggernaut, yet they are chary about the return of the 'boss man', bwana, laaat [lord] sahib et al, to lord of all once again. Therefore, while the govts may acquiesce in principle, the citizens of countries that were under colonial rule will not.

Who are expected to contribute to the UN Forces? India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. India cannot since the lections are due next year. Any indications of kowtowing will spell the political death knell for that party. Therefore, it is a moot chance that India will join in.

Pakistan and Bangladesh? They are Islamic countries. The groundswell will swamp the governments. General Musharraf and Khaleda Zia will be six feet underground. Actually, I don't know how deep the Muslim buries their deep, but Christians bury six feet which is a safe depth.

It must be remembered that Iraq War has not been accepted as a legal war. Further, what rankles is that the European media dubs European countries alone as the 'international community'. How juvenile can one get?

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 03,, 13:15
Sir,

Are you reading the history right?


1. By embarking on this war rubbishing UN as a defunct organisation.

Precisely the reason why the UN would go in. In fact, has gone in. They're a target now. The UN need to prove the Americans wrong. Whether they get sufficient force contribution is another matter all together but there will be a UN armed presence if only the UN either got to shit or get off the toilet.


2. The little legitimacy that could have even now forced other nations to contribute is if there were any WMD found. So many months have passed and not a single shred of evidence! Therefore, it appears that the Coalition of the Willing fudged the facts and had an imperialistic agenda to occupy the territory, foist a pliant regime, bolster their own sagging economy by doling out lucrative contracts to own preferred companies and finally obtain a stranglehold on the oil reserves and manipulate the world economy to serve their country's purpose. Nothing illegitimate about it since that would be in their nations' interest, but to look upon the other Nations as a bunch of imbecile who will swallow hook, line and sinker the garbage swilled out for justifying the war is galling!

I count myself as guilty for being fooled into believing Iraq had WMDs but not by Bush, Rumsfeld, or even Gen Powell. The man who convinced me was none other than Saddam himself. The kicker was Saddam's release to his generals to use chems. It was only after the war that we found out his generals had no idea what he was talking about.


Personally, if Saddam's regime has been sent to Kingdom Come, so much the better it is. But, the Islamic world does not think so. I have explained the Islamic mindset in the Afghanistan thread in detail. Briefly, the Islamic mindset controlled by the Mullahs' interpretation of the Koranic laws based on societal norms of those times cannot be changed. Islam is too dogmatic. Had they not been so, then the Islamic world would not be solely ruled by tinpot dictators and repressive monarchies. Apparently, they prefer an iron hand without a velvet glove. That is why Saddam was OK. There has been no revolution or rebellion in any Islamic state. Therefore, the concept of Freedom and Democracy is alien to the Islamic culture.

That is neither fair nor accurate. Turkey is a prosperous democracy. Indian Muslims enjoy the benefits of a free state. Iran is a democrazy.

Apparently you've forgotten the Shia Uprisings in Southern Iraq after the Kuwait War. The Kurds had continual rebellion against both Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

In case you haven't noticed, sir. Nobody is crying over Saddam and everybody wants to know where his grave is so that they can dance over it and that includes alot of people in Iraq.

The current crop of dictators, including those in Saudi Arabia arrive at their position by armed force and with the support at the time of the people, first to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and then their desire for self rule of some kind. The Iranian Revolution was a massed uprising with extreme popular support and actions. You've kids throwing rocks at tanks.


Who will contribute to the UN Force? Europeans will send their notional representatives if at all. The impoverished East Europeans and the foot soldiers of EU will gleefully assist to show they are more loyal to Caesar than Caesar himself! And then, the impoverished Asians and African nations will join the bandwagon. But will the latter do so?

If history is to be any guide, almost everybody. They may not do so at first but once things settle down, this will be the place to go to get noticed and do a little flag waving.


Let's explain the Asian and African mindset since it is pertinent as they will be the major contributor of UN troops. Asian and the Africans have been under colonial rule except for Thailand. They are chary of the 'whiteman' not because of colour but because as the Red Indians say 'Paleface speak with forked tongue'. None actually trusts a 'whiteman' because of their dubious past record and enslaving the people of Asia and Africa through deceit and double dealings. Therefore, the UN, created by the 'whiteman', gave some legitimacy to the aspirations of the decolonised. They are aware that the UN is a defanged pet of the 'whiteman', but at least it gives some comfort in this big bad world of 'whiteman's' manipulations and skulduggery! I am sure that many on this thread would feel discomfit and even livid and my sincere apologies to them but this is the uncomfortable fact and I am not a bigot. Therefore, when UN was spurned, it did not gel. It maybe worth noting that the first Iraq War did not have such a resistance as the second one had. The reason was simple. Saddam attacked Kuwait without good reasons. The second one, the Coalition attacked without good reason - no one was convinced that Iraq had WMD and those who understood Islam realised that 'Democracy' and 'Freedom' was all bullshit to the Islamists!

With respects, sir. You don't speak for the Africans. They've been on empire building themselves. Qaddafi's foray into Chad. Assad's desire for a Great Syria in Lebenon. Nigeria as the biggest fish in its pond.

I find your statements as a reflection of the world's hypocrazy. Everybody was convinced Iraq had WMDs, the debate was over its maturity and effectiveness. Even Blix did not counter Bush's assertions that Iraq has not disarmed.

Second is that the world has continually start and fought wars without seeking nor desiring UN approval and not just "whiteman" countries. China invaded Vietnam twice (79, 84). Ethiopia vs Eritrea. Iran-Iraq. VN-Cambodia. The continuing mess in the Congo/Rwanda/Uganda/etc. India-Pakistan.

To blame the US on this one (which is not the first - no one went to the UN for Kosovo either and no one openned their big mouths then) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


It must be remembered that Iraq War has not been accepted as a legal war. Further, what rankles is that the European media dubs European countries alone as the 'international community'. How juvenile can one get?

Sir, realpolitik. They are "international community" as far as the "whiteman" in Congress are concerned. Dehli's support don't carry as much weight as London's.

Ray
11 Sep 03,, 21:25
Colonel,

I think you are a very decent person and an excellent gentleman. I state this since you want the UN to go in to prove that the US is wrong.

I may not contribute to the feeling, but a large majority of the world feels that the US immorally went into Iraq and so let them clear the mess themselves. It may appear most uncharitable but then there is malicious glee world over at US's discomfort and everyone, including the British public, is putting fat into the fire. Everyone is looking at the body-bags threshold that the US citizens can tolerate. In fact, the body-bag tolerance level will become a threshold for citizens of other countries since it is fashionable to ape the US. In India we never worried about body-bags. It was honourable to die for one's country, but ever sine Vietnam occurred, our people also started making body-bags a great issue! What is more important? National honour or body bags? Anyone joining the Defence should know that he or she may have to die. So, why make a song and dance about it? If one is afraid, then one should not join. I remember a poem from my childhood - Dulce et Decorum est, Pro Patria Mori [It is wonderful and honourable to die for one's country].

In so far as Saddam having WMD. I was convinced that he had none. A nation that has undergone so many years of deprivation and in total financial ruin cannot go in for WMDs in a big way. It costs money, especially the nuke side of it. Further, when Hans Blix and El Barade were non committal with all the intelligence provided to them, I was a bit more assured. Unfortunately, a doubt still lingered thanks to the international [West] media which has always been a powerful psyops weapon. [Russia and China were orges a few years back with all human rights violations. Now they are great guys!] The UN Inspectors wanted time, but was given none. Bush and Blair attacked being cocksure and even though they have had all the time in the world, they haven't found any WMD. They claim that it may have been squirreled away to neighbouring countries or hidden. What a laugh. Doe Bush and Blair think we are the Marines [Tell it to the Marines]! They have shattered my faith in morals that govern international affairs which does not mean that my faith in the US and UK has been shattered. I am sure they will surface from this bad dream as we all will.

In so far as Islam is concerned, you are entitled to your views. Not only are the countries you mention are democracies, but also Pakistan and Malaysia. Yet, Islam is their credo and Islam is not very accommodating. Turkey and Indonesia are by far the most tolerant because their leaders of yore, Kamal Attaturk and Seokarno were tolerant despots and realised that archaic rules cannot bring modernity. Indeed, they are the only Muslim Nations that have Roman script and not Arabic! Pakistan [then a part of India] and Malaysia being under the British were kept under the leash and hence they imbibed some good sense. However, with the rise of the concept of ummah, Pakistan and to a less extent Malaysia are falling prey to the fundamentalists. Pakistan is the saddest commentary since they have been encouraged and financed to become fundamentalist Islamists by the US in their quest to rid Afghanistan of the USSR through the Taliban hordes. As the Bible says - Sow and Ye shall Reap! I feel that the misery of 9/11 was brought about by the faulty priorities of the US but then I could be wrong.

How are you sure that none in Iraq is crying over Saddam? The Western media is not the only source of 'real' information. In fact, during the Iraq War, they were a disgrace and as good as Pravda. In India, we didn't care who won, though we knew that none could stop the US, but the one sided news reporting was shocking since we have always felt that the West had the most liberal population in the world and their media could not be made to kowtow. Even Goebbels would have admired the western media and wondered why he did not have them in his time! When Saddam's sons were killed there was a great volume of rifle fire around Baghdad. The Western media stated that they were rejoicing the death of the tyrants. Could it not be that the Iraqis were registering their protest and indicating the ominous times to come? Though you maybe a Chinese, but you were brought up in a westernised society and you will not understand all this Oriental sentiment fully. In the Orient, national honour is more important than individuals. In Oriental countries, they will close ranks to salvage national honour; more so in the Islamic Nations. In India, we may not value it that much but the Islamic countries value it tremendously. That is why they [Islamic Nation] condone the most heinous 'honour killing' which even their law turns a blind eye to! That is why they still have laws that believe in and eye for an eye and all that. Inhuman, but then that is their law.

Much that I would like to believe, but everybody did not support the Iraq War. In fact it was a mere handful unless you want to add the small inconsequential island nations too that wanted to find a place in the sun. Nor will they join in the 'stabilising force' unless they are clear that the UN will be the sole authority they will be reporting to. Any other ideas that one may fantasise on, will be mere fond delusions.

I may not be an African, but I understand their psyche; at least the psyche of being born enslaved. I was born when the British ruled our country. You will not understand, but in those days if a British murdered, he was let off with a light sentence, but if an Indian even stabbed he got death or life sentence. Great justice. What ho, old chap? Further, I have interacted with many Africans who were my students or acquaintances and I am sure you will appreciate that I enjoy and intellectual discussion since I benefit from it more as I am benefiting from interacting on this non Indian forum. I am sure that this forum will broaden my horizon as it is doing right now.

I am not blaming the US for embarking on a war with Iraq. Their National requirements indicated that they had to attack Iraq come what may. I say, Amen [So be it]. Who are we to quibble about that? However, to bring the morality question into it and then attempt to force, coerce, bribe other Nations to endorse the same is stupid. In fact, it is most insulting that with uncorroborated fact, countries wanting to go to war want to play the Confederate Plantation owners to others, who are to act out the role of Uncle Tom and his ilk (Uncle Tom's Cabin).

Indeed when China attacked Vietnam, when they attacked India, the Indo Pak Wars etc etc none took anyone permission. But, they also did not ask the UN and the real world or international community to endorse it as correct. That's where the difference lies. US and UK wanted the UN to endorse the Iraq War based on, as is being proved now and as it was before, downright lies! Russia, Germany and France have equally wonderful intelligence agencies and they too were not convinced. Imagine, uranium from Niger being bandied as authentic to be proved wrong as is the WMD. The Lord Hutton Inquiry and the British Parliamentary Inquiry is proving what a hoax has been perpetuated. A fair inquiry in the US may not come forth like the 21 pages blanked out from the Congressional Hearings that showed Saudi Arabia's involvement and maybe some other 'friendly' country's involvement.

Do you think Kosovo and other issues are correct? Do you think that the US and NATO's hearts were bleeding for them? If so, why was it not done much earlier when the situation would not have become so serious? That is utter tripe. It was just to ensure Balkanisation [remember history?] and ensure never again the Russians have any toehold in their 'sphere of influence'. Do you think Poland is in Iraq because they are convinced of the cause? All this reminds me of that famous saying - Play it one time, Sam.

I am aware that none cares for what Delhi has to say. We know it and actually it really makes no diff to us. In fact, India is more democratic - a large majority of Indians also don't care what Delhi has to say Heh Heh. However, just see CANCUN deliberations. The media is calling a correct assertion by India, China and Brazil as the assertion of the 'Gang of 21'. Imagine it is a 'gang' when all they are saying is have a level playing field for agriculture as you have for other products where you have the say so in international trade. Imagine, the massive subsidies given by the US and EU for their agri products wherein developing countries products of the same variety becomes cost prohibitive because we can't afford such subsidies. So, maybe, some day, someone will hear us.

At the end I suspect that you have purposely been obtuse so that I respond in the manner I have done here. The Chinese are past masters in keeping straight face and jabbing an acupuncture needle where it not only hurts but makes people respond in a way that they don't want to do; and I bow to that! I apologies to all if what I have written is hurtful since that is not the intention. I firmly feel that none can comment on a country's policies since their government knows what is best for them. One can only comment in so far as how it affects them. If the Coalition has gone to War, rightly or wrongly, they know what is best for them.

In so far as Islam is concerned, I am afraid that since you have not lived in an Islamic society which I have done, you will not be able to fathom the Islamic mind. I also cannot say I am 100% sure. Do visit www.bharat-rakshak.com 's site and the thread 'Mind of the Mullah'. I don't subscribe to much of what is written as you will observe.

Ray
11 Sep 03,, 21:40
Colonel,

I think you are a very decent person and an excellent gentleman. I state this since you want the UN to go in to prove that the US is wrong.

I may not contribute to the feeling, but a large majority of the world feels that the US immorally went into Iraq and so let them clear the mess themselves. It may appear most uncharitable but then there is malicious glee world over at US's discomfort and everyone, including the British public, is putting fat into the fire. Everyone is looking at the body-bags threshold that the US citizens can tolerate. In fact, the body-bag tolerance level will become a threshold for citizens of other countries since it is fashionable to ape the US. In India we never worried about body-bags. It was honourable to die for one's country, but ever sine Vietnam occurred, our people also started making body-bags a great issue! 9 What is more important? National honour or body bags? Anyone joining the Defence should know that he or she may have to die. So, why make a song and dance about it? If one is afraid, then one should not join. I remember a poem from my childhood - Dulce et Decorum est, Pro Patria Mori [It is wonderful and honourable to die for one's country].

In so far as Saddam having WMD. I was convinced that he had none. A nation that has undergone so many years of deprivation and in total financial ruin cannot go in for WMDs in a big way. It costs money, especially the nuke side of it. Further, when Hans Blix and El Barade were non committal with all the intelligence provided to them, I was a bit more assured. Unfortunately, a doubt still lingered thanks to the international [West] media which has always been a powerful psyops weapon. [Russia and China were orges a few years back with all human rights violations. Now they are great guys!] The UN Inspectors wanted time, but was given none. Bush and Blair attacked being cocksure and even though they have had all the time in the world, they haven't found any WMD. They claim that it may have been squirreled away to neighbouring countries or hidden. What a laugh. Doe Bush and Blair think we are the Marines [Tell it to the Marines]! They have shattered my faith in morals that govern international affairs which does not mean that my faith in the US and UK has been shattered. I am sure they will surface from this bad dream as we all will.

In so far as Islam is concerned, you are entitled to your views. Not only are the countries you mention are democracies, but also Pakistan and Malaysia. Yet, Islam is their credo and Islam is not very accommodating. Turkey and Indonesia are by far the most tolerant because their leaders of yore, Kamal Attaturk and Seokarno were tolerant despots and realised that archaic rules cannot bring modernity. Indeed, they are the only Muslim Nations that have Roman script and not Arabic! Pakistan [then a part of India] and Malaysia being under the British were kept under the leash and hence they imbibed some good sense. However, with the rise of the concept of ummah, Pakistan and to a less extent Malaysia are falling prey to the fundamentalists. Pakistan is the saddest commentary since they have been encouraged and financed to become fundamentalist Islamists by the US in their quest to rid Afghanistan of the USSR through the Taliban hordes. As the Bible says - Sow and Ye shall Reap! I feel that the misery of 9/11 was brought about by the faulty priorities of the US but then I could be wrong.

How are you sure that none in Iraq is crying over Saddam? The Western media is not the only source of 'real' information. In fact, during the Iraq War, they were a disgrace and as good as Pravda. In India, we didn't care who won, though we knew that none could stop the US, but the one sided news reporting was shocking since we have always felt that the West had the most liberal population in the world and their media could not be made to kowtow. Even Goebbels would have admired the western media and wondered why he did not have them in his time! When Saddam's sons were killed there was a great volume of rifle fire around Baghdad. The Western media stated that they were rejoicing the death of the tyrants. Could it not be that the Iraqis were registering their protest and indicating the ominous times to come? Though you maybe a Chinese, but you were brought up in a westernised society and you will not understand all this Oriental sentiment fully. In the Orient, national honour is more important than individuals. In Oriental countries, they will close ranks to salvage national honour; more so in the Islamic Nations. In India, we may not value it that much but the Islamic countries value it tremendously. That is why they [Islamic Nation] condone the most heinous 'honour killing' which even their law turns a blind eye to! That is why they still have laws that believe in and eye for an eye and all that. Inhuman, but then that is their law.

Much that I would like to believe, but everybody did not support the Iraq War. In fact it was a mere handful unless you want to add the small inconsequential island nations too that wanted to find a place in the sun. Nor will they join in the 'stabilising force' unless they are clear that the UN will be the sole authority they will be reporting to. Any other ideas that one may fantasise on, will be mere fond delusions.

I may not be an African, but I understand their psyche; at least the psyche of being born enslaved. I was born when the British ruled our country. You will not understand, but in those days if a British murdered, he was let off with a light sentence, but if an Indian even stabbed he got death or life sentence. Great justice. What ho, old chap? Further, I have interacted with many Africans who were my students or acquaintances and I am sure you will appreciate that I enjoy and intellectual discussion since I benefit from it more as I am benefiting from interacting on this non Indian forum. I am sure that this forum will broaden my horizon as it is doing right now.

I am not blaming the US for embarking on a war with Iraq. Their National requirements indicated that they had to attack Iraq come what may. I say, Amen [So be it]. Who are we to quibble about that? However, to bring the morality question into it and then attempt to force, coerce, bribe other Nations to endorse the same is stupid. In fact, it is most insulting that with uncorroborated fact, countries wanting to go to war want to play the Confederate Plantation owners to others, who are to act out the role of Uncle Tom and his ilk (Uncle Tom's Cabin).

Indeed when China attacked Vietnam, when they attacked India, the Indo Pak Wars etc etc none took anyone permission. But, they also did not ask the UN and the real world or international community to endorse it as correct. That's where the difference lies. US and UK wanted the UN to endorse the Iraq War based on, as is being proved now and as it was before, downright lies! Russia, Germany and France have equally wonderful intelligence agencies and they too were not convinced. Imagine, uranium from Niger being bandied as authentic to be proved wrong as is the WMD. The Lord Hutton Inquiry and the British Parliamentary Inquiry is proving what a hoax has been perpetuated. A fair inquiry in the US may not come forth like the 21 pages blanked out from the Congressional Hearings that showed Saudi Arabia's involvement and maybe some other 'friendly' country's involvement.

Do you think Kosovo and other issues are correct? Do you think that the US and NATO's hearts were bleeding for them? If so, why was it not done much earlier when the situation would not have become so serious? That is utter tripe. It was just to ensure Balkanisation [remember history?] and ensure never again the Russians have any toehold in their 'sphere of influence'. Do you think Poland is in Iraq because they are convinced of the cause? All this reminds me of that famous saying - Play it one time, Sam.

I am aware that none cares for Delhi has to say. We know it and actually it really makes no diff to us. In fact, India is more democratic - a large majority of Indians also don't are what Delhi has to say :. However, just see CANCUN deliberations. The media is calling a correct assertion by India, China and Brazil as the assertion of the 'Gang of 21'. Imagine it is a 'gang' when all they are saying is have a level playing field for agriculture as you have for other products where you have the say so in international trade. Imagine, the massive subsidies given by the US and EU for their agri products wherein developing countries products of the same variety becomes cost prohibitive because we can't afford such subsidies. So, maybe, some day, someone will hear us.

At the end I suspect that you have purposely been obtuse so that I respond in the manner I have done here. The Chinese are past masters in keeping straight face and jabbing an acupuncture needle where it not only hurts but makes people respond in a way that they don't want to do; and I bow to that! I apologies to all if what I have written is hurtful since that is not the intention. I firmly feel that none can comment on a country's policies since their government knows what is best for them. One can only comment in so far as how it affects them. If the Coalition has gone to War, rightly or wrongly, they know what is best for them.

In so far as Islam is concerned, I am afraid that since you have not lived in an Islamic society which I have done, you will not be able to fathom the Islamic mind. I also cannot say I am 100% sure. Do visit www.bharat-rakshak.com 's site and the thread 'Mind of the Mullah'. I don't subscribe to much of what is written as you will observe there.

Officer of Engineers
11 Sep 03,, 22:33
Sir,

You've give me far too much credit. I am blunt because it's the best way to get honest opinions whether I like them or not but it's at least honest and I know where people stand. I may not agree with you but at least I know where you stand and how I can work with you instead of pushing the wrong buttons. My apologies to you if I in any offended you.

In any event, your posts are most informative and I make no apologies in getting you to educate me.

I don't think much of the UN as a Peacekeeping organization. However, they are far more capable at nation building than the US. They've got the experience and the people in place, UNICEF being a prime example. The Americans by comparison are amateurs.

Allow me to clarify my views on Iraqi WMD. I didn't believe they had nukes. I did believe that they had chems which are far too easy to make and deploy. Speaking as an engr, far too easy.

Sir, the body bag issue ain't a new phenomenon. Maintaining empires had always been dealt about the issue of costs. Replacement soldiers are expensive. Empire limits and collapse can be seen as not replacing those soldiers needed to maintain the empire.

Speaking from personal experience though, it's not that we're casualty adverse though losing people is never a joy to be experienced. It's the mothers who refuse to allow their sons to become replacements. Indeed, angry mothers have been known to cause regieme collapse (Argentina) and empire reduction (VN, Soviet-Afghanistan, and the 1st Chechen War).

I am ill qualified to speak to you about your experience under British Rule. However, I have questions concerning African mentallity. British intolerance/indifference could never explain the butchery we're currently seeing today. Though I understand the African desired to blame the "whiteman," the "whiteman" didn't teach pregnant little girls to butcher other pregnant little girls.

As for the Kosovo War, the NATO military did not like it. In fact, I testified against it as did MGen Lewis Mackenzie. We did not believe Albright's lies and proven to be lies before the start of the war. However, once the war started, our points were moot and we try to execute that war to the best of our abilities or at the very least, not get in the way.

I have a very clear idea on just how isolated the US/UK/Australia (with Canada providing under the table help) was. It was not a popular war in the international scene. While I can understand the world's desire to let the US clean up its own mess, realpolitik comes back into play and I see the skillful hands of Collin Powell guiding the UN back into this. As I stated, the UN got to prove that the Americans were wrong. Else, they proved the Americans right and might as well be disbanded. In that regard, troops will come, if only the countries professing how needed the UN is, got to put up or shut up.

An off topic request, can you provide me with a brief history on how Hindu Kursh got its name?

Ray
12 Sep 03,, 05:03
Colonel,

I have posted the history of HGindu Kush on the South Asian military thread on Afghanistan since it would be more appropriate there.

In so far as the barbarism in Africa, I have no comments except that tribal and sectarian instincts are more powerful that the western idea of human rights and democracy or so it appears.

It is not for me to force a change in their societal custom much that it is abhorring to me for the simple reason I am not an African and I don't understand their compulsion. I can advice, teach and subtly help but then they have to lead their lives as you IN Canada will have to lead your style of life, even if I may not approve. After all, who am I? Am I living in your environment to superimpose my ideas on you?

You are ethnically a Chinese, but you are far different from the actual Chinese. You will never be able to understand the ground conditions of China as my relations abroad cannot understand the ground conditions in India and yet they are ethnically Indians!

Ray
12 Sep 03,, 09:05
Colonel

I posted two answers to your query on Hindu Kush on the Afghan thread. Both are missing! Whats up?

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 03,, 15:11
Sir,

I see your Hindu Kursh responses (My Thanks) in the American Forces thread.

Sir, I do not pretend nor even want to try to understand the butcher's mentallity. It makes me sick trying to even think like them. However, we both had a job to do. The other part of needing to want to die for that Hutu/Tustsi/Afghan/Martian old man or little girl is the need to kill for them.

It was after Gen Dallaire's Rwandan debacle that we came up with another unwritten RoE. A Nigerian cpl saw a crowd egging on a pregnant little girl with a child on her back to hack to death another pregnant little gril with a child on her back. He had a choice to order his sniper to take the little girl out. Instead, he chosed to try to negotiate to no avail.

After discussing these things over, the Canadians decided the best course of action would have been to shoot the nearest biggest bad bastard with an AK47 (ie the leader of the crowd doing the egging) and if that didn't work, shoot the little girl.

When you've got crowds of people begging you to shoot them rather than being hacked, that kind of lethal enforcement is a requirement.

The sickest and the most disturbing thought to all this is that I think I can live with myself for giving that kind of order.

Bill
12 Sep 03,, 15:59
In those sorts of situations, you do what you must.