Monday, February 27, 2006

Iraq: Who is to blame and what is the solution?

Below is an e-mail I sent to two people each subscribing to a different camp of thought.They had sent too many e-mails back and forth discussing and often arguing about who is to blame and what is the solution to Iraq's problem.
The e-mail is about a year old, I thought though that is still relevant here. One blames Iraqis for digging their own hole, and hence the need for social reform. While the other blames foreign occupation and the need to rid Iraq of that influence.


When I see an e-mail from both of you, all I can say is I agree with what both of you have to say. The thing is, I don't see any contradiction between each of your point of views. Does Iraq need reform? I think you both would agree that they people do need reform. Does Iraq and its resources need to be for Iraqis only? I am sure both of you will still agree. Do we need to have zero foreign intervention? Again yes I am sure both will agree.

We all agree that we have a problem. At least I am assuming ... The first step to solving the problem is understanding it. Therefore we need to know what is the problem at hand? X tends to see the problem being the United States intervention , either prior to the occupation or after. Y seems to see the problem being the Iraqi people again pre and post occupation. In my opinion the answer is both. Foreign intervention utilizes people who are willing to sell their souls for some benefits which the foreigner is willing to offer. Be it empty promises of a better life or financial gain. We know that Saddam was helped into power by the United States. He is an Iraqi who needed reform. I can also see our active politicians running after personal gain now as well. They might not be as brutal as Saddam but they are still corrupt (At least most).

Maybe the disagreement comes in which is our priority? Reform then independence? Or Independence then reform? Well its sort of like the chicken and the egg dilemma.

I believe the answer is actually in lack of a charismatic, smart, clean , and effective leadership.
Someone who would bring all of Iraq under under one flag and have one goal (that of providing a better living for all Iraqis). Iraq is full of good people and intellectuals. Unfortunately it is also full of bad people as well. Especially after years of living under a corrupt government. Maybe the percentage of good versus bad (for lack of a better word which comes to mind) might change based on time and historic events. Foreign intervention will always be there (if allowed) so would those people who would step over everyone else for their personal gain. Iraq is not the only country which has such people, in fact the whole world is like that. The Soviet Union collapsed with the help of such people in my opinion. The west surrounded them with two rich economies and promises of a lifestyle based upon primitive human desires. This is what the whole world subscribes to nowadays. The American Dream so to speak. An empty promise which people tend to fall under its spell. This is Globalization for the few to get richer and the rest to work for them. This happens even in "First World Countries" so to speak. Italy, is a good example despite the majority of the people not wanting to go to war with the Americans, Berlusconi did it anyway. One should ask why do all the rich, developed and "Democratic" countries all follow the United
States policies so blindly? Their economies depend a great deal on the United States or a local group of people who subscribe to this policy that the US also subscribes to.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Well this is an argument for why reform in a certain sense is not a solution. For even, if we do wake up tomorrow with all Iraqis becoming responsible British Citizens, (sarcasms) this will still not solve our problems. It might give us a better life, but we will still be under slavery. On the other hand shouting and chanting national or religious slogans isn't doing us any good either. The answer is the good mix of both. We need to adopt a
better ideology than what we have now. Islamists need to learn more about their true religion which I believe in its truest form would include an Iraq for all Iraqis including non Muslims. We could even call it something else. After all our history has proven that such a nation worked for us in the past. I don't see why it wouldn't worked in the future.

That is my humble opinion, I hope that both of you find common ground that we can move forward. I understand that each would not like what I am suggest but with an open mind and some constructive discussions maybe you could convince me otherwise.

Monday, February 20, 2006

To speak or not to speak ...

Here is a what's on BBC news online this morning:
"British historian David Irving has pleaded guilty in a court in Vienna to charges of denying the Holocaust."

Is it irony that David Irving's freedom to speak will ultimatly curb his freedom behind bars? Its a good thing that this trial has been going on during the outrage of Muslims over the infamous cartoons. Which of course if anything, highlightes Western hypocricy and double standards. One doesn't need to look too far or do too much research to find out that their proclaimed freedom of speech is not that free after all. The only freedom one has is to insult those with no power or influence. In this case of course being the Muslims.

It is interesting to notethe following according to the BBC :

Czech Republic

The Arabs don't make it to the "top 10" if you will quite often. However one thing I find better in the Arabic society than Western cultures is their political awareness. In other words, they know that desptie all the mumbo jumbo that is broadcast in their news or printed in their newspapers that it is all lies. They don't trust their local news, they don't trust their governments and they know that things are not as they seem.

Unfortunatly, western countries exploit this matter. North Americans live their lives in denial thinking that their press will expose conspiracies, corruption and bad apples of society.

Let me tell you , I would rather be lied to and know it. Then to live in denial of being used and manipulated while I am under the impression that I am free and in control.

Do we rather have known enemies or back stabbing friends?

Friday, February 17, 2006

Collective Punishment

Is Collective punishment good or bad?

It seems to be a universal notion that collective punishment is a bad thing. After all, how can you punish someone for a crime a totally different entity committed! Right? I mean look at 9/11 , look what happened there. Were the "terrorists" trying to punish the US government? It sure didn't seem like it. After all the targets were all civilian. At least the ones with casualties.

Obviously, punishing the innocent Office Asistant Mother of 3 children who happened to work in the WTC is not fair. It surely is a bad thing isn't it?

If people disagree then please feel free to elaborate in the comments section, otherwise, lets get down to business. There goes the US Gov. once again trying to punish yet another nation for not joining the band wagon of capitalism. After all if you are not capitalist, then you are against human rights, democracy, and Freedom. The lovely great divine values we all worship.

Back to US Gov's latest business, that would be of course Iran. After all, they are building Nuclear weapons. Iran is a dangerous nation, I mean trust me ... look at their record in the past 30 years. They invaded Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. They also bombed the hell out of other countries like Pakistan, Sudan,Libya had military operation in Panama, etc. The list is longer but I guess I made my point. Sorry what is that? That wasn't Iran? Then who was it? Oh the US, right. But the US doesn't have Nuclear weapons. Nor does it have biological weapons. They don't commit war crimes. They certainly respect human rights don't they? I mean look at Guantanamo Bay. I guess the reader gets the point.

Needless to say, Iran's file needs to go to the Security counsel. After that they will have one of two options. Either suffer economic sanctions or suffer the harmless Depleted Uranium shells courtesy of Uncle Sam. I mean that is the civilized democratic, freedom loving world order's way of doing things. After all Bush said he has nothing against the Iranian people. He is only punishing their government isn't he?

Look how the economic sanctions didn't punish anyone except Saddam Hussein in the 12-13 years they were enforced. Only 1,500,000 Iraqis died then. Mostly children ...
Please don't confuse that with TERRORISM, those two things are not the same at all. I mean terrorism is targeting the civilian population. The sanctions targeted Saddam only.

Excuse me! Are you trying to draw parallels between 9/11 and the sanctions? Terrorism my friend is targeting a building KNOWING that it is civilian and flying something into it. Something with high explosives.

More like the bombing of the Al-Jazeera crew in Baghdad you mean? When they had informed the military that they will be occupying rooms in that specific hotel?

OK stop asking those question, you are confusing me. Its not fair that you compare a free democratic, capitalist country with Third world countries like Iraq and Iran. Its just not fair ...

Bottom line is, they are not democratic, freedom loving countries. After all they are rogue nations. If you don't believe me ask George W. Bush.