Hypocrisy exposed by death of despots

Check out this article:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/article212199 3.ece

My views:

US has always supported small outfits and then later turning on them. We have seen so many cases in the past and I am sure we will see more. Musharraf in Pakistan is a good example. I am certain that as soon as he is unseated from his President title he will be exiled to a foreign land like Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shariff. Musharraf is an ally right now, but tomorrow who knows? I find it quite disgusting that this happens regularly and do think that Bush had it out for Saddam from day 1. He says he attacked because of weapons of mass destruction but what about Iran and Korea? For some reason they think only the US has the right to possess them?

Iraq is definitely worse off today than 5 yrs ago--the infrastructure is a mess and 100% of the country lives in terror. I don't think the US troops have the ability to help unless they allow the Arab neighbors to participate. No one trusts the American troops and progress cannot be made without trust. The majority of soldiers are doing their best to turn things positive but they have little impact with such poor leadership. Hopefully now that Rumsfeld is gone things will improve but I remain very skeptical. Afghanistan has had a bit more success, but is rapidly going downhill in terms of economics and security.

Maya Ji
Can you elucidate the topic vividly?

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

Maya Ji
Can you elucidate the topic vividly?

If you click on the link provided and then read my views you will know what the topic is about.

That's interesting. Everywhere USA steps in, becomes a mess. They create the powerful despots in places which in future become the sworn enemy of US. History of Iran tells how USA indulged and ousted the public-elected leader, replaced him by a tyrant(Shah from a royal dynasty). Later a revolution under Khomeini drove out the Shah from the coutry, Iraq taking advantage of instablity declared war with Iran. That time USA was on Iraq's side. I think the Iranians have lot many reason to show their anger towards USA. USA's foreign policy has some serious problems, not showing signs of prudence. The "don't care" attitude of the Americans towards the rest of the world , the ignorant and disinterested Americans(in politics) are very much responsible. Rufusal of half of the electorate to vote, one of the lowest participation of democracy in the world. Politicians, big corporate houses and law-makers take a good advantage of the fact.

Nice article and Very well written thoughts Maya! I actually have nothing to add.

I thought of how the recent Iraq war is nothing but an "Revenge of the Son- episode 2"
Fight against terrorism and sacrifices made for those, both are essential and the leader of a procliamed super-power has to make tough choices and take proactive steps towards world peace.
However, the oil issue has gone way out of control. History has taught nothing. What went on during the times of Reagan administration subsequently brought down the towers. In order to protect what is left and honour what was sacrificed, war against terrorism is essential. But do we still know how to win it??? Is there a possibility that any nation could acually win the war?
In pursuit of ratcheting up conflict with the Soviet Union, Reagan helped sow the seeds of our greatest existing menace.
What are the seeds sown today going to grow as in future?

Thats Cool , And Ofcourse Important ,

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Check out this article:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/letters/article212199 3.ece

My views:

US has always supported small outfits and then later turning on them.

True, agree, The policy is "Strategic American Interests", If you look at it from that POV, a lot gets explained, dont forget Osama is a creation of American strategic interests too😉

We have seen so many cases in the past and I am sure we will see more. Musharraf in Pakistan is a good example.

Isnt that a neccessary Evil? Him remaining in power and in their side far outweighs deposing him and creates an impression that this is against Islam rather than terrorism

I am certain that as soon as he is unseated from his President title he will be exiled to a foreign land like Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Shariff. Musharraf is an ally right now, but tomorrow who knows? I find it quite disgusting that this happens regularly and do think that Bush had it out for Saddam from day 1.

Honestly any sane person who is a president would have had to eventually take that step, think it through Mayaji, Once Saddam went his sons were in line, and can you trust someone who gassed his own people to not sneak a chemical or nuclear weapon on your citizenery given an opportunity. If he had not done it someone else would have had to do this

After all "nek kaam me deri kyu", yeah execution was flawed, but.....

He says he attacked because of weapons of mass destruction but what about Iran and Korea?

Iran sponsors Hezbollah currently will you change your mind if they start sponsoring LET tommorow?

For some reason they think only the US has the right to possess them?

Right, that is hypocrisy, but everyone is entitled to that😉

Iraq is definitely worse off today than 5 yrs ago--the infrastructure is a mess and Sad, true, but you do have to step back sometimes for a better tommorow, or for atleast exploring a situation that is current inlivable, If the Iraqi people decide to elect a Iran kind of regime, well all the power to them, but atleast the world can say we tried, gave 3000 soldiers lives, but you can take a horse to a water lake, but cant make it drink can you?

100% of the country lives in terror.

so under Saddam it was not, is that your claim? or you would rather have them be under the regime of Saddam for the life😉

I don't think the US troops have the ability to help unless they allow the Arab neighbors to participate.

True, unless People around the world start thinking this is more for a better tommorow than something against a particular religion or a section of a religion, the better future Iraq has

No one trusts the American troops and progress cannot be made without trust.

Based upon what? Media reports? Have you read accounts of soldiers on the web? Please hold a balanced view, dont just go by what the media tells us

The majority of soldiers are doing their best to turn things positive but they have little impact with such poor leadership. Hopefully now that Rumsfeld is gone things will improve but I remain very skeptical. Afghanistan has had a bit more success, but is rapidly going downhill in terms of economics and security.

well let us hope for the best, b'cos if they do not succeed, we have a lot of trouble on our hand in India, Remember last time Afghanistan conflict ended the knowhow flowed into the Kashmir valley, I hope and wish for the people of Kashmir this is a win for America, Call me Selfish, but it is what it is

Originally posted by: sareg

He says he attacked because of weapons of mass destruction but what about Iran and Korea?

Iran sponsors Hezbollah currently will you change your mind if they start sponsoring LET tommorow?

Did you read my question correctly? Why was Iran and N.Korea not attacked?

100% of the country lives in terror.

so under Saddam it was not, is that your claim? or you would rather have them be under the regime of Saddam for the life😉

So what difference did it make now? I can't come to the terms with the logic for attack on Iraq.

Finally you and I both agree that the title of this thread holds true😉

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Finally you and I both agree that the title of this thread holds true😉

Yes, it was always true, it was never about the world good, it was always about American Strategic interests, but you cannot proactively attack another nation under the slogan American Strategic Interests, it is easier to do so under the guise of Global Terrorism when you have the currency of trust and support in your backpocket

Originally posted by: sareg

Yes, it was always true, it was never about the world good, it was always about American Strategic interests, but you cannot proactively attack another nation under the slogan American Strategic Interests, it is easier to do so under the guise of Global Terrorism when you have the currency of trust and support in your backpocket

It is not an attack but an analysis on America's strategy against weak nations. At present at least in this thread I am strictly talking about just that and not about terrorism. I have whole lot of different views when we discuss about glbal terrorism.