'World not safer after Iraq war'

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:24 pm

Kofi Annan has done some plain speaking on American war on Ieaq. He has held America wrong on this count. According to him the war has done little to increase security across the world or halt the activities of international terrorism.

To quote him, 'I cannot say the world is safer when you consider the violance around us, when you look around you and see the terrorist attacks around the world and you see what is going on in Iraq. ... We have a lot of work to do as an international community to try and make the world safer.'

I fully support his views. War can never be a solution for any problem. The persuation is the key. Persuade them, who spread terror, with love not threats of war. But before that one has to persuade himself for spreading love not hate.

The primary responsibility of any government is to provide betterlife to the people. See post-war Afganistan and Iraq and think, is this the quality of life human beings deserve. Think yourself in their place and imagine that you have been forced to live such life. What would you feel? People living in Afganistan and Iraq are human beings like any American or any other person.

People all across the world should rise and declare that we will have no more wars. We will have no more terrorist strikes. We will have only love.

pattybug52 · Post by **pattybug52** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:39 am

Suresh- frankly what I believe-If woman were put in charge we would not have half the wars we have-most are started over too much testosterone running wild. Always about over who can control who. They always crack jokes about PMS-put a few PMS gals in a secluded site-like a stuck elevator with Saddam, Bin Laden, etc-bet we never would have gone to war! I remember American History in High School-best teacher I ever had-showed how so many wars started due to male hormones-over females-heh even back to Helen of Troy! So if Females were in charge at the time-what would they do? Beat the crap out of the female and leave the country alone-let the males fight it out if they still needed the outlet-just don't kill each other for no reason.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:34 am

pattybug52 wrote: If woman were put in charge we would not have half the wars......... if Females were in charge at the time-what would they do? Beat the crap out of the female and leave the country alone-let the males fight it out if they still needed the outlet-just don't kill each other for no reason.

Very interesting. But what about remaining half of the wars?

Heads of governments fighting it out and leaving the country alone - we used to cut jokes like that. But if you think deeply then it can be a very effective solution for ending wars between countries. Let me think further - Pakistan President Musharraf and Indian PM Manmohan Singh fighting it out, letting off their steem and leaving the people in peace. Iraq war could have been avoided by Bush and Saddam fighting it out amongst themselves. UN can organise these fights which could be telecast for all to see.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:38 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Kofi Annan has done some plain speaking on American war on Ieaq. He has held America wrong on this count. According to him the war has done little to increase security across the world or halt the activities of international terrorism.

IMO the risk from terrorism has been significantly increased by the action in Iraq.

The "security of the world" hasn't changed, and won't, unless there are more

attempts like this, in which case it may well become worse.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:20 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Heads of governments fighting it out and leaving the country alone - we used to cut jokes like that. But if you think deeply then it can be a very effective solution for ending wars between countries. Let me think further - Pakistan President Musharraf and Indian PM Manmohan Singh fighting it out, letting off their steem and leaving the people in peace. Iraq war could have been avoided by Bush and Saddam fighting it out amongst themselves. UN can organise these fights which could be telecast for all to see.

If this is ever the way it is done, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be my choice for president. We would definately see strong male leadership in the world.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:45 pm

Angiepangie wrote: That would mean hasta la vista baby (or however you spell it) for all of us.

It would certainly appeal to our need for intertainment. I don't think I would enjoy watching around my hand as I held my nose though.

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:56 pm

my concern is even if we win the war we may lose the peace.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:13 am

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: my concern is even if we win the war we may lose the peace.

No body has ever won a war and peace has always been the looser.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:55 pm

I cannot believe that these countries will ever accept democacy. Not now Not ever.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:54 pm

Not to mention that it's doubtful we could call it democracy if it's being shoved down their throats.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:57 pm

sarasara wrote: Nobody ever said the world would be safer after the Iraq war.

What they did say was that it would be safer when Iraq became a fully fledged democracy.........which it will.

But such an impression was created by USA to justify their attack on Iraq. What UN Secretary General has pointed out is that war has not improved the situation, rather it has deteriorated it. So many innocent lives have been lost. So much property has been destroyed. And for what purpose?

How world will become safer if Iraq becames a fully fledged democracy without first USA abandoning its double standards?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:01 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: I cannot believe that these countries will ever accept democacy. Not now Not ever.

But Capt., has USA accepted democracy? It attacks Iraq and makes a friend with Pakistan, a military dictatorship.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:02 pm

A Karenina wrote: Not to mention that it's doubtful we could call it democracy if it's being shoved down their throats.

And that too an american version of democracy.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:59 am

It is clear that there is such a thing as state sponsored terrorism. Sadam used to pay the families of suicide bombers, encouraging the practice. How many U.N. resolutions did Iraq ignore? How many of his people did Sadam gas and bury in mass graves? Should he and his sons have been allowed to continue leading a culture that raped, maimed and brutalized. Sadam may not have bombed the twin towers but he sure supported (morally and financially) the ideals that festered to the point it happened.

Saddam was paying to encourage suicide bombers. His government was in support of our destruction. The people of Iraq hadnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t had the power to overturn him. Waiting until they had the power may have meant waiting too long.

The argument that we are in Iraq and Iraq didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t attack us so we should leave isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t logical. If it was logical, we would probably be writing this in another language. In WWII we were attacked by Japan but we fought Germany. Korea never invaded us but we fought there. Did Bosnia attack us?

The UN, if it realizes its goals, can only bring a short period that looks like peace because there are fewer wars. Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the presence of contentment born in love. War is a sign that mankind is still willing to die for what they believe is right. A man who dies for what is right, dies in peace. A man who lives conflicted has no peace.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:30 am

Clint wrote: ..........there is such a thing as state sponsored errorism. .................

.

Yes there is such a thing state sponsored terrorism. But it is both direct and indirect. If as per USA, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, then what USA is doing in supporting Pakistan? Is it not indirectly supporting state sponsored terrorism?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:47 am

posted by clint

Saddam was paying to encourage suicide bombers. His government was in support of our destruction. The people of Iraq hadnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t had the power to overturn him. Waiting until they had the power may have meant waiting too long.

The time to have gone in to depose Saddam was immedialtely at the end of the first gulf war, especially when the shia rose in rebellion in the expectation that the coalition would help them. Instead everyone stood by and led him crush them and then watch him do the same to the marsh arabs. He waited to see what he could get away with and just carried on.

If you are going to condemn terrorism you should do it everywhere not just turn a blind eye when it's terrorism you approve of. If you support democracy then surely you should stop supporting repressive regimes just because it is in your interests to do so.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:59 pm

Another attack on a US consulate killing 12. al-Qa'ida makes its mark once again in Jeddah last night.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Yes there is such a thing state sponsored terrorism. But it is both direct and indirect. If as per USA, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism, then what USA is doing in supporting Pakistan? Is it not indirectly supporting state sponsored terrorism?

Do you have evidence of the US paying to encourage suicide bombers from Pakistan to carry out missions in India?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:14 pm

Inshallah

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:19 pm

Clint wrote: Do you have evidence of the US paying to encourage suicide bombers from Pakistan to carry out missions in India?

There are no suicide bombers from Pakistan carrying out missions in India. Your question only indicates that you have not been able to understand the mechanics of terrorism Pakistan is using against India.

Let me make one thing very clear. We in India do not support terrorism of any kind, direct or indirect. The global war against terrorism under USA lacks sincerity of purpose and credibility. USA had agreed about Pakistan's active involvement in cross-border terrorism but has limited its efforts only to the level of lip service.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:33 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: There are no suicide bombers from Pakistan carrying out missions in India. Your question only indicates that you have not been able to understand the mechanics of terrorism Pakistan is using against India.

No, I think you missed my point. Saddam was supporting suicide bombers. You are not being bombed by suicide bombers. I understand that. I also understand that your problem with Pakistan has to do with turf. That is why I am amused at all the talk about putting aside religious differences so there can be peace. If we put aside religious differences we would fight over turf. If not turf, water and if not water... culture.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:21 pm

Clint wrote: No, I think you missed my point. Saddam was supporting suicide bombers. You are not being bombed by suicide bombers. I understand that. I also understand that your problem with Pakistan has to do with turf. That is why I am amused at all the talk about putting aside religious differences so there can be peace. If we put aside religious differences we would fight over turf. If not turf, water and if not water... culture.

You see, it all started with mixing religion in politics. The main aim was to grab power after India gained independence. India was partitioned. Aim was achieved. Now to keep the power intact the issue was kept alive. It is termed Jihad to give it religious sanction. It is termed fight for freedom to give it legitimacy. It is nothing but pure terrorism. USA understands it but fails to play it the right way. It declares it self as the champion of democracy but makes a military dictator as its ally.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:01 am

Sarasara,

For the first time I have come across an offensive post on FG. You have used a language which can never be a part of a decent debate. I register my protest and hope that FG administrators will look into it and do something about this.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:26 am

Sarasara

I am sorry for you. May God grace you with His love.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:47 am

posted by sarasara

Well if you were spreading love and not hate for the US and the allies, then perhaps I would have not got so annoyed with your posts which are deeply offensive to Americans and to British people like me who are trying to assist the Iraqis. It is also offensive to the military families in the US who have lost loved ones in the struggle for Iraqi freedom.

Speak for yourself I haven't been offended by any of suresh's posts, might not agree with some, but that is a different matter.

posted by sarasara

The Indians are very happy to moan and groan about the US but never once complained about the Talibans oppression in Afghanistan or the mass-graves in Iraq.

Maybe you should out a bit about how the taliban got to power in the first place before you say anything else.

posted by sarasara

India was a sea of devotion to Stalin and the more Russians he killed the more the Indians loved and venerated him.

elucidate

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:55 am

sarasara wrote: I'm just giving some background to the peeps regarding Indian attitudes and the high levels of incitement and hate for the US currently being spewed out by Indian Media and Indias perverse hypocritical intellegencia.

I have every right, as a former leprosy worker in India who was one of many who had to go over to India to pick up the pieces for people that Indians did not care about, to criticise the hypocracy of the sort of attitudes you come up with.

What makes me really sick is how you talk abot 'love and peace' while you make your own little efforts to support those who are doing all in their power to frustrate the efforts of the US and the Iraqi government to assist the people of Iraq to gain the longed-for liberty, freedom and democracy that you take for granted.

If you want to make a 'politically-correct' little number out of that so be it.Sarasara, you've stumbled onto a forum group that is pretty well read, including foreign papers.

If India were the only country to be "hypocritical" in its treatment, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But even here in the the bright shining USA we have hypocrisy, we have people dying in the streets, and we have people being denied medical treatment because they cannot pay. I don't feel that I am in a position to attack other countries' actions until we clean up our own.

You are far too pro-American to be British. You also protest too much about how British you are to be completely believable. JMHO

Suresh has never implied that he hates the US. In fact, his prior posts indicate that he would prefer peace and respect between our countries. He calls on things wherever he sees it, and is not blinded by nationalistic ideas. He is quite genuine in his quest for love and peace for all people.

You probably don't see it, but it is rather offensive to judge another country based on your culture.

And, if the US was so gung-ho eager to bring peace and liberty to oppressed people in Iraq, then why did we ignore the 12 years of sanctions which impoverished them, their pleas for help in deposing Hussein after Desert Storm as well as the pleas for assistance since then? We offered a paltry 30 million - and that is meaningless in terms of international politics and coup d'etats.

Suresh points out this inconsistency for what it is - a pathetic attempt to justify war on a people who have been victimized repeatedly. We're killing them for their own good? Sadly, many of my countrymen fall for it...but not everyone does. Please don't assume on our behalf.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:24 pm

sarasara wrote: India has a long and proud tradition of not giving a s*** about the poor or oppressed as I found there when I volunteered to work with Mother Teresa in Calcutta in the 70s.

Thousands of Hindu refugees from Bangladesh were dying like flies on the steets of Calcutta while the authorities did nothing.

Mother Teresa first started her mission when she came across a woman who was being eaten alive by rats outside a hospital. The hospital refused to help her because she had no money. All the while nurses and doctors stepped around her as they went in and out of the building.

The Indians are very happy to moan and groan about the US but never once complained about the Talibans oppression in Afghanistan or the mass-graves in Iraq.

India was a sea of devotion to Stalin and the more Russians he killed the more the Indians loved and venerated him.

While talking about 'peace and love' the Indians support the beheadings and carbombings in Iraq as their 'intellectuals' praise the terrorists as 'freedom fighters'.

I pity the Americans who have to pay out billions of dollars in aid every year to support this US hating nation and get nothing but bile of spite in return.Mother Teresa or Saint, as the RC Church has her installed in India. More Holy bucks and property for Rome.

randall · Post by **randall** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:59 am

:-1

Hello Capt Buzzard, randall here,

Nice to know that you assisted at Mother Theresa's hospital. It must have been an eye opener.

Have you ever read "The City Of Joy" That made me cry.

If memory does not fail me it is written by a Frenchman who went out to observe and then ended up in going back out there to Calcutta to work for the rest of his days.

The title is apparently is the real name of the "city" built to house the mill workers and their families and whoever made it up had indeed a twisted sense of humour.

God Bless.

randall

St Theresa "There are more tears shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones.

:-1

randall · Post by **randall** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:02 pm

randle doubts it,

Someone always wants revenge

Keep the faith brother, spread it gently.

:-6