Thursday, July 21, 2005

World: America, Iraq, World Domination etc

One of my friends mailed an article, which talks about the normal rant of comparing what America did in Iraq and what it has been doing in general throughout its times in Vietnam, Latin and Central America and practically all over the globe, since World War II. You can find a bigger list of USA interferences throughout here. Another friend pointed out the obvious fallacy of the whole statement. To quote him
"this is a typical trick to confuse people! whther the war is justified or not is a different matter. but in the war there was NO INTENT to cause civilian casualties. In the terrorist bombings, the INTENT of the terrorists and the organisations ( alqueda or IRA or LTTE) that support them, is to maximise civilian casualties and to target innocent civilians as opposed to military targets. theres a very essential difference. hence cannot equate the two like the article is trying to do."

America's war on Iraq is just an example of a bully beating up a child in the street. Though how much one be against the war, keeping in mind the current situation, America's withdrawl from there is going to only worsen the situation. Some form of an institute, whether it is properly working Iraqi administeration or UN (sic), needs to be in control before all the foreign troops leave. People might equate the situation with Vietnam, where America's withdrawl did not have a negative effect internationally, though was a disaster at a regional level. Any form of instability in Iraq will have an adverse effect all over the world. Unfortunately it is an Albatross around US's neck and they have to bear it now. Bush is trying to wiggle out of the situation by seeking slowly but steadily more and more UN help, but it is now US's responsibility Iraq returns to some sembelance of peace and a nation. Anyway, if anyone wants to have a look at history of Iraq in a whacky way, please get and watch "Between Iraq and a hard place".

Nick of the day

Ro: "Before you know it, the renaissance will be here and we'll all be painting"

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

World: London Bombings and Journalism

I really hate the increasing number of places being targetted, the oddest was murder in Netherland last year, by terroists. But it does give rise to good journalism, thoughts, ideas and opinions which bring forward the real issues, which are far, far away from what the terroists think these are. Excellent example would be this Telegraph piece. There were two good pieces at The Straits Times, which is by subscription ( Who gave them this idea? The only really successful subscription based online publication is WSJ and it is light years behind it). First one talked about instilling fear in people as the intent and how the effect of London bombings seemed so less compared to 9/11. The London was back in business much faster and none of the motives seemed to have succeded. The second was regarded reason and came back to the murder I mentioned in the first line. Theo Van Gogh tried to reason with his killers which of course was not successful. The articled pointed out to people saying Why us, Why now. The simple answer is this set of people are totally beyong reason and any attempt to apply logic will end in futility. I am not saying good or bad justification but any plausible reason for the actions. There simple are not any.

I was sort of fan of Tony Blair before this. Maybe, because of quality of his Trans-Atlantic counterpart. But he refused to say that attacks are because Britain (or is it England?) participated in Iraq war. It is so bloody obvious, his refusal to say so seemed so superfluous than his vociferous justification for war before and after the Iraq mis-adventure. Why not say something which is so obvious to everyone. Politics is so difficult to understand for simple folk like me :)

Random: Nick of the day

cyph3rpunk - IT very strong