########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
Cornel, some of the best anti-American critics in the world have tried to trip me up, so don't worry about it. I know it's nothing personal. We can still share a bottle of feni some day. Please see my comments below under Responses: and please understand that I am not trying to be flip, just candid. You may not like some of my comments, but I know your queries are serious, which is why I am taking the time to respond in such detail. --- cornel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ########################################################################## > # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] # > # Want to check the archives? > http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # > # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to > reflect respect to others # > ########################################################################## > > Mario, > These are sincere queries and I am definitely not > trying to trip you, nor > trying to be personal nor clever. > The USA has Weapons of Mass Destruction--indeed, > more than the rest of the > world put together and the ability to exterminate > life, as we know it, on > this planet. What therefore justifies the USA to > demand that other > countries give up their WMDs when its own weapons > are never on the agenda in > this debate at all? Likewise, what gives the US and > nuclear powers like > Britain and Israel the right to demand that Iran > should not develop a > nuclear arsenal to protect itself from the existing > nuclear powers? Response: If I am not mistaken, it is the UN's Atomic Agency that is involved, not just the US, Britain and Israel. I'm sure you will agree, Cornel, that these are just three countries among hundreds in the UN. Furthermore, you may not like to hear this, but some of this has to do with the fact that the US has survived the Cold War as the world's only superpower. With Britain, and with consistent support from Australia, they have been in the forefront of voluntarily shedding their blood to stop brutal tyrants from dominating the world, going back to WW-I, WW-II, Korea, tha Cold War etc. If not for these countries the Europeans would have all been speaking German by now, the Indians would have been speaking Japanese, and you would not have been enjoying the freedom and democracy to continue such debates. So, what one Indian friend saw as American "dadagiri" is actually trying to prevent problems from developing, because it is the US, which by its history and development, belongs to the world, that is always forced to clean up the mess. You may not remember this, Cornel, but George Bush was roundly criticized by the world community when he said during the 2000 presidential campaign that he was not interested in "nation building". They were all afraid that the US was going to be isolationist. Then 9/11 happened, and Bush realized that there was a gathering menace that had to be confronted, just as surely as the Germans and Japanese had to be in another era. Whether you like it or not, Cornel, as Silvio Berlusconi of Italy said recently, "America underwrites the security of the free world", and unless you believe that countries it has rescued like Britain, Italy, Germany, Japan, Poland and the Warsaw pact countries, etc. are all American colonies, you would know that the US always gives the liberated country back to its people. Why the > double standards and hypocrisy? What justifies the > USA to be the arbiter of > who does (especially the pariah state of Israel at > the heart of the Middle > East), and does not have nuclear weapons? Response: I just answered most of this above, Cornel. America now sets the standard. Whether you think it is single or double is up to you. Help your country become a superpower and then challenge the US if you can. It is justified because a superpower is using its power to spread freedom and democracy, now and into the future. Do you have a problem with that, Cornel, given that you live in freedom and democracy yourself? Do you want to deny it to others? To call Israel a pariah country I'm afraid makes one an anti-Semite with no knowledge of the history of the region. If the Arabs had accepted Israel's right to exist in 1947, just as India accepted Pakistan's right to exist, the combination of Palestine and Israel would have been an island freedom and economic progress in the blighted middle-east, Cornel. If you know any Palestinians or Jews you know how smart, educated and hard-working they are. Unfortunately, the fact that all the Arab countries want to eliminate Israel, though Egypt and Jordan were forced to give this up, is what gives Israel the right to defend itself, Cornel. That and the fact that the "dada" country, with agreement by the UN by the way, has decided that it is OK, or that there is nothing that anyone can do about it other than complain. If you were trying to kill someone, Cornel, you wouldn't have any moral ground to complain when they go buy a gun to defend themselves, would you? To make the picture more clear to you, Cornel, the US and the UN have also accepted the nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan, mainly because of the belief that these will only be used for defense and not for proliferation. Of course they were wrong about Pakistan, where Gen. A.Q. Khan was running his own private scheme, but they have put a stop to that now. Pakistan often plays a double game, Cornel, but is tolerated like the prodigal child because they are also a staunch ally of the "dada". > Please do not get me wrong. I am opposed to nuclear > arms totally but should not those countries which developed them and have a head-start, minimally > and progressively reduce their stockpiles in good > faith before making demands on others? > Just curious, Response: In a perfect world, Cornel, I would agree with you. However, once a genie gets out of the bottle it is often impossible to get it back in again. You may not be aware of this, but you should be glad to hear that the former enemies, the US and Russia, have considerably reduced their nuclear stockpiles ever since the Cold War ended. However, they still have enough to blow us all up. They are also working together to search for and destroy any nuclear materials that are not in responsible hands. What gives them the right, you may again ask? Frankly, it is their strength, which they are now using to keep the peace, since Russia imploded and the MAD theory is no longer necessary. India could have been a superpower by now, Cornel, if Nehru had not taken us down the path of socialism. Maybe in the future as Manmohan Singh continues on the path towards free enterprise. As the Russians found out to their chagrin, it is economic strength that prevails in the long run, and gives you the strength to not only defend yourself but to intervene on behalf of others. The Chinese have discovered this simple common sense and India has as well. As a friend who grew up dirt poor but is now a self-made millionaire said to me once. "I was poor, and now I'm rich. Rich is better!" Works for people and for countries as well. > Cornel > PS I agree with you that weapons do not just > disappear. In the most recent > case in Iraq, some forty truck loads of weapons > were quietly whisked away > while they were under the noses of USA security > control. Response: You really need to keep up with the news, Cornel, because it moves so fast. The investigation showed that these were whisked away for demolition by the US forces, not by any jihadi. They just did not have the equipment and ability to move 380 tons of munitions under the noses of the coalition that were all over the place at the time. Those who had > argued that the illegal invasion of Iraq by the > motley Coalition Forces > would exacerbate terror through the dissemination of > weapons in Iraq were > surely right, and surely too, that a brutal war > against the Iraqi people was > unnecessary to get rid of Sadaam, formerly, the blue > eyed boy of the USA! Response: Again, the coalition included Britain, Australia, Italy, POland, S. Korea and Japan, as well as several smaller countries, so calling it motley says more about you than the coalition. Saddam was never a blue eyed boy, Cornel, just a balance weight against Ayatollah Khomenei who was rampant at the time. He fell out of favor some 20 years ago, so your comment is so out of date. Wars, by definition are brutal, Cornel. You are too young to remember how brutal previous wars of liberation were, Cornel, so have no basis for comparison. Read some books about WW-II, Cornel. You may be surprised at how few have been killed in Iraq, by comparison. It took the Allies 4 to 7 years after WW-II ended to pacify and democratize Japan and Germany, Cornel. Did you even know that, and look at tose countries now. They were destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up, Cornel. Which is what a free and democratic Iraq can also look forward to. Do you have a problem with any of this? Maybe you do. > There were cleverer ways to do so, if justified and > required, but perhaps beyond USA intelligence capability which also led to the 'success' of Bin > Laden on the twin towers. Response: Maybe they should have put you in charge, Cornel, but it obviously didn't occur to them since you are not even running the town you live in. However, because you live in freedom and democracy you are free to opine and make snide remarks about the USA's intelligence capabilities and on how wrong it was to liberate 50,000 million Muslims. Don't you think that the Afghans and Iraqis deserve the same opportunity that you have, Cornel? Do you think Osama and Saddam were bent on providing them with freedom and democracy? Think about that before you continue your attack on liberators and your defense of tyrants, terrorists and dictators. > > > >
