-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Add your name to the CLEAN GOA INITIATIVE | | | | by visiting this link and following the instructions therein | | | | http://shire.symonds.net/pipermail/goanet/2005-October/033926.html | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >My point of view is that EVERYONE should get behind > the >coalition that is trying to provide freedom and > democracy to >those 50 million Muslims, and STOP > providing moral or actual >support by spreading > falsehoods about the liberation effort. > --- Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My point of view is in sharp contrast with the > above. I think what we are witnessing in Iraq is > not any kind of liberation but an illegal > occupation, which has triggered a violent civil war > conducted by criminal elements and Saddam loyalists.
> Mario replies: > Just as I thought. Santosh opposes the liberation of over 80% of Iraqis from a brutal and sadistic dictator who had subjugated them by force for decades. Because the liberation was authorized by UN resolution 1441, the allegation of illegality is patently false, and typically alleged only by those who opposed the liberation. There is no violent civil war going on in Iraq, only the suicidal death throes of a small percentage of Sunnis who previously dominated Iraq behind Saddam's protection. Iraq now has a written constitution that has been ratified by an electoral turnout of 63% and by 79% of the voters, and the majority of Sunnis are planning to enter the electoral process. Santosh's deliberate attempt to misrepresent these facts shows that he has nothing but contempt for freedom and democracy for the Iraqis. > Santosh writes: > > I submit to you that the invocation of lofty words > such as "liberation" and "freedom and democracy" to > describe what is going on in Iraq today is engaging > in mockery of these hallowed principles on which the > great United States of America and many other great > democracies were founded. > Mario responds: > It is pretty obvious from his comments above that it is Santosh who has open contempt for freedom and democracy and is trying to make a mockery of the liberation of over 80% of Iraqis, with a large percentage of the balance now planning to join the democracy as well. > Santosh continues: > > The rationale of liberation advanced by the present > U.S. government is a contrived, standby rationale > dished out to fend off criticism for the abject > failure of political leadership and policy in the > war effort. It is a face saving ploy to distract the > good people of a great nation from focusing on the > embarrassing let-down on the slam-dunk assurances > given to them before the war. > Mario responds: > More blatant and deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. The rationale for the liberation of Iraq was first spelled out by the previous US administration of Bill Clinton in 1998 under the Iraq Liberation Act. What is worse is that Santosh knows all this yet continues his calumnies for reasons that can only be explained by his contempt for the freedom and democracy that is evolving in Iraq. > Santosh writes: > > It is the latest in a colorful assortment of > excuses that were floated in the air one literally > as high as a mushroom cloud in the frantic search > for a marketable casus belli in the initial rush to > war, which I submit, was motivated by a combination > of political expediency, unyielding ideology and > thirst for power. And finally, I think this fake > rationale of liberation is being used as a weapon of > mass abuse to intimidate opponents of the illegal > war by branding them as traitors to the cause of > liberation. > Mario responds: > As the record shows these statements are also false since the rationale for the liberation of Iraq was spelled out in great detail by the previous US administration of Bill Clinton. > When US residents who know the history and rationale for the liberation of Iraq, yet choose to malign the liberation effors by virtue of a barrage of paten falsehoods, the only word that fits their thinking is "traitorous" at worst and callous indifference to the subjugation of an entire Muslim population by a brutal Muslim regime, at best. > Santosh continues: > > If one really believes in freedom and democracy, one > has to recognize that in a free and democratic world > reasonable people can hold entirely different views, > as far as public policy and its impact are > concerned. > Mario responds: > No reasonable person can hold the view that Saddam Hussein was either good for the Iraqis that he brutalized, his neighbors that he attacked and menaced, or the world through his support for worldwide terrorism. > The only view under discussion as far as Iraq is concerned is whether one supported the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein as Santosh apparently did, or supports the liberation of the Iraqis as Presidents Clinton and Bush apparently do. > Santosh writes: > > This recognition, coupled with basic human decency > behooves one to treat everybody with a modicum of > respect, even if one strongly disagrees with his or > her point of view. Many reasonable people would > want to go even further, and entertain the > possibility that someone who disagrees with them may > actually be right. In the present matter, I tend to > entertain such a possibility, and I hope others do > as well. > Mario responds: > For Santosh to be right that Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to brutalize his people, threaten his neighbors and support worldwide terrorism, then it was also wrong for the world to confront Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all the other Saddam-like despots throughout history. > Is there no limit to Santosh's callous disregard for the previous sorry plight of the Iraqi people as well as his contempt for the freedom and democracy that they yearn and are working towards, in spite of the barrage of venom spewed against them and their liberators by people like Santosh.
