Fallacy 11. "We are working with Iraqis and
United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by
end of June.... The killers will fail, and
people of Iraq will live in freedom." There is no full sovereign country on this earth. Because
small powers—the minnows are perpetually living under
shadows of
big powers—the tritons. In
book, CHASING SHADOWS!: A Dream; I called them
Say powers and
Yes powers. And in these days of unipolarism and regime change, full sovereignty can go to ‘hell.'Besides, there is no guarantee of self-government in Iraq by June 2004. The UN was recently dragged into
Iraqi ‘business.' And talking of freedom, did
Iraqis say that they want it? There is even talk of a civil war in that country sooner or later.
Fallacy 12. "Because of American leadership and resolve,
world is changing for
better." Lie. And damned lie. Or was it because Libya's leader Colonel Qadhafi said
other day that he was dismantling all his dangerous weapons? Who doesn't know why?
This world has never been a better place to live. What with wars and more wars? Maybe we should be ‘spirited' to Mars and have
‘opportunity' to live there in peace. According to Ivan L. Head, president of
international research centre, "Since 1945, there have been less than seven weeks when
world has been free of military activity." And as you read this, 12 wars are going on around
globe today. If
earth were a patient, her condition would be said to be hypercritical, not ‘better.'
Fallacy 13. "And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible—and no one can now doubt
word of America.... America and
international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitment and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping
world's most dangerous weapons out of
hands of
world's most dangerous regimes." Fine words. Now hear Nancy Pelosi again: "As a nation, we must show our greatness, not just our strength. America must be a light to
world, not just a missile." The nuclear weapons possessed by
United States alone can kill every man, woman and child living on
earth today 12 times over! And all
nuclear arsenals possessed by
superpowers have
destructive power of 6,000 Second World Wars. I mean 6,000 times 55 millions lives that perished in
madness. What's your answer?
Now, look at
double standard. Why must
U.S. and other superpowers possess weapons of mass destruction while other nations are not even allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Why? OK, all animals are equal but some are more equal than
others. (Apologies to George Orwell.) And why should other countries, which are not in
superpower category like Israel, India and Pakistan be allowed to possess these banned weapons? All right, they are not rogue states or members of
Axis of Evil.
If ‘words must be credible' why did
US abandon
Kyoto protocol on global warning—an agreement that she pledged to keep. America should lead by example. If you have weapons of mass destruction, what stops me from having them? After all, what is source for
goose is source for
gander.
Fallacy 14. "I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies." The questions that we should be asking are, Why does
world hate America? I have published articles on this subject on
Internet. I think that
solution should start from asking
right questions. Who was it that said to know
disease is half
cure? He was probably right.
In regard to
assurance of securing and defeating enemies, King David of Israel wrote over 1,500 years ago: "Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in
son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish." That is
bottom line.
Fallacy 15. "And my Administration, and this Congress will give you
resources you need to fight and win
war on terror." The President was referring to
American military men and women in Iraq. But exactly how much has been spent on this Iraqi war? Hear Nancy Pelosi: "A colossal $120 billion and rising" borne by American taxpayers. Just think of how far that sum of money can go to solving economic problems. Kofi Annan,
UN scribe recently said that
resources expended on war is exacting a toll on world development. And recently at
World Economic Summit at Davos Switzerland,
question on every body's lips was, Would
US economy recover quick enough to avert a world economic melt down? No thanks to
billions of money spent on senseless wars. Yet about $1.5 billion will be spent this minute on military expenditure! How much would have been burnt at
end of your reading this article? By today's end, 40,000 children would die of hunger alone!
Fallacy 16. "I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all." They are right. In a war, there must be clear enemies. The enemies must be in a defined territory. And there must be a bone of contention—a clear cause of
war.
But in
so-called war on terror, we don't know who
enemies are. Neither do we know where they live. Besides, those fighting against
terrorists do not know
cause of provocation. At Davos, Vice-President Dick Cheney was talking about
democratization of
Middle East as an antidote to terrorism. But does that solve
problem? Look at great democracies like Indonesia, Russia and
Philippines. What do we see there? Terrorism. Or it is separatism?
Fallacy 17. "Some in this chamber and in our country, did not support
liberation of Iraq ....But let us be candid about
consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power....We are seeking all
facts. The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from
United Nations." That is not true. The U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay—who has since resigned—has gone to town to announce that Iraq did not have such weapons. He was sure that someone had cooked
facts, and he called for an investigation and an apology. Even Bush himself has turned an about face saying: "I want to know
facts." And he has set up an independent bi-partisan commission of inquiry—the 9/11 Commission—to find out what went wrong. Even at
other end in Britain a similar inquiry is on. (May we live in interesting times!)
So he did not know
facts? So intelligence can fail? There was negative or missed intelligence in
Japanese Imperial Navy attack on American army at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and on
terrorist attack in
World Trade Center on 9/11. If
most powerful man in
world is ignorant of another attack of immense proportions because of intelligence failure, can we be said to be safe? Your answer is as good as mine.