After Iraq invasion, Bush NEVER passed the orders to commit brutalities. It was purely in the army's hand to behave itself. It was a personal DECISION OF SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS to sadistically torture Iraqis or to shoot unarmed civilians due to fear (atleast initially in 2003-04). OTHER ARMIES WOULDN%u2019T have done that. Iraqis are so good natured that let alone Indian, even Pakistani, Russian or Chinese troops would have easily pacified them. US troops botched such an easy job and are now making Bush a scapegoat.
Bush%u2019s I.Q. should NOT be questioned. His ONLY problem is faulty speech. His decision making is perfect. For instance he requested Indian troops because HANDLING KASHMIR IS MILLION TIMES TOUGHER THAN HANDLING IRAQ. Kashmir will remain dangerous forever but Iraq would have cooled within a week had they interacted with Indian troops. That way, so many Iraqi lives could have been saved. Judge the average Iraqi%u2019s sincerity by the services of unsung Iraqi police during the period 2003-05. On the other hand there is something surreal about passionate Kashmir.
Some may say, "Why invade/occupy in the first place?" How do they know Intelligence is not responsible for this? How do they know what had happened and what was in his mind? To be fair the innocent man should be given a genuine opportunity to defend his actions.
It is not a style of bad guys to take unpopular step in face of overwhelming
RE:Myth About George Bush
by hghgh on Jan 18, 2008 09:37 PM Permalink
contd....... opposition. One doesn't take a risk like this for petty oil contracts. It is selfish men who always without fail play safe by maintaining status quo.
WHAT'S WRONG basically in invasion/occupation? There is this "occupation" in Kashmir of which so much is being made. Do critics realize that the separatist leaders gladly accept security from Indians or that the most anti-India Kashmiri ever born, Geelani purchases a house in Delhi in 2000s? Is it not true that had IPKF set things right none of the allegations would have occurred to anybody?
Sovereignty. Firstly, it doesn't affect Iraq's sovereignty. Bush never laid claim to the territory nor does he want to rule them. Bush's intention was to be there as helpers/liberators akin to NWFP tribal entry into Azad Kashmir 1947. Secondly, to hell with fictitious notion of sovereignty. If individual-to-individual behaviour had been human Iraqis won't mind if foreigners stay in their homes for a while.
Could it be that originally common Iraqis were not averse to invasion till seconds after soldiers actually came across them? It took trademark American courage and skills to make Iraqis hate occupation. Civilians who could testify this possibility were shot in their respective first meetings with trigger-happy troops.
Violence is ingrained in average American%u2019s genes. Campus shootout/friendly-fire occurs only in that gigantic/mammoth (which is bigger?) loony bin, US nation. To give an idea of hyperactive, imag
RE:RE:Myth About George Bush
by hghgh on Jan 18, 2008 09:38 PM Permalink
contd............ imaginary fears of Americans, here is an anecdote. Bush's re-election in 2004 seemed unlikely. Osama Laden's VIDEO at that crucial juncture scared Americans and the mentally unsound populace voted Bush in. Such is the panic of Americans. Nations have national game, national song, national animal, national fruit. US have national disease: Anxiety-cum-depression.
Some may say, "He should have known what US army will do." Do they watch Hollywood movies with America-saved-the-planet theme? In USA, superiority complex is nurtured in every individual from the moment he is born. In these circumstances how could poor Bush predict the "greatness%u201D of US soldiers?
Pakistanis don't have a right to sympathize with Iraqis. If you love Iraqis so much why didn't you send peacekeeping force in 2003-04? You should have known it%u2019s a myth that Iraq is dangerous.
General public shouldn't keep any opinion because it only believes what media teaches them.
