The Answer as per Robert H. Jackson

Hello people, thanx for stopping by. My last post was end of March, unreal how time seems to fly when you’re having fun. Been overseas on business for a week, moved into a new place, and then 9 days with my daughter Indiana (who turned eight a few weeks back), we had a ball. Can't wait to see her again in July.

Now, what really jolted me back into writing a post was a most interesting thread I've read on Moon of Alabama . It's titled In Favor of Killing American Troops. The gist of the original post is that the more US troops die in Iraq, the quicker the US regime will withdraw its troops. Of course, with the MoA's readership being largely left leaning US American, the ensuing discussion turned into a moral minefield.

How can it be right to wish for the death of US soldiers, who are only in Iraq because they were ordered to, and who, despite mistakes by their political puppeteers, are trying to be the good guys in the scenario.

Is it ethically alright to argue that the way out of the chaos in Iraq is more death and carnage?

As the post’s title clearly shows, the MoA’s author, the in Hamburg living Bernhard, takes the stance that it is. He got mega flak in various of the comments and the blog’s generally pretty united community took this home hitting opinion piece to reveal that when it comes down to it, like if it is desirable to see US soldiers killed to stop Iraq’s invasion, some of their viewpoints are actually worlds apart. Well written and imho quite valid arguments on both sides of the fence.

It really is a hard one. I understand Bernhard’s logic, it’s based on the assumption that the occupation itself is largely to blame for the bloodshed amongst Iraqis. The facts speak for themselves. The invasion of Iraq is a self-perpetuating disaster, brutally initiated and maintained by US forces. Every day since Invasion-day four years ago hundreds of innocent Iraqis had to die needlessly in the clashes, and, so the line of thought goes, the longer the US occupation of Iraq continues the more people will die. Hence, whatever helps to end the occupation is good for the Iraqi people.

And loosing steadily more instead of less US troops means the impact of the sheer numbers of GI’s killed will, as it did in Vietnam, finally ween the 30 or so percent left of the war supporting US public from any support for a continued large scale military presence in Iraq . The hope is that enough public outcry would eventually force the White House to bring the troops home. The more GI’s die in Iraq, the quicker that will happen.

On the other hand - and also quite plausible for people without crystal balls - a withdrawal of US troops could actually turn out to be the shifting from 2^nd to 3^rd on the ride down nightmare alley. Opposing militias and other violent elements could act with even less constraints, unleashing a civil war of unseen proportions, causing more hardship to the general populus than if the US troops were there.

Also, the majority of US voters, some 70% percent of the population is already in the "Bring’em Home"-camp, no more casualties needed to convince them. The remaining 30%, the ones who want to see the troops stay on till Christmas and Easter fall on the same day, are largely hardcore "USA Ueber Alles" punters, and more US deaths might not make a crumb of a difference to them.

And who’s to say that the US government, republican or not, would give in to increased public pressure. I certainly haven’t noticed any such inclination in the Bush/Cheney admin, and the current gang of leading Democrats haven’t shown the guts yet either to use the tools at their disposal to force the WH to start pulling out the troops. Be that Obama or Hillary, the political establishment in the US plans to have troops there for decades to come. The booty of having the finger on Iraq’s oil valves is simply too precious, too important is Iraq as a square on the strategic chess board to withdraw the troops in a hurry.

Now, many of the troops caught up in the Iraq quagmire are probably really nice people, citizens who joined the US, Polish, British or Australian Armed Forces for all the right motives, as in protecting their countries and people etc. However, they find themselves being used by their respective leaders to occupy foreign countries instead, fighting a civilian population. I understand that in many a soldier's case Iraq is not their war of choice, just people doing a job to feed their families back home. Is it right to hope for their deaths?

Hmmm, lets see. What are they guilty of? Lets ask a person with a bit of authority on the subject of war and guilt, Robert H Jackson, Chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials 1945:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." - Nuremberg Tribunal

Aha, according to the rules back then, they are part of a group of people who are committing what can be described as a war crime, the army conducting an aggressive war. The argument that the soldiers are simply following orders is in my eyes only mildly mitigating, they are still the ones committing the crime, the executioners. If you don’t want to be part of it, don’t be!! At least the soldier has a choice and a protective jacket, the many thousands of now dead Iraqis who died at their hands did have neither.

The Secret Carnage.

By SHERWOOD ROSS

An estimated 78,000 Iraqis were killed by U.S. and Coalition air strikes from the start of the war through June of last year, an article in "The Nation" magazine says.

The estimate is based on the supposition that 13 percent of the 601,000 Iraqis who met violent deaths reported by The Lancet study released last October "had been killed by bomb, missile, rocket or cannon up to last June," author Nick Turse writes in the June 11th issue of the weekly magazine...

With their decision to sign up with the military, in other words their expressed willingness to learn how to kill fellow humans as effectively as possible, their implied readiness to leave brains and hearts at the barracks gate, soldiers forfeit the entitlement to sympathy when KIA on foreign soil for no other reason than a decent pay cheque, owing it to the squad and family honour. They were dumb enough to let themselves be made lackeys of people with as little scruples as they can possibly get away with.

So, despite the harshness of it all, soldiers on the aggressor side are fair game. The laws established and applied in Nuremberg made sense then and do so today. Justice Jackson’s definition of war crimes does include what’s going on in Iraq and by inference legitimises the country’s resistance, at least in as much as it targets only occupation forces.

But the armed resistance doesn’t stop there, and that’s where the whole guilty and not guilty thing unravels. Nothing is as clear cut in Iraq.

Many of the same militias and insurgents who fight the occupiers are also engaged in atrocities amongst the civilian population, displaying a cruelty and indifference to innocent civilian lives which compares easily with the US brutality. These monsters also have to be stopped, if not brought to justice. Who’s gonna do that? Maliki’s goons? Blue Helmets? Hardly.

As the occupying force it is the US troops duty to provide security for the occupied nation’s population. Which requires and consequently legitimises their presence.

So, as twisted as it sounds, the resistance to the occupiers is legit, but so is the effort of the US to stop the resistance. How do you solve that one? A cat chasing its tail.

To conclude, imho the US and allied troops are guilty of instigating an armed conflict, causing the death of thousands of innocent people and wounding many thousands more, which by established measures can be classed as a war crime punishable with, depending on the degree of involvement, possibly even death (see Nuremburg). Should a US or allied soldier die in Iraq, he or she had it coming. Do I wish for their death? A slightly wavering No, on the grounds that I don’t wish for the death of anyone who isn’t really a vicious and savagely murderous person, which I don’t belief a great many of the soldiers are, such a blanket approach is idiotic.

I can’t really make up my mind if a complete withdrawal of US troops will benefit the general population. Despite my readings, I am too far removed from Iraq to make a really informed judgment, my prediction being though that the situation in Iraq - the current civil war between the various factions - will not change. It's hard to imagine that it could get much worse.

It is not that the US troops currently provide a great deal of security, if anything it’s the opposite. You don’t want to drive too close to a US army convoy. To an Iraqi hearing an Apache helicopter circling above is probably also not causing feelings of protection. I therefore believe that a withdrawal presents more a chance for the Iraqi people to come together and move forward as it does represent the loss of an effective and well-meaning guard of Iraqi rights and safety.

Naturally, the home coming soldiers should not be prosecuted, just as the ordinary German soldier wasn’t 60 years ago. But also just as 60 years ago, the leaders who orchestrated this war crime should be held accountable by some form of peoples court, maybe not to face the gallows like the Nazis back then, but at least with a decade of having to wear orange jumpsuits while living in a mesh cage the size of a single car garage, and if naughty (like talking without permission) being chained with both hands to the floor for hours on end.

Fat chance though guess, so the best I can realistically hope for is that as few as possible innocent Iraqis will have to pay with their lives the price levied by the parties involved in the process of the country finding its feet. At the same time I do hope that not more than necessary US and allied troopers will die in the time it takes for the WH to recognise the darkness of its decision to stay on, and issue the inevitable order to start with the occupation’s end.

I hope the goodwill left between the waring camps will be enough to allow a return to senses, particularly the one responsible for recognising that fishing for a positive way forward starts with throwing in a line.

Gap Filler

Dear Visitors,

I am pretty busy at the moment with work commitments, so I have had to neglect the Linglong Thought Exchange for the last 14 days. But hey, there is light at the end of tunnel and I hope that my next post will be up in no time.

Greetings & Best Wishes,

Juan Moment
.

Lyrics - Hans Soellner

As a feature here at the LTE , I plan to translate every now and then lyrics of songs from my native German language into English, songs that in some way helped shape the views and attitudes I hold today.

The first song in this series is from none other than the man himself, the in my books legendary Hans Soellner. In all my years on planet earth have I never come across another singer like him. It is hard to describe him, so it is probably best if you just read one of his lyrics. The song I've chosen is titled "Hey Staat", meaning in English "Hey State", from his 1989 album with the same name.

Hey State!

I go to school and learn only what you think I need to know, if that is of interest to me is of no interest to you, you couldn't care less
From the beginning, all you are trying to do is to bend me the way you need me, I let it happen thinking that you probably know what's right
Then I go to work and I slog 8 hours every day in my damned job, and from the money I earn you deduct straight away two thirds
And the few bucks I am left with just about pay the rent, gas and light, and I need to go into debt so not to freeze in winter time

Refrain: Hey State, hey State, hey State,..... today I tell you about all the tings I do for you, and then you tell me what it is you do for me

You tell me what I should wear, how to cut my hair, my education and my job. Even my religion you prescribe, and I fool pay although I don't even have a god.
The one who points his finger at me, I am meant to respect and honour him! The one who has killed entire people or converted over the barrel of a gun.
Buying your drugs, beer and schnaps, but you reprimand me when I take'em, discriminate against me because I smoke, hey you are the state, its you who earns.
You are well off because of people like me, for that you should actually be grateful
that we sustain you, pay you, for your blah blah, your insults and lies.

Refrain: Hey State, hey State, hey State,..... today I tell you about all the tings I do for you, and then you tell me what it is you do for me

Oh man, I am not good enough for your daughters, before others you are ashamed of me
You call me a ferral and dumb, should be glad that there are still dumb ones. Only through the brownnosers can you live, through the ones who don't complain and who hold their hands before their mouths when they talk
For thirty years I played along, and did what you told me, but now, that I stand up and stick up for myself, coz' I finally feel that enough is enough, yeah then you call me a grouch and criminal, wishing you could line me up against the wall.

Refrain: Hey State, hey State, hey State,..... today I tell you about all the tings I do for you, and then you tell me what it is you do for me

And today we are standing at the Odeon's Square and are singing "Blowing in the Wind", with thousands of other peaceniks are we standing here,
Three thousand who show you that protests can be peaceful and responsible, but on TV you show forty skinheads on a rampage somewhere.
You show run amok rioters in Wackersdorf*, how bricks and bottles are thrown
But not the protesters who in sympathy care for your police.
Yeah I am ashamed of the people who fired shots at the Startbahn West protest, but its you who makes sure that everyone believes that all of us are like that.

Refrain: Hey State, hey State, hey State,..... today I tell you about all the tings I do for you, and then you tell me what it is you do for me

You also should be ashamed sometimes, hey state, maybe for the little kids who are dying on leukemia and their parents who are holding their hands and cry.
Your time is up, just like mine, and in the end it won't touch me all that much, but my son has sixty years ahead of him and I'll do everything so that he'll make it.
You are no role model anymore for me, you got obese from all the money that others had to earn with sweat, and even the hunger in this world
is good for your laughs and profits, with which you run a genocide
oh man none of us voted you in to pull that crap.

Refrain: Hey State, hey State, hey State,..... today I tell you about all the tings I do for you, and then hey state, I tell you what I think you represent to me.

Hans is a musician who calls a spade a spade, who expresses in his bavarian dialect a sentiment that I initially just understood, but progressively more and more share. He is not afraid of naming the worst politicians and showing society a less than polished mirror, for which he naturally cops plenty of criticism and hostility from various sides, and is victimized by the so called authorities, you know people with uniforms and mustache. In reality, with their narrow- mindedness, obvious to everyone else but seemingly unbeknown to them, they simply confirm that he is spot on with the musical pictures he paints, that it is a self-righteous community of hypocrites he lives in.

Anyway, I am grateful for his spine and prose, as it helped me put in words my own impression of planet earth, this being that many, if not all governments are predominantly made up of people with very little regard for a just society.

* Wackersdorf - small town in Bavaria where in the 1980's the German government planned and half build a plant for reprocessing nuclear fuel. Massive protests over years wore the government down and they abandoned the project in 1989.
.

The Illusionist at his Very Best

PM John Howard, performing tonight his latest magic trick. Watch the grand conjurer transform dismay into hope:

This from today's SBS News:

Poll, Iraqis disillusioned

Iraqis are feeling increasingly pessimistic and insecure about their future, four years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, according to a poll published today.

According to the survey, just 39 per cent of Iraqis questioned think things are going well in their lives, while only 35 per cent think their lives will improve over the next year.

Just 40 per cent believe the general situation will improve.

The poll, commissioned by the BBC and US broadcaster ABC News, made for generally bleak reading, with barely more than a quarter — 26 per cent — of respondents saying they felt safe in their own neighbourhoods.

Other basic necessities were also found to be lacking, with 88 per cent of respondents saying the availability of electricity was either "quite bad" or "very bad"...

And now to John Howard's magic trick. Abracadabra fidibus and we get this from today's The West Australian:

Cautious sense of optimism in Iraq: PM
Prime Minister John Howard says there is a new sense of cautious optimism in Baghdad...

Incredible, Joh Bjelke Howard is amazing, David Copperfield couldn't have done this better.

And just to make us really proud of John Howard, the SMH has a lovely piece on how the elevators work in the Liberal Party:

Howard excels when it comes to mates

YOU might call it the FOG syndrome. Friends of the Government just keep getting appointed to the commanding heights of the system, into key positions on government boards and instrumentalities that either compete with, or can have a profound effect on, Australian business.

...But the Howard Government has arguably taken it to the next level. While this is not to question their capacities, or suggest that they are not well qualified in their own right, many top jobs on government boards and agencies have gone to prominent supporters, heads of key business lobby groups, big financial donors to the Coalition parties, staffers, or people personally close to senior ministers.

The latest is last week's appointment of former senior private secretary to John Howard, cabinet secretary and now company director, Paul McClintock, as chairman of Australia's biggest private health insurer, the Commonwealth Government-owned Medibank Private. Just by-the-by, McClintock is also chairman of Symbion Health, a company with extensive interests in private health care, health centres, radiology and medical imaging, pharmaceuticals and other health products like vitamins.

Of course, the Government denies his appointment represents any risk of a conflict of interest, despite what, to the lay observer, would appear to be a fertile field with Symbion on one side as a health goods and service supplier and Medicare Private on the other as a major insurer and funder of such goods and services...

You Beauty! How can someone not vote for the Liberal Party, Australia's Grand Old Party. So sophisticated, so refreshingly corrupt, so magic.

.

Ever wondered why? JH explains:

Taken from Tim Dunlop's Blogocracy comments section:

austie:

Just a thought, why is it that it is the most disadvantaged in society who suffer the worst under the new industrial relation laws?

John Howard Jr:

Dear austie,

Simple question, simple answer: Because they were written by the Liberal Party. Single moms, people with disabilities, Uni students, pensioners, workers in the lower income brackets, doesn’t matter. The plebs need to understand that the business end of town needs to be looked after, and if that means having to shift money from the working class wallets to Big Biz profit & loss reports, then so be it. We are the Liberal Party, that is what we do.

Yours gleefully,

John Howard Jr

austie:

Dear John Howard Jr.,

I knew there must be a rational explanation, and it is reassuring to know that our beloved government, and Prime Minister work so hard to maintain only afterall, a reasonable standard of living for those who are the real most needy amongst us.

It is easy to forget how costly it can be to run the private yacht, not to mention how dear it is today simply to travel first class.

It is outrageous of course having to pay for the occasional slice of pizza, and a drop of Californian.

I appreciate your kind help in clarifying this complex situation for me.

Kind regards,

Your average mug.

John Howard Jr:

Hello austie,

good to hear that you are with us Liberals on this. Goes to show that there is still hope for Tasmania, if you pass on your e-mail addy I’ll promise to forward it to our Liberal Special Human Intelligence Team (Liberal SHIT) in Hobart, who will be more than happy to invite you to their SHIT meetings.

You see, we need people in the working class who are willing to defend us Uptown dwellers, who have a grasp on the fact that if there are no Big Business profits, the companies will leave Australia and go to India or China where they get away with paying a pittance and no unions to make a stink about it. And if there are no companies, there is no work. Simple. We therefore have to introduce Indian and Chinese wage levels & workers rights to Australia, you know, to save or possibly even generate jobs.

Of course there is always the lottery or e-bay with which you proletarians can escape the mortgaged suburbs and join us on the winner side. Thats what we Liberals stand for, Hope. So keep playing Keno and selling stuff on e-bay, you might be debt free one day, not through work, but through ingenuity and luck, thats what we Liberals stand for, Luck to the brave.

So, thanx for your reply. I trust you’ll be voting Liberal at the next election (no, better, for the rest of your life) and ensure the success of our IR Laws revolution, as it is about choices, your choices - live in Australia and work for a few dollars all day or live in China and work for a few dollars a day. Remember, under Labor you wouldn’t have this important choice.

Best wishes

John Howard Jr

austie:

Dear John Howard Jr,

It amazes me to learn, and I must say that it is hard for me to admit this, just how wrong I have been in my thinking. I have always had a profound interest in China, and the Chinse people and I can see now there really is no better way to learn about this ancient culture than by working much longer hours at Chinese rates. This all seems so obvious to me now that I am embarrassed to say that I did not realise it earlier.

Of course there is the economic side of this miracle too. After all my needs are simply and let’s face it, do we really need to eat everyday? Obviously if we reduce wages we can reduce the extravagant expenditure on things like unnecessary food, educational costs – I am sure you would agree – on children who should learn to stay in their proper places as servants and butlers to those too busy with the cares of the world to attend to their own immediate personal needs. Acknowledging that all employers and Liberal Politicians are omnipotent and obviously know far more that we do about what is right and wrong, why would we ever need health coverage, because if we work hard how can we ever possible get sick?

I must confess to a great sense of relief knowing as I now do our proper place in the scheme of things. I was wondering - this is just an idea from the top of my head, whether … we could introduce the Indian caste system here. This would simplify things enormously.

I truly appreciate your comments … to say that the light has finally gone on in my dark abyss of ignorance … well … words fail me.

I remain eternally indebted to you for my sudden enlightenment.

Kind regards,

Your average mug

P.S.

When you left you shoes for polishing you didn’t tell me when you were going to collect them, so I have assumed that you will want them soonest. I apologise for not having them done earlier.

P.P.S.

I must admit to an embarrassment of a totally different kind now. It seems that, well … due to my lower wages that I just don’t have $10 today to pay you for this wonderful opportunity to clean your shoes, so I was wondering, is it OK if I pay you next week, or would you simply prefer to take my car?

John Howard Jr:

Hello Austie,

first up regarding the shoes, of course its alright if you pay me next week. Fortunately us Liberals have kept the interest rates low as promised, so you should be able to afford the slight increase in payments. I might take you up on your offer though and take the car (as collateral) until you made payment in full.

Secondly, as you pointed out correctly, food is so overrated and in our Liberal policy papers is fittingly classed as a luxury item. In a real workers paradise we don’t need that kind of lavishness, there is always the fingernails to chew on, who simply regrow and can be easily shared with friends or family. When the times get tough, the Liberals get going, welcome on board. When I pick up my shoes err.. sorry, when you drop of my shoes, ask my housekeeper to hand you the Liberal Guide to Clever Rationing And Poverty (CRAP), a must read for people who care about our lucky country. Getting by was never any easier.

Talking about education, as you might know, us Liberals have always been in favor of pragmatic and outcome based learning, preferably centered around the concept of mutual obligation. Children should learn the skills to succeed in later life, so knowing how to set a table or vacuum your employer’s car is essential to achieve their goals in adulthood. In order to be able to fill in a ballot paper correctly come election time, kids should also learn how to recognise the word Liberal. So there is lots to be taught, on the job training being the preferred method, and under a liberal government you can rest assured the costs to parents will be not exceeding their life savings.

Finally, I really like your idea of Australia adopting the Indian caste system, or at least make it official, because, and lets be honest about this, effectively we actually have already implemented this scheme. Us Liberals think ahead, our core quality which sets us apart from the rest of the field, a liberal trademark so to speak that is appreciated by the Australian electorate and industry. You might have noticed that I rarely speak to working class people and I encourage all my fellow Bentley Club members to take a similar approach when dealing with the masses. This guarantees an orderly society where people know their place whilst fulfilling our human need for belonging.

I appreciate your lines of encouragement and, with warm regards, remain

Yours truly

John Howard Jr

.

Pakistan, Taliban & Iran v. USA

Today, as I was reading my daily dose of blogs, I came across a post by Henry on Crocked Timber , in which he quotes a Financial Times story on Pakistan and the precarious situation the country finds itself in at the moment. Dictating President General Musharraf just dismissed the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhary, a move which sparked widespread opposition and protests. The reason for his suspension are most likely some of the judge's recent court rulings, which have the potential to turn out uncomfortable for Musharraf. This was a political hatchet job, and the press / people smelled the roast.

The political climate in Pakistan has been shaky at best since General Musharraf's coup 8 years ago, pitching the pro-democracy civilians against the country's military rulers. This article on Asia Times Online tries to analyse the recent history in Pakistan and comes to the following conclusion:

The military establishment faces the choice of clamping down hard on opposition or allowing the protests to run their course.

"There is undoubtedly a political eruption after a prolonged political lull in the country, and if it is sustained it could go a long way. However, there is always a threat from the establishment that it will make some moves to divide the politicians and lawyers," commented retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, a former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence.

"Musharraf created the situation where a clash of the military establishment and civil society seems to be imminent. There is .... anger among the masses towards the present military rulers," Gul said.

Militants feed off such anger, so once again Washington is pondering whether Musharraf may be more the problem than the solution.

From what I can gather, Musharraf has been walking on rather thin ice for quite a while. He was lucky to survive three assassination/coup attempts since taking over in 1999, the last one just recently was foiled and has shown that his own military is infiltrated by Al-Quaida supporters. Which sort of explains why he has no sympathy for them, catch 22 so to say, but demonstrates at the same time his weakness of being undermined from within his own supposed powerbase.

For the last 5 years Musharraf has found himself in a US - Taliban sandwich. It appears that he is trying to hedge his bets both ways.

With the Taliban as his proxy army he is trying to grind of the thorn of an India friendly Kabul. Pakistan is the vital logistics and hardware supplier the Taliban needs to have a fighting chance against the US & Nato forces in Afghanistan (which helps appeasing the Muslim Pakistani population at home). Afghanistan's mujaheddin have been receiving strong support from Pakistan during the Soviet days 20 years ago, an alliance which is still honored and deemed existing in sections of Pakistan's military and religious establishment.

At the same time he must continue to appease the US by giving Al-Quaida as hard a time as possible in its heartland in the Afghan/Pakistani border region. Since the relationships between Al-Quaida and the Taliban aren't as rosy anymore as they used to be, Musharraf seems to think he can solve the conundrum of how to support the force of Muslim guerilla warriors in Afghanistan whilst simultaneously keeping the US happy by fulfilling his role as reliable ally of the US administration's WoT, by sending his own army after their common foe, the Al-Quaida gang.

For instance, the alleged chief operations manager of AQ, who is currently in the news with his astounding admissions of having orchestrated if not even executed most of AQ's terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was hunted down and arrested in Pakistan 4 years ago.

Since Pakistan has also a border with Iran, its role as a US ally becomes even more important. With Pakistan being largely Sunni, one would think that not a great deal of sympathy exists between the people of these two countries, but quite contrary, according to this story from Asia Times large portions of the Pakistani population would not support any US attacks on its Shia neighbors. Unlike the man at the helm, General Musharraf, who sees Pakistan in matters Iran firmly on the West's side, in line with other Sunni leaders eg. the House Saud or Mubarak et al.

But Tehran probably has fresh grounds to reassess Musharraf's intentions. Or, it is running out of patience. Last month, terrorists killed 13 officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Zahedan. Last week, in another incident in the town of Negor in Sistan-Balochistan, four Iranian policemen were killed, one abducted and another wounded. The perpetrators fled across the border into Pakistan.

Iran last week announced its intention to erect a 3-meter-high concrete wall reinforced with steel rods along its border with Pakistan. Islamabad put on a brave face, with the Foreign Ministry maintaining, "The fence is on the Iranian side of the border, and we have no problem with that." But Tehran calculates that the sheer humiliation of being treated as an infectious gangrene by all its neighbors - Afghanistan, India and Iran - should eventually begin to tell on the Musharraf regime...

What I found most interesting though in the above quoted AT article were the the last 4 paragraphs, where the author, M K Bhadrakumar, a former Indian Foreign Service diplomat, is suggesting that the real issue for America in the US-Iran-Pakistan politics triangle is, surprise surprise, natural resources and their distribution, as in pipelines and US access to them:

...there is a sideshow to these happenings that is no less profound. US intelligence operatives must be laughing all the way to Washington that they could manage with such ease what their suave diplomats (and wily Congress members) have had a hard time achieving in recent years - arresting Islamabad and New Delhi from finalizing the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project. In geopolitical terms, the project holds the definite potential to forge a unified Asian energy market, with deep implications for US energy security.

Washington was increasingly finding it counterproductive to resort to arm-twisting New Delhi and Islamabad into putting the project on the back burner until such time as US-Iran relations were normalized and Washington, too, could dip into Iran's energy reserves.

Now, just as it was becoming clear that the three regional capitals were inching toward finalization of the project at a trilateral meeting in Tehran in June, the high volatility in the security situation in the Iran-Pakistan border region puts question marks on their energy dialogue. To be sure, the pipeline project is predicated on a climate of trust and confidence prevailing among the three parties.

There was much merit in US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent fulsome praise that "this has been a stalwart fighter, Pakistan's Musharraf, in this fight". Those in Washington who insinuated that he deserved "an unusually tough message" over the "war on terror" have since hastily beaten a retreat. They didn't know what they were saying.

Should Musharraf be ousted and Pakistan find its way back to a democratic system, the US would probably loose in the medium to long-term an important ally in the region. 90% of todays 165 million Pakistanis are Muslims (20 Shia, 70 Sunni), of whom many would certainly vote for parties which express the anti-western views many muslims hold.

The US can't afford to loose Pakistan's cooperation, thus any US plans to influence events and outcomes there are probably based on the switch module, replacing one dictator with another, one who'll be grateful for any assistance in overthrowing Musharraf. Straight after the motto "He might be a bastard, but he is our bastard."
.

God's R Us

Interesting topic over on Blogocracy today, where Tim Dunlop picks up on the seemingly eternal question: Is there a God?

Here is what amounts to his conclusion:

...The universe is immense and existence is hard, in the best sense of the word, and God just seems like too pat an answer, too self-serving. Add in the codifications—faiths --that allow one set of believers to pit themselves against all others and the harm done by this self-serving idea very easily outweighs the good...

In other words, NO, or at least unlikely enough so as to render the concept not worth believing in.

Having also bounced this rhetoric question of God - Yes/No? through my Hall of Thoughts on various occasions, I come to a similar deduction, the one almighty God is a human concept born in the hope for equalising justice and a life after death, a omnipotent being that can be used as universal explanation for what is and isn't happening.

I can't understand why so many people are like sheep in their approach to ideas about the afterlife and how the fabric of life is knit. My guess its due to either one of the following (or any combination):

• lack of fantasy
• the human group/herd instinct
• early childhood indoctrination
• thinking of "might as well"

I almost wrote

• simplistic world view

but then, just in time, I realised that it could also be my assertions that are steeped in naivety, it's not that my theory is all too complex either.

I personally redrew my picture of where we come from, who/what runs the show while we are here and where will we go to. I think it sort of started in my early teens, when (out of all people) my religious education teacher made a remark in class along the lines of

What if Jesus came back today, after 2000 years of Christianity? We, Christians or not, would stick him into a mental institution or jail, not the cross anymore, no, we have finally moved on from that after burning people alive for 16 hundred years, but we'd declare him a fraud, a loony, an extremist.

Jesus would be living as an itinerant, hang out with people our society classes as "loosers", he'd be a rebellious activist with a record for trespassing and being a nuisance in public. I couldn't explain this paradox much better than Kev Carmody, (I recommend his albums, essential listening) :

He was born in Asia Minor,
a colonized Jewish man.
His father the village carpenter,
worked wood in his occupied land.

He was apprenticed to his father's trade.
His country paid it's dues;
to the colonial Roman conquerors,
He was a working-class Jew.

Though conceived three months out of wedlock
the stigma never stuck.
He began a three year public life
but he never made a buck

because he spoke out against injustice;
saw that capitalism bled the poor.
He attacked self-righteous hypocrites
and he condemned the lawyers' law.

But they've commercialised his birthday now;
the very people he defied,
and they've sanctified their system
and claim he's on their side!

But if he appeared tomorrow,
He'd still pay the highest cost,
being a 'radical agitator'
they'd still nail him to a cross.

You see He'd stand with the down trodden masses,
identify with the weak and oppressed.
He'd condemn the hypocrites in church pews,
and the affluent, arrogant West.

He'd oppose Stalinist totalitarianism;
the exploitation of millions by one,
and 'peace' through mutual terror,
and diplomacy from the barrel of a gun.

He'd fight with Joe Hill and Walesa,
Mandela and Friere;
Try to free the third world's millions
from hunger and despair.

He'd stand with the peasants
at the pock-marked walls;
They'd haul him in on bail.
He'd condemn all forms of apartheid,
and he'd rot in their stinking jails.

He'd denounce all dictatorships
and Mammon's greed,
and the exploitation of others for gain.
He'd oppose the nuclear madness,
and the waging of wars in His name.

He'd mix with prostitutes and sinners,
challenge all to cast the first stone.
A compassionate agitator,
one of the greatest the world has known.

He'd condemn all corrupt law and order,
tear man made hierarchies down.
He'd see status and titles as dominance
and the politics of greed he'd hound.

He'd fight against the leagues of the Ku Klux Klan,
and the radical, racist right.
One of the greatest humanitarian socialists
was comrade, Jesus Christ.

Thanx to stratosph3R3 from over at RedHotPawn for the lyrics

So, if there was a Jesus of Nazareth, a powerful and kindhearted man who died in the belief that his cruel end would help us having our sins forgiven on judgment day, then he would be disgusted with the lip service morale of his followers. I am not an historian, far from it, so I can't really say if Jesus ever lived and what he was up to, but I am very much inclined to say that he was not the son of God, but God himself. And he appealed to the Gods within each of his fellow humans to wake up and show compassion towards all other beings sharing time and space with us. The following quote pretty much sums it up.

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself."
Peter O'Toole

That's it, not much more to say. IMHO we are all Gods/Goddesses, and because being a God means existing forever, and eternity being pretty boring after a while, we invented life, to escape the boredom of being a God. When we die we go back to being Gods, catch up with other Gods in Godland, and when we are fed up with godliness, we line up and parachute into a creature being born at that moment. One time round we want to find out what it is like to be a hungry child in Africa, next time round we line up in the rich kid column.

IMHO it's all about gathering different kind of experiences, see the world from many angles. I am a spiritual being who is having a human experience.

Any belief someone holds, as crazy as they might sound to some, has the same chance of being the truth as the christian, muslim, hindhu or any other faith has. It can be calculated with the following formula:

A person's belief / Never-ending possibilities = 0.000period01 %

Pretty slim I must admit, but not any less either. And now, just to introduce another possibility, what if whatever one believes would happen to one's soul at the time of death, will actually happen to this soul?

In other words, if you approach death and are worried that all your bad deeds will lead you straight to some kind of flamin hell, then that is where you'll go. Or if you believe you'll get reborn as a cow, you'll actually be reborn as a cow, and so on. The options are endless, but just in case, on my deathbed I'll be thinking of a nice situation I want to spend eternity in, like living with a nymphomaniac who owns a bottle shop.
.