Screenshots

International peering and balancing alsways has been a joke in Malaysia. Bandwidth to Europe and US is close to zero at times. (well thats what they call best effords). They rake in millions a month but dont spend on connections.

I wish to see the American & British leaders who supported the Iraq war send their own children to serve in Iraq.

Don't the Americans puke when Bush comes on the TV screen, and still say their sons n daughters have to remain in Iraq to maintain democracy, and as part of america's Security policy?? Makes me almost happy, when I see Toyo on TV!!!!!!

Despite the fact that the war was illegal, i supported it under the context of getting rid of a dictator. It was a one sided affair as Iraq's army was already demoralised since the war in Kuwait.from TV footage of Iraq's army prior to the war, you can see huge bellies doing march passes, and disorganised marches (even footages of the republican army was embarrasing to watch). This more or less confirm my theory that it will be a short war as iraq army lacked training and ill disciplined. The Americans need not destroy the ifrastructure of the country. (It seems some general was following a war manual on how to inflict maximum infra destruction)And after conquering Iraq, they should not have dismantled the whole government structure by sacking everybody that was involvd with the Saddam's government. Th end result - no security as the whole army and police force was disbanded, no government, as the civil servants were sacked, no power/water and communications, as these were already destroyed bu smart bombs. Now the Americans are stuck there forever due to sheer incompetency in fighting a war and its aftermath. Leaving is out of the question as a) it may create another Afghanistan/Somalia type of warlord state b) neighbours Iran/Turkey/Saudi/Kuwait will be forced to come in to gain control of Iraq to prevent anarchy, which then means, Iran will control Iraq's oil in the southern field and turkey, the oil fields in Kurdish north. Which leterally means, the end of Iraq as we know it and the expansion of several neighbouring states.

Middle America's conservative heartland feeds the military and suffers the most during wars like these yet they drive and support it. The irony.

What let's them go on are myths of heroism and the abstract goals of the war that never gets into the gritty details of international relations.

I feel sad for em'.

cheers

Just one simple question to all the so-called "anti-war activists" and "peace lovers":

If the US and UK pull out of Iraq right now what do you think will happen? Thats right - total chaos and anarchy. Iraq will become another Afghanistan. In fact, another Afghanistan X10 thanks to the simmering resentment between Sunni and Shiite.

But of course thats fine by you because your attention only lasts as long as the US is involved. You don't really care about the Iraqis do you. What you want is to bash the US.

JEFF OOI says: Waging war to uphold peace? Look at the arms merchant accounts before you rant.

Yes waging war to uphold peace. Its not exactly new, mind.

Remember the Emergency?
What about Force 136?

JEFF OOI says: Wrong parallels. One shoukld respect history by giving it a fair and correct context. It deals with soverignty when foreign powers are invovled, and yet de facto ruler-ruled corcumstances must be an inherent factor for mitigation of conflicts.

Is there a just war? Is it right to attack first in self defence? Is there no other way to resolve conflict? How much should one defend till enough is enough and gives him the right to attack back? If one is to attack back, how far should he go? Wipe out the enemy from the earth? If you kill my father, doesn't it gives me the right to kill your mother?

There're no solutions in war. Take the path of peace always and meet your Maker in peace.

Phoenikz, save your breath in the convincing!I've given up trying to convince my fellow Malayisan otherwise. Time will tell and public opinion will move in the direction of the victors. Was watching Meet the Press and one will see clearly the 'can'(Gen. Casey) and 'can't'(Rep. Murtha)do attitude. I've not been to Iraq hence no opinion on whats really happening and to base ones opinion on the press is just crazy. These are the same ppl. that constanly report on Malaysia when there's protest / riots and also the PAS government abuse of women in Kelantan. That Malaysia image to the world according to these donkeys. Peace lovers, Anti American, Bush Haters, Conpirators (Oil, Military complexes??) are all alligned in the same camp. We compare this to WW2, Cold War and they compare it to Vietnam. Was wondering why there's so little coverage of the impending FTA talks between M'sia and the US where Congress and yes BUSH gave overwhelming support to. Guess its just tough for Malaysian to give credit when its due.

cto:Prince Harry is going to serve in Iraq once he completed his military trainning in Sandhurst,UK.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11903653/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

either bush lost all his senses or his conscience seared...

i hope jeff doesn't mind.... i would like to introduce this iraqi girl to those of you who have not heard about her.... esp those in the war-for-peace camp: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn't imagine the country being this bad three years after the war... Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year).

Is Iraq in bad shape because of the US led "invasion" or is it because the media tells us so ?

It is 3 yrs since the "occupation" which led to the dispatch of one of the world's cruelest dictators. After the initial resistance, there was an insurgency that was led by non-Iraqi figures. Currently, it has shifted focus to an ethnic-type conflict.

I think it is moot to point fingers to the US for starting the "war". As far as I am concerned, people should be focussing on how to end the "occupation" and get the Iraqis back to peace. Maybe they can learn from Sabah's politics .... or maybe not !!!

You are right, Trashed. That should be what we should focus on right now, to help the Iraqi re-gain a 'normal' life like we do. And that's Bush's intention too, to distract everyone away from his wrong doing. But after this, someone got to re-look into the invasion again. Someone has to be responsible for it. He claim the world is better now without Saddam. But guys, do you really think so ?

trashed, many of us who were against the war and were called saddam lovers before the invasion saw what is now happening in iraq - insurgency, religious tension, civil war, profiteering and suffering for many more years for the iraqi people, and decided these are not better alternatives to saddam hussien. not for the iraqi people, not for the world.
i'm not naive enough to believe that the americans didn't see that too. indeed there are many evidence and witnesses that say they knew. perhaps you didn't see it. perhaps you swallowed bush's bs hooks and sinkers, and proud of it. perhaps you are smarter than i give you credit for. perhaps.

See, I love the faux self-righteous attitude the America bashers like to pretend to have so that they can claim the moral high ground.

"trashed, many of us who were against the war and were called saddam lovers before the invasion saw what is now happening in iraq - insurgency, religious tension, civil war, profiteering and suffering for many more years for the iraqi people, and decided these are not better alternatives to saddam hussien. not for the iraqi people, not for the world."

Maybe if more countries had bothered to send soldiers the situation wouldn't be so bad. Lest we forget, the UN peacekeeping force sent to Somalia didn't do very much better than the US forces in Iraq, in fact, they probably messed it up worse. Until today, Somalia is as chaotic, if not more chaotic than before UN Peacekeepers were sent in.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "legal" war. If you only approved of "legal" wars, then you must have been very upset over Kosovo and Bosnia, as that wasn't a legal war because Russia used its veto power on the UN security council to block a Peacekeeping mission.

Lets face it, there are lots of "illegal wars". Starting with Chinese occupation of Tibet. Its been more than 50 years. Don't see thousands of people marching demanding Chinese troops leave Tibet do you? Where's the outrage over more than 50 years of oppression, occupation and systematic destruction of culture and heritage?

But hey, thats ok, its not important because the US isn't the one who did it.

great. the one who called others "self-righteous" is comparing the invasion of iraq to that of kosovo. btw, which united nation resolution says china is ruling tibet illegally? what about this: how many UN resolutions denouncing israel were vetoed by the usa?
self-righteous? remember, we didn't say "either you are with us, or you are against us"
please forgive me for not agreeing with your accusation that i'm self-righteous. imnsho, i just have enough self-respects to discriminate obvious-bs before swallow.

"the one who called others "self-righteous" is comparing the invasion of iraq to that of kosovo."

Absolutely.

They're both illegal wars (not that I actually believe there's such thing as a 'legal' war) - both weren't sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

Thus by your logic both deserve the same condemnation.

"btw, which united nation resolution says china is ruling tibet illegally?"

So let me get this straight, you agree with the Chinese invasion of Tibet then? LOL.

You just lost whatever moral high ground you pretended to have by that statement.

Forgot about this one:

"how many UN resolutions denouncing israel were vetoed by the usa?"

Each and every single one. Hence as even you should know by now, the main criteria for any issue debated over by the UN Security Council is not whether it is morally/ethically right or not, it is rather whether it is in the best interests of the permanent members of the council.

Thus saying whether the war is "illegal" or not is moot - it doesn't make the war morally wrong - it just means that it wasn't in the best interests of certain permanent members of the UN Security Council.

just to clarify: i never claim to have the moral high ground. bush did. so, by relation, did bush's supporters. remember who said "god told me..."?
perhaps i did claim the intelligence high ground though....

right... finally we are starting to converge...
yes, the usa and its cronies invaded iraq for their own interests. most of the world communities disagreed with the invasion because they believed it is not in their best interest and/or the best inetrest of the iraqi people, nor the best interest of the world to do so.
what puzzle me are those people who don't benefit from usa's invasion of iraq and yet support/believe in bush's moral high ground.

lsk & Phoenikz,

Sorry to intercede in your conversation, but to me, whether Bush is ducking the issue of whether he was justified in sending in the troops is already a page in history.

One of the sad observations I have is that developing and underdeveloped countries suffer because of the misuse of their resources and generally speaking, these are diverted by those in leadership brandishing their "power". Africa has many examples to prove that.

The UN is a "dead horse" if you ask me. A noble institution in concept but devoid of action. Why does the US have a large influence on the goings-on in the UN (eg. vetoing resolutions on Isreal) ? One is because they can as part of their privileges but also, the other countries don't say much because the US pays the major portion of the UN's expenses. I don't have the figures but I believe it runs into a couple of billion US$.

And when the US semmingly has no interest in outposts such as Somalia, Rwanda, etc .. none of the other major countries wants to take the lead. They can pass resolutions, of course, but what use is that if the people do not see any results i.e food, clothing, infrastructure, etc.

In Iraq, I cannot say whether the people have benefitted from this US invasion as I have no experience of being there. On one hand, the ruthless dictatorship of Saddam has been removed. But on the other hand, we now have ethnic conflict to replace him.

All I know is from the media. And my original point was whether we (on both sides of the issue) are influenced by the media. In the US, most of the electronic media is liberal-biased and understandably reports on how bad the situation is. In the rest of the world, most media are reporting the similar news.

But we don't get any major news of what is really happening, do we? Iraqi bloggers are few. We do hear that schools are functioning as are hospitals and various infrastructural amenities.

It does take time to rebuild a country especially changing the people's mindset. I mean, how long will it take for Malaysians to accept that we should think like Malaysians and not on ethnic lines ?

Trashed , I think you are absolutely right . UN is a dead horse. Look at Kofi Annan, what has he done ? Remember the UN Food-for-Oil Programme , he and his son were shadowed by corruption.Did he has business relationship with Saddam ?

However, asian countries , eg Malaysia , Sinagpore and the rest are still backing him up, there must be vested interest behind.

Greetings, Jeff. Forgive me for making a botch-up of this, but I am a newbie. Initially, just want to say love the blog - some great postings. Hi, to all you fellas out there - love the comments.

Hello again. That was a test message - it's nice to be in. Thanx again.