March 21, 2003
 

Politics

The destruction of an ancient land is almost complete. The land of the Tigris-Euphrates & the land which was part of Mesopotamia is soon destined to be nothing but a never ending war-zone. If the single point agenda is to cleanse Iraq off its authoritarian regime (and really, no one disagrees that Saddam is definitely someone who needs to go) then I'm very sure the CIA has a lot of ways to go about doing it. Why indulge in a war which more or less affects economies of just about every country in the world? Can the US and UK governments be sued for doing something which affects other countries' economies? Apparently in Belgium anyone can file a suit on anyone, irrespective of nationality etc. Someone should try doing that against Bush and Blair.


Even more hilarious was Blair's address to the UK and Iraqis. He said "We shall help Iraq move towards democracy and put the money from Iraqi oil in a UN trust fund so it benefits Iraq and no-one else.".


Now there're a couple of problems there. Apparently the trust fund is to be administered by the United Nations, the very same United Nations which the US and the UK felt had abdicated its responsibility towards disarming Saddam Hussain. So they trust the UN with Iraqi oil money, but not the attempts by the UN in disarmament? Secondly, it is going to be extremely difficult to transition Iraq to democracy. We've already seen that in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai and his government are literally living on a day-to-day basis. The economy is in ruins, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda continue to have a lot of strongholds in various pockets, especially the ones bordering (and inside) Pakistan. Obviously I do hope Iraq becomes a good mature democracy in the course of time, but I really do have my doubts over the the United States' and Britain's intentions. The process of rebuilding Iraq could be nothing more than a front for huge contracts for US and UK companies.

---

Cricket

So we're now in the finals of the World Cup !! I think this is a brilliant achievement and I'd be more than satisfied even if we only ended up runners-up, as long as we fought well in the finals against the Aussies. No pressure on you guys, but remember, if you don't return with the Cup, we'll never forgive you *hehehe*. On an aside note, that Tendulkar chap is something. He kept bowling ripping legbreaks, bowled quite a few trash balls etc. and then slipped in an inswinging yorker to get an lbw ! What can't he do? Oh yes, he can't score a World Cup century against decent opposition (his WC centuries have been against the might of Kenya [twice], Namibia and Sri Lanka). Lets hope he changes this script in the final. It'd be an absolute travesty of justice if jokers like Tom Moody got two World Cup winner medals but Tendulkar or Dravid or Ganguly or Kumble or Srinath etc. didn't get any.


If England's reasons for not touring Zimbabwe (aside the security issue) was also cited to be the moral issue of a death of democracy and the regime of Robert Mugabe, I'd like to know what type of a political system goes through with assisting an attack on another country when there is a HUGE if not overwhelming section of the country who does not want war with Iraq. I thought democracy was meant to be a government by, for and of the people. If the people's voices are disregarded in an attempt to free some other country from a dictator's clutches, what is the difference between Saddam and Blair, both of who disregard public opinion? I hope Zimbabwe refuses to tour England this summer on moral grounds, citing Britain's assistance to the dismemberment of Iraq.

Labels: 2003 world cup, al-qaeda

Rambled @ 12:38 PM

Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]