Japnaam Singh

Kulpreet Singh, I didn't compare GWB to Guru Gobind Singh Jee. I merely pointed out that your logic of "all war is bad, all of the time, regardless of the outcome or justifications" generalizes anybody who has ever engaged in war in all of history. The vast majority of the armed forces support GWB for re-election. Like around 70 - 80%. For a group of people who doesn't want to fight, they seem awfully supportive of their president's re-election. I commend your ability to back down from an argument when you realized that were was absolutely no evidence to back up your claims. You are entitled to your opinions, however, claims of war profiteering usually have to have at least some basis in reality.

Vicky Singh, So you're saying that Iraq would have been better off with Saddam currently in power? Think long term. Don't be clouded by the short term attempts of terrorists in their drive to prevent democracy from estabilishing itself. Long term, as long as the Americans stay the course, Iraq will be a success story, without a doubt.

Ok, I'll expand my previous question: Provide evidence of anyone in George W. Bush's inner circle profiteering from the war. Why is it so hard to accept that Bush had well intentioned reasons to go into Iraq? Why is that such a shocking proposition? The people running against Bush today both thought that Saddam was a "threat", they even called him an "imminent" threat, something Bush never did. In the months leading up to the war, I followed the news closely and George W. Bush offered at least a half dozen compelling rationales to go to war. I've seen this guy on TV for over 4 years now, and I honestly do not think that I've been blind to some hidden evil agenda of war profiteering and putting monetary interests above the lives of soldiers and civilians. I'll accept that you have a reasonable argument to be against the war if you move away from war profiteering accusations and if you move towards other arguments. (You'll still be wrong, just not as outrageously wrong)

If you provide even a shred of evidence of war profiteering on Bush's part, I promise to completely re-evaluate my position on the war.Your central claim rests in the picture of George W. Bush being an angry, heartless monster who thought risking the lives of thousands of people was less important than fattening his pocketbook. Do you think any rational person believes that? Because only the world of conspiracy theorists would buy something like that. If you can't provide any evidence of war profiteering, then your entire argument collapses. Vaaheguroo! Vaaheguroo! Vaaheguroo! So Guru Gobind Singh Jee is in the same category then? Anybody who wages war is guilty of bad karms regardless of a) the outcome of the war and b) the justification behind the war? That's very solid logic Kulpreet Singh.

How is September 11th linked to Iraq? Read my previous posts. The American government cannot allow threats to materialize like they did in the past. Saddam Hussein funded terror, he approved of terror, and he praised the 9/11 hijackers. He was believed to have WMD, everyone thought he had WMD, so the only logical thing Bush could have thought was "Hey, this bad guy Saddam approves of terror, he doesn't like our country, what if he gives WMD to those terrorists? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians can be killed immediately. Can I let this happen?" They did have a strong case! That's my own interpretation though. I've outlined numerous rationales for going into Iraq, all of which are justifiable. Do you know how silly that sounds? No one in their right mind believes that Bush is some heartless war profiteer. Stop being so cynical veerjee.

Vicky Singh, How was that unreasonable? Did you know that Saddam was the only world leader to celebrate and praise those attacks? The Iranians, the Libyans, I think even the North Koreans expressed sympathy and condolences, but not Saddam. If you're aware of a sworn enemy of your nation, why would you not discuss the possibility of their involvement? It would be irresponsible not to do so. There've been about half a dozen inquiries so far in the USA and the UK; all of these inquiries agreed that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed and in many cases, outright wrong, but not a single one of them said that Bush and Blair purposely mislead their people in the run up to the war. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Bush lied.

You're missing the point. The Iraq problem wasn't all about one man. Its much deeper than that. It wasn't all about bringing Saddam to justice for his crimes. It wasn't all about liberating people from tyranny. (Although those points were important factors) What would've happened if Saddam was killed? One of his sons might've taken over? What if he was killed? Then the other son? Regimes can not be toppled by simple assassinations. A democracy can not be built by killing one man. The war was and is largely about having a democratic nation in the heart of the middle east - the centre of our planet's instability. How can you have a "war on terror" and then not address the need for fundamental changes to take place in the middle east before that culture of terror can be altered? Arabs living in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nations will without a doubt be compelled to speak up like never before for reforms, for freedoms, for fundamental liberties, when they see a democratic and free Iraq operating right next door. Oceans of Iraqi blood? Most of the innocent blood spilt in the past few months has been the direct cause of the brutal terrorists and homicide bombers doing whatever they can to prevent elections in January. You speak as if Bush organizes the killing of civilians. Grow up. Do you really believe that? You speak as if there's some moral equivelancy between Bush and the Jihadists, there is NOT. The Americans do not target civilians, the American's hearts are not filled with hatred in the same way as the Jihadists, the Americans just want to genuinely help set up a functioning society now, they want to help institute a democratic government and then they hope to leave. Even if someone disagreed with going to war to begin with, what kind of heartless scumbag wouldn't support the effort now? And that's exactly what I see nowadays. When Americans die, people feel satisfied; "shows them right", they say. Some people demand that the Americans leave immediately or within 6 months. Why? Do these people have some sick temptation to witness a civil war? History will vindicate this war, as long as the Americans stay the course and make certain that a democracy is set up, that human rights are appreciated and that the culture of terror and jihadism is dealt with. Do you really think historians, 20 years from now will be saying, "Don't you think it was so horrible when George Bush went into Iraq and set up that democracy? My god, that was awful. Why did he have to ruin the stability provided by that good fellow Saddam? What a war criminal that Bush." Ok, I've said enough and when I hit "Add Reply" I'll be able to reach 100 posts and view the next new shabad beside my name.

It all depends on how you want to view yourself. If you want to view yourself primarily as a Jatt, an Indian, a Punjabi, go right ahead. Sikhs should strive to view themselves primarily as..... Sikhs. If you choose to marry yourself to another Jatt, based on that specific rationale, then by any reasonable logic, you forfeit the ability to consider yourself a Sikh. Gurbani doesn't discuss or forbid inter-marriage between different groups or castes, because it doesn't recognize those differences or even admit that they exist. Actually, to be even more specific, Gurbani rejects the possibility of them existing at all. Any true understanding of Gurbani in general recognizes that Vaaheguroo is within everybody; that's why we do sevaa: to serve the Vaaheguroo in others. This form of thinking also accepts the essential sameness and equality of all people. When you marry someone using criteria outside of that thinking, you're violating Sikhi at its core.

Khalsa4ever, I already argued in about 2 or 3 posts why going into Iraq was the right thing to do. The UN said that? Show me when. The UN passed a resolution in October of 2002 calling on Saddam to "disarm" and halt all WMD activity or face "consequences". It would seem odd for the UN to call on Saddam to stop WMD activitity if they didn't believe that he was engaged in WMD activity.The overwhelming consensus was that Saddam had WMD. The UN's answer was to debate about it some more and maybe issue some strong letter of condemnation, i.e. "all talk, no action". Bush's answer was obviously different; backing up words with action. That's not true, Bush was ahead by over 500 votes when the Supreme Court made their ruling. Gore was never ahead at all, in the whole recount process. You're right that it was a 5-4 vote. 2 of those who voted with Gore's side were appointed by Republicans. Justice Souter by the first President Bush and Justice Stevens by President Ford.

Really? He won the election? Says who? Angry democrats? Are they a reliable source?A full Florida recount done in early 2001 by the Associated Press confirmed that Bush won. They recount actually increased Bush's margin of victory. Anyways... you're right if you're saying that Gore won the popular vote, he did. However, the popular vote is not the constitutional method of obtaining a victor. Even in Canada, Joe Clark became Prime Minister in 1979, even though he lost the Popular vote by 4%. I live in British Columbia, and in 1996, the NDP won the election with a majority government, even though they lost the popular vote. No one complained, thats just the way the system works. So what? He probably wouldn't have, and shame on him. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

This is actually very right. Every nation is imperfect or "jhottee". Only a Khalsa Raj could hope to be perfect.But I don't understand where this leads us; are you saying that because the USA has done bad in the past, it is incapable of doing good in the future? The Khalsa led aggressive battles in the past as well. The end will justify the means. The "right track/wrong track" poll numbers of Iraqis show a pretty high "right track" number. The Iraqis, and moreso the Afghans are very optimistic about their future. Only people who enjoyed having sadistic madmen rule their nation wouldn't feel that their country is on the right track. And please, for the love of god, stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Its a very dishonest comparison. And R.Singh, Saddam Hussein was the only leader of any country to praise the 9/11 attacks. Anybody that vicious, with th e capability to produce weapons would've almost certainly have helped with another, far more deadly attack in the future. It is impossible to predict the future. Any responsible nation that has been attacked by terrorists can not allow "future threats to materialize". Pre-emptive action has to be taken in some circumstances. Putting the sharp decline in suicide bombings on any particular influence is not scientific and can't be proven. It was almost certainly a combination of many factors, the killing of Hamas leaders, no more financial rewards, increased security, etc.

Also, in order to back up Rupinder Kaur's point: Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US. If he had weapons, and most reports say that he had the capability and intention to produce weapons, he WOULD have, and if pressured or even asked by terrorist groups, he probably would have given the weapons. Not only that, his sons were probably more ruthless than even Saddam himself. They would've come into power in just a few years and would've been even more aggressive in their attempts to terrorize their region, and with the help of terrorists, the world as well. Also, on another point, has anyone noticed the SHARP decline in Palistinean suicide bombings over the past year? Its like a 80 - 90% drop from the previous 3 years. Why is this? Saddam gave $25,000 to the family of every Palistinean suicide bomber in order to encourage the innocent, unprovoked slaughter of civilians. He promoted terrorism with money, he would've promoted it with WMD sooner or later as well. And since everyone DID assume that he had WMD at the time, what kind of risk was that to take?

Personal profits? Prove it.Future votes? How quickly you forget history my friend; up until the Iraq War, Bush was enjoying very high poll numbers for any sitting President. His numbers only began to dip AFTER the war. (Even though jobs were created during his downturn in the polls.) Too stupid to know? Everyone in the entire world thought he had weapons, I saw an interview a little while ago where a former Iraqi general was talking about how he and all the other Generals were SHOCKED when Saddam told them in March of 2003 that they didn't have any WMD to fight with in the war against the Americans. If Saddam's own generals believed there were weapons, why is it so shocking that Bush might as well? The whole world thought he had weapons including the man running against Bush currently. Hundreds of thousands of lives huh? What pure lies. Remember this: The anti-war website Iraqbodycount.net estimates that between 11,487 and 13,458 Iraqis have been killed since the start of the war. Added to that are 1049 coalition deaths listed. That is a staggering 14,507 deaths since March 19 last year - a horrendous average of 28.5 people, real human beings, a day for the 509 days. How could this ever be justified? Wouldn't Iraq have been better off without this? It is estimated that Saddam killed between 500,000 and 1 million of his own people in the 13 years since the Gulf War, not including the effects of the sanctions. The lower number averages out to be 105 a day. Assuming Saddam had stayed in power, as the anti-war movement would have had, and assuming his regime did not fundamentally change, Saddam could have killed between 53,445 and 106,890 innocent people in the same 509 days. In other words, the war probably cost between 38,938 and 92,383 fewer lives than the so-called peace would have cost. Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000. During his employment at that company, the company received numerous no bid and bidding contracts from the Clinton Administration. After he became vice president, when he severed all real ties to the company, (except severence which is not in any way tied to the company's performance) donated his stock options to charity, etc. he would feel compelled to get thousands of people killed to help his buddies at his former company? Do you think anybody really believes that? Also, they're not an oil company, they're a contracting and construction company. What personal profit? Stop repeating lies. State some facts. You can't invade every country in the world. The idea is that democracy and freedom carries a domino effect. If its implanted in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will almost surely spread elsewhere.

How was that important to add? Can you be any more unoriginal Kulpreet Singh? What crimes against humanity? Helping liberate tens of millions of people from oppressive rule? If you strongly believe he's a war criminal, and that his actions have been illegal, I want you to start a movement to re-instate Saddam Hussein and the Taliban right away. Ok Kulpreet Singh? Forget democracy. Lets have tens of millions of people in veils or worshipping Saddam or being killed for stating what they believe in or (the hundreds of other things not allowed under the Taliban) or (the hundreds of freedoms not allowed under Saddam). I know its easy being cynical and its easy to hate people for no reason, but look behind all the crazy anti-Bush rhetoric, and you'll see that George Bush is actually a pretty good man. He's a devout Christian, he prays every day, he doesn't drink, he's pro-life, he has idealistic principles about promoting freedom and from every thing that I've heard (besides some hate sites and hateful people who distort the facts) he's a god-fearing person. What is it about him that makes you dislike him so much? Ease the hate, brother.

Good effort on getting out the vote. Just one question, How would the French "Right to Turban" dispute be resolved by the American election?

Kulpreet Singh! NO THEY'RE NOT!!! You have to look at the USA, relative to other nations. The USA, by in large has been a force for good in the world, especially recently. I don't care what anyone else says, and all my friends disagree with me, but George W. Bush seems like an honest, straightforward, religious, moral and good man. C'mon, 50 million people, 2 full nations that lived under the most cruel circumstances just a few years ago, and now they're on the road to democracy? Afghan elections in just 2 days? 40% of registered voters as women? Dozens of girls schools opening up across the country? Or is this all bad? Because Bush is obsessed with oil? Some people (like my good friend Khalsapreet) make me laugh... or cry, I don't know.

So 75% of them don't hold "anti-Muslim" views? I actually find that pretty impressive. How is that so shocking? I'd expect the majority of Americans to hold those views, I'm really surprised by these results, considering the kind of bombings and suicide attacks that they see on TV every single day. Moving on, I remember seeing a poll in Maclean's Magazine (most widely distributed Canadian magazine) about 2 or 3 years ago, shortly after the 9/11 attacks showing how the MAJORITY of Canadians (by a slim margin) favoured "restricting" immigration from the middle-east. America, relative to other countries is not particularly racist. Most continental European countries have white-supremacist movements and the rest of the world has yet to deal with a large degree of racial/ethnic plularism. In my experiences, there's only a couple of other countries that can possibly be said to be more "tolerant" and "less racist" than the USA. Canada of course, and then probably the UK and maybe Australia.

:lol: @ @ :wub: @ @ @ @ (It really depends on my professors though)

Last year the winner came from BC as well. Nice to hear the same this year. Congratulations to Teghbir Singh. Vancouver/BC Toronto/Ontario <_< <_< <_<

That Singh is ID 'r.singh' on this forum.

So Saadhrayn Kaur came is coming all the way from New Mexico to attend?? Cool. Looks like it'll be a pretty good program, unfortunately some of us (like me) will be going to California for the Samagam over there... Anyways, let us know how it goes.

You're probably playing it in winamp. Play it in Windows Media Player.

I'm a Canadian, Speak for yourself. I don't think anyone actually believes that Bush is perfect, but he seems like a perfectly decent, straightforward man.

Is it some sort of crime to support the republicans? :wub: Practice some of the "tolerance" and "non-judgementalness" you preach in your other posts JSS veerjee.

Haha. It was actually pretty cool. We should scan that for the rest of the Sangat.