Iraq war is described as one of the bloodiest and unjustified wars fought in the history of the world. It began with the invasion of the United States (with minor support from the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland) on the sovereign state of Iraq which was being then ruled by Saddam Hussein. The reason given by the U.S. to justify the attack was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and these weapons posed an urgent threat to the world community specially the U.S. But no such weapons have been found and the U.S. charges have been found baseless. The other justifications in favor of the war in Iraq include the links of Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and the abuse of human rights by Saddam Hussein. The United States was successful in occupying Iraq but as time went on the condition in Iraq deteriorated with attacks by the militant groups and civil strife between the Shias and the Sunnis. Today Iraq is a vulnerable place with bomb blasts and terrorist attacks everyday day resulting in the killing of many innocent people everyday.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
Monday, May 7, 2007
IRAQ WAR
Iraq war is described as one of the bloodiest and unjustified wars fought in the history of the world. It began with the invasion of the United States (with minor support from the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland) on the sovereign state of Iraq which was being then ruled by Saddam Hussein. The reason given by the U.S. to justify the attack was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and these weapons posed an urgent threat to the world community specially the U.S. But no such weapons have been found and the U.S. charges have been found baseless. The other justifications in favor of the war in Iraq include the links of Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda and the abuse of human rights by Saddam Hussein. The United States was successful in occupying Iraq but as time went on the condition in Iraq deteriorated with attacks by the militant groups and civil strife between the Shias and the Sunnis. Today Iraq is a vulnerable place with bomb blasts and terrorist attacks everyday day resulting in the killing of many innocent people everyday.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
Now the question arises that is the war on Iraq justified? And if not then what was the main motive of the invasion of the U.S. on Iraq? U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but why have there no such weapons being found even after four long years of the invasion? Another reason given by the U.S. for attacking Iraq was that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights. This is a fact that Saddam Hussein has violated human rights by mass slaughtering many Shias in Iraq. But was that the true reason as to why U.S. invaded Iraq? Today in many countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia human rights are being violated but why is the U.S. not invading these nations and trying to restore democracy there? In fact the U.S. is not even to ready to send its troops there for peacekeeping mission under the United Nations. U.S. said that it wanted to liberate Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam but why is that 82% of the Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately and 47%of them want to attack U.S.? Why is it that the invasion on Iraq by the U.S. has lead to the killing of more number of civilians than Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule ever killed in twenty years? These questions are hard to answer as the above justifications by the U.S. are wrong and the real motive for such cruelty something else.
The real motive of the U.S. President George W. Bush for attacking Iraq was the Oil which Iraq has been gifted with. It is not a new thing for the U.S. to attack the gulf countries for their Oil as in the same thing had happened in the First Gulf War also which was led by George W. Bush’s father, the former President of the U.S., George Bush.
Today Iraq lies in a state of anarchy. The insufficient measures taken by the U.S. for restoring peace after the war is to be blamed for it. Although lots of money has been spent in the war, lost of casualties have taken place, human rights have been violated and the people have been traumatized but the need of the hour is that thew U.S. tries torestore peace in Iraq so that people may live better lives.
Censorship
Censorship is the act of withholding any information in the form of music, video or written texts from the public. Censorship may be the result of political, religious or social condition of the nation.-for example during the time of Hitler the newspapers were not allowed to criticize the government. Different nations have different definitions of censorship and so the censorship of media that takes place around the world is not uniform. For example the magazine Playboy is banned in India but in the United States it is legally available for sale to the common people. But the question arises how far s censorship justified and where do we the draw the line when it comes to censoring explicit materials.
Today most of the free thinkers and the so called politically aware people stress on the abolition of censorship completely. They reason that media should not be censored as it brings reality to the people and each person has the right to the freedom of speech and expression. For them democracy and non-censorship are two parallel things and the existence of one without the other is meaningless. Abolition of censorship is important in their eyes because it exposes the common people, especially children from the realities of the world. Withholding the truths of pornography and sex from the children would lead them to become curious on the subject and they may try to access it from illegal means. They think that hiding information would lead to no good and would only promote delusion and ignorance on the part of the common people.
But there is also ample evidence to prove the importance of censorship in this world. Censorship is important since it helps in maintaining peace in the world, as acts of violence and riots etc. which may disturb the religious sentiments of the people are generally censored. Furthermore media always does not bring truth to the people and many times they twist up simple issues and make them offensive in the eyes of the people resulting in wide public outrage. Censorship has also been proven as an important tool to preserve national security. Things which may leak important details about the security of the nation is banned from public view. Censorship is particularly important in those countries which is a place of various religions, castes, creeds and races because things that may be acceptable in one culture may be unbearable among others. So censorship plays an important part in promoting racial harmony and political stability which is very important for the growth and development of the nation.
Thus censorship has its own pros and cons. In my opinion a balance should be striked out between the two so that people are aware of what is happening around them but yet remain unaware of the wrong details conveyed by the media and also the peace and security of the nation is not hampered. As the ultimate goal of mankind is to live in harmony therefore some degree of censorship is important to reach this goal.
Today most of the free thinkers and the so called politically aware people stress on the abolition of censorship completely. They reason that media should not be censored as it brings reality to the people and each person has the right to the freedom of speech and expression. For them democracy and non-censorship are two parallel things and the existence of one without the other is meaningless. Abolition of censorship is important in their eyes because it exposes the common people, especially children from the realities of the world. Withholding the truths of pornography and sex from the children would lead them to become curious on the subject and they may try to access it from illegal means. They think that hiding information would lead to no good and would only promote delusion and ignorance on the part of the common people.
But there is also ample evidence to prove the importance of censorship in this world. Censorship is important since it helps in maintaining peace in the world, as acts of violence and riots etc. which may disturb the religious sentiments of the people are generally censored. Furthermore media always does not bring truth to the people and many times they twist up simple issues and make them offensive in the eyes of the people resulting in wide public outrage. Censorship has also been proven as an important tool to preserve national security. Things which may leak important details about the security of the nation is banned from public view. Censorship is particularly important in those countries which is a place of various religions, castes, creeds and races because things that may be acceptable in one culture may be unbearable among others. So censorship plays an important part in promoting racial harmony and political stability which is very important for the growth and development of the nation.
Thus censorship has its own pros and cons. In my opinion a balance should be striked out between the two so that people are aware of what is happening around them but yet remain unaware of the wrong details conveyed by the media and also the peace and security of the nation is not hampered. As the ultimate goal of mankind is to live in harmony therefore some degree of censorship is important to reach this goal.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
'The death penalty is murder and should be abolished' do you agree?
I completely agree with the above statement.The death penalty is murder and should be abolished. Capital punishment is wrong on moral and social grounds. Life is given to human beings by God and human beings themselves have no right to take it away. Humans are fallible and decisions made by human can go wrong. Taking a life away as a result of misjudgment is the worst tragedy that can ever take place in the life of a person.
And an eye for an eye does not solve any problem rather (if followed) it would leave the whole world blind. Giving death penalty is equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal as one is willingly taking away the life of a person.
Furthermore capital punishment is subjected to various taboos such as racial discrimination, social and financial inequality, etc. Why is it that in many countries the blacks are given capital punishment for doing crime against a white but a similar crime done by a white against a black result in no such harsh punishments? Why is it that in many societies the rich and powerful are never capital punishments but it is the poor and the uneducated that suffer from such inhumane acts? Why is it that only 20%of the capital punishment has been given to women although 40%of social crimes are done by them? Why is that many of us still justify capital punishments although many serious criminals have reformed to become responsible citizens after counseling done by physcologists in the prison?
Today Singapore has laws which award death sentence to a drug trafficker. Is such a harsh punishment just? There also have been instances in which the criminal who was executed is seen as a martyr and there are copycat crimes arising from it.Along with that there are many terrorist who are undeterred from such punishment and take revenge by striking back with greater force. Capital punishment in this case is no long term solution to the problem but is an immediate answer to a wrongdoing.
But capital punishment has its own merits also. It is looked upon as justice by the family members of the victim. It sets an example of extreme punishment given to criminals committing severe crime, so that there is no repetition of such crimes again in future. Furthermore it also saves the taxpayers’ money, who would be paying for the criminal’s livelihood in prison.
Overall capital punishment has its own merits and demerits and it depends on the perspective of the person, whether he holds the merits more important or the demerits. But definitely capital punishment is not an easy topic to debate upon and the countries should consider both sides of the coin before taking any decision on it.
And an eye for an eye does not solve any problem rather (if followed) it would leave the whole world blind. Giving death penalty is equivalent to stooping to the level of the criminal as one is willingly taking away the life of a person.
Furthermore capital punishment is subjected to various taboos such as racial discrimination, social and financial inequality, etc. Why is it that in many countries the blacks are given capital punishment for doing crime against a white but a similar crime done by a white against a black result in no such harsh punishments? Why is it that in many societies the rich and powerful are never capital punishments but it is the poor and the uneducated that suffer from such inhumane acts? Why is it that only 20%of the capital punishment has been given to women although 40%of social crimes are done by them? Why is that many of us still justify capital punishments although many serious criminals have reformed to become responsible citizens after counseling done by physcologists in the prison?
Today Singapore has laws which award death sentence to a drug trafficker. Is such a harsh punishment just? There also have been instances in which the criminal who was executed is seen as a martyr and there are copycat crimes arising from it.Along with that there are many terrorist who are undeterred from such punishment and take revenge by striking back with greater force. Capital punishment in this case is no long term solution to the problem but is an immediate answer to a wrongdoing.
But capital punishment has its own merits also. It is looked upon as justice by the family members of the victim. It sets an example of extreme punishment given to criminals committing severe crime, so that there is no repetition of such crimes again in future. Furthermore it also saves the taxpayers’ money, who would be paying for the criminal’s livelihood in prison.
Overall capital punishment has its own merits and demerits and it depends on the perspective of the person, whether he holds the merits more important or the demerits. But definitely capital punishment is not an easy topic to debate upon and the countries should consider both sides of the coin before taking any decision on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)