[Mb-civic] Bush in India: Ghandhi

[Mary Louise smn]

Ghandi's Memorial         I have placed flowers on Ghandi's memorial in 
Rajghat many times.  It is an oasis of calm, peace and reverence.   To quote 
Ghandhi      "The moment there is suspicion of a person's motives, 
everything he does, become tainted."     I agree with the Indian people who 
are objecting to Mr. Bush's planned visit to  the Rajghat memorial.
      "What differance does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the 
homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of 
totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and  democracy."      Ghandhi


>From: ean at sbcglobal.net
>Reply-To: ean at sbcglobal.net, mb-civic at islandlists.com
>To: ean at sbcglobal.net
>Subject: [Mb-civic] Bush in India: Just Not Welcome & poll of soldiers: 
>"GetUs OUT"
>Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:32:01 -0800
>
>Bush in India: Just Not Welcome
>
>By Arundhati Roy
>
>February 27, 2006, The Nation
>
>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060313/roy
>
>On his triumphalist tour of India and Pakistan, where he
>hopes to wave imperiously at people he considers potential
>subjects, President Bush has an itinerary that's getting
>curiouser and curiouser.
>
>For Bush's March 2 pit stop in New Delhi, the Indian
>government tried very hard to have him address our
>parliament. A not inconsequential number of MPs threatened to
>heckle him, so Plan One was hastily shelved. Plan Two was to
>have Bush address the masses from the ramparts of the
>magnificent Red Fort, where the Indian prime minister
>traditionally delivers his Independence Day address. But the
>Red Fort, surrounded as it is by the predominantly Muslim
>population of Old Delhi, was considered a security nightmare.
>So now we're into Plan Three: President George Bush speaks
>from Purana Qila, the Old Fort.
>
>Ironic, isn't it, that the only safe public space for a man
>who has recently been so enthusiastic about India's modernity
>should be a crumbling medieval fort?
>
>Since the Purana Qila also houses the Delhi zoo, George
>Bush's audience will be a few hundred caged animals and an
>approved list of caged human beings, who in India go under
>the category of "eminent persons." They're mostly rich folk
>who live in our poor country like captive animals,
>incarcerated by their own wealth, locked and barred in their
>gilded cages, protecting themselves from the threat of the
>vulgar and unruly multitudes whom they have systematically
>dispossessed over the centuries.
>
>So what's going to happen to George W. Bush? Will the
>gorillas cheer him on? Will the gibbons curl their lips? Will
>the brow-antlered deer sneer? Will the chimps make rude
>noises? Will the owls hoot? Will the lions yawn and the
>giraffes bat their beautiful eyelashes? Will the crocs
>recognize a kindred soul? Will the quails give thanks that
>Bush isn't traveling with Dick Cheney, his hunting partner
>with the notoriously bad aim? Will the CEOs agree?
>
>Oh, and on March 2, Bush will be taken to visit Gandhi's
>memorial in Rajghat. He's by no means the only war criminal
>who has been invited by the Indian government to lay flowers
>at Rajghat. (Only recently we had the Burmese dictator
>General Than Shwe, no shrinking violet himself.) But when
>Bush places flowers on that famous slab of highly polished
>stone, millions of Indians will wince. It will be as though
>he has poured a pint of blood on the memory of Gandhi.
>
>We really would prefer that he didn't.
>
>It is not in our power to stop Bush's visit. It is in our
>power to protest it, and we will. The government, the police
>and the corporate press will do everything they can to
>minimize the extent of our outrage. Nothing the happy
>newspapers say can change the fact that all over India, from
>the biggest cities to the smallest villages, in public places
>and private homes, George W. Bush, the President of the
>United States of America, world nightmare incarnate, is just
>not welcome.
>
>[Arundhati Roy, the Booker Prize-winning author of 'The God of
>Small Things' and 'The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire',
>lives in New Delhi, India.]
>
>© 2006 The Nation
>
>-------
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060228/cm_huffpost/016497;_ylt=A86.I17t
>fQRElUIBaxH9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhd
>A--
>
>John Zogby: On a New Poll Of U.S. Soldiers During Their
>Service in Iraq
>
>John Zogby
>
>Tue Feb 28, 11:03 AM ET
>
>In wars of America's century just past, we have sent our soldiers to
>far-off fields of battle and were left to wonder about their opinions of
>the life-and-death conflicts in which they were involved.
>
>Letters home, and more recently telephone calls and emails, would give us
>a peek into their states of mind. Some who returned would regale friends
>and family with tales from the front lines.
>
>Times have now changed. A first-ever survey of U.S. troops on the ground
>fighting a war overseas has revealed surprising findings, not the least of
>which is that an overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops in Iraq
>think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year.
>
>Further, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows that more
>than one in four (29%) thought the U.S. should pull its troops
>immediately.
>
>The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for
>Peace and Global Studies, also showed that another 22% of the respondents,
>serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should
>leave Iraq in the next six months. One in every five troops - 21% - said
>troops should be out between six and 12 months. Nearly a quarter - 23% -
>said they should stay "as long as they are needed."
>
>The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back
>home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop
>withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are
>unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don't believe a continued
>occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick
>withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a
>pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans
>understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.
>
>At 55%, reservists serving in Iraq were most likely to see those back home
>as unpatriotic for wanting a rapid withdrawal, while 45% of Marines and
>33% of members of the regular Army agreed.
>
>The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say
>the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is
>either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding
>of it at all, or are unsure. Nearly nine of every 10 - 85% - said the U.S.
>mission is "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," while 77%
>said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop
>Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."
>
>Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not
>a reason for U.S. troops being there. Instead, that initial rationale went
>by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission
>became to remove Saddam Hussein.
>
>Just 24% said that "establishing a democracy that can be a model for the
>Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small
>percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to
>provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).
>
>More than 80% of the troops said they did not hold a negative view of
>Iraqis because of continuing insurgent attacks against them. Only about
>two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis
>with very few non-Iraqi helpers.
>
>On this question there appears to be some confusion among the troops, but
>two in every three do not agree that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be
>prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end.
>
>To control the insurgency, a majority of respondents (53%) said the U.S.
>should double both the number of troops and bombing missions, an option
>absolutely no one back in Washington is considering.
>
>Reservists were most enthusiastic about using bombing runs and a doubling
>of ground troops to counter the enemy, with 70% agreeing that would work
>to control the insurgency. Among regular Army respondents, 48% favored
>more troops and bombing, and 47% of Marines agreed. However, 36% of
>Marines said they were uncertain that strategy would work, compared to
>just 9% of regular Army, 6% of National Guard respondents, and 2% of
>reservists who said they were not sure.
>
>Those in Iraq on their first tour of duty were less optimistic that more
>troops and bombing runs would work. While 38% of first-timers agreed, 62%
>of those on their second tour and 53% in Iraq at least three times favored
>more U.S. troops and firepower.
>
>As new photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface, a majority of troops
>serving there said they oppose harsh interrogation methods. A majority -
>55% - said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh
>and threatening methods on possible insurgent prisoners to information of
>military value.
>
>Among all respondents, 26% said they were on their first tour of duty in
>Iraq, while 45% said they were on their second tour, and 29% said they
>were in Iraq for a third time, or more. Three of every four were male
>respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.
>
>The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several
>undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations
>and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for
>security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random
>sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18
>through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.
>
>In other words, the poll is a sound, solid measurement of what is going
>through the minds of our front-line warriors. It's no letter home, but
>it's still good to hear from them.
>
>
>--
>You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option
>D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A -
>1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day)
>please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and
>you want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell
>us which option you'd like.
>
>
>"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert 
>Jackson,
>  former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor
>


>_______________________________________________
>Mb-civic mailing list
>Mb-civic at islandlists.com
>http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/