Happy New Year and all that jazz

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!

Well, i know it is 5 days since the new year has begun. But as this is my first post of the year, i would like to wish all my readers(???), if any (pls to come out in the open and identify urself).

OK, So what is new about this year after all??? Apart from the dates that is (as the status message of one of my acquaintances tell). You open the paper, it is the same old stuff about someone getting killed, someone getting raped, someone committing a suicide and someone getting hurt. You move on in the paper and all you see the same old headlines … “Left threatens Government of withdrawing support”, “Secular forces (sic) unite against the communal BJP” (something which i can’t understand…. what is the criteria for being considered secular??), “X lashes out at Y”. You move on and you read the same old sports headlines too “India loses to XYZ …..” or an occasional “India thrashes XYZ”.

Another thing which i want to write about is the partying. Looking at the incidents happening in the New Year Parties in the past couple of years, is it really necessary to party to bring in the new year. I do have a couple of friends who will feel depressed if they don’t party on the new years day. I wonder why?? Apart from providing another “special” occasion to booze and dance and drop down, i can’t find any other thing associated with the New Year that makes it depressing if u don’t go to some crowded place filled with lechers of all shapes and size and dance to some arbit song. OK lest this make me feel like an old traditional fool (or uncle as some of my friends call me coz they think i am not as hep as them), lemme clarify. I have nothing against going out and partying, but i am just wondering at the absolute necessity of partying to bring in a new year. I for one, believe in bringing in the new year in some peace and solitude, which will anyway be lacking for the rest of the year. May be thats why i am called uncle.

Disclaimer: No Offense Meant (NOM) to anyone

Advertisements

Politics of Execution

First of all a “HAPPY NEW YEAR” to anyone who actually visits my blog. (Now dunno if there is anyone who belongs to that category. Looks more like I am writing for myself.

What a way to end the year 2006. Saddam Hussein is hanged to death in Iraq. I am more concerned about the haste in the execution and the way the trial was conducted than the sentence given. I think it was a foregone conclusion as soon as the Americans captured Saddam that he will be hanged. But the way they went about it stinks really.

Yes, Saddam was a dictator, a barbaric one as Americans may tell. But, shouldn’t he be given a proper and a fair trial when you call yourself as a free and fair state??. Let me try to recollect what happened in his so called free and fair trial. First he was given a set of lawyers who tried to implicit him rather than work for his cause. Then when he asked for a change of lawyers he was given a set of new lawyers who went about the duty properly. But they were killed by the Iraqis, this according to the American soldiers. Then the judge who was present was changed. After all this he was given a death sentence for the atrocities he had conducted. Yes, I do agree that it was a barbaric act what he had done. Killing 148 people just because a few people had tried to assassinate him is an inhuman act. Yes, it does require a death sentence. But what I am not convinced is the way in which the entire operation was carried on.

If we rewind just a bit more, was there actually a reason for US allied forces?? The reason given at that time was that Iraq was having the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD as it became famous as). So the allied forces attacked Iraq, telling it is a war against terrorism. After searching for almost a year did they find the WMD?? No. Finally the allied forces had to concede that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

So was the main war on Iraq fought just because of WMD or was there a personal vendetta in it?? It is a known fact that Dubya had said that he wants to punish the person who tried to assassinate his father. So was this war fought for this cause and is the end of Saddam Hussein the victory that Dubya was looking after? If it is, then what is the difference between Saddam and Dubya?? Both of them killed so many innocent people just because some one tried to assassinate them.

Moreover will this help in the war against terrorism??? The answer is no. Even a child can tell what the effect of this is. The haste in the execution and the timing chosen for it can actually intimidate some of the people. There are already war cries being heard against Americans and the allied forces. So, I think this won’t in anyway help in the war against terrorism, but will rather act against it.

What is more concerning is the way the Bush administration is turning a blind eye towards Pakistan, even after it is proved that they are encouraging terrorism in India and many of the terrorists are trained here. It is also been told that Laden is in Pakistan, but Bush was more concerned in getting Saddam to the guillotine.

All in all, this execution right or wrong has asked more questions than it has answered. And yes, the allied countries are in an even more precarious situation now than ever. The final defiance of Saddam in rejecting the hood on his face may portray him more as a warrior rather than as a barbarian which the Americans wanted to portray him as.