Please write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

November 2004

As the ATol resident philosopher and historian Spengler makes another attempt at understanding (God bless him) in his [Nov 30] article What makes the US a Christian nation, I find myself rushing to his aid. At the moment, I have found Spengler's best adviser to be the philosopher Supervisor Chalmers, a character on America's favorite cartoon show, The Homer Simpson Show, who said, "God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion." It would behoove Spengler to visit an American church and see who the congregation is. He will find mostly elderly people who come for companionship, recognition and comfort from each other in a religious setting along with a sprinkling of interchangeable thirtysomethings who come to church to give their children the same as was given to them by their parents, which is a few years of Sunday school so that their children can grow up to be like themselves and be susceptible to manipulation by guilt for not having been regular churchgoers. The rest of America's religious congregation divides itself between TV cartoon philosophy and TV evangelicals in funny-looking wigs like Spengler's.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Nov 30, '04)


Dear Spengler [What makes the US a Christian nation, Nov 30]: A comment on the formation of the US constitution. Americans practiced constitutional government in the 13 Colonies for well over a century prior to the writing of the present constitution. The constitutions of Connecticut and Pennsylvania of that era were written by what would be considered today Christian fundamentalists with an explicit reliance on the Bible as a source of principles. They served as models for the US constitution in many respects. Far from being an example of secularism, the US constitution was an organic development from radical Protestant antecedents. Enlightenment concepts and references to ancient Greece and Rome as found in the Founding Fathers were retrofitted on to a system of government derived from Puritan and Quaker ideas and English traditions.
Jeff Alexander
Visalia, California (Nov 30, '04)


I found Alex Wallenwein's article (US gives euro a long rope [Nov 30]) a little hard to figure out until I saw that he is the editor and publisher of a guide to investing in gold. Now it makes a lot more sense to me. I remember that when the euro was first created, and dropped like a stone, gold bugs were warning that the US government was secretly behind the euro's fall in order to destroy it as an alternative to the dollar. Their conclusion? Buy gold. Now that the euro has strengthened, Mr Wallenwein warns us that, yet again, the US government is secretly behind the euro's rise in order to destroy it as an alternative to the dollar. His conclusion? Buy gold. Lucky for us that gold bugs are able to ferret out and warn us about all these conspiracies.
Michael Pettis
Peking University (Nov 30, '04)


The value of the dollar now lies in the hands of merchandise- and oil-exporting countries, [which] are continually being ask to support the US current account deficit by purchasing or recycling US dollars back into US treasuries. This seems to be coming to an end simply because who wants to purchase either equities or bonds in an depreciating currency? As rates rise to protect the dollar, bonds will fall, so foreign investors will be facing a double wham, a currency trading deficit and lower bond pricing. What will the world's central banks be doing as they watch their US foreign-currency reserves depreciate? Will they switch to euros? How will oil pricing be stabilized? One short and easy answer is to switch to a euro standard for trading oil. This is being talked [about], but what effect would this have on the US dollar? No demand and no recycling back dollars to US treasuries means a collapse of the US dollar [by] as much as another 50%. Currency and bond-market failures do occur and the US is now facing this. The US is now basically a welfare state, demanding [that] other countries support [Americans'] excessive lifestyles. Many countries as well as individuals are now questioning whether this support is warranted.
Allan (Nov 30, '04)


I refer to the article Anti-Semitism peddled in Southeast Asia by Keith Andrew Bettinger (Nov 30). As much as Bettinger would like to whitewash the Jewish power over the USA and most of Europe, one cannot escape noticing this power in action. It is no secret that the main proponents of wars against Muslims and Arabs are Jews in America, starting from Wall Street finance houses, Hollywood moguls, and the neo-con cabal to organizations such as AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and the World Zionist Congress. Since before the creation of the state of Israel this power has been in action overtly and covertly pushing the racist agenda of disenfranchising Muslims and Arabs, destroying their economies [and] their culture and killing people. In spite of the massive and incessant propaganda through world media, and slanderous articles and movies against Islam, Muslims and Arabs in particular, and in spite of imposing muzzles on people in the USA and Europe by means of laws rammed through their parliaments and legislatures, by mainly Jewish interests, people do realize that it is the Jews who are hatemongering and not the other way around. The killings in Palestine and Iraq are real and not some fiction or Hollywood movie. The policymakers in America who have pushed these wars are Jewish and that is a fact. Just because the world media [do] not report these facts, out of fear for Jewish power, does not mean that it is not a reality. We Muslims are on the receiving end of this vicious Jewish power and Bettinger and his ilk will never convince us otherwise. We do not buy the "anti-Semitism" hocus pocus.
Vincent Maadi (Nov 30, '04)

One of the notable features of Jewish-conspiracy theories is their endurance in the face of obvious contrary evidence. While it may be true that Jews are disproportionately represented in some fields such as filmmaking, the influence they wield is routinely exaggerated, even on those (rather rare) occasions when they are backed by much larger groups - eg right-wing Judeo-Christian cabals in the US that currently have some sway over US foreign policy, especially vis-a-vis Israel. The sheer numbers are against anti-Jewish theory (about 13 million Jews worldwide versus about a billion Muslims), as are Jews' demonstrably diverse voting patterns, disparate income levels and, at least outside Israel proper, deep divisions on the Palestine issue. - ATol


I used to read your site religiously. For close to two years I devoured every article written. I was interested in the Muslim view of news. I felt your site did an excellent job with news of Pakistan, China, etc. Then I noticed something odd. The familiar writers I remember reading suddenly disappeared and were replaced by people with Indian-sounding names. These men then proceeded to write article after article of anti-Muslim propaganda - the same stuff I can read in the daily newspaper. The same propaganda I had originally gone to ATol to escape. During this same period, the number of articles supporting the actions of the USA and Israel also increased. After a trial period so I could determine if this was a blip or a new editorial stance, I wrote a letter declaring I was disappointed in the propaganda publication that the once proud and truthful ATol had turned into. Since that time, months ago, I usually only skim the articles. Today I am shocked by what absolute trash your site prints now. You should be proud to have joined the ranks of Israeli propaganda publications. Rhetorically, how much did they pay you to change your stance for journalism of truth and integrity, to journalism for whoever pays you the most? I am incensed by the article Anti-Semitism peddled in Southeast Asia [Nov 30] by Keith Andrew Bettinger. A bigger load of propaganda would be harder to find. Filled with half-truths and distortions, the article belongs in one of the daily tabloid papers along with two-headed babies and alien abductions. There are so many falsehoods and distortions, I could write pages debunking them. As you now work for the Israelis, I am certain you know all of this. I thought I would write and point out the most egregious, most glaring of the falsehoods, the one that tells any knowledgeable reader that ATol is a propaganda outlet, not a news organization. The section in question reads: "Piper says the Jewish-controlled media giants and publishing companies won't go near his books because they are afraid of the truth." Then he continues on with his attack on Mr Piper. What he very cleverly does not do is refute the fact that the media giants are indeed controlled by the Israelis. The implication is there, that Israeli control of the media is a figment of Mr Piper's imagination. But Mr Bettinger very carefully and purposefully does not refute that Israelis own the USA media. Because it is true, as any person who reads is aware of. Seven Jewish Americans control most of US media: Gerald Levin, CEO [chief executive officer] Time Warner; Michael Eisner, CEO Disney; Edgar Bronfman Sr, chairman Seagram; Edgar Bronfman Jr, CEO Universal Studios; Sumner Redston, CEO Viacom; Dennis Dammerman, vice chairman, General Electric; Peter Chernin, News Corp Ltd. Collectively they own and control ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Turner. I suppose I will continue to stop by your site from time to time to witness the progression of the decline of journalistic standards at ATol. I find the intellectual tone of the writers who have not sold themselves to Israel stimulating. Hope you are enjoying being an Israeli shill publication. The dignity and the respect that longtime readers had for ATol is slowly dribbling away.
David Little
USA (Nov 30, '04)

The Israelis did not send any cash, but they did offer beach property in the Sinai if only we would print the Bettinger piece. We were shocked to learn that those scallywags had given the Sinai back to Egypt years ago. Boy, do we feel silly. - ATol


[Re] Michael Weinstein's Ukraine adds to Moscow's setbacks [Nov 30]: I think Dr Weinstein is in too much of a hurry to build a gravestone for Russian influence in Russia's own immediate neighborhood. Rumors of [Russia's] demise may be exaggerated and premature. I can recall similar verdicts being pronounced on an almost constant basis in early and mid-'90s when freshly independent Central Asian states left the Russian orbit, seemingly forever. Turkey was supposed to become the new master of the region, flush with money and pan-Turkic ideology. We all know what happened afterwards: the Turkish economy had collapsed long before that wonderful vision had a chance to become a reality. Russia, however, is doing just fine. Russia's GDP [gross domestic product] per capita is some 40% above the Turkish one. Moscow's position in the region is the strongest in at least 12 years. The same is quite likely to happen in Ukraine. With Russia's national balance sheet being a financial equivalent of Leonardo [da Vinci]'s masterpiece, and Western ones buckling under enormous hastily patched strains, it would be rather foolhardy to proclaim [Russia's] defeat. That tussle had just begun, and may last for years. So far, the best the West can do is to keep fueling Ukrainian revolutionary fervor with abstract promises of a better life at some future yet-to-be-determined date - much like the communists did. Strategies like that are usually short-lived and are never winning ones. Ukrainians won't tolerate such an approach for long. Far from Weinstein's assertions, Russia's position in Ukraine is, in fact, steadily improving. Ten years ago a pro-Russian candidate would not be competitive in Ukrainian presidential elections at all. Russia has come a long way there, in a fairly short period of time. If it manages to maintain its economic performance at the recent tempo, Moscow will win any contest in Ukraine, at any time, against anyone.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Nov 30, '04)


[Rowan] Berkeley [letter, Nov 29] finds fault with my representation [Crisis towers over the greenback, Nov 25] of the independent expert analyses of the causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers [of New York's World Trade Center], stating that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to "melt" steel girders. What Mr Berkeley evidently fails to realize is that it is not necessary to "melt" the girders in order to begin to compromise their strength and integrity - that occurs at a temperature near 1,000 degrees [Fahrenheit; 538 Celsius], well below the melting point. Additionally, the tremendous weight resting upon those steel girders tended to magnify the effect of any weakening resulting from the intense heat of the fires. He also fails to take into consideration two other important facts. First, the impact of the airliners undoubtedly compromised the heat-protective coating on those steel girders, making them more vulnerable to the flames. Second, the jet fuel ignited the initial fires at the impact sites, but the materials making up the structures themselves quickly became involved. Consequently, the temperature of the fires cannot be said to be only that at which jet fuel burns. Even a superficial analysis of the event would quickly cast into doubt Mr Berkeley's assertions. Finally, the fact is that the towers did collapse upon themselves, and the fires played a major role. I suggest Mr Berkeley begin with a reading of the findings of real engineers who studied the event. May I recommend this link as a start?
W Joseph Stroupe


After reading Tam Yeng Siang's letter [Nov 29], I disagree with the implication that by waging a demographic war within any multicultural and multi-ethnic democracy any ethnic/racial/religious group seeking hegemony would achieve political dominance and power. [This is] simply because in a democracy 1) factionalism exists and factions would woo statistically significant minority groups for their own political agendas, hence the political tradeoff. 2) Governments who represent particular ethnic groups can try to pursue specific social engineering policies to their benefit, [but] "breeding" is ultimately in the hands of the people themselves, regardless of ethnicity, thus demographic changes are largely uncontrollable. With regards to immigration in various countries, I wonder which country could say [it has] a completely unbiased immigration policy? Even Singapore, with its 650 square kilometers of land, the densest sovereign state in the world apart from Monaco, is allegedly partial to Han Chinese from other countries, at the expense of other minorities. 3) What of natural intermarriage? From what I understand of Malaysia, Chinese who have intermingled with the Malays have become a separate unique integrated cultural identity, known as the Baba/Nonya culture. With the blurring of racial group lines, it would be difficult to achieve "racial hegemony". 4) The presence of a strong national identity. 5) The problem of sustainable development ... On the other issue of rights and privileges (within a democracy), it's the responsibility of minority groups themselves to be more politically active and coordinate themselves better in order to avoid "marginalization". If their political voice is silenced, whether they lack the will, resources or courage, they cannot expect to blame others for their plight.
Omega Lee, aka Clement
Melbourne, Australia (Nov 30, '04)


[T] Kiani [letter, Nov 29], you are forgiven for being upset with ATol on its supposedly "anti-Pak" stance. Many Americans are also similarly upset with the ATol exposes on the Iraq war that are not in step with their beliefs, fantasies and perceptions. So is ATol biased against the US? I don't see you complaining on that front. Just because the truth is not palatable to your sensitive digestive tract does not make it anti-you. If you want to see some good news about your country, here is a suggestion - clean up the terrorism infrastructure, stop poking your nose into other countries' affairs (Afghanistan, India etc) and try to climb back into humanity with a more moderate face of Islam (if such exists). This is not some childish India-Pak one-upmanship forum where every article on Pak needs to be countered with a similar put-down on India. If India were playing the dirty game like Pak on terrorism, yes, you would have seen it here. It is difficult to get Osama [bin Laden], Mullah Omar, Maulana Azhar and assorted ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] loonies to climb out of their rat holes and write regularly here to give the Pak take on issues (assuming they can string together a sentence in English). Hence the lack of the "other side of the story". If reading about India's booming economy is giving you ulcers you can take comfort that this is being countered by Pak's equally booming terrorism industry. So relax and stop making faces at Saleem Shahzad for not manufacturing news that would brighten up your life.
Sri
New York, USA (Nov 30, '04)


Your resident letter writer, hater of white people ("but some of my best friends are white!") and Chinese supremacist Frank asks that we remember what "white" people did to the [native] American Indians after the first Thanksgiving Day [letter, Nov 29]. That's easy, Frank - the same as what "yellow" people are doing in Tibet today! However, clever Frank probably has some irredentist argument for the "peaceful liberation" of Tibet, or toes the Chinese dictatorship's line that all those Han immigrants are needed to help and educate the stupid, unskilled Tibetans, or failing any of that, can probably find a way to blame the whole disgrace on white people, and possibly their dogs! Eagerly awaiting the next letter from Seattle, in which I hope Frank can tell us how our master race can finally exterminate all those annoying non-Chinese.
Alex Chiang (Nov 30, '04)


Rakesh (letter, Nov 29) urges oversea Chinese to "learn at least a little bit about India's long struggle to get rid of the exploitative British colonial rule ..." I am wondering whether Indians have learned enough about the struggle of their underclass, the people who want to be freed from the Indian shackle in Assam, Punjab, Bahi, Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh etc. I'd say you have neither the necessary knowledge nor the moral authority to malign others.
Terry
Toronto, Ontario (Nov 30, '04)


I am a student at Ball State University [BSU] in Muncie, Indiana, who previously spent three years living in China. Recently, Ambassador Harvey Feldman of the Heritage Foundation was invited to speak at our university as part of the International Affairs Lecture Series, and is scheduled to deliver his lecture on December 8. Feldman is considered to be an expert on Sino-US relations due to his extensive experience in the area, which includes helping to organize Richard Nixon's visit to China in 1974, setting up the American Institute in Taipei, as well as spending several years living in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia. Based on his writings on the Foundation's website (and the fact that he is a Heritage Foundation member), Feldman appears to have fairly conservative views with regard to Asia-US relations. For example, he implies in "Primer on US policy toward the 'one-China' Issue: Questions and answers" a belief that Taiwan is a separate state from China. He also believes that the US should promote the development of democracy in the PRC [People's Republic of China] and pressure its government to allow for democratic reforms in Hong Kong. I'm not criticizing Feldman for his views - he has a right to his own opinion, and since he has been invited to speak at our university, then by all means he should be allowed to do so. However, I know from experience that people like him are generally regarded with suspicion in mainland China, and his views would be considered "anti-China" by many people in the PRC. Furthermore, he is not merely a man with ideas that some people may or may not agree with, but a senior member of an organization that exercises considerable influence over American foreign policy. I myself am not Chinese, and I can't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but because BSU has several overseas students, staff and faculty members who are of mainland Chinese origins, I think that it is unfair, if not insulting, to mainland Chinese studying and working here to invite a member of an influential neo-con think-tank who clearly holds a biased view of China to speak at the university without also inviting a speaker with an opposing point of view.
Alaric DeArment
Muncie, Indiana (Nov 30, '04)


Sarah Whalen presented some interesting observations in her essay GI Joes who just want to go home [Nov 25]. Ms Whalen's premise that most American soldiers would prefer to put Iraq behind them for the sake of longevity and a return to their relatively blessed lives would seem logical at first glance. I would submit that while Ms Whalen may be an expert on Islamic law, she lacks an in-depth knowledge of the American soul. While most Westerners are struck by the cultural differences between fundamentalist Islamic culture and those Christian cultures found in the West, I am struck by how similar these people are to each other. Fundamentalists and ideologues the world over are bound to each other by the tight coils of human nature and the need for personal meaning. For every American soldier who entertains a notion of getting out of Iraq, there is a volunteer who longs to get into Iraq. They long to get into Iraq because to them it is God's will that they fight in Iraq. These Christian fundamentalists are America's "new class of killers", much like the fundamentalist mujahideen fighters that Ms Whalen referred to. They are driven by many of the same motivations as their Islamic brethren. Within America today there exists a simmering social undercurrent which has been kept from view by the many diversions of materialism. It has surfaced with the recent election of George Bush, on the widespread concern for the return of "strong moral values" in America. Those moral values include the continuation of the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq serves a powerful need within the fundamentalist Christian culture, as it combines a potent form of nationalism with Christian fundamentalism that has not been seen in America since its Civil War. The present war in many ways has served as a safety valve for trapped social tensions. These social tensions within the fundamentalist Christian community are the result of the rapid social changes that have occurred within American culture since the Great Depression. They include the rejection of modern American culture with its emphasis on materialism and the lack of spiritual meaning that accompanies it. In essence the war in Iraq provides true believers of all stripes a chance to "serve the Lord". To many fundamentalist Christian American GIs, the way home to God is through Iraq. It is as clear and meaningful to them as it is to President George Bush and the Islamist mujahideen they fight.
Mike Benefield
Oregon, USA (Nov 29, '04)


[Re] GI Joes who just want to go home [Nov 25]: The esteemed writer, like most English-speaking writers, calls them "insurgents". Does your choice of words change the reality about the Iraqi resistance among the peoples of the world from Middle East to Africa to South America irrespective of [whether] they are Muslims or Christians? They all accept them as freedom fighters, fighting with a passion and dedication with only one aim in mind, to defend the freedom of Iraq. To an analytical mind the efforts of the defenders could not end in a success. For these fighters it is the opposite, because they get their inspirations from a different source.
A Khan (Nov 29, '04)

Where were they when Saddam Hussein was terrorizing most of the country? - ATol


After reading OhmyNews and 'wired red devils' (Nov 25), I was left wondering why so many pundits are advocating ways to both reform media organizations and still make money. OhmyNews, for all its hype, is still only a newspaper, whatever its bias might be. One has to ask oneself, why do so few stories sell in certain media, but innumerable writers still go hungry for lack of an outlet and stories go untold? It's the same nagging thought which plagues entrepreneurs in any industry. When an opportunity arises like a forum such as OhmyNews, pundits will flock to the banner. But, just like any other company, does it contribute to the welfare of society? Living in South Korea, I am very disappointed with the South Korean media and entertainment industry on a daily basis ... On any given day, through blogs and websites, I can get information as quickly and reliably as the South Korean Ministry of Information and Communication will allow. South Korean television news and this general dearth of brand loyalty have enhanced my awareness above the point when, as a college student, I subscribed only to The Economist and the Washington Post. Therefore, why should anyone, readers or business people, try to promote brand loyalty, if they honestly want to promote awareness? The key to awareness is not the medium, but the practice of inquiry. Analogous to reading a newspaper or writing a story is the difference between those who play sports and those who watch on television. Weblogs, the sport of writing as opposed to the spectator distraction of newspapers, have superseded mainstream media brands. Anyone with a cell-phone camera and a broadband connection can scoop the big boys. But, more importantly, it's the process of writing posts, making inquiries, fast-checking, and fisking which improves awareness. Making money from the practice might reinforce the practice, but it also tends to morph curiosity into confined channels of profitable endeavor. OhmyNews is just the newest brand on the block, not a new phenom. Mr Oh [Yeon-ho] has marketed himself like any business person and he is riding his wave. Putting too much faith in OhmyNews is potentially dangerous. The key to media reform is not the newspapers, but overall corporate reform. The Roh administration animosity towards its detractors masks its inability to reform the chaebol. OhmyNews risks becoming the progressive organ replacing the conservative organizations. Having another media outlet does not improve Korean quality of living, even if the Roh administration has ended certain egregious practices conservative dailies practiced. Especially considering the failure to reform education and labor inefficiency, adding another newspaper, and one so prominent in Roh [Moo-hyun]'s partisan arsenal, to the corporate roster is an Orwellian panacea. Even if a million OhmyNews clones proliferated, the same problems would exist, but a million citizen journalists would get a few bucks. At some point, private opportunism will meet the wall of complete bureaucratic and political deadlock, or just emigrate. Public funding of the media is also suspect when the political environment vacillates between extreme political wings, and there is little bureaucratic neutrality. The prospect of five-year swings of partisan bitterness is hardly a good recipe for public awareness either, although a beneficial message can always chance to get aired. Participatory journalism sounds too much like responsible investment, which is a practice barely distinguishable from what corporations should reasonably do otherwise. In the same way, OhmyNews' corporate model minimizes cost, promotes image, and has a liberal employment policy. All this championing of OhmyNews sounds so desperate. But the problem is the corporate model of media organization, not the political orientation. OhmyNews is still just another company, perhaps leaner, but certainly not novel. Awareness begins with the active practice of gathering information through writing and inquiry, not the middle sector of the media, money, or even reading.
Joseph Steinberg
InfidelWorld (Nov 29, '04)


James [Borton]: Rather biased article [OhmyNews and 'wired red devils', Nov 25]. OhmyNews features [a] very biased and often distorted liberal agenda and [is] used by [President Roh Moo-hyun] and his puppet party. Failure to disclose this rather open info is unfair. And as a journalist, why didn't you mention [that] Roh's party's leftist legislation [is] destroying open and democratic journalism? Which democratic country tries to put caps on newspapers? Don't people have freedom to choose what they want to read and subscribe to? You call this democracy? So please stop reporting biased views yourself.
Yong Cho (Nov 29, '04)


[Re] Anwar the Malaysian chameleon (Nov 25), Dear Ioannis [Gatsiounis]: Good analysis, but you should also look into the fact that demographically, the non-Malays are in no position to "dictate" their views to Anwar [Ibrahim] (or to any other Malay politician) as the years roll by. By 2020, it's expected that the Chinese will be less than 20%, and the Indians maybe about 5% of the total population, which leaves the Malays and the Muslims (including the granting of citizenships to immigrants) to be close to 80%. With careful gerrymandering exercises implemented from time to time, the non-Malays' ability to be "swing" votes will become irrelevant, and so will their "rights and privileges" recede from any mainstream Malaysian political arena. Look at Indonesia, and the Philippines, where the Chinese will be content just to make money without attracting too much attention, and in spite of they being more assimilated into the local "scenery". That's the reality in the medium term.
Tam Yeng Siang (Nov 29, '04)


[Re The convoluted case of the coveted Kurils, Nov 25: Kosuke] Takahashi's ideas will leave Japan without [the] Northern Territories for well beyond our lifetimes, no matter how young and healthy we may be. No Russian will ever agree to US meditation in anything involving Russia and its neighbors. That's taboo of all taboos. I'm surprised at how little Japanese - if Mr Takahashi's opinion is any indicator - understand that sensitivity. Even a hint of American involvement will force Russia to circle the wagons and nip the talks. Mr Takahashi should remember that the biggest single reason as to why Russia chose to keep the islands was its perception of Japan as the champion of US interests in Asia. That perception is still very much intact, and would only be reinforced by Japan's desire to get America in the game. A mediator is supposed to be an even-handed operator, but as things stand today, [the] Russians are absolutely sure that the US would favor Japan in any dispute. Almost any other party would indeed be preferable for them. The only realistic way for Japan to ever get the South Kurils is to buy them, with an extremely generous offer. Otherwise, Russia sees little benefit for itself in settling the issue.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Nov 29, '04)


In your [Crisis towers over the dollar, Nov 25] a certain W Joseph Stroupe says the following: "Unforeseen and unexpected attack-induced collapses of grand proportions can and do occur. The sudden collapse of both towers of New York's World Trade Center, for example, took everyone by surprise - who could have foreseen that the two towers, which survived the massive lateral impact of two huge planes, would, only minutes later, collapse vertically upon themselves, their own massive weight ensuring their demise? Structurally, the two towers were impressive indeed. They had actually been designed to take a lateral and direct impact of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet and survive without collapsing. Nonetheless, certain fundamental structural vulnerabilities did exist in the towers. These were not entirely evident before September 11, 2001, but were hidden beneath their massive and stable outward appearance. When those vulnerabilities were carefully targeted and exploited, down the massive towers came within mere minutes of the attack ... The collapse of the Twin Towers was a harsh lesson in the realities of the vulnerability of US infrastructure. In the case of the attack on the towers, the planes struck near the top of the structures. Had they struck nearer to the street level, there might have been a chance to extinguish the resulting fires before the primary steel structural beams weakened. Had they struck the top, the vertical collapses that ensued would have been highly unlikely as the primary steel structural beams wouldn't have been possible ... The key to the success of the attacks, from al-Qaeda's perspective, was the igniting of the jet fuel and its impact on the primary steel support girders. Hence it was not the immediate result of the impact itself, but rather the delayed result of the fire that counted. The steel girders were the actual framework of the towers, around which the structures were constructed. When the flames softened the framework, the whole structure caved in." But this is all complete nonsense, as any first-year engineering, chemistry, or physics student could tell you. Steel melts at about 1540 degrees [Fahrenheit; 838 Celsius]. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at a maximum of 800 degrees [427 C]. Are we seriously expected to believe that burning kerosene towards the top of the building (heat travels upwards) somehow caused both towers to neatly implode in a manner identical to that of a controlled demolition? Where is the inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries into suburban house fires. Why is discussion of the possibility of a controlled implosion completely taboo? Why do authorities keep inventing ridiculous stories about burning jet fuel melting steel? ...
Rowan Berkeley (Nov 29, '04)


[Re] Pakistan's Bhutan gambit worries Delhi [Nov 25]: Pakistan is definitely playing its chess game to the detriment of India. On one hand Pakistan is offering the "peace accord" and on the other hand she is building a network that is surrounding India. This visit to Bhutan is not a commercial bilateral interest between Bhutan and Pakistan but an act to foster madrassas and organizations that will penetrate into the Indian heartland to cause havoc. India now has a golden opportunity with Pakistan's Balochistan region. The Balochi tribes are not happy with [President General Pervez] Musharraf's military incursions and have banded together to attack the Pakistani army. India should aggressively take the opportunity to foster a call for independence of the Balochi region from Pakistan and also do the same for the Sindh region. Pakistan is more vulnerable to internal dissent than ever before and it is a golden opportunity for India to take this option and foster this dissent, thereby keeping Pakistan's army, the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] and Mr Musharraf busy in their own land [rather] than plan nefarious activities towards India.
Mr Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana


[Re] Seoul rows against US tide [Nov 24]: Seoul is going full steam ahead against the US tide, it seems to me. [George W] Bush snubbed [then South Korean president] Kim Dae-jung when he visited the newly elected [US] president at the beginning of his first term. The new president and his circle cold-shouldered the Sunshine Policy which the Clinton administration cautiously encouraged. To Seoul, Mr Bush playing to the galleries of Congress [and] branded North Korea as an "axis of evil" [member]. Saber-rattling awoke South Korea to an awareness that Bush & Co had not a stable policy towards Pyongyang, other than "do as I say". Consequently, Seoul decided to go its own way. It is an open secret that Washington considers [South Korean President] Roh [Moo-hyun] a flake. But to Korea watchers, the flakiness of Bush's policy towards North Korea came when Mr Bush declared a unilateral withdrawal of up to a good third of American troops under UN command in Korea, to prop up [America's] ill-conceived war in Iraq. Here Bush & Co clearly showed the amateurishness of [their] bluster and fist-waving toward [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il. Washington threw away a perfectly good bargaining chip, which once again underscored the lack of seriousness of Washington in bringing a note of stability to the Korean Peninsula. In brief, although [South] Korea has sent a contingent of soldiers to Iraq, and gone through the shadow play of an ally of Washington, it sees that it is in its own interest to accelerate contact with Pyongyang. And from Pyongyang's aerie, it's in its best interests to come to terms with Seoul. Already Seoul has announced plans to open a trade office in Pyongyang in 2005. A Scottish lawyer educated in the US, who worked for an elite South Korean law firm, is shepherding foreign companies through the steps to invest in North Korea. There are more examples of Seoul going alone, and what is more, Washington has, owing to its unilateralism, given a free hand to Beijing. China shares an identity of views with South Korea, and this puts the US in an awkward posture, which is only stating the obvious.
Jakob Cambria
New York, USA (Nov 29, '04)


Just a few remarks on Eric Koo Peng Kuan's excellent Singapore speaks the Dragon's language [Nov 24], from a learner. Mandarin is not the most difficult language in the world. I have studied 10 languages, and probably Classical Greek was the hardest. Modern Mandarin is far simpler. Moreover, my own experience as a 50ish student of Mandarin writing is that memorizing characters is not more difficult than memorizing new spellings in, eg, French or German. Certainly one does not need all 50,000 characters in the biggest dictionaries. A few thousand, comparable to a few thousand spelled words, is quite enough for everyday purposes. I cannot read Classical Chinese poetry, but few of the world's English students need to understand every allusion in Paradise Lost, either.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Nov 29, '04)


Gene Deune, who wrote [letter, Nov 24] about the article Singapore talks to the Dragon [Nov 24]: Please, foreigner, do not mess with global Chinese affairs, because you are ignorant of our culture. By the way, Eric Koo Peng Kuan's piece of writing is excellent reporting work.
Kui Wong
Edmonton, Alberta (Nov 29, '04)


Dear Spengler [Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy, Nov 23]: Are you aware that most modern followers of Franz Rosenzweig - that is, those among the small number of people who are even aware of him who actually find his work valuable - consider his views on Islam to be nothing more than an embarrassing footnote? I think you do him a great disservice by emphasizing them. The founders of the Children of Abraham Institute (CHAI) and the Society of Scriptural Reasoning count among themselves many passionate devotees of Rosenzweig's thought, and none of them would ever be caught dead starting a sentence with "Islam is ..." let along "Islam is incapable of ..." Know what I mean? Oh, and on your reference to St Thomas [Aquinas] and his belief in divine love leading to human sovereignty: because it is in St Thomas, you account it [as] part of "Judeo-Christian tradition". But didn't St Thomas get those ideas from Aristotle? Don't you need to incorporate philosophy into this assessment of "Judeo-Christian" resources? And wasn't it "Islam" that brought Aristotle to St Thomas?
Sam Brody
New York, New York (Nov 29, '04)


Re Saudis stoke South Asian fears [Nov 23]: This seems to be the latest form of foreign institutional investment (FII) in the field of education. Does India really need foreign investment with intent to spread a religious dogma, Wahhabism in this case? There is no justification for a major endeavor, injected by a foreign power, to upset the demographic status quo of the nation. Will the madrassas be treated as educational institutions and, if so, will they come under the same norms as the other schools of the country? The UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government cannot be blind to the history and record of the madrassas in other countries. It cannot brush away the evidence available from other countries, especially Pakistan and Bangladesh, that the money spent to spread Wahhabism ends up financing militancy and terrorism. Already, insurgency and militancy in India, sponsored by the ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence], is forcing the country to divert considerable resources from economic development to fighting these phenomena in Kashmir and the northeast. There is no reason to exacerbate the situation by accepting "FII" from Saudi Arabia. India must project its power in the region and convince the other South Asian countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to reject the Saudi Arabian gestures to set up madrassas in their countries and work closely with India on regional economic development.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 29, '04)


In reply to my letter [of Nov 23], Mark Lemon of Tokyo reveals [Nov 24], "One key factor overlooked in the analysis of crimes committed by foreigners in Japan is that many of the crimes are visa-related; crimes that only foreigners can commit." Sean Curtin also did not mention this in his article [Japan murder fuels false anti-China furor, Nov 13]. It is interesting that Mr Lemon can state this so firmly without presentation of the actual figures. I would not be so confident. There are so many figures presented by different authorities. I was wondering if [Asia Times Online] could perhaps get Mr Curtin or some other expert in criminal justice to present something further on this with a breakdown of numbers. Perhaps if done so it would clear up misunderstanding.
Kumayo Minami
Kobe, Japan (Nov 29, '04)


Referring to the tidbit in Beth Bowden's letter (Nov 24) concerning Texas retaining the right to secede from the USA: I sincerely hope the authors of that "arrangement" had the good sense to make it reciprocal.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 29, '04)


In reference to the letter written by Dennis Castle (Nov 24), and others who are of similar mind, there is an important issue that is often overlooked by Westerners, mostly Americans, regarding the activities of radical Muslims. What baffles Muslims is how easily the crimes of these radicals are blamed on Islam. It's true that by committing these crimes in the name of Allah the radicals themselves give those unfamiliar with the teachings of Islam reason to believe that Islam is an intolerant religion. Most Muslims find the activities of radicals abhorrent and are caught between this feeling and the need to defend their beliefs. If you notice, whenever a crime such as the [Theo] van Gogh killing occurs, Muslims come out defending their religion rather than condemning the killing. Its not that Islam condones such killings. Sure, you will find mullahs issuing fatwas authorizing these crimes, but that has more to do with the economic, social, and political conditions of the people in the Muslim world than it has with Islam. One of the reasons Muslims appear more eager to defend Islam and not condemn the killings is because of the role the media plays. Reports of such crimes are usually sprinkled with "judgments" and "opinions" of the writers about Islam. The natural reaction of Muslims is then to go on the defensive to correct the reports. They want to separate the two issues; the crime and the religion are not related, at least not how they are being portrayed. Suppose the Muslims were to take the actions of [Adolf] Hitler, [Benito] Mussolini, or Napoleon [Bonaparte] as the result of Jesus' message? Or if the Muslims were to take the actions of the European settlers in the Americas and slavery as products of Christian beliefs? Or the countless wars European Christians waged against each other, the Protestant against the Catholic, the Catholic against the Orthodox, the French against the English, and of course against many others around the world as a sign that the Messiah's message was one of war? Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Muslims are able to distinguish between those who merely call themselves Christians or Jews and those who really are. Don't you think it would help if Muslims were extended the same courtesy? As for whether Allah and the "God of the Bible" are the same, I can't see how they could be different. Let me tell you a little about Allah and see if you find it familiar: Allah created the universe in six periods, created Adam and Eve, sent down prophets as guides to their progeny, saved Noah and his followers from the flood, gave Abraham two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, made Joseph a minister in Egypt, gave the Law to Moses, gave wisdom to Solomon and David, sent the Messiah, He is Ever-Living, Self-Subsisting, All-Hearing, All-Knowing, The Merciful, The Compassionate, and of course the only difference would be that you would stop short of believing that Mohammed is His final messenger, much like the Jews stopped short of believing that Jesus was the Messiah. In conclusion, here's another verse from the Koran for you: Chapter 29, Verse 46: "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], except with means better [than mere disputation], unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong [and injury]: but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which has come down to you; our God and your God is one; and it is to him we bow [in Islam]."
Raza Jamil Rizvi
USA (Nov 29, '04)


I am glad that Daniel McCarthy [letter, Nov 24] also understands the value of freedom of expression. As soon as they are human beings, communists also deserve a chance to speak up for themselves. Tolerating other people's different opinions is the basics of democracy. However, Daniel is surely a master of labeling his opponents. He must be a teacher at a white people's obedience school in Asia. I hope he ... [remembers] what white people did to [native American] Indians after the first Thanksgiving Day.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 29, '04)


Frank [letter, Nov 24] says, "Using slandering to silence your opponents may be an Indian way of debates ... It is surely not a democratic one." Well, it is obvious to me that slandering people belonging to an entire country is much more popular among certain pro-China "democratic" gentlemen residing in Seattle. One cannot display reckless racist hate against present-day people of any country and yet successfully escape from being seen as a racist by vociferously claiming to love the more ancient, traditional culture of those people. People can see through it. To Roy [letter, Nov 23], who comments on "fawning Indian elites", my question is, who decides what fawning is? And who decides what elite is? African-Americans have had to struggle a lot to get the rights that they deserved. Agreed that that racism may not be totally dead, but would it not be more productive and healthier to promote education among the poorest of them, rather than fixating on those you rather subjectively think are "dogs" and holding them responsible for the community's ills? Frank's repeated theorizing that merely speaking English and following modern democracy makes those Indians "fawning elites" and that they somehow like colonization is best kept where it belongs - the trash bin; for unless Frank and his pals have the guts to honestly introspect on the behavior of today's Chinese, and learn at least a little bit about India's long struggle to get rid of the exploitative British colonial rule, I'd say they have neither the necessary knowledge nor the moral authority to malign others.
Rakesh
India (Nov 29, '04)


Fred Gill [letter, Nov 23] writes: "Murdering people for expressing sentiments contrary to yours is considered pretty heretical in the modern West." To which "modern West" do you refer? That "led" by barbarian Torturer-in-Chief Bush and his War Crimes Family, and those behind them who declare the Islamic religion "evil" because to do so is convenient to their totalitarian agenda? Or to the 100,000-plus civilian Iraqi men, women, and children "accidentally" killed - all falsely seen by most in the US as "Muslims", therefore deserving of dispatch by cluster bombs, and worse, simply because "[gut] instinct" [George W] Bush had to have revenge against a (former) ally who, according to unsubstantiated rumor, "tried to kill [his] daddy"? Perhaps, instead, I missed the official declaration against murder of heretics once the Amerindian population had been reduced to manageable numbers? One should be exceedingly careful, Mr Gill, which means to think long and hard - and learn Western history and current events - before declaring, implicitly or otherwise, the laughable notion that the West is less savage than all the other savages.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 29, '04)


Many readers have protested on many occasions how ATol has chosen to be the mouthpiece of the Indian government, but ATol, despite all its professionalism, has refused to give a reason or attempted to set the wrong right. A balance between the Indian and Pakistani points of view does not exist at all in its publications. The list of Indian contributors to ATol seems to be endless. Every week or so we see a new face with the same point of view, while there is no one at all to tell the other side of the story (and no, Saleem Shahzad does not count, he is too preoccupied with his cynical jihad against the Pakistan establishment, but that's another story). The people in Pakistan could be all wrong, they could be extremists, religious fundamentalists, and they could all be an utter waste of space, but still, when you want to discuss them you must also appreciate that they too have a point of view. And right or wrong, they do deserve to be heard, do they not? Lucky for me, I do not read ATol for information on India or Pakistan, or I would be very much confused and misled and misinformed. But I must be forgiven for feeling that ATol is guilty of bad journalism when it comes to South Asia. Regarding South Asia, ATol is on par with the Western media when it covers "the war on terror", ie: what it reports could be right, but it is only one side of the story. I don't see what the readers can do to change this injustice, but I thought we might be able to help ATol do its work for them by pasting some articles ourselves on the Forum section. These will of course not get the same attention as what is posted on the main page, but still it's better then nothing. And these articles do not have to be written by us, or we do not even have to agree with them (or justify them when we get bombarded by insults from Indian readers), but it would help if they are logical, polite and also if they pose the other side of the story (as every story has another side to it).
T Kiani
London, England (Nov 29, '04)

You are of course welcome to use the Asia Times Online Community forum to redress the alleged imbalance of our South Asia reporting. One caution, however: what goes on the forum is not vetted by professional editors, so even though a post might tell you something you would like to believe, it may not be accurate. In the meantime, we will continue trying to improve our South Asia coverage by finding top-quality journalists who report the facts. - ATol


Your article on the promotion of Mandarin in Singapore [Singapore talks to the Dragon, Nov 24] had a definite Mandarin-centrist and Sino-centrist point of view. Your comment that the Chinese communities in Taiwan "would speak Mandarin rather than a dialect as a mark of elegance and education" may be true for the Chinese refugees who came to Taiwan in 1949, but for the Taiwanese population who spoke the Hoklo/Taiwanese language it [Mandarin] was a language that was forced upon them. The Taiwanese speak Mandarin not because it was revered as an elegant language, but because without having to learn it, they were discriminated against in school, in the public, and in employment. It is through brainwashing by the conquering army that local cultures are diminished in value and worth. It is through this deplorable action that many of the indigenous cultures around the world and in Taiwan have been lost. Many Taiwanese children who grew up during the martial-law period in Taiwan will never forget the physical punishments they received from their schoolteachers because they spoke even one word of Taiwanese in school. Who are you to say that this was a preference to be elegant and educated?
Gene Deune
Baltimore, Maryland (Nov 24, '04)


I just read Paving the way for Iraq's elections (Nov 24). I noticed it is a reprint from Radio Free Europe, not from one of ATol's regularly featured writers. This may explain why the article didn't mention that January 30 is the first day of the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, when pilgrims from Afghanistan and other countries bordering Iraq pass through Iraq on their way to Mecca. There is plenty of time for ATol's featured journalists to mention this fact and I have no doubt that one will, since ATol informed us that the invasion of US forces of Fallujah occurred during the Muslim holy days of Ramadan. While I'm stepping into new territory, I'm curious why no one at ATol has brought up the organization Al Da'Wa and [Muqtada] al-Sadr's father's and presumably al-Sadr's relationship to this anti-communist Iraqi political party. Also the fact that al-Sadr's father was part of the faction of Al Da'Wa who wanted Iraq to be guided by the Koran rather than by an ayatollah. It seems to me that information might point to another January surprise for the Iraqis. It doesn't seem too far-fetched an idea to me that Bush and Co would settle for first preference on a fair market price. I can only assume this would be Bush and Co's last safe option and would explain why al-Sadr is still walking around while his counterparts in Fallujah are not. A little side note to ATol. Texas is the only state ... in America that has a right to secede from the Union. We Texans are pretty proud of ourselves for working that into our arrangement with the US. I just thought you might consider that when you go to include USA after Texas.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Nov 24, '04)

Let us know when you secede, and we will drop the "USA". - ATol


[Re] Allawi struggles for acceptance (Nov 24): It is unfortunate to fair journalism to post your article as a valid document, I don't know what you are trying to prove by attacking an Iraqi official who has been trying hard to establish the rule of law against the wishes of discredited outlaws, remnants of Saddam [Hussein']s dictatorship. Your opinions sampling is terrible.
Norman Chammas (Nov 24, '04)


Spengler points out in his brilliant article Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy (Nov 23) [that] the frightful dilemma for the Muslims in Western lands is their inability to "repudiate the death sentence for blasphemy [against Islam, since it] would be the same as abandoning the Islamic order". According to the London Times (Nov 20), the Dutch MP [member of parliament] and critic of radical Islam Geert Wilders has two policemen by his side even when in his high-security parliamentary office in case someone tries to decapitate him. Each day, he does not know where he is going to sleep that night, as he is taken from safe house to safe house in a convoy of armored cars. He was taken into hiding when police investigating the murder of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh on November 2 uncovered a network of radical Muslims with advanced plans to kill Mr Wilders and other "enemies of Islam". A video circulating on the Internet offered 72 virgins in paradise to any Muslim who beheaded him. There are those who attempt to excuse this inexcusable activity by Muslims by pointing out their recent arrival on the historical scene, and that given a proper interval they will evolve into more civilized discourse. Doesn't such a rationalization border on racism? The Koran was written over half a millennium after the New Testament, but for some reason it found it expedient to leave out the love your neighbor/love your enemies concept. Raza Jamil Rizvi (letter, Nov 23) wishes to convince us that Allah and the God of the Bible are the same guy. Having recently completed my first reading of the Koran, please allow me to observe [that] the two have almost nothing in common. Responding to the article, an Australian calling himself Clement opines (letter, Nov 23) that were a filmmaker to make a blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ in America his life would be in danger. Actually he would probably receive taxpayer-funded dollars and national exposure in our most prestigious venues (especially if it included a picture of a crucifix in a jar of his own urine).
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Nov 24, '04)


I have just read several letters trying to carve any little piece out of Spengler's article Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy (Nov 23) and make a straw-man argument to discredit him. Is it "Muslim-bashing" to argue that van Gogh's murder was a heinous act? Is it "Muslim-bashing" to argue that this heinous act was committed by a man who has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the freedoms of his host society? Is it "Muslim-bashing" to argue that this heinous act was spurred on by intolerant fundamentalists speaking behind a guise of religious enlightenment? Is it "Muslim-bashing" to argue that these public speakers urging such heinous acts are hiding behind the very same notion of religious freedom they have committed themselves to destroy? Any reader can argue Spengler's philosophical misinterpretations of Islam. But to put words in his mouth like "Muslim-bashing" and then discredit everything else he said on that faulty premise is a straw-man argument. Any other reader with a shred of objectivity will see right through it ...
Terence Redux
USA (Nov 24, '04)


[Re Muslim anger and Western hypocrisy, Nov 23] Never have I once seen Spengler write more than five sentences about Islam without his hatred or at least disrespect for the religion showing either wittingly or unwittingly. In fact, sometimes I think he even tries his best to say something positive for a change but even that comes out all wrong. All I see in his remarks is offensive blabber, which has a base only in his ignorant delusions. He talks as if he knows of the "Muslim experience" and yet anything and everything he has ever said about Islam is what he has learned from non-Muslim "intellects", with an exception of one article where he quoted a respectable Shi'a cleric about the rituals of Islam. Not for the first time, he makes the extraordinary claim that "while human freedom flows from the Judeo-Christian concept of divine love ... no such concept can be found in Islam". That is well and good for the Christian and Jewish faith (for I am sure their God is full of love and mercy for all), but being an ignorant Muslim trying to do as best as I can, I sat up and began to wonder, [is he] going to back his claim by a quotation from the holy Koran that I might have missed that would tell the Muslims that their God has no love for them. Or is he going to quote a Hadith (saying of the Prophet) and inform me how I have maybe missed a guidance by the great Messenger himself where he might've told me that Allah is all about bonded labor and rituals alone without any spirituality and that he has no love to give me? Or maybe he might refer me to one of the four rightly guided caliphs of Islam, Abu-BaKr, Umar, Usman or Ali. No? Then maybe he has learned something from Imam Abu Hanifa or any one of the other three great imams of Sunni Islam, that I may have overlooked? But hang on, what's this? He tells me to take his word because what he says has the backing of one "Franz Rosenzweig". But who is this distinguished character, I ask? Is he a sheikh of Islam that I do not know of? Did he come before or after Imam Ghazali? Is he a Sahabi, or maybe one of the Tabi'in? Because I was brought up to believe that my Allah loves us all personally, more than all the combined love of every living creature on this planet. What were they thinking when they told me that man keeps on sinning and repenting but Allah never tires of forgiving and blessing him, for Allah tells us that if you come to me walking, I will come to you running? What of that prostitute the Prophet told us about [who] sinned all her life but Allah loved her and rewarded her by paradise because once she saw a thirsty dog, felt sorry for the creature and went to a well to get some water but there was no bucket and so she put her shoe in to help the dog? Was it not divine love that wrote off all her past sins for one moment of compassion for a helpless creature? I was even told that unlike the Christian God, Allah brings us to this world free of sin and pure in heart - "saved" and a Muslim - and we do not need to be saved by baptism (which in essence would mean that Allah created us in error, but it was man that fixed us?), but just to stay pure, and ask for His forgiveness directly from Him if we find that we have erred, for He tells us that He is closer to us than our jugular-cord. And unlike the Christian God, Allah holds us accountable for our bad intentions alone while they haven't been acted upon (but does reward us for the good intentions even if they were not acted upon). Spengler also asks, "Would the anti-blasphemy rule apply to scholarly demonstrations that alternative variants exist of the Koran or that the Koran has been mistranslated?" Well, Spengler, I tell you that we would not need such things to be covered under any such blasphemy law if they are just what you say they are: "scholarly"! Scholarly debate has a high place in Islam, and such things as "the nature of God", "is the Koran a creation or non-creation", "the role and position of Mohammed in Islam" and many more vital issues have been debated in such tolerant manor that would have been unimaginable in the early Christian or Jewish faiths, but there is a difference between scholarly debate and pure and offensive insults that frankly speaking, the Muslim world has long faced from the likes of John Keats and many other "intellects" over the course of time.
T Kiani
London, England (Nov 24, '04)


In his November 23 column Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy, Spengler refers to the Jewish religion. I would like to comment on that part of his column. He refers to the time when Judaism was a state religion; that was 2,000 years ago. He refers specifically to the theological basis of the Talmud, which was completed 1,500 years ago. One of basic rules of the Talmud as regards to Judaism's minority position in the various countries [in which] it dwelled was that one was required to obey the laws of the country where one lived. Since the column is based on the killing of Theo van Gogh, the Talmudic position is clear.
Moshe Reiss (Nov 24, '04)


I would just like to respond to Kumayo Minami`s letter [Nov 23] regarding the article Japan murder fuels false anti-China furor (Nov 13). One key factor overlooked in the analysis of crimes committed by foreigners in Japan is that many of the crimes are visa-related; crimes that only foreigners can commit. This invariably skews the statistics to show crimes by foreigners to be statistically higher than those committed by Japanese nationals. This is true for most developed nations around the world. Removing visa crimes from the statistics tends to show the rate crime by foreigners to be similar to that by Japanese. How ironic that Kumayo is right about the statistics lying, but not in her favor.
Mark Lemon
Tokyo, Japan (Nov 24, '04)


The November 22 letter from Sun King is one of the more racist pieces of nonsense that have been submitted here. He spews racist right-wing vitriol like "Chinese people in communist China are dogs or behave as dogs", as if he were the misbegotten spawn of David Duke and Jesse Helms. This hypocrite has also directed hate rhetoric against Islam in his November 17 letter, where he implicitly tries to smear Islam as terroristic and gloats over American massacres in Iraq with some "anti-terrorist" rationalizations. What is your ethnic background, Racist King? If you want to back up your tough rhetoric, you should volunteer to go and fight in Iraq. The US military is in desperate need of indoctrinated cannon fodder, and you will have a chance to see what kind of "welcome" Muslims and Iraqi patriots of all faiths will give you - most likely at the end of an AK-47.
Barak (Nov 24, '04)


I thank [Joseph J] Nagarya [letter, Nov 22] for pointing out Mark Twain's literary qualities, as well as the strangeness of Twain's name being included among a list containing George Bush. I certainly meant no offense to Twain, but putting his name next to Bush's is certainly offensive. I agree that Mark Twain is an interesting writer who deserves to be read, and I myself enjoyed Huckleberry Finn very much. My point is merely that there are many other writers from different epochs who are just as important as the much more familiar Twain. Great writers' names are besmirched when they are used to promote chauvinism. Their work belongs to no one nation or people, but to all humanity. I am not engaging in an exercise of "our writers are better than yours". My intention was to point out the narrowness of the Anglophile world-view. Indeed, the US is full of writers and comedians whom I admire. However, the wonder of our world is its vastness and variety, and those who keep their eyes fixed on one corner of the world, looking for one type of wonder, like those waiting for the next great film or novel, are missing the true wonder of it all, which might come in the form of an African song, or a Chinese garden. As for Chinese poetry, I can humbly recommend a website dedicated to Chinese literature organized by the French Association of Professors of Chinese.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 24, '04)


S P Li's comment a while ago [letter, Nov 4] on Taiwan absolutely shocked me. He utilized historian Li Ao's comment that Taiwan behaves like a dog hiding behind the US, barking and growling to its protector, and finished with his comment that it is a "clever and insightful comparison". Well, I think it's not only inappropriate to comment on things like that, but also shameful too. Apparently S P Li is suggesting that Taiwan is a dog to the US, meaning it's a slave of the masters, and behaves [however] the master wants it to behave. There are many steps to rebut his statement. First of all, comparing Taiwan to a dog does not show this person's humor but reflects his incompetence of making a good comparison. How would this S P Li feel when I suggest that his country (China, under my speculation) is a huge, hairy, muscular dog who "licks the toes" of its master the US? Secondly, Taiwan's relying on the US is understandable, given China's non-stop, repetitive threats and oppressions coming from the other side of the strait - it's necessary for Taiwan to depend on its biggest, most dependable ally, the US, for protection or security. Finally, using Li Ao's remark to apply the racism to the whole nation (Taiwan) is laughable. Any non-Chinese people who have at least a bit of knowledge about Li Ao know that he is nothing but a joker and a clown. Famous for advocating his so-called "reunification", Li doesn't have anything sensible or constructive to say. All he does is bash the government of Taiwan based on his biased pro-CCP [Chinese Communist Party] point of view, and sometimes making comments about women's body parts as well as sexual slurs that normal historian/politicians would be refrained from saying. I hope next time this person can be more careful when he makes such racist comparisons, because by doing so it could damage the reputation of his nation as a whole.
Seiko Zeto
Taipei, Taiwan (Nov 24, '04)


India must manage its limited tribal democracy without the freedom of speech well. If Indian letter writers cannot [tolerate] my "childish" and "unintelligent" opinions at ATol, I cannot imagine how they can [tolerate] those mature and intelligent differences between [Hinduism] and Islam. Using slandering to silence your opponents may be an Indian way of debates. It is surely not a democratic one. I appreciate Roy's [letter, Nov 23] courage to speak up against that debating tactic. I never would disrespect a person based on his or her skin color. Actually, all of these debates started with my showing of respect to a brave Indian speaking up for the traditional Indian values. And I agree with many of you, the doggie type of person exists in any race and was given with many different names. We should try our best not to let [those] kinds of people become the leaders of our societies. Showing our disgust to the persons without dignity and honor [is] one of the best ways to discourage those behaviors. Despite our disagreements [with] ATol editors with many of their opinions, we should all applaud ATol editors for guarding the freedom of expression well. I promise not to further express my disgust to those English-speaking Indians unless to answer the challenges from them. It is their behavior I am targeting, not their skin colors or races.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 24, '04)


I write to request ATol not to ban Frank from the Letters to the Editor page. Frank has investigated the core beliefs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and made them his own. Through reading Frank's letters, we can learn the inner thoughts and values of the CCP which do not make it onto the front page of the People's Daily. Although Frank's letters betray a racist, xenophobic and paranoid point of view, it would be a shame for us to miss out on what the CCP would like to say but dares not put into print.
Daniel McCarthy (Nov 24, '04)


Could you please tell me why this USA Today news article about sarin gas being found in Iraq isn't making some headlines with you? Though not weaponized, obviously they have chemical weapons in Iraq and, therefore, access to them. What else do they have or access to? Also, this is not the first report of sarin being used by the "insurgents". See photo No 2.
Dan Piecora
Kirkland, Washington (Nov 24, '04)

More peculiar is the fact that this "breaking news" has not been picked up by major media, never mind poor little Asia Times Online. Even USA Today reduces it to a caption about "suspected sarin gas" on the second picture of a Flash photo-series. Could it be that, their credibility burned by their wholesale swallowing of the WMD hype in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the mainstream US media are awaiting confirmation of this "find" before launching banner headlines such as "Zarqawi's Iraqi al-Qaeda insurgents plan to gas the US in 45 minutes"? - ATol


Spengler, usually thought-provoking, reaches too far [Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy, Nov 23] when he seems to suggest that Muslims living in Europe be granted a form of extraterritoriality for crimes of violence, so long as they are committed in the punishment of heresy. If you want to impose the death sentence - on other Muslims - for heresy, then stay in a country where Islamic law applies. If you claim the authority to impose it anywhere, any time, on Muslims and non-Muslims alike, then don't complain when other people impose their values and laws on you, also by force. And be prepared to stay permanently behind the West in the process. The first rule of living in another culture is to respect its laws. If [Theo] van Gogh had gone to Tehran to publish his work he might have deserved the death penalty (after a real trial in an Islamic court). But not in his own country. Spengler may be right in his view that moderate Muslims will become increasingly marginalized in Europe and elsewhere. If so, then all Muslims, and all of humanity, will suffer. Europeans still have some heresy-hunting of their own left in them. And murdering people for expressing sentiments contrary to yours is considered pretty heretical in the modern West.
Fred Gill (Nov 23, '04)


[Re] Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy by Spengler (Nov 23): Spengler assumes that "no such concept of divine love and the ensuing sovereignty of the individual can be found in Islam". Perhaps if he understood that Allah begins (Koran 1:2, The Gracious, The Merciful) His relationship with His creation, man in particular, with mercy and forgiveness, repeating it uncountable times. Every turn man takes, Allah meets him with the doors of forgiveness and mercy wide open. When we walk to Him, He runs towards us (Al-Bukhari), like a lover madly in love with His creation. Allah merely gives options and consequences to believers. It is for the believers to accept or not (there is no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing. All-Knowing. - Koran 2:257). Options, consequences, mercy and forgiveness are a result of concern, absolute justice and divine love. Spengler should go to the source (Koran) and not be audience to a handful of illiterate mullahs who have been described by the Prophet as "the most disgusting creation on the face of the earth" (Al-Muslim). Spengler, read this article for some enlightenment.
Mahmood Ahmad
Toronto, Ontario


I refer to Spengler's article titled Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy [Nov 23]. Spengler always acquits the Jews for all crimes. He forgets that [Israeli prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin was murdered by decree of the rabbis. He also conveniently forgets all the Holocaust museums and the Holocaust extortion from Europe which in effect are directly the result of Jews' inability to forgive and forget. In the present world, Muslims are slaughtered en masse for just being Muslims. The Bible-thumping Zio-Christians speak the language of the Middle Ages and justify slaughter of Muslims using biblical texts. The Muslim-bashing in the daily media, mostly Jewish-owned, has set up the Muslims for slaughter. Does Spengler think that we are to accept this mass slaughter without resistance? Contrary to Spengler's assertions, the fanatical Jewish rabbis and the American fundamentalist Christian zealots continue to live in the Middle Ages. [US President George W] Bush considers himself to be the awaited Messiah with the command from God and with guidance by the Zionists to slaughter Muslims.
Vincent Maadi (Nov 23, '04)


Regarding Spengler's article Muslim anguish and Western hypocrisy (Nov 23), I would like to say to all who read Spengler that his understanding of Islam is deficient. He views Islam through the eyes of either the mainstream media or Islamophobes. I'm not one to judge whether it is deliberate or truly unintentional, but I can tell you that relying on his opinions of Islam will be a mistake. He says that "love constrains the Judeo-Christian God, but not Allah". That statement has so many inaccuracies, I don't know where to start. Let me quote the Koran for starters: Chapter 3, Verse 84: "Say [to the Christians and Jews]: 'We believe in Allah [= The One God], and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in [the Books] given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will [in Islam]." Muslims believe in the same One True God as the Christians and Jews. There is no difference between the "Judeo-Christian God" and the "God of Muhammad". Take Chapter 2, Verse 139: "Say [to the Christians and Jews]: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our Lord and your Lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere [in our faith] in Him?" To think that Allah is not "constrained" by His love for His creation is absurd. Muslims anywhere would find it totally ridiculous if you were to tell them that Allah's love for His creations was not infinite. And I find it amazing that a man who speaks with such "knowledge" would fall for the popular misrepresentation of jihad. Jihad is not the "propagation of faith by force". Take Chapter 2, Verse 256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." Jihad is employed in self-defense, not to attack people so they convert. Chapter 22, Verse 39: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged; - and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid ..." I could go on and on. I had had enough of Spengler's misrepresentations, so I wanted to let those reading him know that before you join the Islam-bashing bandwagon, please do a little bit of research.
Raza Jamil Rizvi
USA (Nov 23, '04)


Regarding Ying Trong's [The case for China to pull the peg, Nov 20], this article ain't journalism. This is another disgusting piece of free-market propaganda that your website loves to peddle. The yuan-dollar peg issue is itself a fraudulent issue, and is more about America's demagogic attempts to blame foreign countries for the USA's failed economic policies and, more broadly, "international" (read: Western Imperialist) pressure to strong-arm China into further liberalizing its financial system for greater predation by your beloved corporate investors, speculators, and other parasites. These free-market policies pushed by Asia Times are pure economic poison for the working class throughout the Third World. No matter how much you try to sugarcoat and justify them, these criminal policies have looted and impoverished nations from Argentina to Southeast Asia - all to the benefit of First World elites and countries. Like most mouthpieces for globalization, Asia Times hasn't seen a state-owned industry it didn't want to rape ... sorry ... reform and privatize. A check of your website shows the usual lineup of articles celebrating the newest round of privatizations, whether that be Good news for foreign JV broadcasters: Analysts or Privatization is right back on track in India [both Nov 20]. For you people, the Market is God, isn't it? Especially since your middle-class way of life is based upon it. And China does need to pull the plug [on] something - on American dollar hegemony and the US greenback (the true "predatory currency") as the world reserve currency. If other nations would stop buying up US debt, this would effectively terminate America's financial parasitism off the rest of the world and maybe even destabilize the global corporate system. It would be very entertaining to see the hysterical outrage on the faces of Americans, Westerners, and media pimps like Asia Times when that capitalist crash comes. Hopefully, that day of reckoning is coming soon - for you and yours.
A Quan (Nov 23, '04)

You have somehow missed, apparently, the voluminous writings of Henry C K Liu, who is anything but an apologist for dollar hegemony or for the neo-liberal market theories currently in vogue. See his latest, Futures imperfect for China (Nov 13), or better yet feast your eyes on his page, Two Cents' Worth. - ATol


Re Japan murder fuels false anti-China furor (Nov 13): J Sean Curtin stated, "Over the past two decades, crimes committed by foreigners have never exceeded about 4% of all crime in Japan, and typically the yearly average has been between 2% and 3%. Foreigners currently make up just over 1% of Japan's total population, so they are only slightly over-represented in the figures." There are lies, damned lies and statistics. This says to me that foreigners are two to four times more likely to commit crime in Japan than nationals, rather than being "only slightly over-represented in the figures". Doesn't this give some justification to Japanese concerns?
Kumayo Minami
Kobe, Japan (Nov 23, '04)

The number of foreign criminals in Japan is still minuscule, regardless of the slightly higher percentage. As well, the over-representation was plausibly explained in the article by an expert in criminal justice as being a factor of societal disadvantage rather than culture. - ATol


[Re] US: China has credible Taiwan attack options [Mar 2]. Some people from the US, such as Stephen Blank, start from a premise that the US is somehow obligated or responsible for "defending Taiwan", so much so that the US even has a law about the defense of Taiwan. (Many Chinese around the globe are calling on China to pass a law committing the country to reunification with Taiwan, even if by military force). If questioned about this premise, such persons put forward all sorts [of] spurious justifications, ranging from a detailed history of the island over the last 5,000 years, to how endearing or deserving are the people of Taiwan, and they usually end with mutterings about democracy, freedom, free world, human rights, et cetera, et cetera. That premise should be re-examined, because there is no valid justification for US interference in an internal Chinese affair. It is a matter to be resolved between the Chinese government and one of its territories. This issue strikes at the very heart of China's sovereignty, and should not be underestimated. For the Chinese people, all of their aspirations and desires for modernization, social and economic development and prosperity would be sacrificed without one moment of hesitation in order to achieve reunification. The US should keep out of the whole affair.
Lennard Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Nov 23, '04)

Your argument is circular. The whole China-Taiwan debate is over whether or not the "reunification" of Taiwan with the mainland is solely the concern of Beijing, or whether the people of Taiwan itself (and their allies) have a say on the issue. Vehement and articulate arguments have been made on this site and elsewhere for both sides; merely to say "there is no argument because I say so" is a bit weak. - ATol


May Sage on November 22 is dismissive of the fact that the US is trying to learn anti-guerrilla tactics from the Indian jungle-warfare school. He seems to be voicing his own personal views rather than providing any evidence for his warped thinking. It is a fact that the Indians got the rough end of the stick from the Tamil Tigers just like what the Americans received in Vietnam. But the Indians realized very early in six months that it was a different war where you could not differentiate friend from foe and quickly left before the body bags started piling [up] - unlike the Americans who took seven-plus years to learn and sustained heavy losses. He claims that the US could have chosen Sri Lanka to train with - if so, why did they not? The fact is that Sri Lanka has a demoralized army that has no supplies, logistics or the stomach to fight a determined, disciplined guerrilla force. I doubt if a truce had not been called whether the Sri Lankan army would have survived a few more weeks of fighting. And the little-known fact also is that the Indians trained the Tamil Tigers initially. Eventually the Tigers turned against the hand that fed them. Ask B Raman, who was with RAW [the Indian Research and Analysis Wing] - I do not know if he would want to publicly admit that. It would be better for May Sage to learn the facts before providing his personal views.
Sun King
New York, New York (Nov 23, '04)


In response to May Sage's letter [Nov 22] on the US and Indian army training together, I would like to enlighten Sage on a few things. Guerrilla warfare is not a single-style combat doctrine - there are many different ways to do it. It is not a new system either - the Spanish used it against Napoleon and Shivaji used it against the Mughals. Using just Vietnam as the first and last word on jungle warfare as doctrine is doomed to fail. The Vietnam War was a disaster for the US - the US won all the battles and still lost the war. Why is that? There is more to fighting guerrillas than dropping MOABs [massive ordnance air bursts] and getting delusions of grandeur by watching cheap Chuck Norris Delta Force or Rambo movies. The LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] would've eventually been destroyed if India has actually been given more time to fully conduct its sweep of Jaffna. The Sri Lankans in a tempest of nationalistic passion, which was in a way understandable given the circumstances of the era, told the Indians to leave and said "we can finish the rest off". Well, look at Sri Lanka now, it is still trying to overcome the LTTE. If India and Sri Lanka had worked together during the IPKF [Indian Peace Keeping Force] years, then we wouldn't have had the current problems. Again India and Sri Lanka now have understood they have more to gain by cooperation than by competition and thus we see a defense pact in the works. The US Army is again fighting guerrillas in Iraq and again they just don't get it - there is much they can learn. The first lesson is [to] respect the experiences of other cultures, they might just have something to teach you from their long history. History, interesting topic - maybe some time May Sage should look into it and not at Hollywood's version of history.
Karan Awtani
London, England (Nov 23, '04)


I did not read Frank's letters about dogs that appeared recently. But I detect Sun King [letter, Nov 22] now playing the roles of a sitting dog, a running dog, and a standing dog all in one breath. His anger apparently started with my mention [Nov 4] of a talk show by Li Ao on Phoenix TV a few weeks ago. Li Ao is running for a seat in Taiwan's Legislative Yuan next month and he is known to be a fierce political critic. On the future of Taiwan, Mr Li compared the US and China as being "two big guys" facing each other with an eye on Taiwan, while the latter behaves like a dog hiding behind the US, barking and growling at times to the annoyance of its protector the US. What a clever and insightful comparison! During the last week Li Ao has further suggested that the US is Taiwan's American daddy. Sun King may attack "communists" in China and bad-mouth all the Chinese living in China, but don't forget that President [George W] Bush keeps shaking hands with the communists and busily keeps a certain running dog under leash.
S P Li
USA (Nov 23, '04)


I am neither Asian nor Asian-American and so I'm hard-pressed to comment on Frank's letters. Nonetheless, I must say that I've never had the impression that Frank has a general hatred for India as a whole. Rather, he challenges the Indian elite to be India-centric in terms of politics, economics and culture (language and religion included by this term). Frank describes the behavior of fawning Indian elite as doggish. In African-America cultural history, we call them "Uncle Toms" as these black "house slaves" help prolong the suffering of black "field slaves" in exchange for small favors from white slave owners. Of course, blacks are freer and there are fewer Uncle Toms in America, but the "dog" phenomenon is true in all races who've been conquered by whites, even among Chinese. Give some thought to what he's saying and don't get hung up on the terminology. One of Frank's salient points is to encourage unity among Asians just as Europeans have managed to form a union of sorts. After all, ATol Central has only cat lovers.
Roy
USA (Nov 23, '04)


I write in praise of your excellent journal which brings with it a welcome contrast to what is available on "mainstream" American media regarding Asian affairs. I recommend you at every turn. Keep it up.
Thomas Long (Nov 23, '04)


I've written twice to your section of letters, and you never published my letters. First time I forgot to include my country, but I was careful not repeat that mistake again in my second letter. I don't boast that they were interesting and I know I never said anything interesting or new about dogs' behavior. But I think that if you're going to choose not to publish some letters because they don't interest you, you should say so at the beginning of your section.
Fabricio (Nov 23, '04)

We did a search on your e-mail address and found no trace of earlier submissions. Possibly both e-mails were vaporized by some Internet glitch; more likely they were victims of our daily spam purge. We get huge amounts of spam every day, and if a letter is not clearly marked as such (eg, there must be something in the subject field to identify it as a letter - mentioning the article you are commenting on is a very good idea), or if we do not recognize the name of a frequent writer, it will be assumed to be junk mail and we will delete it without opening it. And of course we must protect ourselves from viruses, spyware etc, and so we never open any e-mail with an attachment. - ATol


In the illuminating and perspicacious article The Sunni-Shi'ite power play [Nov 20] by Pepe Escobar, it is espoused that a sticky wicket might loom when the Shi'ites gain their desired status as governmental controllers after the elections [in Iraq] in January. It is promulgated in the article as a logical extension that Shi'ites might then seem overly fundamentalistically Americanoid to Sunnis in Iraq. No such worry. No one can fix elections like Americans. Hell, we invented democracy and we have a long (well, 200-year) tradition of fixing them. Many books have been written, songs sung, stories told and secrets whispered about the innumerable ways to fix an election; to think that the Shi'ites will oust [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi is naive, my Iraqi fellows, naive. Who will count the ballots, Iraqis? Hah! Who will announce the winner? An Iraqi not in the employ of the occupier? Hah! Why in the name of all that is sacred do you think that George Bush is still the official president of the USA? Do you think he actually won the election, or do you think he took office the old-fashioned way? I mean who do you think is going to be declared the top vote-getter? [Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani? [Muqtada] al-Sadr? Wake up and smell the coffee. Say hello again and again to President Allawi. Best wishes, my fellow humans in Iraq.
Jonathan Nihau
Cincinnati, Ohio (Nov 22, '04)

It is arguable whether the United States "invented" democracy, and it has even been argued in this forum that the American electoral system is not democratic. These arguments are based at least as much on ideology and partisan politics as on history; however, it seems clear that democracy was born in ancient Greece - hence the word's Greek etymology. Iceland's parliament was founded more than 500 years before Christopher Columbus "discovered" America. - ATol


Re India takes the fight to guerrillas [Nov 20]: Whatever reasons the US may have had for joint exercises with India's jungle warfare training and anti-terrorist operation skills school, it wasn't to learn anything from the Indian army. They [Indians] are the ones who got the rough hand of the stick at the hands of the Tamil Tigers who are based in the jungles of Sri Lanka. To learn jungle training skills from a South Asian army, the US would have chosen the Sri Lankans over the Indians, as they appear to have a better record against them [guerrillas] than the Indians. In fact, India could upgrade their education by taking some lessons from the Sri Lankans. But the US itself got plenty of experience in Vietnam, against a a far superior guerrilla warfare adversary than any India or the Sri Lankans faced. They must have volumes of materials from that experience. This was just a feel-good exercise for the Indians that Ramtanu Maitra took for something else. The US is doing joint exercises with all sorts of countries and India is just one of them.
May Sage
USA (Nov 22, '04)


Re India takes the fight to guerrillas [Nov 20]: Ramtanu Maitra, could you please add to your report additional aspects of the fight against the guerrillas, such as the use of high technology? What steps have been taken by the [Indian] government to upgrade the tracking of the insurgent campsites, their training methods, the organizations training them etc? Has satellite photography been used in the process? I believe India should try to beat the insurgency by high technology rather than by superior force alone. Also, the best and long-term pacification of insurgency should count on the economic uplifting of the people concerned. They should not have to resort to seeking the help of the ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] and the Bangladesh government, who are ever waiting for a chance to destabilize India's northeast.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 22, '04)


Since your product is, by far, the most reasonable, thoughtful paper in the world, I thought I'd correct a small error in the deck of the What happened to hearts? article [Nov 20]. The phrase "hearts and minds" comes not from the "Vietnam era" but rather from John Adams during the American Revolution when he described two revolutions: one against the British, and another against the old loyalties toward the crown. He used "hearts and minds" to describe that second revolution.
Ross Matheny
Seattle, Washington (Nov 22, '04)

It may have been coined by Adams, but as the article said, it was repopularized during the Vietnam era. - ATol


[Re What happened to hearts?, Nov 20] Were Jonathan Schell to remember Liver Eating Johnson he would know what happened to hearts. Fallujah is Sand Creek/Wounded Knee. American imperialism cut its teeth eating the home team and [its] secret weapon was genocide. The new Fort Apache is Baghdad. Round 1 had 60% casualties for the American armed forces and the number is growing from the first assault on Iraq; but then as now the US Bush government doesn't count Iraq deaths and this says volumes about Bush American values.
Doug Baker
Alameda, California (Nov 22, '04)


Interesting article [Resistance looks beyond Fallujah, Nov 19]. If what you are saying is correct, clearly Iraq is three countries, a strong Kurdish north, a loose Shi'ite southern area, and a nationalist core around Baghdad. The United States made a serious mistake thinking that Saddam [Hussein] was an aberration from this core idea, but in the end did the US have a choice but to break up the Ba'athist tyranny? If we would have supported the Ba'athists at any level, a strong central tyranny would have formed again, to oppress their neighbors and protect what they believe is properly theirs, the Arab world from Iran to Egypt.
Craig Berger (Nov 22, '04)


Re Nanjing massacre claims another life [Nov 18]: I must say I quite enjoyed Victor Fic's statement that "none other than luminary historian Stephen Ambrose deemed [Iris] Chang one of America's most promising young historians". For those of us who actually read history, Stephen Ambrose is most famous for being caught out after 30 years of serial plagiarism. A Google search of his name will produce interesting articles on the matter from Slate.com, weeklystandard.com, Forbes.com, etc. Then again, given Iris Chang's own bent for plagiarism, it's only appropriate that Ambrose would be quoted lavishing her with praise. Honor among thieves. For example, the second paragraph from page 4 in Iris Chang's Introduction appears stolen from a Chinese Communist Party document, given its stale communist epithets ("beneath the boot of ..."), its hyperbole ("unmitigated evil lying") and the chauvinist communist Chinese perspective as in "some foreigners witnessed the horror". It would appear that she was in too much of a rush to either accredit her source or touch up her translator's English. Probably both. And an amateur historian in Japan, Timothy M Kelly, has a lengthy review including a 2,000-word section where he cites instance after instance claiming that Iris Chang stole extensively from David Bergamini's Japan's Imperial Conspiracy. Do a google.com search and you can decide for yourself whether his claims are credible. Either way, there are far more worthy books around on the subject, such as The Good Man of Nanking: The Diaries of John Rabe and Masahiro Yamamoto's Rape of Nanking: Separating Fact from Fiction. In my view, atrocities certainly did occur but neither on the scale nor of the best-selling variety that Iris Chang proposed. In the end, like Pearl Buck before her, she was just another hustling messiah of the downtrodden making a good living pulling the public's nose.
Biff Cappuccino
Taipei, Taiwan (Nov 22, '04)


I almost always enjoy and am impressed by the articles you publish, but am especially moved by Banzai! Debunking the kamikaze myth [Nov 6] by Bennett Richardson and Fumiko Hattori. I have, however two thoughts: 1. It would be interesting to hear what contemporary Islamists of the al-Qaeda, Wahhabi and Hamas sort would have to say to the views expressed by Richardson and Hattori. 2. I have heard that a few of the kamikaze were actually Japanese Christians, who could reconcile this way of defending their country with their religious convictions. I would appreciate any information you or other Asia Times readers might have about these Christian kamikaze and their beliefs as expressed in any letters or diaries or the memories of their friends which may have survived and been preserved.
Michael B Music, SQ
Hospitality Coordinator
Episcopal Church of St John the Evangelist
San Francisco, California (Nov 22, '04)


Sonny Inbaraj's article on GM [genetically modified] papaya in Thailand ([Thai biotech battle targets papaya] Nov 16) indicates that the activists have completely missed the mark. Greenpeace is panicking about gene spread from the new GM papayas, but has not looked at the consequences of this spread. Gene spread is natural - it is valuable and happens all around us. It is the consequences that are important and these need to be assessed individually for each new gene in each new plant. The GM papaya has three new genes which, together with the proteins they produce, we already eat every day with conventional and organic food. There is no food-safety risk here. The GM papayas are eaten daily in the US and Canada, where food-safety testing has found them as safe as conventional papaya. The Thai trials were collecting data on possible environmental risks - these must be determined before government approval is given for the new varieties. Greenpeace has effectively destroyed this research - ironic, as it claims to be a protector of the environment. The real concerns will arise in future GM plants that have new genes not meant for the food chain. This concern is currently being debated in international biosafety circles. There are a number of ways to keep these genes out of the food supply and the best methods will need to be determined for each growing environment. Family farmers are growing these GM papayas because they are safe and offer better control against virus pests. Let's not discard a useful technology because of poor information and misguided activism.
Muffy Koch
Merrickville, Ontario (Nov 22, '04)


[Re] Spengler's response to readers [letter, Nov 19]: Quelle blague! Or as Rodeo Joe would put it, "What a bunch of cow manure!" "Organized religious [Islamic] bodies foster the recruitment of violent antagonists who preach conquest of the faith" - so spake Spengler the forgetful (?), the simple-minded (?), the hypocrite (?), the agent provocateur (?). The answer might be all, if Spengler truthfully answers the following question. Who incited, promoted, financed and armed "organized religious bodies" to kill Russian troops in Afghanistan? If the answer is, as almost everyone on this planet knows it to be, the USA, then obviously it's acceptable to preach "a conquest of the faith" if it's done to others.
Armand De Laurell (Nov 22, '04)


G Travan [letter, Nov 19]: While I mostly appreciate and applaud your openness and catholicity, and always your generosity, I ferociously object to your placement of Mark Twain - quintessential democrat (small "d") - in the company of such as the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory. (Note: Oscar Wilde was British, not USian; you could substitute H L Mencken and get no objection from me.) For a clearer view of the real Mark Twain, seen correctly by the astute critics of his day as moral philosopher, see "To the Person Sitting in Darkness" (online; Google "Mark Twain and anti-imperialism"), or "The United States of Lyncherdom" (Mark Twain on the Damned Human Race [New York: Hill & Wang], Ed by Janet Smith). And for a portrait of his unutterable moral loveliness (and "ribbing" of "religion") - "poetic" could apply - see his "Diary of Adam and Eve" (online - Google "Mark Twain Jim Zwick"). As for US poets (very short list, in alphabetical order) I recommend Hayden Carruth, Emily Dickinson, Robert Hayden, and Denise Levertov (and, recently published, The Letters of Robert Duncan and Denise Levertov [Stanford University Press, 2004], Ed by Robert J Bertholf and Albert Gelpi, an epic discussion of esthetics). And I will take your recommendations of Chinese poets (more, please!) as a syllabus. If, that is, you will grant the non-racist Huckleberry Finn the deepest affection, as is his due.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 22, '04)


Could you please stop publishing Frank's rants? His writing really does not deserve a place like your wonderful site, which I consider, belonging to more mature and intelligent crowd. By the way, I am a mainland Chinese.
Michael (Nov 22, '04)


It is surprising that you continue to pollute the Letters section with Frank's blather. It is obvious that he is providing amusement with his balderdash like the circus dog (that should get him going more about dogs). His statement that he could engage in an academic discussion about dogs was amusing. Academic talk from Frank is an oxymoron. It seems to me, based on his prolific writings on dogs, that the Chinese people in communist China are dogs or behave as dogs. They do as they are told by their elitist communist masters, feel happy when they are thrown a few crumbs like capitalist policies and never question their masters as long they are allowed to make money. When most countries have overthrown their communist masters it is shocking that 1 billion-plus Chinese do not worry about personal freedom and continue to live like dogs under communist rule. I wonder what sort of dogs the Chinese in communist China are (as per the teachings of Frank and SPLi) - are they sitting dogs, running dogs or standing dogs?
Sun King
New York, New York (Nov 22, '04)


I want to start off by saying that I ... enjoy reading your articles. They are very analytical [and] in-depth, and offer views from around the world that I definitely can't get in the local paper. But as much as I enjoy reading your site, comments from some of your letter writers are really bothering me. I want to ask you, ATol, to review carefully or not publish some posts that repeatedly show themselves to be racist and ridiculously stupid. Why not stop publishing letter writer Frank's racist rants? I (and I'm sure the rest of the folks here) am getting so sick of reading his redundant, embarrassingly biased views. Really, stop publishing them ... or do something. And one more thing: I'd like to know what ATol meant by replying to Jon Sreekanth's letter with a reference to dogs? I hope you don't find Frank's obsession with Indian dogs funny; It's not. He needs to get a life.
SA
Seattle, Washington (Nov 22, '04)

On the bottom right of your keyboard you will see a group of keys with arrows on them. These are called "scroll" keys. If you push one of these keys, you can scroll past letters you find offensive, boring or idiotic (or past light-hearted editorial comments that don't measure up to your lofty standards of humor). The alternative is censorship, and although we do not run every letter we receive, we want to keep this forum as wide-ranging and open as possible. - ATol


I get sick of reading rants about "ragheads" and Islamofascists while letters and opinion pieces that identify Jews as the neighborhood bullies are summarily dumped in the dustbin. I have no problems with Muslims in life. I have huge problems with Jewish media hawking war on their enemies, using my sons for cannon fodder. Our sons enlist to kill dreaded A-Rabs because they have been indoctrinated to hate Muslims by Jewish media all their lives. This is the story no one will print. And we wonder why Jew hatred is growing exponentially? America is Sobibor West, with a Jew in every watchtower. We are all Palestinians now.
K Ladik
Colorado Springs, Colorado (Nov 22, '04)

We scrupulously avoid racist terms such as "raghead", and we do not summarily dump anything in the dustbin that makes a coherent argument as opposed to relying solely on gratuitous anti-Semitism and tired old Jewish-conspiracy theories. We have, in fact, run numerous articles referring to the surge in influence of pro-Likud factions of Jews and Christians in the Bush administration, and that are critical of the lack of progress toward peace in Israel/Palestine. - ATol

Spengler responds to readers
T M Lemon (letter, Nov 18) believes that "religion appeals to the poor and downtrodden" in Muslim countries, but radical Islam is the work of Muslims who have lived and studied in the West, understood what it has to offer, and rejected it. On this see Daniel Pipes' study "The Western mind of radical Islam", available on his website www.danielpipes.org. It is condescending to attribute Islamic repudiation of the West to ignorance; on the contrary, the letter pinned to Theo van Gogh's body bespeaks a high intelligence, sensitive expression and theological depth. Jeff Alexander and Steve S (letters, Nov 16) want to label Islam an "evil religion" or seize the Mideast to secure oil supplies. I disagree: my standing proposal is to draw a bright line between "moderate" and "radical" Islam, by demanding that moderate Muslims explicitly repudiate jihad, namely propagation of faith by force (How America can win the intelligence war, Jun 15). Whether Islam is good, evil or indifferent, or whether there is a viable moderate form of Islam, is something Muslims must decide. Perhaps there can be no such thing. We still do not know if there is a viable moderate form of Christianity; after Vatican II, when the Catholic Church at length eschewed worldly power, Catholicism crumbled in Europe. "Moderate" ie mainline, Protestantism is disappearing in the United States in favor of the immoderate Evangelicals. The outcome of my proposal is uncertain; indeed, it is intended to put the burden of uncertainty on Islam, for Western authorities cannot sit quiet when organized religious bodies foster the recruitment of violent antagonists who preach conquest for the faith.
Spengler (Nov 19, '04)


I wait for the day when "Spengler" realizes his beloved evangelicals are not very different from the Muslims he hates [The assassin's master sermon, Nov 16]. They have all the legalism but lack the artistry.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Nov 19, '04)


Regarding Phar Kim Beng's article [Japan loses yen to aid China] (Nov 18): It was quite ridiculous for Japan to demand gratitude from China because of a Japanese loan. I wonder how much the Jews thank the German government even [if] the Germans pay reparation to the Holocaust survivors to this day, while the German government doesn't have the courage (should I say shamelessness) to stop payments since the Jews aren't thankful. The loans ([or] as the author likes to call them ODA [Official Development Assistance], a spin term for the Japanese government's subsidized export loans in supporting of Japanese exporters) are also supposed to be a Japanese way to show regret for its aggression and devastation of China since 1895, because no war reparation has been paid by Japan, not even a penny. The loans have helped Japanese exporters more than anyone else. Chinese are mostly indifferent to the Japanese loans; only the Japanese, who try to milk the last bit of the propaganda value out of such loans, make a big fuss about even discontinuing [them].
GongShi
USA (Nov 19, '04)


[Re] Counterinsurgency run amok [Nov 18]. I understand his [Pepe Escobar's] attempt (if not his desire) to compare the US involvement in Iraq with involvement in Vietnam. Many have tried to make just such a tight comparison and I can't deny the feeling that we've seen this nightmare before just as he describes. His summary regarding the kind of network that the Iraqi insurgency has mutated into is compelling and backed up by many reports of other insightful organizations as well. But his characterization of "Iraqification" and his strained contrast with [US president Richard] Nixon's Vietnamization is incomplete. The way I read it, he struggled to connect two different situations together and his evidence seemed a bit unsteady if not hurried ... First, I'd point out that when Nixon directed then secretary of defense Melvin Laird to begin Vietnamization in 1969, he began a lengthy and deliberate process that lasted until 1972. Although it was surely a failure in the end, if such a similarly dedicated process has truly begun in Iraq, I would suggest that it will flounder around a bit longer before the results are finally rendered. Secondly, among the goals of Nixon's failed policy was a primary interest in "de-escalation" or disengagement of US forces from direct, mass involvement in the Vietnam conflict in preparation for a nearly complete US withdrawal. To my knowledge, the goal of the current US administration remains vague and [it has] not yet formally established any comparable guideline. Thirdly, some of the most significant problems with Vietnamization [were] regarding the poor training and morale of the ARVN (Armed Forces of the Republic of Vietnam) soldiers and their inability to handle the task at hand. Perhaps there is a connection here with the Iraqi soldiers but I didn't see it in Escobar's report. It seems to me that, although deliberations are surely ongoing, the jury is still out regarding any likely judgment regarding the quality of a national Iraqi army that only barely exists today. I am still most confused by Escobar's statement, "Iraqification mimics Vietnamization in at least one aspect: the logic of collective punishment (once again 'take away the water and the fish will die'). The Fallujah assault proved that for the Pentagon every Sunni Iraqi is the enemy." I understand his statement in the context of the story of indiscriminate killing (and his reference to Op Phoenix), but not to the historical fact regarding the goals of Vietnamization. Finally, to his summary, I won't argue that Saddam [Hussein]'s thugs did study Vietnam. Iraqi insurgents employing guerrilla tactics is certainly not news. But the fact that today's US officers were taught those lessons as well should at least carry equal weight. (I gather somehow that he is preparing to tell us that is not so.) ...
M Barber
Missouri, USA (Nov 19, '04)


[Manuel] Trotsky [letter, Nov 18]: Pepe Escobar's work is to report on the results of what our [US] government and its puppet government are doing in Iraq. The original suggestion of "what to do" came from our government. Our government should be reading his reports as feedback on their actions and adjusting or changing their policy. Our government is not stupid. They know perfectly well what mayhem and murder they are doing in Iraq. They do not care one bit as long as their economic and military goals are attained and as long as the media [are] kept from reporting their atrocities to the world. Why do you think George Bush was so adamant about not belonging to the World Court? And then if you read the letters in today's ATol you will find that "Americans" are really like our government. They don't care what happens to a bunch of "sand niggers" (USA general term for Arabs) as long as the USA wins whatever our government sets out to do and they can keep driving their seven-liter V-8s. Pepe Escobar is reporting information that the US would and does suppress from its citizens. He is to be lauded, not ridiculed, and his type of reporting is slowly waking the rest of the world to the danger of this giant military rogue called the USA. As for a suggestion to the existing situation in Iraq, what about the UN taking over the security in Iraq, the Americans pulling out completely, and the elections supervised by a neutral country? If the US would guarantee to pull out, then Europe, Russia, and China could be persuaded to participate in a security role and they would be accepted by the Iraqis because they have not come as a murdering heavy-handed occupier. That's just one suggestion. Pepe Escobar and ATol give me more accurate information than I can get from any other source.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 19, '04)


Obviously the bio on [Pepe] Escobar as noted by ATol [The Roving Eye: Best of Escobar] is deficient on several important points according to several letters about him that were published in ATol's November 18 issue. Pepe's presumed shortcomings were that he was "a pathetic little man" who "is slowly losing control of himself", an eyewitness of events in Fallujah claimed, while another assumed that Pepe is "an expert on American sins" and challenged him to come up with a solution to the problems facing the coalition of the willing in their effort to accomplish the venture known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom". First off I believe that ATol owes its readers a detailed description of the physical attributes of Mr Escobar. After all, a pathetic little man's writings cannot compare with a "pathetic tall man's" writings. Secondly, if Pepe is "slowly losing control of himself", does the writer of the letter infer a loss in a physical or intellectual sense? As an eyewitness of what is taking place in Fallujah, the writer is obviously aware of the real conditions in that city and should at the very least be specific on what would stop Pepe from losing it all. In doing so then possibly Pepe might come up to the challenge of a solution to the ambiguous dilemma faced by most of the members of the "willing coalition" in their battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. That is besides bombing them and others close by into the Stone Age. Attempts to have everyone on this planet validate the "righteousness" of the coalition of the willing's "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is onerous.
ADeL (Nov 19, '04)


Manuel Trotsky [letter, Nov 18]: You criticize Pepe Escobar for not making "a single coherent policy suggestion for the US" in Iraq. Your criticism is misplaced. The task of journalism is to present facts, and context and analysis of them, not to offer policy opinion about what one or another protagonist should do. The latter task - offering unsolicited policy suggestions - is for the self-appointed editorialists, pundits, and bloviators on such as Fox "News", where the distinction between fact and political ideology is obliterated so the latter can be falsely represented as "news". You should be asking your question of Bill O'Reilly: he knows everything, which is certainly a great deal more than anyone else on the planet. Except, of course, for drug-addled Rush Limbaugh. Last but not least: Where, pray tell, has Escobar "inspire[d] more anger and death"? On Fox "News"? In Iraq? In the US? Among ATol letter writers? Daniel McCarthy [letter, Nov 18]: This is short so you cannot weasel out of your lie that "Joseph [Nagarya] has not listed any alleged 'lies' of mine in his [Nov 17] letter." In that letter, Mr. McCarthy, I clearly wrote: "You speak of 'Jane Fonda's love for Ho Chi Minh'. That remark is ... a lie ..."
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 19, '04)


If D Bhardwaj [letter, Nov 18] feels uncomfortable discussing English-speaking Indian elite's behavior, I will quit posting that. However, if you would like to have a free academic discussion of how dogs behave, I would love to offer my opinions. As a dog owner or master, you should pay more attention to the articles published about dogs. Dogs like to imitate (or mimic?) their masters. They always dream [that] one day, they can be equal to their masters. Jumping on to the driver's seat where their masters often sit is one obvious behavior. You love your dogs. You make them live a similar life as you do. I am sure your dogs are happy to live under your roof too. However, you would never regard your dogs as equal to your kind. Do you? That is why equality cannot be earned just by being the best friends of white men. It has to be earned independently with your own tradition, culture, honor and dignity. If you only care about the food you are eating, what is the difference between you and your dog?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 19, '04)


Dear Frank [letters, Nov 18 et al]: Please stop your ranting. It has crossed into the zone where therapy would be strongly recommended. Your xenophobic spiel does no one any good be they white, yellow, brown, black, etc. As a Chinese, the unchecked chauvinism reminds me of how the "Central Kingdom" lost its way from the Ming Dynasty to the ill-fated Boxer Rebellion. I would offer you a "Da Xie" if you would temper your observations.
Tino Tan
Singapore (Nov 19, '04)


I have to say that I am surprised that ATol has continued to publish Frankie boy's rather whimsical and outright racist anti-Indian rants every day. (He isn't your CEO, is he?) The sheer hypocrisy of his arguments is hard to miss for any logic-abiding individual generally aware of current and past happenings in the globe. He tells us that it is OK for Chinese to learn English, but has been screaming foul weeks now about Indians doing the same. How sweetly convenient! He makes a rather incredible claim that the Chinese culture and language have not changed in the last 5,000 years - a claim which any objective historian should be able to trash without much difficulty (the Buddhist culture in China, for one example, was originally imported from outside). These days the Chinese are aping Western culture like never before. Women dyeing their hair blond and getting a nose job done, to Chinese students in the US dumping their own family traditions merely to get free lunches at the local church or Chinese teenagers adulating the Japanese stars who are seen as more Westernized. Having apparently bartered their attire and family values for Wal-Marts and Nike shoes, the well-off Chinese are even changing their names to Western names, for little rhyme or reason. As far as the economy goes, undoubtedly China has made huge progress in the past 20 years, but if you analyze closely you'll see that a large part of it is because it has successfully served as a hub of cheap (or is it "slave"?) labor to big Western corporations. There appears to be neither any significant private enterprise in China nor any significant innovation of any kind (quite unlike Japan). Talk about serving "white masters" ... Same also looks true for language. When most of the textbooks written in Chinese are nothing but translated replicas of original research papers done in English, and most original literature (arts/poetry/free speech) is promptly suppressed by a nasty nanny-like regime, it raises serious questions on the success of Chinese language (which Frank so loves to gloat upon). But I personally wouldn't judge China based on these relatively superficial/insignificant things. I believe that mass change is inevitable for any society, and must be dealt with in a useful way, not by running the cheap enterprise of shaming people for wiggling their tails and whatnot. Frank, incorrigible as he comes across, however, doesn't have any qualms about judging India similarly. Clearly, he has not learned the Chinese equivalent of the proverbial advice of not throwing stones if you live in glass houses ... or is there not one? Not even in a translated Chinese textbook?
Rakesh
India (Nov 19, '04)

We continue to run Frank's letters because we are learning so much about dogs. - ATol


Daniel McCarthy and Biff Cappuccino [letters, Nov 18] display the same narrow world view, which is proof enough that those living in free societies can become even more limited in their understanding than those living in "unfree" societies. I never said that it is better to live in an unfree society. That is a foolish thing to believe, as all people would prefer to live freely and in peace. But the fact is, free societies are not the only ones [that] have produced wise and cultured people. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of the great writers of the world have lived in harsh and unfree conditions. But Mr Cappuccino and Mr McCarthy worship at the altar of America and modernity. They bring their modern pantheon of [George W] Bush, [Mark] Twain, [Oscar] Wilde, [Somerset] Maugham, and [Paul] Theroux. This pathetic group of gods they have created for themselves shows the limits of their mind. While I am writing of Du Fu, Su Shi, [William] Shakespeare, Cervantes and Ferdowsi, they are fulminating against Jane Fonda, or proudly boasting about "libraries, TV, and Hollywood". Cappuccino's knowledge of Ah Q is quite impressive from someone who claims to know Chinese and still calls Du Fu and Su Shi "storytellers". Su Shi and Du Fu are two of the great poets of classical Chinese. Some would say only the Book of Odes and Li Bai can compare to their work. Lu Xun is a very small figure in Chinese letters, but I suppose he is the only one famous enough for Mr Cappuccino to know about. How can someone like essays so much and not know that the form was vibrant in China at least 2,500 years ago? If you like essays, why don't you read Han Yu's "Yuan Dao" (The Original Path), which 1,200 years ago argued for expelling foreign influences from China (he was referring to Buddhism)? It is because Mr Cappuccino's masters, the "libraries, TV, and Hollywood" of the US, have erased all knowledge of his own culture from his mind. He doesn't know or care about the vast body of poetry and prose in his own language, but is obsessed with a handful of foreign writers writing about foreign lands and foreign people. How sad for someone to know nothing of their own ancestors. I have nothing against the US or the West. It is the unthinking servility to their culture that I am against. I'd rather be an Ah Q than a submissive mama-san, Mr Cappuccino. By the way, Mr McCarthy, in America, we don't call people by their first names until invited to do so.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 19, '04)

Did Su Shi and Du Fu have anything to say on the subject of dogs? - ATol


Piyush Mathur [letter, Nov 18] seems to have the typical dump-and-run arrogance of his class, where he writes a preachy, elitist article, and can't be bothered to engage in discussion. This is exactly what got the [US] Democrats in trouble. I've forgotten most of the original issues, and my time is equally valuable if not more, but [there is] one point of confusion Piyush seems to have about the term "animal spirits". It has nothing to do with incitement to violence, it is an economics term, and a quick Google search yields: "Animal Spirits: The colorful name that Keynes gave to one of the essential ingredients of economic prosperity: confidence." According to [John Maynard] Keynes, animal spirits are a particular sort of confidence, "naive optimism". He meant this in the sense that, for entrepreneurs in particular, "the thought of ultimate loss which often overtakes pioneers, as experience undoubtedly tells us and them, is put aside as a healthy man puts aside the expectation of death". This is what's happening in India, by an extremely fortuitous alignment of circumstances, specifically the euro conversion/Y2K/Internet bubble demand for IT [information technology] coinciding with the fall of communism, and getting rid of socialism in Indian politics and economic policy. It would be tragic for India to miss this opportunity. One last dump-and-run sound bite of my own: free speech means freedom from government restrictions, enforced by the disproportionate power that government typically has. It does not mean that the "masses" to whom Piyush and Jim [Laine] have so kindly addressed their message of enlightenment should swallow it without protest.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Nov 19, '04)

Did Keynes' "animal spirits" include those of dogs, by any chance? Inquiring minds want to know. - ATol


I'd like to ask Pepe Escobar, the expert on the sins of the United States, a simple question [Counterinsurgency run amok, Nov 18]. If Mr Escobar was the all-powerful Caliph of the USA, what would he recommend for Iraq? Should the US simply pull out its forces and allow Iraqis and anyone else there to fight it out? Mr Escobar makes passionate arguments that the US is evil and wrong on every front. Yet he never makes a single suggestion as to what the US should do. It is as though Mr Escobar's only desire is that more US soldiers are killed as punishment for a failed policy. I challenge Mr Escobar to make a single coherent policy suggestion for the US and then explain how it would benefit men, women and children in the region. Should the US simply say it is pulling out and then beg the UN to help? Should the US offer to negotiate with the insurgents? Should the US turn the country over to the religious councils. Clearly Mr Escobar is knowledgeable about the region and has the power to create moving prose, but what purpose does he serve other than to inspire more anger and death.
Manuel Trotsky
Mexico City, Mexico (Nov 18, '04)


It seems in recent months that Pepe [Escobar] is slowly losing control of himself. I have always enjoyed reading his ramblings, and watching his predictions fall one by one, over and over again. Does Asia Times ever consider that not one single thing Pepe has predicted has ever come close to being true? Do Asia Times editors ever cross-check his purported sources, or are you happy to allow his fabrications as editorial? In his recent rantings about the Fallujah operation [Counterinsurgency run amok, Nov 18], he steps over the line of credibility, citing "bloggers" and supposed "close" sources connected to the terrorists. This paragraph says it all, and is so blatantly fabricated that it stands on its own: "Sources in Baghdad close to the resistance tell Asia Times Online that at least 200 marines are dead, and more than 800 wounded. The Pentagon - exercising total media blackout - will only admit to about 50 dead and 350 wounded. Allawi and his cabinet are spinning more than 1,600 'insurgents' dead; the resistance so far only admits to a little more than 100." How can Pepe just float these numbers with absolutely no factual basis behind them? Does Pepe really believe that only 100 insurgents were killed, and that 200 marines were killed and their deaths hidden from their families in America? Not only is this totally laughable, it calls into question any sort of credibility that Pepe may cling to. Needless to say, Pepe is just angry that the American military trampled over the hundreds of so-called freedom fighters with the ease of a hot knife through butter. Hundreds of other terrorists gave up with hands in the air, begging for mercy. Oh yeah, I'm sure he is just as angry for the four more years George W Bush received from the majority of Americans who are tired of playing games with the childish mentality of the Arab world. Your propaganda has failed miserably in trying to change American perception, because, by and large, our society is educated, [is] well informed, and [has] multiple outlets of free press to come to their own conclusions. In other words, Pepe, we aren't stupid, so try something new for once.
RM
California (a Blue state) (Nov 18, '04)


Pepe [Escobar], you are a cry in the wilderness smothered by the blanket of complicit media [Counterinsurgency run amok, Nov 18]. As a student of history I was particularly fascinated by the acceptance of a civilized and cultured people - the Germans - of the brutality selectively perpetrated by the National Socialists (an extreme right-wing party, if I remember). I have always said that it was not an aberration, that it only took apathy, mild skepticism and self-interest. Apathy is the default condition of the masses. Mild skepticism can easily be generated by complicit media. Self-interest could either be based on benefiting from the spoils of the regime or it can be based on fear of reprisal from the regime. I have always wondered how I and my society would respond to similar circumstances. Now I know. With apathy, mild skepticism and self-interest.
Graeme Mills
Australia (Nov 18, '04)


I sure hope you checked the facts in your article by Pepe [Escobar, Counterinsurgency run amok, Nov 18]. I was with the marines as they [went] through the city and let me tell ya, that story is nothing but terrorists' propaganda. Your numbers are so off it's ridiculous. Everything the US forces do gets scrutinized. However, no one does that to the insurgents. If you would like to see brutal, Americans instead of handing out water and food could just take up the insurgent way of doing things and just cut off everyone's heads. While we are at it, why don't we just start right here in the US? There are a lot of Muslims here we could make videos of but we won't do that. The people of the city had plenty of time to get out. They know that this is war and they should leave but they didn't and their own people are using them as shields and killing entire families so they can use their house. So why don't you print the entire story and not just your biased uneducated theory? I sure hope Pepe is not Mexican, because his crappy little country has been mooching off the US for years. If you really think about it, the longer the insurgents fight the longer they will be occupied. If they just shut up and let the vote happen they can pick someone other than [Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi.
Thomas McClure (Nov 18, '04)

If you are writing from "right here in the US", how can you say you were "with the marines as they [went] through the city" (presumably Fallujah)? If you have first-hand evidence, from Fallujah itself, rather than what you saw on Fox News, that our reports are "biased" (a word that is increasingly coming to mean "uncomfortably contrary to what I would like to believe"), by all means e-mail it to us. - ATol


Pepe Escobar [Counterinsurgency run amok, Nov 18]: You are such a pathetic little man who has nothing better to do than whine about the United States. Get a life - loser.
Tom Gillick (Nov 18, '04)


So the insurgents [in Iraq] are learning to [adapt] to the ever-changing environment of warfare on their soil. This is good for our military because the US is practically [a] master at [adapting] to changing battlefield environments. The more they make it diabolical the more we will change to defeat that form - on their soil, even if it means death to both terrorists and innocents by the thousands. Good, good, good.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (Nov 18, '04)


Re India through the Rice prism [Nov 18] by Siddharth Srivastava: It was apparent that [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell was more favorably inclined to Pakistan and its military ruler than to India and its political leaders. The rapport and the friendliness between Powell and [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf were fairly clear. [Academic] Sumit Ganguly's description of Powell as one "who was quite taken in by the starched uniform and clipped accent of the general" is appropriate. I presume Powell found the Indian leaders' lingo to be one of equivocation and not to his taste. Srivastava has a number of good things to say about [US National Security Adviser] Condi Rice's attitude toward India. [Foreign-policy expert] Raja Mohan acknowledges Rice's recognition of India's "prospect as a global power and her determination to discard the South Asian prism [that brackets India and Pakistan] that helped shape the paradigm shift in US policy towards India under the Bush administration". Yet Rice has to engage with India in the context of the rest of the world, especially a number of countries with whom India is sympathetic and the USA is not. In this regard, she will be under huge pressure from her cabinet colleagues, especially [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and even the Vice President [Richard] Cheney. Their present priorities may not include India. Also, it should not be forgotten that Pakistan has, over a number of years, established a solid constituency for itself in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency]. However, it [Rice's nomination to replace Powell as secretary of state] is a new beginning and a welcome opportunity for the Indian government to take the necessary initiatives to reinforce Rice's favorable considerations for India and highlight India's strategic place, specifically in the region and generally in the world. The government should not hesitate either to use the significant credibility that India's private sector has already established with its American counterparts. India cannot wait for Rice's "gestures" and find that Pakistan has beaten it to the punch one more time.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 18, '04)


Jim Lobe [Hawks flying high with Rice posting, Nov 18]: Keep up the pressure. The US is involved in an illegal war. I fought in Vietnam and am an American patriot - but I can't support atrocities in the name of America. Osama bin Laden - not Iraq - attacked America.
R T Carpenter
Florida, USA (Nov 18, '04)


Dear [B] Raman: You have written a number of excellent articles. I don't disagree with your points in this one [After Arafat, the shadow of bin Laden, Nov 17], but I am a bit confused. You said, "If one were objective, one's admiration for him [Yasser Arafat] would have to be tempered by the admission that he legitimized the conscious and systematic use of terrorism for the achievement of a political objective and blurred the distinction between terrorism and a freedom struggle." How did Arafat "legitimize" the use of terrorism? How can one man and, as you state, the man who uses the tactic of terror be held responsible for its legitimacy? For example, I may have a political cause. I throw a bomb into a crowded theater. How would I be able to legitimize this act? Doesn't the legitimacy come from others? You admitted that "when the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] and its allies launched their spectacular retaliatory attacks ... how we all applauded and watched in admiration." [Aren't] your applause and admiration the legitimacy you discuss? Therefore, aren't you the evil ones? Now, I'm not blaming you. This is not my intent, as I would have to condemn myself as well. I, too, have supported the Palestinian call for independence and freedom. I am not evil. Yet why were we mesmerized initially by this rallying cry? And why have we abandoned these people? This battle has raged for decades, and still these people live under occupation. Has their cry for justice been answered? Have we tired of the battle? Or have the Israelis beaten us by redefining the issues at stake? In the last few years, [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon has demanded perfection from the Palestinian leaders. He has demanded that they ensure, absolutely, that there would be no more violence. From my point of view, this would be an impossible demand even on the wealthiest of administrations. How would Arafat accomplish this on a pauper's budget? From my perspective, every time Arafat made headway with the competing factions in the Palestinian society, Israel lashed out with a strike. Has the world ever cooperated with the PLO leadership? It seems to me now that we perpetuate excuses. Why hasn't this battle been resolved after five decades? Arafat impassioned us all, not because we are violent anarchists, but due to the righteousness of his call for action. We now see the Palestinian people still under occupation; why have we forsaken them? It's easy to blame Arafat, but what have we done to resolve this injustice? I don't point my finger at you. I blame only myself for my inability to do more for these people. Thanks as always for your work. I know you work for greater peace and understanding in this world.
Scott (Nov 18, '04)


This is the first time I have submitted my letter to this section. Before all I did was merely read articles and comments from people around the world ... After I read the article China faces up to growing unrest [Nov 16], I can't help myself but to break the silence and respond. I'm really disappointed to see [that] the map [accompanying] the article put Taiwan in the map with China. Taiwan and China are two different countries, one on each side of the [Taiwan] Strait. China has no jurisdiction over Taiwan, and vice versa. This has been the status quo for the past few decades, and I certainly anticipate that the status quo will not be changed and Taiwan remains an independent country as it is now. I wish the members of ATol [could] be extra cautious next time in your editing and posting of these maps. In anyway, it's a pleasure to be in the Asia Times Online site, and I really enjoyed it.
Seiko Zeto
Taipei, Taiwan (Nov 18, '04)


Dear Spengler: I applaud your attempts to send shivers down the Western spine with your exotification of the Muslim psyche, as it must keep the readers coming back for more. After reading The assassin's master sermon [Nov 16], however, I fear that you have taken the focus too far away from reality. The direct clash between Muslim countries and Western foreign policy has very little to do your poetic psycho-analogy, and the so-called "clash of civilizations" is nothing more than a logical outcome of Middle Eastern-Western relations. Religion appeals to the poor and the downtrodden, many of whom live in the oil-rich Middle East, an area of great importance to a rich, modern country like the US. That the locals are willing to die to defend their way of life indicates nothing more than the fact that they have been convinced they have nothing left to lose. Manipulation of religious rhetoric, combined with poverty and perceived oppression are a very potent foe; much more so I believe, than the Muslim mind you are attempting to mysticize. Do not forget, sir, that in the past and present Christians, Buddhists and Hindus have all thrown their lives away in the name of a higher purpose. I fear, Spengler, that on this topic you have ceased writing for the purpose of informative analysis, and are now doing so to merely hear yourself type.
T M Lemon (Nov 18, '04)


I'm replying to several letters that were published recently in the Letters section of your website. The first was of Jeff Alexander, [who] stated [on Nov 16] that (in reference to Spengler's article [The assassin's master sermon, Nov 16]) until Islam is deemed evil by the West, victory will be elusive. Yet is it an evil religion? Defining it as "evil" will raise havoc all over the globe. It could infuse hatred even inside the modern Muslim community (like in Asia). The second was the thought of Steve S [Nov 16] about seizing the Middle East and, of course, its oil so that it won't fall into the wrong hands. "Seize" the Middle East? "Slip into the wrong hands"? Well, well, who do you think USA is? The owner of the world? I've got a better idea: Arab countries should not sell oil to the US, just sell it to China and Europe. Let them Americans find and dig their own oil wells. As for the third, as a response to Chris Townsend [Nov 16], that the West can't lose or they will be truly screwed, well, I'd say, sir, let 'em [be] screwed! The fourth was about the very proud Carl Hershberger, who wrote [on Nov 15] that Asia Times Online didn't provide answers on how the Iraqis should obtain it [democracy]. I'd say, no one needs to be taught how to be a democrat. Basically, everyone has the talent to be one. Thus no nation needs to be taught by other nations (especially the US) on how to have a democratic government. The US doesn't monopolize democracy. In time, every nation will move towards democracy. My country, for example, managed to hold a very democratic election recently, and that was without US interference. Remember that Indonesians are mostly Muslims, so it would be erroneous to conclude that Muslim countries are hardly democratic and need to be given lessons of democracy. In short, the world doesn't need the USA to tell them what to do and what not to do. The USA might as well mind its own business.
Andre
Indonesia (Nov 18, '04)


[Re What is American culture?, Nov 18, '03] Spengler is an old kraut. It's all a bunch of propaganda used throughout the years to brainwash the rest of the world. Americans do have culture, we can laugh, but what you are posting in your articles is not a joke. It's pure hatred and put-down disguised in an authoritative highly educated tone, which makes it look more authentic. In my opinion, this alone sums up every war. Look, I have traveled outside the US on numerous occasions. I've seen with my own eyes the many stupid things other people do. Although I tend not to dwell on such things, I could easily do the research and compile a list of all the redundantly retarded things about your country and culture. I could do it in such a way that by the time you were done reading it, your blood would be boiling. Then just to make a mockery of things, I could publicly denounce it as a joke. You wouldn't take it too easily either. I've lived happily in the US all my life. Yes, I am aware of the many things people are being force-fed about my country. The worst part is: 60% is a lie, while 30% is distorted truth. Say what you want, but I sleep here every day knowing that I will wake up tomorrow safe and in good health. I have no fear of death. You will not terrorize me no matter how hard you try. I will drive slowly in the fast lane only if you are a tourist and it will piss you off a great deal. I would serve you dishwater for tea, burn your coffee and put extra grease in your food only if you are a pompous foreign jackass. It is you who I will subject to the shopping malls, while my family and I dine at fine restaurants that you don't know about and I will pretend to be "gullible" as long as you promise to quickly spend your money and get the hell out of here.
Amer Ican (Nov 18, '04)


For some time now I had convinced myself that we were in the beginning stages of a "clash of civilizations". But thanks to Spengler's provocative articles, and after some deeper reflection, I now think that I have been completely wrong, and "clash of civilizations" is pure nonsense on stilts. In the main, human beings are far too adaptable and civilizations are far too mutable for this theory to have anything more than a superficial and transitory validity. And no, they don't hate us because of our way of life. They hate us because we have been ([and] are) murdering them.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Nov 18, '04)


This is in reference to the three October 25 letters written in response to my previous response to two other responses to my review of James Laine's Shivaji: Hindu king in Islamic India (Exposing a Maharashtra legend, Oct 9). The letter by Bhaskar demonstrates little more than classic Indian ethnocentrism - and, yet again, an intolerance for truthful scholarship (foreign or otherwise, but especially foreign). Many fellow Indians simply don't admit their ethnocentrism (and, quite frankly, racism) - and continue to stick to their prejudices. That is what lies behind Bhaskar's penchant for "proper perspective" (essentially a euphemism for maintaining the status quo in knowledge). As regards Bhaskar's reference to Dipesh Chakraborty: Bhaskar has chosen to learn the worst lessons from this author. Yes, it is true that Chakraborty has correctly critiqued Western scholarship for its provincialism - but he has never advocated that Indians also become provincial in response. Quite the contrary. Besides, Laine's book is extremely empirical (rather than some "clairvoyance" that Bhaskar would like it to be - what with his disgust for truth) - and it is its daring empiricism that has rattled the powers that be (who wish to cling on to convenient fictions about Shivaji). Bhaskar also errs in promoting the idea of some "essential" Indian account. The search for such cultural essences is likely to lead him to fascism - rather than to empirical truths. Bhaskar is also incredibly unaware of the values of truth, usefulness, and critical thought within the ancient Indian scholarly traditions. Himself stuck in his narrow scholarship of European Enlightenment, he refuses to see these values in other traditions, including Indian. In fact, the key slogan of India - which appears on its official seal - is Satyamev Jayate (Truth Wins); it is another matter that the coercive state, in liaison with the rowdy element, refuses to live up to that ideal. Nevertheless, that the value of truth appears in the Indian tradition should not be the reason why one must pursue truth. One must pursue it and protect it if one believes it is a descent value to live by (based upon analysis and unprejudiced understanding). By contrast, if Bhaskar wishes to live by lies, cheating, corruption, prejudice, and concealment - then so be it. He has plenty of company with lots of violent people around the world, not just in India. As for the second letter by Arindam: He needs to first check his facts before accusing someone else - me - of "mischief" or lying. While the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee did issue the statement Arindam has quoted (as if to prove me wrong about the violence that clearly occurred against Laine); in his classic flip-flop and spineless opportunism, Vajpayee completely changed his position in a subsequent meeting in the Beed district of Maharashtra. In any case, even a simple application of the mind would reveal that an Interpol arrest warrant can't be issued without the approval of the center (whose head was Vajpayee). In fact, the comment http://sify.com/cities/mumbai/fullstory.php?id=13437342 that truly takes the limelight - in relation to the Laine controversy - is by the then Maharashtra home minister R R Patil, as follows: "It was the Brahminical Manu in Vajpayee who spoke in Mumbai, and the candidate in Vajpayee who spoke in Beed. The BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] wants to garner votes on this issue, while we have been talking about this much before the elections and haven't changed our stand." Arindam also errs in assuming that I believe that only right-wing Hindus are repressive of free speech in India. I have made no such exclusive claim; in fact, in my review there is a reference to the Congress party (whose alliance ruled and benefited from the controversy as such). In fact, the case of Tasleema Nasreen only reinforces my point - about the state-supported Indian intolerance of iconoclastic scholarship (especially by foreign authors). How can I help Arindam with his failure to view others' writings objectively? As for the third letter by Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth - it is obvious that he can't even read himself correctly, forget about others. There is no other reason I could think for his massive flip-flops and alterations of previous statements without "taking any responsibility for his actions". He has, once again, shown his penchant for violence by extolling "animal spirit" - essentially another name for aggressive, corporate-style behavior that can't tolerate alternatives. The facility with which he is willing to brush aside the fact of grievous injury to the humans involved in the Laine incident - and the suppression of free speech - is really beyond pardon. Last, he is wrong to say that what he offered was an "analogy" - from the Mahabharata. It was, in fact, an "exemplar". In other words, he has upheld the violent, animalistic behavior by those attackers - and promoted it to be exemplary (believing it to be an analogy). When is Jon going to ask those attackers to take responsibility for their illegal violence?
Piyush Mathur (Nov 18, '04)


The Letters section is littered with racial and racist rants of Frank about Indians. I was reading these with mixed feelings of amusement and disdain that one day editors will use better sense and confine these to the trash bin. But [it] looks like this is an unending enterprise and needs to stop. Why is this person with a name as Frank and an address in Seattle not a dog himself by the same criteria he is using to call Indians dogs, albeit yellow? He is more American than Chinese from his views and wishes and may be a mixed breed for that matter. What surprises more is that no other Chinese has refuted his observations. Finally I would like to tell Frank that there are many types of dogs and their behavior. Also are there many varieties of owners. As an Indian and an owner of two dogs in the US, I do move my dog from the driving seat, if I find it in, after I return from the Wal-Mart. This is not to show who the master is but to be able to drive the car. And the dog sits in the owner's seat definitely not thinking it can drive, or maybe Frank can read a dog's mind better than others. Tell us for a change your colonial experience with Japanese and Mongols, or do you consider them as similar color and species as Chinese? Do you wiggle or tuck your tail when you see one?
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (Nov 18, '04)


Frank [letter, Nov 16] writes that great nations like Russia and China do not speak English while "making great progress". He compares the English speakers in non-English-speaking countries to dogs wagging their tails at their white masters. I sometimes wonder if Frank really believes what he preaches. English is [so] important today that few nations can ignore the language. With the outsourcing boom, many non-English speakers have joined the bandwagon to learn English, including East Asian nations like China and Korea. Many rich Koreans and Chinese have gone in for an operation on their tongues to supposedly make their tongues longer so as to distinguish between the Ls and Rs.
Reeta
Malaysia (Nov 18, '04)


I would like to ask Peter Mitchelmore [letter, Nov 17] if he knows the difference between the people who love to learn [a] foreign language [and] those who have to. Because of the booming tourist industry and international trades, there are many Chinese [working] hard learning English [who have] at the same time managed [to keep] their language, cultural and [values]. China's language, culture and [values] have not changed much in the last 5,000 years. I doubt [that] a few English teachers can change that now. The best way to learn a foreign language is to live in that country. India is a [better] place to practice English than China because of the altitude of their elites. Many people from Tibet went there to learn English. Then they will return back to China to be tour guides or business persons. Amit Sharma [Nov 17] should pay more attention to the news than to white people's propaganda. I hope the facts in India [travel] a little faster and less distorted than Internet news. India harbors many [politically] motivated people and uses them as tools against its neighbors. I do not see any linkage between this hatred-filled India to that ancient peace-loving nation located in the same place a thousand years ago.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 18, '04)


In reply to L Grody (letter, Nov 17): It is factually correct that the US far-right Christian fundamentalists are doing none of those things which L Grody accuses radical Islamicists of doing in Iraq. However, the US far-right Christian fundamentalists are not under siege, are not subject to foreign invasion, are not subject to the most advanced technological warfare without any practical means of response and most certainly are not living in despair. What would be the response of the US far-right Christian fundamentalists if faced with the same circumstances as the unfortunate people of Iraq or Palestine?
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Nov 18, '04)


I write in response to your [Asia Times Online's] comments on SunKing's letter [Nov 17]. Your query [on] why collective blame is being assigned to Muslims and not to Americans is a good one. My theory: Collective support begets collective blame. America has a huge body of opinion that expresses itself against its government's policies. It is not monolithic and this polity expresses itself on the legislative and political front inside the USA and around the world. But take the Islamic world. The concept of transnational collective support amongst Muslims (called the ummah) for Islamic causes is unique. It exists amongst Muslims of all nations for Islamic causes that sometimes in [reality] have nothing to do with religion and even when it's not their own cause. This does not have parallels. Jews in America do not agree with all of Israel's policies. But you never find Muslims ... left of center coming out unconditionally against terrorism, while they are universally ready to condemn the American role in Iraq. For example, take the recent Beslan tragedy when Islamic terrorists killed 300 innocents, many of them children. All-India Muslim Majlis president Syed Shahabuddin deplored the deaths but made it clear that he supported Chechen separatism. How are the Chechens related to him? Why is this a religious cause? Explain to us why there are Afghans and Chechens killing innocents in Kashmir when they have no idea of the real struggle there. Also, it's mind-boggling why Indian Muslims, or Pakistanis or Malays who have nothing to do with Israel or Middle East have determined that Israel and Jews around the world do not deserve any support but Palestinians unconditionally do. Collective unconditional support deserves collective unconditional blame. Period. No ifs and buts.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (Nov 18, '04)


It is disappointing to see that Gunther Travan's rage against all things American and "free societies [which have] has nothing to teach those living under repressive governments" has metastasized since George Bush's re-election (letter, Nov 17). Even Jane Fonda would object to Gunther's letter and contend that her love for Ho Chi Minh and what he stood for is at least as sincere as Gunther's love of the same. But setting aside the issue of who loves Ho Chi Minh more, the crux of Gunther's argument is that people living under repressive governments who are denied free access to information, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are in a superior environment for the conduct of intellectual work and would only be diminished by conversion of their nation to a free society. Are you sure you want to stick to that position, Gunther? Congratulations to Joseph J Nagarya [letter, Nov 17] for his attempts to make himself into a gadfly, but I am confused by his statement, "All in all, Mr McCarthy, you gratuitously lie about as often as you accuse your paranoid fantasy 'communists' of lying." First, Joseph has not listed any alleged "lies" of mine in his letter. I would appreciate him pointing out any such suspected lies with quotes so that I may investigate. Second, it is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) which chose to call itself "communist", not I. I merely use the name which the CCP has given itself. If Joseph objects to the name of the CCP, then a letter to Hu Jintao would be more likely to generate results than a letter to ATol.
Daniel McCarthy (Nov 18, '04)


Dear Gunther Travan [letter, Nov 17]: The authors you offer, as far as I know their work, are story-tellers. Care of libraries, TV, and Hollywood, those of us growing up in free countries have access to practically every sort of plot. Many of us tire of stories, turn to non-fiction and will only read fiction if it's packed with original ideas. This is where the best works of [Mark] Twain, [Oscar] Wilde, [Somerset] Maugham, [Paul] Theroux etc come in. [V S] Naipaul's essays far outdo his dry fiction. Michel Houellebecq is on his way, but still a novel or two short of truly good stuff. I don't care if the next good novel is written by a Martian. I only care that I like it. And I don't mind if the author has a master, is a master, was a master, or is thinking of becoming a master. Speaking of which, where are these masters that you and [letter writer] Frank keep spotting? Are they hiding out in the satanic mills of industry with their running dogs and giving orders to their frantic fascist captains? I thought this kind of jargon went out with World War II. But maybe this is a case of China holding on to its traditions? The closest thing in modern English that I can think of is: Who's your daddy? So, who is your daddy? Do I have one? And if I don't have one, how do I get one? You know, I sincerely wish the best for China. If the next brilliant author is Chinese: terrific! I can read his or her work in the original language, the way it's supposed to be read. But I just don't see how patriots suffering from hallucinations of non-existent masters and non-existent races expect to help China. It's this sort of thinking which has held it back for a century. Lu Hsun wrote about you 70 years ago: Ah Q.
Biff Cappuccino (Nov 18, '04)


Dear Syed Saleem Shahzad: After having won the ice-breaking One Dayer International at Karachi in March 2004 how aptly and eloquently did captain Rahul Dravid sum up his true feelings by saying, "It is not that India has won or Pakistan lost. It is the Karachi crowd who has won the match." He said so because the Karachites applauded lavishly every good stroke of the game irrespective of it whether it came from the Indian or Pakistani player. They seemed to enjoy the cricket and cheered the player encouragingly for his every boundary, sixer or deftly stealing the run in between the wickets. The entire stadium gave a standing ovation to the Indian players on their winning the match. Incidentally, it was not only at Karachi but the same spirit was exhibited by the crowds also at Lahore, Peshawar and other places in Pakistan. Alas, it was not the case at the Eden Gardens' recent Platinum Jubilee historic match between to two stalwarts of the cricket world. Whereas the crowd went berserk for an ordinary stroke by an Indian player the entire stadium was conspicuously silent and overtaken by a hush for even a sixer by the Pakistan players. One expected the Kolkatians to be more sporting, particularly in the wake of the improving relations between the two brotherly neighbors.
Colonel Riaz Jafri (retired)
Rawalpindi, Pakistan (Nov 18, '04)


B Raman: I read your article [After Arafat, the shadow of bin Laden, Nov 17]. I'm surprised that a person of your background doesn't know the core reason behind the [Palestinian] cause or doesn't want your readers to know about it. This is one of the reasons people [with backgrounds like yours have] closed their eyes on the real issue, why people like [Yasser] Arafat spent his whole life for causes like liberation of his land from occupiers. You can beat the drum as much you want and as long you want. As long as people [holding] your position don't acknowledge and try to solve the real issue, more and leaders like them will emerge on to the surface, everywhere. The death of a leader wouldn't minimize the scope of Palestine liberation. It might slow down for some time but it will surface again. So for the peace of humanity, people [of] your background have a chance to acknowledge the core cause of it ...
Shaiq (Nov 17, '04)


[Re After Arafat, the shadow of bin Laden, Nov 17] I can't believe you're admitting this! [Yasser] Arafat not heroic? [September 11, 2001] a negative event for India? Another sainted Indian enters the real world.
Moira Braun (Nov 17, '04)


To accept the writings of [B] Raman, who comments that the brutal inhuman attacks on Israeli citizens [are] "brave and courageous acts", is blatantly anti-Semitic and very biased [of] your paper to publish his writings [After Arafat, the shadow of bin Laden, Nov 17]. First of all, [Yasser] Arafat founded these terrorist organizations to annihilate the Israeli state completely. He wouldn't accept the peace accord and the millions of dollars that were sent by gullible donors across the world for the Palestinian people. Mr Arafat cheated them and pocketed the blood money for himself and his wife, who lives a completely un-Muslim life in Paris. This man should not only have not received the Nobel Peace Prize but should have been labeled a leader of terrorism at par with Osama bin Laden. Your paper is extremely biased against Israel and will not admit the numerous murders that were committed by Mr Arafat's terror groups.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (Nov 17, '04)

You missed the point of the article, which was about a change of heart on the brutal nature of Palestinian - and all - terrorism. - ATol


Ariel Sharon is completing his takeover of America's government with the appointment of [Condoleezza] Rice [as US secretary of state. Yasser] Arafat died and so did hope for the Palestinians.
R T Carpenter
Florida, USA (Nov 17, '04)

For veteran analyst Jim Lobe's take on the Rice appointment, see the new ATol article Hawks flying high with Rice posting. - ATol


Although I find B Raman's writing analytical and interesting, I have to disagree with his commentary on the attack on Fallujah [Another pyrrhic victory, Nov 11]. With the recent cold-blooded killing of the aid worker [Margaret] Hassan in Iraq, I could not disagree more. I am not as vehement in my disagreement as Balakrishnan, but nonetheless indignant and annoyed that Raman would recommend a go-softly approach to these merciless killers of Islam in Iraq. Why should anyone spare Muslims during the month of Ramadan when they do not spare anyone, come Ramadan or not? I have not heard of any war being stopped because the time was not auspicious or did not suit one of the combatants. In fact it is the best time to hit your opponents, especially when they are fasting and praying. There are several Muslim contributors to your columns but I have not seen any of them show any regret or remorse over the senseless killings in the name of Islam. It is time they espoused a moderate voice and expressed their condemnation of the killing of this innocent aid worker who has spent 30 years of her life helping the people of Iraq. Let them not balance it by saying that the Americans, British, other Westerners and Indians are guilty of killing Muslims. Yes, Muslims who are terrorists and insurgents will be killed. But we are talking about the senseless killing of an aid worker who toiled for the Iraqis for 30 years. American-bashing seems to be popular in these columns. But the USA does not go about beheading and killing people in cold blood. There may be some excesses by individual soldiers in the time of war (which happens everywhere) but collective blame should be avoided.
Sun King
New York, New York (Nov 17, '04)

Why is "collective blame" to be avoided for Americans but not for Muslims? While your point may have some merit that mainstream Muslims have not spoken out loudly enough against atrocities committed in the name of Islam, it is still apparent that those who commit such crimes as the murder of Margaret Hassan are a tiny minority. - ATol


In Spengler's November 16 column [The assassin's master sermon] he seems to accept that the choice for Muslims is "a world of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll" or jihadist Islam. He seems to compare the intended recipient of the death threat, Ms Ayaan Hirshi Ali, to Socrates, who chose death over exile. She has apparently not chosen death. I may be misreading Spengler but he seems to accept the culture of death either through the "suicide bombing" ideology of Islamic jihadists ([see] Speaking Freely: Suicide bombing: Theology of death [Oct 22]) or through a Western version he defines as "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll". Those are not the only choices. The monotheistic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam believe that a part of God's soul is embedded in every human being (Genesis 1:26). We are all made in God's image. What does that mean? In a God-like manner we must have the right of choosing God/Life or Evil/Death (Deuteronomy 30:19). Life is defined as following the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17), the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3-10) and the Sura (17:22-39) commandments. These rules define a system of life and reject a system of death. We may not all observe these rules all the time. But that does not mean that we should therefore opt for death. If God wanted the world peopled by angels [he] would have created Adam and Eve as angels and not as human beings. I am certainly not an angel. I raised my children in the United States, the place [Osama] bin Laden believes "devours its children". One chose to teach at Oxford University, the other chose to publish in French and English about French and Hebrew poetry and the Bible. It is choice that makes us human beings. Mohammed B defined as "unbelieving fundamentalists" and "intellectual terrorists" Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirshi Ali. However, they have not killed innocent civilians. He and his ilk have and do. We know what choice he and bin Laden would make for us. And like Socrates I would choose death rather than their form of life. Mohammed B seems to have forgotten parts of his Koran. It states specifically: "Slay not your children ... slay not the soul, the slaying of which Allah has forbidden" (17:32, 34).
Rabbi Moshe Reiss (Nov 17, '04)


Dear Spengler (German philosopher who argued that civilizations and cultures are subject to the same cycle of growth and decay as humans. His major work is The Decline of the West (1918-1922)): No one needs to die for their beliefs, not Socrates, not Mohammed B [The assassin's master sermon, Nov 16]. "If you really believe this, then the following challenge should be no problem for you. I challenge you with this letter to prove you are right. You don't have to do much: Miss Hirshi Ali: wish for death if you are really convinced you are right. If you will not accept this challenge; know then that my master, the Most High, has unmasked you as an unjust one." This ultimate challenge is bogus. It is harder to live and be persuasive about your beliefs. The God I read about in the Bible, the Torah and the Koran has more in common among these religions than differences. And the most common theme is love, all-encompassing, all-powerful, all-knowing love. While it is true that birth and death are a certainty, one should not use either as a weapon to get one’s way in the world. If Mohammed B cannot do two things: 1) take the best of globalization and make it work for his culture and 2) reject the worst of globalization to preserve the best of his culture, then his despair should be his alone and he can follow in Socrates' footsteps by taking hemlock (I do not recommend this, it is as cowardly as killing innocents). He does not need to take the rest of his culture with him or stain its greatness with his rage at not getting his way. I would like you to see an article by you on groupthink via religion. Why do some decide on the extreme? [Your Nov 16] article discusses the problem as "antagonistic modes of faith underlie the conflict between the West and the Islamic world". If the US far-right Christian fundamentalists are the equal and opposite force to the radical Islamicists, where are their suicide bombers? Where are their Christian fighters infiltrating the capitals of the Middle East seeking to kill innocent men, women, and children? Where are their Christian terrorists [who] kidnap and behead Muslim workers, parents, and teachers who are just trying to live the life they were given? Where are their five-page screeds stabbed into the chest of a Muslim movie director who exposed their treatment of women? Mohammed B needs to turn his heart and mind to making his life on this planet more meaningful and leave the timing of birth and death to Allah.
L Grody
Perrysburg, Ohio (Nov 17, '04)


There seems to have been some controversy caused by what I thought was an obvious truism: "It is a cruel joke of history that troubled times tend to produce the most gifted of men." Biff Cappuccino writes [letter, Nov 16] that Cervantes is "hardly a first-rate writer ... most likely because he wrote at a time when free speech was insufficiently protected". Then he goes on to name [Paul] Theroux and [H L] Mencken as great writers. I suspect Biff and a frighteningly large number of Asians view Anglo-American culture as the pinnacle of world culture. And by extension, they revere writers from Japan and Taiwan who slavishly imitate their white masters in the UK and US. Biff's narrow view of the world sees writers as boring little typists producing reading material for bourgeois drones on the subway. In any case, gifted people of the past weren't just "writers" as we think of them today, but often officials, painters, musicians and adventurers. Biff also states, "And as to the claim that conflict produces the best writers, I have to wonder who he's referring to?" I am referring to Du Fu, Gunther Grass, Mikhail Bulgakov, [Fyodor] Dostoevsky, [Akira] Kurosawa, [Charles] Dickens, [Alexandre] Dumas and others who wrote about the turbulent times they lived in. Open up your mind, Mr Cappuccino, the world is bigger than Taiwan, Japan, America and England. There are fascinating people living in Africa, India, South America and everywhere, not just in the lands of your colonial masters. Try reading a book by [Jorge Luis] Borges or [Amos] Tutuola, and you might enjoy it! There is more to the world than "legally protected free speech" and "multiparty democracy", believe it or not. It is an insult to all of our ancestors to see these modern political rights as prerequisites for culture and wisdom. The culture of free societies is mostly a glut of shallow entertainment which has nothing to teach those living under repressive governments. I take offense at Daniel McCarthy's comparison of me to Jane Fonda, a ditzy and typically American actress, who went on a little photo op to Hanoi [letter, Nov 16]. However, I do admire Ho Chi Minh for his moderation and wisdom. Ignorant fanatics like McCarthy, apologists for the ARP (American Republican Party), will never accept that Ho Chi Minh, though a communist, was a moderate who respected Confucian culture (his father was a Confucian scholar) and opposed war with the US. In any case, outside America people aren't so idiotic as to be frightened to death by the magic word "communist". I hope Asians in particular would have some sympathy for Vietnam's war of resistance against US invasion. Finally, what does my previous letter have to do with justifying the Chinese Communist Party? There are many talented writers and artists in China today, and they have adapted to their nation's system of government. These people don't justify the CCP's actions, but to say that all Chinese people are ignorant because of their government's restrictions on freedoms is just childish.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 17, '04)


Daniel McCarthy [letter, Nov 16]: You speak of "Jane Fonda's love for Ho Chi Minh". That remark is not merely irrelevant to your ongoing hysterical 1950s-paranoid harangue against your dirty-word "communists" in China (Ho Chi Minh was not Chinese, or in China, and was well aware of the centuries of antagonism between Vietnam and China). It is also a lie and a smear against a person not present to defend herself against your groundless hatred of your imagined bogeymen. Shall we emulate your courage? Remember this, Mr McCarthy? "There are those who now argue that unless we make a stand in Vietnam, eventually we will be fighting in Hawaii and on the western beaches of the United States" (Vietnam: How We Got In, How to Get Out, New York: Atheneum, 1968, David Schoenbrun, page 11). I'll bet you still lie awake nights worrying that "Uncle Ho" will at any moment kick down your door and hit you over the head with a copy of that mightily feared "Little Red Book". A contrary fact about your imaginary nemesis: During World War II, "American agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), predecessor of the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], were active in North Vietnam - General Gallagher, Major Patti, et al - working closely with Ho Chi Minh and his partisans. They supplied him with communications equipment and the prestige of official acknowledgement of his leadership of the nationalist [not "communist"] movement. Ho, in turn, supplied them with intelligence on Japanese troop strength and movements, while his partisans helped search for American airmen shot down over the region. The cooperation was not only close, it was cordial, and many American agents sent back positive reports to Washington about the qualities of the Vietnamese Resistance movement and its leader, Ho Chi Minh" (ibid, pp 15-16). I guess the major threats of such as Grenada, Panama and Iraq will just have to do until the long-predicted invasion by Vietnam gives you your long-awaited opportunity to defend the homeland with carbine and heroically gritted teeth, eh, Mr McCarthy? All in all, Mr McCarthy, you gratuitously lie about as often as you accuse your paranoid fantasy "communists" of lying. And no doubt you believe your lying signifies its opposite: morality.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 17, '04)


In reply to Frank [letter, Nov 16]: If the people escaping from Tibet and Xinjiang are "seasonal immigrants", why don't they return to China once the season changes? And why do they need to emigrate out of China in the first place? It's much more difficult and dangerous to cross the Himalayas into Nepal and India than to catch a train to one of China's booming economic zones. FW (letter, Nov 15) correctly stated that "bigots and extremists are not just found amongst Muslims". Within India the press, academia and intelligentsia have never shied away from this basic truth. ATol's Indian correspondents have also never hesitated to expose the Hindu right wing. On this forum, several Indians (including Hindus like myself) have expressed as much disgust for Hindu extremism as for Muslim extremism. Yet you say that you are waiting for us to admit that Muslims are not the only ones capable of being bad. If intelligent people like you give much more recognition to the rabid rantings of hatemongers like Balakrishnan [letter, Nov 12] than to moderates and rationalists, what is going to happen to the voice of reason and moderation? To be fair to you, since you live in [the US] the only Indians you come in touch with are probably expatriates. It is well known that people removed from their native culture are its most ardent worshippers, desperately trying to belong somewhere by supporting the most twisted of causes. For [example], the Irish Republican Army enjoys much more support in the Irish regions of USA than in Ireland. On this forum too we can see that the most loyal defenders of Chinese government policy are those who have escaped the clutches of the Communist Party for the freedom of the West. Similarly, all the extremist movements that India faces (including the extremist Hindu movement) receive much more support from those living outside India than within. Since Internet speeds in India are very slow, the majority of Indians who express their opinions here are those living abroad - and such people are more likely to lean towards the right wing than those in India. Please keep this in mind before you use the opinions expressed here to judge an entire country of 1 billion people.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Nov 17, '04)


Just to qualify part of Frank's letter of November 16, experience showed me that in the more coastal areas of China learning English is viewed as the No 1 way of getting ahead. Thus private English centers in Shanghai and Jiangsu are booming in addition to other areas I have heard about.
Peter Mitchelmore (Nov 17, '04)


I am an American writer. I have a home in Jimbaran, Bali, where I live for about six or seven months each year. When I am away from Indonesia, as I am right now, I thoroughly enjoy the articles by Bill Guerin and Gary LaMoshi about goings-on in that area. The articles are well written, interesting [and] to the point, and have a way of revealing the cover-ups, foot-dragging and corruption that [are] so much a part of daily life there. This, then, is a fan letter. Keep up the good work.
Fred Eiseman
Scottsdale, Arizona (Nov 17, '04)


[Re The assassin's master sermon, Nov 16] Instead of accepting the murderer's take on why he killed the Dutchman (after all, he is biased), why not examine this crisis from a perspective of faith versus reason, not faith versus faith? This phenomenon dates back at least to the Middle Ages. I am tired of hearing about this clash of civilizations. It doesn't ring true to me at all.
Wendy Johnson
New York, USA (Nov 16, '04)


Dear Spengler: [Former US president Ronald] Reagan termed communism a failed and evil secular religion. Besides wielding economic and military pressure he exerted effective moral pressure. The communists of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe lost the faith and the will to persist. As you noted [The assassin's master sermon, Nov 16], this element of strategy is missing in the battle against Islam. Until the West is willing to call original Islam "an evil religion" and call for its removal to the ash heap of history, victory will be elusive.
Jeff Alexander
USA (Nov 16, '04)


Spengler: I would first off like to say that I thoroughly enjoy your articles. As I first began reading you some time ago I was a bit dubious. Your article about the impending suicide of European culture grabbed my attention, and since I have been an avid follower. In reading The assassin's master sermon [Nov 16], I can't help but come to one conclusion: As [General W T] Sherman predicted the necessity of eliminating the 300,000, must we then contemplate the destruction of millions? Your prediction of the Russians dispensing with Fallujah Grozny-style hasn't proved too far from the mark. Merely the protagonist has changed. Despite all the "smart" technology we hear about, the weapon of choice in Fallujah still appears to be a 155mm howitzer. There isn't much surgical about an artillery barrage in a city. I have often thought to myself that a day not that far away may come when we (the USA and those who choose to join) will have to seize and pacify the Middle East wholesale. With rapidly expanding world demand and industrialization, there's simply too much at stake to let the oil supplies slip into the wrong hands. As you seem to allude, appeasement doesn't seem feasible. So where does this leave us? Is there an alternative or I have I misread your work?
Steve S
Natick, Massachusetts (Nov 16, '04)


A map that accompanied your November 16 online story [China faces up to growing unrest] mistakenly included the island of Taiwan as part of China. History tells us that the government ruling present-day China has never had control of Taiwan. Each has a different government, military, set of laws, currency and economic system. Therefore, there is no reason to lump the two entities together.
Dean Chang (Nov 16, '04)


You had a map of China in your article [China faces up to growing unrest] (Nov 16). On that map you erroneously included Taiwan. As the PRC [People's Republic of China] government does not control Taiwan, Taiwan shouldn't be on the map. Perhaps you should check the political map as to the territories that is controlled by Beijing before putting it in your article.
E G Deune
Baltimore, Maryland (Nov 16, '04)

If we'd deleted Taiwan from the map we would have endured a cacophony of squawks from the "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China" crowd. This way, we only got two complaints. - ATol


In his column for November 12, A thousand Fallujahs, Pepe Escobar indicated that the Americans had targeted and destroyed the hospitals in Fallujah and locked up all medical supplies. In his [Nov 16] column, Masters of war, he indicates that the main hospital is still standing, but that the US has not let either the Red Crescent or Fallujah civilians enter the hospital for treatment of their injuries. It would be most helpful if this confusing information could be cleared up.
Waddell Robey
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Nov 16, '04)

The November 12 article did not say all the hospitals had been destroyed. It said that the general hospital had been "'captured' by the Americans at the outset of Operation Phantom Fury", and mentioned the bombing of two other hospitals. Presumably the general hospital could still be functional and its locked-away supplies could be unlocked and used if such were permitted by the Americans and Iraqi government forces. - ATol


I just found your website for the first time and have found some of the articles fascinating. I was looking for a bio on Pepe Escobar - I'm wondering how reliable a source of information he is. I'd like to know more about him before I accept as fact some of the amazing things he writes about. Any information you could give would be appreciated.
Jeffery (Nov 16, '04)

There is a short bio of Pepe Escobar on his page, The Roving Eye. - ATol


I wish to thank Pepe Escobar for his consistently informative work. It takes a lot of courage and above all personal integrity to do such work. Fifty-six million Americans who did not vote for George W Bush and an overwhelming majority of the rest of the world are with you, Pepe. Please keep us updated on what is going in Iraq. I'll buy you a real Budvar when you are next in town. When Hungary ceases to participate in the illegal and morally repugnant occupation of Iraq in January, I'll stock up Hungarian sausages to go with the beer.
Paul Law
Berlin, Germany (Nov 16, '04)


If all you report in your article [Resistance blueprint, Nov 13] is true, we haven't even begun to witness the bloodbath. You of course realize that the United States cannot lose this one? Whatever the cost, we can't lose ... or the West is truly screwed.
Chris Townsend (Nov 16, '04)


Dear [Syed Saleem] Shahzad: I read your articles on [Asia Times] Online regularly, and I must commend you for doing a great job. Please keep it up, and please keep supplying us with much-needed truth and what it means.
Khurram (Nov 16, '04)


Indrajit Basu's China raises interest, India's hopes (Nov 10) and Jack Crooks' Crash landing coming for China (Nov 12) are very illuminating and make interesting reading, the common factor being China's management of its economy in the context of becoming the "global manufacturer". Ever since China undertook the process of transforming into a "global manufacturer", its thirst for foreign capital has been phenomenal. It has taken measures which have serious impact on its own economy as well as those of a number of other nations. Its ability to manage the transition from a command economy to an entrepreneurial economy is bound to include the risk of "accidents waiting to happen", as Jack Crooks points out. While the USA, the biggest investor in China, can reasonably manage the consequences of these accidents, a country like India is much more vulnerable. It will be fortunate if India can take over the slack in global manufacture created by China. One remembers the adage "slow and steady wins the race". India's absorption of foreign investment has been very measured and steady in the past years, partly because foreigner investors have not been as enthusiastic about India as they were with China. It was also due to the brakes applied by Indian politicians. However, the parliamentary democratic environment has certainly ensured a slow pace. Probably it was not all that bad after all. All aspects of India's economy and culture would learn to absorb the impact of foreign investment and economic reconstruction at their own pace. It is hoped that the Indian government and the private entrepreneurs would take the time to fully understand the impacts created by China's bubble before embarking on exuberant expansion of the country's manufacturing program. But it is certainly an opportunity to strengthen its base on which to build the superstructure; what is of paramount importance is a strategic approach to global engagement not constrained by specific ideologies.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 16, '04)


Amit Sharma [letter, Nov 15] is using seasonal immigrants to prove that India is a shining country. If so, what would you say about India's discriminatory treatment [of] Muslim immigrants? J of Canada [Nov 15] apparently jumps to the conclusion too quickly before finishing reading my previous letters. J implied that Indian's only way out of poverty is to learn English. That does not fit the shining image [that] India's government is trying to portray overseas. Somebody is obviously lying here. There are many great nations like Russia, France, Japan, Germany and China [that] do not speak English. Most of their elites speak poor English. However, they can keep their culture and language while making great progress and decent living. Why cannot India? Most Indians would prefer to use their mother [tongues] and make a decent living with dignity at the same time. Only those English-speaking Indian elites who look down upon the poor are trying to make their people behave like dogs. Those are the people I would like to show my disgust to. Like I mentioned before, I have great respect [for] India's traditional culture and its peace-loving people.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 16, '04)


[Carl] Hershberger: In two recent letters you have (1) twice asserted a lie in an effort to pretend documented lies away, and (2) displayed the irrational unethicality typical of those who are contemptuous of the rule of law and democracy - while hypocritically pretending you enthusiastically defend the rule of law and democracy against the very sort of totalitarianism which you urge and in which engage ... "You say ... 'democratic governments shouldn't lie to their people about taking them to war', this is something I absolutely agree with. However [which cancels out your prior sentence], many think ... [US President George W] Bush really believed the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] were already present in Iraq ... and thus his WMD statements were mistakes rather than lies." Is that why he - and [Vice President Richard] Cheney - continued to repeat the "mistake" even after it had been multiply demonstrated that the "evidence" for WMD in Iraq both did not exist, except as forgery, and the actual evidence showed the opposite? In fact, as nearly everyone on the planet by now knows - including you, Mr Hershberger - the "evidence" for WMD in Iraq was, as [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell admitted, "deliberately distorted"; as an admirer of his, you accept his word on that point, even though he knowingly lied to the UN and the world about the "evidence" for those WMD. As well, we know the "evidence" produced by such as [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair - which we also know was also "cooked" - came from convicted fraudster [Ahmad] Chalabi ... You wrote: "Pepe Escobar['s] ... anti-American bias ... has caused him to support the wrong side in the Iraqi war. If he had been alive in 1941, he undoubtedly would have supported Germany." And ... to ATol's editors you wrote: "Your opposition to the Afghanistan war ... was just as vehemently anti-American." Because you don't like the facts being reported, Mr Hershberger, you endeavor to silence or discredit the reporters of the facts. But it is not the reporter who is anti-American, Mr Hershberger; our [US] constitution enshrines the right of dissent, which obviously includes criticism of US government policies and politicians, in its First Amendment: "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" (Thomas Jefferson) - and the constitution is (Article VI) "the supreme Law of the Land". Nor is the reporting of the truth of US war crimes in Iraq anti-American - democracy cannot survive without the oxygen which is truth. What is anti-American, Mr Hershberger, is the US's commission of war crimes - torture, and collective punishment, two glaring examples. What is anti-American is your defense of those by means of intellectually dishonest and irresponsible attack not merely upon the reporter, and the truth, but also, more pointedly, upon the constitution itself. The enemy of truth and America is not truth and those who tell it, but those who, such as you, endeavor to suppress truths to which you object by silencing those who tell them, by means of the very totalitarianism you pretend to oppose. From a true lover of democracy: "Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government only when it's right" (Mark Twain). Yes, Mr Hershberger, Saddam Hussein was, as you say, "a cruel tyrant". He was that also during the 1980s when the Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld axis fed him weapons before, during and after his war crime of allegedly "gassing his own people". Doubtless, when they said nothing against it, you didn't either. So your objection is not to war crimes, but who commits them (depending on when); and their being reported when you would have them proceed without notice.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 16, '04)


Gunther Travan, a Western apologist for the atrocities and incompetence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the same spirt of Jane Fonda's love for Ho Chi Minh, tells us with his letter of November 12 that there is a benefit to oppression and mismanagement of the CCP: that the crises and misery promulgated may produce talented writers. I wonder if the AIDS victims from blood transfusions gone wrong in Henan will agree with Gunther that such hardship is worth the price. And letter writer Fung Por (Nov 12) overestimates the value of 600 conventionally armed missiles. Had he read the article in ATol by Ruo Yu, Mr Fung would know that the US fired more than 600 missiles on the first day of the Yugoslavian conflict without causing a collapse of the Yugo military. Instead of indulging in military fantasies, Mr Fung would do better to "befriend, and win over the hearts and minds of the people" as he suggested instead of issuing thinly veiled threats which only serve to guarantee that the people of Taiwan will not accept any sort of political unity with China. But Mr Fung seems to be stuck in the same broken-record thinking of China's leaders, which brings us back to my point concerning the failings of China's propagandist style of education.
Daniel McCarthy (Nov 16, '04)


With all due respect to G Travan's taste in literati [letter, Nov 12], we'll have to disagree over Cervantes. He's hardly a first-rate writer. The allusions he draws are crude and simplistic, most likely because he wrote at a time when free speech was insufficiently protected. The resulting ignorance of his reading public is reflected in the dumbing down he constantly engages in and which mars his work beyond repair. He often writes as if for children. As to the writers of 1920s and 1930s China, Lu Hsun is highly overrated and practically unreadable to anyone except hardcore sinophiles: a crew of aficionados infamous for their ignorance of their own national literatures. Lin Yu-tang was a brilliant writer from that era, though. But to suggest that he has no peer in the contemporary era seems an awful stretch. Li Ao, who did two stints in jail as a political prisoner in Taiwan, was an extremely prolific essayist who covered a vast range of social and political issues with wit and vast volumes of footnoted evidence. He's presently vying for a seat in Taiwan's legislature. Several years ago, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize. To his credit he didn't receive it: Nobel Prizes (like Pulitzers) are almost exclusively awarded to mediocrities. And to turn to historians (in lieu of thinkers - what thinkers?), how about Taiwan's Huang Wen-hsiung: he's a best-selling historian in Japan (where he moved in 1964 to enjoy and profit from legally protected free speech) and is well-known throughout academic circles here in Taiwan. What distinguishes him from the pack is his willingness to face down the unholy uproar each of his books tends to produce (in one of his recent efforts, he argues that Lu Hsun's model for Ah Q, a story about a culturally retrograde moron, was in fact the national father Sun Yat-sen). His last several books have been particularly good because he's extremely concise: as opposed to the proud Chinese tradition of packing in as much stuffing and platitudes as will fit between two covers. And as to the claim that conflict produces the best writers, I have to wonder who he's referring to? Paul Theroux is the most intelligent and engaging fiction author alive in my opinion, and he seems to spend as much time dodging difficulties as engaging them. He's notoriously shy and difficult, irritable and, no doubt, irritating. And the best essayist of the 20th century is not the politically correct George Orwell, but the politically incorrect H L Mencken. Mencken is by far his superior: being far more knowledgeable, wide-ranging and daring when it came to forming and expressing opinions. He lived at home with his mother most of his life. I'll leave you with the opening lines of the preface to Francis Kiernan's biography of Mary McCarthy: "Most writers' lives are sadly lacking in drama. The dullest of people, it turns out, write witty and intelligent books. Once they push back their chairs and get up from their desks, they do little to warrant our attention." PS: As to the difference between saints and hypocrites: there is no difference. They're one and the same animal.
Biff Cappuccino
Taipei, Taiwan (Nov 16, '04)


I have being reading your website articles with very much interest for about a year, I have read one-sided stories and also well-balanced down-to-earth articles, but I have not really seen anything written on the real implications of the "war on terrorism". For one, let me make you aware of what is happening in the US. Slowly the economy is picking up thanks to the need to keep our troops supplied, small manufacturers are getting government contracts with secrecy clauses as well as the big companies. The more the destruction, and success of the "insurgents", the more the need to replenish the resources the army needs. It might be immoral to exchange blood for money, but I think this is a point that somebody has to make. As seen by this way of looking at things as they parallel American reality, it is absolutely absurd and pointless to think that the coalition troops will withdraw - why should they? Sure there are casualties, but in the long run those "terrorists" with their high ideals will keep the economy going for a long time. For that the economic establishment thanks them, and the super-rich are probably praying that the "terrorists" succeed in causing a major catastrophe on US soil so that they can have even greater power. It seems that those poor misguided souls dying for their "cause" or jihad are truly playing into the plans of the master economists that control their country and ours. May God have mercy on us all.
Turulato (Nov 16, '04)


I have three questions: (1) Is there any way of convincing the Shi'a leadership that it is making the same mistake as the Kurdish leadership, but on a larger scale: although each of these communities is, obviously, a majority within its own homelands, the gerrymandered borders of colonialism convert it into a set of minorities within a larger set of post-colonial states, which makes it feel dependent for protection on the ex-colonial powers? (2) Is there any way of convincing the Asian central banks that hold so many US Treasury bonds to collaborate on a strategy of planned disinvestment which will allow them to recover the bulk of the dollar value lost as the dollar gets disinvested from? (3) Is there any sure-fire way of distinguishing between Qutbist guerrillas and CIA-sponsored provocateurs?
Rowan Berkeley
London, England (Nov 16, '04)

[Re Pepe] Escobar's Collective punishment, regrettable necessity [Nov 13]. Come on, Pepe - are you not really overreacting? What kind of biased statement is "no one is covering what the hell is happening in Iraq"? What's happening in Iraq is basically God having to fight Satan. Along with that onus, the "necessity" to bring democracy and freedom to a people whose language and customs and a long history of supporting terror and terrorists mandates an equal-opportunity approach in application. How else can the Iraqi people be impressed with the sacrifices made by the "coalition of the willing" in undertaking "Operation Iraqi Freedom" if it's not done on a "collective" basis? ... As far as the accusation that no one is covering what the hell is happening in Iraq, that's a low blow, Pepe. Obviously you are not aware of the in-depth reports in the US media, especially by such ace reporters as Geraldo Rivera on Fox News and others who provide daily updates on the whereabouts of [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi. According to some of the reports that man (Zarqawi) is as elusive as Jack the Ripper and he also must own a lot of real estate in Fallujah. The sketched face of (TV viewers are always reminded it is the latest) Zarqawi, which is shown whenever footage of members of the "coalition of the willing" are shown (repetitively) "kicking butts", shows a man in need of a shave. But then it's understandable that he cannot shave since there is no water in Fallujah. It's been heard in several mall cafeterias that the French adage of "qui aime bien chattile bien" applies to "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Colloquially the adage translates into "this is gonna hurt me as much as it's gonna hurt you". Keep it up, Pepe.
ADeL (Nov 15, '04)


While I was reading the [Nov 13] article by Sultan Shahin on Indo-EU relations [Secularism and Manmohan's EU success] I must say I was quite surprised. After the brutal murder of Theo van Gogh by a Muslim radical there were acts of vandalism and arson on Islamic buildings before even the blood had dried. This same EU where the public opinion turned to 40-50% of all Dutch citizens thinking that the Muslims are a threat and immigration policy needs to be re-examined. If one murder can change public opinion so, think what the murder of 58 can do. Think what years of terrorism and bombings could do. This same EU whose members carried out globalized genocide and exploitation, this same EU that twiddled its thumbs during the Balkan wars, this same EU whose members are currently occupying Iraq or helped out in the war? Wow, this is such a revelation, the bastion of imperialism and the birthplace of culture of international enslavement is now talking about ideals. Perhaps the EU should take a good long look at itself before passing judgment on others. No doubt bad things happened in Gujarat and it was unfortunate that things were allowed to get out of hand; however, when it comes to democracy the EU should not preach, it has shown through the actions of its members that public opinion doesn't really mean anything and its members can run off and fight wars when and as they wish. Spain, Italy (which is more of a corporation than a democracy, and a sick one at that), Poland, the UK etc - need I go on? The EU is a like Janus, double-faced, conveniently using the blue-and-starred flag to preach peace, while using ugly nationalistic frameworks to continue as business as usual. Incredible, this is what [letter writer] Frank must feel like all the time!
Karan Awtani
London, England (Nov 15, '04)


Much of what prompted me to write the article I did on Speaking Freely [A regrettable necessity, Nov 12] is that I think that pretty much everyone is mischaracterizing what is happening in Iraq. This is not a war of national resistance against the United States, this is not a war on terror (in truth foreign fighters are largely irrelevant), this is not a clash of civilizations. What this basically is is a civil war between the Shi'ites and Kurds who have agreed to support ... the Iraqi interim government, and the Sunni Arabs who have not. The characterization of the conflict is important. Because in an Iraqi war of national liberation against the United States, the United States will eventually lose. In a war which consists of a clash of civilizations, the United States will also eventually lose. However, in a Shi'ite-Kurd versus Sunni power struggle, it is the Sunnis [who] will lose. They make up only 20% of the population, and the areas which they are concentrated in "urban areas in flat plains" are militarily indefensible (unlike the Kurdish areas.) They are not receiving much in the way of supply or sympathy from Iraq's neighbors or anyone else. Yes, there is a lot of anti-American sentiment, but the Shi'ites have largely been quiet because they think its a good idea to deal with the Americans after they have established control over an Iraqi government and the Americans have weakened the Sunnis. Most of the governments in the Middle East don't see any reason to side with the Sunnis, and the most important of Iraq's neighbors (Iran) is going to be positively ecstatic over a Shi'a-dominated, possibly moderately theocratic state. Islamists generally don't see one side of an Islamic civil war to be preferable to another, and even here a moderately theocratic Iraqi government might be preferably to them over the secular state a Ba'athist regime might produce. It's also not a small thing that martyrdom is somewhat less important in Sunni theology than Shi'a theology, and the majority of the insurgents come from a quite secular background. Once the Iraqi nation government finishes its national army, the Sunni fighters are going to be massively outgunned. I think it is relevant to quote what William Sherman said one century ago. "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it," but in submitting [to] the division of the country, the consequence is "eternal war". In asserting control over Fallujah, the Shi'ite-and-Kurd-dominated Iraqi government will begin to make it clear to the Sunnis that resistance to the Iraqi government is futile and counterproductive, and that the only option open to the Sunnis to avoid political marginalization is to cooperate with the government. If the Iraqi government does not act, the consequence will be eternal war. The Sunnis do not have the military power to assert control over the Kurds and Shi'ites. The most they can do is to cause the Iraqi government to implode, upon which there will be total anarchy.
Joseph Wang (Nov 15, '04)


An embarrassed Carl Hershberger [letter, Nov 12] writes of Pepe Escobar's A thousand Falliujahs [Nov 12]: "Escobar's biased reporting [eg, Carl disagrees with Pepe, therefore Pepe is biased] fails to appreciate the choices that have to be made by countries." A defensive Mr Hershberger avoids the issue: the one country making those "difficult choices" is the United States. By contrast, and unlike such as Mr Hershberger, those who do not identify with and cheerlead the totalitarians - in this instance neo-con[artists] and Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory - are not embarrassed. We are anguished. Though many of us saw through the transparent lies by means of which Bush et al initiated their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and correctly predicted it would be a disaster, we anguish at the deliberate mass murder of innocents. Then again, we are not so wrapped up in self-serving supremacist self-importance that we can boast of supporting blatant wrong. Your face-saving, Mr Hershberger, is more important than preserving innocent life. Than saving your own country from the ravages of the rampant madness you defend. Making enemies is not the way to make friends. Most endeavor to avoid doing wrong so as not thereafter to find themselves having to explain away the egg on their faces and the blood on their hands. They avoid doing wrong as a matter of self-respect - and in keeping with the principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In deranged contrast, your blind arrogance fuels a culture of death ... You attempt but fail, Mr Hershberger, to put a civil face on the moral depravity - the evil - you defend. But that isn't enough for you: more discomfiting is your obvious guilty fury - not at the events, or the perpetrators, but at the reporting of the blatant war crimes being imposed upon Fallujah. It is a war crime, Mr Hershberger, to bomb hospitals in Fallujah, or anywhere else in Iraq, even when the US does it. Yet you excuse the war crime by attacking the democratic free flow of information which brings it to the attention of the world. And it is not the smartest of moves to bomb mosques if one actually intends to "win the hearts and minds" of those who cherish those mosques. If those were instead synagogues, you would see it as war crime and sacrilege. In terms of morality and law, and the claims the US makes about itself, Mr Hershberger, you are on the wrong side of the evil being done in our name. And with every defense of that evil, Mr Hershberger, you not only increase the evil but also undermine the very "democratic" country - the US - you by lie pretend to defend. Many of us have seen exactly the same before; but can those few of the many war crimes being committed in our name also this time "simply be dismissed on the grounds that we have gone so far toward carrying out unjust and un-American policies that we are, ipso facto, obliged to commit more crimes in the name of prestige and honor? Can honor be preserved dishonorably? If the issues are freedom and security for the United States, then one must ask if freedom is served ... or if American security is served by plunging into a land war ... which every leading American military authority has long warned against ..." (Vietnam: How We Got In, How to Get Out (New York: Atheneum, 1968), David Schoenbrun, page 11). One question of you, Mr Hershberger, and all your fellow war-crimes enthusiasts: When will you be putting your loudly proclaimed courage on the line by enlisting, and demanding to serve in Iraq, so you need not rely on proxies to furnish you your entertainment?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 15, '04)


Truth is out. Pepe [Escobar] is doing an excellent and honest reporting. [Carl] Hershberger's [letter, Nov 12] cabal with racist self-centered Anglo-Saxon views on imposed Western democracies (read hegemony) are there for everyone to see.
shab101
USA (Nov 15, '04)


Just a quick note to AToL's response to my last letter [Nov 12]. So many criticisms, so few answers! You say Iraqis deserve democracy but give no answer how they should obtain it; you say Saddam [Hussein] was a cruel dictator, but didn't want him removed from power yet don't want him put back into power. As for "democratic governments shouldn't lie to their people about taking them to war", this is something I absolutely agree with. However, many think [US President George W] Bush really believed the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] were already present in Iraq (many world leaders such as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair also did), and thus his WMD statements were mistakes rather than lies. Either way, if tons of WMD had been found, I doubt your criticisms would be any less harsh - your opposition to the Afghanistan war (another "small basket-case country") was just as vehemently anti-American.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Nov 15, '04)

While other media were still trying to find Afghanistan on a map, Asia Times Online had in place several writers familiar with the country, the region, and the religion and politics thereof, which enabled us to foresee the pattern of ideology-dominated neo-conservative "planning" that was quickly to take the "war on terror" astray. In our view, analyzing events through the prism of the complexities that gave rise to, for example, the almost universally abhorred Taliban and Hussein regimes neither makes us blind to the evils that rightly incensed Americans after September 11, 2001, nor makes us "anti-American". It is simply journalism, of a sort that is all too often forgotten by the "mainstream" media of the US and elsewhere. - ATol


For several years I have had your online site as one of my favorites. Recently, though, your shrill anti-American invective has become so extreme that I no longer trust your writers' ability to analyze current events fairly. Pepe Escobar in particular brings his Marxist convictions into everything he writes, and his articles, which you feature prominently, have become simply irrational exercises in leftist paranoia. I have removed your website from my list of favorites and will not look at it again. Yahoo and Google present balanced views and I will get my news from them in the future. I wish you the worst. It is sad that fine publications like the Far East Economic Review fail while your site, which is just an al-Jazeera clone, seems to continue. It is also sad that David Scofield, whose reporting is excellent, continues to work for an outfit that employs people like Pepe Escobar. Mr Scofield deserves better.
Isaac P Pearson
Seoul, South Korea (Nov 15, '04)


[Syed Saleem Shahzad (A cry from the mosque, Nov 11):] Millions of Americans opposed [President George W] Bush's rush to war in Iraq. We were not supporters of [Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein, but we did not want to see the oppressed and struggling innocent people in Iraq forced into the middle of a war. Today, we cry. We lost the election to remove Bush. We put all our energy into this effort. Now we can only watch the mainstream media, which distort the truth in Iraq, and which fuel the flames for more hatred and war, tell flag-waving Americans they are doing the right thing. Thank you for providing the balance in reporting. We do our best to further your words, as we hope to wake up enough Americans to end this disaster. I would like to ask a favor of you. Please tell the Iraqi people that we apologize for our failures here. While helping them to get rid of Saddam could have been a noble partnership, we believe Bush is more interested in oil domination than nation-building. Each day, we get down on our knees and pray to the one God for help. We apologize for being a nation of war criminals. We cry as we realize that our terrible weapons are raining down destruction on good and decent people. There is no excuse. We are guilty, and many of us will burn in the hellfires for our failures. Most of our soldiers know little of Islam, Muslims, Iraq or international politics. They are simply instruments of a wicked and malicious small group of men who control our government. Please, please tell the Iraqi people, and the honorable men who try to drive out this occupation, that we won't stop working here. We are cowards, or we would take up arms in our own country. The machine is too powerful, and we would only end up in prison. Yet in our hearts, and in our feeble ways, we work to end this catastrophe. We thank you for having the courage and honor to bring us the truth. May God have mercy on our souls for this widespread murder and suffering. May Allah bring peace to the deserving people of Iraq.
Scott (Nov 15, '04)


Reading Syed Saleem Shahzad editorials, it is obvious that the United States has become an evil power. Let's reflect a little on what the US has been and is currently responsible for: 1) Saving thousands of Muslims from genocide at the hands of the Serbians. Obviously the action of a Christian Crusader. 2) The destruction of the Taliban and their perverted interpretation of the Koran. Restored freedom and dignity to the women of Afghanistan. Have successfully assisted the Afghans in their first free election. America should be ashamed. 3) The disruption of Osama bin Laden's worldwide terrorist organization. Numerous of his cells arrested or killed and the cut off of the majority of his funding. Osama can't show himself in public. Again, America is guilty. 4) The defeat of a rogue state led by a madman, Saddam Hussein. A man who attacked Iran, used poison gas on the Iranians and his own people, the Kurds. A man who attacked Kuwait, allowing, if not encouraging, his troops to commit untold atrocities on the Kuwait people. A man who ignored the United Nations for 11 years and even corrupted UN staff with the [oil for food] program in order to pocket billions of dollars, while his people starved. A threat, a monster to his neighbors and his own people. Again, shame on America to rid the world of this tyrant. 5) Now America and Britain find themselves attempting to rid Iraq of the remnants Saddam's gangsters, and foreign terrorist encouraged to fight the Great Satan. And what does America hope to gain from this endeavor, for which nearly 1,200 young men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice? The freedom of the Iraqi people with a freely elected government, ruled by law. Yes, as an American I plead guilty to all the above.
John Agazim (Nov 15, '04)


In your many articles on Iraq, you refer to resistance fighters as "insurgents". That word does not characterize correctly these people. "Insurgent" is defined as "one that revolts against civil authority". Since they are fighting and resisting foreign military occupation forces, not a "civil authority", they cannot be referred to as "insurgents". The correct reference would be "resistance fighters", "guerrillas", "Iraqi patriotic groups" or "partisans".
Vidok (Nov 15, '04)

It is difficult to find a single collective word for those battling occupation/interim government forces in Iraq that is not loaded in some way, or that is perfectly accurate. One problem is that the insurgency/resistance/whatever is not centralized and its various factions have varying goals, often at odds with one another. While there may indeed be "Iraqi patriotic groups" in the mix, there are foreign terrorists, power-hungry warlords, religious fanatics, and outright criminals and psychopaths as well. Another problem is that the current authorities in Iraq have been less than forthcoming about the true identity of the combatants in specific instances or in general, preferring to use labels and even personalities such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to further a political or propagandist agenda. - ATol


Herr Spengler [Power and the evangelical womb, Nov 9]: As a "blue" American, though one sufficiently to the left not to shed a tear over JFK2 (clearly understanding his predecessor and idol's counterinsurgency legacy), I was dismayed by the results of the [US presidential] election. However, as a denizen of Florida, I felt the "values vote" hoopla was misplaced. Assuming it was not emplaced. In the push to increase voter turnout, many customarily apathetic southern voters rose out of their torpor and did what came natural. It was not to speak in tongues. Their choice might be summed up thusly: if one should chaperone a "red" voter to a buffet restaurant, and present them with a choice of cream-of-asparagus soup or Texas chili, the trajectory is clear. The truth is usually more banal than we customarily hope. Don't believe the hype. I also knew a deeply Christian fellow, with the requisite large family, and his eldest was a very willful girl. I could see the likely outcome. Humans are not fruit flies, and to think like should beget like is to count the "fundies" before they hatch.
Thomas Milton (Nov 15, '04)


Re Sultan Shahin's A new dimension in India's northeast woes [Oct 23]. Pakistan's ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] has a major goal - to accomplish the dismemberment of India. It is driven by hatred for its neighbor. It has not been able to accept the involvement of India in the creation of Bangladesh. It has identified several organizations in Kashmir in the west as well as in the northeastern states of India that it can work with to spread insurgencies. This, by itself, is not surprising or unpredictable behavior from Pakistan. What is deplorable is the ineffective and unimaginative way in which the different central and state governments of India have addressed or failed to address the discontentment of its people. There seems to have been gross indifference shown to ULFA's [the United Liberation Front of Assam's] complaints and causes from the very beginning and lasting for several decades, eventually leading to [its] unwise decision of taking up "formal membership with the Pakistan-based Muttahida (United) Jihad Council (MJC) after years of dallying with the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Directorate General of Field Intelligence (DGFI) of Bangladesh". All this happened while the different governments at the center over the years chose not to take stern action against the influx of Bangladeshis into the northeast states, maybe for fear of upsetting the communist government in West Bengal. Sultan Shahin has reported that the ULFA recently has been operating in Bangladesh a number of training camps wherein its people are training Bangladeshis to infiltrate into Assam. Shahin also reports, "The discovery that northeastern militants are now using programmable time-delay devices made in Pakistan is considered particularly significant. The seizures made during subsequent raids further proved the banned outfit's close links with Pakistan-based jihadi groups." Referring to the American Ambassador [to India David C] Mulford's offer of FBI's [the Federal Bureau of Investigation's] help in the wake of the serial blasts on October 2 that killed scores of people, Shahin comments that "a realization is now dawning that this offer is probably an indication of the United States' recognition of a global and Islamist dimension to the terrorism in India's northeast". I would like to point out that this is not as much a part of global and Islamist terrorism as it is clearly Pakistani terrorism with the sole objective of destabilizing and dismembering India. Pakistan may hire al-Qaeda terrorists displaced from Afghanistan, but that cannot make it Islamic terrorism. India has taken the right measures in regard to Myanmar by mending fences with them and encouraging them to drive out the Insurgents and dismantle the ULFA and NDFB [National Democratic Front of Bodoland] bases and safe houses from their territories. Earlier, Bhutan successfully took similar action against the insurgents operating from sanctuaries located on its territory. India has to find a creative and imaginative way to make Bangladesh understand that it will continue to allow ULFA and NDFB to operate from bases in its territory only at the risk of inviting a punishing military attack from India. Alternatively, Bangladesh and India can work together to eradicate terrorism and insurgencies; they can also work together on an integrated plan of economic development of the northeastern region of the sub-continent for the betterment of all communities. Bangladesh has a lot more to gain from collaborating with India on economic development than engaging with Pakistan to plot the destabilization of India.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 15, '04)


I have been reading ATol articles and letters pages for a long time now and thought I had seen plenty of differing opinion, hotly debated for sure but for the most part intelligently and eloquently put. The lowest of low and despicable came in the form of a letter from Balakrishnan (Nov 12). It is really hard to believe that it is possible for someone living in a Muslim country, perfectly happy to earn a crust there, to have no empathy and understanding of the local people and their culture, let alone an appreciation of what Ramadan means to all Muslims. The blind religious bigot, fascist and hatemonger that he is, Balakrishnan accuses B Raman, who once [was a senior officer with] India's RAW [Research and Analysis Wing], of being "a typical coward Hindu devoid of any vision" and not knowing "the ground realities". This is just more evidence that extremists and bigots, regardless of which religion they profess to follow, totally miss the point of religion and morality. With all the discussion about dogs in the ATol letters page lately, we can see this one is foaming at the mouth. Can someone please hand him a gun and have him dropped off in Fallujah, where he can satisfy his bloodlust by killing some Muslim or be put down? I have read lengthy discussions here by many concerned Indians, asking Muslims to acknowledge some of the historical wrongs committed by past Muslim rulers in India. There are others who constantly write about religious extremism in Muslim communities. This is their chance to show some balance and recognize that bigots and extremists are not just found amongst Muslims.
FW
Sydney, Australia (Nov 15, '04)


In reply to DP (letter, Nov 12): Selective amnesia is a basic human trait. Everyone likes to believe only good things about themselves and bad things about others. For you to suggest that Indians are more prone to this is selective amnesia on your part. I did not "lash out against other nations or religions (which happen to be Indian rivals) in order to divert attention from India's occupation of ..." It was you who arbitrarily brought up the subject of "Indian occupied" territories while the discussion was on some other topic ([letter writer]Frank's perennial obsession with likening Indians to dogs who wiggle their tails for their white masters). As I questioned in my reply (which you were clearly not interested in reading), considering India's long border with China, Pakistan and Bangladesh, why are huge numbers of refugees not escaping "Indian brutality" into the neighboring countries? The last time I checked, Amnesty International estimated that the total death toll in Kashmir was approximately 60,000 - this includes civilians, Indian security personnel, and terrorists. No breakup was given about who killed whom in what quantity. For you to claim that the Indian army has killed 80,000 people is not just incorrect but also indicative of what you want to believe (as opposed to the ground reality). I did not just demonize Pakistani support for terrorism in India - what I was really demonizing was US and Chinese support of Pakistani terrorism. Pakistan ultimately is just a tool used by anyone wishing to hurt India (and also Pakistan in the process). Despite what you would like to believe, it is not India and the US that are two sides of the same coin but instead the US and China.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Nov 15, '04)


Geoffrey Sherwood [letter, Nov 12] offered a passioned defense of the genocide of the native Americans by white settlers. Could he also offer a defense of the enslavement of Africans? If he feels up to it, I am also interested in hearing his defenses of the Nanjing Massacre and the Holocaust. I'm glad he is raising the issue of native Americans conquering one another, as people will finally understand why native Americans present such a danger to world peace today. Just as they massacred each other in the Americas, soon their armies will be fighting in Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, etc.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 15, '04)


I apologize that I overlooked Geoffrey Sherwood's letter [Nov 12] regarding pre-Columbian history of "native Americans" and their mutual slaughters and conquests. Actually, if Geoffrey pays attention to my previous letters like other readers do (Sri of New York as an example) you should know my opinions about that. For any race of people who cannot unite together, they are the prey of white colonists. White people (or hybrid whites) will use their disunity as an excuse to [enslave] and to slaughter them. Africans are not united. They became slaves. American native Indians are fighting among themselves. They are almost extinct. Muslims cannot look after each other. Their lands are occupied, oil is taken away and their religions are insulted. The only way for your race and culture to survive the aggression is unity. However, it is [more easily] said than done. I am surprised that my pronouncements of these harsh realities cheer some people up. (Well, I heard that there are some strange people [who] like to be raped too.) However, I am glad that I left an impression.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 15, '04)


Frank [letter, Nov 12] displays a profound ignorance of why Indians learn English: it is so that they can escape poverty, not because they wish to be the "white man's best friend". Frank overlooks the fact that the Indian elites did not send troops to Iraq, even though the US applied heavy pressure. Note that it is Britain that sent troops to Iraq under pressure, not India. Frank displays the typical ignorance and moralistic tendencies of a typical left-wing liberal, which is why his kind has had so much trouble retaking the White House: the majority of human beings, whether Indian or not, prefer to escape poverty, and if that means learning English, that's not a big deal. Starving to death is not being one's own master. Most Indians already speak two or three Indian languages, so learning English is akin to an American learning Spanish. In fact, it is actually Frank [who] is behaving like a dog by barking and moralizing about trivial matters of no consequence, but then again, that is what the extreme left does, in every country.
J
Canada (Nov 15, '04)


Pundits claim the Christian Right made the difference in this year's [US presidential] election. Really? Then why is George W Bush bombing kids in Fallujah today? Jesus wouldn't bomb kids. We challenge experts on Christian doctrine to send us biblical scripture showing where Jesus advocated killing kids. Muhammad Abbud, speaking to al-Jazeera, said he watched his nine-year-old son bleed to death at their Fallujah home, unable to take him to hospital as fighting raged in the streets and bombs rained down on the Iraqi city. To the point, Jesus never authorized the use of violence to settle grievances. If we are incorrect, send us passages where Jesus instructed his followers to allocate resources for weapon systems, rather than use that money to feed or clothe the poor and needy. War has been part of human society since historians have recorded history. What makes our current situation different is that we have a president in the White House who claims to be a "born-again" Christian. George W Bush makes it clear he is a man of principle, a man who follows his convictions rather than listening to the polls, and he told all of us he takes his directions from God. Former president Jimmy Carter, for example, is a Baptist ... While he is deeply spiritual, he separated his religious life from his secular role as commander-in-chief. Senator [John] Kerry is a Roman Catholic, yet he believes religiosity should not be openly displayed in the White House. We don't criticize George W Bush for holding religious principles. We don't ridicule him for claiming to have deep convictions about the teachings of Jesus Christ. We simply challenge him now to live by his beliefs. Jesus did not kill kids. Jesus did not "flip-flop" or waver on this principle. Mr Bush, if you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, as you claim, then stop the murderous bombing and violence that is going on in Fallujah. Jesus did not bomb kids!
Scott (Nov 12, '04)

The above letter was sent to Syed Saleem Shahzad in response to his November 11 article A cry from the mosque. A version of the letter was previously posted under the title "Jesus bombs kids" on http://www.abq4kerry.com, a website supportive of unsuccessful US presidential candidate John Kerry. - ATol


Another fabulous article by Pepe Escobar (Nov 12), A thousand Fallujahs. He exposes US lies and propaganda unlike anyone else. Thanks for calling the Iraqi freedom fighters at least "Iraqi resistance" and not "insurgents" like they are called by the US and its cronies around the world. They are true freedom fighters fighting a brutal and barbaric military machine that is no different than [Adolf] Hitler's invading armies. And please stop calling the Bush regime an "administration". He doesn't deserve such a respectable term. After all, he won [election] both times by fraud and election rigging.
Razia Khan (Nov 12, '04)


Pepe Escobar's biased reporting fails to appreciate the difficult choices that have to be made by countries [A thousand Fallujahs, Nov 12]. After [September 11, 2001] it was felt by many in the USA, and not just brainwashed, oil-hungry, religious fundamentalists, that an avidly antagonistic Arab government would be potentially disastrous for the safety of its citizens. Mistakenly, the American government thought he [Iraqi president Saddam Hussein] had WMD [weapons of mass destruction] already, but what is true is that he did have desires to purchase them from North Korea. By all accounts, he was a cruel tyrant who was loved only by the Sunni majority who benefited from his rule, and from the Palestinian terrorists he helped fund. And since democracies rarely attack other democracies, the US government felt it worth the risks to remove him and to try and install a democracy. It was not a conquest for territory, not a grab for oil (when will the persistently high gasoline prices in the USA finally convince doubters that the USA has not benefited from Iraqi oil?), and was supported by both the majority of Americans and politicians as diverse as John Kerry, Tony Blair and John McCain. One can certainly argue whether it should have taken place, but if one argues the contrary then one has to be confronted with several questions: 1) Do the Iraqis deserve a democratic government? If it is felt that the Iraqis do not deserve a democratic government, one has to explain why they are that different from those in the world who do. 2) Was Iraq better off under Saddam? Many, including Pepe Escobar, feel that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is today, with the war and chaos, yet they oddly do not argue for letting Saddam go free and reinstalling him as head of state. This is still a viable alternative but I have yet to read one person recommend this, yet many still argue that he should not have been removed. 3) If Iraqis do deserve a democracy, how could they obtain it without the help of the US military? Money, prayer, happy thoughts? Sorry, they haven't worked in the past. All the money that Iraq got from the oil-for-food program went straight to Saddam's pockets. Pepe Escobar ... apparently prefers one-party Sunni minority rule than an attempt at a national democracy, and his hatred for the USA is so strong that he prefers the beheaders and kidnappers over those attempting to bring about Iraq's first presidential election. The truth is that Pepe's anti-American bias led him to get it wrong with Afghanistan and has caused him to support the wrong side in the Iraqi war. If he had been alive in 1941, he undoubtedly would have supported Germany.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Nov 12, '04)

As usual you voice the standard neo-conservative line eloquently, but also as usual, you seem incapable of looking beyond the immediate and the obvious (Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator; democracy is very nice and Iraqis deserve it) to the longer-term principles put at risk by US adventurism, such as the concept that big powerful military machines shouldn't attack small basket-case countries just because they don't approve of their governments, or that democratic governments shouldn't lie to their people about why they are taking them to war. Your argument about soaring gasoline prices is a case in point; is this a factor of US altruism (we must save the Iraqis from Saddam even though it might bankrupt a few SUV owners) or yet another miscalculation by the neo-con war merchants? - ATol


[Re Pyrrhic victory in Iraq, Nov 11] I know nothing about war but I am 70 so have seen a few people in my life - I would think our DOD [US Department of Defense] could see this. My friends and I talk about what a foolish move this is for our military to make. It is like boxing up smoke. Underground fighters have always acted like this so why would they do it any different now? It is also an abstract thing that is being fought for. Somehow the people trying to "rule" just do not seem to understand that. They never seem to understand people do not like to be "ruled" by others than themselves. Don't people ever learn?
Jo Laughton
Maine, USA (Nov 12, '04)


[Re Pyrrhic victory in Iraq, Nov 11] Your [B Raman] argument that the US should stop all offensives until after Ramadan is over is preposterous. War is going on in Iraq. Muslims never stopped beheading or kidnapping in Ramadan month. Why you were drumming while those who should do it keep silence? You are a typical coward Hindu devoid of any vision. You don't know the ground realities. Please don't talk on behalf of Muslims. There are many Muslims for that. Can you deny that if the US were not here, the whole Middle East would have been on fire since a long time? Please don't write rubbish only to appease Muslims. Even the Iraqis here are telling me that the US should finish off the insurgents - while you are barking from Chennai only to appease terrorist Muslims.
Balakrishnan
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (Nov 12, '04)


Just to say thanks for your excellent article on Fallujah [Pyrrhic victory in Iraq, Nov 11]. To some of us in Britain, this has been horrifying. [The members of] this administration think they are "realists" - but the quality of their realism seems to be akin to that of General [Reginald] Dyer, who thought [he could] stop Indian nationalism by shooting into crowds. To see a Labour government endorsing this kind of thuggish stupidity is really a matter for national shame. I look forward to reading many more of your articles.
David Habakkuk (Nov 12, '04)


James Borton: I liked to read your article [Jimmy Lai, the media typhoon, Nov 11] and I think it was well organized. Frankly speaking, I do not appreciate Jimmy Lai's personality. In my opinion, he is more like a brazen businessman. Regarding press freedom, I think a press that desires to contribute to democracy in society must have more social responsibilities. Although there are still many problems in China's media market, I hope to read more positive reporting that helps the media reform in China.
Luo Yunjuan (Nov 12, '04)


According to Jerry Everett [letter, Nov 11, Pepe] Escobar's Satan hides in a hospital [Nov 11] "is most biased" - but he doesn't say how. And [he] says that Escobar is "a terrorist sympathizer" - but provides no evidence for the allegation; instead, he overlooks the evidence that the majority of the "insurgents" in Iraq are Iraqis. I wonder what Mr Everett would do if the US were invaded and occupied; if he joined the resistance to that occupation, would that make him a "terrorist"? And [Dennis] Castle [letter, Nov 11] is at it again: repeating the US's self-serving claims about "hostage slaughterhouses", without objective evidence for the claims, as means to avoid the issue of the US's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Clearly, "Evangelical" Castle has no regard for morality, when such would get in the way of name-calling: there is no evidence that "foreign terrorists" are responsible for the alleged "hostage slaughterhouses"; but that doesn't cause Mr Castle to pause for thought; everything is right in the world so long as [US President George W] Bush is engaged in mass killing of people obscured behind his dirt-word labels. I think it can be inferred exactly the role Mr Everett and Mr Castle would play were the US invaded and occupied: they would join the occupiers and call their former countrymen dirty names - "terrorists" will do, though I'll bet when overly ecstatic at the bloodshed they'll likely let slip their synonym "communist" - as excuse to kill them. Any name-calling will do to excuse killing civilians so long as the persons doing the name-calling and killing are far, far from the battle, and calling themselves "Evangelical" "Christians". Oh, how wrong "the Lord" was when He thought His word of God would be obeyed by the professedly God-fearing. Jason Bailey [letter, Nov 10] writes of Escobar's The real fury of Fallujah [Nov 10] as being "... insensitive, uninformed, and ignorant". You provide no evidence, or even argument, to support of your allegations, Mr Bailey. Can we look forward to a supplemental volume of your brief, fact-free squib?
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 12, '04)


Sadly, many Indian nationalists here [on the Letters page] increasingly resemble Americans in terms of their "humanitarian" posturing and propaganda. Amit Sharma and Minu [both Nov 10], for example, lash out against other nations or religions (which happen to be Indian rivals) in order to divert attention from India's occupation of Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland and Bodoland - all of which have militant independent struggles fighting against Indian repression at this very moment. Just this week, India stepped up yet another military attack on rebels in the northeast, akin to a similar offensive launched earlier this year with the help of Bhutan. Since the late 1980s, 80,000 Kashmiris - the vast majority of them Muslim - have been killed by the Indian army. This Indian war against Kashmir continues today, with military and intelligence aid from the USA and Israel. Sharma attempts to demonize Pakistani support of this struggle as "terrorism", but refuses to admit that it is merely a response to the terror of Indian occupation. This is the essential ground reality that no amount of manipulative rhetoric about "democracy or freedom" can disguise, despite the best efforts of international corporate media (like ATol) to whitewash these issues away. As for the strategic partnership between India and the USA, one has only to look at Sultan Shahin's November 6 article to see the fawning response of Indian rulers to the re-election of George W Bush as the proof of this alliance. On every phony issue from WMD [weapons of mass destruction] proliferation to "terrorism" to missile defense, haven't these self-proclaimed world's leading democracies lined up shoulder to shoulder? Finally, the funniest comment must be awarded to Aruni Mukherjee [Nov 11], who proclaims that the "stage will be set for the peaceful people of India to take up their place at the helm of the world community". If only George Bush and Tony Blair could be so morally strident.
DP (Nov 12, '04)

For a new Asia Times Online analysis on Kashmir, see Kashmir coup for India. - ATol


I can understand DP's patriotic compulsions to defend China [letter, Nov 9]. But before they accuse the letter writers as anti-Chinese they must realize that criticizing China's communist regime cannot be extended outrightly as an anti-Chinese act. By that logic there are many Indian/American writers committing treason every day. DP/Frank, welcome to the world of democracy and freedom, and I know it will be hard for you to face and digest the truth. The reds may control the destiny of the state but it is an illegitimate regime since it never bothered to seek the approval of its people for its policies and programs. The critics of Islamic fundamentalists cannot be brushed aside blindly and branded as anti-Muslim. Both the unrepresentative Islamic terrorists [and the] communist regime usurp the power of the religion/state and use it for their narrow purpose. Beijing feels that as long as it can control the outflow of news from its troubled regions, the world will not come to notice it. With the advent of the information explosion, Beijing does not have the monopoly on news and it is really hard pressed in its war on information. The world has not forgotten how a tiny SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] virus nearly scarred the outmoded regime (yes, shaken but not demolished). The cloak of mystery and secrecy that the ruling reds normally operate under made it easier for the disease to spread and ultimately brought Beijing to its knees. The virus had no mercy, neither on the people nor on the administration that it dealt with. Hong Kong has not recovered economically since the outbreak of the disease. The real strength of a state lies in its ability to face and overcome its crisis. With the majority of the population out of the decision-making process, how could a modern state face its social, cultural and political challenges and find a durable solution? Indonesia and Iraq had a "peaceful" past under totalitarian regimes before they crumbled and are in a mess now. We have seen how the collapse of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe had the communists running for their life ... When China's economic engine slows down, then all the suppressed problems will reappear. It is a pity that the greatest economic miracle in history will end with the bloodiest political turmoil that the world will have ever dealt with.
Kannan (Nov 12, '04)


Daniel McCarthy [letter, Nov 11] is undoubtedly one of the 59 million silly fools who cannot tell the difference between a hypocrite and a saint. Yet he has the gall to write, "Until China has freedom of information, freedom of thought, and real education instead of more silly propaganda memorization, we cannot expect much more." As letter writer Sandy Lambrecht mentioned, Americans seem to think they are a master race, justified to look down on every other people around the world. Su Shi, Du Fu, Ferdowsi, Cervantes, Thomas More and countless other brilliant men of letters around the world lived in societies where the "freedom of information and thought" was limited or non-existent. It is a cruel joke of history that troubled times tend to produce the most gifted of men. If you doubt this, then offer an example of any writer or thinker now in Taiwan or Hong Kong who can hold a handle to those in 1920s and 1930s China, which was racked by dictatorship, invasion, civil war, and social revolution. China today has far to go in improving its education system, but there are many talented people who are not simple robots churned out by some imaginary totalitarian propaganda machine. Mr McCarthy "misunderestimates" China if he thinks their "children isn't learning". Why, the typical Chinese university graduate has better English abilities than the Harvard/Yale-educated president of the US.
G Travan
California, USA (Nov 12, '04)


Daniel McCarthy [letter, Nov 11] has finally learned that to go to war takes a great deal of preparation. Examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are telling. It [would] not take many days of missile firing to turn Taiwan into chaos and ruin. It is pointless to pour money into reconstruction and huge efforts in pacifying a portion of a diehard population. Rather, it is best to communicate, befriend, and win over the hearts and minds of the people. Economic and cultural exchanges are taking place. Improved governance in China is continuing. Only some desperate and indiscriminate acts of challenge from Taiwan would precipitate a hastened war bringing catastrophic losses on the people in Taiwan.
Fung Por
USA (Nov 12, '04)


To Unfortunate Frank of Seattle (letter, Nov 8): When white men set foot in the Americas and killed to expand their territories, that was unjustifiable slaughter. When the ancestral "native Americans" did the same over a period of thousands of years, it was AOK - just some all-in-the-racial-family bloodletting. Since it's okay for "native Americans", but not whites, to slaughter others and usurp their land, "native Americans" are the true owners of the Americas, and all other races who live in the Americas are their guests. Does that about sum it up, Frank? By the way, since you consider yourself a guest of the "native Americans", it would be more accurate to say you are an "uninvited guest". So if you have any intention of living in accordance with your principles, you should immediately search out "native Americans" everywhere, because you owe them years of back rent. And since a large number of my ancestors were from Algonquin tribes of upstate New York and Quebec, you can send me the first check. Lastly, your incoherent comment that I have somehow justified my ancestors' slaughter of "native Americans" shows that you are from the George W Bush school of debating: When you can't deal with the subject, change it. The only one implicitly justifying slaughter is you, Frank. Why are you so afraid to deal with the pre-Columbian history of "native Americans" and their mutual slaughters and conquests? Why do you only care about white conquest of "native Americans", and not the thousands of years of conquests in the Americas that occurred prior to the white man's arrival? That's an indefensible, bigoted attitude, don't you think, Frank?
Geoffrey Sherwood
Montville, New Jersey (Nov 12, '04)


I agree with the ATol editor's comments regarding dogs [under Frank's letter of Nov 11]. White people love their dogs. In many rich white families, white people's dogs live a better life than many poor Asians. Because of that, some dogs may think they are equal to their masters. In the parking lot of American shopping malls, you will often see a dog sit on the driving seat imitating (or mimicking?) his masters. I am sure those dogs living in the shining part of the gated India have better lives than the poor Indians who do not mimic. The only problem is that those whites never regarded their dogs or servants as equal. They will not hesitate to throw the dog or servant out of the vehicle if the dog refuses to move. If being white men's best friends is the dream of those English-speaking East Indian elites, I think Indians should be proud of themselves. However, I think the majority of poor Indians prefer to speak in their mother [tongues] and live a plain life with dignity. I am sure most Indian people are proud of who they are and what their ancestors did, not what their white masters did. They may be poor, do not have gated dogloos and cannot mimic their white masters properly; however, they are their own masters. Those Indians are the people we should respect [to], not those dogs. Not respecting dogs does not make me hate their white masters. Rakesh and Louis X IV [letters, Nov 11] should take a logic lesson outside of the obedience school. On a different subject, Aruni Mukherjee [letter, Nov 11] forgets India created the worst enemies, [its] neighbors.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 12, '04)


ATol, thank you so much for publishing the "dog"-matic musings of one self-proclaimed anthropologist, canine specialist, China's "best" public relations expert in the US, Asia's cultural spokesman, Taiwan basher, Indian history and language pundit - Frank [letter, Nov 11]. He always helps lighten up the grim political discussions with his awesome sense of humor cunningly disguised as incisive analysis of world affairs and human nature. But don't you think it is more appropriate to publish his hilarious daily pronouncements under a Comic, Jokes or Satire section than in this tepid political letters section, where views and opinions are hotly debated on Iraq, terrorism etc? Readers worrying over troubling issues can go to this section and cheer up by reading Frank's columns.
Sri
New York, USA (Nov 12, '04)

We suspect Frank wouldn't be alone for long - everyone would want to be published in the Jokes section and we wouldn't get any grim, tepid letters for the Letters page. - ATol


Its amusing watching CNN gloat over France's actions in Ivory Coast. However, you must remember that French citizens were being attacked and killed by mobs of uncontrolled citizens. France had to make a move to prevent every French person in Ivory Coast from being killed. [US President George W] Bush would have done no different. He would have taken the country over just like Iraq. How can you even compare this to the US unilateral attack on a country like Iraq that did not put one American citizen in the same situation the French in Ivory Coast are in right now? Of course, I know the history with Ivory Coast and how France ruled it. No different than what Britain has done in the past, for example, creating a "Liberal" Canada that I call home. Creating democracies is something the USA has never been able to do with any success. Why? Because [of] USA heavy-handedness, needless slaughter of innocent people and the "it's my way or the highway!" attitude of American foreign policy. The White House knows it all, and their only way is to kill 'em all, just like what the USA tried to do to us North American Indians. The USA has promoted terrorism against indigenous peoples in Central and South America, since the Cuba crisis and before. The USA created Saddam [Hussein], [Osama] bin Laden and many others by CIA- [Central Intelligence Agency] sponsored terror and direct US government intervention. So who is the real terrorist? Not too hard to figure that out, huh? You have nothing to gloat about. I feel for the Iraqi people, who had nothing to do with the September 11 [2001] crisis; putting the blame on Saddam is a real lame excuse now that we know he had nothing but hot air. Why do you all cheer on the continued killing of innocent Iraqis and its defenders? Bush is responsible for all the terror in Iraq today. Before the US occupation, any terrorist would have had his butt kicked out by Saddam. Any terrorists around Iraq when Saddam was in power were living under US protection in the no-fly zones. The brutality is twofold today in Iraq. US superior weaponry slaughters mainly innocents and kills defenders of Iraq from the sky, taking with them women and children. US propaganda is also brutal in how they have helped Bush suppress the truth in Iraq. The White House controls the media with threats of "you're either with us or against us" ... All I want to see is America say, "We are sorry our president made a big mistake; we will pack up and go home." Then the terror will stop in Iraq. Really, it's that simple, and someone like simpleton Bush just can't get it. I say impeach Bush.
M J Durocher, LLB
Canada (Nov 12, '04)

Regarding the CNN report mentioned in this letter, Tom Engelhardt of Tomdispatch writes: "The other day CNN had a report on the recent actions of the French military in Ivory Coast. In the headline and the subsequent report, the French were lambasted for their 'hypocrisy' in opposing US actions in Iraq and yet acting like the former colonial masters they are in Ivory Coast. I assure you, however, that you can search the US press or television in vain for a single report that might link the word 'hypocrisy' to the Bush administration for any of its actions. It's just not in our journalistic dictionary, and that dictionary ensures that, even as our leaders push ever further into the age of extremism ... it's nearly impossible for American readers to grasp the extremity of the situation." - ATol


You are truly nothing but an anti-American mouthpiece. I hope you don't look to us when the big bad wolf is knocking on your door.
Jimmy (Nov 12, '04)


"Iraqis, Arabs, 1.3 billion Muslims, the majority of European public opinion and decent Americans won't be fooled - again" [Pepe Escobar, Satan hides in a hospital, Nov 11]. Ahhh, Pepe, I fear they will. And as the world has clearly shown to date, those [who] aren't simply do not care enough to do anything. If there is to be a solution it will have to come from the ground up. Ultimately it will have to be the people of Iraq who say "enough", and fight, as they are doing. The sad fact is that in these early stages they are alone while a bloated and lazy West watches. And ... don't forget the oil, fellas, that is where you have the US by the balls.
Graeme Mills
Australia (Nov 11, '04)


[Re Satan hides in a hospital, Nov 11] Has he come to Earth? Is it George Bush or his puppeteer, Ariel Sharon?
R T Carpenter
Florida, USA (Nov 11, '04)


The guy who wrote [Satan hides in a hospital, Nov 11] is most biased. He obviously is a terrorist sympathizer. Publishing his article translates to your biases as well.
Jerry Everett (Nov 11, '04)


The same day ATol published Pepe Escobar's Satan hides in a hospital (Nov 11), Iraqi troops discovered the hostage slaughterhouses in Fallujah. Genuflecting to the foreign terrorists who regularly behead the locals and anyone else they can lay their hands on, Mr Escobar in his article romanticized their allegiance and goals in what can only be called a sentimental fiction. Using spurious data from dubious sources and quoting the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist organizations, he proves his hope is that Iraq reverts to a land where terrorists roam free and their population is forever brutalized. The goal of the United States was to remove a hated dictator and now it is to make certain that a similar tyrant does not take his place. Like the Afghans, the Iraqi people will rally to the upcoming elections and claim their nation as their own and remove any legitimacy the terrorists now claim to be anything other than the desperate dead-enders they truly are. All the terrorists can do is kill and destroy. It is the brave Iraqi citizens, her troops and America beside them who are the keys to building a hopeful future. And it is Pepe Escobar who hopes they fail.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Nov 11, '04)

Removing Saddam Hussein may have been a "goal" of the US invasion, but the longer-term purpose of that removal has still not been made clear. Certainly it is fatuous to suggest that it was to save the Iraqi people from terrorism, as that scourge is far more prevalent in Iraq now than it was before the invasion - with no end in sight, unfortunately. - ATol


I have read this article saying that there is no credible evidence that Fallujah is overrun with terrorists [Satan hides in a hospital, Nov 11]. Well, I would like to know who is shooting, who is planting roadside bombs, who is sniping at the US and allied forces, who is taking and beheading hostages, and who is making all the car bombs? Do you call them "friendlies"? As long as you print this crap people will believe you. Maybe you can enlighten me on the hostage and slaughterhouses that have been found in Fallujah - along with tapes, CDs etc. Take your head out of the sand, put away your biases, and join the human race.
Lynne Bowsky
A concerned American Citizen (Nov 11, '04)

Were these CDs of mass destruction? - ATol


I would just like to congratulate Pepe Escobar for producing what I feel to be the best article on the battle for Fallujah on the Internet [The real fury of Fallujah, Nov 10]. I am a trained journalist myself, so I can certainly appreciate talent.
Barry Sheen (Nov 11, '04)


I estimate that [in] total the US media organizations must spend at least several million US dollars a day. And as Pepe Escobar's articles are more accurate and timely than the total of the US media, I assume you are paying him an equal amount? (Tell Pepe he owes me a beer for this letter.)
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 11, '04)


Dear [B Raman]: Your [Nov 11] article regarding the US operation in Iraq [Another pyrrhic victory] is correct in my view. The marines liken this battle to that for Hue in Vietnam. The Americans conquered Hue, and lost Vietnam. The US thinking of that period pervades again, with the same result. Most important, and widely ignored, it took five years for the Vietnamese to gain sufficient strength to take Hue. It took about a year for the Iraqis to wrest control of the central cities. Also ignored, Iran's weapon of mass destruction will be its new oil bourse. That market will trade oil for gold dinars, effectively ending dollar hegemony. That will spell the end of US dominance. No one speaks of this. Yet it is coming. Your views?
Dr George W Oprisko
Dean of International Programs
Shenzhen University, China (Nov 11, '04)


Your article [Another pyrrhic victory, Nov 11] is biased. The United States and its allies aren't the ones that have proclaimed Iraq a "holy war", it was the radical Islamic terrorists, and this war is against them, not the people of Islam. You must be a terrorist in disguise, weak and [cowardly] like the terrorists who slaughter innocent people, and the free people of Iraq that are also fighting these terrorists. I'm sure you will put them in the same category as the Americans. You and the terrorists are the real problem.
Stephen Masse (Nov 11, '04)


[Re Another pyrrhic victory, Nov 11] It is my perception that the hype created through the media about the upcoming and current US forces activity in Fallujah was created for the purpose of attracting insurgents to confront the US there in Fallujah - of course all the illusion and "misinformation" you allude to are just that, misinformation. We are in a war, after all ...
Mark (Nov 11, '04)


Dear B Raman: In response to your article [Another pyrrhic victory, Nov 11] I would like to remind you of one factor. The attack [on Fallujah] was at the insistence of the current government of Iraq and not the decision of the United States or the Bush administration ... You would be far more credible if you would stick to the simple, plain, boring truth. You do yourself and your cause a disservice by not sticking to the facts and using such inflammatory language and utterly false accusations. If you want people to believe you and follow your lead you need to be both honest and transparent, let the information sell itself. All you can do is continue trying to make the US the bad guy on a global level; however, one day this will implode upon your side of the story and the groups that you represent. Your side will be the object of much aggression once the truth be known throughout the Muslim world - the Muslim Arab world where a real revolution is on the rise but will not be directed at America, no, it will be at the true oppressors of Muslims, other Muslims (current royal families and despotic dictators). It is such a shame that the US is always willing to help other countries at the expense of our taxpaying citizens. We send billions of dollars annually throughout the world to assist less developed countries and it seems like the media in all of the countries we help work against us 100% of the time. Imagine how much worse it would be in many of these countries without our aid, honestly if you are capable. Perhaps we should stop helping and allow for most of these countries to implode into lawless, barbaric countries like the Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, the former Afghanistan and any other lawless place where oppression rules. It is utterly astonishing that the US, a country with equality between men and women, total freedom of speech and religion, is always the bad guy as opposed to countries where men and women do not have equal rights, where you do not have true freedom of speech nor the freedom to practice any religion anywhere and enjoy protection under the law. Astonishing. You need to wake up. Also, the Iraqi oil is non-issue - there is less than three to four years' worth of oil left on the planet, soon enough we will no longer use oil and will be using fuel cells, hydrogen power and other alternative forms of energy. What will be the excuse when the Middle East falls off into obscurity as the world drifts away from oil use? How will the Arabs react to becoming totally insignificant as oil is phased out? Imagine how the world will respond to Middle East issues then, as the Middle East will be as important as Tibet after China invaded, the world will do nothing but ignore the Middle East as it will have no value to France, Germany etc - Has the Dalai Lama been back to Tibet since 1948? Has the UN done anything at all to help the Dalai Lama or the plight of the Buddhist people? Where is your outrage? Are you just a hypocrite? I ask you again, where is the outrage?
Joel Schaffer (Nov 11, '04)


Dear [B Raman]: I read your article Another pyrrhic victory [Nov 11] and I have a question: Are you mentally retarded?
Andrei Vinicescu (Nov 11, '04)


[B] Raman, you are correct 100% [Another pyrrhic victory, Nov 11]. it is a shame that the US and the majority of its citizens are so arrogant. I do believe that what they do is calculated. Also, I believe that the strategy to create hegemony in the region will not stop at anything. It is a shame that the UN only watches from the sidelines and takes a position of submission.
Pcprepress (Nov 11, '04)


The recent article of Ruo Yu (Peace with Taiwan is possible [Nov 9]) translated from an antonymous Chinese communist official may strike a new cord in asking for China to annex Taiwan later rather than sooner. The article realistically states, "However, the war, if there has to be one, will not be possible in the year 2006 or 2008, considering the existing strength of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), the armed forces of the PRC [People's Republic of China] ... At a conservative estimate, it will take at least 20 years from now for the mainland to prepare for war." This is a refreshing dose of reality and a break from the mindless yet false repetition from most pro-annexation writers that China can take over Taiwan at any time. Unfortunately, the article gets the history of Taiwan's status wrong, but that must be expected of people who underwent propagandization in their school years rather than education. Until China has freedom of information, freedom of thought, and real education instead of more silly propaganda memorization, we cannot expect much more.
Daniel McCarthy (Nov 11, '04)


I've been reading Spengler's ['It's the culture, stupid', Nov 5] and others' remarks about how "moral values" won George Bush the Younger the recent [US presidential] election. Yet upon inspection, these "moral values" appear to be merely a few sexual and religious prejudices. Most of the Ten Commandments don't apply anymore, it appears. Bush the Younger bears false witness, covets his neighbors' goods, kills, and it does not matter to the evangelicals. They appear to have given up the classic Protestant tenet, salvation through divine grace, for one of works, thus becoming not very different from the despised Muslims. They lack the artistic heritage, though.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Nov 11, '04)


Thanks to Walter Robinson (letter, Nov 10) and Tim Bancroft (letter, Nov 9) for pointing out my error in characterizing the Disciples of Christ as born-again. With 137 major American religious denominations it is understandable - if not excusable - for an Asia Times Online columnist to get turned around in the forest.
Spengler (Nov 11, '04)


The conclusion made by David Fullbrook in his article So long US; hello China, India [Nov 4] can be summed up in one sentence - China's boom is probably the world's greatest, ever. As night follows day, bust follows boom. A bust to match China's, or even India's, boom will shatter the evolving geopolitical reality, bringing much instability for Southeast Asia, while creating an opportunity for a weaker, but stable, United States of America. Unfortunately for him, this boils down to reaching far bigger conclusions without any considerable analysis to back his views. Firstly, a bust does not have to be necessarily comparable to the boom a country experiences. The Industrial Revolution has shown us that the boom can be spread out over a longer period and different patterns of growth can be identified, some of which are short-term, while others much more long-term. Economic policies of Europe, Japan and the US reflect the gradualist approach of economic development after sizzling boom during their developing period. Secondly, although we can argue China to be the potentially "boom prone" economy of Asia, in no way can this be said of India. China has grown on excessive and futile government spending, too much dependence on foreign-based corporations, suppression of alternate views by a ruthless governmental structure and by a "herd behavior" by foreign speculators. Its capital markets are shuddery, its banks are a mess, the rural areas which are hidden from the world speak volume of the misery rife in the countryside and its nuclear arsenal pointing at half a dozen countries speak of its political nature. India, though much slower at generating growth, grows under a functioning democracy, domestic companies, domestic investment and a retreating government. India has mature and stable capital markets and a strong banking sector. It shows all the right trends to become a liberalized economy over the past 15 years as the government has consistently, albeit slowly, pursued economic reform. China has been more of a spurt - India is more of an ever-flowing river. Secondly, China has many more political enemies than India and is more prone to going to war than the latter. The world is [starkly] different to what Mr Fullbrook sees it to be - the most likely scenario would be a mutually destructive war between the United States and China in the future as a result of China's ambitions clashing with the US's reluctance to share the superpower tag. This would leave the world without a core state, an attracting pole. The stage will be set for the peaceful people of India to take up their place at the helm of the world community, and so they shall.
Aruni Mukherjee
University of Warwick, England (Nov 11, '04)


Frank [letter, Nov 10] says China is not perfect, and expects us all to give that concession, but obviously refuses to give the same concession to India. He claims he hasn't read a single letter "effectively debating" his points. Well, any sane reader who takes the time to simply scroll down or look in your archives will be able to find letters from numerous individuals that have specifically blown each of his racist anti-Indian accusations related to language, culture, DNA and whatnot to bits, based on facts and reasoning, both of which he seems to be quite allergic to. I guess Frankie boy lives in his own dreamworld, one in which China is supposed to avenge for all its past wrongs by maligning Indians, whom he uniformly sees as "servants" of his pet peeve (the "white masters"). He revels in equating India with Africa, and maligning both as former colonies, with the expectation that that will make Indians feel bad, but quite unmindful of the racist connotations that carries towards both Africa and India (both of which are actually fairly diverse continents with people of varying color, language and religion). It seems, in order to earn Frank's approval, all English-speaking Indians [who] appear to be the principal objects of his hatred are required to unlearn English, dump democracy, freedom of press and other forms of free expression, somehow establish genetic closeness to Chinese, develop a violent (or at least a severe non-violent) antipathy to the "white people", and possibly reward one state from its northern areas to friendly Aunt China next door, every year. Interesting.
Rakesh
India (Nov 11, '04)


I read with amusement Frank's comments, or should I say rants, on November 9. He sounds very jealous of the fact that the Indians speak English well and tries to reconcile with the fact by labeling it as a legacy of their white masters. Frank may need a lesson in history and geography. Indians have adopted English as their lingua franca (in simple terms a common language to communicate with each other) as there is a multitude of languages in India. As to his comment that they imitate their white masters, the correct term is "mimic" and not "imitate". I am sure I will be labeled elitist but I shall be happy that I educated someone on the correct usage of the language. It is clear from his comments that 1) he is Chinese 2) hates the white race and their civilization. Maybe Frank is still living in the Middle Kingdom. He may be right that the Indians are close to the whites. After all, they belong to the same anthropological division - Caucasoid. The whites are the fair Caucasoid and the Indians (with the Semites - Arabs, Jews) are the dark Caucasoid.
Louis X IV
New York, New York (Nov 11, '04)

In most common usage, "mimic" and "imitate" are synonyms. - ATol


Dirtydog from San Francisco [letter, Nov 10] is apparently not an Asian. Most Asians refer to the persons who do not have respect [for] themselves, their family and their own kind or race as dogs. Dogs will attack anybody, including their own kind, under the command of their masters. Dogs follow their masters around wiggling their tails for a piece of bone. Dogs like to jump on the driver's seat and dream about being equal to their masters when their masters are shopping at Wal-Mart. However, in return, their masters will not hesitate to throw the dog out of the vehicle to show [it] who are the masters. They use dogs as lab animals for DNA research. I do not think that is the kind of person that Dirtydog wants to be. However, I appreciate Dirty Dog's's awareness that Indian people need to love and respect their own culture and heritage. Most of the people regardless of their color will look up to those who respect their own kind.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 11, '04)

Scroll down and take a look at the caninical musings of Sun King and S K Li to expand your definition of "dog" beyond what you claim is the "Asian" view. In the West in particular but in parts of Asia as well, the dog is often thought of as man's best friend, and in many Western communities dogs are treated better than people. Or so we've heard; as we said, we are cat lovers at ATol. - ATol


In his letter of November 9 James McGill wrote [of the] "United States and our effort to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East". May I ask whether peace and democracy exist in the USA? Remember Colin Powell had to withdraw his presidential [bid] for fear of assassination by white extremists. I wonder [how a] country where the media and government are tremendously influenced by the [National] Rifle Association and arms merchants will establish democracy in other countries, specially in the Middle East where they are killing innocent children in thousands ... in Iraq and by helping Zionists to kill Palestinians for more than half a century.
Dr Mahboob Hossain
Niigata University of Pharmacy
Niigata, Japan (Nov 11, '04)


A quick glance in the mirror each morning and [James] McGill [letter, Nov 10] will know who his worst enemy is.
Phil Shouldice (Nov 11, '04)


Beth [letter, Nov 9], clearly you are slighted by my response to you for I see you making pointed attempts to needle me, nay rattle me, with what you perceive is your in-depth knowledge of Hinduism. So what is with this "Lord Varuna's heritage" and the "third Veda", which in your dictionary would be the Sama Veda I presume, pray, elucidate. If you want to debate Hindu philosophy you are most welcome and we can take that discussion off the ATol letters section, since this is decidedly a political forum, but if you are attempting to bluster by tossing words like "the third Veda" and "Lord Varuna's heritage", then you have failed. In my response to you, I had identified how Kashmir or Kashyapa Mira, as it was originally known, had its Hindu antecedents from the Sage Kashyapa. And in that you see [letter writer T] Kiani understanding the third Veda (an interesting chronological definition of the Vedas) better than I would and my having expounded on Lord Varuna's heritage? Huh? I am glad you found my story on the Aryans very entertaining. Actually it is a factual "story" based on reading works by genuine Indologists who coincidentally happen to be non-commie Indians. I won't hold my breath waiting to get an objective response since that was clearly deficient in your understanding of what I had written you.
Sri
New York, USA (Nov 11, '04)


Pepe Escobar asks, "What will be achieved by turning Fallujah into Grozny? Absolutely nothing positive for the US" [The real fury of Fallujah, Nov 10]. But if the real purpose of this Iraq war is not actually to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, but instead to provoke a clash of civilizations for one or more of [US President George W] Bush's major clients - Likud, fundamentalist Christians, the weapons industry - then the invasion of Fallujah will work like a charm. There is no more reason to believe the Bush administration when it speaks of its intention to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq then when it spoke of the threat of imminent nuclear attack from Iraq, or of Saddam [Hussein]'s connections to al-Qaeda. It is an administration with its own hidden agenda. What is "positive for the US" in a country so deeply divided? Operationally, it often enough is that which benefits a handful of insiders at the expense of the rest of us.
R Winter
USA (Nov 10, '04)


Re Pepe's "article" The real fury of Fallujah [Nov 10]. Besides being insensitive, uninformed, and ignorant, I think he described his writing best: "duly brainwashed by a barrage of propaganda and spin". I am very unimpressed at his article, and yourselves for giving him a voice.
Jason Bailey (Nov 10, '04)


To Pepe Escobar: As one who lives in the belly of the beast, I want to thank you for your perceptive, knowledgeable, and sensitive articles [see The Roving Eye: Best of Escobar]. For over two years now, I have been reading your work at Asia Times Online. Your work has been an invaluable counter to the "news" that passes for information in the American media. I often forward your articles to a couple of list serves that I am on, often receiving several thank-you notes for doing so. I hope your articles are moving some others of my fellow Yankees to a realization of the insanity of our foreign policy, and especially our military actions abroad. I cannot tell you of the sorrow that I feel when reading of the actions taken by "my" government in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in every other instance of American foreign policy (too numerous to list) which have served as continuing instances of US diplomacy by force, by killing. Also, I want to thank Asia Times for providing you with the medium for your incisive journalism. I only wish that I could stop this insanity, stop the murdering of "others", stop the destructive tantrums of this malignant society.
Joseph Sweet
Ithaca, New York (Nov 10, '04)


[Re No carrots, all stick in Iraq, Nov 9] Thank you for your biased attempt to undermine the United States and our effort to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East. It's always good to know who one's enemies are.
James McGill
Manzanita, Oregon (Nov 10, '04)


Dear [Syed Saleem] Shahzad [Fanning the flames of resistance, Nov 9]: How I wish that the Iraqis and Arab people could understand that despite the fact that [President George W] Bush appears to have won re-election by the majority of American voters, there is ample evidence, and growing daily, that the election was rigged and stolen. That at least half of this country [US] vehemently opposes the thoroughly unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq. And that despite what the mainstream corporate media report, that at least half of this country understands that while there are certainly a goodly number of foreign jihadists in Iraq fighting the coalition aggressors, the majority of so-called "insurgents" are in fact Iraqi citizen rebels fighting for national liberation - and that they have our support. It is my most fervent hope that somehow the gods (or Allah, if you will) will, though against all odds, provide the Fallujans with a victory over the coalition. Without some sort of victory, or at the least a tremendous blow - both politically and militarily - to the coalition, Bush & Co will feel even more empowered to move ever more arrogantly and aggressively against Iraq and other nations and peoples of the Middle East. The thought of this [US] administration gloating over a US victory over Fallujah sickens me to my very core, and my heart feels absolutely broken at the knowledge of all the tens of thousands of lost Iraqi lives, and all the more thousands yet to come. By nature I am a pacifist, so it is with an extremely heavy heart when I say that it seems the only way American public opinion will reach the fever pitch necessary to influence the military's actions against Fallujah and Iraq is for there to be a quick and decisive buildup of American casualties. Americans respond to numbers. Obviously not to Iraqi numbers, to Iraqi or Arab lives or casualties, oh, but they will, when the American numbers start adding up. So, if that is what it will take to put a stop to the slaughter of Iraq, that is what I must, regrettably, hope for.
Barbara (Nov 10, '04)


[Syed Saleem Shahzad]: I just finished reading your article on the support of Iraqi resistance throughout the Middle East [Fanning the flames of resistance, Nov 9]. My heart goes out to the valiant fighters trying to cast off the yoke of occupation. My country [US] is not in Iraq to "free" the people - [we] are in Iraq to control its energy resources. This is fundamentally unjust. However, so many of my countrymen and women are blind to this reality. They believe what the propagandistic corporate media tell them. US people are some of the most ignorant in the entire world. Keep up the very good reporting, and stay safe. Allah willing, the Iraqi people will be free of the oppressors and can work to rebuild the country without colonial influence. (It doesn't look good, however. A nuclear conflagration is the worst possible scenario. But with fanatics like [US President George W] Bush and [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon in power, it is a possibility.)
Steven Hunt (Nov 10, '04)


Congratulations on your superb site, and another great article by Spengler. His [Nov 9] article Power and the evangelical womb is quite perceptive. I am a life-long member of the "Churches of Christ" that he mentions in the table of the article. Churches of Christ and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) come from the same stem, separating about 1903 over issues about church organization and the role of the church in social benevolence. This is a simplification. The Churches of Christ (CC) have been the most conservative, at least so we thought, and I would think less "liberal" than Disciples of Christ, yet the table shows the reverse. It shows that Disciples of Christ (DC) are "born-again". Now both CC and DC are generally thought not to be "born again", since their theology of a new life is based on church rituals, not spiritual ecstasy. But is it possible that Mr Spengler has some information I don't. So generally I would say that Churches of Christ, while nowhere near being like the born-again churches shown (the top two-thirds of the chart, generally), are not generally know as liberal. They are orthodox, for sure. So "liberal" may just be a relative word. Disciples of Christ, on the other hand, could be classified as more liberal than Churches of Christ. But neither CC nor DC [is] "born again" in my opinion - at least not in the sense that other church groups use the term. We are faced with a [surge] of pre-millennial and Pentecostal movements that do threaten the traditional practices of both CC and DC. I don't think either DC or CC [is] friendly with gay marriage, but DC [is] decidedly more tolerant on the gay issue generally. CC does not support homosexual bishops, and I think they would have a difficult time at the DC church as well. DC may be a little friendlier to the Palestinians and to income distribution that CC. DC is a little more academic than CC, and much less sectarian than CC. But there have great liberalizing trends in the CC recently.
Walter W Robinson (Nov 10, '04)


"Evangelical" Dennis Castle [letter, Nov 8] continues to bear false witness, in violation of "his" Christian Commandments, against [US] Senator [John] Kerry by smearing him - as ever with a lie based upon a lie - while Senator Kerry continues to attend church more often than does the "born again" old-fashioned hypocrite [President George W] Bush. And [Castle] continues to rail against those who know and accept, unlike [him], that the US is a pluralist culture, morally and "religiously" and otherwise. Thus concern with how others live their private lives - ever the focus of the obscenely rude Dennis Castle "Evangelical" "Christians" who have yet to learn how to mind their own business - injects itself into private bedrooms as a matter of public policy. And [Edwina] Threadbare writes [letter, Nov 9], of Spengler's Power and the evangelical womb [Nov 9], "Homosexuals have never had children, but the gay population of America keeps getting larger." How one arrives at that conclusion is anyone's guess - though in recent decades "gays" have been increasingly open about their sexual "preference". many or most remain "closeted". So how does one accurately count their numbers? (I'll leave it to "Spengler" to worry the question, "How many homosexual angels can dance on the head of a pin?") She also writes: "Most of us liberals in the blue states were born and raised in these very same red-state evangelical homes." That may be true of Ms Threadbare; but to assert that "most ... liberals in the blue states ... were born in ... red state[s]" doesn't stand to reasoned critique. It is more likely that most persons don't move from where born, so most liberals were born in the states in which they live, regardless "red" or 'blue". Ms Threadbare and I do agree, however, that there is no greater or worse distorter of human sexuality than the interpersonal imperialist tyranny of "religious" oppression based upon paranoid superstition, folk tales, and the lies by means of which that tyranny is imposed and "procreated". But as to where "most" "gays" come from, it may be regional: most "gays" I've met in Massachusetts are former students of Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries. So the obvious "cure" for the "problem" of "gayness", for which "Evangelicals" so irrationally and violently yearn, would appear to be for "Evangelicals" (as example) to quit being "Evangelicals". Cease being obvious bigots who hate on irrelevant grounds and worship ineducability, in accordance with the arrogant busybody hypocrite's highest principle, "Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits" (Mark Twain). To quit their oppressive "religious" tyranny and replace it with walking in accord with Christ's ethical and moral admonitions such as "turn the other cheek", instead of killing Iraqis based upon lies, and "love thy neighbor as thyself", instead of judging and dividing based upon who does and doesn't have the "right" "religion", none of which admonitions require belief in a man-made and projected monarchical tyrant in the sky to be blamed for one's personal irresponsibilities.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 10, '04)


Very interesting letter by DP, dated Nov 9. Let's take [his points] one by one. If Muslims are really oppressed in India, why would their population see a growth from 9.5% to 14% of India's [total] population since India's partition in 1947? What [are] the similar statistics of Pakistan or Bangladesh? In the former one, non-Muslims are down from 20% to less than 1%. In Bangladesh it's down to 9% from 33%. So why did Muslims stay in India, even after overwhelmingly voting for a separate state of Pakistan? ... On his harping on Kashmir, sure, India made a mistake in thinking [in terms of] a "secular" nationality. India is paying a huge price for that even after unprecedented autonomy to Indian Kashmir. One in every 15 Kashmiris is in the payroll of the government. There is no person who lives below the poverty level in Kashmir. These are the statistics from most respected newspapers like The Hindu. Why would a poor state like Bihar [or] Uttar Pradesh underwrite "royal" pampering of Kashmiris by the government of India? I guess Indians would overwhelmingly support a proposal to hand over Kashmir to Pakistan with a population swap. Would Pakistan and Bangladesh, homelands specifically created for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, agree to accept 150 million Indian Muslims? ... As such, no non-Muslims are left in Pakistan today, and non-Muslims will be wiped out from Bangladesh in 2020 at this rate. Let's solve this problem, Mr DP. It makes practical sense.
Minu
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Nov 10, '04)


DP (letter on Nov 9) has accused me of hypocritically highlighting the plight of Chinese occupied Tibet and Xinjiang while ignoring the alleged repression of Kashmir, Assam, etc by India. Every year hundreds of Tibetan and Uighur families risk death in trying to escape out of China into Nepal and India, but none go the other way. Why are significant numbers of people not escaping from "Indian occupied" territories to Pakistan, China or Bangladesh? I (and plenty of other Indians) have never approved of the murder of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat and [we] are involved in campaigning for justice to be delivered. I have explicitly stated multiple times in the past that the riots of 1984 (against the Sikhs) and 2002 (against the Muslims) are unpardonable and will haunt India for eternity. DP also asserted that India and the US are best of pals made for each other, which could not possibly be further from the truth considering the US's and China's consistent support for Pakistan despite (probably because of) the latter's involvement in spreading terrorism into India. How's that for being hilariously Orwellian? Maybe DP needs to read some of [George] Orwell's stuff before dropping his name around. DP's jumping to convenient stereotypical conclusions shows us what he likes to believe rather than the ground reality.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Nov 10, '04)


DP's letter [Nov 9] accuses Indian and American readers being Orwellian with their anti-Muslim and anti-Chinese rhetoric ... It so happens the word "terrorism" in India (like in the United States) is associated mostly with one kind of terrorism, ie Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. The first-order problem of the government is to fight terrorism and the second order is to address grievances. Even if they can be done in parallel, the two issues are not on the same time scale. Terrorism has to be fought today. Grievances may not be addressed satisfactorily to all sides for another decade. So how does the fighting of Islamic terrorism become anti-Muslim when the benefits go to both Muslim and non-Muslim subjects of a secular government? As long as the moderate Muslim world is in deep slumber in its patrolling duties, someone has to do the job of keeping law and order. America is doing that job externally in Iraq by confronting Islamic terrorism head-on. India is doing it within its own territory in Kashmir. Your extrapolation that they are together in the fight against Islamic terrorism has no basis. India has argued for a long time that it faces the same terrorism that America faces but that recognition has not so far been granted by America. However, it has dawned on you, Mr DP, and that's fine and fantastic. Now about the anti-Chinese rhetoric in letters from Indian and American readers, I did not see or read one. Many including me responded to Frank's (an American of Chinese origin from Seattle) jingoistic comments about Indians sucking up to the white man and his language (English) and having no respect for Indian culture and heritage. Many including me agreed with the latter part of Frank's comments about the need for India to raise the respect and love for Indian culture and heritage (exactly what the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] recommends inside India). Where we disagreed is that it can be done with very little hatred for the white man or Western culture and civilization. Why would you call that opinion anti-Chinese?
Dirtydog
San Francisco, California (Nov 10, '04)


Dear MC [letter, Nov 9]: China is not a perfect country. However, that is not [what] I am arguing. My point is that India is not the same country as it was thousands of years ago. India has no difference to an Africa country now. The English-speaking Indian elites like what their white masters did to them. Those Indians' highest prides are to imitate their white masters to the DNA level. So far, among dozen of letters responding to my observations, I have not read one effectively debating my points. Most of them are just reconfirming my points. I do not understand why my observation [of] elite Indians' behavior has anything to do with China. Labeling people with disagreements as Chinese communists or Muslim terrorists is one of the typical tactics used by white racists and their Indian servants. You can easily pick them out from the people contributing to ATol.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 10, '04)


I could not help laughing while reading S K Li's rejoinder (Nov 8) to my comments. He has confused us even more. I am not sure if China is the "standing dog" or the "sitting dog" or "running dog". General [Colin] Powell being a dog lover and dog tamer is news to us. We look forward to more such amusing animalistic analogies.
Sun King
New York, New York (Nov 10, '04)


What is wrong with Muslims that they allow themselves to be slaughtered like pigs? No, they actually help in the slaughtering by providing their lands and their help against each other. Or they will keep silent. How does a flock of sheep behave when a wolf enters their midst? How they run about, screaming and crushing each other as they are devoured. How is that different from the Muslim ummah's behavior in the present times? Not a single Muslim leader has uttered a word. (Well, some of the Arab leaders urged caution to the US in attacking Fallujah.) Many were the same leaders that were heartbroken in their sobbing when death came to foreign lands, and they couldn't stop falling head over heels to get noticed. At that time, they competed with each other to prove their fealty, and there is no need to name names, as it's not a hidden thing. Now, what is the comparison between the destruction in Iraq and that in US? In fact, what is the relation between the two in the first place? I do not have any special knowledge as I don't get any more news than what is available, and yet I see the slaughtering, the carnage, the rape of honor, and above all, the upholding of falsehood and lies as truths. At what point in time did Fallujah become "the city [of] Islamic militants", its restaurants and clinics become "al-Zarqawi safe havens"? And it happened right in front of all Muslims, overnight, and words published across the globe including every Muslim news source. "Now here is the reason for us to destroy the city, O ye who believe in our might," says the US. Suddenly, the Japanese prime minister is more knowledgeable about Iraq than a leader of any of its neighbors. This silence is deafening. The screams that are not heard by our leaders are nevertheless recorded in the eternal books, very minutely, very detailed. And it is not the people of Fallujah [who] are in danger but us, Muslims and our leaders, because they have at least replied to the call to fight. Now they may die, what more can happen to them? We all die in the end, but ... But when we are raised up again, we will face danger unlike any imaginable in that when our creed was threatened; we remained silent and scared, like the sheep. Whereas those whom we feel sorry for, they will rejoice for what they did. Is it any simpler than that? This is Ramadan, we read the Koran, and glorify Allah, and yet do we not believe that Allah is mightier than all. He can, if he willed, destroy the aggressors for their oppression, and us for our silence, yet he has decreed the judgment will be later. If our actions are not judged now, does that absolve the Muslims and their leaders of their actions or lack of [them]?
Khurram
Malaysia (Nov 10, '04)


One could almost relish Spengler's relish on reading his Power of the evangelical womb [Nov 9] - with statistical data to match, yet. Are Americans about to enter the world of the auto da fe? Are the Inquisitors yet to be born or are they offstage awaiting the call? Is Islamic fundamentalism a match for the power of American wombs? Will this become a contest as to who will put the "womb" to maximum use, "us" or "them"? Will Americans, to prove their evangelicalism, have to increase their participation in increasing the power of the womb? Could it be that Spengler's relish is induced by the possibility of personal participation in the awakening of an evangelical womb? I know, I know, too many questions and too few answers. The question that any red-blooded person wants answered is, will Desperate Wives still be on ABC-TV?
ADeL (Nov 9, '04)


Only one flaw in the article Power and the evangelical womb (Nov 9): Homosexuals have never had children, but the gay population of America keeps getting larger. Why? Most of us liberals in the blue states were born and raised in these very same red-state evangelical homes. We left to see what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was all about. It seems evangelical churches in America are the biggest source of gay and lesbians in this country. Evangelicals breed homosexuality - one only has to look to Salt Lake [City, Utah] and the large Mormon gay population of America to see this fact. Increasing the red-state evangelical population naturally increases the blue-state gay and lesbian population as well.
Edwina Threadbare
USA (Nov 9, '04)


Spengler's [Nov 9] article Power and the evangelical womb is one of his silliest. He assumes no one ever leaves the evangelical ghetto. The truth is quite the opposite: many of us "kick against the pricks" (Acts 26:14, King James Version), put evangelical sojourns or upbringings behind us, move to New York, become sexual experimenters, attend liberal churches, vote Democrat, etc. The next generation of evangelicals is usually composed of converts, not descendants. Otherwise, evangelicals would have ruled the USA long ago. The evangelicals are influential, and will probably remain so, but they are not all-powerful and are not likely to become so any time soon.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Nov 9, '04)


Spengler's article [Power of the evangelical womb, Nov 9] incorrectly lists the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) as a born-again church. That is incorrect. The Disciples are a mainline liberal denomination in covenant with the United Church of Christ. Its loss of membership of -55%, as correctly shown, is also more consistent with losses [by] the mainline Protestants.
Tim Bancroft (Nov 9, '04)


[Syed Saleem] Shahzad: I read with great interest your article of November 9 titled Fanning the flames of resistance. In it, you say that the Iraqi resistance is [composed] of "... nationalist Iraqi tribes, religious groups, former Ba'ath Party and Iraqi Republican Guard members, as well as foreign fighters". Can you tell me what "nationalist Iraqi tribes" you are referring to and the reasons for their support of the insurgency (or anti-American stance)?
M Miyasato
University of Hawaii (Nov 9, '04)

Iraq is a tribal society where even armies are raised with the help of local tribal chiefs and they are part and parcel in every decision whether Iraq is ruled by Ba'ath, communists or monarchy. No resistance movement can operate without their total consent. I have been in Iraq twice, the first time well before the US invasion and then again after Saddam Hussein's fall. I did not find a single indigenous Iraqi, whether Kurd, Turkmen, Sunni Arab, Shi'ite Arab or Christian Arab, who was ready to tolerate any foreign occupation. Even those who have been in US-appointed bodies like the interim council or the present interim government are widely thought to be "aliens" who were brought into Iraq on US tanks. Read Ibne Khaldoon, a classical Arab political historian, who starts his Moqadama calling Arabs the most narrow nationalists in their approach. To date, in any conflict you will find Christian, Muslim or Jewish Arab standing side by side against any Muslim, Christian and Jew with a different origin and nationality. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Former Indian career diplomat M K Bhadrakumar [India follows China's Central Asian steps, Nov 9] is a very illogical person. I hope he does not represent India's diplomacy. If India wants to cooperate with other countries to deal with extremists, it should not harbor one in the first place.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 9, '04)


I have some questions for your correspondent Frank, or for that matter your learned Henry C K Liu [Tequila trap beckons China, Nov 6]: 1) In the thousands of years before China had contact with the West, did China, or any Chinese people, ever do anything bad? 2) Did previous Chinese kingdoms have armies? Did previous Chinese governments ever engage in any unprovoked aggression or imperialistic activities? 3) In the years since China first made contact with the West, has anything gone badly wrong in China that is the sole fault of a Chinese person, or China's government?
MC (Nov 9, '04)


When 59 million people stick their collective heads down the toilet and pull the chain, Mr Spengler ('It's the culture, stupid', Nov 5), [and] call it "moral" culture, I call it moral cowardice. As so many have said much better than I can [that US President George W] Bush is hardly the moral leader he and his legions of lemmings make him out to be. Proclaiming the high moral road may be a great American pastime, but even my dog knows the difference between walking the walk and talking bullshit. My dear Mr Spengler, what has happened to you? Please come back to us, or, like the sign on my beer cooler says, "If someone offers you a life, take it!" Or maybe you should just pull the chain, sir.
Ron Erter (Nov 9, '04)


'It's the culture, stupid', the [Nov 5] half-baked musings of Spengler, is of interest because it so clearly reveals the limited cognitive realm this writer exists in. That American "culture" (and we better decide what we mean by that) is corrupt and toxic is hardly news. So we might expect our writer to ask, Why? The first thing Spengler doesn't examine is how profit and marketing drive the US culture industry. The endless production of cultural product is there to feed an increasingly narcotized public - an increasingly over-medicated and overworked and overweight public - as a means of both control and to teach the virtues of consumption. Spengler somehow sees the evangelicals are taking refuge in "moral values" (and he isn't the only one). What values are these? Anti-abortion, anti-contraception (in fact, for many even anti-masturbation) and generally anti-pleasure (practice safe sex by not having sex ... oh, good idea). They are homophobic (how is this a value, exactly? And how does it protect one from the corrupting tide of American liberal culture? Can Spengler answer that one, please?). They believe in the Rapture and in Creationism (now being taught in Wisconsin high schools). Good, that's a way to keep values safe ... deny a couple hundred years of science and rationality. Spengler's fatuous reductivism makes such discussions pretty pointless. The Christian far right, and those we think voted for [President George W] Bush because of "values", also embrace a thinly disguised racism. American exceptionalism is what it's called these days. That Spengler can quote Cold War fruit loop Samuel Huntington speaks to his intellectual bankruptcy. "They hate us because of our freedoms"... uh, no, they hate us because colonialism has never stopped, and because we pillage and bomb them and economically exploit them. File this under "duh". To not mention the colonial experience is a typically Spenglerian bit of myopia. The US empire continues to bomb defenseless countries and to steal natural resources. We have bases all over the world ... is that to "protect our freedoms"? Of course not. The far-right zealots are not really about "values", they are about a bigoted and narrow, intolerant world view where only the true believer is allowed sanctuary. Here is an idea, Spengler: read up on the IFIs [international financial institutions] and check how economic readjustment works in the developing world. Check the history of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world and see how colonialism affected it. Then check Islamic history and philosophy and find [for] me where this belief system is inherently militant. And then read about the Crusades ... or hell, just read the latest encyclical from the pope (that stalwart paragon of values) to see where Christianity isn't militant. The cultural decay of America is obvious enough ... but not for the reasons Spengler would have us believe. And most certainly the Islamic world is right to be angry about the imperialist policies of the West. Do not, however, conflate resistance to US hegemony with resentment of our ability to pick from 12 kinds of detergent and do not further the implicit racism of Muslim-bashing neo-cons. Do not apologize for the bigoted and narrow world view, the sex-negative and anti-rational hallucinations of a [Jerry] Falwell or a [John] Ashcroft. Bush has no values except for those of profit and domination. That so many unhappy and confused Americans voted for him mostly speaks to the absence of real alternatives.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Nov 9, '04)


ATol, you shine above the rest because in today's world you know exactly how to get the truth out without ever telling a lie yourselves.You are probably getting a good laugh out of Spengler's [Nov 5 piece], 'It's the culture, stupid'. My objection to that article is all of the unaccounted-for American Christians not represented in Spengler's report. Statistics tell us that 78% of Americans are Christian. If you look at the win-lose ratio as well as the amount of non-voters in America, you can see that the number of unaccounted-for Christians not represented in his article is quite high.These unaccounted-for Christians who didn't vote for [President George W] Bush are working at teenage detention centers caring for the confused children on drugs of the moral majority. They are psychologists counseling the people who have lived in close proximity to the moral majority and now seek help. They are volunteers teaching the children who are falling behind in the No Child Left Behind school system of Bush's moral majority. The list goes on and on but mainly these unaccounted-for American Christians are the Christians who know that God saves humanity one soul at a time when He chooses to. Following that train of thought I would like to thank Sri [letter, Nov 1] for explaining the misconception regarding the Aryans and expounding on Lord Varuna's heritage (an interesting story) but if I were a gambling woman I would bet that [letter writer] T Kiani would have a better chance of understanding the third Veda than you would.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Nov 9, '04)


Pepe Escobar is one astute reporter. Maybe coming from a "laid-back" place like Brazil has given him the perspective to see through the facade of hypocrisy that is the US. Value-added victory [Nov 5] was a great piece of reporting. And then to give the article a crowning touch, Dennis Castle in a letter (Nov 8) actually portrays the US citizens Pepe was describing. Reporting can't get much better than that.Thanks, ATol, to all those concerned.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 9, '04)


[Re] Value-added victory [Nov 5]. Although most responses beat around the bush, they don't get to the essence of this issue. Americans see themselves as the ultimate "Master Race" - the ultimate superiors of our times in every sense, economically (wealthiest nation on Earth), technologically (we put a man on the moon and supply the world's greatest advancements in science and technology, including the much-maligned health care), militarily (world's lone superpower), intellectually (best universities in the world), politically (democracy, free markets, and capitalism being the only conceivable models for success) and, of course, morally - and the rest of the world has wholeheartedly supported this nonsense ... Anyone who has traveled around America - and observed and compared living conditions in other parts of the world - has no such delusions. America's streets are not paved with gold ... In many ways, Americanism has replaced traditional religion - providing hope for the disenfranchised masses. It was and is a ruse - a rather cruel joke. People are starting to notice the ugly warts on this god. Americans, having nobody else to exploit, are starting to consume their own ... Osama bin Laden and [US President George W] Bush are selling the same snake-oil - they're out to pick your pocket, and don't care how many people suffer and die in their global feud. It should be clear by now that Osama is the least of most people's worries - especially if you're Iraqi, particularly a resident of Fallujah. But the US has tentacles all over the world - more like vacuum hoses, sucking up resources and transferring them to the homeland ... The first thing after Bush was elected this time, leaders from all over the world called to congratulate him. Guess they really weren't that concerned about Iraqis after all. Or any other lofty moral claims, such as "justice". Did you forget that [Adolf] Hitler made a pact with [Josef] Stalin to divvy up Poland? You only hear complaints from the guys who get left out. They were just afraid Bush was going to get booted out for exposing the scam so openly, as in the PNAC [Project for the New American Century] statements and his openly defiant decisions to go it alone. Now they're eager to "patch up the rifts" and get on with the business of looting the planet. It's business as usual, without all the sappy "moral" justifications. So much simpler this way. After all, they're at the top of the heap as well. They might even try his tactics in their own countries - after all, who is going to stop them? That guy sitting in front of his trailer with a shotgun? No, he's happy enough just knowing he's a charter member of the Master Race. And he'll gladly sacrifice his first-born to pound the world into crying "uncle" [giving in] - kids are easier to replace than illusions. Osama proved that. And Americans have been proving it ever since Day 1. The other details are irrelevant.
Sandy Lambrecht (Nov 9, '04)


Here is my theory why the piece by Marc Erikson, Economic revolution in the making [Nov 5], was published on ATol: (A) ATol wanted to publish a different view to fend off the charge sometimes leveled against it that it is one-sided. (B) It wanted to lure the 59 million Americans who voted for George W Bush to its website so that they will have a chance to see that there's an excellent alternative to the New York Times and the Washington Post. (C) The article is an intelligence test, ie, if you believe it, then you'll have the score of 1 on a scale of 100. (D) Everyone is happy because of (A)-(C). Am I close to the mark?
Paul Law
Berlin, Germany (Nov 9, '04)

The correct answer is (E): Marc promised to buy the first round next time he's in town. - ATol


[Re India and the US game, Nov 5] According to [B] Raman, "Unless and until the US realizes that Pakistan has been playing a double game in the so-called 'war against terrorism', there is unlikely to be any change in its policies toward Islamabad." I believe the US realizes that, regardless of the "double game" that "Pakistan has been playing", if it pushes and pressures [President General Pervez] Musharraf in the "war against terrorism" to quickly produce results, it will be doing so at the risk of starting an open revolt in Pakistan because of the significant Pakistani popular sympathy for [Osama] bin Laden. Therefore, Musharraf must be shown a considerable amount of patience and given ample time to be successful. Meanwhile India, which is also a victim of international and cross-border terrorism, must fight its own regional "war on terrorism" by collaborating with willing neighbors and other well-meaning friends. The global"‘war on terrorism" will not be complete without the total elimination of cross-border insurgency. Even if India exposes Pakistan's double game in the war on terror it cannot expect the US to turn around and start changing many years of special treatment given to Pakistan. The American establishment is very much in bed with Pakistan. Under the circumstances, India should look in other directions to upgrade its relations with the US. Such directions should be reflective of a grand plan, which will, in the long, run allow close collaboration between India and the US. India should create the best climate for investment of American capital in the country. Extensive American investment in India's construction, manufacturing, pharmaceutical and service industries will have the effect of rapidly elevating India's importance to the US. This can only happen if there is a unified national approach to foreign investment. UPA [United Progressive Alliance], the present governing coalition, and NDA [National Democratic Alliance], the previous governing coalition, should make this their priority and together they must formulate a favorable and supportive foreign investment policy that will allow a smooth flow of foreign investment. When the "war on terrorism" finally winds down in the South Asian sector, hopefully with the elimination of bin Laden and his gangs, and with the establishment of a democratic government in Afghanistan, the strategic importance of Pakistan to the US is likely to be very much diminished. Whoever plays a greater and more important role in the global economy will certainly capture the attention of the US and other trading nations. India's goal should be to reach one of the commanding places in the global economy. I would add one more issue to Raman's list of three compatible interests between India and the US: the establishment of a solid democracy in Afghanistan. Historically, India and Afghanistan have had friendly relations. In the present context too, [President Hamid] Karzai and the Indian government reportedly enjoy a cordial relationship. India can contribute to the new Afghanistan by helping to build democratic institutions at all levels of government. It can also actively participate in the reconstruction of the country and its economy. This will certainly promote the US objectives in the region plus help India strengthen her traditional friendship with that country. It very likely will force Pakistan to pause and rethink its relations with India.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 9, '04)


The comments by your Indian and American readers as well as columnists are hilariously Orwellian in terms of their anti-Muslim and anti-Chinese rhetoric. For example, the letters from Kannan (Nov 1) and Amit Sharma (Nov 2) self-righteously profess concern for Chinese Tibet and Xinjiang, even as India is waging a bloody counter-insurgency war against Kashmir, Assam, Bodoland and Manipur as we speak. Kannan and Sharma act as if the ethnic cleansing committed by Indian Hindu brownshirts in Gujarat never happened and can be safely swept under the rug with the usual claptrap about Indian tolerance and secularism. These Indian nationalists should ask themselves when their vaunted democracy will grant greater autonomy to these ethnic nations within India before they posture as great democrats. Indeed, notice how ATol shills like [Sudha] Ramachandran predictably try to demonize these struggles in Kashmir, Bodoland, or Assam as either terrorism or extremism in their propaganda coverage. This tactic mimics the USA's feeble efforts to portray Iraqi people fighting against America's murderous occupation as terrorists. Ultimately, like the American imperialists whom they emulate, pro-India fascists love to wrap themselves in self-righteous rhetoric about freedom and democracy as a political cover for their own crimes at home and abroad. Even worse, they seek to manipulate this phony rhetoric as a propaganda weapon against rival nations or religions, as is displayed here on ATol. It is only appropriate that India and America are increasingly strategic allies. Fascist capitalism behind a democratic mask is what these nations share in common.
DP (Nov 9, '04)


What the Arab world needs to understand is that [the US] election was won by [President George W] Bush because of the huge voter turnout by evangelical Christians. These people believe that the Bible says that they together with the Jews will destroy you. They have formed an unholy alliance with the Jews and want a holy war, in your lands. George Bush is himself an evangelical Christian and is on a crusade to rule your lands and steal your oil. America must be stopped, and it can, without firing a bullet. The real soft underbelly of this Evil Empire is the same as that of the former British Empire: it is a debtor nation. When the world gave the boot to the pound sterling following the Suez Canal war, the British went broke. The world sells us goods and oil, in return for which they receive paper money. The only reason this paper has the value it does is because the rest of the world makes it so. If the Arab nations demanded payment for their oil in euros, SAR [Saudi riyals], yen, gold, anything but dollars, the American economy would undergo a violent shrinkage. Instead of foreigners paying for our crusade, we would have to pay for it ourselves; end of crusade. So please, for your sake and the sake of those of us peace-loving Americans who don't want endless war, dump the dollar.
Robert Vessel (Nov 9, '04)


The US just re-elected George Bush and I wish to tell the world that if the people who voted for him had done their homework and found out what Bush has really done in their name he would have been thrown out of office. Unfortunately most voters in our country don't bother to take the time to read and understand the vast quantity of material that is available through the news media, books and computer online sources. Our citizens get their information from television news programs, and if you watched those shows during the buildup to the war in Iraq, very few if any newspeople took an in-depth look at what George Bush and his cabinet were using to justify their actions. If we had been told the truth about the weapons of mass destruction and [Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein's ability to really threaten our country we would have known the facts were weak at best and blown out of proportion by people like [Secretary of State] Colin Powell and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld. If we had listened to the arms inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] we would have realized we were being led astray. [United Nations weapons inspector] Hans Blix refuted what Mr Powell told the UN and Mr Blix was proved right as soon as our troops went into Iraq, but we didn't have to invade Iraq to find out Mr Blix was right. All we had to do was let the inspectors finish their job on the ground in Iraq. When the jet aircraft were hijacked and flown into the [New York] World Trade Center, the terrorists [who] did the hijacking were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, not Iraq, but the Bush White House kept telling us that the terrorists were led and supported by [Osama] bin Laden and he was supported by Saddam. Even Mr Bush's intelligence people doubted Saddam was in the loop and told Mr Bush and his staff that in no uncertain terms. As is true in any propaganda war if lies, are repeated often enough, they unfortunately become the truth. Before our election I collected several articles from various sources and asked people who I knew were going to vote for Bush. They all said that they wouldn't change their minds so they didn't need to read them. How sad that is when so much is at stake. In order to make the bad news about Mr Bush strike home I tried to make the "don't vote for Bush" case personal by getting into the economic situation. Mr Bush took office with a national money surplus of $5.3 trillion and has driven our country to the brink of financial disaster that our children and grandchildren will be burdened with, a $500 [billion] deficit. If we really cared for our country as we say we do we'd work a lot harder to understand what is going on in our government and vote with knowledge, not the fear George Bush generates to keep his job.
Glenn and Virginia Dunham
Redlands, California (Nov 9, '04)


I understand that many evangelical Christians voted for Georgie based on the issues of gay rights and anti-abortion. I don't understand why they believe it is moral to fight abortion but accept as moral the bombing of babies in Iraq. I find that very ignorant and hypocritical. So many of those voters allowed the Bushies to deliberately play on their religious "faith". They don't understand that Bush could never have won on his own merits, hence the tricks. Let me say, too, that I will never believe Georgie won enough votes to win the election any more than he did in 2000. Draw your own conclusions about that statement. Many of us here in the US do not like [President George W] Bush or his policies.
Martha Boydstun
USA (Nov 9, '04)


Kaveh Afrasiabi's comments could help shed light on one of the great failures of imagination on account of Bush I, and that is Iran [Beijing's $100 billion deal with Tehran, Nov 6]. If my memory serves me correctly, Iran was one of the few Middle Eastern nations whose general population felt genuine sympathy towards the US after September 11 [2001]. More significantly, at the beginning of 2002, while [President George W] Bush was labeling Iran a part of the "axis of evil", a growing number of Iranians were pushing their government for democratic changes, opening up and more ties with the West and the US. Before we attacked Iraq, the US should have made some sort of dramatic gesture towards these positive forces in Iran. Although I am not sure what form this gesture might have taken, I am sure something could have been developed to at least embolden those who wish for change. (I always envisioned [Secretary of State] Colin Powell flying to Istanbul and declaring that he would wait two weeks for an invitation from Iran. If invited, he would fly immediately to Tehran to begin discussing renewed diplomatic relations.) If it failed, the cost would be minimal (but the US would have demonstrated it is willing to talk before it attacks). If it succeeded, maybe today Iran [would be] more apprehensive about signing a $100 billion gas deal with China and more interested in doing business with the US. In this way we quietly maneuver our pieces in this new great game.
Ken Arok
Brattleboro, Vermont (Nov 8, '04)


[Re] Value added victory [Nov 5] by Pepe Escobar. What a fabulous article ... It summarizes everything about the 2004 US presidential elections. Without a doubt, Mr Escobar is one of the most bold and brilliant writers in the world. Keep up the good work.
Razia Khan (Nov 8, '04)


In his piece Value-added victory [Nov 5], Pepe Escobar writes: "It's a remarkable feat, to persuade the poor working class and the struggling lower middle class to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. How to fool them? Simple: by promoting 'moral values'." This is laughable when you take in the moral character of our [US] president. Both he and [Vice President Richard] Cheney have been convicted of drunk driving, making them perhaps the first presidential team to have a record. [President George W] Bush narrowly avoided being sent to prison on insider trading during his Harken [Energy] debacle. Luckily, his influential daddy was able to free him from all his little scrapes with the law. Of course, the president is "born again" and this is supposed to wash away all his sins, but he doesn't extend that courtesy to all born-again Christians. While governor of Texas Mr Bush executed more people than anyone in Texas' extensive history of capital punishment. Bush never reviewed one actual case file for any of the people he executed, preferring to have his prosecutor friend write him a short synopsis of the case (minus defense arguments), and based on this he executed all but one death-row inmate. One of the people he executed was a woman convicted of murder, Carla Faye Tucker, and while on death row she found Jesus, just like Bush, and was born again. Ms Tucker begged the then governor Bush to spare her life. She didn't ask to be released, only for Christian mercy, a stay of execution. What did our morally superior Mr Bush do? He made fun of her: "Bush, however, was not sympathetic. According to Talk magazine writer Tucker Carlson, Bush mimicked Tucker's plea for her life. 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'Don't kill me'" (quote from Time magazine) ... There is your bastion of moral values.
Mitchells (Nov 8, '04)


Pepe Escobar's article Value-added victory (Nov 5) did nothing to help ATol readers understand the recent American presidential victory for President George W Bush. Mr Escobar argues the now-famous ATol assumption that the majority of Americans are hyper-religious imbeciles, ignorant in the extreme, and beneath contempt. He claims that Americans are fools for supporting lower taxation and that presidential adviser Karl Rove manipulated the gay-marriage debate to appeal to their Neanderthal side. Allow me to say that none of these things are even remotely true. The gay-marriage debate began when unelected Massachusetts judges imposed by fiat their whim changing the definition of marriage, which had otherwise been having a fairly consistent track record since the second chapter of Genesis. Please note that Senator [John] Kerry voted six times to continue partial-birth abortion, where in late-term the fetus is fully delivered until the last moment, when it is destroyed in the most gruesome manner. Karl Rove had nothing to do with the Massachusetts judges or Senator Kerry's votes, and it reveals much of Mr Escobar's morality, or lack thereof, to imply that ordinary American citizens must remain muzzled in the face of these assaults on our values and culture. His assumption that poor Americans might benefit if those who aren't poor are dragged down by higher taxation is the most naive nonsense I have ever read. He believes that Americans are ignorant; yet how gullible does one have to be to think there is enough money in the world to afford the socialist policies of Senator John Kerry and his ilk? There is an Asian proverb that the son of a frog is still a frog, but that isn't true for the United States of America. Here, a frog can become a prince, which is why the class-warfare nonsense doesn't play that well here. Perhaps Mr Escobar failed to notice the collapse of communism and the failures of socialism (when those 15,000 grandparents died in France in August 2003, was it because their country wasn't socialist enough?), but this "weak economy" the USA is experiencing is vastly superior to any other on the planet. Pepe Escobar may be correct that Americans are contemptuously ignorant, but I would certainly like to know what he is using for comparison.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Nov 8, '04)

The heat-wave fatalities in France in August 2003 were caused by a weather phenomenon, and had nothing to do with "socialism", although you may be referring to alleged inadequate responses to the tragedy by the French government of the day. Even so, it is hard to see much correlation between a sitting government's response to such emergencies and its placement on the political spectrum; probably more important is the attention various governments give (or fail to give) the long-term environmental effects of such things as greenhouse gases, over-consumption of fossil fuels, etc. As for the "socialist policies" of the aristocratic John Kerry, well - many of us from those parts of the developed world with more "liberal" traditions than the US (ie, almost everywhere) feel that such moderate policies as adequate health-care provisions are affordable if the government restrains itself from spending billions of dollars on "defense". - ATol


Re Value-added victory [Nov 5] by Pepe Escobar: If middle America chose to be ignorant and intellectually lazy, settling for a value-based society, the "intellectuals" of the Democratic Party were insensitive enough to shun customary values and tradition. In these battles, it is really the methods employed to spread one's message that counts; the Republicans appealed to the heart and the Democrats appealed to the logic. Even in America, democracy does not work in an ideal manner. Apparently, the process is not designed to make people think, inquire, analyze, evaluate and decide. It should not advocate discarding one's values, passed on to them from generation to generation, either. The Democrats must find a neat way to meld the traditional American values with present day material compulsions of life. Democrats in America and generally liberals elsewhere must learn to respect society's traditional values even while advocating a much freer society; they cannot legislate cultural changes; they just need to be more patient, imaginative and creative.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 8, '04)


[Re] Value-added victory [Nov 5] by Pepe Escobar. Kudos to this writer because he has it absolutely correct - I don't know what happened to the "American people", of which I am one. Thank you.
Shirley Esquivel
Miami Lakes, Florida (Nov 8, '04)


Concerning Pepe Escobar's Value-added victory piece [Nov 5]: being a citizen of one of the "Old West" states, I'd like to suggest that Mr Escobar study a bit more thoroughly before succumbing to the silly red state/blue state model. [On November 2], Colorado elected Democrat majorities to both houses of its legislature. Here in Montana, we elected a Democrat governor, a Democrat-majority state Senate, and may well have a Democrat House after the ballots are done being counted. More people in Montana voted for medical marijuana than voted for [President George W] Bush. Progressives here won every race and ballot issue that we went after, save one. In short, W had no coattails with a large number of independent Westerners. The message in the national election didn't carry down the ballot. Mr Bush won because the cartel corporate media put on a 7x24 [seven days a week, 24 hours a day] propaganda campaign during which at any hour of the day you could find radio and television "journalists" praising Bush and castigating [Democratic candidate John] Kerry, but never the opposite. This amounted to one big campaign commercial that lasted for months. While I find the overseas press extremely valuable in understanding my own country, I find it remarkable that supposedly objective outsiders can't relate the truth about our media corporations. We no longer have news media, we have a propaganda industry. Perhaps Asia Times could lead the way in pointing out the simple truth.
Brady Wiseman
Bozeman, Montana (Nov 8, '04)

Asia Times Online has run numerous articles, several by Pepe Escobar himself, critical of the US corporate media. - ATol


Spengler's November 5 diatribe ['It's the culture, stupid'] on the US presidential election turning in [George W] Bush's favor over our culture is an interesting supposition, regardless of how many errors it contains. I'll agree that evangelicals came out in force to support their moralistic savior, Bush. Yes, George was going to save their world from gay marriage and Osama [bin Laden]. But a religious movement, regardless of country or base, that only picks and chooses certain biblical phrases to shove down thy neighbor's throat is a religion lacking moral conviction. The Bible also advocates stoning to death adulterers. Do you think this part of the Bible will be used any time soon for a Republican talking-points memo? As far Spengler saying the September 11 [2001] attacks were retaliation for American culture stretches the limits of credibility. Osama - and other Muslim leaders - have stated repeatedly that the American government's unflinching support of Israel, especially at the UN, is one reason for Muslim anger being directed at the US. America repeatedly ignores or vetoes the UN resolutions directed at Israel while making a great noise [about] or even introducing UN resolutions aimed at Islamic states. More fuel for this fire comes from US troops being stationed in the one of the most holy Islamic sites, Saudi Arabia. And then using Jerry Falwell's asinine assertion that September 11 was God punishing the US for its sins belittles your obvious intelligence, Mr Spengler. What about the four hurricanes that recently struck Florida? Wouldn't a weather event tend to be more of a chastisement from God, rather than the actions of mere mortals on September 11? Correct me if I'm wrong, but [I] can't seem to recall the self-righteous Falwell braying that the four hurricanes hitting Florida [were] a result of God's disapproval of their lifestyles. Finally, to use a favorite whipping post - the entertainment industry - as another reason the Islamic world hates America enough to attack her doesn't hold water. Mr Spengler, what do you think leaves a more lasting impression on a young Palestinian or Iraqi, the latest Girls Behaving Badly video or a squadron of American-made F-16s, backed up by American-made Cobra helicopters, bombing the holy hell out of Gaza or Fallujah? The Bushies won the White House because they did a splendid job of scaring the voters and appealing to the evangelicals. America likes to run around the world, sticking its nose into other countries business and telling them how to run their country, especially demanding that countries in the Mid East cannot base their government on their religious rule of law, the Sharia. But with the 2004 election, we are now the ones rushing to embrace theocracy.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Nov 8, '04)


Dear Spengler: Re 'It's the culture, stupid' (Nov 5). It seems to me you have seriously misrepresented the situation in America. The US is in danger of social decay precisely because Americans, traditional and not modern as you insinuated, continue to "draw lines" that exclude rather than redetermine and investigate new ways to engage the world. It is exactly because "parents cannot raise their children in isolation" that Americans must consciously and thoughtfully engage their own society, and the world rather than shutting it out. If "the hard, grinding reality of American life in the liberal dystopia makes the 'moral issues' so important to voters" then they should vote to address those conditions through thoughtful, context-specific actions rather than reverting to neo-con structures of thought and practice that seek to safeguard traditional ways and means, rational theories and ideas of linear progress that much of the world already sees as archaic and ill-suited to contemporary times. You stated, "Islam looks outward to defend the community, the ummah, against its enemies by conquering and transforming them in its own image. By its nature it is militant rather than self-critical. Christianity demands that the believer look inward to his own sin. Soul-searching after September 11 [2001] is what made the personal so political in the US." This makes little sense in terms of the puritanism that sets American fundamentalism on the road to imperialist misadventures. Which part of the world is "conquering and transforming in its own image"? Which part of the world is "militant rather than self-critical"? Soul-searching post-September 11 in America was not responsible for making the personal political as you have suggested. The meaningful soul-searching you mention did not occur. The fearmongering and political opportunism did. America is no longer capable of soul-searching in any meaningful sense of the term, because while "few are so dim as to misunderstand the message", there are also few who seem to know what to do with it. Americans do understand fear and they do know simple reaction - but they do not know what it is to move past a simple rational formula to an integration of perspective and reflection that takes virtue as a result of both means and ends. Americans are as shallow as the cultural poverty you note. But they are not satisfied with celebrating, they must enforce it. That is exactly why they inappropriately handle the post-modern world, stick to the rigidity of modern ideas, turn evangelical on election day, and vote "W" back into office. You stated, "The US barely can live with the freedom of the modern world without destroying itself; the same forces would utterly devastate the Arab world, which lacks the resistance the US has developed over the centuries." The US has not developed a "resistance" to freedom, but has instead reacted to freedom in the modern world. Rather than the search for postmodern solutions that go beyond deconstruction and awareness, the US sticks with unreflective extensions of its own modern, ideological thoughts and mechanisms. The US cannot live with the freedom of the modern world - it has destroyed itself in every way that matters as a response to this freedom - and the reaction from Islam is not simply to the entertainment industry, but to the export of American emptiness as represented by this entertainment, to the rest of the world. Islam has struck preemptively. The US is merely reacting, again. The US acts in retaliation, almost blindly, against enemies it cannot see nor understand because the US does not understand itself. You are correct in stating that the Islamic world would be devastated by the influx of American culture and freedom. You are also correct in stating that the US has had several hundred years to deal with this freedom. The problem is that the "resistance" you mention to this freedom does not exist and can never be an adequate response. For Americans to export something they cannot define, let alone handle themselves, is grossly irresponsible. "The US evangelical movement is not by nature political. Families join evangelical churches as a refuge against the septic tide of popular culture that threatens to carry away their children. Evangelical concerns center on family issues, child-rearing and personal values rather than national or global politics." Since when are "family issues, child-rearing and personal values" not political? By what definition does everything that matters to most people anywhere on the planet avoid falling under the term "political"? Religion is political and you of all people, with your knowledge of European history, the politics and religion (is there a difference?), should know this. The separation has always been arbitrary. It is, in part, this artificial distinction in America between morality and politics, between personal and political, that allows Americans to act with nothing but rationality on their side - an unbalanced position that neglects a whole range of valid human characteristics and qualities. The re-election of George W Bush is not about Americans taking stock of themselves. It is inappropriate to be satisfied with a description of the intellectual and spiritual limitations of the American people as a problem of articulation. This is a serious overestimation of the state of that nation, a simplification of the American project, and in particular their response to Islam, terrorism and the rest of the world in general. You are not doing anyone a favor by simplifying the situation, nor is your applause for the shortsighted responses of American politics to both its own and the world's problems contributing to a meaningful new beginning. The message of November 2 is that Americans, still fighting against the forces of decay, have no idea how to go about it.
David James (Nov 8, '04)


Re 'It's the culture, stupid', Nov 5. While [Spenger] cites many factual elements [with reference to] the decadence of American culture in this article, it also appears he has fallen prey to the Bush mentality and swallowed their lies. "The US evangelical movement is not by nature political." Total rubbish, and he should know that! Evangelicals seek to convert the world just as Islamics do except, until now, less violently ... "In the past, the United States came under attack for what it did; Japan's Pearl Harbor raid responded to a US trade boycott that cut off access to energy and raw materials. On September 11, the US came under attack for what it was." Balderdash, it came under attack this time for its actions in supporting Israel against Palestine and for its actions in the Middle East. What is surprising is that it hasn't been attacked for its actions in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Honduras, Haiti ... etc ad infinitum. American culture is putrid, disgusting and despised throughout the world; however, the evangelical movement is not the answer any more than fundamentalist Islam is. Any time there has been a merging of the political and the religious, death through war, terrorism, strife and chaos have ensued. I expect this time to be exactly the same. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Gary Prusakowski (Nov 8, '04)


Eric Koo Peng Kuan: I am writing to comment on your article about submarines [Submarines: Obsolete symbols of national pride, Oct 28]. As a keen [student] of military history and modern military events, I must convey a small argument. I mostly agree with your article of the obsolete use of submarines, except when it comes to the Australian Collins-class submarine. The class of submarine I am talking about was of Swedish design, runs on diesel and electric motors, with one of the most silent propeller systems in the world - so quiet that it took on a US carrier fleet in exercises off Hawaii and survived. [It is] so quiet that you could park it in Singapore harbor for a week and no one would know about it. The propeller in particular is so good there was a legal incident over it. Also it has a very large, range giving it the time to go around the whole world if it wanted. With only anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons systems it is hardly extravagant in its roles. And although [expensive it] was definitely worth the money, for its peacetime rolls of reconnaissance are just as fruitful as any wartime role would be ...
Simon Harris (Nov 8, '04)


Just to explain to Sunking [letter, Nov 5] and ATol, the dog is a pet. While most pet dogs are obedient and keep wagging their tails to their masters, they can sometimes become naughty and troublesome. In particular, a "running dog" in the Chinese language may convey a notion of abject servility. While the latter connotation is a little harsh, I did expect a reader of English to understand the "pet" aspect of a dog. As to the remarks by [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell, even if some people would want to interpret them to be a "slip" of the tongue, at least it is typical of a pet lover to sometimes scold his pet to keep it in line.
S P Li
USA (Nov 8, '04)


Geoffrey Sherwood and Carl Hershberger [letters, Nov 4] justified their ancestors' slaughtering [of] American [native] Indians and slavery of East Indians and blacks based on that we are all supposed to be colorblind. All colored people should do what white people say but do not do what white people did. These two further justified their ancestors' actions based on [the premise] that colored East Indian people like what white people did. Both of you proved my observations. Thanks.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 8, '04)


AP [letter, Nov 5] cannot blame me for his misinterpretations. India and China, in their liberalization of their closed economies, to both external and internal participation, share some similarities in the economic sphere. Notwithstanding different political systems in the two nations, their economy was (and still is) mainly state controlled as they are based on socialist model. Both the giants are now slowly abandoning the utopian model in different areas at different rates. I partly agree with AP when he states [that] the sectors [from] which the government got out witnessed tremendous growth. But one cannot neglect the external contributions in terms of technology and capital. In the fields which had astounding growth, telecom and software, India would not have made this possible without the critical overseas contribution. It is the combination of external and internal inputs that made this feasible. In India we have powerful left parties which blindly oppose foreign investment in the name of nationalism. Indians have witnessed how nationalism was abused over the decades in the market. There used to be a slogan painted everywhere: "Be Indian and buy Indian." Patriotism was selectively forced on the consumers with no apparent application of the same on producers to make world quality goods and thus India became a captive market for substandard products for a long time. Why innovate when there is a substantial market for anything being produced? I agree with AP that the government should rather invest its meager funds in education and infrastructure instead of wasting it in loss-making enterprises. How long can it support inefficient industries?
Kannan (Nov 8, '04)


I read with amusement Hidayat Khan's letter (Nov 3) and [Syed Saleem] Shahzad's reply. Mr Khan seems to be upset with [B] Raman's factual, authoritative and very analytical writing ... and conveniently labels it as anti-Pakistani propaganda and calls upon his fellow Pakistani writer Mr Shahzad to counter him. If someone writes the truth, however unpalatable, it may be one needs to accept it. There is no point in hiding your head in the sand and trying to deny the facts. For example, if one were to say that Pakistan is guilty of nuclear proliferation and has been selling nuclear secrets, one needs to accept it and not deny the facts that are well known. You can counter an argument only if you have facts to support your argument. You cannot counter an argument just because you are such a fervent nationalist and enlist your countrymen to your silly cause. Moreover Mr Khan writes that "we know his background". I wonder who the "we" [are] and [what] the "background" is. I have read several of Mr Raman's articles and they are factual, and analytical and objective. He has never hesitated in criticizing the Indian establishment if he had to, and nor have several Indian writers. On the other hand, I have never seen anything objective in Mr Shahzad's writing, and in fact found it ludicrous when he wrote that the Indians where behind the assassination attempt of [President] General [Pervez] Musharraf. I wonder where he gets the news that no other media [have] even contemplated. If one wants to be an objective writer then one needs to have the courage for self-criticism. There are several American writers in your columns who do not hesitate to criticize their country. Objectivity knows no patriotism or nationalism. It is time Mr Khan matured in his views. I [also] read with interest Jim Hughes' letter (Nov 3) and S S Shahzad's inadequate reply. The questions raised by [Hughes] are legitimate, such as: When has Muslim culture been moderate and progressive? Is there any democratic country or institution in the present-day Islamic world? Shahzad's reply is weak-kneed and does not answer the questions raised, for there is no country in the present-day Islamic world that is fully democratic and progressive. His reply that the Caliphate was known for democratic traditions is history and needs to be verified. The answer is none. One might argue that Malaysia and Indonesia have democratic governments, but the world knows their autocracy more than their minimal democracy. I have lived in both countries and know the extent of their democracy. Turkey may have some limited democracy but the army still calls the shots. As to [Hughes'] last comment that Americans are going to bring democracy to the Middle East - that is a pipe dream. Democracy should be yearned for the by the people and not brought to them. The people in the Islamic world do not dream or yearn for democracy. Their values are different. Their sole news media [are] their local mullah or madrassah and they want to be ruled by religion and not by consensus or democracy. [US President George W] Bush and our State Department have to realize this before it is too late. The Republicans in the US seem to believe Bush when he talks about bringing democracy to the Middle East for they do not understand that you cannot bring democracy to a region or culture if the people do not crave for it. It is pathetic to watch the number of Muslims being killed by Muslims in Iraq. Nowhere will such genocide happen except in a Muslim country where jihadi mentality has taken over [from] value for human life. The Moors in Spain had a moderate and rich cultural tradition but that was a long time ago and it has been replaced by violence and extremism in Islamic society and the voice of moderation is extinct.
Sunking
New York, New York (Nov 8, '04)


On November 4, Asia Times Online published a letter from Jonathan Garratt, managing director of Erinys International Ltd, that was critical of a September 23 article by David Isenberg, Protecting Iraq's precarious pipelines. To read Isenberg's response, please click here.  - ATol (Nov 5, '04)


Dear Spengler: Re 'It's the culture, stupid' [Nov 5]: I presume you are aware of the enormous dangers inherent in an attempt at national purification. The happy absence of any concept of racial purity notwithstanding, can we be sure that the Bush-evangelical purification of America's debased culture won't metastasize into the kind of internal purification implemented by the Nazis or by ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeini? Can we depend on America's dominance, its escape from humiliation, to prevent these extremes? Moreover, is [President George W] Bush genuinely a moral reformer? My wife's cousin has a civilian job at a US Air Force base that procures weapons systems. His base is on the Pentagon list for closure as a redundancy. But he recently explained to me that he has no fear of losing his job. Why? Because his base does billions of dollars' worth of business every year with defense contractors, and the CEOs of Lockheed and Martin-Marietta are among Bush's best golfing buddies. "That's why my base won't be closing, no matter what the Pentagon planners think," he said. The evangelicals don't seem to have picked up on this, but Bush is a sad caricature of a reformer. They might do well to study the biblical prophetic tradition a bit more closely.
RP (Nov 5, '04)


You state in your article ['It's the culture, stupid', Nov 5] how Islam might conquer and transform people into their own image - the US has done worse by conquering and committing genocide if people do not accept the image portrayed. People overseas don't judge Americans on what they watch on TV so much as what they see around their immediate selves. They blame America for many problems created by their own governments because they know American interests are what run their own governmental policy. As far as proving to the world that America wants to preserve values, this is not fooling any level-headed European I know, or Arab for that matter. I think the problem is not children watching violence or porn. It is neglected, unloved children watching violence or porn. The problem is not exposure to what the world is all about. It's the lack of love parents are able to give to their own children. Children know if they are loved or not instinctively. When they feel unaccepted by their parents the answer is disaster. I don't believe there is any solution to bad parenting. If you are a brutalized child you will in most cases brutalize. If you are an unloved child you will be an unloving person etc. It is more than transparent the shallow knee-jerk reactionary search for a profoundly deep problems embedded in our society. The setup! The setup of this country favors business, period. This creates a very vicious desperate circle in which children are caught up.
Max Goldston
Atlanta, Georgia (Nov 5, '04)


Spengler wrongly dismisses bigotry as being part of the shift to [US President George W] Bush ['It's the culture, stupid', Nov 5]. All we need do is look at the profile of voters to see that Bush's only strength among non-whites lies with Cuban-Americans. We should listen to what evangelicals themselves say and watch what they do. It's clear that Spengler's own zealotry prevents him from seeing that it's the evangelicals whose so-called morals are most to be doubted. There's an unending list of white Protestant preachers who have been caught consorting with prostitutes, molesting (or worse) little boys and girls, collecting child pornography, stealing church funds and committing incest - and the same goes for priests and rabbis. The worst offenders are found in the deep south, where Bush rules as emperor of virtue. Spengler must enjoy living in his ivory tower, mouthing his pieties.
Harald Hardrada
Manhattan, New York (Nov 5, '04)


I'd like to single out two bewilderingly simple-minded (even for Spengler) passages in his article 'It's the culture, stupid' [Nov 5]. When Spengler claims that "the US provokes the hatred of the Islamic world because the 'freedoms' associated with the nether reaches of its entertainment industry are its most visible face to the rest of the world", a double standard in the faith he places in political statements is glaringly evident. One easy-to-digest line [US President George W] Bush often relied upon to explain [the events of September 11, 2001] was "They hate us for our freedoms." Spengler accepts this facile attempt at mind-reading as truth. Yet in the words of [Osama] bin Laden, its most prominent spokesman, al-Qaeda's platform calls for the US to withdraw from Saudi Arabia and interference in the Middle East in general. Non sequitur, anyone? No doubt many Muslims indeed hate what they see as our permissive and decadent culture, but there has been no indication that that perception led to the attacks. Spengler's fatuous cultural generalization ignores bin Laden's words of last week: "Contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom ... let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example." A propos Spengler's invocation of pornography, let us note in passing that the Northern European porn industry doesn't flinch at featuring a Doberman with two blondes. Another baseless claim Spengler makes is also easily dispatched. When he writes, "Christianity demands that the believer look inward to his own sin [my emphasis]. Soul-searching after September 11 is what made the personal so political in the US," Spengler seems oblivious to the silence of the US mainstream media on the motivations behind the attacks of that day. The slightest hint of a suggestion that the US may have brought massive retaliation upon itself was politically radioactive from the beginning. After all, it would be positively Chomskyan to suggest that what that activist calls the branch of the American military known as the Israeli army had anything to do with this. No regular reader of ATol will be surprised to notice intellectual laziness and Zionist prejudice behind Spengler's latest piece. And the lack of any pretense of objectivity in his corpus to date obviates any reference to the slim margin of Bush's "win", much less the numerous signals that the US election may in fact have been fatally tainted by tampering. And anyway, it appears that concern with one's homosexual neighbor's sins rather than one's own brought many people to the polls in Ohio and elsewhere to vote on the relevant referenda.
Miles H Chewley
Chicago, Illinois (Nov 5, '04)


[Re] 'It's the culture, stupid' [Nov 5]: Finally ... someone understands.
Richard Schreyer
New Jersey, USA (Nov 5, '04)


Dear Spengler/Osama: While you beat to death the theme of the Western world's collective suicide by lack of fertility, you ignore one reason others have the chance to "chose life": Lowered mortality, which is a product of modern medicine, which is a product of Western civilization. Osama, how do you reject Western culture while cherry-picking its successes? It seem evident that advances in health, economic development, and opportunities for women lead to lower birthrates. The better-off countries of Latin America like Costa Rica show the same pattern as we've seen elsewhere. My wife's grandmothers had seven and eight children, while my mother-in-law and her sisters had an average of 3.2. My wife will have two, while it's too soon to say about her sisters and cousins. Just 30 years ago you could have said the world was about to be overrun by Catholics, as I imagine more than a few chauvinists did. Looks like it's not going to happen.
Dennis Rogers
San Isidro de Heredia, Costa Rica (Nov 5, '04)


As a member of "the faith-based, apocalyptic evangelicals", I rolled my eyes after reading P (on) Escobar's [Nov 5] diatribe [Value-added victory]. He essentially blamed evangelicals for giving [Osama] bin Laden "exactly what he wanted" by helping re-elect George Bush. This is par for the course for Pepe: if OBL were captured tomorrow, Mr Escobar would probably injure himself writing as fast as he could about how OBL's capture is exactly what OBL would want. He also implied that evangelicals are somehow out of touch with reality - after all, no evangelical could possibly know what's really going on! None of us are scientists, engineers, or innovators - no, we're just dumb hicks [who] don't know better. Pepe, with his top-secret clearance, then extrapolates wildly - throwing out predictions about a "major confrontation with China"/ Who's being apocalyptic now? Pepe's big talk about "serious blowbacks" is an all-encompassing subterfuge designed to disallow any future military action for any reason. Predictably, Pepe whips out the oil argument even though his whole life and livelihood are so wrapped up in having and using oil (just like the rest of us) that a Three Stooges bitch-slap is really the only logical response. What Pepe doesn't understand is the utter pragmatism of the evangelicals: we simply won't have people running jetliners into buildings. What Pepe also fails to understand is that America is no longer on the flat part of the curve that defines Moore's Law (which has to do with the acceleration of technology as time goes by). No one will be left unaffected. The fact is, there is no turning back or stopping what has been unleashed by America in nearly every conceivable field of study. And it's overwhelmingly positive and good. In fact, there are so many positives that come from America that it boggles my mind that Mr Escobar prefers to wallow in the negatives. In the future, Pepe might want to lean out of his cubicle and see if Spengler can give him some historical context before he writes his next column.
John the Baptist
Niceville, Florida (Nov 5, '04)


[Re] Value-added victory by Pepe Escobar [Nov 5]. "... And most crucially, they are often decent people who want to do the right thing." That reminds me ... Charlie Brown did something nice for someone else because he thought he was "doing the right thing". Lucy's reply to that was both tragic and profound, when she said, "In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who 'Thought there were doing the right thing'."
Graeme Mills (Nov 5, '04)


Re Economic revolution in the making [Nov 5] by Marc Erikson: Look, I read Asia Times to avoid articles like this; I can see this sort of superficial claptrap nearly anywhere in the US. Please stick to quality.
Tim Kelley (Nov 5, '04)


[Re Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving, Nov 5] Thank you so much for enlightening us on the pratfalls and peculiarities of our country. [Ian] Williams is so intelligent. How I wish he would come over to our side and entertain us with his style. After reading his comments I can see why he has not risen to our standards of understanding. Keep him.
Tom Warden
Tampa, Florida (Nov 5, '04)


There really are no words to describe how sad many people in the US are right now, but we have to accept the fact that we did not win the election. There also really are no words to describe the horror of Iraq today, and the innocent people [who] are being killed and maimed there every day. The same for the allies, and the people who are there on humanitarian missions, who are only there to help, but they are captured by terrorists. I don't know if [John] Kerry could have made it better if he had been elected, but I do blame [President George W] Bush for where we are today. This goes beyond any one American's apology to the world, but the world needs to know that a lot of people in this country are upset as well. I did not vote for Bush in 2000, either. I voted for Al Gore. So I have lost twice, and in my opinion, the world also has lost twice. It is not that America should rule everyone - or even anyone's life. But what we do, unfortunately, does have an impact on others. I am praying that things get better in Iraq, and that things will be tolerable at home for the next four years. I have a lot of concerns on the domestic level, also. Right now, I have a lot of concerns about just about everything, because I honestly do believe that Bush is dangerous, and that the American people have believed his lies for too long.
Kim Prather
Atlanta, Georgia (Nov 5, '04)


Open letter to "President" George W Bush: You have asked the US public to rally behind your programs: The war on terror, your economic and taxation policies, your education initiatives, the stressing of morality and family values, homeland security and the revamping of our justice system. All of the aforementioned as perceived by the Republican Party. The following are just some of the reasons why I'm having a bit of difficulty giving my support. I don't believe in warfare. I believe in defense only. No preemptive or any kind of war other than a war of self-defense after an adversary has attempted to strike the first blow. That sort of leaves out your "war on terror", as declaring war on a passive state, based on outright lies, doesn't meet my qualification of defense. Your taxation policies have decimated a $500 billion surplus and turned it into a windfall for the super-rich. I'm a retired engineer and make only $25,000 a year. I don't see much of the windfall and your protections of the large corporations are slowly devaluing my meager pay. My medical bills and drug bills are substantial and you are trying your damnedest to cut out what benefit I reap by ordering drugs from Canada. Bill Frist and your lap-dog Congress are making sure that the hospitals' and doctors' pay are definitely not devaluing. You are trying, with the prodding of the evangelical base of your party, to impose your religious beliefs upon my grandchildren who are attending public schools. And on top of that, you have put this illegal war of yours as a higher priority than the funding of the education of the children of the US. You are intolerant of principles other than your own. You are not content to let other people decide their own moral values. You, of all people, trying to lead us morally after murdering all those innocents in Iraq. You want to legalize your views on religion, prayer, abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other personal views which should be the choice of the individual. You really don't believe in freedom, you believe in Republican freedom. I believe if we would have spent $400 billion on the poor and impoverished of this world, we would have spent the money far [more wisely] than trying to protect the US from terrorists, than by all this sham at airports and cities all over the world. And on top of that, your regime has gutted individual protection from the government. I don't really feel safe in the US anymore - and it's not the terrorists whom I fear. I don't like the way you and your cohorts are sanctioning Cuba. I don't like the meddling in the affairs of Venezuela, Brazil, and Uruguay. Let those people choose their own governments without our intervention. I don't believe in torture, especially the kind you lie about when you send prisoners to other countries to be interrogated. I don't believe in incarceration without due process of law. I don't believe in bombing city water systems, which is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. I believe in the World Court, and if you had any "backbone", you'd support it too. The UN is not perfect, but its better than anything else, and I don't see you rallying round that organization. You should practice what you preach. You see, Mr President, I don't really feel that you are the kind of person I would like to have a beer with. Sorry about your rally and all that ... PS (just between you and me): If you believe in a day of reckoning, I wouldn't count on that "born-again Christian" stuff.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 5, '04)


Let me see if I have it right: under [US President George W] Bush you spend the $3 trillion left over from [former president Bill] Clinton, then you go to your credit card and do a mortgage credit line to the tune of $7.45 trillion, and while you're at it you pour lots and lots of money on tax breaks for your rich friends, then you invade Arab nations and they are supposed to change their whole ethnic principle, don wooden shoes and leather shorts and clog-dance around the dance floor in glee because Bush has decided to invade their country and on top of that allow Halliburton to steal oil with broken oil meters and the money that they do get they are supposed to throw into American business even though most of the industry has been exported. Phew, what a crock. I wouldn't be surprised if [Osama] bin Laden wasn't at the funeral yesterday drumming up business for an Arab bank or monetary cartel to divert money away from our banks. The way Bush is going there seems to be more stability in Europe then in his house of cards.
Jotmsr (Nov 5, '04)


Sudha Ramachandran's Delhi in step with the generals and Harinder Mishra's India walks Israeli-Palestinian tightrope [both Nov 4] are of great topical interest. The much-wanted realism in India's foreign-policy stance that has been missing for several decades is slowly taking shape and gaining substance. Even while the Cold War was fast disappearing into the depths of memory, India has been forced to face by itself a number of local situations. Its neighbors to the west and east, never known for being friendly toward India, have been resorting to concerted acts intended to destabilize the country. Their motivations for supporting these insurgencies have not been too difficult to fathom. However, India's reactions have been too reticent, primarily because of not wanting to alienate its minority community and aggravate its problems. Reticence and deference to the minority community can only go so far. [A] country's integrity, security and self-interest are paramount. The urgency for shifting the paradigm or standard in its international relations, more especially with its neighbors, is acute. It is an encouraging sign that India has finally shifted its paradigm and is prepared to seek and accept help from sources it rejected till recently, purely for emotional reasons. Israel is a great source of high-tech surveillance equipment which is sorely needed at the borders to track the training camps and militant activities of the insurgents. Israelis can also teach the Indians a thing or two about counter-terrorism. Collaboration with Israel in the design and manufacture of industrial and defense hardware can be highly beneficial to Indian technology. India-Israel friendship and cooperation will make India's neighbors stop and think twice before embarking on foolish adventures. In the case of Myanmar, India is offering assistance in the building of Infrastructure in return for the ruling junta's help in tackling the insurgency problem. There are a number of other areas in which India can help Myanmar and is willing to do so. Trade and commerce between these two neighbors can be increased sizably. More than anything else, working with India will give Myanmar a degree of respectability on the world scene. It appears that India finally is determined to formulate a grand strategy in regard to its place and role in the region and fashion its tactics accordingly.
Giri Girishankar (Nov 5, '04)


[Re] In God - or reality - we trust by Pepe Escobar [Nov 3]. Pepe is positively foaming at the mouth. You'd better keep a close eye on the guy. Remove any sharp items from his environment.
Chris Townsend (Nov 5, '04)

Pepe greatly values letters such as this that clearly articulate how he can improve his articles. - ATol


I read S P Li's letter (Nov 4) with amusement. His story about the dog was at the least extremely confusing. He seems to have borrowed the analogy from some Chinese tale and has attempted to literally translate Chinese to English. It may mean something in Chinese but it certainly makes no sense in English. His feelings reveal him to be either a transplanted communist Chinese or Red China sympathizer living in the USA. I don't see a problem with that except for his views on China and Taiwan. The present status quo of Taiwan and PRC [the People's Republic of China] has served the world well and deserves to be left alone. Neither saber-rattling by PRC nor sudden spurts of nationalism on the part of Taiwanese is acceptable. When that is so I find Mr Li's analogy ludicrous. More ludicrous is Colin Powell's pronouncements in Beijing, which remind me of his equally senseless statements some time ago in Islamabad. Mr Powell is fast gaining a reputation of an unreliable secretary of state who has no knowledge the next day of what he has uttered the day before.
Sunking
New York, New York (Nov 5, '04)

We didn't get the dog story either, but we assumed that was because we are all cat-lovers here at ATol Central. - ATol


I had to respond to Kannan (letter [Nov 4] after reading this statement: "After the Asian giants (India and China) opened their closed economies, they are seeking joint and multilateral cooperation within the continent ..." I think Kannan needs to be a little better informed regarding economics. Asian economies are not booming because they opened up to external investment, they are booming because the state got out of the business of capital allocation. His own statement regarding India and China should point to that contradiction. China, using free flows of external capital, got out of the business of running the economy in the '80s. What you have in China is crumbling state-owned enterprises but booming privately owned enterprises. Conversely, in India the politicians and the government establishment refuse to give up control of the Planning Commission and use that to gobble up resources. Most of that capital ends up in supporting dysfunctional state-owned enterprise and little of it makes it to the areas where the state should be doing work such as education, health care and infrastructure. Some limited amount of private funding is allowed in infrastructure, education and health care besides some industries. Where the funding has been allowed to flow, Indians can witness some of the best services at cheapest prices. Case in point, telcom, health care and financial services - one thing Asians ([letter writer] Frank included) need to learn. Unlike Asians, Americans will only put their dollars where it makes a buck. On the other hand, they will be happily taking capital from wherever it comes to pay ridiculously low interest rates to finance their profligate ways. Frank, if [he] had any objective thinking capability, should be questioning why his government is spending so much money to support the American deficit.
AP (Nov 5, '04)


To Gregorio Kelly [letter, Nov 2]: Go easy on "Spengler", Gregorio; he only quotes one article from Psychology Today in order to back up a whole raft of premises about "American" women which are not found in the actual "America". Go less easy on him for his having ignored the journalist's "three-source rule", and other ethical requirements of legitimate scholarship. (If you won't forgive him, he'll forgive himself: he is a "Christian", and by his own word imbued with "Divine Right" - though the more perspicacious see it as the anti-intellectual arrogance it is. Perhaps we too can forgive him: arrogance is always based upon ignorance of why one has no choice but to be genuinely humble.) The core "religious" reality in the US you precisely skewer: "The Great Satan that has made religion a commodity and devours its own children is the worship of the acquisition of money and wealth beyond what is needed ..." The Framers viewed "jealousy" for power as ineradicable, so gave greed its place - within carefully circumscribed boundaries and mutually offsetting checks and balances. The irony is that most so-called "evangelicals" hide behind their pieties an imperious authoritarianism and rapacious greed - unconstrained lust for power and money - which renders their professed "faith" a profoundly corrupt and stinking hypocrisy. That is why those such as [US President George W] Bush wear it so proudly on their sleeves: because it is superficial; all on the outside. Call it deceptive advertising. Thus they give massive tax cuts to those who least need them, while preaching frugality to the poor. And actively lie to initiate an illegal war against and occupation of a non-threatening country, without regard for "Thou shalt not kill." And, having authorized and imposed torture - perhaps the basest of human conduct - they simultaneously paint Saddam Hussein as "evil" because he authorized and imposed torture; apparently their "religion" forbids them mirrors, else they see themselves in Hussein, and Hussein in themselves. The only human perspective - and commodity - with which they are generous, beyond constant lying, rejection of reason, and all ethical and moral rules of conduct, is hypocrisy; they give that away for free, constantly, to those outside their charmed clique, most especially to the poorest among us. Alas, if only there were a market for it: they would so hoard it that US civic life would become ethical and moral overnight. By that means they would finally establish their fervently imagined "City on the Hill" - with themselves self-exiled, as ever, outside the city limits.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 5, '04)


After toppling the Iranian government by the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] in 1953 with the help of their paid agents, the United States imposed [its] own puppet [on] the Muslim nation of Iran. During the next 36 years the American government directly governed through [its] devoted puppet, the Shah, and assigned Bahaiis such as Hoveyda and Amoozegar as prime ministers and other Bahaiis in charge of other key governmental positions. However, they were preaching the absurd and hypocritical motto of separation of religion and government to the ordinary Muslim citizens despite the fact that the bewildered members of Bahaii cult believe they are not allowed to participate in politics. In 1979 the Iranian revolution got rid of these colonial agents and established an Islamic republic which considers religion a completing part of the government. During the last 25 years the United States and its European allies have tried wholeheartedly to create an evil image of the Iranian government. [US President George W] Bush, the ignorant cowboy, named Iran a member of the axis of evil. However, Bush considers himself a messenger from the God and tries to convert the whole world to Christianity through his crusade. He is trying to merge the government and Christian religion so separation of religion and government does not apply anymore. Churches and other Christian establishments have been funding and mobilizing people to vote for Bush and his Republican Party for the last several months. Republicans won the election based on moral issues and religion. Now the sky is clear and the sun is up and all the facts are above board. Religion is bad as long as it is Islam. State and religion should be separated as long as it is a Muslim government so the Christian missionaries have their hands free and with no fear or worries can operate in Muslim nations converting them to Christianity.
Javid Afrasiabi (Nov 5, '04)


David Fullbrook's article [So long US, hello China and India, Nov 4] is based on a false premise: Western interests and the Asian powers' (India's and China's) ambitions in Southeast Asia are mutually exclusive and the presence of the United States in Asia is necessary as a power broker in times of crisis and to maintain peace. The credibility of the US to enforce peace leading to amicable solutions took a serious dent especially after the Iraq war. While the ability of US to wage war anywhere in the world is acknowledged, securing peace is a different kettle of fish. Washington needs to understand that while it was successful in nation-rebuilding in Europe and Japan after World War II when the enemy was either eliminated or [had] surrendered, reconstruction in the face of armed insurgency is a daunting task. Who will go to Afghanistan or Iraq when there is no safety for [one's] life? Anyway, the preoccupation of the US in its war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq has literally removed [it] from the scene and left some of the Asian nations on a course towards regional-bloc formation. After the Asian giants (India and China) opened their closed economies, they are seeking joint and multilateral cooperation within the continent, which has been neglected for too long by the policy planners. Although regional trade is getting the limelight in the Asian capitals recently, most of the Asian nations have still unsolved, problematic regions which, if not handled properly, could seriously threaten their stability. The futility of waging internecine conflicts to "solve the existing problems" is slowly sinking in and after the loss of precious lives and property at least some of them have belatedly come to a conclusion: Everyone gains through trade while insurgency movements can make life hell for all. In addition, the success of the European nations to forge unity in spite of serious obstacles and form a community which benefits the entire people has forced changes in Asia. Although the Asian community is a dream far into the future, considering the current problems, one cannot overlook the baby steps taken by the individual nations in this regard. Finally, in Iran and North Korea, Asia has twin challenges whose future course of action will affect not only the continent but also the world. With the galloping economy and the presence of hot spots eluding solution, Asia will remain the center of world attention in the years to come.
Kannan (Nov 4, '04)


[Syed Saleem] Shahzad's latest two articles did succeed in raising my eyebrows a couple of times, though more in perplexity than appreciation. In his article on November 3, Al-Qaeda kingpin gets away in Pakistan, the following paragraph is intriguing: "Authoritative Asia Times Online contacts insist that Pakistani officials had earlier assured their US counterparts that Faraj would be presented as a surprise just before the US polls, and they speculate that Islamabad had a last-moment change of mind pending the outcome of those elections." The implication would be of Pakistani authorities allowing him to escape, but that's not what the rest of the article seems to imply. Indeed, it makes it seem that Faraj would be pursued avidly. Granted, he mentions that "some sources" feel he may already be in Pakistani custody and be revealed later - but then, all the talk of Pakistan actually having custody of [Osama] bin Laden and producing him as an "October surprise" seems to have been washed away. There is no reason to suspect that this would be any different. Now, of course, [there] is the abundance of theories that bin Laden is not a prisoner of Pakistan, but its willing ally. I won't go into the relative merits of that little gem. Also, Mr Shahzad's interview with Benazir Bhutto [Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda, Nov 3] certainly saw a lot of soft-footed questions. Ms Bhutto says little new, but surely if the Taliban were to be brought up, wouldn't it be worth mentioning that the Taliban were organized under her premiership?
Assad K
Cleveland, Ohio (Nov 4, '04)


We are disappointed by the negative and inaccurate aspects of the article Protecting Iraq's precarious pipelines by David Isenberg [Sep 23] insofar as it concerned the operations of Erinys Ira Ltd. Erinys has not been "headed by Sean Cleary" since he resigned from the board and chairmanship in October 2003 (a matter of public record and reported in various media), on the grounds that the activities of the company had gone beyond his operational experience and that he could no longer be of assistance to its growth. Your article (relying on an inaccurate Newsday story) casts doubt on the experience of Erinys and its managers. Although Erinys Iraq Ltd was a relatively recently established company when it secured the oil contract, its directors and senior managers had relevant operational experience within the oil industry and this was detailed in its tender for the contract. The CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] subsequently stated that Erinys was awarded the security contract on the basis of both the price and the technical quality of its tender. Erinys Iraq international (expatriate) employees are described as "soldiers" in the article. In fact Erinys employees have a range of prior experience. They are employed by Erinys Iraq for their managerial and other skills. We do not employ "soldiers". In this misstatement you may have been influenced by an inaccurate Africa Confidential article from June which is currently the subject of a complaint by us. Your statement that the majority of Erinys guards "come from the former Iraqi army" is wrong and has not been claimed in any previous publication. The responsibility for protecting Iraq's oil facilities will be taken over by the Ministry of Oil from December 31. The ministry will decide which individuals will be employed on the contract from that date, not Erinys. There are some organizational errors: firstly Erinys does not have a regional headquarters in Mosul; secondly, the reporting structure outside Erinys is a little different from that reported in the article: Task Force Shield (TFS) has no operational control of the Oil Protection Force (OPF), as this is exercised by Erinys. Further, TFS is not overseen by the Corps of Engineers (GRD), but is part of MNF-I. The contract for aerial surveillance granted in December 2003 was awarded to Erinys Iraq, not to Airscan Inc. Erinys Iraq awarded a subcontract for this item to Airscan. The contract for this component is for one year, expiring in December 2004. It is only if the Oil Ministry extends the contract for a further one year (December 31, 2005) that it has the right to take over the aircraft. The list of fatalities gives the misleading impression by innuendo that Erinys has lost a larger number of international employees than is the case. The fatalities listed are the only international deaths suffered by Erinys and its subcontractors since the start of the oil contract in August 2003. Erinys is careful to ensure that its employees, whether international or local, are not exposed to unacceptable levels of danger; unfortunately the situation in Iraq has resulted in a number of unforeseeable injuries and fatalities, but we would maintain that the total of casualties is low in relation to the large numbers of Erinys employees (15,000 Iraqi and 350 international staff) in Iraq and that this reflects favorably upon Erinys' operational planning and the care that it exercises for its employees. The oil contract was scheduled to expire after 12 months on August 5, 2004; it has been extended by five months to December 31, 2004, when the Ministry of Oil will take over the Force, as originally provided in the contract. We are not, despite the erroneous impression given in the article "negotiating a [further] six-month extension". We are also unaware of the "misgivings ... expressed by Iraqi officials ... about its [Erinys'] ability". This "finding" appears to be borrowed from an inaccurate and prejudicial report in the Financial Times of August 10, 2004, about which we have complained to the editor of the FT. The above incorrect aspects of the article give a negative impression of Erinys Iraq. Other parts of the article were correct and more positive. Unfortunately it is, in our experience, the negative aspects that are remembered by readers and we trust that you will therefore communicate the above corrections to your readers and that, in future, you will check your facts with us prior to publication, rather than rely on inaccurate reports from other media.
Jonathan Garratt
Managing Director
Erinys International Ltd
Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Nov 4, '04)


The American citizens have chosen to send the man [who] has trampled on the views and wishes of a vast majority of the world's leaders and citizens for the past four years back into the White House for four more years. In doing so, they have indicated quite clearly that our views in the international community do not count, that the USA and its citizens believe that they own and control the world. The good news for us who live outside American borders is that now comes our chance to bring out our votes. Yes, indeed we can and must bring out our votes. We have every day of the next four [years] on which we can vote with our wallets and purses by switching our daily purchases from American goods to those produced outside American borders. If we do this in sufficient numbers, two things will happen. Firstly, the American economy will shrink in size and importance in the world and thus decrease American economic might and ability to bully the rest of the world. The world economy will not suffer, because the economies of the countries from whom we will be buying our products will collectively grow in equal part to the amount by which the American economy will shrink. Secondly, if the American economy shrinks dramatically over the next four years, the absolute misery that they will suffer will wake American voters up to the fact that America does not own the world, that our views as the international community matters and must be treated with respect, and that there is no way that we as the international community will allow them to again choose such an irresponsible bully to be their president. Let [us] start voting with our wallets and purses tomorrow. To use a Bush phrase, we will have four more years to bring out our votes.
Barry Vorster
South Africa (Nov 4, '04)


Regarding GR's criticism [letter, Nov 3] on how Raman is guiding [the Thai] army to kill innocent civilians: There is already a detailed book on this - some people call it their holy book.
Rajan (Nov 4, '04)


Frank of Seattle (letter [Nov 3]) writes that "we (whites, yellows, blacks, and East Indians) are all guests in the American continent. [Native American] Indians are supposed to be the only masters of their own land." Frank's puerile comments usually are not worth the pixels that they plague, but in this case there are more than a few people who share his particular disorder, so it merits a brief response. First, no American by birth or naturalization has less claim to America than a descendant of a so-called "native American". A recent American is not a "guest" any more than the second clan of ancient Siberians to cross Beringia into North America were "guests" of the first clan to make the crossing ("Beringia" was the land bridge that connected Siberia and Alaska during the last ice age). The migration from Asia to North America was spread over thousands of years - an interminable stream of "guests" invading the lands of their "hosts", if one is unfortunate enough to think in those terms. Subsequently, there were innumerable tribal migrations within the Americas. Countless tribes conquered the American lands of countless other tribes. Entire cultures and languages were vanquished or subsumed - a whole host of hosts turned to ghosts by their guests. If one absolutely must make the indescribably banal distinction between "guest" and "host", then at least be internally consistent, and allow your train-wreck of thoughts to wend their way back to the first ancient Siberian to invade an ancient Alaskan's frozen patch of turf.
Geoffrey Sherwood
Montville, New Jersey (Nov 4, '04)


Frank's racist diatribes are really quite embarrassing [letter, Nov 3]. Substitute "negro" for "Indian" and you have something that the Ku Klux Klan would be proud of; substitutive "Jew" and you have something Josef Goebbels might have written. His statement: "I do not think India has degenerated to the level of Africa" is absolutely repugnant. Are Africans really that degenerate? All of them? He feels that the Chinese are the superior race yet and that East Indians and [we] "white masters" fall lower on his hierarchy; Africans apparently inhabit the lowest rung; and if one country adopts Western democracy they are vilified for being colonial slaves, whereas another country that adopts Western communism is held in esteem. Perhaps if India had adopted Chinese foot-binding or slaughtered some Tibetans he would think higher of them. The truth is that we are all the same species, and it may come to a shock to Frank, but we can even interbreed. There is more genetic variability in our DNA between members of the same race than between those of different ones. Moreover, few if any of us come from parts of the world that have not been ruled by foreigners at one time or another. To adopt what works and reject what doesn't is not evidence of kowtowing before a master but in fact a sign of wisdom.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Nov 4, '04)


The conditions Daniel McCarthy [letter, Nov 2] described for Taiwan are just temporary. The well-known scholar Li Ao of Taiwan recently gave a very accurate description in his talk show on Phoenix TV. As readers of ATol may not have watched it, let me give here an abridged version. The US and China are like two big guys facing each other. Taiwan is a running dog hiding behind the US. Every so often the dog will get in front and bark and growl. China is agitated and the US scolds the dog. Recently the dog's behavior exceeded his master's tolerance and got a spanking. Let me continue from here. When one big guy is well prepared and becomes willing to slug it out, the other guy will decide not to make the sacrifice and concede. The dog goes to the other master.
S P Li
USA (Nov 4, '04)


B Raman responds to readers
I have received a couple of messages from Asia Times Online readers of my article Thai dilemma over Muslim anger (Nov 3) who are based in the West, asking for my assessment of the security situation in Thailand from the perspective of foreigners.The following is the text of my replies to them. I am not forwarding their messages to ATol since I would not like their identities to be exposed.
I have made in my article and I have been making for some time two points relating to Thailand. First, there is definitely externally inspired terrorism in southern Thailand. Second, due to the insensitive handling of it by Bangkok, it is becoming worse. What I notice is that up to now, the angry Muslims, who are not members of any extremist organizations, and the jihadi terrorists have been targeting only Thai non-Muslims, from the government as well as from among those outside the government like Buddhist priests. They have not targeted foreigners. After the gruesome killing of 78 Muslims due to the shocking and criminal negligence of the Thai Security Forces on October 25, threats are being uttered which could be interpreted as directed against foreigners. There is admittedly considerable anger against the government, and the jihadi terrorists seem to be coming to feel that the only way of teaching a lesson to the government is by targeting Thai economic interests, of which tourism is very important. I do hope that the Thai authorities are taking necessary precautions.
B Raman (Nov 3, '04)


After reading the article Thai dilemma over Muslim anger by B Raman, it looks [as if] I am not reading Asia Times but a hand note of a secret agency (if not RAW [Indian Research and Analysis Wing]) who is guiding the army or police how to kill innocent civilians. Asia Times has a very good image with its readers - please don't destroy its image by publishing such partial and personal views, views which are full with hatred, and arguments [made up in the writer's mind] - he doesn't has any proof. It can be his personal views but it is not good to be published in a newspaper [whose] readers are from both sides or neutral. It is my habit that if I see any issue, after reading CNN and BBC I open atimes.com to get [the] true picture, but I am surprised that this type of article can be published in a reputable newspaper. It looks that the editor has published this article without reading it at all. It is clearly evident that the Thai army has killed innocent people. And Mr B Raman encourages them to kill more and how to kill more. He says use counter-terrorism. How can he call them terrorists? His type of people are full of personal hatred and they are [calling] terrorist anyone who is against their views. It is [as though] all the people who are fighting for their rights are terrorist. That means when the people of India were fighting against English rule, were they terrorists? If Bosnians were fighting against Serbs, were they terrorists? While Palestinians are fighting against Israel, are they terrorists? How you can define terrorist, or terrorism? ... In south Thailand it was a clear violation of human rights. It should be condemned, not encouraged. Those who are encouraging killing of innocent people are part of the killers ...
G R (Nov 3, '04)


Trust B Raman to put through a dossier on Islamic terrorism in Southeast Asia (Thai dilemma over Muslim anger [Nov 3]). After reading this story, it is heartening to note that the Indian government even under the Nehruvian Congress is using its head and talking to the Myanmarese government. Cooperation of the Myanmarese will be crucial, both for Thailand and India, in controlling the terrorist threat posed by Bangladesh. To take it further, a joint Indian, Thai and Myanmarese commission needs to convince the Bangladeshis, either through allurements or threat, that it is in their own interest that these activities come to an end.
AP (Nov 3, '04)


I can't help but feel indignant that once again, the Muslims have used one standard to measure their "suffering", and used another standard to determine non-Muslims as demonstrated in the article Malaysia rages over Muslim killings (Oct 30) by Anil Netto. As Laosuwan Pitsanulak (Nov 1) in his letter so eloquently mentioned, where is the justice for those who had suffered at the hands of the murderous separatists? Is it because they are Muslims that all is forgiven? Before the reactionaries of those "submissive to God" overreact, consider the fact that in all Muslim-versus-non-Muslim conflicts, it has been acknowledged that Muslim radicals initiated the onset of conflicts. From the Philippines, we have the Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) kidnapping and killing innocent people. In Indonesia, the Malukus and Sulawesi islands showed how tolerant the Muslims were, thanks to the Laskar Jihad. Throughout the main islands of Java and Sumatra, churches and temples alike have been destroyed with wanton glee. Claims of genocide against their Muslim brethren? Please, the periodic Indonesian pogroms of rape, robbery and killings against the ethnic Chinese generate more victims at any one time than those suffocated. Beyond Southeast Asia, it is well catalogued what Muslim extremists have done to the Hindu Kashmiris. And what triggered Gujarat? How about the burning alive of Hindu pilgrims (men, women and children) in a train by Muslim mobs? This fact somehow seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the Muslims (selective amnesia?). Yet these are only some examples from Asia. We don't see much beyond lip service from the Muslim communities when non-Muslims are killed. Are non-Muslim lives less worthy because they are "kaffir"? Before the Muslims cry "injustice" again, perhaps they should consider the golden rule: do unto others what you want others to do unto you.
DVeri (Nov 3, '04)


I noticed the following distortions of facts by Mrs Bhutto [Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda, Nov 3]:
1) Mrs Bhutto said "I called it 'strategic threat' in a speech I gave in parliament calling for the breaking of ties with the Taliban in 1998." In fact, Naseerullah Baber, the interior minister in her own government, organized and funded, with US backing, a bunch of taliban (students from religious schools) to rescue the UN convoy. Is she deliberately distorting the fact or was she not aware of it while she was the prime minister of Pakistan, like his counterpart Nawaz Sharif?
2) Mrs Bhutto said, "In fact, if the past record is any guide, it is clear that the extremist parties were never voted into power or even brought close to it by the people ... The religious parties formed a government for the first time." To keep the record straight, on March 26, 1971, the three main political parties of the country entered a coalition. The agreement was signed between Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto from the People's Party, Abdul Wali Khan from the National Awami Party, and Mufti Mahmood from Jamiat e Ulema Islam. On May 1, 1971, Mufti Mahmood (leader of a religious party) took the oath as chief minister of the North West Frontier Province. I believe Mrs Bhutto was too young to remember that her father was part of this agreement.
3) Mrs Bhutto said, "During the days of fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan [1980s], a military dictator in Pakistan [Zia ul-Haq] used religious parties to recruit fighters. He used money to set up religious schools whose real purpose was to indoctrinate young men into becoming robots." She forgot to mention (or perhaps she did not want to displease the US) that it was the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] who recruited fighters from all over the world, brought them to Pakistan to train, established religious schools, distributed material printed in US and funded anti-soviet movements of Afghanistan. General Zia was just acting like her, or General [Pervez] Musharraf or any other ruler of Pakistan, to toe the US line obediently and faithful. I wish our leaders were as faithful to our own country [Pakistan] as they are to their external masters.
M R Khan (Nov 3, '04)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Thank you for your interview with Benazir Bhutto [Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda, Nov 3]. One would think that her insights on relations between the Western and Muslim worlds, and especially our increasing alliance with Pakistan, would be coveted by "journalists". The scarcity of her voice in the US media is a great example of their incompetence. I have always been curious as to why she is not a greater authority, but perhaps she answered that question when she stated: "Most secular forces were kept out of government during the Cold War by military or authoritarian rulers lacking grassroots support and legitimacy. Since authoritarianism and dictatorship rested on force rather than on law, it gave birth to a culture of lawlessness and extremism. We need to have democracy in the Muslim world and we need to spend more on education and human development to contain the forces of extremism." This warmed-over Marxist political analysis would be comical if not so tragic. How can someone from the Muslim world be so blind to the inherent tyranny of the Muslim culture and tradition? When has Islam ever produced moderation or progress? What Muslim country or culture has any tradition of free or democratic institutions? The American military is trying to bring "democracy" and "education" to the heart of the Muslin world - Iraq - only to be greeted by suicide bombers and other nut jobs.
Jim Hughes
Green Bay, Wisconsin (Nov 3, '04)

This is merely a sweeping statement that Muslim culture is undemocratic. All four caliphs (Bakar, Umar, Othaman and Ali) were elected by the people. They ran their governments with a shura (council). They established courts where all were accountable, including the caliphs themselves. That was the first example of democracy in human history and rightly called a complete revolution (in social, economic and political spheres not religion alone) by most historians. After the fourth caliph the institution of the caliph became a hierarchical monarchy, but the rest of the system, which included a powerful judiciary and council, existed for about 1,000 years, after which a powerful struggle continued to bring back the caliphate in its real sense. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Nice article in Asia Times Online [Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda, Nov 3]. Can you be a bit tougher on BiBi, though?
M M Abbasi (Nov 3, '04)

It was pre-planned that this interview should not be a hard talk but the representation of ideas by one of the strongest secular voices of the Muslim world. A hard-talk interview is needed, however, which shall be planned later on. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Syed Saleem Shahzad: How come a journalist of your stature can come under pressure from this cunning woman [Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda, Nov 3]? I know her very well and she might have selected these questions in advance. But it leaves you nowhere, as these question have been asked by hundreds of people before and everybody knows her position on these issues. One more thing which needs your attention is that B Raman writes frequently for ATol and we all know his background, but being a Pakistani we expect you to countervail his anti-Pakistani propaganda and stop him from Paki-bashing.
Hidayat Khan
London, England (Nov 3, '04)

The purpose of the interview was just a representation of secular and liberal forces on the issue of the "war on terror" and how they evaluate it. As a journalist, I was taught that I am the trustee of news and therefore my work is to give my honest assessment to the readers, irrespective of geographical boundaries. My job is nothing more, nothing less. If somebody transgresses his limits he will lose his credibility. Readers are not fools. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I have been a regular reader of your columns for the past six months. I am taking this opportunity to raise a question. To your question [in Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda, Nov 3], "There is a theory that Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf was the biggest supporter of al-Qaeda before September 11, 2001. Why and how did he became the 'most trusted' US partner in the 'war on terror'? And does the Pakistani army fully support him?" Bhutto responded: "It is a fact that the Musharraf regime was the biggest supporter of the Taliban, who harbored al-Qaeda, which was recruiting and training men for terrorism prior to 9/11. This policy was defended in the name of strategic depth. I called it 'strategic threat' in a speech I gave in parliament calling for the breaking of ties with the Taliban in 1998." As far as my limited knowledge goes, Benazir went into exile (self-imposed) in 1997, so how could she have given a speech in parliament in 1998 when she was not in Pakistan? I hope you can clarify this and watch out [for] these phony statements our politicians in general and Ms Bhutto in particular is fond of.
Shahid (Nov 3, '04)

She went into self-imposed exile in 1999, not in 1997. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


I refer to the article by Spengler, What Osama might have told America [Nov 2]. Spengler must really think that we, the readers of Asia Times, are naive to fall for the fraud that the creators of Osama [bin Laden]'s latest tapes want us to believe. The only Osama I can think of must be sitting in Langley, Virginia, if not in Mossad's headquarters in Israel. I think this time the creators of Osama's series of videos have really exposed themselves and Spengler along with them.
Amos Langweni
Johannesburg, South Africa (Nov 3, '04)


I refer to the article What Osama might have told America [Nov 2] by Spengler. Spengler is adding more fraud to the original fraud. The tape by Osama bin Laden was made in Tel Aviv and his anonymous source must be in Tel Aviv too. This ingenious work of forgery is meant to make the Europeans and Americans hate Muslims even more so that the neo-cons can get their full-blown clash of civilizations. I think it is about time Spengler shows his true colors and tells the readers of Asia Times what his true agenda is.
Vincent Maadi (Nov 3, '04)


[B] Raman: Good analysis [Bin Laden adds his spin, Nov 2], but I have one question. I thought [Osama] bin Laden looked old and gray, not hearty. I think he looked like a man they tried to make look healthy, but in fact, he looked pretty sick with only his right arm moving and sitting stationary like that. Is there an earlier tape where he looks worse?
Jim (Nov 3, '04)

In some previous tapes he appeared pale. - B Raman


Dear Shaji: Thanks for the letter [Nov 2], and your point is taken and accepted. In fact in a recent letter I too wrote that taking over symbols of the conquered people was a norm in those days and yes, Muslims were guilty of it too. I would never deny that Muslim rulers have committed brutal crimes [against] followers of other religions and indeed [against] their Muslim subjects too. I have no qualms in accepting that Islam has had its fair share of misguided people who committed acts that bring Islam to disrepute, but what I do have qualms with is when people tell me that Islam demolished churches and temples of other people, but no one had ever done that to Muslims ... or that Islam preaches the destruction of idols. I do not even believe that Islamic rulers were an exception in their wicked ways, which is something that some non-Muslims have been led to believe. Anyway, I am now bored of this conversation because most of what I say gets turned around, twisted and thrown back at my face anyway, so I say forgive me if I hurt anybody's feelings here, as it was not my intention. Now I am off on holidays for two weeks and will have little access to the Internet. I hope those of you who celebrate it have a very happy Eid day. Before I go, I would also like to thank Beth [Bowden] from Texas for her fair letters.
T Kiani
Kiani_99@hotmail.com (Nov 3, '04)


My Indian letter-writer friends showed us an Indian version of democratic debate here - that is, putting words in my mouth and beating those words to the death. Another technique they learned from their white masters is to label whoever disagrees with them as communists, then they attack the communists. Nitin Shekhar from Cincinnati, Ohio, further proved my points that Indians brought more destruction to colony victims than their white masters. He forgets that we (whites, yellows, blacks, and East Indians) are all guests in the American continent. [Native American] Indians are supposed to be the only masters of their own land. Yes, I am aware there [were] treaties signed under the guns of white colonists and their East Indian solders after the Thanksgiving party. When we are to celebrate that upcoming event in November, should we all remember what happened afterwards? However, at least [native American] Indians still have their dignity and pride after 20 million deaths.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Nov 3, '04)


In response to Jay [Liu, letter, Nov 2]: There were people I knew in China who had actually taken part in the demonstrations [in Tiananmen Square]. I put the "CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] was behind it" argument to them, to which they replied that their own decision to take the train to Beijing was a personal, self-motivated decision. They said the government likes to believe that actually everyone likes [it], and the foreign-involvement story is just an excuse. Some of the protest organizers being able to get out is just as likely an indication of popular support and therefore assistance enjoyed by them. I haven't branded Jay with any label, and his decision of place to live is up to him. Reasons for emigrating consist of "pull" but also "push" reasons. Many I have met wish to earn a better living, yet are worried about the future and stability of the country under the CCP [Chinese Communist Party], disappointed by their parents having their pensions cut in half. In other words, a lack of trust underpins a decision to leave. The lack of a free press also makes it hard to believe what the CCP says.
Peter Mitchelmore (Nov 3, '04)


Spengler adds ...