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.

May 2004

Ritt Goldstein responds to readers
Responding to the debate that my article Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts (May 22) has sparked, perhaps the most vital point to note is the very fact of the debate itself. The article was done to provide reportage upon an event that rightfully captured world attention, expanding the knowledge of the event's circumstances in so doing. The fact that a passionate discussion of the event was precipitated is gratifying, though reporting of fact was my only intent. Nevertheless, I personally believe that democracy and understanding can only flourish when debate occurs, and perhaps many of the problems we face today are, in essence, due to an informed debate's absence. Too often it has seemed that legitimate questions have been equated with illegitimacy and disloyalty, highlighting what I perceive as a trend emphasizing unquestioning support for those in authority, a trend serving to negate the meaningful deliberation of the ideas that authority has disseminated, the information and goals it has laid out. While mobs are said to act from blind emotion, is not an informed citizenry required to move only after a due consideration of facts, with a failure to do so meaningfully comprising a true act of disloyalty, to one's state, community, and oneself? My report presented information, but the way in which that information is interpreted is up to each of you, the readers. As a reporter, I can only deal in facts, and in the present context two facts that I perceive are these: human knowledge has only been expanded by examining and questioning what one sees versus blindly accepting it, and a leading US forensics expert believes the Berg video "raises more questions than it answers".
Ritt Goldstein (May 28, '04)


[Re How Palestine is dying in Iraq, May 27.] While the assertion that the American invasion and temporary occupation of Iraq, however long that might last, draws much attention away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is accurate, the author's contention that this is allowing Israel to pursue a planned policy of driving Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank in order to achieve a demographic transformation is absurd. Only in the deluded fantasies of the most fanatical in the settler movement is there a real belief these days that settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are going to create a demographic shift that will lead to those territories being incorporated into Israel proper as primarily Jewish occupied areas. Rather, [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's embrace of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, to the consternation of most in Likud and the relief of most other Israelis, is recognition that such a demographic shift, once envisioned by Sharon, Menachem Begin, and other proponents of the settler movement, is not going to occur, and that rather if Israel continues to hold on to Gaza and the West Bank it will only harm its own long-term security interests by continuing to administer a growing, seething Palestinian population that has good reason to hate the Israelis. Rather, what Sharon has finally realized is that for its own survival Israel has to disengage from Gaza and from most of the West Bank. He is addressing the Gaza situation first, but even as it is taking the limelight, he is making moves on the West Bank as well. Israel is beginning to shore up and even fortify the biggest settlements in the West Bank, the ones outside of Jerusalem and Hebron, while at the same time soldiers are concentrating on securing and establishing strategic outposts on the high ground to defend those areas. The smaller settlements that are deep in the West Bank dwarfed by the local Arab population are receiving less and less attention. The reason is simple: Sharon knows that Israel must relinquish Gaza and must relinquish most of the West Bank, so he is trying to use his military and his wall to take those large settlements and those settlements in close proximity to the Israeli border and keep separate them from the rest, which Israel is going to lose. In doing so, Sharon is not seeking to change the demographics of the territories and remove the Palestinians, although he may well wish he had the power to do so; rather, he is seeking to separate Gaza from Israel and carve from the West Bank those areas that favor Jewish Israelis demographically so that they can be annexed outright to Israel. Whether or not he succeeds in these endeavors, in all likelihood any successor government to him ... will probably come to similar conclusions and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and most of the West Bank is likely to occur in the next decade. This is anything but the attempt to use the Iraq situation as an excuse for driving out or deporting Palestinians so as to annex the territories that the author fears.
Andrew W Boss
Washington, DC (May 28, '04)


Both John Kerry and George Bush have now played their hands insofar as Iraq, the Middle East, and terrorism are concerned. Bush wants to "stay the course" against terrorism in Iraq, while Kerry says we must not "stay the wrong course" while persevering against terrorism. Neither Bush nor Kerry, as they rant about "radical Islam", willingly touches upon the true cause of terrorism: the issue of a free and independent Palestinian state. Either candidate may build Iraq to look like the House of Commons in England but, until the issue of Palestine is resolved, terrorism will remain. The concern for WMD [weapons of mass destruction] is just, but it is unjust to use this concern as cause to ignore the true cause of terrorism as currently repressed. Literally millions more Arabs have been murdered in the last 50 years by freely exported, or divisively sold American armament than have there been victims of those we conveniently choose to label as "terrorists". Since the '70s the United States has devoted one-third of its foreign aid to Israel in military aid. Yet Israel poses a far greater nuclear threat nurtured by us than does the fantasized Arab nuclear capability. But even without WMD the terrorism will persist as its true causes are ignored. As long as the issue of a free Palestinian state is tiptoed about by vote-seeking, military-industrial-complex-coddling candidates, terrorism will remain, homes be bulldozed, weddings bombed, and peasants tortured by those instructed to do so from American CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] manuals which have existed since the 1960s when they were first perfected. The choice is clear.
Eamon George Nelson
Lancaster, Pennsylvania (May 28, '04) 


[Re Hong Kong free speech signs off the air, May 26.] Like so many others I would not mind hearing or reading sincere, constructive criticism of the Hong Kong or Beijing government. However, the incessant, fierce attacks by [Albert] Cheng and [Raymond] Wong, the "famous mouths" as they are known, are a little too much to bear. Is there nothing, absolutely nothing that the local or central government does that might earn a word of recognition or encouragement? Supporters of one side are singled out to be behind the threats against the two gentlemen. Likewise it can be alleged that those two "famous mouths" have been encouraged or even bribed by forces of the opposite side to launch their attacks. The governor of Hong Kong used to be appointed by London, without even a whisper from the loud, street-taking "democrats". It reminds one of some people's "running dog" mentality, much like some Taiwanese longing for Japanese rule.
Seung Li (May 28, '04)


I stumbled on to your website from Yahoo. I was most impressed; however, I noticed a conspicuous absence of female writers on your "About Us". Is it true you have no full-time female reporters? What proportion of your editorial staff is female?
Ajit (May 28, '04)

Nearly all of our correspondents are freelancers, and not employed full-time by Asia Times Online. The About Us page is only a sampling of some of our regular writers, and is not meant to be comprehensive. A few of our female writers who have contributed articles recently are Jayanthi Iyengar, Sudha Ramachandran, Carrie Chan, Jill Jolliffe and Chee Yoke Heong. Currently about half of the editing staff for our English-language site are women. - ATol


[A message of thanks from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in heaven to George W Bush.] Thanks, George, for spending US$200 billion of US taxpayers' money helping us extend the Islamic revolution to the [Persian] Gulf. We had a huge problem: Iraq is a Shi'ite country, so should have joined our revolution, but Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator and oppressed the Iraqi holy people. We were delighted to see you elected, especially when we realized that you were intent on taking revenge for your father. We instructed our good friend [Ahmad] Chalabi to help you build a case for (y)our good cause and built quite a number of fake [pieces of] information to help you strengthen the case for removing Saddam (we called him Small Satan, hence we believed only Grand Satan could get us rid of Small Satan. You did not betray us, and I'll book 40 superb virgins especially for [you] when you join us). We were quite grateful that you fully trusted all the good information we provided without any checks. I am also grateful for the good job you did in Iraqi prisons as well as in Fallujah, and all the good photo/video evidence you provided us with to confirm to our people your Grand Satanic nature, I believe we hardly need to add a word, although we were a bit surprised you did not quite match the horrors Small Satan achieved (and also thanks for helping us in spreading information about his feats). George, I know it's not for failing to try (you even sent your successful Guantanamo general) but I'm sure you can do better. We won't need to convince ordinary people that our Islamic Republic is better than your corrupt and pornographic democracy. George, before you consider leaving Iraq, I would suggest you could also consider removing the tyrant (issued from a minority) in Syria, that would help us expand the Islamic revolution further. In order to help you, I suggest I contact our friend [Osama] bin Laden for him to organize a terrorist action in the US in the summer so that you get re-elected and get on with the job. (Just an idea, you could say that Small Satan sent his WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to Syria. I'll provide information.) Also, keep [up] the good work in Afghanistan with the heroin culture, which ensures the continued decadence of your people (our Taliban friends were totally wrong in trying to eradicate it - you rightly put an end to this nonsense). One last word: my Pakistani friend has met some difficulties developing the H-bomb which we intend to buy from him. Can the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] help him out? Thanks again! Great leadership! Together, we'll redraw the Middle East map!
Khokho (May 28, '04)


ATol says [under Frank's letter of May 25]: "That's unfortunate for those who don't like Chen, but democrats would argue that Taiwan's system is superior to one in which a tiny handful of people dictate to 1.3 billion of their fellow citizens, who have little or no say in the manner of their own governance." You have finally dropped your mask of being pro-DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] and pro-Taiwan separatism. Your argument is flawed, because millions of Chinese are members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), certainly not a few. The CCP is a legal and [continually] developing party with an increasingly solid base, because of growing members of the middle and upper classes that join the party who influence the country's direction, while in the past the CCP was mainly supported by peasants in rural areas. Those who want to influence the direction of the country join the party. Those who don't care about politics simply do not care. Compared to China's long history, the PRC [People's Republic of China] has never been more democratic. The mainland's system is different compared to that of Taiwan; however, one must remember Taiwan's wealth was built when its system resembled the mainland's. Also I would like to respond to Daniel McCarthy [letter, May 26]. He says: "Since a unification law is tantamount to a declaration of war in advance, all bets will be off." A reunification law is a preemptive measure to prevent Taiwan breaking all its ties with the concept of "one China". Many Chinese want to restore China and rejuvenate the ancient nation, so we can undo the shame and humiliation which was inflicted on us. Obviously McCarthy should not confuse anti-separatist rhetoric from the mainland with being anti-Taiwan, although Taiwan is increasing its anti-China/Chinese rhetoric, which should rather be halted. Asking the mainland to stop believing in "one China" is like asking the pope to stop believing in God, which is very unlikely.
J Zhang (May 28, '04)

We said "democrats would argue", not "Asia Times Online argues". Still, we make no apology for the fact that, being in a business that depends on freedom of speech, we naturally tend to favor democratic regimes over dictatorships. But that is no reason to leap to the erroneous conclusion that ATol is "pro-DPP and pro-Taiwan separatism". - ATol


In response to Michael Stubson's letter on May 17 where he fears "12 people controlling one-fifth of the world's population", I would just like to relay my own fears of having a single nepotistically ordained halfwit controlling 25 percent of the world's GDP [gross domestic product] and half its nuclear arsenal based on "hunches" and "feelings".
Jialun Lu
Investment Banker
Hong Kong (May 28, '04)


Spengler responds to readers
Johannes D Mirthful and Joe Nichols (letters, May 25) object to "a labored construct of highfalutin Euro philosophy" in an essay (Socrates the destroyer, May 25) directed to "devotees of the Reader's Digest" or "students in Ohio taking the obligatory Philosophy 101". Fair enough; if they prefer an American frame of reference, I direct them to an earlier and (I think) better version of my Socrates essay, which appeared in Asia Times Online on Jan 27 under the title Red harvest in Iraq. Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op was my sort of Knight of Faith. Niccolo Machiavelli wished for an armed prophet, but we live in an age in which prophecy is too much to expect. Luckily we still have some armed ironists. As for Mr Nichols' suggestion that "real existential fear" involves raising a crop or finding a job, I beg to differ. Among the world's most miserable peoples are the prosperous and secure Europeans, who are too depressed or depraved to reproduce themselves. It is easy to make people prosperous, as the 2 billion people of Greater China prove daily. It is hard to stop people possessed by existential despair from destroying themselves.
Spengler (May 27, '04)


While the article Free speech in Hong Kong signs off the air [May 27] clearly insinuates that Beijing is the culprit behind these alleged threats on democracy advocates, there is absolutely no evidence to support this position besides the self-proving circular logic: They did it because we say so. Journalism should be non-partisan, and this is clearly not.
Glenn Luk
Investment banker
Hong Kong (May 27, '04)


[Re The US and the lessons of Chechnya, May 27.] Some flares of stale propaganda aside, Christopher Lord seems to be trying to stick to the pretense of rational analysis. Still, his parallels between Iraq and Chechnya are artificial and void of any roots in reality. In real life, the differences between Chechnya and Iraq are so stark that these cases should be deemed incomparable. Chechnya is internationally recognized as part of the Russian Federation, while Iraq not only never belonged to the US, it doesn't even touch one bit of American territory. Chechen terrorists were and still are active participants in the global jihadi movement, and their actions are well known and well documented, while their outfits can be regarded as outlaw in strict legal sense. Iraq is exactly the opposite - Saddam [Hussein]'s was a legally legitimate, secular regime that was anathema to jihadis, and was never implicated in acts of international terror, beyond some loose and biased conjecture. But the biggest difference of why Russians support the Chechen campaign, while Americans dither in Iraq, is grounded in history. Russians defeated Chechens once, and regard this latest insurgency as an unfortunate outgrowth of the Soviet "ethnicities and nationalities" policy, which if unchecked can threaten the rest of the multi-ethnic fabric of Russia. Americans, on the other hand, see no mighty rationale as to why they should run a risk of sinking their teeth in world's most intractable region, particularly as that rationale keeps on shifting with each passing day.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (May 27, '04)


[On May 27] Pepe Escobar (Georgia on his mind [May 27]) asked if it can get worse for our [US] president. His worst scenario might be having to ask [for the] mercy of Muslims, among many others, in order to save the United States. Then again, asking for forgiveness is supposed to be a Christian virtue. Sure seems like we could be doing that for a long time.
Daxe
US (May 27, '04)


This letter is not about any particular article but about your online paper and [Pepe] Escobar. I have found your online paper to be one of the most informative and wide-ranging publications available to readers on the Internet. The articles are well written and highly informative. The information is presented in the tradition of journalism that I grew up with here in the United States and that unfortunately no longer exists. As to Pepe, I find him to be one (just one) of your most interesting writers. I can say with complete honesty that I don’t always agree with his analysis or his perspective. I can also say, with the utmost respect, that his articles always make me review my own thoughts and preconceived ideas of the world. I am enjoying his tour of the United States and his take on life here very much. I know that this may be impossible but pass on my e-mail address to Pepe and an invitation to dinner and a bottle of home-made wine to this gentleman. I would be honored and proud to entertain Mr Escobar in my home.
David Lynch (May 27, '04)

We have forwarded your invitation to Pepe. To read the latest in his Roving USA series, please click here. - ATol

Li Jing's article China-Taiwan: Talking the talk, walking the walk (May 26) would be more complete if it delved further into the topic. For example:
1. Will [Taiwanese] President Chen Shui-bian ever accept the so-called "one China" principle? It seems that everyone, including [Chinese President] Hu Jintao, knows that he will not.
2. Then what are China's options with regard to Taiwan short of a unification law or military attack? There really seem to be none, except more belligerent rhetoric that has proved counterproductive in the past.
3. Will a unification law work? Since a unification law is tantamount to a declaration of war in advance, all bets will be off. Taiwan will drop any pretenses with regard to China, the US will rapidly abandon its one-China policy, and a formal US troop presence in Taiwan is assured. The US would curtain economic relations with China in advance of the expected attack, leading to a crisis in China's coastal economy, and mass layoffs. That in turn would lead to social unrest, forcing the Chinese Communist Party to either commence the planned war early or to be forced from power.
4. Does China have any other options? The only one making Taiwan into a crisis is the Chinese Communist Party, and Jiang Zemin in particular. If Mr Jiang would retire, then Hu Jintao could halt the anti-Taiwan propaganda machine and quiet the whole situation down. From a rational standpoint, China would have more of a claim to Mongolia than to Taiwan, since Mongolia was part of China for nearly 1,000 years, but no one in China seems concerned about that, since there is no propaganda about Mongolia in the Chinese media. By halting the anti-Taiwan propaganda machine, President Hu could cause the Taiwan issue to fade into the background and defuse this crisis, which threatens the destruction of China (and some of its neighbors, including Taiwan).
Most important, Li Jing's article fails to explain Beijing's misunderstanding of Taiwan. Of course we all know that the rhetoric "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China" is a mere fiction, but that is not the misunderstanding to which I refer. Beijing mistakenly thinks that if President Chen Shui-bian were to accept the one-China principle, then it would be somehow binding on Taiwan. But since Taiwan is a democracy with a system based on the rule of law, President Chen's acceptance of the one-China principle, or any other principle, would have no legal effect. Absent either a treaty between Taiwan and China on the subject or a rewrite of Taiwan's constitution to provide that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, Taiwan's status as a separate sovereign entity from the People's Republic of China will not change. Therefore China is asking for something from Chen that he cannot possibly deliver. Either the autocrats in Beijing are astoundingly ignorant of the workings of the rule of law and a democratic system, or the entire one-China uproar is mere bluster meant solely to gain negotiating advantage.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 26, '04)


I find the ATol editor's biased logic [note under Frank's letter of May 25] funny. You said: "Democracy strives to protect minority rights" and "a very small minority wants to secede from Taiwan". You just provided the evidence you demanded from me. Chen [Shui-bian was] declared the president [of Taiwan] based on 30,000 votes. At the same time, there are 300,000 Taiwan Chinese solders who do not like Chen are not allowed to vote. Actually, the 30,000 majority is also debatable. In my understanding, the real democracy allows all people to vote for their leader. If the ATol editor is trying to be fair to all sides, ATol should publish some news regarding the protest in Taiwan against that self-declared president. If you believe democracy is about to protect minority rights, why don't you protect the Chinese rights in Taiwan? If you want China to become a fair and democratic country, you need to treat Chinese people equally.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 26, '04)

Even if all members of the Taiwan military wanted to secede, which is very unlikely and for which you offer no evidence (a vote against Chen does not necessarily imply any desire to secede or even to unify with the mainland), they would still constitute only a small minority of the island's 16 million eligible voters. Ask your friends in Beijing to permit democracy, even the imperfect kind practiced in Taiwan, including legalization of anti-communist political parties and full press freedom, and only then will we see Chinese people being treated equally on the mainland and on the island. - ATol


Re Socrates the destroyer [May 25]. I am an admirer of Spengler's project to bring ideas to bear on the contemporary situation. While his discussion may serve to educate Straussians and followers of an evangelical realpolitik, I would like to assert the role of another strain of Western thought, albeit an ill-defined and often defensive one. The existentialist response to [Soren] Kierkegaard's challenge was to boldly contemplate the (potential) meaninglessness of the rationalist universe. Instead of taking a trembling leap of faith back to the Bible, existentialists, along with secular humanists, make the claim that it is within the power of consciousness to create meaning from nothingness. This creative power is inherent in human nature, and requires no organized system of belief, whether spoon-fed or carefully researched. Albert Camus, Bertrand Russell, and contemporary philosophers including Daniel Dennett deny that moral relativism must necessarily result from a rationalist metaphysical stance. Instead, ethics (which share many characteristics of religious systems) can be deduced using logic and history, and can serve as the basis for communication and accommodation across so-called civilizational divides. This point of view is no more provable than any given religious point of view, but it arguably leads to better results. I believe that a large segment of the public shares such views, across many parts of the world. They have witnessed the atrocities of our recent past and present, and are well aware that global population and resources will reach a new equilibrium within a few generations. Throwbacks to frontier eras who believe that warfare must allocate scarcity place us all at risk; scarcity is bound to increase, while the technology of conflict threatens to move well beyond any previously tested standards of horror. Hence cooperation assumes a pragmatic and evolutionary supremacy over intolerant and dehumanizing belief systems. The underlying question is how long, and at what cost, such belief systems will be allowed to persist.
J Opy
Minnesota, USA (May 26, '04)


Lisa [letter, May 24] reveals her agenda by childish name-calling: extremist right wing. She labels [Ritt] Goldstein "left liberal anti-American", though that is irrelevant to whether his views [Berg beheading: No way, say experts, May 22] are correct, and does nothing to address or refute them. As well, she reveals that she does not respect democracy, if she even understands it, by characterizing views with which she disagrees as being "anti-American". By contrast, US democracy respects the individual right to believe whatever he chooses, therefore it is wholly American to do so, even when Ms Lisa doesn't approve of the belief. Thus Ms Lisa is condemned by her own terms as being anti-American by her effort to suppress views of which she disapproves by calling the person who expressed those views that which she incorrectly views as being a pair of dirty names. Then, in keeping with her unquestioning belief in [US President George W] Bush's assertions about the [Nick] Berg murder video, misses an odd but obvious contradiction between that view and the easily observed facts in the video itself. On one hand, she repeats the Bush allegation that the "lead" killer in the video identified himself as [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi. We are thereby meant to infer that the "lead" killer identified himself as al-Zarqawi because he wanted everyone to know who he was. But on the other, the terrorist in the video who we are to believe claimed to be al-Zarqawi is wearing a ski mask - and does so, obviously, so no one will know who he is. As to the "title" of the video as "proof" that the "lead" killer was al-Zarqawi: Ms Lisa would assure us that terrorists cannot be trusted, and yet insist we are to believe they wouldn't lie - at least about such detail as being the identity of a person wearing a ski mask. One need not indulge in conspiracy theories or speculations about who "really" killed Berg to properly ask: if the "lead" killer wanted us to know who he was, all he had to do was not wear, or take off, the mask. Or to remember that the US military itself reported that al-Zarqawi was killed in March - the month before a person appearing to be Berg was apparently beheaded on a video allegedly by a person who was himself dead.
Joseph Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (May 26, '04)


Re Socrates the destroyer [May 25]. "Merry good humor pervades Kierkegaard's writing on the subject." Damn, that's good, "Spengler" (what an ironic name). Of course over the head of most of us Americans, having never had the benefit of [Soren] Kierkegaard and the "merry good humor" that pervades his work. Very interesting and entertaining article. However, ironically, it's a labored construct of highfalutin Euro philosophy to support your preconceived conclusion. Kind of a modest kirche embossed with ornamental, incongruent parlor philosophy. For people with really tasteful parlors. Like you. Or perhaps, to use a "continental" term, shit in a silk stocking? It might be even more interesting to explore the fact that if there are Kierkegaardian "knights of faith" alive today, many are in Iraq. Many wearing coalition military uniforms. And perhaps not with the attitude they can impose democracy on "whatever nation they please", but maybe, with the grace of God, improve the lot of the Iraqi people. And some other knights, with radically different views. The former loathed, the latter feared by "right-thinking" folks like you. But apparently both providing insight into your peculiar sickness. Ironically, these knights of faith are entirely missing from the dismal Dane of Christendom's (and your) ancestral home. Which gives your observations such a detached, ironic (and entertaining) viewpoint. I'd call it a knod of Schadenfreude, if I could spell it.
Johannes D Mirthful
Tuscaloosa, Mississippi (May 25, '04)


One has to wonder whom Spengler is now writing to (Socrates the destroyer, May 25). Perhaps he writes to the business traveler who reads Cliff notes on the Great Books series, hoping to appear knowledgeable by repeating phrases out of context; or to devotees of the Reader's Digest, vocabulary builders, and possibly even students in Ohio taking the obligatory Philosophy 101. Mingled with meaningful statements about [Soren] Kierkegaard's leap of faith and Socrates' irony, one must put up with allusions to "Hebrew love" regarding a people whose core attributes are independence, staying apart, subversion, ambition and pride, a composite that makes love very much like condescension. Love and condescension are the same to this fellow, and he thus captures much of what broad-minded people object to in the Judeo-Christian approach. Further, according to Spengler, the alternative meaning to the American/neo-Western campaign is the generous extension of "rationalism among the less fortunate", many of whose misfortunes are the direct consequence of the Western project, rationalized according to need. The real irony might be that only some measure of reason can now salvage the situation, but of a kind that Spengler shows no talent in practicing. But what of the philosophers? Spengler makes one of the most idiotic remarks possible from a person who seems to care about the history of thinking: "Friedrich Nietzsche despised both faith and reason, and chose Socrates as the whipping-boy for reason." Nietzsche's derision of faith must explain why he called the Old Testament the greatest book and Jesus the noblest man, remarks that I offer with great caution to people unfamiliar with his works. In terms of nobility, next in line to Jesus he would have placed Socrates himself, "champion" of reason and caught in the predicament of his own moment of creative destruction. As Nietzsche interpreted it, only because Athenian noble culture was already in decline was Socrates' rationalism capable to confound its instincts. Socrates was an exemplar and predator of Athenian decadence, and he understood himself as such. His nobility resides in the fact that he understood and accepted his condition and his fate. Now Spengler draws us into his own predicament, at the very precipice that both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard brought philosophy; what to do when reason is exhausted and we face death? This is a minority problem, confined to intellectuals (I experience it too). Spengler transfers his angst to humanity as a whole - miscalculation and offensive vanity on his part. For 95 percent of people, real existential fear has to do with a good crop, a job, health care, the manageability of local norms and basic security, not with philosophy or religion. If Western powers or the ambitious elite in any nation cannot put aside their vanities, Socrates might become an example for us all - minus the nobility.
Joe Nichols
USA (May 25, '04)


Let me open with some overt flattery, then proceed to the meat. As an utterly ironic American (I just read Spengler's latest [Socrates the destroyer, May 25]) I find that only the foreign press is even worth reading, and of the lot, your [website] is, by a decided margin, the best. Objective, comprehensive and downright literate. If the entire city of Washington had the combined knowledge and philosophical depth of just Henry Liu and Spengler, well, things would better for everybody everywhere. Having dispensed with the perhaps understated praise, let me add to it by commending you folks for raising the lid off the fake-beheading incident [Berg beheading: No way, say experts, May 22]. Pure false flag ... the terrorists did it. Now, let us move on to an even more famous operation of the same sort. It is called, lovingly, 9/11. While no one has all the answers, there's at least one very repeatable experience that proves [the attacks of September 11, 2001, were] an inside job, with help from Mossad, ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence], MI5 [British intelligence], and no doubt other luminaries of that sort. It is in the form of obtaining the best possible copies of the view of the plane approaching the south tower [of New York's World Trade Center], and slowing it to a frame-by-frame speed. To save time, go to http:/www.letsroll911.org, where it is posted in all its sordid glory. Now there [is] a lid that needs blowing off. Keep up the great work.
Phil Toler (May 25, '04)


Many, if not all, of the points mentioned by Ritt Goldstein in the piece [Berg beheading: No way, say experts] posted May 22 have already been carried earlier, and discussed at length, on several websites - so these are nothing new or startling. But there is one important item which has not yet been listed. Contained within the video, in a corner, is evidence of a US military cap and the sentence spoken in English: "How will it be done?" which was discovered after a frame-by-frame analysis by the staff of the Aztlan Website ; thus on the totality of these facts the story, so far, put out by the coalition forces is highly suspect. Further and vigorous research may eventually lead to the implication of all covert parties employed by the US for the accomplishment of this foul deed.
KA
UK (May 25, '04)


Your report on Australia's attempts to loot East Timorese oil (East Timor struggles for oil with Australia [May 22]) was a sad case of deja vu. Australia and other Western nations had aided the violent Timorese secessionist movement against Indonesia with money and weapons, and finally direct intervention. They had done so on the basis of "human rights" and Christian solidarity. Now watch how they treat their poor, politically isolated, Christian-convert Asian brothers. Timor alone is obviously much easier to swindle than is a united Indonesia. The extensive and sustained use of religious evangelism and human rights to interfere and create problems in other countries is a matter that needs to be exposed more and more. This is particularly relevant in the light of the massive current evangelist investment in India, and also in China. Using the lure of a greater kinship with a prosperous West (among other methods of deception), these hypocrites have been preying on weak minds. But the converted subjects are mere pawns to buttress the proselytizer's geopolitical position. This has historically been the trend with the world's two imperialistic "religions", viz Christianity and Islam. Political actors from these two communities have consistently abused the legacy of the spiritual founders to further their political ends. An Indo-Pakistani Muslim will never quite be equal to an Arab, or even a Turk. Pakistanis educated in Arab-funded madrassas emotionally take to the streets for political causes in far-away Arab lands, but I haven't seen Arabs screaming emotionally for causes that Pakistanis hold dear. The West's use of religion is even more hypocritical. In their own countries, obscenity and anti-religious sentiment is widespread. The Netherlands has been in the forefront of evangelist activity in sync with the US (especially in East Asia and India), yet church attendance in that country is abysmal. But used in tandem with their "monopoly" on "human rights" preaching and the international media, Western religious politicking is a new force that deserves greater attention from Asian news analysts, both for the sake of good political analysis [and] in the interest of true religion and human sanity itself.
Carl Clemens (May 25, '04)


My hunch is the [Ahmed] Chalabi raid and his fall from grace is a head fake [Chalabi: From White House to dog house, May 22]. Just one more con from a high-stakes con man and his neo-con pals.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (May 25, '04)


Re the review of [Sumantra] Bose's book by [Chanakya] Sen [The Kashmir conundrum, May 22]. It was readable. The question is, if it is not the institutional failure that caused the 1989 uprising, what were the factors that caused it? What about the economic and sociological factors of the uprising? Mr Sen does not say anything about the alternative explanations. How to establish the direct causal relations between, say, economic factors and the uprising's outbreak? [Was] religion a cause in itself? Or was it an instrumental/mobilizational factor? Can one put the explanation solely in the ethnicity basket? If it is not the cultural differences, then what caused the uprising? How to get an objectively reliable explanation that could be [set] against the alternative explanations? What about the Pakistani connection? Why [do] most Indian scholars say that it is hard to come by the Pakistani involvement as a direct party? Some Westerners ask: Did Pakistan cause it or support it? The two are different things. The crucial question is why the uprising occurred in 1989 and not earlier or after. Is the uprising a result of failure of ideas: socialism, secularism and democracy? How can one avoid ... the nationalistic trappings? I write this note with a great hope that some of the issues raised would be addressed by Mr Sen. And I am sure your readers will be greatly benefited.
Abu Ahmed, PhD
Research Scholar, Center for Arab and Islamic Studies
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia (May 25, '04)


For the most part religions are separated from the rest of the world of ideas by rigorous belief conditions, which repulse the educated majority who deal with the world with mostly rational paradigms. So let us set aside the passion plays presently dominating the news and consider the historical roots of democracy, which is after all the key to a viable future. It is widely accepted that English political philosopher John Locke laid the foundation for modern democracy. According to Locke, sovereign rights reside with the people and are based on a contract with the people. But two millennia before Locke, the ancient Chinese philosophy of Minben Zhengchi, or "people-based politics", taught that "the will of the people is the will of heaven" and that one should "respect the people as heaven" itself. In ancient India, monarchical thinking was constantly battling with another vision, of self-rule by members of a guild, a village, or an extended kin-group, in other words, any group of equals with a common set of interests. This vision of cooperative self-government often produced republicanism and even democracy comparable to classical Greek democracy. The establishment of democracy in Asia can be well handled by Asians. The United States' general population needs education about these matters. Asia Times is a great source of such education. Regarding religion, though, as a prime basis for confronting the world's problems, I think this is a serious error. Following this route we will all end up as in Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach":
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
John King (May 25, '04)


I think you should change the title "Best of Before" to "Stories Most Read" or "Stories with Maximum Clicks". That is because the stories put under the existing sub-heading are only sometimes "the best of before": they get the most clicks simply because you put them first in the sequence the previous day(s). As such, these stories do not represent the best in qualitative terms, only the most clicked, courtesy your intervention and hierarchization. In fact, on many occasions I have noticed that the best stories are not prioritized by you, and they thus receive far fewer clicks - and are promptly taken off by your editorial team. What you do prioritize is sensational stuff, even though you do receive enough high-quality reports (which typically get the bottom places). For a much more democratic layout, you may want to view the Wall Street Journal's website; the following Indian website (http://www.outlookindia.com) is also very democratic - and gives much more apparent choice of menu to the reader (unlike your site, which is very imposing). In any case, just notice how many times the "Best of Before" stories tend to be those that you chose to put at the top the previous day. Of course your judgment can't be completely meritless, but if it is about what you choose to call "best" - then you should say so: such as in the form of such a subtitle: Our Picks, or Our Selections. "Best of Before" incorrectly gives the impression that the readers chose those stories; the truth is that you coerce or manipulate the reader into reading particular stories more than others simply because of your linear and hierarchical web design. Of course your other windows such as War and Terror" or "South Asia" remain on the sidelines; most readers simply look at the Front Page and follow the hierarchy you impose on them. As such, you are not being fair, perhaps, to your authors either; by sequencing their stories and then claiming to declare the "best" out of them - based on a hierarchy of your choosing, rather than the reader's genuine choice. Outlook magazine, for example, has much more lateral presentation - while it also leaves the one window up top for the daily report. I guess if you visit their site, you will know what I mean.
Choa Noa (May 25, '04)

Statistics tell us that our readers are more discerning than you suggest, and we are frequently surprised by which stories get the most hits. However, you raise some valid points, and we are working on a redesign of the website that may deal with some of your concerns. - ATol


I hope ATol can share a little attention to the Chinese people who live in Taiwan. There are a large portion of Taiwanese people are regard themselves as Chinese. They do not like the new Taiwan president. The same day Chen [Shui-bian] came to power in Taiwan, there was a large protest. If the new Taiwanese race is allowed to declare independence, the same arguments can be used for the Chinese people [who] live in Taiwan. They should be allowed to declare independence from Taiwan too. Why are Taiwan Chinese people's rights ignored? Is that fair? Is that democracy?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 25, '04)

Well, yes it is. Democracy strives to protect minority rights (and you present no evidence that Chinese wanting to secede from Taiwan comprise any more than a very small minority), but of course it cannot please everyone. All other things being equal, a democratic system must favor the majority, and a majority (albeit a small one) re-elected President Chen. That's unfortunate for those who don't like Chen, but democrats would argue that Taiwan's system is superior to one in which a tiny handful of people dictate to 1.3 billion of their fellow citizens, who have little or no say in the manner of their own governance. - ATol


Spengler responds to readers
Dear Mr Imada (letter below):
Thank you for your kind words, but thank you all the more for your perspective on the future of Islam. Westerners tend to assume that with technological progress comes secularism, and that impassioned religious belief stems from primitive living conditions. As you point out so forcefully, it well may be the case that the Islamism of the future will find support not from traditional society but from the swelling mass of young people now coming of age in the Muslim world. And it is quite possible that the same young people who embrace advanced technology will embrace Islam all the more forcefully. The leaders of today's Islamist movements, as I have observed often in the past, generally are graduates of science and engineering schools in the West, speak Western languages, and know Western culture. The West may be in for quite a surprise.

Dear Arshad (letter below):
Well put indeed. Never did I doubt that Muslims pray because their mode of prayer has great meaning for them; my point, on the contrary, is that the meaning of Muslim prayer is quite different from (for example) Christian or Jewish prayer. One has to be a Muslim to appreciate it, because to be a Muslim presumes a specific response to the existential question, of which prayer is an expression. The flabby secularism of the West considers all prayer an aberration and equally daft. American provincialism projects the image of the melting pot on to the rest of the world and assumes that Muslims are another kind of Methodist. Please keep writing and help set them straight.
Spengler (May 24, '04)

A crushingly beautiful article [Does Islam have a prayer?, May 18].  Well done, Master Spengler, you have [inspired] me again. Creative destruction is practiced through generations. Each generation has its own favors and its own directions which it intends to go [in]. With this new generation of Muslims, things are definitely changing. They have seen the previous generations of King Fahd, Saddam Hussein, [Gamal Abdal] Nasser of Egypt. Arab nationalism is dead. In fact, I would say nationalism in the Islamic world is dead. The creative destruction you so eloquently pronounce is coming to the Islamic world, and it will be back with a vengeance. What we have to remember here is the ratio of young to old. This is currently around 3:1 in the Islamic world, the average birth rate per woman being roughly measured around 5.28. This is a lot of change. The key is change in minds and hearts as you [wrote] earlier. It is electrifying the sweeping changes going on. The mistakes being made by this generation will not be repeated by the next. They will dynamically adopt and adapt as to their requirements in future. Creative destruction will start from the disobeying of legal, military, and police orders within their own country, and an open declaration for the love of Islam. This is how it happened in history, as I have been reading in the past. Yes, the Middle East will definitely break into a war. The war will be in their own countries, in their own villages and, most importantly, between the devil's words and God's commands in their own head. How much can they be influenced? Not by much, I think; they will tend to make their judgments based on the news and the declarations of their religion. The creative destruction will come in the form of acceptance of technology, movement of national thought to religious thought, and finally acceptance of their lot with death itself, Once they realize that they are Muslims because they were born to die and get ready for their day of judgment, I don't think they will care anymore for what they have been provided in luxury. As the Arab said about his oil: My great-grandfather rode a camel, my grandfather drove a car, my father flies a jet, and I will again ride a camel. I think they are long-term in thinking, and I think that they have long-term aspirations in their culture. They preserve their culture and their religion, but the only thing is, they did not uptake technology and education. But this will change and is very easy to change. Question is, how do you remove the "I am a rich Arab" mentality from their doorstep? How do you remove the concept of rich Arab? Then, change has arrived and arrived in droves. Trust me, Spengler, I think I know where you're going on this subject. Nice to see you writing again. Your articles are shockingly accurate, and you make [Franz] Rosenzweig look undereducated.
Jeff Imada (May 24, '04)

Re Does Islam have a prayer? [May 18]. To understand the beauty, simplicity and power of a salat, one needs to be a Muslim. Accept Islam with all sincerity and then offer two rakas of salat, you will get your answer. Intellectual discussions and theoretical debates have no answer to this question.
Arshad (May 24, '04)


Ritt Goldstein is either incompetent or, more likely, intentionally misleading his readers [Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts, May 22]. He conveniently but astoundingly fails to mention the fact that it was the terrorists themselves who said that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi was the knife-wielding murderer that severed Nick Berg's head from his body. In fact, the video itself is titled "al-Zarqawi slaughters an American". Goldstein predictably, writing from a leftist liberal anti-American slant, makes no mention of this fundamental element of the story, instead preferring to try and spark some ridiculous conspiracy theory (the chairs and prison uniform - from Abu Ghraib). And that the US government is using al-Zarqawi as the "fall guy". What utter contemptible garbage.
Lisa
USA (May 24, '04)


I just read your article Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts by Ritt Goldstein. It was well thought out and well written. However, in the 15th paragraph, the author [noted] the similarities between the white chair [Nick] Berg was sitting on and the white chairs shown in the Abu Ghraib prison photos. Mr Goldstein alleged that the matching white chairs might somehow prove that the two parties were connected. Well, I'm saying that they probably aren't. I participated in the invasion of Iraq last year with the US Army. In every town we rolled through during the first month, the locals were always looting their nearby military compounds. There wasn't usually much worth looting, but we would always see people carrying out giant stacks of white chairs. Throughout the country, we'd always see vehicles hauling around tens or hundreds of those looted white chairs. Eventually, the white chairs could be seen in front of every house and apartment building in Iraq. They almost represented some sort of impoverished status symbol, like, the man with the most white chairs wins. What I'm trying to say is, the white chair that Mr Berg sat on was probably looted from some Iraqi army base, and the white chairs shown in the Abu Ghraib photos probably came with the place "free of charge". The presence of white chairs in both situations doesn't imply anything other than neither parties had managed to find anything more comfortable to sit on.
Joshua Droz
Huntington Beach, California (May 24, '04)


[Re Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts, May 22, by Ritt Goldstein.] You, sir, are a fool. It is irrelevant whether [Nick] Berg was alive or dead when he was decapitated. Or whether the soundtrack was real or inserted later. What is relevant is that Mr Berg was kidnapped by a group of jihadis, killed in some manner when the United States refused to deal with terrorists, and then beheaded. Alive, drugged or dead when he was beheaded is irrelevant. When will the world realize that Islam is the greatest danger faced by the world? Islamic doctrine requires that non-Islamic peoples be conquered and then converted to Islam or killed. And whether or not a particular Muslim at a particular time decides to become a jihadi is only relevant to that particular Muslim at that particular time and place. The jihadi groups insist that any land that at any time was a part of the Islamic empire is still Islamic and must be reconquered for Allah ...
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, United States Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (May 24, '04)


Thank you for publishing [Ritt] Goldstein's story [Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts, May 22]. It takes courage to speak up in these times. Additional information that strengthens my conviction that the Berg video is indeed a fraud: Terrorist mastermind [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi has announced his name but hidden his face. The CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] has said it is indeed Zarqawi, but he appears to be reading his own speech from a paper. The person holding the knife - allegedly Zarqawi - has a black hood at the video's beginning, but there is an edit (the camera time signatures change) and the knife holder is then wearing a white hood (and no bulletproof vest). You'll also find [other] oddities in the heavily edited video ... Zarqawi has also been reported to have an artificial leg; this is definitely not apparent in the video. Nor is his Jordanian accent, according to experts. Also note the gold ring on the "sinister" (toilet-using) hand - a definite no-no for Muslims ...
Eric A Smith
Tokyo, Japan (May 24, '04)


Re Chalabi: From White House to dog house [May 22]. The apparent souring of Chalabi-American relations may be an effort to create sympathizers for him in Iraq, so that when he becomes the head of the Iraqi puppet regime, the Iraqis might find him acceptable. The enemy of the enemy is a friend, but a snake shall always be a snake.
Saf Kakar
Canada (May 24, '04)


Re Chalabi: From White House to dog house [May 22]. This is a clear message that President George W Bush has, in the recent past, listened to the wrong people and therefore, formulated his foreign policies towards the wrong directions, especially the one leading to the occupation of Iraq, which has now proved to be a quagmire for US troops. As for Bush, he might be punished for his sin by possibly losing the next election.
Vivat Chu (May 24, '04)


Siddharth Srivastava (Uncle Sam reaches out to Indian students [May 22]) is presenting only a piece of the complex plan of the US administration to bring back some of the 30 percent of foreign students that the US has lost in the past three years. But he should warn the Indian student community that they should watch out for the realities of the universities [in the US] and not get confused by marketing campaigns. The truth is that several universities are now imposing additional fees to international students and that university administrators are more concerned about the opinion of the families of the US students (the average family thinks that international students represent a huge cost to the US economy and in addition are dangerous individuals) than about giving a good treatment to the students themselves. You can investigate what happened or what is going on at U Wisconsin Madison, U of Massachusetts Amherst, U Florida-Gainesville, to name a few. You may check out what happened at Duke University regarding secret subpoenas or U Texas Austin, where army officials aggressively interrogated students for attending a presentation about sex and Islam. With that, you may give a give them a better picture of the real "welcome" foreign students would receive.
Mary
Canada (May 24, '04)


[Re Thailand wants to play political football, May 22.] Costa Rica, a small country of only 7 million people, made it to the last [soccer] World Cup. I don't understand how Liverpool can accept a bid from a man who doesn't yet know where the money will come from. From a lottery? Gambling? Is that what Liverpool and [Thai Prime Minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra] stand for and want to represent? What arrogance from Thaksin - expecting poor dreamers to fund his next new toy. Thailand, a large country of nearly 70 million, and one of the most football-crazy nations in the world, has never made it to the World Cup. It seems to me that US$100 million would be better invested at home: one-half for football, the other-half for the poor south.
The Hermit
Thailand (May 24, '04)


Both the article by Laurence Eyton [Taiwan: Trying to please everyone ... ] and the article by Jing-dong Yuan [Seeking stability in the Taiwan Strait, both May 22] appear to miss two important subtleties of [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian's inauguration speech. First, Chen has indicated that his constitutional changes will not address issues of national sovereignty or independence/unification. That is because it is the policy of the Chen administration that Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent nation. So Chen has merely reiterated that he will not change or extinguish Taiwan's status as a sovereign and independent nation. Second, in a backhanded way Chen reaffirmed his pledges of his 2000 inauguration speech. Washington assumes that means he has repeated the "four noes". Washington's error is in thinking that the four noes ever had any substance. One of the noes was that Chen would not declare independence from China. But Chen's position is that Taiwan is not part of China to begin with, so there is no need for a declaration of independence. Also, the four noes were preconditioned on China not attacking Taiwan. Chen can dismiss the four noes at any time by equating China's military buildup and stated intention to attack Taiwan as equivalent to an actual attack. Alternatively, Chen can at any time clarify that his 2004 speech was not a reiteration of the four noes, but a reiteration of his pledges to the Taiwanese people, such as his pledge to abide by the constitution. So in the end, Chen gave Washington some fodder to use against Beijing, but in substance China got nothing out of Chen.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 24, '04)


In Chicken hawks do have a plan [May 21], Joe Nichols speaks of "the Judaization of the American elite". Actually, American Jews have been "Protestantized". Like most immigrants' descendants, they have been converted to such old-time American Protestant beliefs as the Divine Election of America (the City on the Hill, the New Israel, the Calvinist elect), Manifest Destiny, and the American Adam (the idea that Americans are without Original Sin, like Adam, and can do no wrong) and (of course), the American Dream, that every American can be rich (wealth = Divine Election; poverty = God's curse). Some "Protestantized" Jews even buy into the Dispensationalist millennialist ideas common among American fundamentalist Christians and believe that the founding of Israel is a sign that the world is on schedule to end soon, the Messiah will return soon, etc, etc. (Curiously, some Islamic fundamentalists borrow Dispensationalist [ideas], too, for their interpretation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Cf The Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University) If you want to know what Bush & Co are up to next, read [the biblical books of] Daniel and Revelation, and then watch your favorite prophecy preacher's TV show. In China, US fundamentalists are easily heard on shortwave radio.
Lester Ness
Putian University
Putian City, China (May 24, '04)


 [Re] the article Dirty laundry at the Times of India [May 18] by Raja M. It is indeed sad to see to what depths The Times of India has descended. I suggest that the Old Lady of Boribunder is dead and needs a decent burial.
Atanu Dey
Mumbai, India (May 24, '04)


The letter by Niran Shah from Akron, Ohio (May 21), raised some very true/relevant points. However, I don't think Shah needs to be as ashamed as he admits to be. Indian immigrants in the US, just like all other immigrants in any region/time of history, are acutely conscious of their safety and security in an alien land. They have their ears to the ground and are well aware of the prevailing currents in American society. US society has been getting increasingly conservative since the '70s, when the re-emergence of Europe and Japan (also China, India, Brazil etc to a lesser extent) placed the US manufacturing industry on the back foot. Since then, the continuous loss of jobs and economic well-being has pushed people increasingly towards the right-leaning Republican party, and also towards the Church. In the past Indians in the US, just like all other minorities, were overwhelmingly Democrat; however, in the current conservative social climate almost everyone is placing their bets/money on the horse that's most likely to win - the Republicans. Indians are hardly alone in this. Gone are the days when the Democrats could take black and Hispanic voters for granted. I don't think US Indians, or any other American minority, should feel guilty about supporting (or pretending to support) the Republicans. Each one of them is just trying to play it safe and end up on the side of the winner. Besides, what people say or do in the open before elections is one thing - what they do in the secrecy of the voting booth is another. Surprises are always possible, as the recent Indian elections have highlighted.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (May 24, '04)


I am a recent reader of the Asia Times Online site, and I would like to express my appreciation to your editor and to the rest of your excellent staff for the outstanding presentation of news and analysis you make available daily. In these difficult times it is so important that we have a complete understanding of the actions of the United States government, and your coverage has been most helpful in closing some of the gaps that exist when relying only on American media for coverage. Finally, on a lighter note, it is also very convenient that your address is quite similar to that of the Los Angeles Times, making my daily web surfing just that much more easy. Again, my best regards, and thank you very much for your excellent work.
Don Davis
North Bend, Washington (May 24, '04)


Re Chicken hawks do have a plan [May 21]. A concise, intelligent and thought-provoking commentary that in time will become one of Asia Times Online's top 10. Still, I could not help thinking about an old classic movie shown as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The gist of the storyline [was that] what starts out as a group effort ends up as a doggie-doggie brawl. An excellent read that makes one anxious about how [Joe] Nichols foresees it ending and which elite will eventually win out. If I were a betting man I would put my money on oil. ATol deserves kudos for publishing Mr Nichols' perceptive views.
Armand De Laurell (May 21, '04)


I would like to thank you for the article on May 21, Chicken hawks do have a plan by Joe Nichols. It has painted a much clearer picture for me of all the goings-on in the Middle East, and the game plans of the political players engaging in it. It has been most enlightening, this and many other articles on you site. Thank you.
caral4
Perth, Western Australia (May 21, '04)


Just finished reading the article How the Middle East is really being remade [May 21]. I can only say that the American people were lied to. We were told that the Iraqi people were the most educated, they would be the ones to snatch an opportunity to improve and move their country forward if given the chance. That they did not deserve to live in a country mired in poverty, ruled by a despot who killed and murdered his own people, was draining his country dry all the while filling his own pockets. They were wrong. Ever heard the sayings "Cut off his nose to spite his face" or "Bite the hand that feeds you"? That is the Iraqi people - they are allowing a group of terrorists to destroy their own country and kill their own people to get what they want, and that is power. If the Americans were to leave, they would stab us in the back and I think that it is people like you that would hand them the knife.
Sylvia A Watkins (May 21, '04)


Thanks for your great analysis on the most un-American war our beloved country has started. Many of us American patriots want to regain control of our country's now-disastrous policies. Asia Times Online can help by recognizing Iraqi nationalism as "resistance" (to the unprovoked invasion and occupation by outside forces). There is no "insurgency" when people fight for control of their own country against such outsiders.
RTC
Florida (May 21, '04)


Re Chen 'builds bridges' to the mainland [May 21]. Thank you for that interesting, well-written, and objective article by Macabe Keliher on the Taiwan presidential inauguration.
WS
Beijing, China (May 21, '04)


It is amazing what your commentators have not said regarding the elevation of Manmohan Singh as prime minister [of India] and inability of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] to win plurality (eg Singh's economic balancing act [May 21] by Ranjit Devraj). o begin with, Mr Singh is a man of integrity and is a good choice. However, it was a very shrewd move by Sonia [Gandhi] to put the Sardar to the sacrificial altar to keep the chair warm for Rahul [Gandhi]. Populism always works in Indian politics. It is a different matter to pay the bills, seeing how the stock markets reacted when people dumped every public-sector share they owned; to Sonia's credit she saw the writing on the wall and stepped aside. In doing so, blaming the imaginary security threat from Hindu nationalists was in very poor taste (for the record, Indira [Gandhi] was assassinated by Sikhs and Rajiv [Gandhi] by Sri Lankan Tamils, hardly any saffron-waving Hindu nationalists). Also for the record, more Hindus have been killed by the Christians in name of God than by the Hindu nationalists (in Goa, the northeast etc). It should also be added that in his former avatar as finance minister, Mr Singh used the sale of the very same companies to shore up government finances by some creative bookkeeping. To see the success of this policy, just look at the bailout of Unit Trust a few years ago. The reason government finances showed relative improvement (LIC [Life Insurance Corp of India], Unit Trust etc) is simply because their holdings were treated as economic investments and not tools for political patronage. When Jaswant Singh and Arun Shourie treated them as such, the stock markets showed what their true worth could be. It took only a few communist loose cannons plus Mr Singh himself ("we are against senseless privatization") to take these hard-won gains [back] where they started. So here we are, we have a government headed by a non-member of Lok Sabha whose strings will be pulled by a clueless Catholic lady who in turn will be controlled by bunch of communist loose cannons whose only contribution to the Indian economy is the word ghearo (surround the managers and beat them till your ridiculous demands are met). What should one expect out of this pasta? Mr Singh has already answered that. He expects the growth rate to be realistically 6-7 percent [rather] than the 9-10 percent people were expecting under the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party].
Ashesh Parikh (May 21, '04)


Re Win-win: Manmohan Singh gets the nod [May 20] by Indrajit Basu. Indians heave a sigh of relief as they realize that a widely respected apolitical intellectual and economic expert will soon be watching the rudder of the ship that is India. I wish Dr Manmohan Singh all power. He has a demeanor that promotes calm and dispassionate interaction with others. This will be an asset when he has to deal with the diverse factions within the Congress party as well as with the multi-dimensional coalition partners. Indians respect him as an individual and a savant. Yet he cannot take all-around cooperation for granted all the time. The coalition partners are largely opportunists with their own parochial agenda, often contradicting that of the Congress party. The current enthusiasm may turn out to be just superficial, not capable of withstanding the first few clashes of political interests. Dr Singh is likely to find out soon that his own party members will try to push their interests using the party leader, Mrs [Sonia] Gandhi, for their support. It is certainly going to be a delicate game balancing what he knows as the best for India and its economy, and what he is told to be politically best for the party. My personal plea to him is to resist all attempts by the left-leaning constituents to increase entitlements and free supply of public services. The country has had a sad experience of low productivity and efficiency, and enormous public debt for a long time, thanks to misguided government support. It is time people at all levels are challenged to contribute their maximum; government support should be understood as an incentive to produce more and contribute to the society.
Giri Girishankar (May 21, '04)


Sonia lays down her legacy [May 20] contained some interesting analysis, but had some of the same sentimental overtones as most of the editorials in Indian English [language] newspapers that have recently gone ga-ga over Sonia Gandhi's "great sacrifice". Certain newspapers have gone to the ridiculous extent of portraying her in a Christ-like manner with a crown of thorns over head. It doesn't seem to dawn upon these people that her so-called "renunciation" is nothing more than an objective, and sensible, decision taken purely to avoid the real risk of acting against mass sentiments. After all, those Congress performers who thumped their chests, wept, and begged in front of Sonia Gandhi in New Delhi don't make up the entire India. I for one have nothing against Sonia Gandhi as a person. I think she is a nice, respectable lady who has provided some good leadership to the otherwise sinking Congress party. I sympathize with her due to the tragic death of her husband. But yet I feel much safer with a proven and experienced leader such as Manmohan Singh becoming the prime minister. I believe he can relate to and tackle India's problems better than someone who was born and brought up in a widely different foreign country. I believe there are literally millions of Indians who feel similarly. Unfortunately, the Indian press is distorting the issue and making it seem like it is xenophobia or racism - the sole reason being that the the liberal lobbies desperately need a secular, liberal/left-wing Mother India/Mother Teresa type of a figure to deify and rally around. I hope they realize that if "India Shining" can backfire because of a disconnect with reality, so can "Sonia Shining". The Indian people, as these recent elections have shown, have their feet firmly on ground.
Rakesh
India (May 21, '04)


[Re] How India funds Bush's campaign [May 19] by Siddharth Srivastava. This article shows how shallow we Indians have become as a people. I live in the USA and am disgusted with the support [President George W] Bush is getting from Indians, especially the doctors. I used to say a Republican would sell his mother for a dollar. Now I have to say an Indian doctor would not only sell his mother but the rest of his family as well for a dollar. The doctors have become prostitutes who would do anything for money. Shame on Indians in the USA and in India. We are letting these right-wing Republican fanatics who are obsessed with the world domination by force and have no decency. Indians have become like the Jews in 1930s Germany who did not see the evil [Adolf] Hitler and his Nazis rise up because all they were concerned about was making money.
Niran Shah
Akron, Ohio (May 21, '04)


Your article on Houston [The Taliban in Texas: Big Oil hankers for old pals, May 18] reflected a well-worn misperception about this city and the majority of people who live here. Since the 1960s, Houston has been the subject, or object, of derision, just as other foreign countries are now, especially the Mideastern countries, which are now finding themselves to be the focus of America's negative misperceptions. Your paper has fallen into a rather old, yet once considered fashionable by some, trend where one was not considered "cool" if they did not write, print, or speak ill of Houston. This was especially noticeable in first east- and then west-coast journalists and their illustrious publications. It surprises me that your paper is just now "jumping on the bandwagon" after it has left town. You, like so many before you, not only misperceive Houston and its people, but also underestimate us in our capacity to see the truth behind the oil companies, the Bushes, the Enrons, the Halliburtons, the BMWs, and all the blondes at the Galleria. You, too, assume that what you see at first glance is all that you get in the end. I suggest that instead of seeing only what you know, try to know all that you see. The real Houston is composed of diverse people, from diverse locations around the world. These are the true Houstonians, and we are far more concerned with knowing the real worlds from which we each come. We are equally concerned about the truth in what we hear, see, and read from our own media and government. o know and question each other here, we are able to know and question ourselves. This is our way of being "hip".
Glenn S Colton, PsyD University of Texas Health Science Center - Houston
Department of Psychiatry
Houston, Texas (May 21, '04)


Re the Cowboy Church [In the heart of Bushland, May 12]. I hope [Pepe] Escobar is spending a lot of time in fundamentalist churches, the black and Hispanic ones as well as the white ones. After all, they are Bush the younger's most congenial constituency, and in the case of the blacks and Hispanics, it's they who fill the ranks of his military, along with the poor whites. Foreigners almost never understand the role of religion in US society or politics, but I hope Asia Times and Mr Escobar will change that.
Lester Ness
Putian University, China (May 21, '04)


US complicit in its own decline [Mar 31] by W Joseph Stroupe was excellent. Also consider, Warren Buffett says the nation is getting poorer at the rate of 1 percent per year. The entire country - including everything - is worth about US$50 trillion. The annual trade deficit of $500 billion represents a net outflow of assets of about 1 percent. The trade deficit swelled by $46 billion in March, the greatest one-month total on record. That bombshell was released last week. "The dollar is the world's reserve currency," warns George Soros' ex-trading partner," yet we have debased it with a rapidity that is unprecedented. The English pound took 50 years to collapse. All of this has created a major financial imbalance, which is going to have to be sorted out. The Federal Reserve can't paper over the problem forever."
Edward Toner
Brick, New Jersey (May 21, '04)


Your article Shi'ite leader's killing rocks Iraq (May 18) is one more example of the Bush administration's excruciating ignorance about Iraq, Islam and Islamic culture. They went to war claiming threats of weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear-weapons program and connection to terrorists, all assumptions that have been proven wrong, yet they stubbornly refuse to change direction. The lack of effort by the Bush administration to hold elections in Iraq sooner than later and turn sovereignty over to the Iraqi people is appalling. This is the only solution to getting the US out of the current morass. They talk about bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people only to find that we [Americans] are literally destroying Iraq in order to save it. And finally, for the last three and a half years, the Bush administration, like its war on terror, has all but ignored the 50-year Arab-Israeli conflict, which is the source of most, if not all, anti-American sentiment in the area. Without alleviating the suffering of the Palestinian and Israeli people, nothing we say or do will have any credibility for the people of the Middle East or the success of our effort in Iraq.
Fariborz S Fatemi
McLean, Virginia (May 20, '04)


I read Yiwei Wang's [May 18] response to the letters about his May 14 article The dimensions of China's peaceful rise. He ignores most of my comments [letter, May 14] that deal with China's lack of peaceful action in solving problems (Tiananmen, Tibet). His comments in regards to my earlier letter were "What China claims is just the principle of 'one country'. Otherwise, negotiate for what? So this is the base for negotiation. Under this base, both sides can talk about anything, including the name of new country and the future political system. Does Fields mean that Beijing should negotiate with Taipei on the base of two countries?" Respectfully I must disagree that at this time the "one China principle" even looks at reality. Simply put, the current government in China has never had any control of Taiwan. The mainland regime has done nothing for Taiwan on a domestic level, nor on an international level. Why should Taiwanese sit down with a government that literally gets in the way when people are dying (SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome], enterovirus 71, 9-21 [September 21, 1999] earthquake)? For real mainland authority in Taiwan one must look back before the Sino-Japanese War. Even going back that far, the imperial government paid very little attention to Taiwan. The "one China principle" asks one to assume that first there is only one China and the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] controls it, second that the Hong Kong model is working, and that Taiwanese see themselves as Chinese. The CCP does not control Taiwan and never has, the Hong Kong model is neither failing nor working, and Taiwanese do not see themselves as Chinese. Could Taiwan and China negotiate as equals and still unify? It worked for Germany, is working for the EU [European Union], worked for the 13 colonies [of America], etc. When have unequal negotiations ever created a happy situation? I honestly cannot think of any. At this point the biggest problem with cross-Strait relations is that there is no trust. And to be perfectly honest, neither side should trust the other. What has the current government in China ever done to help the people of Taiwan? Nothing. The same is true as far as the mainland regime trusting Taiwan. Most Taiwanese now are moving to a Taiwanese identity. This goes against the desires of the mainland, but is coming about in reaction to the treatment Taiwan has received from the CCP government in the mainland. [For there] to be trust before discussing issues of sovereignty, the basics need to be discussed. Trust can only be built initially on areas of agreement. "Negotiations" should focus on issues of dealing with organized crime, snakeheads, mutual health concerns and disaster relief. Once these issues are addressed, then the two sides can build a level of trust. These are issues that both sides have to deal with and both governments agree are major problems. I would argue that until there is trust, honest negotiation cannot occur. The one-China principle asks Taiwanese to give up who they are, what they have built, and ignore their own achievements. To move towards a true "one China principle", Taiwanese must be given credit for what they have built.
Kent Fields
USA (May 20, '04)


In "Yiwei Wang responds to readers" (below), as well as in Professor Wang's article [The dimensions of China's peaceful rise, May 14], I found no novel or creative thoughts or ideas. Professor Wang is merely mouthing the words previously scripted by the dictatorship in Beijing. In most countries, academics serve to perform research, generate new theories and ideas, and push the limits of human knowledge. But apparently Professor Wang believes it is his/her role to advance Beijing's political interests only. As to the evidence of China assisting North Korea's nuclear program, any person diligently reading uncensored media over the past year and a half would have access to that information.
Daniel McCarthy (May 20, '04) 


If the Chinese were to have elections today, the outcome would resemble the one in India. The current right-of-center administration would be showcasing the triumphs of its "economic miracle", but would not be able to satisfy the expectations of the rural masses. This would then usher in a revolution from the "left", which is where the ideology of China is suppose to be anyway. This is quite a quandary for a country founded by the likes of Mao [Zedong]. What goes around, comes around.
John (May 20, '04)


The letter by Akber A Kassam from Blaine, Minnesota (May 19), had several convenient misconceptions. His statements such as "Why should the United States permit outsourcing of jobs to India if it doesn't allow easy market access for American goods and services?" and "India should not play dirty games with the United States as [in the] past" were quite childish and illogical. It is physically impossible for a weaker country to enforce unfair trade on a stronger one. That has never happened. If you care so much about fairness in economic trade, you should take a look at the Oxfam websites, www.oxfam.org and www.maketradefair.org. In India, as in other non-industrialized countries, most of the population lives in rural areas and survives through agriculture. This market is precisely the one that the US and EU want to hammer open by forcing the Indian government to remove all/any protection for farmers, while they themselves are subsidizing their corporate farmers to the tune of US$2 billion per day. Thanks to this free market that you are imposing upon us, a few hundred to few thousand farmers are committing suicide each year because they are unable to compete with your government-supported agricorp industry. Its like an annual September 11 [2001] tragedy, but for the fact that the figures are total guesswork since nobody is counting the dead. People in the cities don't like to begin the day by seeing gruesome pictures of entire families that have consumed pesticides before retiring for their final night on Earth, so the newspapers have stopped reporting such depressing news. As for America's economic woes, they go back several decades. After World War II, US industry was unchallenged and felt no need to progress. Europe and Japan were flattened, while the Third World countries were trying to struggle to their feet after centuries of being raped by their colonizers. This complacence ultimately led to the demise of US manufacturing. When Europe and Japan re-emerged, and some Third World countries started putting up a fight, the US declined and has been doing so ever since. The most convenient example is the steel industry - where many US manufacturers are continuing to use outdated technology from the '30s and '40s, and finding themselves unable to compete with their rivals who are using more modern steelmaking methods, are constantly demanding ever more government protection.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India  (May 20, '04)


I am a professor of political science at a Lisbon university and I have just recently "discovered" your paper online. Please allow me to consider your paper as probably the best paper online. Nowhere have I found better and more comprehensive coverage of Asian affairs. My most sincere congratulations.
Nuno Cardoso da Silva (May 20, '04)

Obrigado muito. - ATol


[Re] How India funds Bush's campaign [May 19]. The growing criticism in the United States against outsourcing American skilled jobs to [poor countries] such as India will not go away even after the presidential election this year. Low-cost economies such as India, which has become an outsourcing hub for global corporations, must open up their markets further to mitigate protect against the transfer of white-collar jobs.The backlash is not going to go away [after the US] elections. This going to be a vexing problem around the world. Increased movement of our [high-tech] jobs has heightened concerns. The United States is exporting more jobs to India than we are exporting goods to other countries. Why should the United States permit outsourcing of jobs to India if it doesn't allow easy market access for American goods and services? It is definitely a bad economic policy of the United States. There is no quid pro quo here. Americans would like to see very soon India opening up economic and trading opportunity for American business, so that America can offset the jobs it has lost to India. I strongly believe that the reforms and openness will benefit both countries. India should not play dirty games with the United States as [in the] past. It must be very open with us.
Akber A Kassam
Blaine, Minnesota (May 19, '04)


There are two pieces I would like to comment on. Firstly, Wang Yiwei's [response to readers] of May 18. I am sure he knows the answer to the question on how the [Chinese] Politburo is elected. Surely he cannot have misread Michael Stubson's comments [letter, May 17], which mean that the leadership of China was not elected by universal suffrage. They have all been appointed after various closed-door discussions. I would also take issue with his claim that the government is supported by most people [in China]. I lived in Shanghai for three years - the indifference to politics is not an indicator of support. His role is official in nature even if he is not a government official. Secondly, I must say that Stephen Blank's contention [US backs China for anti-nuke group - a mistake?, May 19] on whether or not to permit membership in the [Nuclear Suppliers Group] is somewhat missing the point. While there may have been bad behavior on the part of China in the past, history has shown that inclusion always works better in the end.
Peter Mitchelmore
Calgary, Alberta (May 19, '04)


Here are some questions and statements that are formed as a result of your article [Does Islam have a prayer?, May 18].
"America, the great liquidator of nations, remains Christianity's only real success." Is it? What about Nigeria, South Korea, Malawi, Brazil, Micronesia? "Because its purpose is so clear and its transforming power so elevated, Christian ritual by its nature is brief. The most devout endure it once a day." Is it always brief? What about the millions who spend hours in personal prayer time every day as well as fellowship with other Christians and gather for worship, prayer, and teaching several times a day? "It can be prolonged with hymns, psalms, instruction and other devices, but its essence is direct communion with God, which can be sustained only for a few moments." Is it something to be prolonged? Direct communion with God can be sustained every day. John 4:15-17 says: "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world." Christ offers relationship, not religious ritual. True Christianity is the life of a follower of Christ, walking day by day with Him in the heart of the believer and confessor, living as a disciple, friend, child, and worshiper. It is a joy to serve Christ (Isa) and the Father God, with the help of the Holy Spirit. "Protestants quip that a long-winded preacher provides not an explanation, but rather a demonstration of eternity." Really? Many Christians are fulfilled in the hearing of the Word of God and welcome as much as they can receive. "Like the Protestant joke, Jewish liturgy offers an experience rather than an explanation of eternity." What is the Protestant joke? John 14:6 says, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." Christianity offers both a life of experience and an eternal life through the grace of Jesus Christ. Thank you for your time and study. I appreciate your desire to know and share the truth. The truth is: Jesus Christ loves you and lives to this day.
Garret Potter (May 19, '04)


Pepe Escobar got it right (Taliban in Texas: Big Oil hankers for old pals [May 18]), specifically in his suggestion that the Bush administration is fighting complete disclosure of [Vice President] Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force report as much for its US foreign-policy guidance as for its domestic embarrassments. Somewhere buried in the censored portions of the report will likely be even more explicit language revealing how cynically the US establishment perceives the concept of sovereignty for other nations and how its unalterable focus is on the centrality of US interests in the unfolding New World Order; deft handling of such insights will further help to undermine the pretense of the advocacy for "free trade" and democracy in a generally more secure world upon which US credibility rests. One is likely to also encounter a frank discussion of how Russia, China, India and even the EU [European Union] are ever more seen as hostile adversaries to a fading US hegemony, possibly with some strategic analysis of these threats and contingency plans for worst case scenarios as the competition for energy heats up - not good alliance-building material. To be smart, US mandarins would also need to examine the potential disaster of OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] nations abandoning the US dollar as the currency of choice for trading its oil, or as the currency for the central reserves in Asian nations - these being some of the indicators that the world's globalizing economy is highly volatile. The world is being presented with three basic futures: either an economic order that largely preserves a set of Western/Northern advantages; a continuation of the current struggle, in which regional powers maneuver to maintain their capacity for self-determination; or an economic order, more or less geographically undifferentiated, that puts capital and its managers strictly above the broad interests of any population group. The latter program is a [public relations] nightmare for the elite in any nation, and the first two will simply bring the world to war ... I would add a comment on Jim Lobe's [May 13] article Chicken Hawk groupthink?, which, with a different emphasis, broadly agrees with the observations of Lieutenant-Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who retired in disillusion from her post in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Near East South Asia and Special Plans (USDP/NESA and SP) during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Put together, Lobe and Kwiatkowski point again mostly to that celebrated cabal of Jewish neo-conservatives descending from the political prophet Leo Strauss, whose appreciation of the need for dishonesty in government is well known. In my view, the now-evident negative consequences of this very narrow "in-group" dominating the decision-making leading to war is less attributable to an insularity in thinking than it is to their inability to discuss openly their specific agenda, which is obviously the shaping of US Middle East policy to the benefit of Israel, a strategically insignificant entity when compared to "the greatest material prize in world history" - Persian Gulf oil ... The invasion of Iraq should be understood as a continuation of Zionism and US imperialism, and one must wonder how the US public would react if they were given all of the facts and this was just stated honestly. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority said to go ahead.
Joe Nichols
USA (May 19, '04)


Thank you, Raja M, for your expose of The Times of India [Dirty laundry at the Times of India, May 18]. That said, I do wish to critique your statement, "In the United States or the United Kingdom, uproar would have erupted after the expose." I do not know whether you intended to specifically pinpoint the US and the UK as a basis for comparison or whether your were using these countries as a representative referent to indicate that "Western" media as a whole had a better ethic/standard vis-a-vis Asian/Indian media; either way, the comparison holds highly questionable assumptions about the nature of media content and standards and the very functioning of media themselves across the world. Normatively, the implied function of all media outlets (including [Asia Times] Online) is to deliver "news" and "truth". But all content in any media outlet is not only subject to the specific editorial standards/biases of the publication, the content can never gain institutional priority over the fact that the media outlet has to exist as a corporate, profit-making body. It can choose to function otherwise only at its own peril (it could have an alternative logic of existence other than making profits and some do, but we are, I assume, talking about the dominant media apparatus). We do not have media in the abstract sense, we have profit-making media which earn most of their revenues through advertising. Prominent intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, E D Herman, Robert McChesney, Norman Solomon, and Ben Bagdikian have all done extensive analysis of the relationship between media content and their corporate affiliation/s. The picture is one of extreme, institutionalized corruption, especially in countries like the US and the UK. In fact, media in the US do not deliver news, but propaganda, and their larger function is to unflaggingly and unabashedly serve the corporate and advertising interests to which they are linked. There is no secret here. Media barons like Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi own conglomerations and they systematically use their media machinery to advance their corporate and political interests. Six (I think) large corporations control the media in the US and the content of their publications hugely reflect their corporate networks, interests and linkages. Once the same set of interests own everything (this avoids the unpleasantness of exchanging money to another to get your wish done!), no longer do you worry now about silly hurdles like purchasing editorial content, you just create your own rules and regulate content as you fancy. The dominant media space in the US and the UK is completely commodified and always, already reflects particular interests. I assure you there could be nothing more corrupt and unethical than the US media, they are the last entities to which you should be comparing or looking upon as a standard!
Gopal K
Virginia, USA (May 19, '04)

Most legitimate news media, including those in the US and the UK, maintain strict standards against interference in editorial decision-making by the non-editorial side of their operations, whether management (the "corporate" tier) or advertisers. Some media operations are more successful than others in maintaining editorial independence from the management and revenue-earning sides, and some such as Fox News in the United States and Xinhua in China unashamedly abandon the pretense of editorial "objectivity" in order to push a certain agenda or serve a certain master, whether political or corporate. However, "new media" such as the Internet have presented more opportunities than ever before for solid news reporting, independent analysis, and public forums such as this one. High-quality websites such as Asia Times Online now complement traditional non-corporate media such as the British Broadcasting Corp and the Public Broadcasting System to help keep the "mainstream" honest. - ATol

Yiwei Wang responds to readers
I read carefully all comments published about my May 14 article The dimensions of China's peaceful rise and would like to make several points. First, it seems Michael Stubson knows little about today's China. He says "the power of 1.3 billion people in the growing and dynamic country of China is controlled by roughly 12 people - give or take - that are not elected other than by internal power politics". Actually, there are nine members (none of them are from the People's Liberation Army, or PLA) in the Politburo, not 12 people. If they are not elected, then how have they been chosen? It is the party that leads the PLA, not visa versa. Stubson also mentioned the US constitution, which I and many Chinese leaders and scholars can recite freely. Did the checks and balances within the US government prohibit the war against Iraq? Second, China's peaceful-rise strategy should be encouraged, not be criticized. If it is good for China in this regard, it is good for the world. China is seeking a new road beyond the German and Japanese rising models. Actually China is learning from the American model of peaceful rise in the 19th century. But even the US used force to unify the motherland during the Civil War. Now it is Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian who is always testing the tolerance of Beijing, putting the Strait and even China and the US on the brink of conflict. Michael Shiao Liang Lou pointed out correctly, "No nation on Earth at this point should be deprived of its national right to maintain itself, or to defend itself." The readers should get a positive signal that China is seeking a peaceful way even toward its internal sovereignty issue. Kent Fields said that China's current view of negotiation with Taiwan is "our way or no way!" That is unfair. What China claims is just the principle of "one country". Otherwise, negotiate for what? So this is the base for negotiation. Under this base, both sides can talk about anything, including the name of new country and the future political system. Does Fields mean that Beijing should negotiate with Taipei on the base of two countries? Which country in the world can follow Fields' model? Peter Mitchelmore said I have an official role. That is not true. Third, I was astonished by Richard Jiang's words, "I do see the possibility of peaceful destruction of China." If this happens, what benefit will he and the world realize? Let's pray for China that this will never happen even though he and others may dislike the Chinese government, which actually is supported by most Chinese people. As I said in my piece, "Regarding China's huge population and growing involvement in the process of globalization, it would not be in the interests of the world if China did not rise." Finally, Daniel McCarthy said that China "encourages the belligerence of North Korea, and has provided North Korea with crucial materials for the North Korean nuclear-weapons program". Can he give evidence? If so, why does China play such a positive role in the six-party talks and claim jointly with the other parties that the Korean Peninsula should be a non-nuclear zone? It is easy to blame China, but to be responsible, I strongly recommend that readers look for positive signals, not just follow their negative imagination. And China's peaceful rise is the positive signal. It is hard to doubt that China is doing better than before both domestically and internationally. China does provide energy resources to help North Korea, but not including nuclear, because it is against China's national security and interests. China doesn't want to live surrounded by nuclear neighbors.
Yiwei Wang (May 18, '04)


Re Where have all the terrorists gone? [May 18]. This article, as with most on this subject, simply assumes the conventional wisdom that al-Qaeda is a "classic" terrorist organization - a "free agent" that acts according to what we suppose is its own will in selecting and attacking targets. But what if that is not the case? Some of the constituent individuals and organizations that make up al-Qaeda have a long history, a history that includes service as a counter-revolutionary force sponsored by governments, even by the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency]. What if al-Qaeda still is at the service of a rogue element, perhaps even a rogue element within a secret service in the US? If that were the case, it might explain why a still-vulnerable US [has not been] attacked since September 11 [2001] although a moderate level of activity is maintained elsewhere. And if the US were to be attacked immediately before the November election? That would make sense for a US-based rogue element to direct: conventional wisdom in the US is that such an attack would strengthen the current administration by driving citizens towards it. Speaking of conventional wisdom, although [President George W] Bush shares considerable blame for misleading the US, the UN and the world on the nature of the Iraqi threat, it was conventional wisdom around the world even without Bush's misleading that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Conventional wisdom is often without basis in fact; conventional wisdom can be very wrong. We must always ask the question, "Who benefits?"
Bob Fleischer
Groton, Massachusetts (May 18, '04)


It is amusing to watch Spengler in Does Islam have a prayer? [May 18] learn the basics of Islam and pretend to be expert enough to comment. However, [Asia Times Online] is not a school newspaper; do we have to see him dirty his diapers and watch how he is changed? I'm sure that many people find Spengler knowledgeable on various other topics, but do we have to suffer his learning curve on Islam? [Asia Times Online] has a responsibility to ensure that people who write have some knowledge of the topic they write about. [Asia Times Online] should refuse to accept articles where the writer is clearly attempting to learn (and comes up short repeatedly) on the job no matter how good they are on other topics.
Pervez (May 18, '04)


After digesting the [May 15] articles by [Jim] Lobe [Evidence of more widespread abuse], [Ritt] Goldstein [Brutality starts at home], and [Jack A] Smith [Abuse travels very well], along with other sources of news and discussions, they made me think. I have witnessed many events ever since the celebration of 2000 in Times Square [New York], most of which I can understand: the United States is doing what other empires are doing, defending their right to dominate. What I cannot understand is the near-delusional views of the American people toward the actions of their troops and the failure to sympathize with them. Like what happen in My Lai, the prison abuse [in Iraq] demonstrated one thing and one thing only: the United States military is driven by patriotism, not by the Bill of Rights or Geneva Conventions. Under patriotism, almost anything can be justified. And what those soldiers did in the prison they thought was okay because it was indeed okay [with] the Pentagon and their field commanders. I am truly disgusted more by how the soldiers were conveniently blamed for everything while the powerful engineers of this shameful event is being praised ("He [Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld] did an excellent job" - he sure did, Mr President!). So convenient, let the powerless take the blame and the powerful take the credit. Or as a famous Chinese proverb goes: Throw away the rooks to protect the general. I am equally disappointed in the American public. Once again, they have failed their troops on the front line [after] Vietnam. And once again they have demonstrated how little they understand their military as an establishment. The military places "Duty, Honor, Country" above all. Commanding officers of this military understand what is at stake: the American Empire and along with it the American way of life. And soldiers of this establishment understood what was at stake: their country. They are out there to defend the right of this country to dominate the planet and hence the luxurious life of Americans, they are not out there to defend what American citizens or [President George W] Bush thought America represents. It is the job of the executives of this country to uphold what they believe in, if they choose to believe in anything other than the naked truth of "everyone for themselves". While I am not in the military, I will not choose to fail them by condemning the troops. My sympathy goes to the Iraqi victims as well.
Z Z Zhu
New Jersey (May 18, '04)


Regarding Jim Lobe's Evidence of more widespread abuse [May 15], I'm wondering how he's rationalized that the Guantanamo detainees are being treated in violation of the Geneva Conventions when their status falls distinctly outside of the Conventions' agreed-upon protections. It looks like Mr Lobe is making a clumsy attempt at being subtle in putting forth his own agenda.
Stephen Renico
Detroit, Michigan (May 18, '04)

Well, surely that's the whole point: deliberately placing hapless "war on terror" captives in Guantanamo Bay beyond the reach of Geneva or indeed of any legal protections or recourse whatsoever, including those protections the US claims it holds so dear it has to overthrow dictators to impose them on an alien culture, has stretched US credibility. - ATol


[Re Now Indians cry foul over Iraq, May 8.] I am a woman of African-American, native ... American and European ancestry who participated in several peaceful protests against the racist, cruel war in Iraq in 2003. When are we people of color throughout the world going to realize that every time we assist a racist oppressor we debase all people of color and empower the racist masters? Why did those Indian workers rush to aid the relatives of the same people who murdered and enslaved their ancestors in India? I am aware that in desperate times people resort to desperate measures; however, the Indian workers in Iraq were naive to think that the master has forgotten his old ways. We must never paint all Americans with the same brush; however, the evil intent of people who enslaved and annihilated my ancestors is being perpetuated in Iraq. What do you think that the American military would do to your country if Muslims from India were to participate in an attack against the US? There is more than enough hatred to go around, especially since a largely Muslim community was grievously injured by the Bhopal accident. Were those people compensated on par with what American citizens would have received? Some Americans do read. I have already shed many tears and spent many troubled nights worrying about the actions of my government. We can do a lot of good by not aiding and abetting an evil plan. We must acknowledge all people's suffering and refuse to assist those who cause the undue suffering.
Pam
USA (May 18, '04)


I would like to comment on several points from the May 5 [article] Taiwan: Chicken's dying, but monkey's not scared. Firstly, the authors write that when Hong Kong was returned to China, Beijing "promised to protect democracy and capitalism in the territory. They vowed not to impose socialism and even established a 50-year timetable for direct rule, while emphasizing the importance of a gradual process." While I recall that Beijing promised to protect the "status quo", one must recall that at the time there was no democratic system to protect. The British for the greater part of 156 years of colonial rule had decided that Hong Kongers could not govern themselves. Only when they were forced to return Hong Kong to China did they begin a belated push for democratic reform. As far as I'm concerned as a current Hong Kong resident, what the Chinese promised - to retain Hong Kong's basic way of life - has been followed.Secondly, the authors quoted anonymous university professor Ho [Cheng-ta] as stating, "China's real concern is its economy ... its GDP [gross domestic product] is growing very fast for now, but only a few people have been enriched by Beijing's policies." Four hundred million people lifted out of poverty over the last 25 years counts as a "few people"? Finally, the university professor goes on to state that in a democracy, "the president - no matter who he is - must respond to the will of the people". I don't know in which field Ho specializes, but as an American citizen, I know first-hand how unrealistic that statement is. Recent leaders of "democracies" like the United Kingdom and Spain demonstrated that despite overwhelming public opinion against going to war in Iraq, they still decided to follow that course of action. The most popular movement is not always right. And sometimes, the least popular movement is.
Glenn J Luk
Corporate Advisory Group, Deutsche Bank, Asia-Pacific
Hong Kong (May 18, '04)


Having read Gary LaMoshi's review of Dewi Anggraeni's new book Who Did This to Our Bali? [Barefoot with a blunt crayon in the ruins, May 1], I am compelled to respond and correct some of Anggraeni's statements. LaMoshi is correct in identifying International Medical Corps (IMC) as the international organization at the forefront of emergency response efforts in Bali and the focus of psychiatrist Luh Ketut Suryani's uninformed accusations. IMC was in Bali within 12 hours of the bombing and was the first organization to bring in medicines and supplies from overseas, including pain medications, IV [intravenous] solutions, and surgical supplies. IMC helped evacuate expatriates, brought in a US plastic surgeon to consult and assist in operations on burn cases, provided an Australian psychiatrist and psychologist to offer counseling to 34 expatriates, and provided mental-health services for local residents. IMC's mental-health response to the bombing is ongoing. To date, more than 18 months after the blasts, IMC has treated 301 persons individually and over 130 in group sessions. IMC has treated bomb victims, families of victims, the employees of the Sari Club and Paddy's Pub, the firemen who fought the blazes that night [October 12, 2002], volunteers both local and foreign, and dozens of local Balinese who have suffered post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety as a result of the bombing. IMC has also provided continued treatment for 19 widows and widowers and 35 of their children. IMC's counseling and treatment services are free of charge and include psychiatric medications for those whose symptoms and diagnoses warrant such treatment. IMC's psychiatrists - three of whom are well-known Indonesian practitioners - combine Western and Eastern traditions so that local beliefs are incorporated into treatment. In order to inform local residents of the availability of mental-health services and raise awareness of mental-health information, IMC has conducted a media campaign that includes interactive television programs, newspaper ads, cartoon booklets, brochures and radio programs, as well as a traditional performance art, bondres. IMC still sees three to five new clients every week, as the Balinese people continue to suffer mental-health problems related to the bombings. As an international non-governmental organization (NGO), IMC works closely with local NGOs and government organizations to strengthen the Balinese health-care infrastructure. IMC provides training in mental-health assessment, diagnosis and treatment to every local health center in Bali, and donates medicines to the Department of Health. To provide a balanced and informed picture of the psychological response to the Bali bombing, Anggraeni should have contacted IMC.
Elisa DeJesus
Field Manager, Bali
International Medical Corps (May 18, '04)


[Re] US complicit in its own decline [Mar 31]. Nice article. My thoughts are that you are really talking about the New World Order. From a military perspective you do not mention anything about scalar warfare and other high-tech means that are being tested by armies around the world (for years now). I'm sure you know about HAARP [High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program] and other atmospheric technologies including weather control and mind control plus who knows what. Do you think the G8 [Group of Eight] is just a joke or perhaps a chess match? What about the world bankers? [US President George W] Bush, [Vice President Richard] Cheney and many other chicken hawks from the US are laughing all the way to the banks and they take their orders from the banks and other special interests that helped them into power. Do you think these policymakers (or destroyers) along with the rest of the other world's countries leaders and bankers play a roll in this? Please expand on your thoughts. Help wake up the world, especially the USA.
Bob Koval (May 18, '04)


Know our limitations, history teaches us. After the December 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein the war [in Iraq] was really over. After that we [the US] had a new Iraq agenda, and it was not hunting for [Osama] bin Laden. In my opinion, the volley is never going to end. Like [native Americans], Iraqi Muslims see us as invaders, and like disorganized [native Americans], they are using terrorist tactics for lack of a unified army regiment. [Native Americans] did not have the weapons, so they were easy to conquer. Instead of black paint on their faces, Muslims are using black hoods. We can't push Muslims, and they are stubborn like the Irish, so we better give Iraq back to the Muslims so they don't have to continue trying to take it back. Remember Winston Churchill's failure at Gallipoli, the Muslim Turks at Gallipoli - they never gave up. And, unfortunately, remember the Palestinian Muslims, who lost their land to Israel in '48, have never given up. This is because they are exactly the same as us - proud. Please note that I love and respect both [native Americans] and Winston Churchill as well as the Irish and Turks and I regret being forced to involve them in the ugliness happening now in the Middle East. History always repeats itself, but "even historians fail to learn from history". The most effective weapon was diplomacy. Pulling out is not losing. Pulling out is saying, "We have completed our mission and we leave the rest in your capable hands. We do hope and pray that a fair and just government will emerge, but we leave this to the Iraq people to decide." There is nothing more we can do, nor do we have a right to do any more.
James Retta
Hsin-Chu City, Taiwan (May 18, '04)


Sultan Shahin in his article BJP: You can cry if you want [May 15] sounds like he is personally blogging on the web. His analysis is more personal than professional. The BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] lost [the Indian general election] because it was pro-reform and removed the darkness for only a small percent in India. In other words, the bullock-cart belt handed it to the cell-phone chatterati crowd of the cities that the BJP courted. Mr Shahin, however, contrives an extrapolation to Gujarat. Whatever happened in Gujarat, it showed the utter communalization of Muslims in their killing of 89 innocent victims and that of Hindus in killing 2,000. Each ate dust and both sides need to atone for it. What's that got to do with this election, where the Muslim vote went equally to BJP as well as non-BJP, since it was plain anti-incumbent in every state? Seeking Gujarat as a rationale for the BJP's defeat is not only wishful thinking but also personal politicking. What this election has returned is a brainless dynastic rule by a party that for 50 years progressed neither India's prosperity nor humanity, that will preserve the status quo and preserve the virtue of darkness for many more. Maybe that's what the farm belt really wants.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, Californi (May 17, '04)


I haven't read a more biased article than BJP: You can cry if you want by Sultan Shahin. I think the articles are supposed to provide just and fact-based analysis of the collapse of the NDA [National Democratic Alliance] performance. But Mr Shahin's article sounds like one of those anti-BJP articles on the Milli Gazette. He went on cribbing about the non-secular deeds of the BJP government. To correct a few, [J] Jayalalitha, current chief minister of Tamil Nadu, banned forced conversions of people (not to any particular religion and not from a specific community). Secondly, the central government [was] not involved in the Gujarat riots, and I quote, it's riots and not genocide. Genocide is a much bigger word to use. What's going [on] in Bangladesh to Hindu and Christian minorities by the Muslims is "genocide". Please don't pose your personal opinions through Asia Times articles. I have read many columns on Asia Times which are unbiased and appreciate their editors for their great work.
Priyatham Pamu  (May 17, '04)


Now why would you expect a different reaction from your left-wing writers (Sultan Shahin [You can cry if you want, May 15] et al) now that the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] has lost [the Indian general election]? Among the real and plenty of imaginary reasons thrown [in], I would like to add a couple of points your writers might want to explain. First of all, this election was fought as India's first to focus on economics. The fact that all politicians other than the left-wingers lost tells you something about the expectation of the Indian electorate today. The fact is that for reforms to benefit the commoner, they need to be carried out completely and with conviction. [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee himself and his government, with the key economic ministries run by bhaiyas ([Yashwant] Sinha et al), failed to do that. It is only later with the advent of Jaswant Singh that the reforms really took off. As with reforms anywhere, no gain comes without pain. Yes, the job losses have come and mostly useless public-sector workers are unemployed. The fact that the Indian economy has grown by [more than] 8 percent without any significant increase in debt tells you the real story. Of course, the people would feel better if the regressive labor laws and property laws were removed. As for the left's poster boy (Narendra Modi), he seems to have performed better than the star Congress performer ([S M] Krishna of Karnataka) in spite of [Narindra] Modi carrying out agricultural and governmental reforms. However, we will see what the family and communist dynasty will do. In the meantime, the barometer of the business and financial markets, which will supposedly end up paying for the "humane" reforms, already is known - a 10-20 percent decline in the value of Indian stocks and a 10-15 percent decline in value of the Indian rupee. It means that Indian per capita income went down from US$500 to $450 in a week! Let the left-wing writers of Asia Times define the metrics of progress by the new government, and we will talk about it in two years after the mid-term polls.
Ashesh Parikh (May 17, '04)


I just finished with [Sultan] Shahin's article [You can cry if you want,  May 15] on the reason for [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee's defeat in the Indian elections. I was mystified by what I did not read. Has Mr Vajpayee not strengthened connections between the USA and Israel during his time as prime minister? World opinion of the USA is at a low because of the invasion of Iraq and the constant killing and abuse of Iraq's people. World opinion of Israel is low because of their genocidal tactics against the Palestinians. Is the Indian public aware enough of world politics that their revulsion at the activities of the USA and Israel would translate into a punishment vote against Mr Vajpayee because of his friendship with the USA and Israel?
David Little (May 17, '04)


Pepe Escobar has found his Shangri-La in San Francisco, the American museum of dying liberal ideologies and ideologists [The new beat generation, May 15]. Hey Pepe, stay there!
Richard Bergquist
Arizona, USA (May 17, '04)


Thank you for the article by Jack Smith [Abuse travels very well, May 15] - a much-needed dose of reality. It's just this type of clarity that helps me assess the dilemma of how to place the prison abuse/torture episode in its correct context. I wish I had a link to further articles by him and I do hope you carry more of his perspective.
Mary MacDougall (May 17, '04)

The article was Jack A Smith's debut as a paid Asia Times Online correspondent, but he did contribute on Apr 20 to our Speaking Freely feature: 9-11: The big question remains unasked. - ATol

What I find remarkable about the story of torture in Iraq is not that it happened, but that everyone is so shocked and surprised about it. In fact, as Jack A Smith's fine article suggests (Abuse travels very well [May 15]), it should have been anticipated. A little history is useful. Twenty years ago, the [Ronald] Reagan administration was engaged in a campaign to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. They established a proxy army, the Contras, and based them in Honduras. From there, the Contras were directed by US intelligence to deliberately attack civilian targets in Nicaragua. They were not powerful enough to take on the Nicaraguan army, so under US guidance the Contras attacked schools, medical clinics, farming cooperatives, and other "soft" targets. This went on continuously for over eight years. The Contras, who were extraordinarily brutal, frequently kidnapped their victims and tortured them at their bases in Honduras before killing them. This history is especially relevant today because several key Reaganites involved in the Contra terror now work within the Bush administration. A prime example is John Negroponte, who is slated to become the US ambassador to Iraq in July. Twenty years ago, Negroponte was US ambassador to Honduras, and directly overseeing the operations of the Contras. Apparently John Negroponte is now being brought in to manage counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq. The New York Times reported on January 31 that the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] will use former agents of Saddam [Hussein]'s secret intelligence service (the Mukhabarat) in this enterprise. Look for more officially sanctioned torture and atrocities in Iraq.
Patrick Cummins
Victoria, British Columbia (May 17, '04)


I encountered your newspaper via the articles which you distribute to the Internet website World News. I was impressed to read your article concerning American torture (Brutality starts at home, May 15). It is good to read an alternative view of the propaganda prevalent elsewhere. Keep up the impartial work.
Rene
UK (May 17, '04)


I was just recently introduced to Asia Times Online, as I am a real fan of the Orient. I just read my first issue (May 15), and what is the first story that I read on your Front Page? The article by a Jew named Ritt Goldstein (Brutality starts at home). What a pack of communist lies! I read his story and then went on the web to verify or disprove his anti-American article. If I could do that, then why can't you? I am an avid news buff and knew immediately that he was lying (example: prison officials in California having prisoners fight, then shooting them dead. These events did not happen). His comments are the product of his sick mind. He has used a modicum of harmless truth and then added his vile lies to the rest. There is an old saying that goes, "How can you tell if a Jew is telling a lie? If his lips are moving, he is lying!" The article adds glaring truth to that saying. Even the Christian Bible says that all wars are caused by the Kenite ("Jew"). I can do nothing less than believe that, as they constantly show that to be true. Looks like Mr Goldstein is doing just that, fomenting war ... I can only believe that the other Front Page article [Abuse travels very well]  by the so-called Jack A Smith is the same type of pig tripe. You people have no shame for publishing such unproven garbage. I have no recourse than to believe that your "paper" is either run by Jews, or it is an anti-American communist propaganda rag. Or even both. But then, you are not trying to convince the American public (who know better), only the uninformed Asian reader, who has no other recourse to the truth. Never forget though, when your father Satan started this crap in the beginning, he had already lost the battle. Judgment day is coming, ready or not.
Dr Van  (May 17, '04)

In fact, history suggests that the Kenites were related to the Midianites, one of the non-Judaic tribes of Israel. The Bible very rarely mentions them, though it notes that Moses' father-in-law was probably a Kenite. Perhaps you should expand your biblical scholarship beyond anti-Semitic websites. - ATol  (May 17, '04)

Jim Lobe [Evidence of more widespread abuse, May 15]  looks for evidence that the interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib are systematic. He need look no further than the former top CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] operations officer, Robert Baer, who announced on the TV show 60 Minutes II that it is standard procedure. "It's a way to collect intelligence. Whether it's right or wrong is another question, but if I'm out to get a source quickly, and we call this a dirty recruitment, you want to find information on them to blackmail them ... It's been done all the time the CIA has been around ... as long as the KGB has been around." What about the photos? He said it's blackmail and more: "It's not just subject to blackmail, it's subject to you being killed within the tribe." It should be remembered that the Red Cross says that "coalition forces" themselves confessed that most of the 80,000 Iraqis were innocent. It appears that the real purpose of the operation was to build a far-reaching network of Iraqi informants who will be under the control of American intelligence for the rest of their lives.
Charles Palson
Sherborn, Massachusetts (May 17, '04)


The array of sadistic photographs depicting US soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, first shown on CBS's 60 Minutes II on April 28, have provoked an extraordinary revulsion against the US and its occupying forces in Iraq. The anger generated by the graphic description of the plight of Iraqi detainees is not confined to any particular region or religion. The treatment meted to Iraqi prisoners by Americans is being condemned across the globe. At the same time a brutal fact is that Iraqis were not tortured and humiliated for the first time - certainly not for the last time, either. Actually, one can safely assert that at any given moment much worse abuses than what went on in Abu Ghraib prison are administered to manifold more Muslims by their own national official machinery. To be fair, by any standard Muslims have endured much worse, [more] often, and seldom if ever getting any redress. Muslims in general and Iraqis in particular are seemingly destined to undergo such humiliation on the hands of their squatting rulers - native and foreigners alike. So why this huge hue and cry? The explanation is simple. The forces that invaded Iraq in the name of democracy and were meant to "liberate" Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein don't have any margin of error in their code of conduct. Saviors are not expected to commit such heinous crimes. It is very natural that you demand a better set of values from a judge than from felons he/she passes judgments [on]. It is duplicitous and fatuous to preach from the moral high ground when you yourself are as bad as anyone else. Now let's see the whole episode in a Pakistani background. Whenever one criticizes the military in Pakistan, some military apologists start chanting the mantra of incompetence, dishonesty and immorality of the civilians in response, as [if] two wrongs make a right. They don't understand that the messiahs must have higher standards than those they dispose of. Enumerating the countless shortcomings of the predecessors alone doesn't justify self-assumed carte blanche. When many people like me denounce the military for its intervening role or demand a bit better performance and nobler character from the top brass, it is not due to our ignorance of misdeeds of civilians or some sort of colorblindness. As in Iraq, it is pretty reasonable as well as fully legitimate to ask for a better standard out of the self-righteous conquering forces than those they throw out declaring [them] wanton sinners. The next difference is: in Iraq [everyone] from [US President George W] Bush down to the brigadier in charge of the prison is apologizing and it is almost certain that if not [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, some big heads will definitely roll. In Pakistan it is not even probable that our liberators would ever confess any wrongdoing on their part let alone take miscreants to task.
Hassan N Chandhar
Mohalla Sultanpura
Ghakhar Mandi
District Gujranwala, Pakistan (May 17, '04)


Once again, the world news headlines are turning towards Iraq. This time it's not the battlefield, it's a an allegation the US authorities didn't want to disclose especially at this time. The [US presidential] elections are drawing near and the US economy is turning on the positive side, but suddenly this Abu Ghraib prison scandal has emerged from nowhere. Not only has it brought shame to the Americans as a nation but it has added [to] the anger on the opposition fronts. Not to go into detail for what was in the pictures and what wasn't, the thing worth discussing is what caused it. Why did the US Army do this? Is it the first time they have been questioned or is it simply the consequences of war? [There are] lots of questions to be asked, for although the US itself is doing an investigation and it might put off the uniform of some of its armed men (and women), this will not be the solution. The whole act is condemnable by the world, but this was bound to happen. When the armed forces were landing on the soil of Iraq, their objectives were not only to overthrow a dictator, clutch the oil reserves and have a permanent presence in the Middle East, but included the "mission" to demolish the heritage and prestige of the famous Muslim capital, Baghdad. The US Army invaded Iraq not to put clothes on the uncovered but to tear them from those who have them. For Iraq, there are invaders, enemies and challengers to their roots, culture and maybe religion too. So don't expect them to be good. They are bad and they are bound to be so. It is us who don't realize this and always beg for the mercy from the foe. We can't blame every citizen of the US for what happened in Iraq, but it has brought the worst criticism for them in recent years. Are we will still bound to remain an ally of the greatest nation on Earth, the "United States of Ashamed", or find our way out ourselves>
Addy Bhai
Dubai, United Arab Emirates  (May 17, '04)


The prison conduct by the guards in Iraq was actually the American way. All you have to do is listen to right-wing talk radio in the US. What a bunch of vicious monsters.
Ralph  (May 17, '04)


This is a quote from the BBC [British Broadcasting Corp] news: "Reaction to the video of the beheading of Nick Berg has been muted and cautious in the Arab media." Where is the outcry over this? Or does one have to be a Muslim to be victim? Talk about being prejudiced and lacking the courage to stand up and say what is right and wrong, regardless of who did it.
Dale Stoy
Saline, Michigan  (May 17, '04)


While I feel sorry for the death of Nick Berg, an innocent man, I wanted to remind your reader Dale Stoy [letter, May 14] that this site is not run by the White House. He must remember that there are tens of thousand Iraqis killed by American and British forces, and thousand are tortured by their forces. Does he want all individual stories to be heard? Americans will never learn, they have conducted an inquiry on how they could have prevent September 11 - first they should ask themselves, Why did it happen? As London Mayor Ken Livingston said, [US President George W] Bush is a greater threat to world peace than poor Saddam Hussein.
Tharsan
Asian Reader  (May 17, '04)


Re Yiwei Wang's Dimensions of China's peaceful rise [May 14]. I just wanted to mention that the power of 1.3 billion people in the growing and dynamic country of China is controlled by roughly 12 people - give or take - that are not elected other than by internal power politics. This to me places a lot of faith in a very select group of people who have very little in the way of internal review by the people of China. The PLA [People's Liberation Army] has always had a lot of direct influence on the Politburo and this is not always apparent. The US spy-plane incident could have been totally instigated by the PLA hierarchy to allow them more influence in warding off the American imperialist strategy. Having the plane land on Chinese territory was an unexpected bonus. I believe that if you read the US Constitution, you will find one framework for a balanced society. There are undoubtedly other systems that have checks and balances to prevent situations such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin to arise and lead nations astray. The democratic West has governmental checks and balances that for the most part keep governments and their foreign policy from creating dangerous situations that can lead to war. China is dependent upon having the "right" people in the position of power. If these leaders are forward-thinking and have a "peaceful rise" as their focus, then all is well. If the PLA gains more influence and the "wrong" sort of leaders are installed, what is the average Chinese citizen going to do? What are China's neighbors going to do if pressured economically or militarily when water resources become more important than oil? What is the world going to do? My fear is based on 12 people controlling one-fifth of the world's population. That does not make me feel at ease regarding a "peaceful rise" of China.
Michael Stubson  (May 17, '04)


Please allow me to comment on Yiwei Wang's article The dimensions of China's peaceful rise (May 14) and answer some attacks from those people who hate China. In the past 50 years, the Republic of China transformed Taiwan into a democratic society under the leadership of the KMT [Kuomintang]. These proud Chinese people in Taiwan won support from many other Chinese groups, overseas, in Taiwan, and in China, both morally and economically. Taiwan became a democratic example for Chinese people. However, after Chen [Shui-bian] cheated in the last election, Taiwan is no longer a democratic land for Chinese. Chinese people in Taiwan are regarded as pigs to be slaughtered. The unity of China is no longer about democracy. It is about the survival of the Chinese people in Taiwan. Not [all] Taiwanese people are willing to be converted to a new human race. If Chinese people in Taiwan want to keep their Chinese heritage, they need to unite with the rest of the Chinese people in the world. China's rise brings peace or not depends on how China is treated. If China is treated like an enemy, it will become one. It is not wise to make 1.3 billion Chinese an enemy now. China may not be a perfect country. But it is much better choice for this world to have a peaceful China than push China into a war. Can't we just be nice to each other and live in peace?
Frank
Seattle, Washington  (May 17, '04)


[Letter writers] Daniel McCarthy, Richard Jiang and Kent Fields all make valid points about Wang Yiwei's article [Dimensions of China's peaceful rise , May 14] that I agree wholeheartedly with. I would like to also add that he may well agree also, but would be in deep trouble for saying so given his official role. Being from an academic institution, perhaps Wang Yiwei might understand also that the "forgotten" problem of China's not only chronically underfunded but also conceptually flawed education system deserves the attention that the nation's image and economy are getting?
Peter Mitchelmore
Calgary, Alberta  (May 17, '04)


As I patiently read the pedantic arguments as to why China is "not peaceful" from your resident pro-Taiwanese letter writers, I had to excuse myself several times, as I was overwhelmed by a desire to yawn and stretch in my chair. The truth is that China is as peaceful as any great power can ever be, no more and no less. It is focused on economic development, and that requires China to have friendly relations with all who are its sovereign neighbors. Taiwan, of course, is the exception because it is not recognized by China, or the vast majority of the world's nations, as sovereign. The argument as to whether Taiwan is a sovereign state or a part of China will most likely never come to any sort of meaningful conclusion any time soon, but to claim that China is "not peaceful" simply because it considers sacred its own sovereign right to maintain its territorial integrity via the island of Taiwan is not only silly, but dangerously biased. No nation on Earth at this point should be deprived of its national right to maintain itself, or to defend itself. Even the United States of America, the sole superpower and the self-appointed arbiter of all that is just and right under the sun, does not hesitate to "defend" its right to Mideast oil, or to tell others what to do, and how to do it. I wonder how these resident pro-Taiwan readers would react if suddenly the US claimed Taiwan as part of its inalienable territory. I am sure they will be singing a very different tune about Taiwan then! The fact remains, China needs a peaceful environment to develop; but if the present Taiwanese government decides to test China's resolve, then so be it; the economy can wait.
Michael Shiao Liang Lou
Milton, Massachusetts  (May 17, '04)


Whatever doubt [letter writers] Kent Fields, Daniel McCarthy, Russ Winter, and Richard Jiang have in the "peaceful rise of China" remains to be seen. However, there is no question that China is rising economically and militarily year by year. Personally I believe gradual economic integration will eventually lead to unification as social and political progress go forward in China and the Taiwanese get more acquainted with the mainland and the narrow-mindedness of the Chen camp. The latter is so afraid of direct transportation etc that it repeatedly blocks any genuine overture of negotiations. Like a rascal, [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian is trying to draw the US into a quagmire should the ultimate resort to war comes to a head.
Li Koon Yat
US  (May 17, '04)


I was always anxious to get to Asia Times for latest world opinion but recently there's very little new on your site. I'm very disappointed, for I recommended you to friends as an unbiased source on world opinion.
Gerard Bonenfant  (May 17, '04)

"Very little new"? That's news to us. We publish 10 to 15 new articles per day, five days a week, on our Front Page alone. - ATol

I first want to say that I routinely read Asia Times Online and find it a refreshing and typically professional window on world events. That being said, I have to take issue with the headline, The war of the snuff videos, that ran on a somewhat interesting story May 13. In short, a "snuff video" depicts someone being killed, most often for the deranged sexual pleasure of the viewer. To my knowledge, there are no allegations of anyone being killed - or for that matter suffering permanent physical injury - at Abu Ghraib. It's most likely inaccurate to refer to the recent video of the death of Nick Berg as a "snuff flick", given the sexual context of the term. It's even more inaccurate in relation to the footage of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Attention-grabbing, yes. Inflammatory, adolescent and infantile, as well. I'm not going to waste time on moral comparisons between executing a kidnap victim and forcing a prisoner to lie naked on a cold floor - I'd hope sensible people across the globe could look to their own nation's legal codes for a quantitative point of reference there. I will just say that to most Americans, even those who don't live in Texas, the international furor over the abuses at Abu Ghraib and sensational headlines like the aforementioned are, at least to some extent, baffling. Personally, I'm more than happy to admit that America and Americans are not perfect; prisoners in our civilian prisons are abused, too, and certainly the stress of war makes people of all cultures do ghastly things. So, guilty on all charges. Now maybe you can divert some of your resources to covering the part of the war in Iraq where people are actually being killed, and maybe even get more ambitious and shed some light on the international hate movement, based on a twisted vision of Islam, that threatens every country where people want to be free to practice their faith as they wish. Whether you care to recognize it or not.
Ken Hardin Lifelong Anti-Bush Voter
Louisville, Kentucky (May 13, '04)


I wonder how the great American public would respond, indeed react, to a video of an American child being atomized by a grenade or having their head blown apart by a sniper. I suspect the reaction would be extreme. Yet how many times could innocent children in Iraq have "starred" in such a "movie" - snuff movies I believe Pepe [Escobar] called them [The war of the snuff videos, May 13]. I note that [US President George W] Bush has condemned in the strongest terms the video of the beheading of an American citizen. Yet how many movies could be made of innocent people in Iraq being killed ... Oh, I forgot, they are just collateral damage. Each and every life that has been taken should be mourned. Not one is more important than another. The West is not in a war "against" terra, it has created a war of terra.
Graeme Mills
Australia (May 13, '04)

Tell Pepe [Escobar] to get the pee-pee out of his ass, because the insertion of Pepe's pee-pee into his anus has caused him severe brain damage. Tell Pepe to use the remaining two viable brain cells he has left to rethink the gibberish he writes. To summarize, I strongly disagree with most of his The war of the snuff videos [May 13].
Darren Jacobs (May 13, '04)

Why, what's wrong with it? Not enough anal sex for your taste? - ATol


The sheer monstrousness of your article [The war of the snuff videos, May 13] morally equating the [Abu] Ghraib videos with the beheading of the American civilian took my breath away. Which "snuff video" would you in your deepest heart prefer to see - your son being sexually humiliated (but able to return home alive) or having his head sawn off and lifted up for display? If in the world of Islam these are equivalent, then fuck Islam. There's no moral equivalence here. You should be ashamed of this sneering partisanship passed off as journalism. PS: Tell Pepe Escobar I'd like to see his punk ass in Texas sometime.
Mike Callahan
Dallas, Texas(May 13, '04)

Why do Pepe's critics have such an obsession about posteriors? - ATol


Your website reminds me of a book I once read, Day of the Jackal. If you have not read it you should. It is very well written and combines just enough actual facts to make the rest of the fictitious account seem real. I especially liked the part where you stated that "radio preachers call, in anguish: 'Deliver us from evil!' while the rest of the dial is occupied by satanic rock, from Alice Cooper to George Thorogood" [An American tragedy, May 11]. People who live in countries that are not fed the news the way their government wants to see it will see right through your line of crap. George Thorogood's music cannot even by the wildest stretch of the imagination be considered satanic rock. I guess since this is obviously anti-America rhetoric, the only people you are trying to convince are the people your government has their thumb on. Keep up the writing and maybe one day your stories will be as famous as Day of the Jackal.
Dennis P (May 13, '04)


I live in Canada, where we see and hear about the "not highly paid" US military. The television news in describing why [Nick] Berg was in Iraq showed a pay range of US$350-$1,500 per day for contractors. If this pay range is for all contractors including all of the Halliburton people, there is one huge disparity between the soldiers and the support people.
Lee Colpher (May 13, '04)

For more on this subject, see the May 14 installment of Pepe Escobar's Roving USA series, The Iraq gold rush. - ATol


Siddarth Srivastava's article (Q: What do these women have in common?, May 13) on Private [Lynndie] England and Mallika Sharawat was a poor attempt at drawing parallels. Given the seriousness of the torture scandal, it is hardly appropriate to equate a Bollywood star with someone who has caused irreparable harm to the state of affairs in the war against terror. While I can comprehend Mr Srivastava's point, I think his choice of examples [was] poor and smacks of a certain desire for publicity rather than the development of a sound argument. It was just plain sensationalist. If he was looking for a good example of a duplicitous woman from the West, there was always Martha Stewart, rather than Private England, who is more an indication of a system failure within the US Army than the state of gender affairs. In fact, even as a man, I am offended by the tone and can't help but detect an air of moral superiority in this piece bordering on plain chauvinism. I would hope that Asia Times Online would seek to report the real issue rather than come up with a sensational way to attract readers. If Mr Srivastava did feel like it wasn't entirely appropriate to compare these two ladies, then why did he go ahead with it? Given the sensitivity of the torture scandal, is this the right time and place to be writing some whimsical article which really had a flimsy point?
Ash
Chicago, Illinois (May 13, '04)


The top leaders in the Pentagon speak about "the six morons who lost the war" [in Iraq]. They are referring, of course, to the soldiers in the infamous prisoner-abuse photos [see Bush's cavalry joins the Indians, May 12]. It should be obvious that six MPs [military police officers] cannot lose a war. But they can make excellent scapegoats in the blame game that accompanies defeat. Which is why the [US] Army returned fire. A scathing editorial in the Army Times says the "six morons who lost the war" are not at the bottom of the hierarchy; they are at the top. The editorial, titled "A failure of leadership at the highest levels", is also appearing in the Navy Times, the Air Force Times and the Marine Corps Times. Historians will no doubt debate exactly when the war was lost. But the fact that the Pentagon and army are blaming each other for losing the war indicates that it has indeed been lost.
Jim Burke
Bisbee, Arizona (May 13, '04)


Richard Radcliffe has proposed, in several letters [most recently on May 11], to convert the Kaaba to sub-atomic particles, nuke the Kaaba etc, as a way of forcing Muslim submission to the United States. Not only does the man, without shame, reveal himself to be a brute and a lout; he's no physicist, either. When the Kaaba fell from the sky to kiss the desert sands, it did so with more kinetic energy than the entire nuclear arsenal of United States. The Kaaba is manifestly still there ... Radcliffe's proposal brings to mind the opening scene of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which depicts a warship shelling the African continent itself. Wonderful! Please continue to publish Radcliffe's letters. He is a shining example of what America still has to offer the world.
1/2 MVV
Quebec, Canada (May 13, '04)


More innocent civilians have been killed in the wars on terrorism than have been killed by the terrorists. Where is the logic, reason or justice in that? Are the Israelis capable of making an honorable peace with the Palestinians? When will the Israelis, Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians and Indonesians start being held accountable under international law?
John Finch
Cairns, Australia (May 13, '04)


I have been following news in Nepal ever since the royal massacre. Army [activities have] always been similar, be it in Nepal or Africa. Nepal's army marching to political beat [May 8] gives similar indications. Ever since the army has been mobilized the scenario has changed from bad to worse rather than the other way. Who will bring stability to this unstable nation is one question that the world is eagerly waiting to be answered.
Samantha Lewis
Melbourne, Australia (May 13, '04)


Judging from articles like Manjit Bhatia's Forget China's rosy economic scenario [Apr 16] or Li YongYan's Applying brakes to China's red-hot economy [May 4], it appears that some of your "journalists" are salivating a little too eagerly over the prospect of China's economy overheating. Beneath their economic pontificating, both Bhatia and Li seem almost happy at the prospect of the economic and political disorder which a potential economic meltdown would cause. While Bhatia may be based in Australia, it is his Indian nationalism that biases his sneering piece, as his hoped-for predictions about China's decline closely resemble that spewed by Indian nationalist ideologues who view China as a rival similar to Pakistan. Bhatia should take a closer look at the economic misery being inflicted by the current neo-fascist Indian regime on the hundreds of millions of Indian workers who have not benefited from the mirage called "India Shining". If he wants to see a domestic order unravel, watch what happens to India when the US protectionist backlash against business outsourcing increases, as it surely will. As for Li YongYan, he is the consummate corporate hack who never saw a state-owned industry he didn't want to privatize or a government program he didn't want to slash. Despite his standard self-righteous rhetoric, Li's crocodile tears concerning the environmental and socio-economic maladies which plague China are completely insincere given the fact that he refuses to confront the underlying systemic cause producing these problems: his beloved capitalist system itself. If China were to reject the free-market dogma peddled by ATol's numerous shills and begin nationalizing industry and instituting stronger capital controls, neo-liberal humanitarians like Li would no doubt be outraged. Finally, Macabe Keliher's Rx for China's fevered economy: Revalue the yuan [May 5] is a disingenuous piece of sophistry. Keliher's supposed Rx is nothing more than poisoned medicine designed to open up the economy to the predations of Western financial vultures who were responsible for the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Keliher inadvertently reveals his true agenda when he proclaims that one of the happy benefits of his supposed remedy would be to further "integrate" China into the global economy. "Integration" in this case is doublespeak for economic colonization. And the "global economy" is a euphemism for a Western-dominated economic system that is based upon the exploitation of the Third World. It seems that capitalist ideologues have a unique talent for disguising their predatory free-market policies behind benign-sounding phrases or even helpful advice. Sadly for you, all the rationalizations in the world cannot hide the rapacious nature of the market system itself.
DP
USA (May 13, '04)


Proof of the paranoid psyche created by the Chinese Communist Party can be found in J Zhang's statement [letter, May 10], "Although I do not have proof, I suspect that those very small 'democratic parties' are funded by foreign agencies, such as the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency], to destabilize China." If this is the prevailing view, then I might put off my hope to observe some rational thinking for a generation or two.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 13, '04)


I am a citizen of Singapore of Chinese origin. I spent 12 years of my primary and secondary education in Chinese schools where all subjects were taught in Chinese except [courses on the] English and Malay languages I have traveled to Taiwan and China regularly for business. I can identify very closely with both countries because of my Chinese background. I love Singapore more than I like China (PRC/ROC). I do not wish for China to be a democracy, not because I do not believe in democracy - in fact I think, as they say, it is the worst system except that it is also the only system that works. The real reason is very selfish: with a real, functioning democracy and with the tremendous human capital and resources that China has, [most] of the people of this Earth would simply not have a chance, and this is really frightening. I am already 55 years old so I do not really believe in this so called win-win situation, where a progressive China would bring great wealth to the whole world to share. On the contrary, I believe that when 1.3 billion Chinese people reach the [top of the] pyramid, the rest of us only have one way to go: down. I believe that many of the so-called developed countries have thrived on the inefficiency of the developing countries, because they have a good government system [and] they fully exploited the market economy model to enrich their citizens, in a generally legal and legitimate way, of course. Corporate America [and] corporate Europe perhaps understand this concept best because [of] the constant fear of being replaced and getting out of business. That is why you do not hear them talking about democracy [or] freedom, as they truly know [what] the real world is. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the transition has already begun: unemployment has been going up and up, especially in Euroland. China, India and Russia would slowly but surely catch up and the middle class in developed countries would be squeezed. So let China stay what [it is] today, a communist state where few a appointed [leaders] obtained their mandate from heaven. The rest of the world will be better off.
Dell
Singapore (May 13, '04)


Dear Spengler:
Unless I've misunderstood your stated goal of deciphering what motivates the different parties to the "civilizational war" now visiting the world, I will stress again that Sufism has very much the central part in explaining Muslim behavior, past, present and future [Spengler replies: 'I am not an atheist', May 10, below]. I sympathize with your reluctance to accept this given the lack of consensus among Muslims about what defines Sufism; nonetheless, the Sufi mark on Islam is as indelible as monotheistic belief itself. Explaining how this is exactly would take many more words than would be permitted here. Let me summarize, however, that "mainstream Islam" can't possibly reject Sufism for that would be akin to negating the entire corpus of the religion. What is rejected, and this may not be found stated explicitly for reasons I would explain at length if not, again, for the limited space here, is the pseudo-Sufism that seeks gnosis without accepting religious discipline. Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) designated the three stages of Muslim life, in broad terms, as such: 1) ritual, 2) faith and 3) Adamic, or human, perfection. The third stage, which Sufism only formalizes, is not a plateau but the point of ascension into infinite improvements emerging from a pristine human matrix. Therefore, despite themselves and quite by default, Muslims participate in Sufism daily because they simply have no alternative reference in which to exist. When a Muslim chooses his infinite improvements to be at the materialistic level he seems a very bizarre creature indeed: capable of meticulous rituals and complex theology but devoid of any soul. And yet his like aren't to be found only within Islam! Ignorance of religion and the resulting moral apathy, and not theological irreconcilables, lie at the heart of what the late Edward Said termed the "clash of ignorance". Commenting on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ [Mel Gibson's Lethal Religion, Mar 9], you assert that even today's evangelists are mistaken to accept its theologically dubious iconography, so would you allow me to put forth that something similar is taking place among Muslim ranks with the devastating consequences apparent to all?
Bilal Saqib
USA (May 13, '04)


Ritt Goldstein responds
In reply to Peter Huessy's letter (May 10), as my articles noted (see the three-part series, This Nuclear Age), some believe the Bush administration's nuclear initiative is good news, though I personally enjoy the idea of Dr Strangelove as only a movie. However, what is particularly bad news, from any perspective, is that if the author of this mad neo-conservative spin is who he claims to be, then too many appear to have sadly misplaced their trust and credibility. Aside from the fact that such a blatant attempt at article assassination is perversely indicative of how on-target the pieces were, I must note that nowhere in any of the three articles do I say that "Payne says he sees nothing wrong with US conventional military power being reined in and checked by others with WMD [weapons of mass destruction]". However, when at the conclusion of this misstatement the question posed is, "is this not crazy?", I must say I finally found a portion of criticism I can agree with, although not in quite the same way as its misguided author intended. Although the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace applauded the works and placed them on its website, I must admit the John Birch Society didn't do similarly, but you can't please everyone.
Ritt Goldstein (May 12, '04)


No bookshops in Midland, Texas [In the heart of Bushland, May 12]? Since the author has, apparently, been there, this isn't a misinformed statement, it's a lie. In the 1950s, Midland had the highest per capita level of education (and the highest per capita number of millionaires) of any city in the United States, and yes, there were bookstores even then, when the total population was only about 30,000. There was a bookstore within walking distance of the Bush home on Ohio Street. Coming up to the present, a Google search will tell you that there is a Barnes & Noble bookstore in Midland, plus eight independent bookstores - about what one would expect in a city of 100,000 or so. When I was a student at Lee High School, 75 percent of the graduating seniors went on to college, including elite schools such as Stanford, Yale, Caltech, etc. Midland wasn't the kind of place where people don't read. Midland is the cradle of the new world order? This is an idiotic statement. In the 1950s and '60s, Midland was one of the main centers of activity of the John Birch Society. George W Bush knew a lot of kids at school whose parents belonged to JBS. The local radio station carried H L Hunt's populist radio program. In the 1968 election, Richard Nixon came in first in Midland, George Wallace (a third-party populist candidate) came in a strong second, and Hubert Humphrey (the Democrat) came in last. George Bush's pediatrician, Dr Dorothy Wyvell (also my pediatrician), was a member of JBS. She was the head of the Texas delegation to Wallace's convention, and she delivered his nominating speech. George Wallace, H L Hunt, the John Birch Society, and most Midlanders were against the new world order. George W Bush's formative years were spent in one of the few communities in America where populist politics was mainstream. It was his father, whose formative years were spent in a very different environment, who used the expression "new world order". That concept goes back to Woodrow Wilson. It has nothing to do with West Texas oilmen, evangelical Christians, or towns without lap dancing. In contemporary America, the new world order is represented by men such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. None of them has any connection whatever with Midland, either personally or culturally. I am not writing to defend Midland. I hated it and couldn't wait to get out of there. (Most people who would fit into a David Lynch movie don't stay in Midland.) Nor am I writing to defend George Bush, even though I played on the same playground with him for five years. I think he is the worst president we have ever had. But this article has destroyed your credibility as far as I'm concerned. This is not the kind of journalism I have come to expect from Asia Times. The tone is frivolous, the analysis is shallow, and on a factual level it's just wrong. Of course your lie about the bookstores will probably stick, since it was [in a front-page summary] and it will only be corrected in the letters column. It will be repeated, and pretty soon the lack of bookstores in Midland will be one of those non-facts that "everybody knows".
Lyle Burkhead
Los Angeles, California (May 12, '04)

The phrase "new world order" did not appear in the article ("brutal world vision" did) and was used by an editor (not the writer of the article, Pepe Escobar) to summarize the current global campaign of former Midland resident George W Bush, and no one else associated with that town. We're not sure why Pepe didn't stumble across the Barnes & Noble; maybe he was in the Cowboy Church. - ATol

I have a question about [Pepe] Escobar's [May 12] recent article [In the heart of Bushland May 12]. Did he even bother to ask any of the residents of Midland what they liked to do for fun, or did he just assume that since one has to travel 300 miles to enjoy lap dances and nightclubs that "there's absolutely nothing to do except pray to the Lord"? Maybe I'm just being overly defensive against what I see to be Mr Escobar's feelings of cultural superiority, but I grew up in a small community, much like Midland (except, of course, for the billions of dollars of oil reserves), and we rarely had a shortage of fun things to do. Of course, these activities might not be the same kind of amusement Mr Escobar prefers, but since he has such strong passion for travel (an "extreme traveler", if you will) you would think that he would have kept an open mind in finding new ways of enjoying life. However, in this particular instance, it appears he had some preconceived biases about the subject that he wished to analyze and then report on, and therefore it is not surprising that with these biases he found exactly what he was looking for. If Mr Escobar cannot be trusted, as I believe, in his trivial arguments, such as when he attempts to use thick description to accurately portray what people in Midland, Texas, like to do for fun, then how can we begin to trust his more ambitious and grandiose arguments with more important implications?
Jesse Derber
Rock Island, Illinois (May 12, '04)

Well, he did mention the football game and The Nutcracker. And the Cowboy Church. - ATol


Congratulations to [Pepe] Escobar for his perceptive series Roving USA. I hope he visits many places besides New York, Texas [and] California.
Lester Ness
Putian City, Fujian Province, China (May 12, '04)


It's always fascinating to listen to reporters and generals talk of how much Iraq resembles Vietnam and then add that General [Eric] Shinseki was right about the need for 200,000 soldiers (Bush's cavalry joins the Indians, May 12). What a novel approach. And if that doesn't work, do we go to 535,000 right away or build up slowly like in Vietnam? Vietnam and Iraq could not be solved with mass, and the fact that most retired generals believe it's the answer tells us more about what's wrong than all the systematic abuse taking place in Iraq's prisons. Retired generals like Barry McCaffery (who firmly has his boots planted in World War II) have accused Secretary of Defense [Donald] Rumsfeld of thinking that US Army generals have their boots firmly planted in World War II. The US Army has had over 30 years to plan and prepare for dealing with insurgencies and could come up with nothing. Rumsfeld inherited an intellectually bankrupt organization that was waiting for the return of the Soviet Union and organizing a part of its forces for light peacekeeping missions in order to justify its huge budget. The tired phrase, "We don't do mountains and we don't do jungles," was as close as the US Army got to dealing with irregular forces. Then came the victory over the third-rate Iraqi army in 1991. This justified everything the US military was doing, if you listened to the generals. But for anyone who was paying attention, the days of mass armies belonging to the nation-state were being supplanted by loosely organized insurgents. Firepower and mass (soldiers) have little value in fighting insurgencies, which are the now the major method of war in most of the world. Men like Martin Van Creveld and Bill Lind have been writing about this since the early 1980s, and not to be rude, but the US has already lost a big one to insurgents. Since most thinking in the US military is done while gazing in the mirror, it's as if military history doesn't exist. Two hundred thousand soldiers to occupy Iraq is no solution. If this was so, then Vietnam would have been a US victory and the Somme should have gone to the British.
Emery Nelson
Sonora, California (May 12, '04)


[Re All going according to plan?, May 12.] Do you really know what the meaning of "democracy" is? It means if you like [US President George W] Bush you will be his ally, but if you don't, America and its allies will do whatever necessary to kill you or your country (through means of sanctions, military aggression, including killing of innocents, prisoners abuse and acts against humanity). You remember his statement, "If you are not with us, you are with the evil"? At least that is what Bush thinks democracy is.
Zainal IF (May 12, '04)


A "moral exceptionalism" that cannot see the world in terms other than "us" and "them" - followed by a long string of ignorant bigots' cliche, rumor, smear, and name-calling - may be exceptional, but it is not moral [Military might and moral failure, May 11]. It is not moral but arrogant. It is not egalitarian but supremacist. And racist. And that's why the asinine fact-fear ideological plunge by blind demagogues into Iraq. And why - behind and underlying all of that, it the lack of doubt, and the inability to admit error. Don't admit error; substitute for that humility the inflated ego; substitute for that more of the same childish name-calling. It's everyone else's - "their" - fault that the extremist ideologues have produced a growing catastrophe in Iraq, and the wider Middle East. Indeed, around the world. The soldiers who engaged in the sleazy actions, and photographed themselves doing so, do represent the US. The ignorance-founded arrogance, the racism, the contempt for those about whom they know absolutely nothing except that they aren't as "good" as Americans, even as the Americans impose barbarous abuse, torture, beatings, rapes, and murders upon them. Only those who have wholly surrendered thinking because they absolutely lack the doubt normal to finite humans can insist their stupidity is wholly the fault of "them". It becomes difficult not to conclude that such freaks of nature - such psychosociopathic psychotics - secretly and deliberately seek to increase the number of terrorists - they are certainly doing that - in hopes they again attack the US, in hopes they will guarantee [that President George W] Bush is elected (for the first time) so he can continue his fundamentalist religionut fanaticism against those he fails to recognize as himself in his own mirror. If there is a god, God save us from those who flatter and delude themselves that God talks to them and directs their actions (so they can avoid accepting responsibility for their actions). Those who believe Bush's constant lying, after he stole into office at the behest of a Supreme Court which violated separation of powers, are at least as anti-American as he. And as those aroused against the US by its illegal war and war crimes in Iraq.
Joseph J Nagarya
Legal Professional
Boston, Massachusetts (May 12, '04)


It was essential to emit a small, wry laugh at Spengler's little, pompous assertion that his religious beliefs are his "own affair" [Spengler replies: 'I am not an atheist', below, May 10]. His hubris might be unique in our time, allowing him to publicly handle, summarize, judge and situate every religious notion within his grasp, while maintaining anonymity and even, now, to become peevish at the prospect of seeing his own beliefs considered in the least. I must admit that I have misunderstood Spengler. Too much generosity on my part led me to assume that he was capable of atheism. Far from being a "charge" against him, this was simply the only quality of mind that I could imagine would be able to reconcile and perhaps redeem his points of view and attitudes, granting him the cynicism and the pathos of distance needed to take his position alongside, or outside, the madness. And yet he "bridles" at my mistake! So much for the big spirituality, the transcendent strength, the generosity - so much for the quiet confidence that a belief in God is supposed to deliver to a well-developed soul. The rubbery phrase Spengler uses to represent his belief is familiar to me: "a God who encompasses the universe but Whom the universe does not contain". Although I want to grant such formulations the respect of being self-made, they come as easily from the lips of mediocre crackpots and mountebanks as from genuinely thoughtful people; all, however, offer us nothing intelligible. "Universe" is itself a convention of speech, roughly on par with "god" when considering all things corporeal. Lacking definition, it is meaningless to say that it "contains" (restrains) anything. What Spengler can imagine as the universe, I might as easily consider a local phenomenon, and for many modern theists this frustrating realization ends with "therefore god". Relating god to universe does not alter the dilemma of either faith or reason by one iota: the more philosophy you pour into god, the less they can do for you. And what of the personification of God, which Spengler implies by his choice of "who" and "Whom", the latter suggestively capitalized. When he contemplates the personality of God, does he contrive one that compliments his unbearable airs or his callous disregard for human suffering, a suffering that must be understood in its details; a suffering that cannot be represented statistically or in the sweeping narratives that dramatize events, but must be either a memory or held in the imagination of a person capable to traverse a long history and the future, while getting close, very close indeed, to every injustice, every starvation, every tortured body and every inconsolably grieving face? When Spengler answers for his god, he will most certainly be answering for himself. No doubt our provocateur is being prudent by keeping his experiences, his lifestyle and his religious beliefs to himself, lest he be called upon to pass review alongside mere mortal men (or women?), where sophistry often crumbles into nothing.
Joe Nichols
USA (May 12, '04)


Richard Radcliffe's thinking [letter, May 11] is as ossified as the generals gazing over the Fulda Gap. I always suspected that the US officer corps was good for eliminating an OPFOR [opposing force] at objective A and perhaps infiltrating a cathouse, but very little else. For one to propose "... Kaaba to be converted to sub-atomic particles ..." is akin to nuking the Vatican for IRA [Irish Republican Army] mischief in London. Perhaps if the US officer corps studied humanities, art or ballet, it would be better prepared in combating the new threats of the millennium. But, alas, the sight of Captain Radcliffe and his mates in a tutu would shatter the Kaaba instantly. Richard should also remember that Ho [Chi Minh] was a poet and [North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen] Giap a history teacher. Radcliffe's over-reliance on the Special Forces should be viewed from the fact that Saigon fell from a conventional armored assault, not from the Viet Minh insurgency. Casually noticing that the US Army is now in a quagmire in Iraq, few Islamic nations are quaking over Radcliffe's second track - "letting the Islamic nation-states know that their existence will be in serious doubt if their nationals participate in violent acts against Americans anywhere in the world". Nothing dulls the enthusiasm for repeated misadventure than continuous failure. And it also sounds like fascism to me. Track 3, Civil Action Programs, Hearts and Minds (grab 'em by the balls and the hearts follow) assumes everyone can be bought for a cup of java and a free eye exam. Track 4, "non-Islamic nations must recognize that their Islamic populations represent a danger to their national survival" assumes that everyone is as paranoid as Captain Radcliffe. Since more people are murdered and killed in car accidents each year in the US than died in [the attacks of] September 11 [2001], you ought to revisit your sense of proportion. Or do you advocate using this event to further the military homogeny of the leisure class? It's a rebellion, Richard, an attempt to overthrow the status quo. The old fight for limited resources has been going on since Cain whacked Abel in the high grass. Naturally, any wise rebel leader will never convince his minions to die so he can live like a pasha in a palace along the Tigris. Thus we discover indoctrination. Spengler, of course, couches it in more eloquent terms. Finally, Richard, some advice: Turn off the TV and read some books.
Bob
Space Cadet (fired)
George W Bush Moon Unit 2 (May 12, '04)


It is very interesting to see the massive outrage concerning abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Although I am a vocal opponent of war - any war, not just a war sponsored by the House of Bush - I don't see the reason for this massive outrage. This is war. These tortures are not acts committed by psychopaths or deviants. Perhaps the American masses (and any other masses that seem shocked) should realize that the soldiers who abused the Iraqis were no more psychopaths than the Saudis that flew those jet planes into the Twin Towers [of New York's World Trade Center]. It is the immaturity of the American psyche which cannot digest contradictions and hence lives in perpetual hypocrisy that is to blame. Most people in this world are neither purely good nor purely evil. The world is all shades of gray, and this war is not a war for Christ against all heathen. Sadly, those soldiers might have missed this point, just like all those people sitting in their living rooms watching it on TV. War, violence and torture are all manifestations of male insecurity, the male fear of impotence, not just in humans but in animals too. Sadly, humans have guns and bombs, and sadly, evolution has not changed this aspect of their psyche much. War and rape are similar. Only in war, one weak, impotent society or nation perpetrates brutal rape and slaughter on another, thereby inflicting humiliation. It is akin to saying, "Yes! I am a man." Look at the African wars, which have not evolved too much. Rape and mutilation are the trademarks of these wars, whether in Sudan, Sierra Leone or elsewhere. So why are we surprised that genital mutilation or humiliation were used on the prisoners? Much worse things happen and have happened and will happen in this war and all other wars. This is the reason why people who oppose war oppose it so vehemently. War is man's relapse from a state of partial civilization to savagery and bestiality. There is no such thing as a human war or a just war or a civilizing war. Although someone will be made the scapegoat in this election year, the savagery will continue, hidden from the cameras, in secrecy, Guantanamo-style. If the US masses can't take it, they should get their country out of the war itself. After all, would the Iraqis have shown any more leeway had they caught US marines? Unlikely, since Islam is a religion steeped in even more paranoia and with an even bigger inferiority and minority complex than Christianity, and the main reason is the fact that it shares similar origins and is still relatively young and hence doubtful and fearful. The only religions which are not filled with such paranoia are the Oriental religions of the Indian subcontinent, which do not live in such fear as they are subconsciously aware of their deep strength and longevity. Hinduism is as old [as] or older than Judaism and its tolerance and flexibility guarantee not just its own survival through the ages, but also the mollification of other fanatic religions that come in contact with it. Take for example Indian Muslims or Indian Christians whose beliefs are far more benign and tolerant than their evangelizing counterparts elsewhere. In this context, evangelization can be seen as the sign of paranoia. Although the Jews don't indulge in it, owing to their inherent belief of purity and supremacy over other races, they are afflicted by a mild brand of paranoia owing to their history of persecution. To summarize, war is a manifestation of weakness that will rear its ugly head again and again, and these tortures are truly nothing compared to the mass civilian casualties. If there is need to oppose anything, it is war itself. But is mankind ready for it yet?
Vivek Sharma
Oregon, US (May 12, '04)


How can any reasonable person believe that the Bush administration's adventures in Iraq have resulted in positive results for the United States and the world? [President George W] Bush is proud of the fact that he doesn't read. He relies on a CEO approach to world affairs in order to implement his "gut" instincts regarding world affairs. His team of advisers were obviously driven by their wish to control the world's physical assets even if the people of the United States must pay for their mistakes in blood and money. You don't have to be a genius to see that the situation is completely out of control. Will November be soon enough to save us?
Dan Mahoney (May 12, '04)


President [George W] Bush recently said, "Our forces will stay on the offensive, finding and confronting the killers and terrorists who are trying to undermine the progress of democracy in Iraq." Lord almighty, when will America realize that the enemy is us - like the US? The United States is the occupying power and primary terrorizing force in Iraq: killing, maiming, imprisoning, abusing and torturing Iraqi citizens in the name of liberating them. Not everyone who resists US imperialism is necessarily a terrorist, insurgent or an enemy of democracy. Unfortunately, too many demagogues in the Bush administration have preyed upon the fears and prejudices of the American people to make us complicit in their "war on terror" witchhunt. Right now, it's high time to dispense with the vulgar vigilantism that has debased our national spirit, and to aspire for more noble American ideals, such as universal human rights.
Bruce McClure
Norwood, New York (May 12, '04)


With the current clash of civilizations in full swing, no one seems to be taking the most logical step in ending this conflict. All sides claim that they are a faith of peace. The main culprits, both the evangelical Christians and the Islamic radicals, are the main culprits. Why can't all the religions in the world simply declare an end to conversions? The land people have should be theirs and the people in that land should be happy. However, there should be no doubt in the minds of Muslims living in the West that they are living in a secular or a Christian state and that any activity or law that they attempt to pass that alters the fabric of that state will not be tolerated. In the Islamic world, the countries don't even give citizenship to non-Muslims and make it clear to them that they are living in an Islamic state and must abide by their laws. The expats, regardless if they are Western or from the subcontinent or East Asia, follow these rules and respect the laws of the land. Muslims must realize that just because Western countries and certain Asian countries are democracies they shouldn't use the free system to subvert law of the land. By asking for special Shariah courts etc they don't help their own case! So all high commands of all religious orders should call for an end to conversions. The pope and priests of Christianity, the mullahs of Islam should end the call for universality and spread of their faiths through any means necessary. The Jewish and Hindu/Buddhist faiths aren't aggressive in this field but a declaration from them will also help. Whoever is right and whoever is wrong we will find out after our deaths. Everyone thinks that they are going to go to heaven because they are "right", so let everyone be happy with that, let the "infidels burn in hell", what is your problem? Stop trying to save the world - if everyone just tries to save themselves and becomes a better individual, that will go a long way in making the world a better place to live.
Karan Awtani
London, England (May 12, '04)


I agree with Lynne Bowsky [letter, May 10] on one point: nothing disgusts me more than blatant lies, such as the lies your [US] president has told: the WMD [weapons of mass destruction]? Saddam [Hussein]'s ties with al-Qaeda? Iraq was an immediate threat? We all know that those were blatant lies - do you not feel disgusted? Who is the monster that you refer to that destroyed a country and its people? Would that be George W Bush? Where were the cries for justice when Hussein was abusing his people, you ask - what country do you think supported Hussein before 1988? You talk about the four hired guns that were killed and wonder why people were dancing in the street - perhaps it was because of the 10,000 Iraqis that were killed by your troops. Have you not seen the picture of destruction your country has brought to Iraq, the picture of torture and humiliation of the POWs [prisoners of war]? And you dare wonder why you are not being thanked. You are being thanked the same way the French thanked the Germans during the occupation of their country in World War II. By the way, we are not taught to hate you in our school - you have taught us that. In reply to J Moore [letter, May 10], who wants Pepe Escobar to apologize for saying that al-Qaeda was "fighting American imperialism": I would like to know for what reasons does he/she think al-Qaeda is fighting America? And please don't give me the ridiculous answer that Bush gives and that most Americans believe: "They don't like us because of our freedom." A twisted fantasy concocted by the neo-cons so that you will hate them. The real reason is American imperialism and their anti-Arab foreign policy. Why is your so-called "world's legitimate press corps" not telling us al-Qaeda's point of view instead of just reporting what G W Bush wants you to believe? Do you think the IRA [Irish Republican Army] resorted to terrorism because they hated the Protestants' freedom? No, it's because they also wanted that same freedom that was being denied to the Catholics. Do you think the Palestinians are terrorists because they hate the Israelis' freedom? No, it's because they are also being denied their freedom by the Israelis. As an American you should know, people don't revolt unless they are [oppressed]. Remember when colonial Americans were considered terrorists by the British?
Jean Bonhacher (May 12, '04)


I'd like to respond to Chris Brewer's letter [May 7], which I considered intriguing and entertaining. I really want to see what will happen to the United States if it becomes an isolationist nation. Maybe the world will better without them? What can the United States do if China and Japan dump US financial assets? Who would finance US deficits? Some of the American companies chose to outsource their labors; being an isolationist means no more cheap labor, eh? And please, when the Americans leave Iraq, leave the oil behind, and don't buy any more oil from abroad. Dig your own wells in Texas or some place there in US. By the way, you should run for the November election.
Andre
Indonesia (May 12, '04)


I again find myself agreeing with most of what Spengler [Mistah Kurtz, he clueless, May 11] has to say. The greatest weapon that radical Islam does have in its arsenal is martyrdom. Because [Muslims] care more about being martyrs in paradise than this earthly existence, they can conceive of and do all sorts of nasty things to the rest of us. The lure of 72 virgins appears to be compelling. A problem that Spengler does not mention is the difficulty of finding a true leadership to deal with and a particular nation-state at the head of Islamo-fascism. As Islam is multinational, so is Islamo-fascism, even existing here in the United States. This makes classic nation-to-nation foreign policy less effective as a tool for solving the problem. As has been seen recently, Islamic militants have no problems moving between Islamic countries with or without the permission of the countries involved. Yet foreign-policy initiatives that work with one nation do not work with others. To reduce the effectiveness of Islamic radicals and to temper their desires for jihad against the non-Muslim world, it will be necessary to hold hostage something of overriding Islamic value in the same manner that a Shi'ite cleric [on May 7] pronounced that female British soldiers when captured could be kept as slaves. Yet there are [a] few things to which a Muslim is attached that have overriding value. There are the three universal holy places of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, the Grand Mosque of Medina where Mohammed is buried, and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. In addition, Shi'ites venerate the burial site of Ali in Najaf. That leaves the West with a limited target list. Destroying any of these places would start a worldwide religious war between Islam and everything else. But, gee, isn't that the current state of affairs? Spengler is also correct that we have the wrong type of personnel attempting to reduce the enclaves of Fallujah, Najaf, Karbala, et al. But we must make do with what we have and the American people must understand that creating the type of soldier that we need now takes about five to 10 years of very intensive training. In our national zeal to find a "peace dividend" in the requirement for a smaller force than required by the Cold War, we cut our total force to the combat power that was used in Desert Storm. Therefore, I believe that we must follow a multi-track approach to ending the threat of Islamo-fascism to the rest of the world. The first track is to tell those who preach the anti-Jew, anti-American, anti-Crusader sermons at Friday prayers that they are risking their holy sites if another September 11 occurs. We will hold Islam responsible collectively. If they don't want the Kaaba to be converted to sub-atomic particles, they had best preach about the positive aspects of Islam and go easy on the jihad. The second track is already in progress. That is letting the Islamic nation-states know that their existence will be in serious doubt if their nationals participate in violent acts against Americans anywhere in the world ... The third track is to reorganize the Armed Forces of the United States to better handle low-intensity conflicts and civilian action programs aimed directly at removing the support of the local populace for resistance fighters. There are too many general officers who grew up on the Fulda Gap and not enough who spent their lives in special warfare. There must be a mix of the two and we need to lean in the direction of special warfare for the foreseeable future. Fourth, non-Islamic nations must recognize that their Islamic populations represent a danger to their national survival. As their native populations shrink in proportion to their Islamic populations, the Islamo-fascists become more and more vociferous in demanding the implementation of Sharia among the Islamic population instead of the laws of the nation. This cannot be allowed to happen. Muslims must recognize that living in a non-Islamic nation requires them to follow the laws of that nation or go somewhere else. Muslims do not seek to assimilate, they seek to assimilate the native population into the greater caliphate ... Where Islamo-fascists attempt to enforce the Sharia instead of the national laws, they must be must be arrested and tried for violating those laws. Countries must be on guard for signs that Sharia is being implemented and aggressively stamp out all attempts to implement Sharia other than through the established legislative process. Muslims must expect the local laws to be enforced and alter their lifestyles appropriately. Muslims who obey the local laws must be protected against those who would implement Sharia by force and intimidation. Witness the hijab controversy in France that will be resolved later in the year. Finally, the non-Islamic peoples of the world must realize that Islam is an all-encompassing theocracy that directs every part of their lives: civil and religious. They must decide whether they want freedom or Islam.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
richkwam@linkline.com (May 11, '04)


Dear Spengler,
I generally enjoy reading your articles, but this one [Mistah Kurtz, he clueless, May 11] has me scratching my head. "First shock the sensibilities of a Western society into utter despair at facing primordial enemies from the Dark Ages." So that's what you think the poor Iraqi prisoners stuck in the torture and rape chambers of Abu Ghraib were doing - shocking the sensibilities of the innocent American torturers - so that they could make their dream of defeating the West come true. Must be one hell of a monstrous conspiracy on their part to make themselves available for the most demeaning and brutal hammering of their bodies and souls in order to soil the squeaky-clean Judeo-Christian morality of their tormentors. Who do you think is behind this conspiracy and where might this have been hatched?
Shamim Sheriff (May 11, '04)

Spengler: Kurtz and Lynndie [England] may be clueless as to the motives of Islam: they want us as their dhimmis or they want us dead [Mistah Kurtz, he clueless, May 11]. Democracy is not compatible with Islam because [Muslims] are intolerant [by] nature and would cast a net of totalitarianism over the West, refusing to allow us to have any say in the affairs of men, even in our own communities. The Muslim world would rather be dead than Americanized, and I am sure that Americans, once they come to grips with the real motives of Islam, would also prefer to be dead rather than Muslim. I wonder which side will "win". I am afraid it will be a Pyrrhic victory of world annihilation.
Eleanor P Garriga (May 11, '04)


I have developed an enjoyment of reading your publication. However, reading the article Rumsfeld and the 'beastly' Boykin [May 11] I came across a reference to the Executive Intelligence Review. I understand this publication, if I have it correctly, is from the Lyndon LaRouche organization - which does not bring credit to the Asia Times.
J Morris (May 11, '04)


While reading Ramtanu Maitra's Rumsfeld and the 'beastly' Boykin [May 11], I was surprised to see him citing Executive Intelligence Review. EIR is a product of the Lyndon LaRouche cult, and not at all a reliable source for anything, save for very unusual conspiracy theories.
Lester Ness
Putian University
Putian City, Fujian Province, China (May 11, '04)


Regarding your article An American tragedy (May 11): I'm speechless. Keep up the good work. For those who still have any doubts about Pepe [Escobar]'s good journalism and who accuse him of all kind of things, I say: "Get a life."
M Sabbah
Montreal, Quebec (May 11, '04)


Jim Lobe's article [Military might and moral failure, May 11] is very good, but I would like to take exception to one area. America's exceptionalism has been alive and well. The misconception is to confuse America's exceptionalism with the exceptionalism of Americans. Anyone who has served as an enlisted man in the United States Army (or even been in an all-male boarding school) knows that Americans can and do sink to the same depths as all their fellow primates. When the system operates properly, however, the principles of the Enlightenment (enhanced by the philosophers' admittedly limited understanding of the Confucian system) embodied in our founding documents and beliefs operate to inform our aspirations and actions and make America an outstanding exemplar of the human potential for humane organization. This notwithstanding our disgraceful treatment of native Americans, enslaved Africans, and Philippine insurgents. The United States military has conducted some of the most, if not the most, humane wars and occupations in human history, notwithstanding the massive slaughter accompanying them - the latter is the nature of technological war. The reason for that is that the American army system is supposed to, and usually does, incorporate the values of the larger system in which it exists, to the extent that is possible in a military situation. The mechanism for this relative humaneness has been the discipline and rules and regulations intended to inhibit the 5 or 10 percent of sociopaths who find their way into the military and give guidance and means to the rest as to the proper way to resist their example. The problem is that the military has become weakened and the discipline and the rules and regulations degraded. Tuning into C-Span and watching four-star generals gaze worshipfully at Rummy, Wolfie, and Dov Zakheim (Defense Department bean counter) the way Nancy Reagan used to gaze at Ronnie is a truly sick-making experience. And the Beastly [Boykins] have infiltrated the higher reaches of the military. General [William Boykin] would be very valuable instructing paratroopers in ripping the livers out of their adversaries on the field of battle - he has no business in the intelligence services. It is a perfect example of the Peter Principle. His appointment to a position in the intelligence area was a disservice to him, the country, and the poor souls who fall under his purview. But the breakdown in the Defense Department is in turn caused by the weakening of the larger system. With the exception of [Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [Washington Post columnist Charles] Krauthammer (who is a Canadian and a cripple), all of the fire-breathers quoted by Lobe as excoriating weakness and cowardice seem to have been men (?) who avoided their duty in the Vietnam War. One cannot help musing that a file of lampposts in the '60s suspending [Bill] Clinton, [George W] Bush [and Richard] Cheney ... might have been a convenient stitch in time. Democracy is a system for the courageous. All decent Americans want to see freedom and democracy (and a dignified lifestyle) throughout the world. But it cannot be won by cowards, by those who want to send others to fight for their own safety and privilege. Those who refused to fight for (and, more importantly, think about) the freedom of the Vietnamese are now burrowed under ground or surrounded by phalanxes of mercenaries, degrading the freedom of their fellow citizens and humiliating others who they hysterically imagine might pose some danger to their miserable existences. They are not just of a different nationality but of a different species from [American Revolution hero] Nathan Hale, who refused a life without liberty, or [Senator] John McCain, who chose duty, loyalty to comrades, and five years of imprisonment and torture over preferential release. Whether America can maintain its exceptionalism (or whether it should - wouldn't it be better if exhibition of the principles of the Enlightenment and some benign variety of philosophical Confucianism were not exceptional?) is not now clear. If it continues in its irrational fear of a few ragtag terrorists, restricting freedom domestically and wreaking havoc abroad, it will not. But if it does, it will be because the system rights itself, as it is designed to do. It is the exceptionalism of America, not Americans, that permits its citizens to fulfill the promises of the Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Christ, Mohammed, [Baruch] Spinoza ... the Founding Fathers and others. It is now the duty of the military to make sure that its system is cleaned up and those who would degrade it be thrown out or reassigned to more appropriate duties - and that does not mean hanging a few lower-echelon soldiers.
Anthony J Van Patten
Glendale, California (May 11, '04)


[Ian] Williams spins a damning tale absent the "once upon a time" beginning [Not a pretty picture, May 7]. The not-so-pretty picture began with the lawlessness of George W Bush and Tony Blair. The actions that followed their invasion of Iraq were and are nothing more than an extension of their initial decision. At the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal the recurring theme by the accused was one of "following orders". The photos of naked Iraqis are reminiscent of photos taken during the reign of terror by the Irgun Zvi Lumi and Stern gangs in Palestine (circa 1940s) of naked Palestinian women paraded around in trucks for viewing by the Arab population. For the UN to salvage its principles, it may have to judge Mr Bush and Mr Blair along with Saddam Hussein.
Armand DeLaurell (May 11, '04)


Spengler replies: 'I am not an atheist'
My religious beliefs are my own affair, but I bridle at the charge of atheism (Joe Nichols, letter May 7). I believe in a God who encompasses the universe but Whom the universe does not contain. I do not know whether "the Sufi with his juristic mastery, sublime spirituality and passionate love of God is the quintessential Muslim", as Bilal Saqib affirms (letter, May 7). What is clear is that the Sufi is not a typical Muslim, for all the mainstream Muslim authorities, both Sunni and Shi'ite, view Sufism with either skepticism or hostility. The spiritual experience of the vast majority of Muslims rather than the theological debates of the initiated is my concern, and I hope Mr Saqib will pardon me for leaving the subject of Sufism to others more qualified than I. Otherwise, I am pleased that Nasim Islam agrees with me by equating Professor Alain Besancon (Has Islam become the issue?, May 4) and Osama bin Laden, he in effect argues that theological criticism is an act of violence. Specifically, he writes (letter, May 7) that "any attempt to inquire about the issue of Abrahamic religions with a tunnel-vision attitude is considered an act of violence, as there is a difference between ‘theological criticism' and ‘theological discussion'". If that is not paranoia, perhaps Mr Islam can suggest a more accurate diagnosis.
Spengler (May 10, '04)


I just finished reading Spengler's articles on Islam. He poses as an expert in comparative religion, yet his very first attempt at comparing Islam and Christianity, through the meaning of their respective prayers, Why Islam baffles America, failed miserably upon scrutiny. He described Christian prayer as a communication/dialogue between the believer and God, whereas the Islamic prayer as a methodical submission to God. Mr Spengler, you didn't even know the difference between "prayer" and "supplication". What Christians call "praying" is merely considered as "supplicating" in Islam. It is true that "prayer" in Islam is an act of worship that constitutes a total submission to your Creator. However, after each prayer Muslims raise their hands to the heavens and supplicate to God. It is during this time Muslims thank God for all His blessings and also ask God for other things in life: good health, happy family, etc. Now, doesn't this constitute a form of communication with God that is similar to the Christian "prayer"? How did an expert like Mr Spengler miss something as elementary as this? Either he is a novice who pretends to be an expert in comparative religion or he deliberately distorted this simple fact to incite the idea of Judeo-Christian superiority versus Islam.
Ahmad
Malaysia (May 10, '04)


Once again Pepe Escobar, in his transparent attempt to hide his malcontent for all things American behind a pseudo-intellectual cloak of "journalism", gets it wrong [You have the right to be misinformed, May 8]. He glorifies Berkeley's non-mainstream news entities and gives credence to what one student said: "The press itself, increasingly commercialized, cannot function as an opposition voice." Real journalists don't function as the "opposition". They report objectively on the facts. No single news outlet in the world achieves this 100 percent, but some do better then others. It is hysterical, then, that Mr Escobar puts on a pedestal the tirades of those who are against outlets such as Fox News and when he himself is so visceral and prejudiced toward the US that it shows in every one of his writings, except of course when he is bashing Vietnam and other pet peeves of his. For example, in 2003, he said that al-Qaeda was "fighting American imperialism" [Iraq showdown: Winners and losers, May 21, '03], and he never has corrected this twisted fantasy, nor has he apologized to the world's legitimate press corps or Asia Times Online's readership. This is neither thoughtful, intellectual, nor objective journalism. It's not "rebel press", either. It's simply trash. In essence, he behaves worse than those he accuses, and it is plain for all to see. Get rid of him. He degrades the quality of your publication so badly, and it is a shame. He merely plays to those who despise the US. It's his bread and butter.
J Moore
Singapore (May 10, '04)

You have a rather narrow view of the function of the press in a democracy, perhaps because of your locale. In many democracies, the media do indeed function as a form of opposition, and are expected to "hold the politicians' feet to the fire", especially when the government has been deafened by its own arrogance and when the political opposition has become ineffectual. - ATol


[Re] You have the right to be misinformed [May 8]. This article began with the statement "Eighty percent of Americans get their information from Fox News, according to a recent University of Maryland poll." Apparently you did not bother to read the study. Here is what it said: "An aggregate sample of 3,334 respondents was asked, 'Where do you tend to get most of your news?' and offered the options of 'newspapers and magazines' or 'TV and radio'. Overall, 19 percent said they tend to get most of their news from print media, while 80 percent said they tend to get their news from TV and radio. Respondents were then asked which network, if any, is their primary source of news." Responses are shown below.
Two or more networks ........................30%
Fox ...................................................18
CNN ................................................ 16
NBC ................................................ 14
ABC ................................................ 11
CBS ................................................. 9
PBS-NPR ......................................... 3
Eighteen percent of 80 percent is 14.4 percent. This is the percent of Americans who get their information from Fox News. I hope you will correct this egregious error.
Andy Hughes (May 10, '04)

We have done so. Thanks for pointing it out. - ATol


I read through [Dhruba] Adhikary's article [Nepal's army marching to political beat, May 8]. It seems that he has too much faith in the democratic parties. His article shows him as an anti-monarch. It's a known fact that Nepalis have always looked up to the king for the ultimate solution to the problems in the country. In a situation like this in the country it is very difficult to say that the multi-party system, which has already proved itself incapable in its 11 years work in the government, can do any better now.
Sanjeev Chandra Gautam
Karachi, Pakistan (May 10, '04)


Re Not a pretty picture [May 7]. Nothing disgusts me more than blatant lies. Most of this article contained just that. The United States does not have to manufacture criticism for the Oil for Food Program. Just visit Iraq. It was a dismal failure. Money did not reach the Iraqi people, it has lined the pockets of the UN personnel who took kickbacks, got contracts, and by a monster who destroyed a country and its people. The humiliation and torture of these prisoners was wrong and vile. But I am sure the United States will rectify the situation and take care of the people who did this - they will be punished. But while all of you decry this treatment, where were you for the last 25 years, while Saddam was doing worse to his people? Where were all the cries for justice then? Where were the cries of disgust, or apologies, for the American contract workers who were murdered, dismembered, and set on fire, then hung from a bridge? We here heard nothing from all of you. Instead, there were people dancing in the streets! The propaganda this article spewed was expected. No matter what we do as a country, what our president does to make things better for the Iraqis, not one of you will change your minds about us. You have been taught to hate the United States from your schools. I don't regret that we went into Iraq, as life will be better for these people. What I resent is how we are thanked. By roadside bombs, drive-by shootings, snipers, and all-out barrages to our men and women in uniform. Where is your outrage for them?
Lynne Bowsky (May 10, '04)


And what would be the outcry if it were American men torturing Iraqi women and pointing to their genitals instead of the obvious reverse? So much silence. So much bigotry. So much sexism.
JC
California (May 10, '04)


Now that Saddam [Hussein] is gone, perhaps this horrifying American female from Appalachia should be crowned in his place as a New Beast of Baghdad. After viewing horrific goings-on among American "contractors", I begin to wonder if they are themselves responsible for the mutilation of their murdered fellow contractors, doubtless by people taking revenge.
Mary Chang (May 10, '04)


There is no question that the treatment of Iraqi prisoners was awful and people should be punished for it. However, it certainly doesn't justify the hysterical uproar that we've seen over the last week. What, exactly, do we have here? The prison in Abu Ghraib is a case of demeaning people with idiotic antics that resemble hazing more than anything else. None of it was fatal. But under Saddam [Hussein]'s regime being a prisoner certainly was fatal. By some accounts, the Ba'athist regime killed over a million of its own people directly, by way of torture, executions, chemical weapons, and just about any other means imaginable. The bulk of these killings came under the rule of Saddam, yet the whole of the Middle East was silent about it, largely because the rest of that region was, and still is, run by authoritarian strongmen. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran? Should we really be taking seriously the criticism about human rights from places like those? Where was their outrage over Saddam's behavior? The answer is that there was no outrage. Brutality is a matter of course in those countries, and when Saddam was around, he was just one of the boys. The irony in all of this is that the left in the United States and Europe, which trumpets itself as the guardian of human rights and freedom, has allied itself with these dictatorial regimes in denouncing the United States. We've heard the left bray that these incidents make the whole of the United States no better than Saddam, as if these non-sanctioned and stupid incidents of hazing are just as awful as Saddam's use of mustard gas on Halabja and Birjinni, the rape-murders of Uday and Qusay Hussein, and the secret executions of tens of thousands of people. It's like holding a candle to the sun, or, more appropriately, a rotten tomato to an entire landfill, and saying they're all the same. That's just ridiculous, partisan exaggeration by people who hate everything about the United States and pigeonhole themselves into extremist arguments.
Stephen Renico
Detroit, Michigan (May 10, '04)

Your points about double standards are well taken, but perhaps your perception that humiliation of Arab Iraqis is somewhat acceptable if it is "non-fatal" typifies the difficulty many Westerners have understanding the Muslim mindset - that some things are worse than death. See Why Islam baffles America (Apr 16). - ATol


I only recently came across your online newspaper. I now read your main articles every day. The articles are in depth, well written, dispassionate and objective. I just wanted to say something on all the media attention on [US President George W] Bush's so-called "apology" for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers. As far as I am concerned, this is a non-apology. Bush is commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He readily accepts praise for their perceived "success" but he does not want to take blame for their cruelty. Bush apologized for the pain and suffering the Iraqi prisoners and their families suffered. He did not apologize for the torture, murder and brutality of US soldiers; he did not apologize for the action of the US soldiers. This is just like someone punching you in the face, then apologizing for the pain you experienced, but refusing to acknowledge that their action in punching you in the first place was wrong. This is the same guy who said a few weeks ago that he will never apologize for the American people.
R Persaud
Toronto, Ontario (May 10, '04)


The surprise, shock and disclaimers currently offered to the public by the US government concerning prisoner abuse are hypocrisy of the highest order. These are the same people who reclassified prisoners of war as "enemy combatants" so that they could circumvent the Geneva Convention rules ... who shipped prisoners to interrogation centers in Third World countries where abuse could be carried out without consequences ... who set up and governed the prison system in Iraq, Cuba and elsewhere ... who fought the International Court of Justice and used political and economic arm-twisting to kill its effectiveness. No amount of apology from "Washington" will ever ring true. We are becoming one shocking, miserable excuse for a member country of the world community.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 10, '04)


[Re] the series recently put on your website [This Nuclear Age, Part 1: US neo-cons and war, May 5; Part 2: US in an arms race against itself, May 6; Part 3: Iran, North Korea and proliferation, May 7]: Would it be possible to post something on nuclear-weapons policy that relies on fact and not fiction? The part on US nuclear policy that quotes heavily from [Joseph] Cirincione, [John] Pike and [Keith] Payne is full of the most incredible mistakes, misstatements, misquotes, and outright falsehoods. There was no balance whatsoever. (Payne says he sees nothing wrong with US conventional military power being reined in and checked by others with WMD [weapons of mass destruction] - is this not crazy? Even during the height of the Cold War, Payne opposed the modernization of our entire strategic deterrent, favoring a freeze which would have favored the Soviet position.) And the author appears incredibly out of touch with nuclear policy of any kind. I have written a piece comparing the Bush administration's nuclear doctrine with that of the past three administrations and have concluded it is in many ways a continuation, with some needed reforms and additions ... I am a senior defense associate here at the National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, and president of GeoStrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland.
Peter Huessy
huessyp@ndu.edu (May 10, '04)


[Re US courts should throttle OPEC, May 7.] Detroit's refusal [to produce fuel-efficient vehicles], a situation which could be altered quickly if the current [US] administration were not irrevocably married to the oil industry, keeps the US dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Japan has been engineering fuel-efficient vehicles for years; Detroit can't seem to get a handle on the way they are accomplishing this. Apparently a patented secret. A one-mile-per-gallon increase in gas mileage would alter significantly the need for OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] Middle East oil. Also there is the American auto buyer whose priorities do not at present include purchasing cars that help reduce our fuel dependencies. So we are a big part of the problem. I wonder what the US response would be if the situation were reversed and this country occupied the catbird seat in the production and distribution of major petroleum supplies.
Bill Cox
Marina, California (May 10, '04)


Does anyone bother to take the tripe written by J Zhang and Frank, Asia Times Online's resident propaganda officers for the Chinese Communist Party, seriously? In J Zhang's [May 7] letter, he asserts that Mac William Bishop's and Hsu Shu-chuan's excellent article [Chicken dying, but monkey not scared, May 5] about the reaction of people in Taiwan to recent events in Hong Kong is "one-sided, vague and scaremongering". As the authors' letter [May 6] noted, they were merely portraying the views of some people in Taiwan, and for my part, I agree that the views represented in their article are accurate. As far as the charge of "scaremongering", what is it about the article that frightens you, J Zhang? The fact that the people of Taiwan can be proud of their Chinese heritage without subscribing to the perverse, unthinking nationalism advocated by the leadership in Beijing? Remember that it is not Taiwan that is threatening China with a barrage of ballistic missiles. The people of Taiwan want only to maintain their freedom from interference by the pack of tyrannical kleptocrats that currently resides in Beijing. Pan-blue or pan-green, the message is the same: Keep your hands off us!
Wu
Taoyuan, Taiwan (May 10, '04)


I'm pleased to say that I by and large agreed with Frank's letter of May 5 that China does need more encouragement to keep on its path of improvement. There are positives there, although we might have to wait for Jiang Zemin's influence to decline before we really find out. I also believe that all in China are more than capable of developing real democracy and openness and will be one of the first to applaud when it does arrive.
Peter Mitchelmore (May 10, '04)


Letter writer J Zhang [May 7] seems to suffer from the same closed-mindedness that prevents the government of China from a realistic approach to Taiwan. First, the so-called 1992 agreement was not an agreement at all. After the 1992 meeting, China denied that there was any agreement, and Taiwan said there was only an agreement to disagree. But regardless of this non-agreement which was never written down, it is not a treaty binding on the government of Taiwan and even if it were, Taiwan could abrogate the treaty. Second, the idea that there is a country called "China" that is not the People's Republic of China is utter nonsense. But Taiwan is not part of the People's Republic of China, so it is also not part of China. Got it? Third, in 1895 China ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity, but by the 1952 San Francisco peace treaty Japan gave up Taiwan but did not deliver Taiwan to China. So according to international law, Taiwan's sovereignty reverted to Taiwanese. Fourth, it is important to keep in mind that the Kuomintang is a group of 2 million unwelcome conquerors who took over Taiwan after World War II. Taiwanese never invited the Kuomintang, and throughout the history of Taiwan's unwilling affiliation with China (1683-1895, 1945-49) Taiwan never agreed to become territory of China. So any act that the Kuomintang might purport to engage in with respect to Taiwan's sovereignty would in any event not be binding on the people or land of Taiwan. Only a vote of the people of Taiwan could change Taiwan's sovereignty (and agree to make it part of China, the 51st [US] state, etc). Finally, in order to approach this issue rationally and productively, I suggest that J Zhang first purge his/her head of all thoughts and fantasies of "one China". Only then will the factual reality of Taiwan's independence and sovereignty be able to penetrate through the hardened shell of the one-China religion. Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 10, '04)


ATol asks [editor's note, May 4] whether "a home-grown democratic movement [would] not flourish in China" if it was permitted. I simply do not know. China is huge - 1.3 billion people all have their own interests. At this crucial time for China's development, would it be wise to do political experiments? I sincerely wish stability for China, so economic progress can continue, which all Chinese want. The reason why there are no serious opposition forces within the Chinese mainland is not only because it's not permitted, but also because they do not enjoy broad backing among the Chinese people. The Kuomintang (KMT) is dying a slow death on Taiwan. Although I do not have proof, I suspect that those very small "democratic parties" are funded by foreign agencies, such as the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency], to destabilize China. And I do not consider cults such as the Falungong serious alternatives either. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is also changing as the Chinese society is changing. Something many people do not know is that the CCP is a plural party with people having all kind of views - Chinese-style neo-conservatives up to traditional Marxists. In a sense, it's already democracy, Chinese style, a way for a gradual Western style multiparty democracy in China, is if there would be a schism tolerated within the CCP. It could also end up in a new Civil War - a bet many Chinese, including me, won't dare to make.
J Zhang (May 10, '04)


[Re] Not a pretty picture [May 7]. A prior e-mail of mine questioned the veracity of one of your articles. I am ashamed to have seen photos of prisoners that - to me - appear to be beaten and deceased. My apologies for such atrocities occurring and for questioning the truth of your articles.
Tom Riel (May 7, '04)


The article by Ian [Williams] titled Not a pretty picture [May 7] might have a shred of credibility if he did not insist that [criticism of] the UN Oil for Food Program was being manufactured by American neo-cons. This sad tale does not require any assistance or "manufacturing" from any quarters; it is a fact and is more likely a rule rather than the exception in UN-related enterprises. Mr Williams' article constitutes some of the most odious propaganda since Walter Duranty became an apologist for Josef Stalin while masquerading as a reporter for the New York Times. The Oil for Food [Program] has been rightly coined the "Oil for Palaces" program. How else would one explain the deaths of Iraqi children from disease and malnutrition while Saddam [Hussein] built palaces that would have been the envy of French monarchs? Shame on you, Mr Williams!
Andrew Zaplatynsky
DeWitt, New York (May 7, '04)


Ian Williams really hit home with his piece Not a pretty picture [May 7]. I am an American from the Midwest. I am ashamed to say that I am an American due to the recent events of the last couple of years, and especially by the revelations of the prison abuse (which I still believe are [at] the hands of the few, not the majority). I am not in agreement with my president, and I am ashamed to think that the American public could be duped by such an administration, who, from the start, had only one thing in mind: finishing the job they didn't finish when [president George H W] Bush Sr was in office. Not to mention lining their pocketbooks with Iraqi oil profits. This is only the tip of the iceberg of my complaints about "Dubya". Please don't hate all of us. A lot of us didn't even vote for him. And we don't agree with what's going on now. If we have it our way, he'll be replaced at the beginning of next year. The more I think about it, Canada is looking pretty good right now.
Lauren (May 7, '04)


I just want to congratulate [you on the] fine article by Ian Williams, Not a pretty picture [May 7]. He expresses well the many sentiments I am hearing every day. I would add that culpability for the attitude that allows US soldiers to act outside all international law and just plain decency lies directly with US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. In any other country, their resignations would be promptly called for. In this case too, no less should be accepted. Furthermore, from the US side, the State Department should take over direct responsibility for Iraq, under the control of [Secretary of State] Colin Powell. Even after his dismal performance at the UN last year and his attempts at muzzling alJazeera, he is still the only one with a shred of decency left in the administration [of President George W Bush[ who could go some way to ensuring the Arab people and the world, that this type of behavior will not continue.
Keith Swenson
Aberystwyth, Wales (May 7, '04)


I cannot believe your site printed an article so obviously foolish as the one titled US courts should throttle OPEC by Sean O'Donnell [May 7]. Here is an especially foolish bit: "In response to OPEC's price gouging, members of Congress have reintroduced the 'NOPEC' legislation. Sponsored most recently by Senators Mike DeWine (Republican, Ohio) and Herbert Kohl (Democrat, Wisconsin), this bill would extend the antitrust laws of the United States to the international oil cartel. This, however, begs the question: Why can't the US or its citizens sue OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] now under the existing Sherman Antitrust Act?" The idea that the USA can sue foreign countries to force them to hand over resources at a price determined by the USA is nothing more than thuggery - more of the thuggery that has led to the invasion of Afghanistan for the control of the opium trade and invasion of Iraq for control of the oil. I can only guess that your esteemed paper has printed this article in the vein of "Let a man's own words speak for themselves." Instead of printing an article condemning US arrogance and acquisitiveness, you print an article by an American that demonstrates their arrogance and acquisitiveness. You allow the American to convict himself with his own words. I do hope the reason for printing the letter is the latter. Your professional reputation would suffer, I think, if this is the type of journalism that will be practiced by Asia Times Online in the future.
Joe (May 7, '04)

US attempts to interfere in the economic affairs of other nations is not without precedent, eg the Helms-Burton Act against countries trading with Cuba. - ATol


I am utterly disgusted and feel nauseated by Spengler's sophistry - of labeling me a schizophrenic [Spengler responds, below]. [Osama] bin Laden's fulmination of labeling Christians and Jews as infidels is very similar to that of Professor [Alain] Besancon's prophesy of "Islam is not of the three Abrahamic religions, but a pagan throwback, not a 'revealed religion' in the sense of Judaism and Christianity ..." - at least in philosophical terms. Professor Besancon's jaundice towards Islam and his writings are nothing but a catalyst-like permeable substance, which diffused through parasitic neo-cons - a group of ultra-conservatives in and around the Bush administration who are responsible for the death of 9,000 innocent Iraqi Muslim civilians up till now - is in fact more deadly, cruel and terrorist-like than bin Laden's call for jihad - the number of casualties speaks for itself. Any Muslim who preaches that the Jews and Christians are infidels is a "confused and ignorant" Muslim. The Koran explicitly repeats many times that Moussa and Isa are two of the most revered prophets - insulting them in any manner is a grave sin - and as such Muslims do not need Professor Besancon's recognition or popes kissing of Koran; Muslims, for similar reasons, are forbidden to denounce and disrespect early prophets on national TV as well. Any attempt to inquire about the issue of Abrahamic religions with a tunnel-vision attitude is considered an act of violence, as there is a difference between "theological criticism" and "theological discussion". He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool - shun him; and he who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child - teach him; and he who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep - wake him; as for Mr Spengler, regarding the criticism of Islamic theology, you fit somewhere in one of those three categories. By the way, without refuting the nonsense, we will let the dog bark.
Nasim Islam (May 7, '04)


In Spengler responds (below, May 6), he states that "Allah by His arbitrary will controls every event in the universe down to the molecular level ... the God of Islam intervenes everywhere and at every moment to make matter and energy behave as He might please at any instant". He has also previously quoted Franz Rozenzweig: "The God of Mohammed is a creator who well might not have bothered to create. He displays his power like an Oriental potentate who rules by violence, not by acting according to necessity, not by authorizing the enactment of the law, but rather in his freedom to act arbitrarily." Spengler and the sources he relies on appear to try to work backwards from the real or imagined failings of communities of Muslims and trace it back to some perceived fundamental differences in their conception of the divine. In doing so they neglect some of the basic tenets of Islam (that also exist in Christianity and Judaism) such as free will (with its concomitant concept of divine mercy), freedom of individual interpretation and most importantly the idea of creation as an expression of divine love rather than "arbitrary will". It is no surprise to note that he relies on Jewish sources such as Rozenzweig and Maimonides as well as Christian sources such as [St Thomas] Aquinas and [Alain] Besancon to support his views. These thinkers/theologians were and are explicitly concerned with distinguishing "Western" and "Judeo-Christian" religion and "civilization" from the "Islamic" world. They were and are concerned inter alia at the number of Jews and Christians converting to Islam and perceived a threat to the very existence of their culture and civilization. It is often the case that people who are very similar have to magnify their differences to maintain their (insecure) identity. So it is with Christians and Jews who, as Spengler correctly observes, are shrinking in numbers in the face of a growing Islam. Islam on the other hand explicitly recognizes Jews and Christians as righteous people and has a long tradition of tolerance and coexistence towards minority communities of Jews and Christians.
Shah
UK (May 7, '04)


Dear Spengler:
Sufism is the very culmination of the Islamic process and the earliest generations of pious Muslims did not leave a waking hour except that they filled it with Sufi activities. And this is crucial to understand right at the outset of any debate concerning this religion, for all the doctrinal aspects of Islam you propose to be controversial are but pointers toward a grander vision of the same exact truth the prophets before Holy Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) had preached, and yet this basic premise might escape a layman due to the immensity of the Koranic scope, thus making him vulnerable to the kind of rhetoric you trade in. You fashion the absolutizing of God by the Koran the pinnacle of your argument, yet by your own admission Pope John Paul II does not agree with your assessment that this absolutizing of the Divine is a doctrinal anomaly and a stark departure from Judeo-Christian monotheism. Now if St Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic man of Christ, believed opposite to the current pope and was in the right then is the disavowing of anti-Semitism, for example, also something Pope John Paul II is wrong about? In other words, is the pope always wrong except when he agrees - or historical authorities always right except when they disagree - with the latest evangelist position? Or does your position belong at an even further boundary where civilizational self-interest alone determines right and wrong? If such is the case and if so prejudiced is your vision, then surely you are not qualified to perform religious exegesis. But if you in fact are a sincere scholar who has no trace of bigotry in his heart, then you have to accept that the Sufi with his juristic mastery, sublime spirituality and passionate love of God is the quintessential Muslim.
Bilal Saqib
USA (May 7, '04)


Spengler's long, often irritatingly self-referential preoccupation with comparisons between the Abrahamic faiths seems to me to have run its course [Has Islam become the issue?, May 4]. Christians and Jews are in dialogue with their god, while Muslims submit to theirs, and such overarching sensibilities subtly or potently permeate the cultures and communities that rise up around the difference. These two broad views might be incompatible if taken to their extremes and made to vie for the same space, and history can give us many instances of all of these faiths generating intolerance and other ill effects of righteousness and bias. All three have also demonstrated the potential for tolerance and accommodation. Spengler needs to get past these generalities and write in less lofty tones, and to show some evidence that he is cognizant of the range of sub-religious, sub-philosophical and sub-existential conditions, struggles, and events that are continuing to bring peoples, areas of the world, cultures and various identity groups - including religious ones - into conflict. As an atheist (and I am nearly certain that Spengler is one as well), I deeply lament the resurgence of fundamentalism or literalism in segments of all of these faiths, rather than a mellowing and a maturing of religious views that we should have expected to occur as we assemble a better general understanding of ourselves and our world over time. Unlike Spengler, however, I am more interested in understanding why this retrograde development is taking place, and in determining and then stating what - however apparently impracticable - would need to transpire to mitigate against it. Similarly, I consider myself to be relatively aloof and neutral as compared to Spengler, who has clearly taken sides against the populations who have inherited Islam and who must thus develop within its contours. He explores its nuances to its disadvantage, while downplaying or ignoring the faults that are inseparable from the other beliefs. I therefore suspect that Spengler is also a Jewish atheist, as members of this group rarely lose their prejudices when they abandon God, and Spengler is playing the same dangerous game that many Jews in the US are engaged in with the Christian masses. If I am correct, perhaps he will say so. Another indication of Spengler's disingenuousness is the following remark in his recent response to readers: "[Osama] bin Laden is a mass murderer who seeks to impose his will upon the world through horrifying acts of savagery." This is the easiest thing to say these days, and Spengler's notoriety comes from saying things that are unexpected, difficult and even shocking. He presents himself as a thinker transcending such mundane designations, one who is above his audience, beyond indignation and unaffected by the mere loss of life (More killing, please! [Jun 12, '03]). As such, we should disallow him from inserting such loaded digs against any man, and perhaps especially one whose real persona is easily associated with resistance, as opposed to a person who is imposing his will. Spengler might defend his remark by asserting that he is simply stating the facts, but only those who already agree with his underlying bias will accept this. Is Spengler willing or capable to abandon his deceit?
Joe Nichols
USA (May 7, '04)


Dear Spengler:
The sentences, "An unconventional warrior with a passion for Sophocles is a formidable opponent indeed. One imagines a CIA analyst slipping the Encarta CD into his computer at this point to look up who Sophocles might have been," from your article Washington's racism and the Islamist trap [Sep 23, '01] were indeed very enlightening. And it should be said that the hardline Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky was a lot smarter than his colleagues of this day and age.
An appreciative reader (May 7, '04)


Mac William Bishop and Hsu Shu-chuan have responded [below] to my letter [of May 5]. To be frank, I'm baffled. They say that in Taiwan, the problem is "one China", which they also fail to explain in their article. In 1992 both sides agreed there was only "one China", but that each side would avoid defining the term. So "one China" is still open for negotiation, just like "one country, two systems". I hope both authors tried to portray Taiwan's reality, and not to make a reality that fits their own personal views. They portray what the "Taiwanese" think. Surely there are also "Taiwanese" who believe that the Republic of China (ROC) administered region is part of a country called China and support "one China"? Actually, most pan-blue coalition supporters have that view. And that is about 50 percent of those who voted in the last elections. Surely you could have interviewed some of these people, instead of pan-green coalition supporters that wish to destroy "one China", then the ROC, to pave their way for an independent new Republic of Taiwan? "One China" is not the problem, but rejecting it is. Those who want to reject it want to remove the obstacle for (peaceful) independence, which likely won't happen. So "one China" will stay a precondition for negotiations for the mainland, it won't negotiate for an independent Taiwan. That both sides have been ruled separately since 1949 doesn't mean they are not connected to each other anymore; in fact, economically both sides are getting increasingly closer. It doesn't mean that there are now two countries, as [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian is making you believe. The reality is that there is still "one China", but administered by two governments. If you are going to write a one-sided, vague and scaremongering article linking Taiwan with Hong Kong, you should be prepared for criticism, instead of redirecting me to the People's Daily, mind you.
J Zhang (May 7, '04)


Mac William Bishop and Hsu Shu-chuan [response to J Zhang below] think that the people in Taiwan are not going to accept the "one country, two systems" policy, therefore the pair decides not to explain that policy to the rest of the Taiwanese people. If Taiwanese people do not fully understand that policy, how can this pair make decision for them? Is that democracy?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 7, '04)


J Zhang's letter of May 5 is typical of Chinese propagandists and naive patriots alike. Only liars and fools could possibly purport [that] China would allow Taiwan to maintain its own defense, independent of the PLA [People's Liberation Army]. Furthermore, what more explanation does "one country, two systems" require? Taiwan is a prosperous, free society with a multi-party democracy, an independent judiciary and arguably the freest press in Asia. In marked contrast, China remains a largely poor, dictatorial police state where corruption abounds, the press is a joke, the rule of man prevails and where a small handful of officials reign with impunity. If you were Taiwanese, how could you possibly see any upside to unification with China?
BT (May 7, '04)


First, I wish to thank your publication for its coverage of the tragic events engulfing the entire Middle East and the larger world. In reference to the excellent article The dehumanizing nature of occupation [May 4] by Ehsan Ahrari, I have been following the international coverage of the evolving revelations of US prisoner conditions. I would very much like to see him address the following:
1) It has been (quietly) admitted that Israeli intelligence services have been advising US military personnel on methods to be used in their "pacification" of the Iraqi population, such as demolition of homes [and] collective punishment, and I suspect that interrogation procedures might be traced back to this same place. US military personnel are totally ignorant of Muslim culture, and Israelis - who have never allowed international inspection of their prisons holding Palestinians - would be quite expert in knowing just what would be most humiliating to Iraqis.
2) Isn't it ironic that the person in charge of Guantanamo, where no one - including the International [Committee of the] Red Cross - has been allowed into that prison should be sent to Iraq to take over Al Ghraib? Can anyone with a straight face actually assert that Guantanamo is not probably the worst case of prisoner abuse? If not, why have such extreme measures been taken to keep all outsiders out, including lawyers? Let's see some international investigation of Guantanamo. Isn't it convenient that the US government has been so violently opposed to the International Court of Justice when they knew they were throwing the Geneva Conventions to the wind? Don't they realize that the Geneva Conventions covering war prisoners protect their captured personnel to the extent that they observe them?
3) Since the "lessons" of Vietnam - when US citizens were allowed to see at least some of what was true on the battlefield [through] the press - [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and company created the "embedded" press - such a perfect term. So obviously the truth will not come from this country [Iraq]. It now is up to the international press to reveal the truth of what is happening.
Please keep up the important work that your organization is doing. The world depends on it.
Carol Stock (May 7, '04)


[Re] Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4]. I am not proud of what these Americans have done to those Iraqis but I find your article's air of moral superiority and smugness to those who support the effort/war/occupation of Iraq and not being comfortable with this type of conduct/horror disingenuous. Let's be clear on some key facts: the president of the United States apologized on TV to the Arab community for the behavior of his soldiers. The Pentagon handed the story to CBS. There [is] no cover-up here. America has systems and soldiers in places to investigate its own and punish those who do perform such wrongs against individuals. "Horrors" are medical experiments and brothels (Japanese, World War II), manipulating one ethnic group against another to commit genocide (Serbia and Rwanda) and creating famine and starvation by destroying crops and cattle (Stalin in 1920 and 1930). These soldiers' actions were wrong and degrading, but let us have some perspective about what "horror" really is. War does make people do awful things to other people, but there are Americans in Iraq who every day are making positive contributions in Iraq while you're trying sell a paper.
Tison Cory
Denver, Colorado (May 7, '04)

Why do Americans get to define "what horror really is"? Just as you and many other Americans oppose the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US troops and mercenaries, many Japanese, Serbs, Rwandans and Russians opposed the wrongs committed by others of their nationality, but that does not negate the atrocities. - ATol

Wh
en we leave Iraq, we are going to take all of our food supplies, our medicine, our policing of those that are thieves and murderers and leave the Iraqi people on their own. I believe we, the United States, should become isolationists and let the rest of the world take care of their own problems. No more of our money, no more of our food, no more of our help for anything and no more of allowing any foreigners into our country for education or jobs, unless you become a citizen first. Figure out how to take care of yourselves, by yourselves. Those that are always given things, are always the most ungrateful. Personally, I am sick of helping any of you ungrateful rejects.
Chris Brewer (May 7, '04)

Better call your congressman - the Bush administration has just asked for another US$25 billion so it can "help" Iraq and Afghanistan some more. - ATol


Spengler responds
There is no disagreement with Pascal Robert [letter, May 6]. He argues precisely what Franz Rosenzweig, Professor Alain Besancon (and Maimonides, and St Thomas Aquinas, and many others) have argued for a millennium, namely that Allah by His arbitrary will controls every event in the universe down to the molecular level. Unlike the Judeo-Christian God who (in Leibniz' formulation) establishes laws of nature by His Love to make this the best of all possible worlds, the God of Islam intervenes everywhere and at every moment to make matter and energy behave as He might please at any instant. It is a radically different conception of God, and a radically different religion. Muslims submit to Allah, says Mr Robert, just as the molecules do. Jews and Christians see matters differently.

ATol reader Nasim Islam concludes [May 4] that "Besancon is on one and [Osama] bin Laden is on the opposite side of the same coin except that Besancon is represents the all-familiar civilized world." How so? Bin Laden is a mass murderer who seeks to impose his will upon the world through horrifying acts of savagery. Professor Besancon has neither committed nor advocated acts of violence against Muslims. In effect, Mr Islam argues that theological criticism of his religion as such constitutes an act of violence, comparable to the mass destruction of innocent life. I do not doubt his sincerity; his letter is a cry from the soul, and he truly believes what he says. There is a clinical term for his attitude, namely paranoid schizophrenia. Try to convince the lunatic who believes he is Napoleon that he cannot possibly be Napoleon, because the real Napoleon lies in his tomb in Paris, and he will try to kill you. For the paranoid, threatening his delusion is the same as threatening his life, because he cannot bear to live without his delusion. The paranoid's delusion, so to speak, is an existential matter.

Christians long have learned to defend their faith against the charge that worship of the Trinity is idolatrous, as Jews have learned to defend their faith against the charge that theirs is a dry and legalistic religion. Where is the response of reputable Muslim scholars to Professor Besancon's summation? His view of Islam goes back a millennium, to St Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides; are these ghosts still so frightening?

As for Mr Islam's charge that I am "the right hand of Besancon", ATol readers may judge from my May 4 essay Has Islam become the issue? whether this is true. The appearance of his text in Commentary magazine constituted a subtle but important shift in American thinking, and it is the consequences of that shift that I addressed. As I have taken pains to point out, the experience of a religion rather than its theology are my primary concern. The Vatican, snubbing Professor Besancon, has gone out of its way to acclaim the legitimacy of Islam as an Abrahamic religion, and Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran before the news cameras. Which Islamic authorities hail Judaism and Christianity as legitimate religions? If not, why not? If we do not accept the bland argument that all three "Abrahamic religions" are the same under the skin, how precisely do they differ? Do these differences weigh upon the course of world events? If any attempt to inquire about such issues is considered an act of violence, the consequences will not be pleasant for anyone.

Other ATol readers, particularly Ann Ronayne, raise pertinent issues that I will address in depth at the earliest opportunity.
- Spengler (May 6, '04)


Mac William Bishop and Hsu Shu-chuan respond
As J Zhang notes in his letter of May 5, we did not seek to explain in our May 5 article Taiwan: Chicken's dying, but monkey's not scared  what is meant by "one country, two systems" for Taiwan. The reason for this is that very few people in Taiwan are willing to accept this policy, in any form, as a basis for the cross-Strait relationship. In addition, as noted in the article, it is not simply "one country, two systems" that is unpalatable to most Taiwanese, but the very idea of "one China" - Beijing's precondition for negotiations - that is viewed as the obstacle to cross-Strait talks. The problem, from the point of view of the Taiwanese we talked to, is not that Beijing hasn't tried to explain its policies toward Taiwan or that Taiwan's politicians are somehow obscuring the truth, it is that Beijing is not interested in hearing any opinions that diverge from the concept of "one China". Our purpose was merely to explain what people in Taiwan think about recent events in Hong Kong and how they relate to Taiwan. If you do not believe they are representative of Taiwan's people, then we invite you to come to Taiwan and learn for yourself what people really think about the cross-Strait dialogue. In any event, if you think that hearing views that do not coincide with your own does not contribute to better understanding, then perhaps you will be better off reading the People's Daily, rather than Asia Times Online.
Mac William Bishop and Hsu Shu-chuan
Taipei, Taiwan (May 6, '04)


The comment of Gary LaMoshi (Indonesian leadership silent on religious violence [May 6]) that the violence in Makassar was caused by the rearrest of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir is misleading. He is not aware of the real condition. The violence was sparked because the police arrested the students beforehand, during a demonstration of students demanding that the military [stay out of the] presidential election, not [because of] the rearrest of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir. The real news about this can be found easily in almost every newspaper and website available ... It is this kind of commentary that makes Indonesians mistrust foreigners' intentions. Furthermore it is understandable that Indonesians believe that the war on terrorism is a war against Muslims because in every [case of] violence that happens in Indonesia, foreigners almost always blame Indonesian Muslims. In the case of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir it is more of the US's fault as it rejected an Indonesian appeal to bring some key witnesses from the US to Indonesia. The case is a bit similar to the German government's release of [a September 11, 2001] terror suspect because the US [refused] to bring the key witness to Germany.
Adahler
Singapore (May 6, '04)


[Re China syndrome in reverse, May 6.] Who is Marc Erikson? And why should we trust - or even care [about], for that matter - his personal doubts and opinions sprinkled throughout an otherwise provocative piece?
Wang Xie (May 6, '04)


Re Economist for the poor wins praise [May 5]. This article was a refreshing counter to those articles and readers' letters which attribute the problems of the world to conspiracies of shady capitalists and sinister global elites. My guess is that many people are used to interpreting the world through the combats they see in film, television, popular fiction and other infotainment. What they often forget is that the news media [are] a business. [They sell] products. [They] refurbish and recycle products. (Michael Moore is a businessman selling cliches repackaged with finesse and gloss. He is also a member of the alleged sinister global elite.) The reason the world is portrayed in combats is because this sells. Nobody wants just facts and figures for their news. Everyone wants infotainment. Me too. However, the developed world seems to operate through a vast range of impersonal systems that are designed to eliminate the impact of personality (eg the US constitution, jurisprudence, management structures, public education). Understanding these systems isn't exciting for people who have yet to be weaned off television. It seems too much like homework. Inhabiting socially approved conspiracy theories is much more exciting. Business requires discipline and is extravagantly boring, as are most business people. The romantic and excitable soul only naturally dodges discipline and wants the world's baffling complexities reduced to the intelligible heroic combats of Hollywood.
Biff Cappuccino (May 6, '04)


Your [May 4] editorial Who let the dogs out? was the single most gripping article I've read since the war in Iraq was unleashed. While I wish to thank you for the insight, I also somewhat regret that I read [it], since my day and thoughts of war have been turned upside down.
Kendall Person
Sacramento, California (May 6, '04)


Your excellent [May 4] editorials Who let the dogs out? and Has Islam become the issue?  generated some interesting reader responses. Fortunately some enlightened Americans were among them, helping to demolish the stereotype of the monolithically ignorant, racist American. Unfortunately, other letters merely reinforced it. Nothing could typify this more than the sentiments expressed by Richard Radcliffe and Steven Williams [both May 4]. Williams' [attitude] toward Muslims is extremely common throughout the US. Williams merely expressed much of what many Americans think privately ... To Williams, these [Muslim] countries are all one giant indistinguishable monolith. Williams writes only from what he sees in the media, not from any genuine knowledge or experience. As a secular Western woman, I can attest to the significant differences that I experienced and witnessed in diverse Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Syria and Pakistan. I can also attest to the genuine complexity and humanity of the peoples of these countries. To Williams, however, they are only a race of savage subhumans. It is such attitudes that give rise to the inhuman conduct of US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq toward Arabs and other Muslims. To grow up in the US (and the West in general) is to grow up despising Muslims. Abu Ghreib is the natural result of this. Williams talks about barbarism. What does one say about a nation that invades sovereign countries that never posed any threat to anyone [and] bombs civilian populations with weapons laced with depleted uranium (thus bequeathing cancers and other illnesses to the populace for generations)? What does one think of a nation that murders 2 million people in a country (Vietnam) that never threatened anyone any harm, bombing it with horrific chemical weapons, inflicting a level of destruction surpassing that of World War II, destroying over a third of that country's soil and vegetation? What does one think of the character of the world's most powerful and technologically advanced nation taking such pleasure and honor in attacking military midgets, enemies barely armed with decades-old weapons? ... Equally ignorant is Mr Radcliffe's belief that "Hitler conducted a war to prove German superiority. Islam conducts jihad to prove Islam's superiority." Many Americans actually believe this ahistorical idiocy, that they are fighting the equivalent of Nazi Germany. But what does one expect, when one is raised in a society that knows absolutely nothing about Arabs and Muslims, when one is taught to hate them from birth? For an analysis by a Western journalist who actually knows the region, read Jason Burke's excellent piece in the latest issue of Foreign Policy, titled Think again: Al Qaeda.  In it, Burke elucidates the main goal of Islamic militants: "Islamic militants' main objective is not conquest, but to beat back what they perceive as an aggressive West that is supposedly trying to complete the project begun during the Crusades and colonial periods of denigrating, dividing, and humiliating Islam." Anyone who actually knows the region, who has studied it, understands this very simple, basic fact. Unfortunately, the US is awash with minds like [those] of Williams and Radcliffe - people who know absolutely nothing, who prefer to indulge in racial/religious supremacy, ignorance and hatred, and whose minds are incapable of any rational thought.
Sandra Nicholas
Brooklyn, New York (May 6, '04)


I have not written to ATol for a while, I was reading only; but I must say I had to this time. I always enjoy [Spengler's] articles and Pepe [Escobar]'s - you guys are very sharp ... Again [Spengler's] analysis on Islam, and [Grand Ayatollah Ali al-]Sistani, and the way Jews, Muslims and Christians view their religion and their beliefs in all of your recent articles is interesting, but c'est du jargon pour les ignorants that causes discussions and letters from the readers. While I do have a lot of respect for [Spengler's intellect], I must say that [his] knowledge of history, culture, and religion is not necessarily shared by most readers for them to read between the lines. I see from some letters to the editor in response to the [May 4] article Has Islam become the issue?  that some people make my point. The retired [US Air Force captain, Richard Radcliffe], for instance, brings us to which religion is better - "Was Jesus the son of God?" [letter, May 4]. ... I'm not questioning [Radcliffe's] beliefs, he has the right to believe whatever he wants, but don't mix apples and potatoes. Not all Muslims have to be Muslims for life. A lot of Muslims changed their religion to Christianity in Lebanon to marry their loved ones ... The way most Westerners view Islam is the way the media present it. Islam is the only religion that recognizes all other prophets and religions. I suggest that those who have not read the Koran read it. Then you might have the right to discuss the subject. Most educated Muslims went through ... Karl Marx ... the Bible ... The Book of Mormon, Aristotle, Socrates, Robert Greene, Machiavelli, and tons of other books before they discovered Islam ... There are great scientists, authors, novelists, astrologers, philosophers from the good Islamic era. To judge Muslims by looking at the ignorant, fanatics and extremists is not intellectual, Monsieur, it's stupid. We do practice our religion if we want to; if we don't want to, we are free to think what we want, but not to insult others if they do. There is a line where your rights must end, and it's where the rights of others start. Freedom of speech is a tricky business, especially in countries with no democracy. [Osama] bin Laden and company are a bunch of lunatics on a crusade of their own imagination. No one thinks that the Taliban represent Islam, nor the retarded other extremists in other Muslim countries, but you have a messiah at the White House and that will make things fun to watch on the news for a while. The Arab world is occupied by dictators who were installed and protected by your [US] government, some of them up to now - Saddam [Hussein, Hosni] Mubarak, [Muammar] Gadaffi, the Saudis, the Sabahs of Kuwait ... So please, now that you are paying the price of your wrong politics and your blind support to Israel ... don't come to talk about Islam. If there are ignorance and extremists and fanatics, that's because you created them. We don't like bin Laden! We don't all wear turbans and live in a tent. We don't ride camels. (And as a proud Canadian: We are not all Eskimos or lumberjacks.) That's why we educated Muslims left our countries to live in the West. Your war is not about freedom or democracy, it's about oil and interests. As long as there's war, your economy will prosper. First you destroy countries and then you contract your American companies to rebuild them. That's what it's all about: money and power, nothing more. In the end if you really care about justice, I would like to ask: How many resolutions of the United Nations has Israel violated? We don't see you sending your troops to enforce justice or law there. All Arabs see is an American veto on every resolution, and that is the problem. So please ... give the Palestinians a country, and you will see that things will change in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all problems. It's not a war between religions or cultures.
Proud Lebanese-Canadian Muslim  (May 6, '04)


Dear Spengler:
I am writing this in response to your recent articles titled Has Islam become the issue?  [May 4] and Why Islam baffles America [Apr 16].  First let me state that I am American, and Islam does not baffle me because I am a Muslim revert (all children are born in submission to the will of the Creator, the parents and society may cause deviation, hence I went back to submission to the Lords will by accepting Islam: Muslim revert). I am also an attorney educated in the United States. Your lack of understanding of Islam, and the misunderstanding of most Americans about Islam, comes from a basic cultural reality that permeates this society that makes it logically difficult for the average American to understand the way of life of one out of five people on this planet: the American conscience is based on the false notion that the purpose of existence is to fulfill one's personal need for gratification and contentment. In other words, America, and Western society in general, is erroneously based on the belief that fulfilling the needs of what is in Arabic called one's nafs - the desires of the self - is the ultimate in human satisfaction and function. This is totally antithetical to divine purpose of creation as the Lord has informed humanity. The creator provides humanity with a simple answer to the purpose of life in one verse of the Koran. Whether you choose to accept that purpose is irrelevant because the Lord has also informed humanity that "verily most of them will not believe". The word of God explaining our divine purpose states: "I have not created Mankind, or the Jinn [the spirits] but to worship me." Hence built into the Islamic ethos is the premise that your only function as a human being is to worship your creator according to the lifestyle that he has ordained for you. As a Westerner, this is not rigid or oppressive for me. It brings divine order to the complete havoc to reality that Western man has brought to humanity since Islamic civilization took him out of the Dark Ages and civilized him in the first place ... The American [unbeliever] does not understand that Islam is not a religion, or a way of life - for if every Muslim or human died tomorrow there would still be Islam: the birds, mountains, oceans, fish, atoms, molecules, all follow Islam. Because Islam is the natural state of ordained submission to Allah's (God's) will. Even those who fight his will only do so because he has ordained, for his divine purposes, for them to go astray. Simply put: Islam is the divine law. Therefore, America's "problem" with Islam is not the problem of Muslims, or Islam, it's the problem of the [unbelievers] in the United States who refuse to submit to the divine law because they enjoy following their desires and material fantasies and primarily because the Creator, according to his divine will, has decreed that they live in that state of spiritual blindness. "Verily the life of this world is nothing but chattels of material deception." - The Holy Koran
Pascal Robert  (May 6, '04)


First of all may I thank you for your very interesting website and analysis, also as a tremendous source of related and pertinent information. Having read Spengler's article Why Islam baffles America [Apr 16], I have some comments to make. Although I greatly appreciate your respect for Islam, it is quite clear that Islam is still very much misunderstood by Spengler himself. The first comment is that one cannot compare apples to oranges, inasmuch as Spengler is trying to compare a Christian chief theologian to a Muslim chief judge in jurisprudence. It is safe to say that jurisprudence is non-existent in Christianity, while it is a very important part of Islam, ever more so Shi'ite Islam. Yet jurisprudence is only one aspect of Islam, although a Muslim's entire life is ruled by its jurisprudence in terms of the dos and don'ts as revealed by the Koran and practiced by our Prophet Mohammed and his companions (male and female). Thus jurisprudence is a major difference between Islam and Christianity, although Judaism has an even more complex jurisprudence system than Islam. As such I find it very disingenuous to always bag together Judaism and Christianity as opposed to Islam. This also reflects either a conscious effort to make Islam stick out as being a completely different monotheistic religion or simply a reflection of the sheer ignorance and shallowness on the part of the author, however well meaning he or she might be. Thus Spengler might have wanted to demonstrate some of the common grounds or differences between Islamic laws and Judaic laws or between a Christian and a Jewish service etc. But frankly the article is simply looking at two completely different things which cannot be reconciled because they are intrinsically different in their objectives. Islam has a theological depth and ... approach and knowledge of God which I have found to be unmatched. Interestingly, many of the great theologians of Islam were men living in Baghdad at a time when that city was the center of knowledge in the world ... The overriding interest in Islam from a Westerner's point of view is about the seemingly complex set of rules governing our life, jurisprudence, or the actions of a fringe of our society involved in terrorism. I guess the first one stems from the Islamic revolution of Iran, whose ideology is based upon the rule of society by doctors in jurisprudence, so not surprisingly rules about dos and don'ts are predominant. As for the interest in terrorists, Muslims could drum on day and night that terrorism has no roots in Islam and it would simply not make an iota of a difference to deep-seated prejudices. Yes, Islam is extremely rich in prayers and spiritual expressions. If you want to find them then have the honesty of comparing theology with theology and jurisprudence with jurisprudence if it can be found elsewhere, spiritual journeys and experiences with the same etc. That is best for those who have intellectual honesty.
Ahmad Al Abdallah
London, England  (May 6, '04)


Re Eternal triangle: India, China and the US, by Seema Sirohi [Apr 29]. As Sirohi points out, India and China have the makings of "economic powerhouses with a potential to grow into even bigger players". The world is rid of the bipolar superpower situation but has ended up with a somewhat disturbing unipolar, sole-surviving-superpower situation. This is where the rising world powers, India and China, could make the difference. Given their history, they have a special responsibility to bear in mind and carry out; that would be to contribute in every way possible, especially through economic development, to make present day imperialism a thing of the past ... The two societies have a lot to offer to the developing and the underdeveloped world. There is a huge chunk of the world which has been bypassed by economic development; there is yet another portion of the world which has been held back by feudalism and/or religious fanaticism. If only India and China can learn to operate together in multiple sectors, they have a better chance to pull these areas of the world out of their miseries than the western powers have been able to. The India-China coalition model will be a great inspiration to the other Asian and African societies to march into the sphere of economic development ... It will also be instrumental in softening the USA's posture of superiority and hubris; the USA's attitude toward the Arab world in particular and toward Asia in general is bound to change. The USA will be able to better understand and appreciate Arab and Third World sentiments. Consequently the hostility and hatred that the USA evokes among the Arabs are likely to diminish. It would be sensible for the USA to join an India-China collaboration to transform the Arab world into a forward-looking and creative society rather than using its military power to achieve that objective. In other words, the India-China-USA collaboration can be the driving force for Arab economic development that will give the Arab masses a valid reason to shun militancy and reject terrorism. Another situation that can benefit from an India-China initiative is the Israeli-Palestine issue. The Arab world is not ready to trust the US on this issue because US is perceived to be unfairly biased against it. A fresh and fair initiative by India-China is likely to be better received by the Palestinians because these two countries have been known to be sympathetic to their cause. At the same time, an initiative from Asian nations can provide Israel with a greater acceptability as a Jewish nation in Arab neighborhood. Israel stands to gain in the longer term by cooperating with the Asian economic powerhouses. Therefore, a well-balanced proposal by the Asian duo which assures an independent Palestinian state and secure borders for Israel, combined with an attractive economic development component, has a good chance of making headway toward a lasting solution. The US could make this happen, working in the background. Thus the two ancient civilizations of Asia, also the emerging economic powerhouses of the world, working together with the sole surviving superpower, have a remarkable opportunity to fashion a new world order, where economic collaboration between countries for the purpose of uplifting of the world's downtrodden is preferred to economic domination using the threat of military force.
Giri Girishankar  (May 6, '04)


The article Taiwan: Chicken's dying, but monkey's not scared [May 5] by Mac William Bishop and Hsu Shu-chuan lacks something: Why don't you explain what is exactly meant by "one country, two systems" (1C2S) for Taiwan? That much is still open for negotiation, that it won't be the same as in Hong Kong. For example, Beijing has already said that Taiwan, unlike Hong Kong, will do its own defense and no PLA [People's Liberation Army] soldier will be stationed on Taiwan. Because nobody tries to explain 1C2S, and Taiwan politicians try to scare people off with it for their own political gains, peaceful reunification between Taiwan and the mainland will only get harder. Having read this article, it is having the same effect. It does not contribute to better understanding.
J Zhang  (May 5, '04)


Your article Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4] is absolute truth. I'm just a regular American living in Montana - I've been against the Iraq war long before it ever began. I knew it was wrong, terribly wrong - so did many other Americans, but not all of them, no. [President George W] Bush made a gargantuan mistake in starting this war, and the final consequences remain to be seen, but I have a strong feeling they won't be good. As much against this war as I've always been, even I am appalled by what some of the US and British soldiers have done to the Iraqi prisoners. I thought we, and Britain, were better than that. But we're not, obviously. I've never forgotten the horrors of Vietnam. You're right - war is ugly and horrible, always. The US had no business preemptively striking Iraq - Saddam may be horrid, but are we any better? I don't think so. I'm so ashamed of what US and British soldiers did to those prisoners - I'm ashamed to be an American. My father fought and ultimately died in World War II - he was an army captain. But he never would have agreed to fight the Iraq war - he gave his life for a country that no longer exists. This is supposed to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave" - the bravery still exists for the most part, but the freedom is gone. The Bush administration has turned the US into Nazi-Commie America. I'd leave this country if I knew where to go. On behalf of many horrified Americans, I apologize.
Sadly
Kay Silva
Montana, USA  (May 5, '04)


Re Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4]. The atrocities perpetrated against the Iraqis are reminiscent of the methods used by the paramilitary groups in the Balkans and the Congo, not of the ones used by organized armed forces in a regular warfare. In that sense, your characterization of "this war" is commendable in that it brings out the horrors of any war, which are compounded by the ideological, religious and racial bias inherent in every facet of this war. Because of the worldwide outrage, there will be an investigation against a few low-level soldiers; a few slaps on the wrist are also expected. Ordinary soldiers ... blame senior officers ... President [George W] Bush says he saw the pictures only when they became public. Whom are they kidding? ... One has to wonder whether similar things are happening in other parts of Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay ... Finding themselves in a hostile environment with the vast majority of Iraqis opposing the occupation, being subject to daily attacks, some American soldiers may see the country's entire population as the enemy. Fed lies about the intervention in Iraq with a motive to control the entire Middle East and plunder its resources being part of a global "war on terrorism against those who committed the atrocities in New York City", some may have also assumed a license to torture and humiliate their helpless captives ... Neo-conservatives keep on talking about a war of civilizations and are fostering a culture of hate against Muslims, encouraging a war of extermination against an entire people. Otherwise respectable intellectuals will tell you how Arabs understand the language of force and how Muslims have to be humiliated and brought to their knees before they see the futility of resistance and accept the rules dictated to them. All Muslims are regularly lectured how they should stand up against the militants among them. I agree Muslims should raise their voices and take the lead in identifying and resisting the abusers of human rights, autocrats and oppressors among them. Similarly all decent and civilized human beings everywhere, including the USA, should raise their voices against crimes against humanity, which should not be ignored while being perpetrated against Muslims or any other ethnic or religious group. People in the United States should separate themselves from their own evildoers.
M Ahmed  (May 5, '04)


Re Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4]. Many Americans are aware of the horrors of war. Many Americans have been against the war in Iraq since the beginning. The manner in which your editorial writer lumps 250 million Americans into the same stereotypical mentality is highly indicative of [his] ignorance, despite [his] pretensions of education and enlightenment and overall pompous tone. But of course, it's considered intellectually trendy to generalize about Americans in a manner that would be denounced as outright racism if it was leveled at any other country or people, a hypocrisy that would be laughable if it wasn't so juvenile. Tell your editorial writer that there are, in fact, plenty of American soldiers that are not "raping, torturing machines". You might also ask them to explain to me why Americans are held to such lofty moral standards while Middle Eastern terrorists kidnap and murder European civilians (and videotape it, no less) without a peep from you or Aljazeera or anyone else.
Aaron Epple
Dayton, Ohio  (May 5, '04)


[Re] Who let the dogs out? [May 4]. Very good editorial. To those who call it "anti-American drivel", please, in the name of your god, show some humanity, some humility. American culture would be improved by more of these traits. I read: War, any and all war, is dehumanizing. Period.
Thomas Grace
Texas (May 5, '04)


A response to Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4]: Am I the only person who finds it strange the American public is loudly lambasted and lampooned for being culturally unaware, yet on a number of foreign news talk boards there is a number, if not outright majority, of Americans posting views? If we were truly as isolated as many would have the worldwide public believe, would it not be much harder to find an American voice outside of USA Today? It would seem to me, the charge of ignorance is leveled at those Americans who hold a conservative view of domestic and world politics. For instance, America's stance on the Kyoto Protocol; if we do not ratify it is because we do not care to consider our neighbors' point of view or needs. It could not be honestly differing views on the Protocol's effect and efficacy. No, Americans are not nearly as uninformed as many would believe. The world has always, and will continue to, looked down their collective noses at us as a people. That's okay, though. As the saying goes, "The clever are usually the ones likely to feign ignorance."
M W Brown
Chicago, Illinois (May 5, '04)


Re Who let the dogs out? [May 4]. Excellent editorial. But, please, know that many of Americans do not support Bush's War. We know that this is an unjust war and have opposed it since long before it began. We also know that war and the "us against them" or "good vs evil" rhetoric of [President George W] Bush creates an environment where atrocities are allowed to happen. I personally am neither shocked nor surprised by the abuse of the Iraqi people, whether prisoners or just people trying to lead their lives in the chaos my country has created. I am, however, disgusted and ashamed. When I saw those pictures, I became physically ill, just as I have when I've seen photos of dead and injured Iraqi children, women, and men on Arab and Muslim websites. I am so very sorry that my government and my fellow citizens have brought this horror on the Iraqi people. I only wish my government would stop this now and apologize for what it has done. My thoughts and prayers are with all of those who have been impacted by this war and other reprehensible acts of my government.
Mary-Margaret Miller
New York, New York (May 5, '04)


I just read a couple of [Spengler's] commentaries, including Why Islam baffles America  [Apr 16]. I agree that "secular Americans press their noses against the window-glass, gazing at Islam from the outside in". I am an American woman who came to work in Kuwait after the Gulf War; although I had left the Catholic Church and considered myself a atheist, I became curious about Islam and began reading about it, and eventually became Muslim. I've been on the outside looking in, and then on the inside, and I know that it is very difficult for non-Muslims to get an accurate impression of Islam and Muslim belief. For one thing, as someone has already pointed out, most non-Muslims seem to prefer books written by non-Muslims. These are often simply wrong, but even when they're technically accurate, they often miss the point. Also, anyone who doesn't read Arabic must realize that s/he only has access to translations of a small portion of classical Islamic writings. And I certainly agree that Cheryl Bernard's RAND study is ridiculous. By the way, something that she - and you - also seems to miss is the huge gulf between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims. It's strange that she comes up with these categories of different kinds of Muslims, and then lumps together Sunnis and Shi'ites. Sunni Muslims have no relationship with Ayatollah [Ali al-]Sistani, for example, and the extensive quotes in your piece are relevant only to Shi'ites. There's a lot I could say, but the main thing I wanted to point out is that you seem to have an incomplete impression of what "prayer" means in Islam. The ritual five-times-a-day salat is usually translated as "prayer" in English, which is fine. I guess you've seen books which explain the requirements and the mechanics of salat; this is important for Muslims to learn, because proper salat is one of the most important things we do. There are writings about the spiritual benefits, the concentration in prayer (called khushoo), etc. However, there is also dua, which is often translated as "supplication", and which is closer to the Christian idea of prayer; Muslims are encouraged to make dua for anything, at any time. In fact, there are recommended duas for when we wake up, when we enter the house, when we leave the house, when we begin anything, when we sleep, etc, and we also ask Allah for what we need at any time, in any language. There is also dhikr, or remembrance of Allah, which is also done at any time and is encouraged. This consists of various phrases that are repeated - phrases which praise Allah, thank Him, ask forgiveness of him, etc. So it is not correct to only look at books which teach us how to make salat correctly, and then say that Muslims only have this mechanical ritual of prayer. In fact, practicing Muslims are remembering Allah all day long, not only during the five ritual prayers.
Ann Ronayne (May 5, '04)


To help answer the question from an ATol editor [under J Zhang letter, May 4], I would like to offer the following comments. First of all, we need to realize how [the] communists [came to] power [in China]. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, [colonialists] were trying hard to enslave the Chinese people. Many Chinese who resisted slavery were slaughtered. The communists took some extreme actions to make China a safer place to live. At the same time, these extreme actions were restricting certain freedoms. However, the alternative was to be enslaved by foreigners. Slavery or colonialism may not be a big deal for some people, [but] it is never an acceptable choice for Chinese people. Therefore, communism became China's choice of government. History proved that extreme choice was correct. China is no longer threatened by foreign countries the same way it was threatened in the 19th century. The majority of Chinese people got out of poverty. The standard of living improved. Now, China is a safer country than ever. It is time for communists to abandon those extreme measures. And they are doing just that. However, the road to total democracy is long and hard. As soon as China's government realizes that democracy and freedom will not make China slip back to 19th century status, I do not see why they will not go that route. The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] is completely different than [what is] commonly regarded [as a] dictatorship. A dictator rules the country for the benefit of himself. The CCP does it for the benefit of the country, although some measures may be extreme. There are certain democracies inside the CCP organization. There is no particular person [who] dictates everything. If the CCP leadership groups see [that] democracy is a good way to make China stronger, they will embrace democracy. We have already seen many good political changes to China. Chinese now have more economic freedom than many other Asia countries. Freedom of speech improves every day. The person who was supporting freedom of speech in 1989 is now China's premier. It takes time for China to transform from an extremist country to complete freedom. However, during this transformation, any foreign interventions will remind Chinese why they acted in extreme 50 years ago. That will make China go back to the early stage and become an enemy. It is not a wise move to make 1.3 billion Chinese an enemy now. If you care about China's freedom, try to put up more encouragement. Using critiques to keep Chinese in line is going to have reactions. Chinese people are not going to follow foreigners' instructions. They never followed [them] before, they certainly are not going to follow your instruction now or in the future. Please try to be more positive to China's freedom transformation. That is going to benefit everybody. At least you will feel less threatened by China's rise. If you have to be negative, try to find some other countries to [criticize]. How about your own?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 5, '04)


Seeing as how Asia Time's beat is about ... well, Asia, I have seen precious few articles about the relations between the predominantly Buddhist-influenced Far Eastern countries (Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, but primarily China) and the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East. The few articles that have been written cover only tiny ethnic minorities (such as in Thailand and China). Are there political and cultural polarizations between Buddhism and Islam, as there certainly is between Christianity and Judaism? Does any of this cross over into foreign policy relations? Since China is now the world's largest user of energy for industrial purposes, surely there would be some impact on her relations with the Muslim Middle East? What about Iraq? What is China's official policy and, more importantly, what do the Chinese people think? And the Arabs themselves - what is their opinion of the Far East? Since China is a permanent UN member and thus holds veto power on the [Security] Council, have there been any lobbying efforts by Muslim nations to get China on their side? Are Chinese/Japanese/Korean firms and nationals regarded as "neutrals" - apart from the US, Europe, and Russia - if they were to visit the Middle East? These questions beg for answers and, knowing Asia Times' reputation for thorough and insightful perspectives, it seems that only your staff is capable of doing this kind of job.
A reader interested in finding out more about the world
(May 5, '04)


I'm not talking about the [International Monetary Fund]-pushed privatization of state enterprises in Thailand, but certain seemingly small things that might slip through the notice of most audiences of the mass media these days. Notice the sign at the Pattani railway station [in southern Thailand] that was publicized and broadcast to the world this week? The sign was shown perfectly located above the head of the Region 4 army commander who was addressing the additional troops arriving at the station to reinforce the security in the south. The logo that represents Western capitalism was part of the sign identifying the name of the railway station. I'm certain that this is also true of all railway stations in the kingdom, for the State Railway may have sold out not its passenger tickets, but the country's pride to a Georgia-based soft-drink company by accepting its sponsorship of putting up station signs throughout the country. [Although] a non-Muslim, I see this small thing as highly sensitive - particularly to the southern Muslims. Not long after the September 11 [2001] incident, I recall there was a boycott of the same soft-drink company catering its products and amenities, like lawn chairs, tables and umbrellas, to an Islamic conference in Bangkok ... It could have been viewed as a successful marketing tactic to [display] a company logo [to the media] at low cost, without showing Janet Jackson's nipples to catch attention of a worldwide multitude. The same company once opted for stealing the show of a rival company's concert during her brother's visit to Bangkok [when he] was about to faint due to tropical heat. This opportunist cola company immediately put up an advertisement the next day with a bottle of its soft drink and a simple question: "Dehydrated?" The same soft-drink logo appeared virtually everywhere during the [April] Songkran Festival celebrated in Chiang Mai [northern Thailand] when beautiful ladies in traditional northern silk costumes carrying mulberry umbrellas paraded on their bicycles. It was an ugly scene that the whole parade was flooded red with the soft-drink logo on the umbrellas and bicycles, the streets, and roadside electric poles. Shame on the governor and the mayor, the city of Chiang Mai was sold out! I wonder why they did not resort to begging for money from a Chiang Mai native billionaire named Thaksin Shinawatra? Please don't provide any opportunist another justification to advocate privatization out of pitying the poor state-run railways and cultural tourism spots plagued with symbols of Western capitalism. We need not sell out our dignity.
Chamnong Watanagase
Bangkok, Thailand  (May 5, '04)


Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4] is wrong. Almost every word is wrong. I served very recently in war in the US Army and never once observed the kind of disgusting behavior these "soldiers" in Iraq are presumably guilty of. And you are wrong that this behavior is inherent in war. "Inherent" implies something necessarily true in all cases, so all you need is a single counterexample. Here's one - the racial policies of the Nazis made abuse of non-combatants and combatants alike a matter of policy. Can you name the policy in effect in Iraq that sanctioned what was, regrettably, done? You cannot, since there is no such policy. I know. I was there. If you were fair (sometimes Asia Times Online seems to be, sometimes not) you'd see that all that happened was that some idiotic enlisted people with negligent officer leadership got carried away. This is what happens at all times. This is the necessary truth. This is what the US Army trains us against (if you'd done your homework you'd have known this). In this case the system broke down. It is not war and it is not this war.
Bill Anderson  (May 4, '04)

Horrors happen. - ATol


Re Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4]. You are, of course, entitled to write and publish whatever stereotype-driven anti-American drivel you wish. Had you deigned to listen to our collective outrage regarding our troops' behavior in the [Iraqi] prison camps, you might have noticed an undercurrent: our troops don't behave this way. No, not "war isn't like this" not "how horrible" and certainly not your cynical version of "of course, what's the big surprise?" Americans, unlike the rest of the world, apparently think there should be rules to war, and enforce it on their own. You wouldn't even try to envision war as any different from what "it is", and that is what makes you a moral coward.
Mark
New York  (May 4, '04)

And yet, horrors happen. - ATol


The editorial [Who let the dogs out?, May 4] is the best piece of writing I have seen in a long time, and the most accurate thinking, in my opinion. Your description of the attitudes of the general US public is absolutely right and is a description which has been needed. Never mind that probably the people who need to read this piece will not, and those who read it already know the facts which matter. Nevertheless, I am glad to see such printings as your editorial. Otherwise, it can get rather lonely here in this comparative wilderness.
Megan Sweet
USA  (May 4, '04)


Re Who let the dogs out? [Editorial, May 4]. Excellent ... The American public is the most entertained and the least informed people on the planet. A nation that has been lulled into denial re numerous important issues for almost two centuries by a host of secret cabals. That was an excellent article.
Thomas Lombardi
New York, New York (May 4, '04)


Re The dehumanizing nature of occupation [May 4]. [Ehsan] Ahrari, quoting Newsweek, noted: "No one would liken US abuses to Saddam [Hussein]'s techniques, which included the most sadistic forms of torture and murder. But then, being more humane than Saddam isn't much to brag about." It may be a matter of perspective. One detainee who has been tortured by both Saddam and the US says he prefers Saddam's version! [See Iraqi prisoner details abuse by Americans,  AP via Yahoo News, May 2.]
May Sage
USA  (May 4, '04)


[Re Has Islam become the issue?, May 4.] Overall I think you [Spengler] have wisdom. But contrasting religions, while a worthwhile endeavor, is not the only way to look at the situation. No religion with any history and a great following can be easily summed up, if at all. Factors such as historical time period, individual believers, geography, and culture (outside of religion) are of issue. For example, you must admit that there are many Jews and Christians whose tendency towards their particular religion has nothing to do with a strong belief/faith in a very real entity we call [God], but in the community, its beliefs, rituals (much as you say Islam does), and fears of damnation (for disagreeing with their community of believers and not following their true ladder to heaven). What I am saying is that a religion's concrete existence cannot be summed up, as some critics of Islam have tried. Islam is probably rightfully seen as a barrier to democracy, but not always, many individual believers support democracy, in the future maybe Iraq will organically grow democracy, and some Muslim countries are democratic (Malaysia). But to agree with the neo-cons, Islam, insofar as it exists in the Middle East today, is a barrier to American efforts in Iraq. If only we could take away their absolute reality, and replace with all of our most cherished beliefs and values (or is that really what the neo-cons so stupidly thought they could do? I think so).
Dave Henderson
Canada (May 4, '04)


I believe that Spengler [Has Islam become the issue? , May 4] is correct: Islam is becoming the issue. Or Islam is making itself the issue. There are a couple of good reasons for this, but I believe that the primary reason is that "Islam does not play well with others". That is, where Islam becomes the dominant religion it insists that all people live at least outwardly Islamic lives. Take for example the current Muslim/Christian "disagreement" occurring in the Malukus. Take also the current disagreement in France and Germany over the wearing of hijab in schools either as a student or a teacher. It matters not in Islamic countries that you may not want to be a Muslim, you still must live your life according to the teachings of Islam even though you may not have to pray five times a day. Second, Islam is very aggressive in its proselytizing efforts. It is even more aggressive in its efforts to ensure that "once a Muslim, always a Muslim" applies. It is the only religion that I know of where renouncing Islam earns you the death penalty. Third, Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive. Either Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God or He is not. If He is not, then the entire basis of Christianity is invalid and we Christians should try something else. If Jesus is the Son of God, then Islam is a false religion, as Jesus said that there would be no other prophets after him. Mohammed, then, could not be a legitimate prophet of God since he lived some 600 years after Jesus. Some people, including me, refer to Islam by the term "Islamofacism". That is because Islam (which means submission) is an all-encompassing religion. There is no freedom in Islam because the Muslim (one who has submitted) must always be sure to follow exact Islamic rules in all phases of his life. You only have to go to the "Fatwa" page of Islamonline.org or Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani's website to see just how pervasive Islam is in daily life. Jesus, on the other hand, told us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's". Thus the principle of separation of church and state could be considered Divine Revelation. Last, and probably most important in the current world situation, Mohammed pronounced two basic reasons for jihad: self-defense and proselytization. That is, Muslims may conduct holy war against peoples or governments where the faith of Islam is not allowed to be spread or, by extension, rejected. In this respect Islam is little different from some of our more recent experiences with fascism in Germany and Italy. [Adolf] Hitler conducted a war to prove German superiority. Islam conducts jihad to prove Islam's superiority. However, it must be very discomforting to Muslims to look at the material wealth that the non-Muslim world has accumulated while many of them are still herding camels and goats. The difference is between allowing or disallowing freedom of thought in all matters. This is where Islam loses big-time. President George W Bush may have taken us in the "back door" to the clash of cultures, but we are now in a real war to define the culture of the world. This is a war we dare not lose.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
Apple Valley, California (May 4, '04)


After reading Spengler's Has Islam become the issue? I am forced to draw the conclusion that [Alain] Besancon is on one and [Osama] bin Laden is on the opposite side of the same coin except that Besancon represents the all-familiar civilized world, a mirage-like phrase espoused by [US President George W] Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair. And Spengler is the right hand of Besancon, as Ayman al-Zawahiri is of bin Laden. Good luck to those who want to grasp the theology, ritual, and understanding of Islam through Spengler.
Nasim Islam
California, USA  (May 4, '04)


Aside from the obvious anti-American slant of Asia Times, which is starting to become quite grasping, one of the things most overlooked in the new argument about fighting Islam or "terrorists" is the ever increasingly blatant truth about what Muslims do in fact. The facts are quite simple: Islamic nations are the most barbaric, misogynistic, backward nations on the planet. Wherever Islam appears, it goes from "we are peacefully practicing our religion" to "if you don't allow us to form an Islamic-only state, we will blow up your children". All this talk about Islam being a peaceful and tolerant religion is absolute nonsense. Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, the entire Middle East, even Saudi Arabia have all degenerated into nothing more than insanity. From beating women with bicycle chains for walking too fast, bombing school buses full of children because their parents like different parts of the Koran, to being happy and dancing in the streets by the thousands when one of their own children uses his body as a bomb, this is the world they want to create. The empty argument that it is "just a few fanatics" is blatantly false and nothing more than phony political correctness. You can bad-mouth America and you can claim foul about the war in Iraq. In some regards you would be correct about the war and its motives. None of that will ever change the facts that a terrible, violent, hateful, cruel, dangerous, perverse religion is trying to destroy all other religions and forms of culture on this planet. Because of the whining Europeans, the cowardly French, and the utopians who are going to be politically correct even in the face of such a obvious threat, we are facing the most evil force on the planet since World War II. The Spanish caved in to these maniacs and have already been bombed again. These are the same type of people who shoot at peacekeepers in Iraq from all nations while standing in their precious mosques and when fire is returned, they cry about the West desecrating another holy, peaceful temple. These people and this religion are bringing the world to the brink of massive conflict that could engulf all nations. They must be stopped. Now. Before it is too late. Lastly, the first thing that a new Islamic government would do if they took control of your country is ban all non-Islamic publications. I guess [Asia] Times still qualifies. For now.
Steven Williams
Taipei, Taiwan (May 4, '04)


While Jim Lobe's article [Staying the course - but which one? , May 4] does a very good job of documenting the shift in American policy towards Iraq and President [George W] Bush's recent embrace of UN envoy [Lakhdar] Brahimi, he misreads these events as shifting a decline in the influence of the neo-conservatives, especially Vice President [Richard] Cheney, in the White House. The recent changes in American policy reflect a pragmatic shift in tactics; however, the end goal remains the same, the creation of an Iraq that will be highly indebted to the United States and a staunch ally of said nation in the Middle East. The neo-conservatives are no fools and to achieve this end goal are perfectly willing to make use of the United Nations. Their concerns about United Nations involvement and encroachment upon United States sovereignty have to do with situations in which the UN appears to dictate policy to the United States, not about the use of the UN as a tool of American policy. Indeed, both as secretary of defense for president George H W Bush and before that as congressman from Wyoming, Dick Cheney was adamant about the need for the United Nations to provide more support to US initiatives, seeing the organization as meddling when it contradicted US policy goals and as a useful tool when it backed them. Brahimi may ruffle neo-conservative feathers with his remarks about Israel and his dismissal of [Ahmad] Chalabi, but his presence gives the US occupation a veneer of respectability that it badly needs in light of the resistance in Fallujah and growing disillusionment among Iraqis. Brahimi and his other colleagues at the UN are carefully under US scrutiny and any mechanism they devise for an interim Iraqi government is likely to produce people not as well known as Chalabi but similarly inclined. The US has put the UN on a tight leash to this effect and L Paul Bremer has gradually chipped away at both the power of the current Iraqi Governing Council and at the powers that he says will be allowed any interim government set up by the United Nations. In short, Bremer is letting anybody who will listen know that the neo-conservatives are still in charge. Brahimi may get to be window-dressing but in the end George [W] Bush and his trusted confidants, Dick Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld, are going to see to it that a new interim government is both friendly to American interests in the Middle East and lacks much real power. You can be sure that when such a government comes into power much disillusionment will follow as it will soon prove to be one more tool for the neo-conservatives, who all along have known this war is not about Chalabi or oil or even about Saddam Hussein or even democracy, but about establishing a bulkhead of American-style capitalism in the Middle East. For the neo-conservative vision is of an economic empire organized by US businesses with the backing of the US government, not about territorial sovereignty. Thus any interim government whose ideology is capitalist and friendly to the United States is welcome. Chalabi was simply a known commodity; losing him, however, does not change the end goal nor the power of the neo-conservatives.
Andrew W Boss
Washington, DC (May 4, '04)


The emotional replies to my letter to the editor dated Apr 29 leave important questions unanswered: (i) Who penned the ATol article [Hong Kong polls: The law's on China's side,  Apr 29] which appears to be a recitation of the PRC's [People's Republic of China's] position on elections in Hong Kong, and (ii) By publishing an article without identifying the author, is ATol serving as a mouthpiece for a third party?
Daniel McCarthy  (May 4, '04)

Many publications run articles without writer bylines. The main reason Asia Times Online usually includes bylines is that most of our material is from freelancers or news-service contributors. The article in question was not in either category: it was compiled by a staff writer who chose not to include her byline for reasons of her own. No conspiracy, no dark threats from Beijing or anywhere else: just a workaday journalistic decision by our staffer. Sorry to disappoint. - ATol

I would like to respond to Daniel McCarthy's letter below [Apr 29]. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) founded the People's Republic of China (PRC). To think of a PRC without CCP is difficult, I have to admit. The alternative would be a China under control by so-called "democratic parties" that are funded by foreigners. That surely is not an alternative. I believe the CCP is doing a good job for China. With an increasing middle class, whose wealth was made possible with the help of the CCP, it will only get a broader backing and support among the Chinese people. Looking back at China's long history, the current system has been indeed revolutionary. Eventually all men want a good life. Every country and people will walk its own road. The Chinese are no exception.
J Zhang  (May 4, '04)

Why would the only alternative to CCP dictatorship have to be political parties "that are funded by foreigners"? Why, if it were permitted, would a home-grown democratic movement not flourish in China, as has been the experience in scores of other countries, and indeed in Hong Kong and Taiwan? - ATol

Daniel McCarthy [letter, Apr 29] is apparently suffering from short-term memory losses. His most hated ATol author, Henry Liu, is from Hong Kong. One or two Hong Kongers wiggling tails to their white masters does not mean that all Hong Kongers are quality graduates from white men's obedience school. Most Hong Kongers are proud Chinese.
Frank
Seattle, Washington  (May 4, '04)


[Re letters below from Biff Cappuccino.] Peace and prosperity [are] built on slaughter. A brief summary of human history: The strong is greater than the weak, but what is weak and strong is hard to tell. American causalities in Iraq might be lower then in previous wars. Even Vietnam was low in casualties for the US. But lest we forget the body count on the other side, the story is not fully told. Modern weaponry has not made war any less deadly, merely for one side. War is still about the threat and implementation of annihilation and enlightened colonialism is glorified slavery. You talk about peace, stability and a prosperous middle class. Who amongst the colonized do not have a time when they too were peaceful, stable and prosperous? For the very same reasons you specify for the occupation of Iraq, one can justify one-party rule in China and the multitude of non-democratic governments around the world. And is that excuse to stay in Iraq one which undermines the excuse by which the US went to war?
Milton He  (May 4, '04)Dear Spengler,
Re the following remark you made recently in response to a letter: "As Franz Rosenzweig showed so brilliantly in the third section of his Star of Redemption, it is the day-to-day experience of the individual member of the congregation, the daily liturgy and the liturgical calendar, that make up his religion, not the apologetics of the theologians" [Of vegetating animals, annoying in-laws, etc, May 1]. Perhaps this is less true of old-style American evangelicals. I had a distant-cousin-by-marriage I knew decades ago. Despite his unimpressive appearance, strong rural accent, and lack of formal education, he was a vigorous theological debater. He used to go frequently to the university library in the evenings and read sermons and tracts by 17th-century English dissenting preachers. There was a large collection of these on microfilm. I once heard him happily recounting an argument with a neighbor which he concluded by declaring: "Bad doctrine is like rotten meat. Once you swallow it, it'll make you sick to death, until you vomit it back up again!" I think for many Protestants, this kind of disputation over theology and biblical interpretation was the equivalent of a daily liturgy - going back to the Calvinist tradition of small Bible study groups which every church member had to take part in, and which would analyze every verse one-by-one until all were agreed on its meaning. If there is something unique in the foundations of American society, it may be in part the precedence of this habit of argument and doctrinal earnestness over the folkways of religion.
Douglas Bilodeau
Bloomington, Indiana (May 3, '04)

Spengler responds:
Your comment is perceptive, yet I have difficulty believing that the present generation of American Protestants has the same passion for doctrinal niceties, and more is the pity. Witness the case of Mel Gibson's celebrated Passion film, which the American Evangelicals have embraced with headlong infatuation. Only a few holdouts in America's Reformed churches object that the film violates the long-standing opposition of Calvinists to any sort of image of Christ. What if Gibson had given the role of Jesus to Danny DeVito? asked one such critic. Yet the leading American Evangelicals have not bothered to discuss the doctrinal issues arising from the film, but instead shepherded their congregations into the theaters. They neglect the doctrinal aspect of Christianity in favor of the purely experiential side, namely the vicarious sacrifice of the Christian through the suffering of Jesus. Some Catholic commentators, notably William F Buckley Jr, are appalled by the emphasis on Christ's physical suffering, which Gibson embellishes with extra-Scriptural sources, as opposed to His spiritual suffering. Yet the doctrinal issue from the Calvinist vantage point is whether Jesus' visage should be represented to begin with, as I argued in Mel Gibson's Lethal Religion (Mar 9). There are very few takers for this debate. The Evangelicals are too enthralled by the opportunity to enliven the sacrificial experience to stop to bicker about mere doctrine. By the same token, one is hard pressed to find among Evangelicals the detailed attention to Islamic theology given by the French Catholic Alain Besancon in the May issue of Commentary magazine. Reverend Franklin Graham and many others have had disparaging things to say about Islam, but I am aware of not a single recent theological critique of Islam in depth. Permit me to venture a guess. Islam's greatest vulnerability is the assertion that the Koran is God's uncreated Word, dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel. Change a comma, and the whole structure is in doubt, yet there is ample scholarly evidence that the Koran was written over centuries in a number of variants, some of which recently have been uncovered. Yet the Evangelicals may feel uncomfortable pressing the issue of Koranic criticism because they so dislike Bible criticism. To a great extent they have become biblical literalists, an occupational hazard of repudiating the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in favor of scripture alone. One can admit to multiple authorship of the Jewish and Christian scriptures without discrediting the religion; not so Islam. Besancon can make this assertion comfortably, for the Catholic Church rests not only upon the words of the Gospel but also upon the Church's body of interpretation. The Protestant literalists can do no such thing. Fear of injury inhibits them from taking up their most effective weapon against a rival faith. If you see signs that American Protestants have revived their old passion for doctrine, please inform the readers of ATol. - Spengler


Axel Berkofsky writes in EU unlikely to lift China arms embargo soon [May 1] that the Netherlands, which will be holding the upcoming EU [European Union] presidency after Ireland, is "still opposed to lifting the embargo and has a standing parliamentary resolution that keeps the embargo in place until China comes up with clear and specific evidence that its human-rights record has improved ..." This is a half-truth. The Dutch government has said it won't block the potential lifting of the arms embargo against China alone and a majority of the parliament has agreed with it, because that would hurt bilateral Sino-Dutch ties, and hurt the Dutch position in Europe, because as Berkofsky has written, "a majority of EU foreign ministers present in Luxembourg seemed in favor of lifting the embargo". I believe lifting the embargo is long overdue. It will be inevitable, despite the strong US, Amnesty International and other anti-China forces' lobbying against it. Also Russians may not be happy - they will be losing their lucrative Chinese market to their European counterparts. At the end, money talks.
J Zhang (May 3, '04)


Re Bush against Bush [by] Pepe Escobar, Apr 30. You have heard the saying about, "You can fool some of people all of the time ... etc"? Well, it appears that some of the people cannot be unfooled. So, I propose, "You can unfool some of the people some of the time, and unfool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot unfool all of the people all of the time." Maybe this helps to explain why war propaganda is so hard to undo: World War I was started by the Germans. World War II was started by the Japanese. etc, etc. What in human behavior would confer an advantage on those who continue to believe a lie by which they are misled? The liar's advantage would seem clear. Are people so insecure that they are unwilling to confront their [credulity] or gullibility?
Dan Fritz (May 3, '04)


Re China, India: Difference in the details by Lynette Ong [Apr 30]. Much as I was interested by the depth of the details, I cannot but laugh at the description of India as a "fledging democracy". It has made me doubt the writer's understanding of democracy and India. India has 50-plus years of democracy. Millions of Indians have exercised their right to vote, with regularity. Barely 25 years ago, when the rest of the world ... was either reeling under dictatorships (a la South America) or under military-guided administrations (a la East Asia), India hung on to its democracy. "Fledging" is a word you [ascribe] to a time when a bird hasn't made its first flight. After seeing the writer use such a word for a mature democracy like [India], I am not sure whether I should doubt her English language capability or her understanding of democracy. Also, why do all armchair journalists think everything about India can be explained in terms of caste? Is there a cardinal sin [whereby] you cannot write an article about India unless you use caste somewhere? It is oversimplification to claim that somehow certain castes have exclusive access to capital. In the [strangling] bureaucracy of India, only hardcore business-minded families have clung to their business ventures. Their caste has less to do with the outcome than their willingness to stick it out in a socialist democracy. Much as I would like take the article seriously and revel in its praise of India, your understanding of India has left me totally unconvinced, and I can barely have any regard for the rest of the article.
Sriman Kanuri (May 3, '04)


To continue the debate [letters below] on colonialism: I still find it hard to agree that colonialism has been exacerbated by the industrial era. Colonialism was going strong during the classical Greek era, when democratic Athens devastated city-states. Alexander the Great also slaughtered and colonized on a mass scale. It took an immense slaughter to create and maintain the Roman Empire, as it was constantly being threatened by other empires which wanted to slaughter it. China's population was between 60 [million] and 80 million at that time. For 2,000 years, when a dynasty fell, warlordism returned as did scorched-earth tactics, slaughter, reconquest, plus the colonization of new territory. Tens of millions of people disappeared from China's census each time. The Opium War prevented China from colonizing Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Burma. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria preempted the Russians. As soon as Mao [Zedong] got in the saddle, the colonization of Tibet began. China attacked Vietnam in 1978 but proved to be a paper tiger. China is, and has always been, an empire. It wants to colonize Taiwan right now as we speak. The New World had slaughtering despotic empires too, with the Aztecs preferring to eat their neighbors and the Incas colonizing theirs. With regard to Iraq, I'm no fan of any politician or political party anywhere, but it's difficult to imagine the killing/slaughter of Iraqis by American forces approaching 20th-century figures. If American forces leave, civil war is inevitable, which means the killing/slaughter gets much worse. Smart bombs, surgical insertions, and other tactics facilitated by modern industrialization have done much to lower deaths, not enhance them. Even if US forces were colonial, given the era we live in, neo-colonialism would inevitably be like the enlightened colonialism of 20th-century Hong Kong and Taiwan. I'm all for democratic self-rule in Iraq, but without peace, stability, and a prosperous middle class, the time is not right. Pragmatism and prudence, not idealism and slippery-slope arguments, should prevail for the moment.
Biff Cappuccino (May 3, '04)


Letter writer J Zhang's [Apr 30] gross misunderstanding of my letter to the editor [Apr 29] must arise from his/her view that CCP [Chinese Communist Party] = China, and patriotism = loyalty to CCP. Until the masses transcend such befuddled thinking, there is little hope for progress. Fortunately, Hong Kongers are on a more enlightened intellectual plane, as can be seen from the recent trouncing of pro-CCP candidates in the limited elections that are permitted there.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 3, '04)


Daniel McCarthy's attack on ATol [letter, Apr 29] indicates that he hates anything [that] comes out of Asia, including free speech from Asians. It would be funny to learn that this white person is trying to protect Asians' freedom of speech. I am sure he will try hard to protect his Asians as soon as they know how to wiggle their tails to their white masters. If Asians are not wiggling tails, they must be either communist or terrorist, or they are just against freedom of speech. Whatever they are, they need protections from white masters. Like one of them claimed, Asians are better off to be salved by white colonists. They liked it.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 3, '04)


Editor's note: On April 24, Asia Times Online published an article titled Literacy beats out education in India by Sudha Ramachandran. Two World Bank specialists have taken issue with some points raised in the article. To read their response, please click here. - ATol