|
|
|
|
Please provide your name or a
pen name, and your country of residence.
Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.
Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for
readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as
a forum for readers to debate with each other.
The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one
or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct
debaters away from the Letters page.
February 2010
This is a comment on Peter Lee's article
China fine-tunes its Iran strategy [February 24] and letter writer
Jim's feedback [February 25]. Perhaps it is too early and too optimistic to
think in terms of a multi-polar world when one country, the United States, has
700-800 military bases around the world. Perhaps the strategy of "congagement"
is more appropriate at this juncture, to engage with the US and then to guide
it along. Whether the US is in an ascent or a decline, these are the symptoms
of a manic-depressive patient. It behooves the rest of the world to engage with
the US and help it through its difficulties. But It is clearly better not to
feed this American obsession with Iran, and the European Union, Russia and
China would be better off not doing so.
Irene Lim Robinson
UK (Mar 1, '10)
[Re Happiness rolls over
us like a wave, February 25] I want to make a clarification regarding
my last letter. I want to apologize to the Asia Times Online, the author, and
the audience for my impulsiveness. Today after reading the second part of Pepe
Escobar's series, I found out that he addressed most of my previous concerns.
Before submitting my letter and asking some questions, I should have waited to
read the entire series of articles in "Pyongyang Journal". Even amidst the West
bashing dominant in Pepe's article, he reports great news regarding the future
prosperity of the simple North Koreans. I strongly stick to my dislike for
radical socialism, but I felt I had to submit an apology for my impulsiveness
and lack of patience in my previous letter. To some extent, it was also due to
my ignorance.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 26, '10)
[Re Happiness rolls over
us like a wave, February 25] It is a pity that Pepe Escobar did not
dwell more on juche - self reliance, which Pyongyang sees as an engine
of economic renewal and growth. Juche played a strong role more than 30
years ago when the North's strong economic performance saw it far surpass South
Korea in GDP and income per capita. North Korea has state-of-art technology in
rocketry and a budding military industrial complex, which the outside world
tends to forget and ignore. Rhetorical bombast and endless scenarios of
imminent collapse aside, North Korea is proud of its achievements.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Feb 26, '10)
Ysais Martinez [letter, February 25] interprets
Happy Birthday Comrade Kim[February 24] in his usual insecure way. I
thought it was a good insight into the history and future of the leadership of
North Korea. I found no promotion of this state in Pepe Escobar's writing, only
a report of exactly what was witnessed. No one disputes the iron hand and
poverty in the nation outside the palace arena, and no doubt Escobar was
limited to what they wished him to see. Martinez made note of the standards of
living in the US. Having worked there many years ago I would agree. It isn't
the best in the world however, and the numbers in Escobar's article must be of
some concern to him. With 19% of federal spending going to the Pentagon, and
44% of tax revenue heading that way, my eyebrows curled at the amount being
borrowed to maintain the zillion bases in an empire, which seems to be heading
the way of all empires - overstretched abroad and suffering at home. I have
great faith in Americans; however, they will tolerate this only a little bit
longer than the rest of the world.
Miles Tompkins
Antigonish, Canada (Feb 26, '10)
I was more than dismayed when Daniel McCarthy [Letters, Feb 25] stated in part,
"China's air force and navy can be attacked with relative safety if those
attacks come from forces located ... Japan, Guam, Hawaii or Australia". Daniel
certainly can cross Australia off his list. No Australian government of either
persuasion would tolerate that move for a second, nor would the people of
Australia. What an appalling scenario. Australia enjoys very cordial relations
and strong economic ties with China, which benefit both countries. That special
relationship would never be put in jeopardy by rat-bag misadventures.
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Feb 26, '10)
[Re Happy birthday,
Comrade Kim!, February 24] After reading the first two paragraphs of
this article I was wondering if it came directly from North Korea's single
party, however one must give credit to Asia Times Online and to Pepe Escobar
himself for providing some insights into a society (North Korea) and a leader
(Kim Jong-il) that are a mystery to a Western observer. One also has to
understand the distaste that Pepe Escobar shows for anything Western, even
Western democracy. My main point is that this cult towards the persona of Kim
Jong-il is sickening and of bad taste. This is idolatry towards a man who has
enslaved his own people and murders those who don't agree with him. There are
two things that strike me the most about this article. The first is the
language of the article itself, which seems to praise, hail and aggrandize Kim
Jong-il. North Korea by no means is a role model of a society. Its neighbor
South Korea is. (South Korea is prosperous, wealthy, free, democratic,
technologically advanced, possesses freedom of thought and religion.) North
Korea is also famous for its poor human-rights record. Let's call things by
their name, a dictatorship is a dictatorship and in order to keep the dictator
in power, crimes, abuses, violence towards dissidents must exist ... Secondly,
I want to ask some questions. Shouldn't North Korea emulate its neighbor South
Korea in its success, freedoms, prosperity and openness? Who has a better life,
a South Korean or a North Korean (as long is not part of the elite that has
millions in Europeans bank accounts)? Is hatred for America and democracy a
valid reason to shamelessly praise the name of this man and promote such
personality cult? This is the kind of mentality that makes St Thomas Aquinas'
explanation of reality sound like a "party pooper". Yes, every American home
contributes "US$25,000" to the Pentagon but we have the highest standards of
living in the world despite that fact.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 25, '10)
[Re China fine-tunes its
Iran strategy, February 24] In this and in an earlier article on the
same subject, Peter Lee presents a credible analysis of China's predicament.
But his speculative conclusion as to China's likely final position is not
credible. Although the so-called strategy of "congagement" was invented by the
Americans and became the guiding principle in its relations with China for the
last 30 years, China has come to adopt it as its own. This had meant, earlier
on, the rejection of the United States' G-2 embrace. For many among the elite
in China this prospect was not only unattractive, but deadly for China. It
would mean limiting Beijing's options in both domestic and foreign affairs, and
in economic, political and social developments, not to mention national pride
and standing in the community of independent nations. For Beijing, the Iran
issue is the "breakthrough" point that will entail the least risks. Vetoing the
US at the United Nations is much less costly than seriously confronting the US
over Taiwan, for example.
Jim
Singapore (Feb 25, '10)
While I appreciate the detail in Bonnie Glaser's article
Myths and US arms sales to Taiwan[February 19], as a reader of Asia
Times Online I hope for more incisive analysis and revealing factual reporting.
Glaser's article frankly reads like a US State Department position paper. It
ignores blatantly obvious facts and repeats silly euphemisms such as " ... the
threat of Taiwan independence has receded since Ma Ying-jeou became the
island's president ....". It is in fact President Ma's disastrous policies
which are propelling public opinion in Taiwan in exactly the opposite
direction. And as another example of the article's shortcomings, instead of
trying to appeal to Chinese emotional sensitivity about Taiwan being "an
unsinkable aircraft carrier" with a fluffy chat about Taiwan not being a part
of the network of US strategic relationships in the Pacific, Glaser should
simply state with honesty and frankness that China's air force and navy can be
attacked with relative safety if those attacks come from forces located at a
greater distance from China, such as in Japan, Guam, Hawaii or Australia,
rather than in Taiwan and within reach of China's short range missiles.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (Feb 25, '10)
[Re Goldman's
golden sunset moment, February 24] The sun is hardly setting on Goldman
Sachs. Much mud has been slung on Goldman's reputation of late. Consider its
role in hiding Greece's sovereign debt through toxic financial instruments in
2001. This fact alone should make us sit up and notice how far back the
"securitization" of debt markets go. Goldman with Hank Paulson at its helm
before he became US president George W Bush's secretary of the Treasury, by
pushing toxic debt, indirectly weakened the European Union and its sole
currency the euro, as well as Europe's recovery from the global recession, as
it turns out. For that Goldman Sachs bears responsibility. Yet, as the world's
leading finance house it is too firmly entrenched in global markets to suffer a
decline. It has emerged only with a bruised ego and meaningless reform of its
behavior. Without strict regulations of the markets, the field is clear and
open to Goldman and its peers.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 25, '10)
[Re IAEA heaps
pressure on Tehran, February 23] Anyone who develops a big fat question
mark over their heads while reading this latest piece of boo-boo from out of
the Western blue should have a look at the sources at the end of the article,
then think about it real hard. There's little doubt in my mind that it was
induced by Washington or Tel Aviv. The war mongers of the world never give up,
do they?
Keith E Leal
Canada (Feb 24, '10)
[Re N Korea earns
breather with currency curbs, February 23] Free market economists,
harshly and perhaps unfairly, criticize North Korea for not following the logic
of capitalism as it pertains to the market. Asia Times Online has given
Ruediger Frank the opportunity to talk about how Pyongyang sees the market from
a socialist perspective. And his explanation is useful. Currency reform, while
it sparked discontent in Pyongyang among those in the open markets, was aimed
at an elite who had money and wished to safeguard the capital they had
accumulated. This, Pyongyang felt, worked against the interests of the state.
Capital accumulation was viewed as possibly creating a group who had the
ability to challenge the ruling Korean Workers Party. In this sense, currency
reform sent a message that was duly received. Pyongyang is slowly moving in the
direction of economic reform, but each step forward reveals that this idea is
too big for the ruling elite. More broadly speaking, as Kim Jong-il prepares to
cede the reins of power to his chosen heir, Kim Jong-un, the break on currency
reform puts any opposition to this transition on notice.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 24, '10)
Kudos to Asia Times Online for publishing
American blitzkrieg [February 19] by William J Astore. I think it is
one of the best and most insightful pieces I have read in a long time. Western
glorification of war goes back further than unified Germany though; it goes all
the way back (as some of your other authors have pointed out) to the granddaddy
of it all: Rome. An empire which fell, and fell hard. Brought down partly by
nomadic peoples beyond it's control, but mainly by the ideas of a carpenter's
son, who accurately observed, "Those who live by the sword, are destined to die
by the sword". Francis
Quebec, Canada (Feb 23, '10)
Ysais Martinez's latest letter regarding Israel and US funding [February 22]
needs some corrections and some perspective. First of all GDP is a poor measure
of productivity. Second of all, the cost to America is far more immense than he
presents. Israel receives more US aid than any country in the world. US policy
and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East by about US$8 billion
a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs. Not requiring Israel to use its US
aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000
jobs. ... Whatever the professed numbers regarding Jews and education and Nobel
prizes has to do with Israel , I am not sure. Education has always had a strong
cultural connection with Jews, long before the creation of Israel. The sad fact
is that all of this could easily be maintained with some respect for the US
domestic laws and international laws that would create a viable Palestinian
state. The economic cooperation foreseen at the termination of the British
mandate would be far more valuable to Israel's bottom line than what they have
now. The problem is that the democracy you celebrate in Israel is in fact a
theocracy, as is understood by many Jewish people in both Israel and around the
world. Read Jewish history and you will see that the Likudists and the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee do not speak for world Jewry; they simply
hijacked one of the most moral religions in the world and used it for colonial
expansion.
Miles Tompkins
Canada (Feb 23, '10)
[Re Taliban's mood
swings against talks, February 23] What swings in one direction today
can swing in another tomorrow. The arrests of Taliban leaders should give one
pause in assessing the very fluid situation of the "offensive" in Pakistan
against the Taliban. There are too many eggs broken in this omelet to say with
any degree of certitude how the drive towards negotiations will evolve.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Feb 23, '10)
[Re Dalai Lama gets his
moment, February 19] I have been watching very closely United States
President Barack Obama's policy towards China since he took office at the White
House. I have no doubt that he is sincere in trying to establish a new
partnership with China for the sake of promoting stable bilateral relations and
for regional and world peace, development and prosperity. Obama is the only
incumbent US president endowed with good knowledge of and sentiment for the
Chinese people. Sadly, however, I have also noticed that President Obama has
become a hostage to right-wing forces in the US Congress, and some academics
and media who are leaving no stone unturned in their plans to sabotage his
efforts to make the fundamental changes in American domestic and foreign policy
agenda that he promised during his campaign. Make no mistake, the recent
decline in US-China relations, including over trade disputes, the US arms sales
to Taiwan, the Google fiasco, Dalai Lama visit and so forth, was masterminded
by right-wingers, warmongers and hegemonists, who still exercise tremendous
influence in the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, academic institutions,
the business circle and the press. Obama is now being marginalized from the
core of American power. I cannot blame the Arab world for their suspicion that
Obama, despite his goodwill towards the Muslim world, is nothing more than a
puppet of American imperialism, lock, stock and barrel. This is sad indeed.
Peter Hsiao
Taipei (Feb 22, '10)
[Re Dalai Lama gets his
moment, February 19] United States President Barack Obama timidly
called China's bluff by meeting the Dalai Lama at the White House. Did
America's president display boldness? Hardly. Yet, it was enough to checkmate
Beijing's ukase to a sitting US president. Behind the smiles and photo
opportunities, and in spite of Obama's personal popularity, he continues to
exhibit how unprepared he is for bold leadership and the craft of
statesmanship.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 22, '10)
[Re China buys some time
in Pyongyang, February 19] Thank you Donald Kirk for an insightful
article. Time will tell whether or not China retaliates for the Dalai Lama
slight by the United States. The new US tariffs on Chinese tires and the arms
sale to Taiwan surely also will not burnish the US/China relationship. The
Chinese have long memories and the US has the shortest when convenient, so the
US may regret these transgressions. But what puzzles me is what advantage does
this antagonistic posturing beget the US?
Ken Moreau
New Orleans. Louisiana (Feb 22, '10)
The letter of Kali Kadzaraki [February 19] has some false assertions that must
be corrected. The most alarming was the one regarding Israel's economy and
"modesty." Israel's neighbors live in modesty because they are developing
economies while Israel is a developed country. Israel's GDP and GDP per capita
are US$202.6 billion and $28,500 respectively, which clearly shows that Israel
produces something. Israel is also a promoter of free-market economic
principles and its currency is one of the 17 freely convertible currencies.
Even though Israel does not have rich natural resources it has developed its
agricultural production to high levels, so high that Israel is more than
self-sufficient regarding food production. I also have to add that Israel is a
global leader in water conservation and geothermal energy. The technology
development in Israel could be compared to that in Saucon Valley, so its no
surprise that companies such as IBM, CISCO, Intel, Microsoft and Motorola built
their first international research and development centers in Israel.
Illiteracy is not a problem among Jews and Israel is one of the most literate
countries in the world. According to the United Nations report on human
development and literacy rate, in Southwest Asia, Israel has the highest school
life expectancy. Israel ranks third in the world in degrees per capita and its
seven research universities are among the top 200 in the world. ... Kadzaraki
also outrageously claims that Israel is sucking the US Treasury dry. Where are
the data to back up your claim? You did not provide one single piece of
information to support your assertions. Most of the aid that Israel receives
goes to military and defense related projects. Israel is a representative
democracy, the only one in that region. The US also understands that Israel's
enemies have the will to destroy it, not the means. Your fog of hatred does not
let you see reality and provide facts. In the United States the Jews make up
2.2 - 3% of the population, however, almost 30% of the undergraduates in the
top 10 American universities are Jewish (especially in Columbia University and
Harvard University, in the other universities the percentage range is between
20% to 30% which is a still a large percentage considering the percentage of
Jews in America). Of all American Nobel Prize recipients, 38% are Jewish.
Jewish businessmen also occupy 8% of the board of director's seats in American
corporations. Rather than being a useless, welfare sucking community, they
enrich our country and our neighborhoods. Please, revisit your facts, try to
see through your hatred, and the next time you try to post something remember
that 65% of the readership of this paper live in North America and we won't buy
the lies of the third wordists who make claims without providing any evidence.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 22, '10)
[Re Myths and US arms
sales to Taiwan, February 19] Bonnie Glaser's article states that the
United States arms sales to Taiwan are based on US national law the "Taiwan
Relations Act". She is right! But the US-China communiques that state the US
will stop selling arms to Taiwan are international laws. International laws
rank higher than domestic laws at any given time. Glaser believes it is a myth
that US does not intend to use Taiwan as a piece of its encirclement of China.
One can take a look at any map and see that the US has bases in almost all the
countries neighboring China, and is probing for more.
Wendy Cai
USA (Feb 19, '10)
[Re Myths and US arms
sales to Taiwan, February 19] Seldom have I read an article which bases
its entire legitimacy on "US officials have repeatedly stated" with no other
corroborating logic or evidence. Selling arms to "promote peace" is like
copulating for virginity.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 19, '10)
[Re Myths and US arms
sales to Taiwan, February 19] This article is a breath of fresh air
that clears away the confusion on the Barack Obama administration's decision to
sell arms to Taiwan. Thank you Bonnie Glaser for sweeping away the ill-informed
discussion on this matter. Rightly, she speaks of the US commitment by treaty
and law to Taiwan, which seems to have slipped below the horizon. Furthermore,
she puts the sale in proper perspective, something that is sorely needed when
it comes to Taiwan for China watchers.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Feb 19, '10)
After reading Peter Lee's article,
Iran aims for an energy break-out [February 19], I was dumbfounded.
China is going to throw away its future just to please the faltering United
States? Is Lee unaware of "the economics and the realities" that the US is
facing. Ten percent of GDP is going to be used to pay off interest on loans.
Over 20% of the country's trained workforce sits idle with no money coming into
households. And there is to be a large number of unemployment benefits cut in
the first and second quarter. This will bring on a whole new wave of mortgage
foreclosures. Reality is coming soon, and pipelines will be the least of
concerns for the Barack Obama administration.
Smilodon (Feb 19, '10)
[Re The case for
an Israeli strike against Iran, February 17] Is it possible that Asia
Times Online puts Spengler on its pages simply to annoy the public? His
supposed expertise in economic matters has proved no better than tossing dice,
so his opinions are no better than anyone else's. But his political vaporings
are dangerous. Worst of all is the casual statement (common in all the Western
media) that Israel may attack Iran at will with nuclear weapons and cause
millions of deaths just to show who's the boss in the neighborhood. So let's
have a closer look at some basics. (Disclaimer: I am not Iranian, nor an
anti-Semite, nor indeed from anywhere in the Middle East.) Iran (previously
known as Persia) has not attacked anyone since the 1730s, when Nadir Shah
invaded India and carried off the Peacock Throne. Israel has attacked all its
neighbors in the past 60-odd years, and driven millions of people into exile:
mostly Palestinians, but also Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Egyptians. It
also exercises a vicious tyranny on those who remain. Despite Israel's peace
deals with Jordan and Egypt, and US pressure on these countries, trade and
tourism with them is virtually zero. Iran works for a living, meaning the state
and its people live within their means - very modestly. Israel has zero trade
with its neighbors, and does not work for a living, meaning its standard of
living is totally out of line with what it produces itself. Instead, it
plunders the world's conscience (over the Holocaust) and the US treasury. Iran
has no nuclear weapons. Israel has hundreds. Following this example, why should
not everyone else have them too? Israel is not a US ally, since there is no
Treaty of Alliance ratified by the US Senate (as, for example, with North
Atlantic Treaty Organization states or Japan). Israel's only policy is military
violence. I believe that a lot of Israelis are quite aware of this, and escape
from this uncomfortable reality in delusions of power. Asia Times Online can do
us all a favor by deleting the Spengler and finding others like the superb Syed
Saleem Shahzad. Finally, let the self-proclaimed Christians remember these
words of Christ: "Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword". And
none lives by the sword more than Israel, which has already perished more than
once.
Kali Kadzaraki
Houston TX (Feb 19, '10)
[Re Monetary
inflation and the 32-cent gallon, February 19] Hooray! The Mogambo Guru
is back.
Mark Nameroff
Allyn, Washington, USA (Feb 19, '10)
[Re A very pale
shade of green in Iran, February 16] In response to Ysais A Martinez's
letter [February 17], this editorial is in no way sympathetic to a despotic
dictatorship, and it's mystifying that you should think it is. The piece merely
points out that Amir Taheri's version of events is codswallop. I did not base
my conclusion for this on what I saw on television, but on every balanced news
report by eyewitnesses that I could find. Taheri stated that the Internet was
"shut down". Clearly it was not. Not only could bloggers blog, but eyewitness
reporters could send their articles to the Western media, and neither these
reporters nor their publications are by any stretch of the imagination "Iranian
government minions". To repeat, ONLY people who weren't there and had an agenda
to push saw "rings of steel" or "a sealed citadel [creating] an atmosphere of
war in the divided city". Finally, you "wonder if the Iranian government is a
government for the people by the people". What's your point? That rule by a
minority, aided by a foreign power, would be more "democratic"?
Allen Quicke
Hua Hin, Thailand (Feb 19, '10)
[Re The case for
an Israeli strike against Iran, February 17] Dreams of Israel becoming
a regional superpower went down with its defeat at the hands of Hezbollah in
the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel, like its financier the United States, is passe.
The rising regional power in the Middle East is Iran and no amount of wishful
thinking by Spengler will change that. If Israel is stupid enough to listen to
Spengler and venture into any kind of confrontation with Iran, it will be the
beginning of the end for the Zionist entity. But I guess that will be the
desired outcome for nearly the whole of the Third World as wars for Israel have
caused massive suffering around the Third World. Humanity has suffered enough
because of this little country.
Vincent Maadi (Feb 18, '10)
[Re The case for
an Israeli strike against Iran, February 17] Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stated that he will not launch an attack against
Iran. Israel has a stockpile of an estimated 200 atomic weapons, so although
the temptation is there to bomb Iran to smithereens, it would be a foolhardy
step to take. As an armchair hawk, it is easy for Spengler to strategize and
fantasize. His vision is shortsighted to say the least, since a "pre-emptive
strike" by Israel on Iran's nuclear program would spell not only regional
disaster but also be fatal for the United States and the European economies.
Spengler forgets that the existence of Israel, even in biblical times, depended
on a strong protector which has been for the last 60 years the United States.
Russia is not willing to replace America in this role, let alone pour unlimited
amounts of money to sustain Israel economically and militarily as Washington
is. Spengler loses sight of how the bad choices of the George W Bush
administration resulted in war in Iraq, creating a dead weight for the US. If
the US appears weaker or feckless in its pursuit to bell the Iran nuclear cat,
it says more about bad choices the Bush administration made, and an
unwillingness to recognize that even as the only superpower, America in many
cases has little room to maneuver abroad. Consider the helpless posture of the
Richard Nixon administration when its client, the Shah of Iran, did not play
along.
Nakamura Junzo (Feb 18, '10)
[Re The case for
an Israeli strike against Iran, February 17] Even as the schwerpunkt
of America's global military operations shifts from the Middle East to Central
Asia (presumably to counter China and Russia), there is little reason to
believe that the United States will abandon Israel to the extent feared by
Spengler. Owing to its geographic position/religious identity, and as long as
oil remains the essential fuel for global economic growth (no credible evidence
exists to suggest otherwise for the foreseeable future), the Jewish state will
continue to prove an important potential partner to any outside power whose
influence happens to be ascendant in the region. Attacking Iran now may at best
produce a Cadmean victory for Israel, much less achieve regional superpowerdom,
for as Spengler himself suggested, the operational and political variables are
"numerous" and simply "too fuzzy". Besides, and on a more fundamental level,
whether Iran's acquisition of a nuclear capability would in fact pose an
existential threat to Israel remains highly debatable. With such abounding
uncertainties, it's oftentimes better to sit tight and see how the chips fall
than to engage in an action driven largely by a moment's panic.
John Chen
USA (Feb 18, '10)
[Re As easy as
ever!!!, February 17] Welcome back, Mogambo. Your ability to tell the
bad news in a witty way has been missed.
Ron Mepwith
USA (Feb 18, '10)
[Re After
Greece, a new world, February 16] The European Union is showing little
appetite for quickly rescuing Greece. As Athens slouches closer to defaulting,
thanks to the German magazine Der Spiegel the long reach of US investment
houses such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan is becoming clearer. Goldman Sachs,
for example, through the highly suspect financial instruments of mortgaging the
country's health system, persuaded a willing Greek government in times of cheap
money to hide its debt from the European Central Bank. Does this sound
familiar? Think Enron. Well, now the devil is asking for its due, but Athens
cannot repay its debt properly without a radical renting of its society. Worse
still, since Greece uses the euro as its currency, its "default" threatens the
entire European Union (EU). Of course, Greece as the sick man of the EU reveals
a systemic weakness of a united Europe with a single currency. It has no
mechanism to deal with Greece's financial mess, short of scrambling for a bad
solution.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 17, '10)
Dear Editor [Re A
very pale shade of green in Iran, February 16], thank you for being a
small oasis of rational reason in an otherwise vast desert of obfuscation.
While I have absolutely no doubt that there are Iranian opposition supporters
disappointed with Tehran's policies, they are in no way representative of all
Iranians as Western media would have us believe. Remember the clam our over the
last election? It was over an opposition which I recollect hardly campaigned
outside the capital yet expected to be swept to victory. An election won in
disputed circumstances by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad who indeed campaigned
across the countryside among the poorer folks. He reputedly made efforts to
improve the lot of the majority in his previous tenure as president and they
were grateful for it. Your comment "[Amir] Taheri has been trying to convince
American readers for a long time that popular opposition is burgeoning in Iran
and all that's needed to topple the 'regime' is a push by Washington", evokes
memories for me of similar discredited media stories from Iraqi dissident
exiles in the run-up to the tragic Iraq War. Beyond doubt, we are once again
witnessing a widespread and intensely concerted media campaign to "massage"
American and world public opinion for another war. Whether that being carried
out by the United States, Israel or both remains to be seen. Any other country
joining in or lending support would be complete fools. They'll all follow the
same worn out script at the United Nations, but I fear this time, they will
have gone "a bridge too far" with far reaching and indeed tragic consequences
for the world. This is one fight which would confirm the absolute congenital
stupidity of the neo-conservative and pro-Israel movement.
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Feb 17, '10)
[Re A very pale
shade of green in Iran, February 16] When terror and the violent
suppression of protesters is the "law of the land" then no it's surprise that
only the fanatics were seen on television chanting their madness against the
civilized world. I am appalled to read an editorial sympathetic to a despotic
dictatorship. It makes a mockery of the young Iranians who have had enough of
the same garbage for 31 years. However, the editorial makes an excellent point
(not directly though): the Western media's paranoia has ruined the credibility
of the protesters. Few people in the West understood the initial silence of
President Barack Obama during last June when unarmed protesters were being
tortured and murdered in Iran. Any word from the Western hemisphere could be
used against the protesters and their motives. Thanks to Rupert Murdoch's
misinformation machine any Western person who opens his mouth in favor of the
protesters is considered an American lackey. In the end, the young population
of Iran will be the one to lose. This editorial - with a mocking tone - states:
"Try telling that to the blogger quoted above, who managed to post his comments
on a popular Iranian website. [Amir] Taheri might also care to tell us where he
got his information." Well, dictatorships only deny resources to dissidents,
that means that the Iranian government minions would still have access to any
technological resources to continue doing the devil's work. This is definitely
not the best way to refute Taheri's arguments. One could also argue that in the
Nuremberg rallies only passionate Nazis would show up to chant "Seig Heil" or
that the military parades in North Korea are a sign of prosperity and success
among common North Koreans. Finally, the most enlightening line is this: "We
thought democracy had something to do with government by the people, not by a
small minority abetted by an outside power." I wonder if the Iranian government
is a government for the people by the people, or if instead, is a theocracy
where people's needs take last place and religious caprice comes first.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 17, '10)
Excellent piece by Kent Ewing (Roaring
tiger, randy rabbit, February 12, 2010). And I agree, we mustn't let
the shenanigans of imbeciles spoil the fun of the traditional fortune telling
of the Chinese new year! On that note, wishing everyone a happy new Year of the
Tiger!
Hank (Feb 16, '10)
[Re China feels
US-Iran fallout, February 12] While the background and analysis in this
article were graciously presented, unfortunately, the author underestimates the
wisdom of the Chinese. Not everything must be decided on a binary basis. This
is not your typical court-room-style interrogation where the witness must
answer either yes or no. China can easily deflect any issues it has with
sanctions on Iran back to the United States and other Western powers by simply
vetoing, abstaining and affirming different parts of the sanctions. Any parts
that impact on Chinese interests can be vetoed, any parts that loom as a
nuisance can be abstained on and any parts that do not impact on Chinese
interests in any way can be affirmed. This way, China can protect its interests
while throwing some bones back to the US, the Western powers and Iran. After
all, if the US and other Western powers do not like Iran acquiring a nuclear
capacity, they should talk directly to Iran. When an organization like the
United Nations fails to enforce uniform justice for all (Why is Israel allowed
to have nuclear weapons without signing non-proliferation treaties or being
subject to sanctions, when Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons and is
only in pursuit of the capacity in accordance with the rights granted under
such treaties, is not?), the UN does not have any legitimacy in taking any
stance. The world is full of injustice. Wrongdoings are almost always carried
out in the name of gods, or, the UN.
Vaughn Lin (Feb 16, '10)
[Re Yemen, the new
Waziristan, February 2010] As usual, Pepe Escobar enlightens us with an
excellent piece. I have to point out though that he gives too much credit to
the Pentagon and the US Intelligence Services. I do not believe that they are
that smart or strategic. In fact, most Americans have a negative perception of
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Central Intelligence Agency director Leon
Panetta. The true conservative base of American society despises military
adventures that we refuse to win or that are meaningless to us. Or we either
engage in total war, defeat the enemy and come back home, or we just stay home.
Today's enemy is really hard to identify if existent. It does not have a
uniform, a political ideology, a country or a headquarters. That is the reason
why it is so difficult to explain to the American people what we are fighting
for. If it is hard to understand the situation from inside, imagine how hard it
is to understand it from outside. So I would love if someone as eloquent and
well versed as Pepe Escobar explains these military adventures better. If the
CIA and the Pentagon were so Machiavellian, how come a meaningless enemy is
gaining so much ground in the area that is called "Af-Pak"? The so-called
"neo-conservatives" are not in the White House anymore; the most liberal,
progressive, radical people are in power. To clarify some misconceptions, I
have to say that the left wing is in control of everything in America: the
government, the US Senate, the House of Representatives, and the media, which
is one of their most powerful weapons. Some of the opposing voices against
liberal madness and the Barack Obama White House come from radio loudmouths on
AM frequencies and on Fox News. However, the strongest opponent that the
progressives have is the will of the people, who feel stronger than ever
against the destruction of the values of our country as we know it. So to those
who imply that the left is the solution, I hate to disappoint you but it is
not. The solution is the real conservative movement that believes that America
is too great to be encapsulated in small frameworks such as Democrats or
Republicans, or left and right. God bless the United States of America.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 12, '10)
Prophets and prophecies have been an integral part of the Middle East for the
last 4,000 years. But a natural corollary to this is the propensity of
humankind to let prophecies realize themselves through corresponding
self-fulfilling actions or rhetoric. On this, the 31st anniversary of the
Islamic Revolution in Iran, we should contemplate how such auto-realization
characterizes the bitterness that exists between the US, Israel and Iran. Even
after the Shah was deposed by an ideologically rigid, theocratic ayatollah,
Israel continued its intricate strategy of peripherally balancing the largest
non-Arab state in the region against Israel's myriad Arab enemies (primarily
Saddam Hussein's Iraq.) During this time, Israel continually implored
Washington to open a dialogue with the regime that humiliated Uncle Sam by
taking embassy hostages, eventually leading to the Iran-Israel-Contra scandal
(funny how the media left that vital middle country out of the popular name for
the fiasco, isn't it?) All the while, despite fiery "Death-to-Israel" oratory
from Tehran, Israel supported Iran in its death struggle with Iraq, realizing
that a triumphant Soviet-backed Saddam would imperil the Jewish state directly.
But with the USSR's collapse and Iraq's castrating debacle in Kuwait in 1991,
the Israeli need for a golem-bogeyman reared its ugly head (a habit no doubt
formed by Jewish persecution for the last 2,000 years.) Where else to turn than
the 800-pound gorilla in the area, the revolutionary state that Uncle Sam still
seethed with anger at. Almost overnight, Israel was proclaiming how Iran had
became a dreaded threat to world peace and the mantra of
Iran-will-have-nukes-soon gradually became accepted policy amongst Israel's
gullible allies. This was accomplished through their well-funded AIPAC
(American Israel Public Affairs Committee), carefully crafted newspaper
articles and think-tank papers and swaying (with little effort) the rabidly
militaristic evangelical loony tune neo-conservative nut jobs so painfully
prevalent even today in Washington. The rationale was simple: Israel could only
ensure its survival by being the unchallenged military-economic hegemon, Iran
refused to be drawn into America's stooge camp, and, most importantly, Iran's
mullahs were bent on mad policies of terror and nuclear annihilation. But
Israel's sudden conversion form Iran-backers to Iran-bashers was met with
justified skepticism, so Israel needed something else to get Washington's
undivided attention; it needed radical militant Muslim fundamentalism, and it
needed to mesh Iran so deeply into the perception of a worldwide jihad against
the enlightened West that the US would have no choice but to intervene
militarily, hopefully against Iran directly. I will leave it for another time
to wonder in detail a bout the remarkable coincidence of interests that the
alleged Saudi-citizen-manned attacks of September 11, 2001 fulfilled; in one
video-instant, the Middle East became America's number one obsession. The
George W Bush administration neo-cons had plans for attacking Iraq on the books
long before that clear September day, with the conquest of Afghanistan a casual
but necessary-for-PR-reasons dry run. Despite Israeli entreaties, the big fish,
Iran, would either have to wait its turn or just apply for US statehood post
haste. So come Iraq's sudden defeat in 2003, at the moment of maximum hubris,
Bush, setting himself up for the gods on Olympus to humble, spurned a shaken
Iranian offer for full-spectrum and serious negotiations, confident that
diplomacy had been permanently discredited by good ol' shock 'n awe. That
rejection, coupled with the quagmire that Bush soon found himself in on both
Iraqi and Afghan fronts, helped make a newly confident Islamic Republic of Iran
the undisputed major player in the Middle East it is today. Israel continues to
rail about all kinds of ridiculous and shrill doomsday scenarios between saber
rattlings, but all parties now realize that Iran will have nuclear capabilities
soon, thanks to those hardline, ideologically-rigid Israeli-Jewish and
American-Evangelical prophets. Methinks, though, neither Ezekiel or Isaiah
would be too impressed with their results.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Feb 12, '10)
[Re Yemen, the new
Waziristan, February 10] Once more an excellent assay by Pepe Escobar.
It shows the side effects of the brainless military actions of the United
States Pentagon in fighting the real or imagined threat from al-Qaeda. It shows
that the indiscriminate use of military force increases resistance and results
in even more violence. One thing that we usually forget is that the US does not
care (contrary to what the US media say) for the lives or security of the
people they claim to fight for. The US military machine also claims that it
fights "to protect" the American way of life, but because of its wars the
living standards of the average American are on a seemingly endless downhill
slope. Is it not time for the US to give up all its adventures and concentrate
on what is important for the country, ie, its economy? I think that the only
movement that can save the US is the left-wing. They should be given more room
in the political arena. This will not happen since the US is controlled by the
military-industrial complex and the different lobbies (Christians, Jewish,
etc), so we'd better get used to see the continuous decline of the US as an
economic and (in time) military power.
Manuel de la Torre PhD (Feb 11, '10)
Ian Purdie [Letter, February 5] and Dennis O'Connell [Letter, February 9] make
the mistake of being universal in their position regarding American foreign
policy since 1945. When American intervention followed the rule of law
(including international law) the results were often better than
non-intervention. That would be Europe, Korea, the Suez crisis, etc. When it
did not you get Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, Indonesia, Guatemala, Haiti,
El Salvador, Palestine and Kosovo. Grenada was another issue altogether (the
war was part of an election campaign). "Force is all-conquering, but its
victories are short-lived", that was Abraham Lincoln, I'll take him over
Colonel Jessup any day.
Miles Tompkins
Canada (Feb 11, '10)
Just in case someone else doesn't do it, I will point out the gross
disinformation in Dennis O'Connell's February 9 letter. The US didn't stop the
"complete takeover of Europe" by Joseph Stalin's Soviet empire. That empire,
even at the time of Stalin's death, was flat broke, and had barely recovered
from a war that had killed 20% of its population, while the US had barely lost
1%, and was in the midst of an unprecedented period of prosperity. And it is a
well-documented fact that most of the people, Muslim or not, that died during
the Kosovo conflict did so during the mass bombing campaign conducted with
typical zealousness by the US military. Grenada was invaded on the false
pretense that Cubans were going to take over its government - when it was just
the possibility of a government moderately hostile to US interests that drove
the paranoid Ronald Reagan to order troops in. And there's something pretty
familiar in saving several thousand poor Panamanians by napalming them in their
sleep, which is what happened during the war against Manuel Antonio Noriega's
Panama. What some consider Gulf War III, the undeclared one that went on for
much of the 1990s, didn't prevent Saddam from killing more Kurds - as in Gulf
War II, that was never the real goal. Together with the Korean war, following
the precedent of US post-war policy in Vietnam, as revealed by the Pentagon
Papers, all these wars were fought to secure a supposedly threatened global
power. As to the Jessup quote, it reminds me of fascist propaganda in World War
I and World War II associating dissidence with treason. If the writings of its
founders are any guide, the American Revolution was not fought to conduct wars
abroad in the purported defense of lofty sounding abstract nouns. It was to
keep its people free from imperialistic foreign influences and an oppressive
state serving a despotic minority greedy for power and wealth. A standing army
was seen as a serious threat to the well-being of the republic.
Carlos
Ecuador (Feb 11, '10)
Did I miss something? Did Asia Times Online post a prize for most absurd letter
to the editor? If so, then let me cast my vote for Denis O'Connell's exercise
in bizarro-world revisionist history [letter, February 9]. His attempt to
discredit Ian C Purdie's [letter, February 5] spot-on assessment of naked
American imperialism left me gagging. For every self-interested act that
O'Connell cites as proof of American "benevolence", Purdie and I will throw
1,000 more back in his face that will demonstrate American cupidity, cruelty
and callousness. Actually, even the list O'Connell purports to bolster his
claims prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the accuracy of Purdie's comments. The
illegal invasions of Panama and Granada were put-up jobs a la the faux
September 11, 2001 "terror" attacks, and we saw how well American defended the
Kurds in the wake of George HW Bush's craven withdrawal from Iraq in 1991, when
Saddam Hussein ruthlessly slaughtered them. As for defying Joseph Stalin, why
doesn't O'Connell address how the US divided Europe at Yalta with Uncle Joe's
blessing, or how American troops handed Russian POWs over to Stalin to execute?
Where was all that freedom-loving nonsense then? Why doesn't O'Connell mention
the overthrow of democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, or Mohammad
Mosaddegh in Iran or a thousand other freely elected foreigners who suffered
the ire of anti-democratic America? Many of us know the truth, and O'Connell's
clumsy attempts to magically turn a fascist sow's ear into a peace-loving silk
purse will founder on their own duplicity. Here's my own quote: "Whitewashing a
country's crimes is easy. Just keep your mind as closed as your history books."
Hardy Campbell (Feb 11, '10)
Golly, two divergent polar views of Wonderland in the same day [Letters,
February 10]. Thanks for the entertainment fellows, no prizes for guessing
which view I believe to be the more credible portrayal of Wonderland. In an
earlier letter [February 9] Dennis O'Connell said in part, "Otherwise, I
suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post". Dennis, Australians have been
doing precisely that since Federation and, on a per-capita basis, have
regularly punched above their weight. Unfortunately in the last 50 years
successive Australian governments have been caught up in your country's
misadventures. None of which have made my country any safer, on the contrary we
became a target and paid dearly on at least three occasions in the last ten
years, nor have these misadventures benefited those folks we have misguidedly
invaded. The only ray of hope is the present government will not increase troop
levels in Afghanistan, which is at least something to be thankful for.
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Feb 11, '10)
As the Letters Page is not primarily designed as a forum for readers to
endlessly debate, after the right to reply is granted we suggest the issue is
taken to The Edge - ATol
[Re India-Pakistan
thaw key to Afghan peace, February 8] The India-Pakistan talks have
probably come about due to Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani's
recent candid assertion to North Atlantic Treaty Organization commanders that
his prime concern was defense of Pakistan's eastern borders (against India)
rather than fighting the "war of terror" on the western front. This has
prompted the international community to pressurize India into resuming talks
with Pakistan. Pakistan must, therefore, view the Indian offer in its correct
perspective and not fall prey to it. We certainly want better relations with
India, but not at the cost of Kashmir and water resources. India will try to
talk as usual all about the sun and the moon but not of Kashmir and water,
exasperating and frustrating Pakistan to the extent of quitting the talks. No
one today is more shrewd than [former Pakistan president] Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
was at foreign diplomacy, but even he could not make [Indian politician] Swaran
Singh utter a single word on Kashmir in his 22-day long parleys in Murree
[Pakistan] in May/June 1965. At the end of the unsuccessful marathon, Swaran
Singh triumphantly confided to the press that his sole aim was to gain time,
which he had done. It was the same with Indian prime minister Shri Lal Bahadur
Shastri and Pakistan president Ayub Khan at Tashkent [Uzbekistan] in 1965.
[Russian diplomat] Aleksei Nikolayevich Kosygin, sensing the deadlock, asked
Ayub if he was a chess player. Ayub, sort of nonplussed by such a question,
asked "no, why?". "Because it is his [Shastri's] move and you must sit at the
table till he moves", was Kosygin's cool reply. Ayub did so, but was mercifully
relieved when Shastri left to meet his maker [Shastri died of a heart attack at
the Tashkent summit]. Indians are past masters in the art of frustrating others
during talks, and we must, therefore, make it quite clear to them that we want
to talk, but about Kashmir and water.
Col Riaz Jafri (Retd)
Rawalpindi (Feb 10, '10)
The most ironic thing among "Wonderlanders" is that some of them hate
Wonderland - their home country. However, these "Wonderlanders" forget that
only in Wonderland do you have the privilege to do so. If these Wonderlanders
would move to North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia, then these "Wonderlanders"
would not be able to hate Wonderland or express dissident thoughts. What a
great country Wonderland is! I have to point out that some "Wonderlanders" want
their opinions respected when it comes to hate Wonderland, well, Wonderlanders
who love Wonderland want their opinion respected too ... The leftist poet, the
left-leaning professor, the lawyer who defends Guantanamo terrorists, the
sexually unorthodox, the pro-abortion, the progressive - all of them are
protected by the military that you smear at, and that you spit at! The only
hope is that unlike some "hating Wonderlanders," these
"protected-by-those-they-hate" can tell the difference from a fetus that cannot
defend itself and a hateful terrorists that was taken down by our beloved
military.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 10, '10)
A favored tactic of the Wonderlander neo-conservative is to make their
patriotism axiomatic; it is unquestionable, it is unchallengeable. Therefore,
any deviance or disagreement with their belief systems is a reflection of the
critics' hatred of America, since the neo-con equates their distorted views
with America. If the neo-con love affair with militarism or imperialism is
exposed under the harsh unrelenting illumination of the truth, then that
liberal scoundrel that lifted the rock under which the neo-con hid
automatically becomes an America hater. If someone espouses a belief in the US
constitution's guarantee of a homosexual's rights as a US citizen, or embraces
the idea that torture is counterproductive if not immoral, or dares to point
out the insane illogic of unfettered cowboy capitalism, well, they've just
branded themselves as a hater of Uncle Sam, instantly discounting the merits of
the opinion. It's easier to dismiss unpleasant realities than to consider them
worthy of examination. But then, what neo-con has ever looked in a mirror? ...
By labeling the critics of the many ills, injustices and inhumanities
perpetrated on a daily basis by these neo-con crusaders as America haters,
these Neanderthals wrap themselves in a cozy cocoon of godliness, patriotism,
deafness, intolerance and hatred ...
Hardy Campbell (Feb 10, '10)
[Re Israeli case
for war with Syria - and Lebanon, February 8] Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu has his hands full with the very right-wing Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, who is eager to go to war with the Arabs. Netanyahu needs
Lieberman's support to remain in power, which makes life difficult in
restraining him. Lieberman's itchy finger on the war trigger reveals Israel's
inability to broker a peace agreement not only with the Palestinians but also
Syria and Lebanon. Although "Grapes of Wrath" and "Cast Lead" have brought
untold misery on Lebanon and Gaza, these two military incursions have not
brought any lasting benefits to Israel. Under the American military and
political umbrella, Jerusalem has a free hand to shower its Arab neighbors with
death and destruction. But Lieberman's ravings of war against Syria will bring
him into conflict with his American handlers, who are not willing to open yet
another war in the Middle East.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 9, '10)
Ian C Purdie in his letter of February 5 claimed: "Every time the United States
involved itself in these kind of adventures since 1945, only chaos, heartache,
tragedy and misery ensued." Well it appears that Purdie suffers from leftist
disease, which causes a malfunctioning, selective memory. It was the US that
stopped the complete takeover of Europe by the Stalinist Soviet Union. It was
American military power that kept the murderous North Koreans from enslaving
the South at a cost of billions of dollars and 57,000 US lives. It was American
power that forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and stopped the ethnic cleansing
of Muslims in Kosovo. You can also add in Grenada, Panama and protection of the
Kurds in northern Iraq. Perhaps Purdie could use a brief lecture from Colonel
Jessup, "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man
who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and
then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just
said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon
and stand the post." Oh, and your welcome.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Feb 9, '10)
[Re 30-second
warnings, February 6] Of the many many beliefs that prevail amongst
Wonderlanders, the one I find most ironic is the pro-lifer movement, which
opposes birth control of one form or another. The typical
contra-contraceptionist has some pretension of a religious faith (though
invariably their theology is based on ignorance, mythology and fantasy), have
flags festooning their trailers year-round, foam at the mouth at any suggestion
of government helping the poor and have Pavlovian responses to the mantra of
cut-taxes-and-small-government. Paramount among these defenders of
"traditional" mores is their devotion to the sanctity of life, as symbolized by
their adamant opposition to abortion (and even birth control pills among the
more rabidly delusional.) Life, they say, is a gift from God Almighty and only
He can determine who will live and who will die. Yet mention the prospect of
the US going to war over any imagined offence, no matter how superficially
ridiculous, and these Life-is-Sacred types will be the first to urge young
Americans to go overseas and kill non-American soldiers. If some non-American
babies get killed "collaterally," that's OK, 'cuz very Wonderlander knows some
lives are more sacred than others. Apparently all those American troops somehow
become a god, albeit a temporary one. Similarly, if a doctor exercises his/her
right to perform abortions, well, their sacred life deserves to be taken by yet
another instant-god wielding a shotgun. The number of such sharp-shooting gods
proliferate among the neo-conservatives, in some sort of spontaneous
sanctification-by-proxy ritual unknown to non-believers. ...
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX (Feb 9, '10)
[Re 30-second
warnings, February 5] America's enemies must be laughing out loud when
they read this article, which accurately portrays the "gone crazy over sports"
crowd. I am willing to take the heat as usual for standing by my country and
the values that have made this country the greatest beacon of freedom and
opportunity in the world. Bring it on, "the truth will set me free". When a
country takes great offense over a pro-life ad but finds joy in almost naked
women parading their bodies and "farting clowns," then we are in trouble. It is
true that amidst great crisis we must find a way out. However, aggrandizing
mediocrity in such an indolent way is not the best display of character. It is
not the best display of strength either, when we have so many enemies, foreign
and domestic. Super Bowl Sunday is the day where "slacking" reaches its peak
through its idealization and cult. This time I wanted to disagree with Robert
Lipsyte; however, decency and the fact that he is speaking the truth (except
for the ideologically charged last paragraph of his piece) prevented me from
doing so. Regarding Ian C Purdie's letter [February 5], I would like to say
that no one has appointed America as the liberator of the world. However, we
cannot ignore that we have enemies plotting 24/7 on how to kill Americans. The
world is not too big anymore and what happens in Asia affects me in the United
States. I respect the opinion of those promoting jihad, sharia for the West,
and death to the infidels, but instead of sending them a personal letter
viciously attacking them, I give them a dose of truth and perhaps anger with my
sometimes "silly" letters. I stand by my words, my position, and according to
you "lack of humility". This is why I am thankful to be an American, I can
believe in whatever I want and say whatever I want, without having to respond
to a police state or some dictatorial "religious" hierarchy.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 8, '10)
[Re Desperation fuels
North Korea's leniency, February 5] Pyongyang had no purchase in
detaining the Reverend Robert Park. Is his release an act of desperation, as
Donald Kirk suggests? Maybe so, since North Korea has bigger problems.
Demonetization has let off a storm which has sent tremors through all of North
Korea's society. ... The North Korean won's re-evaluation was a major mistake
and the government is back pedaling fast. The crisis reveals the extent, albeit
limited, of an incipient market economy which has escaped Pyongyang's control,
especially in the provinces. The push for seizing "full" control of the money
supply has exposed a weakness in the nation's governance.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Feb 8, '10)
[Re Taliban take on
the US's surge, February 2] I really must take serious issue with the
letter of Ysais A Martinez [February 4]. He tells us, "I have insisted that our
wars are aimed at liberating nations and fostering democracy ... even if some
conflicts are not." Whoever appointed the United States as a liberator? When
was that? This from a nation which couldn't recognize democracy if it fell over
it? Once again I'm reminded that the US is not a democracy but a representative
republic, a huge difference. Every time the US involved itself in these kind of
adventures since 1945, only chaos, heartache, tragedy and misery ensued. No
democracy followed, nothing. Compliant dictatorships, yes. Every conflict the
US has directly or indirectly fomented in the last 45 years has benefited no
one excepting the US military-industrial complex. As a fellow Catholic,
Martinez, I must ask where does your arrogance to "force" change on others come
from? No humility can I discern, no pursuit of important "social justice"
objectives are in your missives, absolutely nothing beyond tub thumping. It's
most disheartening and, very un-Christ-like to me.
Ian C Purdie
Sydney, Australia (Feb 5, '10)
Wonderlanders love winners. Competition, confrontation, conflict, this is the
lifeblood of American social Darwinism, the winnowing of the herd so that only
the fittest and hardiest survive. (I note with irony that the primary advocates
of this philosophy, without naming it as such, are also the first to denounce
Charles Darwin's famous theory.) Sports, economics, politics, even religion,
boils down to one's better than the other, measured by scores, polls,
portfolios or congregations. This zero-sum mindset has no room for shades of
gray or the subtleties and nuances of ambiguity; black is black and white is
white. Within the boundaries of America's faux democracy, this ruthless
Manichaeism has been tempered sufficiently to allow politicos to make their
backstreet deals. Publicly pronounced ideological grandstanding always took a
backseat to good ol' fashioned smoke-filled-room capitalism. But the culture
wars of the 1960s and 1970s have morphed into the 21st century scorched-earth
strategy of the conservative movement, which is determined to destroy any
vestige of liberal power at any cost. Compromise is a dirty word, perspective a
discredited concept; only all out, merciless war is justified, especially since
most conservatives are convinced they're doing "God's Work". God does not
negotiate with Satan. It is quite clear that the current GOP policy is to
obfuscate, obstruct, and ostracize any efforts to cooperate with "the enemy,"
embodied so ideally for them by a half-black, half-Kenyan Democratic president.
Any Republican who shows even a hint of amity to Barack Obama is subject to
excommunication and exile. The vilification of Obama in every aspect of US
culture is simply astounding; every position he has taken has been distorted,
twisted and mangled to reflect the willful demonization of "the other" (anyone
who doesn't froth at the mouth with conservative fanaticism.) Essentially, the
GOP will not be happy until they have cut off their noses, ears, lips and
tongues just to frustrate their ideological foes and wreck the country once and
for all. The eyes will remain, because the conservatives will see precisely
what they want to see. This will doubtless be the autopsy result pronounced by
future historians when they examine the shattered remains of the "Humpty Dumpty
Disunited States". By that time all the king's horses and all the king's men
will be working in China for minimum wage. And the GOP will consider that a
Republican victory.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX USA (Feb 5, '10)
[Re Anwar trial
another black eye for Malaysia, February 4] As a Malaysian I am deeply
disturbed by the ongoing trial of [opposition leader] Anwar Ibrahim, which I
like most Malaysians feel is unnecessary, politically motivated and will lead
to a national disaster. For the first time there is a real possibility of a
two-party system. For the first time there are hopes for a change of government
for the better and hopes for an untangling of racial politics, and more
democratic and accountable governance. For the first time there are hopes for a
more productive economy for the nation. All these hopes were made raised by one
man - Anwar Ibrahim. It is indeed sad that the forces of destruction are bent
on eliminating these hopes of the people and the nation. Of late Malaysians
have shown great wisdom and maturity. Will these be sufficient to thwart the
detrimental efforts of a minority that is trying to take the nation backwards
to the era of divisive rule along racial line? Only time will tell. This is the
time for Malaysians of all races to rise up to show they care for the country
they love.
Chris Anthony
Malaysia (Feb 5, '10)
The article, Brinjal
a political hot potato in India [February 3], refers to Vidarbha
district in India's central state of Madhya Pradesh, "where farmer suicides
showed a dramatic upward spiral from 2,000 to 4,000 within a span of few years
after the introduction of Bt cotton". It should be the Vidharbha region in
western state of Maharashtra, not Madhya Pradesh as mentioned in the article.
Aside from that small error, this is the most brilliant and most comprehensive
piece about the Bt Brinjal issue I have come across to date.
Jamal (Feb 4, '10)
[Re Taliban take on
the US's surge, February 2] Is there any need to question why we are in
trouble? This article should be read by every single military strategist and
politician in the United States. Is it rational that the main military topic
being debated in the United States is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" while we have a
mess on several fronts in the Middle East? I wonder if repealing "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" will change the course of events in Afghanistan. Do these people
live in Dreamland? Sometimes I am afraid that they do. I have insisted that
"our wars" are aimed at liberating nations and fostering democracy (even if
some conflicts are not). However, in the case of the conflicts in the Middle
East, the US has to act like a lion not like a little cat. The iron will and
fierceness that the Taliban show in battle should be used in our favor: give
them their country back, work out a deal with them so they keep the region
stable, get the troops out of there, focus the military on real threats and
have the Taliban do the dirty work for the US intelligence branches. This is
the strategy that we should take on. The big picture is there. Look at Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin in Russia. He had the Chechens (led by Ramzan Kadyrov)
do the violent work for Russia. It is time to start thinking like Cardinal
Richelieu rather than Paris Hilton.
Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 4, '10)
[Re The Iraqi oil
conundrum, February 3] There is no mystery as to why Iraq's rich
reserves of oil are not flowing freely into the world markets. It has little to
do whether China or Norway or Great Britain or even the US has put down stakes
to exploit Baghdad's black gold. Where is the conundrum when you look at how US
president George W Bush's war destroyed the foundations of Iraq's political,
social, and economic structures? Washington was good at destroying the regime
of Saddam Hussein, but has proved hardly adept in replacing it with a viable
alternative. And after almost eight years of warfare, a new state built on a
consensus of Shia, Sunni, and Kurds is sorely absent. The flaring up of suicide
bombings should tell us that profits from tapping into Iraq's oil fields remain
more a hope than a reality.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 4, '10)
[Re Profits,
not principals, move the age, Febrary 1] Isn't it much more likely that
these banks wish for hyperinflation to come? On the one hand they are right now
sitting on all those worthless realties, while on the other they owe Washington
billions. Hyperinflation (maybe followed by currency conversion) would solve
all their problems. Realties would skyrocket in value while at the same moment
their debts would simply vanish into thin air. At last - for them - the global
crisis would be a good thing. The biggest debtors would come out on top. In
other words, solving this crisis is the last thing they really wish for.
Siggi
Frankfurt, Germany (Feb 4, '10)
[Re South Korea marks a
painful centenary, February 2] Ronan Thomas has brought to non-Korean
readers' attention the 100th anniversary of Japan's occupation of Korea and the
daring act of Ahn Jung-geun in assassinating [former Japanese premier] Ito
Hirobumi. And the news that South Korea is opening a museum in Ahn's memory.
Interested readers may enjoy James Hadley's new book Imperial Cruise,
which explains the role of the US president Theodore Roosevelt - who won the
Nobel Peace Prize for his mediation at the end of the Russo-Japanese war
(1904-1905) - in Japan's colonial rule over Korea. Roosevelt was a big believer
in a racial theory and saw the Japanese as a civilizing race. For Roosevelt,
the much coveted piece of property known as the "Korean peninsula" should have
been ruled by Japan.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Feb 3, '10)
[Re Let's
atomize Wall Street, February 2] Of all the wonders of Wonderland,
perhaps none is more miraculous and quintessentially American than
"Something-for-Nothing". It is more than a philosophy, to be sure, and only a
tad less than a religion, but this fundamental zeitgeist has shaped and molded
Americans for the last 50 years or so. Its premise is that Americans can have
it all; more money, more food, more freedom, more wars, with no penalties or
pain. Like manna from heaven, it is a divine gift that has enabled
Wonderlanders to create stock derivatives, super-sized meals, contrived Middle
East invasions and magic pain-eradicating pills. These wonder tools make us
feel good about ourselves, our democracy and our superiority to the rest of the
world, who are so pathetic they actually have to make things, watch what they
eat and (heavens!) not wage war at the drop of an imaginary hat. Where it began
is hard to say; some speculate that former president Lyndon B Johnson's
hallucinogenic mirage that he could have a Southeast Asian war that conquered
communism and nationalism and a Great Society that banished poverty and racism
at the same time was an origin. Others say that former president Ronald
Reagan's idea that we could borrow billions, slash billions in taxes and social
spending and spend billions on unproductive weapons was similarly based on
magic mushroom consumption. I, for one, favor the idea that Americans going on
diets and popping weight loss pills as a placebo panacea for obesity, in lieu
of just not stuffing their faces so much with junk, was the principal
instigator of "S-for-N". Still, it's hard to argue with the advocates of Wall
Street voodoo as being the prime benefactors, if not originators. That good ol'
New York Yankee ingenuity in manipulating complex investment instruments into
unfathomable get-rich-quick Ponzi schemes at the same time they cooked
accounting books with the fervor of the Iron Chef on steroids, must rank as one
of history's all time Something-for-Nothing scams. It is fitting that President
Barack Obama has given those same Wall Street thieves all the
Something-for-Nothing they could ever imagine, and then some.
Hardy Campbell (Feb 3, '10)
[Re Terror comes at
night in Afghanistan, January 29 and
US and China pick their fights, January 25] In reference to the letters
of Ysais A Martinez and Helen Logan [February 1]. it's hard for me to
understand how people can be so indoctrinated by United States propaganda.
Martinez, the US soldiers are not risking it all for "freedom and democracy'".
They are in Afghanistan for three reasons: Firstly, to gain access for a
pipeline to the Indian Ocean. Two, Afghanistan is mineral rich and the US wants
to control and profit by that. Thirdly, the US wants to establish permanent
bases in Central Asia in hopes of encircling China to thwart China's access to
the Caspian area's energy resources. There are other reasons concerning
Pakistan, China and Iran, but those three are paramount. Next Martinez, the US
treats enemy combatants illegally by not treating them as prisoners of war
under the Geneva regulations. No nation in the last half century has treated
war prisoners so badly as the US. The US is in the same league as the Soviet
Union during the worst of the Stalinist purges when it comes to this subject.
Now for Logan. Correct, Russia is no longer the "dreaded" Soviet Union. But
make no mistake, Russia is a powerful nuclear-armed country, capable of
international influence through military, energy, and technology associations.
Russia did not "bully" Georgia, it responded to an attack on their peacekeepers
in the enclave of Ossetia. I can assure Logan that China has not let any of its
nuclear technology flow to or through Taiwan. At least not intentionally. I can
also assure you that China does not need the help of any country to deal with
the US or any other countries on this globe. Now that you both have been
enlightened a bit, I can sleep well knowing that I have done my good turn for
today.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Feb 2, '10)
[Re China's US
spending passes landmark, February 1] For Americans, it may be tough to
swallow. China is replacing the US as the economic engine that is driving the
global economy. Fiddling around with M&A [merger and acquisition]
statistics will not diminish that fact a whit. As Beijing casts its net into
the US market, where it can snap up failing or cash-strapped companies, it will
run into a high wall of nativist interests. Nonetheless, and in spite of the
Google scrap and the announced arms package for Taiwan, China will not be
deterred from the imperative of becoming the global power that dominates
markets.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Feb 2, '10)
[Re Sanctions,
regime change take center stage, January 28] Here we go again. Just
when it seemed that these failed policies to pressure Iran (sanctions, regime
change) had been relegated to the dustbin of history, it seems nothing has been
learned and the neo-conservative sharks are circling. The world should know who
Richard Haas is. He had a key role in former secretary of state Colin Powell's
now "infamous" speech before the United Nations in February of 2003 that
preceded the attack on Iraq. And, Robert Kagen has never been right about
anything. Why should anyone listen to them? Have they not done enough damage?
What has the failed policy of sanctions and regime change achieved? Nothing but
to leave the United States bereft of any knowledge about Iran. The
concentration of stupidity about Iran among foreign policy circles is
breathtaking and perhaps unprecedented in US history. Haas and Kagen advocating
for a US role in "regime change" should be reminded of 1953 and the
consequences of the last time the US had a hand in the overthrow of a
freely-elected constitutional government of Iran, which was then led by
national heroes Mohammad Mossadegh and Hussein Fatemi. To repeat that folly
would be disastrous for the national security interests of the United States in
the region. Reform and change will come to Iran as it has in the last three
decades, but it will be evolutionary and done according to the will of the
Iranian people, not through the interference of Western governments. What needs
to be resolved is, what is in the national security interests of the United
States in the region? Is it to continue to do all the US can to engage Iran, or
to continue down the same path of the last 30 years? Common sense alone
dictates that engagement is the only way to go forward. For diplomacy to
succeed, there must be an abundance of patience and perseverance. As an
example, look at [former US president] Richard Nixon's opening to China in the
early 1970s. It is uncanny how the same arguments being made by Haas and Kagen
today were being made then concerning engaging China. Despite what seemed to be
insurmountable obstacles, both internally and externally, and in many ways
paralleling Iran today, engagement was made and the rest is history. The Barack
Obama administration's measured efforts to engage must continue ignoring the
rhetoric, Congress and special pleadings. The president spoke about the goal of
doubling exports in his State of the Union message. Imagine if there was
engagement, and the business people of the United States could sell their
products to 70 million Iranian consumers. That is exactly what the British,
French and other European allies are doing. Their business people are all over
Iran, selling and buying, during all these years that the US has not had
bilateral relations. "Enough is enough" should be the mantra applied to the
failed policies of the last several decades.
Fariborz S Fatemi
Former Professional Staff Member
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Langley, Virginia (Feb 2, '10)
[Re Profits,
not principals, move the age, February 1 and
Principal over principle, Jun 6, 2009] I always suspected that Chan
Akya was simply an economic reincarnation of Spengler, but the latest
"principle/principal" wordplay (pioneered by Chan Akya and continued by
Spengler) confirms it once and for all. Next thing that needs to be done is
redoubling of efforts by Chan Akya, concomitant with the long-awaited demise of
Spengler. The former's offerings on economy are as good as the latter's cheap
potshot "philosophy" is not. Asia Times Online will do fine with just one David
Goldman.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, WA (Feb 2, '10)
[Re Terror comes at
night in Afghanistan, January 29] Anand Gopal's article is intriguing
in so many ways. It is really a very effective article trying to influence its
audience against American troops. But isn't this called propaganda? ... I was
about to start hating the soldiers who are risking it all for freedom and
democracy in a place where corruption, deception, murder, abuses against women,
and lies are the norm. ... I believe that the United States is the only country
on earth where enemy combatants are given constitutional rights rather than
tried as enemies in military courts. This is the obvious reason why these wars
will extend for decades. The US is fighting the enemies within, the left-wing
press, jihadists turned journalists, and all those who hate freedom and
prosperity. In fact, so great is the hate for America that one simple letter in
sympathy for my country is enough reason for a riot of personal attacks against
the individual who submitted his letter. Ysais A Martinez
Pennsylvania, USA (Feb 1, '10)
[Re Anwar's
epic battle, the sequel, January 29] The upcoming sodomy trial of Anwar
Ibrahim may not necessarily end in a verdict of not guilty. The political
platform for his opposition party calls for affirmative action for all races,
not the positive discrimination for "Bumiputra" (indigenous Malays) that has
been in force for the last 40 years. Malaysian Prime Minister Razak Najib is
pushing a slow, gradualist approach to reform and racial harmony. The recent
desecration of churches and mosques may push the courts to not favor Anwar,
since his party's program is unsettling the status quo, and has thrown the UMNO
(United Malay Nasional Party) into a state of confusion. Anwar's imprisonment
would very much go in favor of Najib seizing more firmly the reins of power.
Mel Cooper
Singapore (Feb 1, '10)
[Re US and China pick
their fights, January 25] In his State of the Union speech, United
States President Barack Obama said that the greatest danger to the American
people was the threat of nuclear weapons. He then reassured Americans that he
has this looming catastrophe under control by his forging the
"farthest-reaching arms control treaty" with Russia. Our B-plus president
missed this question on his foreign policy test: Is Russia a superpower capable
of influencing global politics? The answer is no because it has dissolved into
a regional power capable of only bullying Georgia, a country smaller in size
and population than our state of Georgia. If Obama seeks to end the threat of
nuclear weapons, then he must confront China for smuggling its nuclear weapons
technology to Iran through Taiwanese companies. What stops our president
confronting China? To be true to his State of the Union promises, Obama must
borrow more money from the largest holder of our national debt, China. The
United States will default on its loans from China due to our Greater
Depression. And when China comes to collect its money from Obama, it will bring
its nuclear strong-armed friend, Iran.
Helen Logan
Fullerton, California (Feb 1, '10)
Much hay is being made in Wonderland about Toyota's manufacturing ills. In the
zero-sum mentality of Oz, the recall of millions of vehicles for potentially
dangerous defects has sounded the Japanese car giant's death knell in North
America. This coming from a country whose own auto industry is on life support.
Supposedly, the prospects for a resuscitated Detroit to feast on the carcass
are bright, thus enabling the American firms to start selling cars to the same
fellow citizens they alienated with decades of slovenly products. We shall see.
But if I were a betting man, my money would be on Detroit indeed increasing
sales in the short term, with the long-term prospect of jacked-up prices and
corners cut on quality to boost profits even brighter. In the meantime, the
Japanese will return with big incentives, a focused advertising campaign and
superior cars to turn the temporary advantage of Detroit into, once again,
defeat, retreat and a trip to Washington, hat in hand. It takes no Nostradamus
or time machine to make such predictions. One can almost set one's watch by the
predictability of short-term good fortune being squandered into long-term
failure in America. Indeed, if one was a conspiracy theorist, one could suspect
this was merely a ploy to lull the easily seduced Detroit car barons back into
the same complacency that dug their graves in the first place. Ultimately, we
will see the "Big Three" liquidated and sold to Japanese, Chinese and European
car manufacturers. That sound you hear is Henry Ford whirling in his soon-to-be
crowded grave.
Hardy Campbell
Houston TX USA (Feb 1, '10)
January Letters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2010 Asia Times Online
(Holdings), Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
