Please write to us at letters@atimes.com

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

August 2004

Re Voices from the march to nowhere [Aug 31]. Hmmmm - they just do not get it, do they? America depends on oil. Not just for the baubles, but at its very basics, America depends on oil to feed itself. How do you think the crops are grown and transported? Yes, in time, there will probably be an alternative. But for now and the near future, there is not. As someone from the West who benefits from this obscene exploitation of the world's resources I feel uncomfortable. But unless I am prepared to face reality and acknowledge my dependence on those resources, principally oil (and, of late, cheap labor) I am a hypocrite to drive to a rally to deride those who are basically going and getting that resource for me. I am probably wearing clothes made by cheap labor and transported by cheap oil. I am going to eat food produced and transported using oil. I have probably used many items at home and business produced by cheap labor and oil. My economy is dependent on the money merry-go-round between the West and China/India (mind you, who is exploiting whom is an interesting question), and so on. I think it is all obscene. I cringe at my impotence. It is all very well to take out my anger on [US President George W] Bush, [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair and, for us, [Australian Prime Minister John] Howard, but they are responding to the demands of their societies. The demand for this exploitation of resources to prop up a lazy and exploitative lifestyle is what drives the politicians. (For example, balance the number of people who will die of obesity in the West with the number of people who will die for starvation in the Sudan - yet we are all born with an inalienable right to an equal share of the world's resources.) Simply voting in another party does not solve the problem. The problem is on the street, and that voice must be loud and clear. It must first of all look at itself and decide what level of sharing it will embrace and what level of exploitation it will give up. It must then communicate that clearly to the powers that be. To simply demonstrate from a comfortable distance while enjoying the fruits of the policy is hypocritical, ineffective and morally defective.
Graeme
Australia (Aug 31, '04)


I don't think it is correct to assume that [George W] Bush will win the [US presidential] election [Close, but Bush will win, Aug 31]. There is a groundswell of anger against him currently in the USA that illustrates the feelings of many, many Americans.
Apocrpha Roll (Aug 31, '04)


Most of your commentaries include information about the author; the articles by Marc Erikson do not. Could you please provide me some information about this author?
Christopher S Haase (Aug 31, '04)

Marc Erikson is an Asia-based journalist with broad experience in Asian affairs and longtime affiliation with Asia Times Online. - ATol


[Re Iraq test for Moscow, Aug 31] I personally fail to see how anybody can seriously contemplate even the remotest of possibilities of Russian soldiers ever appearing in Iraq. President [Vladimir] Putin called the Iraq war "a mistake" countless times, and it's unlikely that recent developments have improved his opinion. While it's in Russian interests to resist answering every rumor or innuendo and maintain as much strategic ambiguity as possible, common sense should be called upon to refute any such idea. Benefits described by [Yevgeny] Bendersky simply don't exist (one could argue that Russia's WTO [World Trade Organization] membership would be more beneficial for Western and Asian companies, hence the rush of recent concessions to Moscow), while liabilities would most likely prove monumental and long-lasting. Given the comparison of their conventional forces, where Americans are dying by hundreds, Russians would be dying by thousands. Persistent Russian efforts to heal the memory of its Afghanistan campaign and improve its standing in the Islamic world would be null and void. All in all, it would boost Russia's profile in the US, but prove an absolute and unmitigated strategic disaster for Russian interests elsewhere in the world. At the present time Russia's geopolitical position is the best it's been in a very long time. Even more, it keeps on improving. Why Russia would want to throw it all away is beyond logic and rationality.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Aug 31, '04)


As we, whom [Rudyard] Kipling styled the bander-log, sit here at the edge of ruin and chatter, some of the best, most entertaining chatter around comes from Spengler [Know your enemy (including Commentary magazine), Aug 31]. But after a while watching him sidle up to the truth and then shy away becomes a bit wearing. The question before the house is a simple one: Why is Western civilization failing? And that question quickly morphs into the more general one, why do civilizations always fail? Why does social and technological complexity, after centuries of providing invincible advantages to those that employ it, eventually fail to provide its lords with enough of an advantage to even maintain the status quo? Spengler is correct when he intuits that the answer lies, improbably enough, in philosophy. The answer lies in a philosophical argument in which, as is usual, both of the opposing parties were right. That argument was the quarrel between Galileo Galilei and the Inquisition. Galileo was right about the physical facts. The Inquisition was right that knowledge of those facts was the beginning of the end for man's belief in the significance of his own life. Galileo was right that there was no way to suppress the truth. The Inquisition was right that widespread awareness of that truth would mean the end of Western civilization. The short and sweet of it is that as long as at least the appearance of a "struggle to survive" can be maintained, the citizens of a civilization can protect themselves from knowing too much. But ever-increasing prosperity and man's insatiable curiosity are a deadly combination. Man discovers the truth of his place in the universe and discovers despair. He attempts to hide behind an ever more frenetic swirl of amusements and diversions, but the paralysis has its way. As Spengler has pointed out, he loses the drive to breed his replacements. That phenomenon is evident in the statistics in Europe, including Russia, and in Japan. Immigration and the breeding habits of the first generation or two of immigrants mask the effect in the US, but it is happening here as well. The phenomenon proceeds as the theory would suggest, with the most prosperous and the most intelligent reproducing the least and postponing reproduction the longest. Civilizations die when enough of their citizens catch on to the simple truth: life isn't worth the effort.
Grumpy_and_the_other_six
Central California, USA (Aug 31, '04)


Dan Piecora (letter, Aug 30) is correct when he states the US would surrender Taiwan to an invading communist China in the right circumstance. His only confusion is thinking it has anything to do with "adequate tactical and strategic military might". In the event of a [John] Kerry administration there is no action communist China could take that would provoke an American military response (South Koreans and Japanese should take note). On the other hand, President [George W] Bush would not hesitate to use every step necessary to defend a democratic ally.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 31, '04)


ATol editors call the debate between yellow people and white people about the future death of Taiwanese people nice. However, the Taiwanese people may not think that way. As some of them indicated here, they would like to be left alone. If ATol editors would like a real fair, democratic discussion of the Taiwan issue, ATol should publish more articles written by the Chinese people living on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We all know what white people want. Let us hear some voices from Taiwan and mainland China. Your single-sided attacks [against] China and Chinese people will fuel neo-nationalism and misguide [Taiwan President] Chen Shui-bian, and promote hatred. That is not a fair debate. That is not nice at all to Chinese people.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 31, '04)

We, unlike certain government-suppressed media we could name, are keen to publish the views of Chinese people on both sides of the strait and on all sides of the issue; to refresh your memory on this point, you might reread Tang Liejun's A brighter future for China and Japan (Aug 7), Tang's US, Taiwan exercises ominous signals (Jul 29), Sam Ng's Taiwanese gold rush to China (Jul 30), Li Jing's Talking the talk, walking the walk (May 26), etc. We also have a Chinese-language site. - ATol


If Aaftaab [letter, Aug 30] feels that ATol is owned by Indians it is difficult to fault his reasoning. The brilliant exposures of Pak complicity in breeding and fomenting terrorism would seem to originate only from a sworn enemy hell-bent on damaging the fair name of Pakistan. Unfortunately for him, they are pouring out from all directions from a world waking out of its stupor and have nothing to do [with] India. Ironically, his outpouring itself shows an India-centric lament for all that is wrong with Pakistan. The observation of Siddharth [Srivastava] in his article [What kissing James Bond means to India, Jan 9], which provoked Aaftaab, is actually a documented fact that the kiss did indeed create a furor in Pakistan and that the said politician did take a lot of heat for his daughter's peccadillo. But Aaftaab would have preferred that such embarrassing information and other inconvenient facts about abetting terrorism, fathering the Taliban, etc not be in the limelight. I congratulate him on having figured out that ATol is is being bankrolled by India with the sole objective of harassing Pakistan.
Sri
New York, USA (Aug 31, '04)

But don't forget that, according to other observers, we are also in the pocket of "white people" trying to provoke war with "yellow people", we are in the pay of Beijing to put down Delhi (and vice versa), we are both pro-Israel and anti-Semitic, we "hate America" but are also paid off by "corporate America", etc, etc. It all keeps us very busy, and we are running out of mattresses to hide all these payoffs under. - ATol


"Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan bureau chief for Asia Times Online." Can you please clarify? As far as I know, Mr Shahzad is your only correspondent reporting about Pakistan, unless you consider the large bevy of Indian journalists that are always looking at ways to belittle Pakistan as part of the Pakistani "bureau". As far as Saleem Shahzad is concerned, the less said, the better. I know that Mr Shahzad tries to be creative, yet if I were to buy his version of events, Pakistani tribal areas would have brought about a revolution in the whole country, the mullahs would be ruling Pakistan, al-Qaeda would have hold of Pakistani nukes and the country would have long ceased to exist. To Mr Shahzad's credit, he sometimes does get it right. Not by any fault of his, though. You write enough hare-brained schemes, filled with conspiracy theories, and sometimes by sheer luck, events unfold in a manner that you can write more drivel to support your original warped hypothesis and then pump your chest and proclaim loudly, "I told you so." Meanwhile I wait for Mr Shahzad to finish watching the latest Hollywood action-packed thriller, The Bourne Supremacy - stay tuned, folks.
Kamran Ali (Aug 31, '04)


Dear Andre Fabre [letter, Aug 23]: The Chinese civilization's "arch enemy" around AD 12 was really the Xiongnu, a nomadic race whose various tribes had been plaguing [the Chinese] for more than a thousand years (if you include the ancestors of the Xiongnu, the Rongdi). The Xiongnu were the initial and main reason for the building of the Great Wall. So in the long course of Chinese history, the Koguryo kingdom hardly qualifies as an "arch enemy". In fact, the Chinese civilization at various times became friends and enemies with the Koguryo kingdom and various Xiongnu tribes, such being the nature of politics. The Xiongnu later died out or moved away (no specific record in Chinese or other Asian historical literature) while the ancient Koguryo kingdom collapsed and was then "rebuilt" in the region around present-day Korea. Whatever the enmities between ancient Koguryo and ancient China, the "revisionist" name of Xiali has not stuck and Koguryo is now commonly referred to as Gaoli. I hope you appreciate that modern Chinese historians have the unenviable task of trying to interpret and integrate the histories of their minority races such as the ethnic Mongolians and the ethnic Koreans and sometimes end up distorting "mainstream" Chinese history. For example, ethnic-Han generals who fought Mongolian invaders can no longer be referred to as "national heroes" as it is thought to be insensitive to the feelings of Mongolian Chinese nationals. And there was a similar academic/diplomatic wrangle with the "nationality" of Genghis Khan some time back (his grandson took over China but then the Mongolian governing class got overthrown and "assimilated" into Chinese civilization). I hope these short stories lend a little objectivity to your reading of the historical relationship between China and Korea from various sources.
Sing Yung
Singapore (Aug 31, '04)


Dear Ambassador [K Gajendra] Singh: I want to thank you for your extremely readable, well-presented and above all informative article on Russian/Turkish relations at this geopolitical moment [Russian bear calls on gray wolf, Aug 28]. The article appears to be written in the best tradition (now disappearing, particularly in the West) of the honest and scholarly analysis without bias and propagandistic overtones. I must say that, at least since the 1999 NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] attack on Yugoslavia, I have noticed that Indian authors are among the few that as a group quite regularly exhibit the above-described high level of professionalism in attending to geopolitical questions. So I would like to praise you collectively for this rare trait in this day and age of disinformation.
Aleksandar Jokic, Assistant Professor
Portland State University, Department of Philosophy
Portland, Oregon (Aug 30, '04)


[Re] What kissing James Bond means to India [Jan 9] By Siddharth Srivastava. Read this article and one will realize what I meant in my last letter to ATol. All Indians want to do is implicate Pakistan in everything they can even think about, "kissing" being one of them. Three cheers for the Indian intellect level. Is ATol owned and run by Indians?
Aaftaab (Aug 30, '04)


After about four years of reading your website on a very regular basis and recommending it to many friends, it is for the first time that I have come to the stage where these days I log on, read all the headings and not want to open a single article and sit and wonder where to go now? Most of your more interesting contributors have either left for "greener pastures" (as you put it) or just run themselves dry and now have nothing more to give. I suggest you send Spengler on a long fishing holiday or something where he can be one with mother nature for a while and rediscover himself. [Meanwhile] Pepe Escobar needs to end his holidays and come back to the real world. He's getting too soft - I say send him to Chechnya for a couple of months. As for your new favorite man Syed Salim Shahzad, who's stuck by you through thick and thin, he definitely needs to get over his paranoia and stop taking his "secret sources" so seriously. Every week he writes a new article saying the same stuff in a different permutation. Pakistan's military is ready to rebel against [President General Pervez] Musharraf, but then they are not really ready just yet. The Islamic radicals and ready to rebel against the government, but say they will for now do "peaceful demonstrations". The Pakistan government/military has captured Osama bin [Laden], Dr Aiman al-Zawari and other "big names" and kept them in "safe houses" to present to America when Musharraf meets [US President George W] Bush, but then they might not even present them because that would mean they have no more cards to play, and so instead they might hand over a few "smaller" guys over. Make your mind up, dude, which is it? Are they going to hand bin Laden over or not? Is the military going to revolt or not? Are the religious and jihadis going to wage jihad against Pakistan or stick to "peaceful rallies"? Stop boring us and come up with something solid ... in the meantime, I'll just rely on the ICC [International Cricket Council] Champions Trophy to keep me going ...
T Kiani
London, England (Aug 30, '04)


With regards to Omega Lee's letter (Aug 25) - sigh. One really wonders if he is interested in hearing an actual opinion or is he waiting to hear from someone who will say the things that he wants to hear. For the longest time that I can remember, I have been reading about so many opinions from others (mostly Western media) about trying to mould Singapore into their image. Hence, my writing to provide an alternative viewpoint. One wonders if the "democratic" people are prepared to have an open and equitable meeting of minds, if their judgment seems to be divided into (a) if it matches their ideals - it must be good, (b) if not - then it must be bad. I hate to disappoint them, but the world is not so black and white, it exists in many shades of gray. Relating to the opposition, if there are no skeletons in your cupboard, what have you to fear? It may seem ironic, but the presence of lawsuits may actually help to entrench the existing opposition since people are well aware that the government will always keep an eye out for any slip-ups. So, if the PAP [People's Action Party] government can't pin anything on you, then you must be worth keeping around. As for the good doctor, he had previously undertaken a "hunger strike" to protest against the conditions of the democracy. What's more, he had also ousted the previous leader of the SDP (Singapore Democratic Party), Mr Chiam [See Tong], who had brought Dr Chee [Soon Juan] into the party which Mr Chiam had founded. Facta non verba (deeds not words) determine the person, and frankly we are not impressed with all that he has done. By the way, Dr Chee's books are available in Singapore in major bookstores and he has even sold them in the heart of Singapore's financial center. Perhaps Australia has the good fortune of not experiencing a widespread racial riot, but Singapore experienced one in May 1964. It was stirred by narrow-minded people playing communal politics. In this multicultural, multi-ethnic society, Tang Liang Hong was playing with fire. Moreover, there was always a real danger that it could incite other communalists in the surrounding countries. In addition, thank you for introducing The Age and The Australian, which I have had the previous pleasure of discovering. Along with them I have visited numerous other sites, one of the more interesting ones [being] the New York Times (www.nytimes.com), which is definitely no fan of the PAP government. However, I guess somewhere along the line I decided to make up my own mind after seeing how many of them seem to have this parochial conceit that their views were universal ones. As for the August 24 ATol article Singapore, the safe haven, I guess you have to make up your own mind about that. Will you extend the same courtesy to allow us to make our mind for ourselves then?
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Aug 30, '04)


First of all, I never opposed free exchange of ideas. That is a typical label you put it on the people who do not agree with you. What I am suggesting to you and other white people is not to stir up trouble and promote hatred to East Asian people. East Asian people would like to resolve the disagreement by themselves. Was that all that Japanese asked for during World War II? [Is] the desire of being left alone against freedom of speech? Seems to me that labeling other people as xenophobia, communist mouthpiece, or demons, etc is also against freedom of speech. ATol editors had been labeled as communist mouthpiece many times before by American readers. If you do not like that label, maybe you should try not labeling others. Next time, look into the mirror before charging against others. Is the Taiwan Strait at war? This question can only be answered by the people who live there. I suggest [letter writer] Daniel [McCarthy] and ATol editors pay a visit to Fujian, Shanghai and Taiwan before jumping to a quick conclusion. You even can board a tour boat from the mainland and sail a few hundred feet away to a Taiwanese cannon. If you are lucky, you will find a Taiwanese solder waving to you. The stalemate between brothers is completely different than the MAD [mutually assured destruction] match between Americans and Russians. You have to be there to feel that peace. How stable is the peace? I think you should read the article [Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Aug 21] published on ATol. Stability of East Asia is well defined in that article. Don't you read your own articles? A well-defined peace is a stable peace. You do not have to fear the gun if nobody puts a finger on its trigger. If Parag Vohra [letter, Aug 27] does not want India to be included in the do-not-disturb lists, I will use "East Asian" instead in the future. So far I have not seen many Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese people wanting to invite their white masters to stay or to come back. Yellow people will regard white people as friends if they are not trying to disturb their peaceful lives in East Asia. I am sure I will not be welcomed if I go your house digging [through] your dirty laundries or peeking into your bedroom. Freedom should only be exercised when other people's peace is not disturbed. Is that against democracy?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 30, '04)


It was with keen interest that I read letter writer Daniel McCarthy's opinion of the situation with Taiwan and China (Aug 27). For the most part I agree with him, but venture to go further in his prediction regarding "China showing an error in judgment and starting an actual fight". While I agree with his statement, "The one-China policy gives the basis for China's belligerence, and will be the legal cause of the war," I disagree with his prediction of the outcome, "China's civilian and military leaders will bear moral responsibility for the destruction of modern China as a result." That is only if they lose. China may attack, but it will not be destroyed as he opines if a full-scale assault were to break out. And it would not be an error in judgment on the part of the Chinese to attack. They have, or will soon have, the upper hand and they know it. The US will lose in a conflict over Taiwan, and decisively, unless it bolsters its Pacific forces and prepares for a Pearl Harbor-type attack on Guam and Okinawa. Like Pearl Harbor, we [Americans] can still be caught off guard in the Pacific, yet restrained from fully retaliating in order to retake the island. Unlike Pearl Harbor, when Taiwan is attacked it will be invaded and fall permanently into the hands of the "enemy". To retaliate or to launch any sort of counterattack by the US could, or would, incur nuclear strikes against Japan, South Korea and the US. So the ultimate question is, could the US lose countless American soldiers, watch Taiwan be absorbed by the Red Communist masses and be forced to stand down by being blackmailed with nuclear war? The answer, right now or very soon, is an obvious "Yes, it could." The US military may be willing to suffer untold casualties over the island nation of Taiwan, but the US government is not willing to suffer the loss of American cities through nuclear annihilation. China knows this and will call our bluff when the time is right, meaning adequate tactical and strategic military might.
Dan Piecora
Seattle, Washington (Aug 30, '04)


I would like to express support for the views of Frank, Seattle, and Joe Nichols on the differing issues they have dealt with in their letters. I can't say that I fully agree with them as I am neither white nor American and don't necessarily see things the way they do - but it is good to have them present an alternative and reasoned case against the world views expressed by writers such as Dennis McCarthy and Richard Radcliffe. It appears to me that while political discussion within the American democracy is highly transparent, the way it deals with other countries/territories is rather condescending - much like imperial China before the revolution of 1911 toppled Manchurian rule and forced the Chinese civilization to give up the millennia-old myth that they were the "sons of heaven" and the "center of the world". To quote one example: quit it with the "Singapore would not have existed without the United States" bullshit ... the US bombing of Hiroshima forced the Japanese to surrender and free Singapore in World War II [is a] myth - the failure of the eight-year Sino-Japanese war was killing Japan anyway. Yes, major world events would have turned out differently but the world (and Singapore) would certainly have continued to spin itself into existence - there is a difference between a causa causans (effective cause) and a causa sine qua non (prerequisite cause). Finally, as ATol editors noted, Frank's preference on the Taiwan issue for taking baby steps while "maintaining a standoff" does have the weight of history. In fact, lots of history: the Chinese civilization's millennia of history is interspersed with centuries of "civil war" or "separation" (such as the Seven Warring States and the Three Kingdoms periods) and the current "standoff" is actually relatively peaceful. On the other hand, the case for Taiwanese independence presented by psuedo-historians who are cherry-picking Taiwan's history and bending over backwards to delineate Taiwanese "territory/history/society/ culture" is rather dubious. I accept that the Taiwanese (native hill tribes, Hakkas, Hokkiens, etc) have their own culture and a case for independence, but it should not be based on the denial of their history.
Sing Yung
Singapore (Aug 30, '04)


In response to Daniel McCarthy's question (Aug 26), let me make the following statement and I shall not touch the subject anymore, hoping instead to watch the final outcome someday. There had to be good reason when one member was expelled to be replaced by a new one in a cheering, lopsided vote at the United Nations. Witty, sarcastic remarks or jokes are easy to come by. But I do believe that the majority of Chinese on the mainland and overseas, not just the Beijing leadership, desire and demand reunification with Taiwan. The ongoing, quickening pace of cultural exchanges and economic integration may play a crucial role, hopefully not in the too distant future. China paid dearly in the wars in Korea and Vietnam in defense of her stated principles from which she had never once wavered. When and if the time comes, it is a matter of how much sacrifice one side would be willing to accept. At that time I think the likes of [Taiwanese President] Chen [Shui-bian] and [Vice President Annette] Lu will safely depart in a hurry.
Seung Li (Aug 30, '04)


Dennis Castle (letter, Aug 27) must join me in Hermeneutics 101 and we can examine if he's right to say I don a "mantle of authority" by arguing that people calling themselves Christians must heed the words of Jesus. When Castle says that "interjecting religion into a discussion" is a problem, I read "interjecting Jesus into Christianity", causing not a problem for discussion but a problem for war. After clearing air enough to allow us the "right' to an intelligible debate, I will recommend the class look at the following statements juxtaposed: 1) Joe Nichols' problem is: "referencing scripture meant for individuals and insisting they are meant for entire nations" (Castle). 2) "The problem is that a religion that makes sense for the individual is being used, again and again, to orient people to a cause that contradicts it" (Nichols). Not unlike his earlier mistake (pretense?) that I confessed to a world view made from the very "movies and wretched fiction" that I specifically argued against, Castle seems again intent on appropriating or misunderstanding my positions only to use them against me by suggesting the same or similar positions. Completing his statement, this position he assigns to me - which contradicts the one I actually made - "demands one ignore other clear passages of scripture", suggesting that we can find different scriptures for nations and individuals. Well, there's a good question for you. What did Jesus say that can send a "Christian nation" to war? And how are Christians to reconcile these with the clear and overwhelming call of Jesus to "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy", etc? A brilliant piece of American movie propaganda, Sergeant York, starring Gary Copper and directed by Howard Hawks, shows us the way. Alvin C York was a real, live Daniel Boone-type in Tennessee at the time of World War I. In the movie, he was a big-hearted, hard-working but riotous young man, given to drink and fighting until a revelation came his way in the form of a lightning bolt that knocked his horse right out from under him. He got God in a big way and this turned him into a pacifist, which all praised. As luck would have it, Alvin then got called up by conscription to go to war and kill Germans. He said no, because the "Good Book was against it", but the preacher-man told him he had to go or the state would bury him in a cell. In time, Alvin was given a reprieve to sort through his turmoil and make a choice - war or no war. On a high bluff (his thinkin' spot) with his favorite dog, Alvin contemplated the Bible and came across his license for war: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," the phrase that Jesus used to answer for being taxed by Rome. But Alvin wasn't just being asked to give up some shekels to the emperor; Alvin wound up shooting Germans in the trenches like they were turkeys - even using his earlier-demonstrated turkey call (gobble-gobble) to get them to raise their heads for a clean shot (the audience finds that clever and amusing). It's almost certain that by this time (October 1918), those German soldiers were desperate to desert the front lines or surrender (read All Quiet on the Western Front), but were kept in the slaughter at the front by an edict handed down by another Christian nation - the death penalty for deserters. That, my friend, is a quintessential aspect of the nature of the state in matters of life and conscience; and this is how propaganda in the US proceeds. Sergeant York came out in 1941, not coincidentally. As an ironic twist in real life that shows how York didn't understand his scriptures or the state, in 1961 when he was paralyzed, near penniless and blind, the US government sued him for failure to pay his taxes!
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 30, '04)


Methinks David Little [letter, Aug 27] lives in a warped time and memory zone. Obviously, he is unable to comprehend the meaning of what he reads when he bemoans that Pakistan is being forced to turn against its treasured child of terrorism, which he acknowledges himself. It is strange that a country should be coerced into fighting terrorism. One would think that would be the natural thing to do, but not Mr Little. He is okay with terrorists funded by Pak ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] ramming planes into buildings but is alarmed at Israelis visiting Kashmir. India has borne the brunt of Pak terrorism for the past two decades and now the rest of the world, which in a suicidal unison turned a blind eye to this Pakistani penchant, is also savoring the taste of this well. The tragedy of the ill-conceived US invasion of Iraq has distorted the fight against terrorism and has helped people like Little overwork their little minds and trot [out] fanciful theories in defense of rogue nations.
Sri
New York, USA (Aug 30, '04)


My despair at thinking your publication has moved to the dark side, the side of war, invasion, murder, the USA/Britain/Israel side, increases daily. The sudden emergence of the author Syed Saleem Shahzad as the top writer at the top of the page on most days of the week is troubling. Almost all of his articles read like a gleeful man seeing just what he wants to: the destruction of Islam. His approval of the Pakistani cooperation with the USA against fellow Pakistanis indicates where his allegiance lies. Then I read the Sudha Ramachandran article on Israeli tourism in Jammu and Kashmir [Israel's unlikely home away from home, Aug 27]. The article states that Israelis are going to these places for vacation. [Whom] is [she] kidding? Pakistan is the only Muslim nation with a nuclear bomb. After the subjugation of Afghanistan, Iraq and the encircling of Iran by threats from the Israeli/British/Americans, there is only one Muslim nation left that could possibly defend itself militarily: Pakistan. With the past history of Israel, I would think that even common people, much less the well-educated and professional writers at ATol, would guess that some of these Israelis are intelligence agents. I think it is very reasonable to assume that the Israelis are active in Kashmir - that they could be using Kashmir as a launch pad for operations into Pakistan such as the bombings of mosques and the killings of Islamic students and teachers. To see the slant of the article lean towards an interpretation of "all of these Israelis visiting Kashmir because it is pretty", I must wonder if this writer is well versed in the historical terrorist operations of the Israeli military - or if the slant is on purpose to make the sudden influx of Israelis into India seem like something other than it is, preparations for the destruction of Pakistan. The last line of the article is so sweet it makes me want to go rock myself to sleep. "For the Israeli tourist, then, violence-ravaged Kashmir is a home away from home." Oh those beautiful, innocent Israelis! This article makes them appear so wonderful I can't help but question my TV reports showing the deaths in Palestine and the bulldozed homes. I bet all those TV reports on Israeli atrocities are a fake. I trust author Ramachandran's opinion of innocent Israelis much more than I trust my own eyes viewing footage of the destruction and atrocities in Palestine ...
David Little (Aug 27, '04)


[Jim] Lobe: Thank you for your brilliant exposure of the true motives of the neo-con movement [Neo-con ideology, not Big Oil, pushed for war, Aug 18]. It is true that their policies can be traced to religious dogmatism, [but] I must question whether or not it is fair to call their ideals "Christian". A Christian is one whose actions resemble those of Jesus Christ, so before we start to label the neo-conservatives as Christians we must ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" After the [World] Trade Center bombings, Jesus would not have called his nation to war. He would have prayed for those misguided souls who had designed such a murderous plot and asked God to forgive them because they did not fully understand what they were doing. Christ would not have never placed political sanctions on Iraq or any other country suffering under a brutal totalitarian government, but rather He would have sent food, medicine, and clothing to its innocent people. Christ would have tried to spread Zion, but not through violent regime changes because His kingdom is not in the governments of the earth. The Zion Christ would have established would have come to pass through compassionate works and peaceful teachings because it can only exist on earth in the hearts and minds of the people. Some churches claim biblical support for the neo-con movement because it gives them political power and helps secure government funding for their organizations, but their arguments cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. Therefore, to say the neo-con movement is based on true Christian teachings is incorrect.
Liz H
Florida, USA (Aug 27, '04)


Frank's vocabulary ("wiggling his tail" etc) is indicative of his own demons and sheds light into the xenophobia present in in nationalist Chinese such as him [letter, Aug 26]. The points he makes in his rebuttal are completely irrelevant to the original argument I took issue with. Excluding a country's influence or participation based on race (white people) is a sure sign of xenophobia. This was the case when Japanese ultra-nationalists made the argument and is the case now. In fact the one factor that makes Asian countries look to US involvement for stability is Chinese attempts to rewrite history, be it the Spratly Islands dispute or the recent Chinese attempts at revisionism of the history of Koguryo.
Parag Vohra (Aug 27, '04)


It is amazing that a person holding himself out as an intellectual, like Frank (Seattle), would consider the Taiwan-China status quo to be peace [letter, Aug 26]. China is engaged in an unprecedented arms race to achieve military superiority over Taiwan and is specifically designing its military to attack US. Pacific forces. China continually threatens attack, and has shown unwise brinksmanship on several occasions. Although the situation may not be a hot war, it certainly qualifies as a neo-cold war, or a quasi-state of war as Annette Lu calls it. Each day that passes, we move closer to China showing an error in judgment and starting an actual fight. The one-China policy gives the basis for China's belligerence, and will be the legal cause of the war, although China's civilian and military leaders will bear moral responsibility for the destruction of modern China as a result. And to Seung Li [letter, Aug 26], I ask, why wasn't the People's Republic of China a member of the United Nations from 1949 to 1972? Could it be that the UN has always been a corrupt political institution, not an unbiased arbiter of international disputes?
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 27, '04)


[Re ATol note under Frank's letter of Aug 26] The point is that we do know self-delusion has prevented a Taiwan war for more than 50 years. I am not saying that self-delusion will prevent a war forever. What I am suggesting is to prevent this Taiwan war for another 10-20 years. Twenty years later, the ideological hatred between brothers will be replaced by economical needs of each other. By then, both sides can sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution of this long-lasting stalemate. We have already seen a good trend of reconciliation between brothers and sisters. Mainland [China] is Taiwan's largest trade partner. There are more than a million Taiwanese who moved to the mainland bringing much needed technological and management skills. China is also moving away from Russian-style communism. Give a few more years, and the ideological division will fade out. What we need is a little more time. Many people including your editors, authors and many leaders of the world are all realizing the next four years are the most dangerous years for Taiwan. I do not know what ATol editors will gain by pushing Taiwan to a war now. If the self-delusion can keep the peace of Taiwan Strait for more than 50 years, it is logical to say that it will keep the peace for another four or 10 more years. It won't take long before the people realize the money in their pockets is more important then ideology in the air. Mikhail Gorbachev did not do anything extra. He just capitalized on that realization. I am sure 10 years later there will be a leader like Mikhail Gorbachev [who] points out that fact to the people from both sides of the Taiwan Strait. By then, a stable peace will stay in reality. The peace will not come when you are attacking China indiscriminately. The efforts of demeaning China, Chinese people and Chinese achievements will only bring war closer to Taiwan. Please think the consequences before you write. There are many wars started from verbal arguments. You can find that out from many history books.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 27, '04)

You don't know what's going to happen in the next 10 years, or 10 days, any more than ATol or Daniel McCarthy does. You can only extrapolate from past trends and, as we said, the conclusions you base on your observation of history are reasonable. What is not reasonable is your insistence that the free exchange of ideas, or at least ideas that contradict your own, on this website will "bring war closer to Taiwan". To the contrary, the challenges to your thinking by McCarthy and others on this forum have made your arguments noticeably sharper, evidence of the benefits of free thought and debate. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone on this planet were as free as you, McCarthy and ATol to have these discussions? Or would it just cause another world war? - ATol


[Jose R] Pardinas (Aug 26) writes that the argument "the answer to 99 questions out of 100 is 'money' amounts to a redux ad absurdum" (return to the absurd). Dr Pardinas meant reductio ad absurdum, but was making a clever pun off of my pen name. Kudos! And he's quite right; if one interprets that saying literally, then it is absurd. Who could prove such a statistic? Who would want to discuss such semantics? Obviously, the saying is meant to poetically express the power of economics, as Dr Pardinas himself expressed in his letter (Aug 26). Dr Pardinas was also kind enough to prove the exact point I was trying to make. Dr Pardinas writes, "what economic or money interests of the USA does the embargo on Cuba really serve?" and he's right. There's no direct economic benefit for the US. Moreover there's an economic loss to the world because of it. So why would the world allow the US to "act with impunity", especially when it costs them money? If I may return Dr Pardinas to his original assertion that the US acts with impunity because of nuclear weapons; I reiterate my argument that the US seems to act with impunity because the world values its trade agreements with the US more than it values Cuba, Iraq, and other places that might be termed "US stomping grounds". The high value the rest of the world places on its trade agreements with the US provides a much greater impetus for allowing the US to behave the way it does, rather than a fear of American nuclear weapons. To suggest that the world cowers in fear of the American nuclear arsenal suggests that no other nation has nuclear weapons; and surely Dr Pardinas knows this assertion is more than false, it is a model of the world which depends on one terrifying variable and is thus truly absurd. However, I think nuclear weapons are indeed an important variable to consider; and I would very much like for Dr Pardinas to expand upon his model to include rational actors that are not so "one-dimensional". That's one of the reasons I read Asia Times Online, because it provides such broad perspectives. I'd also like Dr Pardinas to address possible negative consequences to Iran from Iran's nuclear armament; unless Dr Pardinas is prepared to argue that a Pakistan-India nuclear standoff can only be interpreted as a good thing. I look forward to his next letter.
Terence Redux
USA (Aug 27, '04)


One problem with interjecting religion into a discussion is that people such as Joe Nichols (letter, Aug 25) assume a mantle of authority on the subject they clearly have no right to. Referencing scripture meant for individuals and insisting they are meant for entire nations demands one ignore other clear passages of scripture. Assuming mercy exists independent of justice destroys the meaning of both, confusing love and pity leads to the same end (as though there cannot be a loveless pity or a pitiless love). A first-year hermeneutics class would help Joe grip the issues he raises and perhaps make him less dismissive of those who fail his personal Christian true/false test. Joe's point that Christian spiritual individualism is not translatable into entrepreneurial spirit is still lost on me (perhaps a larger crayon, written more slowly). Are they mutually exclusive or is it conceivable that one be both a Christian and an entrepreneur? My point regarding the survival of Israel was simply that those on Joe's side of the argument tend to want American protection removed knowing the consequences (thus the hyperbolic "Jew-killing privileges" remark). I will gladly take the comment back if Joe (or anyone) can believably tell me what other future might hold for Israel were the US to follow his suggestion.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 27, '04)


Vincent Maadi [letter, Aug 24] states that Iran "commands the respect most of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America". I agree that by the extremely low standard set by Middle Eastern governments, Iran is relatively well off. However, the cultural idiocy of Iranian politics and culture today is frightening. I fully sympathize with people who are angered by the West's hypocrisy in banning Iran and other nations from having weapons that they themselves stockpile in vast numbers. However, the wrongs of the West are no excuse for Iran's own problems. The "Westoxification" of Iranians is a direct result of the closed society fostered by narrow-minded Iranian rulers over the past century. Technology and science are only one part of a healthy culture and society. Iranians, like many people in developing nations, have forgotten the lessons of their own history, and now greedily yearn for the fruits of advanced science and technology without understanding the social and cultural development which are prerequisite. People in Iran are shuttered from the real world like children, and the only things which are imported from the West are the basest forms of popular culture, like MTV and Hollywood blockbusters. During the Shah's era, Iran was full of brothels and miniskirts, but intellectuals and critics were brutally suppressed. Nowadays, at least, some progress has been made in allowing criticism and discussion, but there is far to go. There was a time when Farsi was the official language of the Ottomans in Turkey and North Africa, of the Mughals in India, and across Central Asia. Iranians and non-Iranians alike were part of a huge, colorful culture, which is exemplified in the vast literature in Farsi and related languages across the Middle East, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Iranians are probably totally unaware that much of China's traditional clothing and music was imported from Iran and Central Asia in the Tang Dynasty. Iran's culture at that time was captivating to non-Iranians, who enriched Iranian culture with their own contributions. Nowadays, Iranians are not even curious about their neighboring cultures. Many are obsessed with migrating to Europe or America, and Iranians tend to claim some sort of European lineage to set themselves apart from their neighboring peoples. The government's excessive reliance on Islam to justify itself has created a popular aversion to Arab culture, and has fostered a ridiculous notion among many intellectuals that Iran must "purify" its culture and language of Arab and foreign influence. Iranian youth today are often more jaded than their American counterparts, as the public banning of "un-Islamic" behavior has fostered a decadent underground of sex, liquor and drugs. I state these criticisms not as an outsider looking down on Iran, but as an Assyrian-Iranian exile who wishes for his countrymen to live up to their own broad-minded and enlightened past.
Gunther Travan
California (Aug 27, '04)


Regarding The reinvented, more youthful al-Qaeda [Aug 25]. It's a doomed movement. It's going to take on the US, India, China and Russia - some 3 billion people? Fat chance. What fools. And you are too for trumping up their image.
Dan Piecora
Seattle, Washington (Aug 26, '04)


I am a regular visitor to your site as I find your articles to have the kind of depth in reporting and the acumen in analysis that is so needed in the dailies but is so absent, leading only to ignorance by the general population who seem only to have time to flash on the headlines but end up focusing on the movie timetables or sports statistics. The greatest tragedy in the current Mideast crisis is the overall attitude and knowledge of the American population. As I stated above - ignorance. While many individuals and anti-war groups have arisen, their ability to generate widespread interest and support seems limited to those groups who like to protest in the nude chasing butterflies (no offense to such, but really!). While it is obvious that it is in the best interest of America to simply say no, we will not support efforts to oppress native dissent, the truth of the matter is, as [Pepe] Escobar so emphatically points out [Martyrdom or victory for Muqtada, Aug 24], the long-term objectives of American foreign policy in the region is at the heart of the entire scenario. The real challenge to the crisis of Iraq includes the mobilization of the American population to realize that the costs in money and in lives should not be measured by the values of the rich who only stand to gain while the middle class continues its slide into poverty. This approach should be the sword that the anti-war movement in America needs to use in awaking the population to the consequences of the horror of what [President George W] Bush and his lackeys have done ...
Jerry (Aug 26, '04)


The long delay in the development of a functioning government in Myanmar acceptable to the international community should have by now exposed the futility of the so-called [constructive] Engagement and Asian Way as advocated by Singapore and some other ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] leaders as our unique way of solving difficult political problems in the region [One year on, Myanmar marks time, Aug 24]. It was quite clear from the beginning that the group of self-appointed generals [ruling Myanmar] are interested only on one thing - hanging on to their jobs and power at all cost. Perhaps it is time (14 years after NLD [the National League for Democracy] won about 80% of the parliamentary seats in the last election) for [United Nations Secretary General] Kofi Annan to take the lead. For a start, he needs to convince the communist leaders in China that it is in their long-term interest to let a proper functioning government emerge in Myanmar - without the cooperation of communist China, it will be quite difficult to break this stalemate. The leaders of ASEAN should also face up to their collective responsibility to the region and help to [persuade] the generals to come to a meaningful power-sharing arrangement. With the full cooperation of China and ASEAN, there is no doubt that the stalemate would be resolved soon and thus rescue the 53 million people who are now living in boiling water.
Dell
Singapore (Aug 26, '04)


I don't usually pay too much attention to letters debating religion. Arnold Toynbee's letter of August 25 caught my attention, though. Is he basically saying that Western countries and citizens should be more Christian and shy away from multiculturalism? It seems to me that organized religion and strong beliefs for or against have actually been the biggest cause of suffering over the years, especially recently. I don't follow any particular religion, but the only non-trouble-causing religion that comes to my mind is Buddhism. Finally, I disagree with Britain being lumped together in the "neo-modern" category with the United States. The Church is now largely irrelevant in Britain and much of mainland Europe, so I would have to say that the US is largely on its own.
Peter Mitchelmore (Aug 26, '04)


[Re Arnold] Toynbee's letter of August 25 ... It would be the so-called "neo-moderns" (a term intended to convey that this cabal is composed of individuals in addition to the neo-con cabal who are primarily non-Christians) who intuitively learned from Israel how to save the culture and soul of Western civilization. A review of the photos taken at the Abu Ghraib facility in Baghdad attests to the truism that Judeo-Christian men and women (neo-moderns) are unsurpassed in their zeal to save Western civilization with ardor and pleasure. It is as all important issues are resolved in terms of the common man/woman and goes something as follows in challenging the neo-cons/neo-moderns: "Who the f... do you people think you are?" or better still: "Why not build a wall like Israel and hide behind it?"
ADeL (Aug 26, '04)


[Re ATol note under Toynbee letter, Aug 25] First, I am not sure how comfortable or secure a New York library is these days. Second, if my letters seem "America-centric" then I think I have succeeded, since what I originally set out to do here is to explain the American point of view, in the context of a certain philosophy of history - the theory of challenge and response. Third, I agree that Islamic terrorism was a real threat to Western civilization before September 11 [2001], but it seems self-evident that the West did not take it very seriously before that. As for making the West safer, that really is not the point of what I have written, my entire thesis being that the shape of history and the fate of nations depend upon challenge and response, and that being safe and secure may very well mean that a civilization is headed for oblivion. Spengler has addressed this very issue in this forum. Norway is probably one of the safest places on Earth, but will it even exist a century from now? The Jewish nation has suffered unimaginable persecution and war, including outright attempts to annihilate it, throughout five millennia, and they exist to this day as a cohesive and incredibly prosperous group. Just as matter is made more dense by pressure, so too a people is kept together by external threats. What exactly have the costs of the American-led response to the Islamists been to other civilizations? The Islamists would utterly erase and destroy the great achievements of their own civilization if they had their way. The Wahhabist Saudis have all but eliminated the past glories of Mecca and Medina. Amazingly, the American-led effort, if successful, will help save Muslim civilization from itself. Finally, what the neo-moderns are up to is not really an American empire, although it may look that way - if anything it is a new British empire, a Churchillian vision of the union of English-speaking peoples around the world. As such it includes at its center the ultimate Anglo-American social-religious experiment - the resuscitated state of Israel. Perhaps that is one reason it has met with such opposition.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 26, '04)


To say that the answer to 99 questions out of a 100 is money amounts [Terence Redux letter, Aug 25], I believe, to a redux ad absurdum. American domestic and foreign policy is to a very large extent determined by which interest groups control which politicians. For example, what economic or money interests of the USA does the embargo on Cuba really serve? The perfectly obvious answer is "none". What it does serve is also perfectly obvious - especially to someone living in Miami. Similarly, one could argue that if oil is the key to our [the United States'] Middle East foreign policy, pissing off the Arabs, who ostensibly own most of that oil, would be the silliest thing that we could possibly do. And yet we do it. Why? Even if Mr Redux is not the fool he thinks he is, and the answer is "money", I would have to add that it is the money of the political lobbies in Washington and its influence on American politicians that is the full answer. And as for [Andrew] Berman [letter, Aug 24], with all due respect and without animosity, I have to tell you that it is sickening how most American Jews don the mantle of victimhood in order to "unconditionally" (to quote Colin Powell) support Israel's heinous behavior toward the Palestinians. You have to face the fact that you are the oppressors and the butchers this time around. Your mantle of victimhood is a fig leaf that cannot hide your viciousness and inhumanity. Just because it is not reported as such in the American media does not make what you're doing to the Palestinians any less repulsive and immoral.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Aug 26, '04)


I suggest Taiwan should exploit the wit and eloquence of [letter writer] Daniel McCarthy and ask him to give a speech at the United Nations so that Taiwan may be admitted a member of the world body, like any other independent country. Then he naturally should serve as Taiwan's ambassador to the UN on American approval.
Seung Li
USA (Aug 26, '04)


Parag Vohra's desire of wiggling his tail or bubbling his head to his white masters is the right behavior [letter, Aug 25]. All others are xenophobic. Let us not forget, there were a large number of East Indians who served in the Japanese Army during World War II. A large number of Taiwanese solders were responsible for the killing of Americans in the Philippines too. Like it or not, we all live in a fiction world [see Frank's letter of Aug 25, and ATol note]. Anybody see gods walking or floating around somewhere? Anybody see a real free, fair and democratic country existing somewhere? The boundary between a real and fiction world is not very clear. Is the fiction world more stable or peaceful than a real one? It depends. Some fiction-world beliefs make people kill each other. Some will keep us safe. If the fiction world keeps people from killing each other, why do we want to change that? Will a war with mainland China bring Taiwan peace and stability?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 26, '04)

The point is that we don't know whether self-delusion is more efficient than reality at preventing war in the long term. Your argument is that, in the case of Taiwan, it does, and you have evidence on your side: China so far has limited its bellicosity to verbal threats and insults, as have pro-independence Taiwanese and their foreign backers. As long as both sides are satisfied with the current state of affairs, all bluster and no bombs, so much the better for everyone. It's a similar argument about whether the Cold War was justifiable because it was preferable to a hot war, which it allegedly prevented through the policy of mutually assured destruction. The counter-argument is that things could easily have gone very badly during that period, with some hothead actually pushing "the button" and wiping us all out, and we were just lucky that Mikhail Gorbachev came along when he did. A similar counter-argument in the Taiwan debate would be that failure to settle the issue in a realistic way satisfactory to both mainlanders and islanders is a recipe for eventual conflict. - ATol


Dear Syed Saleem Shahzad: A lot is appearing these day in the press and media by way of self-analysis, self-criticism, and even self-condemnation that during the last 57 years we [Pakistan] as a nation have not been able to achieve much or even decide for ourselves as to what form of government, presidential or parliamentary, federation or confederation, we should have. My advice to the nation is not to have any such remorse and instead condemn, and condemn severely without any mercy or compassion, the handful of looters and plunderers that have had been in one garb or the other at the helm of the affairs of this hapless country. It is they who have brought us to this dismal situation and need to be denounced well and proper. They must be ostracized from the society as untouchable carriers of unpatriotic and communicable diseases of corruption, nepotism and avariciousness. The nation as a whole is wonderful and second to none in the world. Zara nam ho to yeh mitti bari zarkhaiz hai saqi.
Colonel Riaz Jafri (retired)
Rawalpindi, Pakistan (Aug 26, '04)

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan bureau chief for Asia Times Online. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com. - ATol


I came to know Asia Times recently and have often marveled at the insightful articles on it, especially David Scofield's. I have become an ardent fan of his articles and whenever I read them I am impressed by his in-depth knowledge of and keen insight into Korea issues even though he's not a Korean but a Brit.
Gomdori
Jeju, South Korea (Aug 26, '04)


The [W Joseph] Stroube commentary [Religion and geopolitics: Ties that bind, Aug 25] is true [but] only in the context of how certain people use religion to forward their own personal desires. I can speak clearly for Christianity that none, not one, of these political machinations are anywhere near those teachings of Jesus. And I know [enough] of other religions to reasonably say that they are being used wrongly as well. For those users of Jesus, the act of loving one's enemy is a big-time no-no.
John Anderson (Aug 25, '04)


I am flattered by Tino Tan's offer [letter, Aug 24] of becoming of a Singaporean citizen and becoming an MP [member of parliament] but to be polite, I have other engagements elsewhere. Also, I would not like to be sued and persecuted (eg Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party, Tang Liang Hong of the Workers Party) if I were to decide to enter Singaporean politics - which I believe is in the minds of your other countrymen who might harbor political ambitions. In any case, I don't think I am qualified to be a professional politician. I doubt that "apolitical" people would bother picking up the pen and contribute letters to Asia Times. I will continue to wait for a letter from a Singaporean that is not an echo of the Straits Times or the PAP [People's Action Party] newsletter. Concerning the Singaporean media in general, I doubt that similarly any article critical of the ruling party would arise. Maybe I can introduce you to two of Australia's leading newspapers: The Age (www.theage.com.au) and the Australian (www.theaustralian.news.com.au). I would also like to refer to the [Aug 24 ATol] article Singapore, the safe haven. I have difficulties in identifying whether it is an op-ed piece, one of the Monetary Association of Singapore's information webpages or a detailed analysis of the subject at hand - like most of Asia Times' other articles.
Omega Lee (aka Clement)
Melbourne, Australia (Aug 25, '04)


[Re] Iran: The babble and the bomb [Aug 21] and letters following. It appears that all the authors have missed the primary point of the conflict. For Iran and some of the other Islamic nations of the Middle East, the conflict is all about destroying Israel. For most of the rest of the world it is about the flow of oil at market prices. We have seen over the last few months the impact on the world's economy of the record prices of oil. Not all of that effect has been aggregated to the United States. I would submit that were oil to stop flowing from the Persian Gulf, the People's Republic of China, Japan and even Taiwan would come to an immediate understanding that oil must start flowing again and they will do whatever is necessary to re-establish that flow. Outside of the United States and a few other countries, the rest of the world doesn't care whether Israel exists or not. In fact, if it would stabilize the Middle East, they will accept the destruction of Israel and not even raise a finger. But the problem is that if Israel feels threatened, like when Iran "goes nuclear" and has, or is close to, a deliverable nuclear weapon, significant parts of Iran will be converted to subatomic particles. If one of those places happens to be Kharg Island, more than Israel will be upset about ayatollahs with nukes. If Israel really wants to get the rest of the world involved in their problems with Iran, all they have to do is threaten to shut down the oil flow. As long as Israel exists and is secure, the oil flows. Otherwise, Israel not only destroys Iran's known nuclear facilities, it destroys its oil industry. Threatening to shut down access to the world's third-largest known oil reserves will get immediate worldwide attention. So the solution to most of the problems in the Middle East is very simple. All the current and future governments in that region sincerely promise to keep the oil flowing at market prices. After that, we don't care much who runs what country or what minor conflicts exist between them. But the flow of oil at market prices implies multiple suppliers in the region competing against each other for market share based upon the quality of their oil, their production capability and the effect that has on the price of a barrel of their oil. If the Iranians want to start making electricity with nuclear power and sell the oil they might otherwise use to generate electricity, that's fine. In fact, the consuming world would be much happier if the ayatollahs took all the money they are spending on nuclear weapons and spent it improving their oil industry infrastructure. So for those who are predicting dire consequences, let me assure you that should the flow of oil stop, or even become more restricted, the consuming nations of the world will do something about it. If the ayatollahs really want to see forces gather for a regime change, just do something that stops the oil. Then it will not only be the forces of the United States they will face, but most likely also the Chinese, Japanese, EU and everyone else whose economy is at serious risk.
Richard Radcliffe
Apple Valley, California
bigbird@kwamt.com (Aug 25, '04)


Two letters written to ATol on the subject of Ehsan Ahrari's Iran: The babble and the bomb [Aug 21] have peaked my interest. First, there is the letter from Jose R Pardinas, PhD, who writes: "The ability of Israel and the USA to act militarily with absolute impunity in the Middle East rests ultimately on their implicit capacity to deploy nuclear weapons." I would argue that this assertion is absolutely false. The good Dr Pardinas has forgotten that the answer to 99 questions out of 100 is "money". The United States can act with impunity because it is the world's consumer, the world's best customer; and perhaps Dr Pardinas would be kind enough to explain who in the world is willing to lose their best customer? The United States can act with impunity because the rest of the world gets to keep doing business with it. I very much doubt the whole world shakes in fear of the US nuclear arsenal, as if it were wielded with an itchy trigger finger. That shivering was the exclusive property of the Soviet Union. Dr Pardinas also writes: "For Iran, accepting the status quo on nuclear-weapons possession would amount to a surrender of its very survival to Israel and the USA," as if the United States and Israel were the biggest threat to Shi'ite Muslims and the Shi'ite Islamic republic that is Iran. Dr Pardinas writes these words as if the people most gunning for Iran were the Americans (and their would-be sidekicks the Israelis). Dr Pardinas seems to be falling into the same trap Ehsan Ahrari reserved for "Western experts" as they make frightening (and wrong) predictions. And on that note, let's try a different set of frightening (and possibly wrong) predictions. It seems obvious to an uneducated fool like me, and should be obvious to a man such as Dr Pardinas, that a nuclear-capable Iran would ruffle more feathers than [those] of the Americans. It would ruffle feathers of those who have in the past shown no compunction in murdering Shi'ites by the thousands and millions. I would argue that nuclear capability for Iran would most certainly doom it, as soon as it unveiled the first nuclear capable device. Next we have a letter from Vincent Maadi who writes in a paranoid and racist rant, "The disarming of Iraq should be a lesson to all the Third World countries, and Iran should not and must not give up its nuclear option because the West's nuclear weapons are for exclusive use on the non-white people of the world." Perhaps Vincent Maadi should be given a Nobel Prize for discovering alternate realities; because in his universe, the Cold War never happened. For 50 years nuclear weapons were things that the USA and USSR pointed at each other, each being the projected and exclusive recipient of the others' payloads. But not in Vincent Maadi's universe, where nuclear weapons were invented with ability to distinguish between "white" skin and "non-white" skin; which throws into question the fate of light-skinned Iranians - will they survive the blast along with the cockroaches in Vincent Maadi's alternate reality? ...
Terence Redux
USA (Aug 25, '04)


Dale Stoy: One must be careful to not express a smug sarcasm which leaks like a Bush War Crimes Family ship of state. You write [letter, Aug 23]: "... Ehsan Ahran [Iran: The babble and the bomb, Aug 21] uses the phrase 'Western-style democracy'. Implicit in this statement is the idea that there is an 'Eastern-style' democracy. I would like to learn the author's definition of both and examples of the latter." The answer to your question is obvious: Israel is an "Eastern-style" "democracy". And, as implicit in your statement and question is denunciation of the idea of an "Eastern-style" "democracy", I agree with you. Israel is an apartheid "democracy" in which even Jews are classed by Jews as to whether they are the "right" kind of Jew. And beneath that hierarchy of some three classes (lowest of which are Sephardic Jews) are all who are not Jewish by blood, proper ancestral heritage, or proclaimed "religion". I, too, pine (but without the derision) for an "Eastern-style" democracy which is such, in accordance with the meanings and intents of whichever the sovereign people have and declare it. "Self-determination", as it is termed by the US's resident supremacists who are, in all things, manifestly a superior race. Alas, that contradiction doesn't allow for such in the "East" when it meddles, so it appoints a former Saddam Hussein hitman and rival, and CIA-backed terrorist, [Iyad] Allawi, and calls it "democracy". Which latter we are given to assume the US actually means to be perceived as "democracy". The only significant difference between Hussein and Allawi is that the US never accused Hussein of "democracy" when it was not true.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 25, '04)

To read Ehsan Ahrari's response to comments on his article, please click here.  - ATol


The Taiwan Strait has been in a stable peaceful stalemate situation for more than 50 years. Lawrence Grinter's article Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan [Aug 21] outlined the triggers of a transformation from peace to war. If [President] Chen Shui-bian thinks that there is no need for Taiwan to declare independence, what is the rationale to push for a declaration of independence now? Especially [as] everybody knows that such a declaration will trigger a war. [Letter writer] Daniel McCarthy seems to understand that; however, he still wants to push those Taiwanese pawns forward to start a war. Why? Why cannot we let the people of both sides of the Taiwan Strait live in a peaceful fiction world for another 10-20 years? By then, hopefully, the ideological hatred between brothers will be replaced by economic needs of each other. By then, both sides can sit down and discuss a peaceful resolution of this long-lasting stalemate. Why do you want to see a war in East Asia now?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 25, '04)

Living in a "fiction world", ie the China-Taiwan status quo, may seem peaceful, but it is arguable whether it is really any more stable, or less dangerous, than a world in which fantasies are dealt with. - ATol


I find it interesting to see that [letter writer] Frank's constant refrain is for "white people" to leave Asia alone. The last time this xenophobic refrain was used by the Imperial Japanese Army [it was] to devastating effect. I am sure Frank knows the consequences of that philosophy and how it took "white" imperialism to bring back peace and stability.
Parag Vohra
Washington, DC (Aug 25, '04)


Although I must admit to [being] a non-passionate as well as a non-partisan observer, I believe that [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy is beating a dead horse (as the saying goes on the reservation). The fact that Chang Kai-shek, an officially admitted ex-ruler of China (mainland), moved to Taiwan with his entourage and ruled there for many a year without any "Taiwanese" revolts and maintained that he would eventually return to free "the mainland" would under any court of law justify the legality of an entity called China that does include Taiwan. Unless of course the Taiwanese opt to become part of the US as Hawaii did.
Armand DeLaurell
On the Texas border (Aug 25, '04)


To understand why India as a rising power ([Aug 20] Yevgeny Bendersky) may be tomorrow but not today, just read the accompanying article by Kunal Kumdu (India's public sector means less for more [Aug 20]). When you have the majority of your resources being used to support [the] welfare of a very few (the 5 million-odd government and government-owned companies' employees), it is not very hard to find economic stagnation and poverty. Case in point are the recent oil-price hikes. It is great to remove subsidies, especially for a product that is imported at a very high cost. But the fact that rising cost does not change demand or consumption patterns only reinforces the fact that the government is a large consumer of this commodity and it will simply pass on this "added" cost by raising taxes. Now you know how inflation is caused in India.
AP (Aug 25, '04)


I ran into an old article, Asia observers failing to see clearly [Jul 4, '03], by David Isenberg, and would like to make one small comment. In the article, Mr Isenberg said that China has resolved border disputes with numerous neighbors and cited that as China's genuine intention to join the world community. However, one close look into China's border settlements shows that they all resulted in China's territorial gains.
Alphonse (Aug 25, '04)


Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a few things. The modern age in the West dawned at the time of the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe - about which much has been written. Christendom and the old order gave way to nation states and denominations, each with its own dominant culture, language, and religious affiliation. English Reformed Christianity proved to be the most vigorous of the new groups, and its crowning glory was the founding and peopling of what would become the new leading nation of the West, the United States. Part of the reason the United States has proved so powerful is that it became a re-coalescence of fractured European Christendom, reinvigorated with open space and new ideas, and strengthened by the challenge of the frontier and its dangers. It might also be helpful to recognize that two camps are now battling, or at least seem to be battling, for the soul of the West. One, which I would call the post-modern, is exemplified by secular-state atheism, socialism, and moral relativism. It refuses to espouse any positive belief other than a radical vision of individuality, leading to an atomistic society. Family and church are seen as hindrances in the pursuit of self-realization, as the purpose of the state is to foster self-realization by means of enforcing uniform education, opportunity and, if that fails, outcome. At its core, this camp is self-consumed and illiberal, which is why I do not call it by its popular name of liberalism. I find it helpful to identify this camp with France, whose actions and movements throughout the last five centuries, beginning with the persecution and expulsion of the Huguenots but not really apparent until the French Revolution, have made her the mother of post-modernism. The other camp, which I would call modern, or perhaps neo-modern as a resurgence of modernism, is exemplified primarily by certain characteristically Western religious beliefs and traditions, primarily Magisterial Reformed/Protestant Christianity (which in the last century has split into Evangelical/Fundamentalist and Liberal), and more recently, the previously and in some ways still pre-modern Tridentine Roman Catholicism and Conservative and Orthodox Judaism. Patriotism, and a certain belief in Manifest Destiny, perhaps a spiritual outgrowth of the doctrine of Providence, have also characterized this latter group, and have led to some of its excesses. This group is more easily identified with the United States and its parent country Britain. Although spawned at the French Revolution from the seed of the Wars of Religion, post-modernism only began to come into its own in the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution and its technologies had the twin effects of the creation of time for thought (and boredom/ennui), and the destruction of traditional religious belief. The moderns still held sway, although their hold was weakened, up through the evaporation of Soviet communism. As that threat dissipated and the West relaxed from its Cold War clenchedness, the post-moderns made some rather amazing gains, in the US somewhat ironically with the cooperation and assistance of Liberal Protestantism and its institutions. The adoption of "diversity" as dogma and the ongoing "sexual revolution" are recent American examples. Also ironically, the US protected France and Germany, who form the core of resistance to its policies in the war against Islamic terrorists, from Soviet aggression for a half-century. Victor Davis Hanson has suggested that this protection, after the ravages of the great wars, is the very thing that allowed those nations to become soft and pursue a course of post-modern secular-state atheist socialism. This is strangely similar to the US providing arms to Islamic radicals in Afghanistan, and another example of how the effort to defeat Soviet communism overrode all other concerns. The neo-moderns appear to have learned an important lesson from that and have pursued a different course in the current war against Islamic terrorism. At any rate, the reappearance of a real external threat to Western civilization on September 11, 2001, suddenly stopped the tide of post-modern, relativist absurdism in the US and, to a lesser extent, in Europe. The opposition to post-modernism had been growing for some time, but human nature being what it is, it took a real threat to make a difference. And so what the neo-moderns are winning, in an admittedly bloviated nutshell, is the culture war for the soul of Western civilization. It should be noted that the rules by which I judge the situation are by no means uniquely Western, but rather universal. As the Chinese sage Mencius noted in the 4th century BC, "As a rule, a state without law-abiding families and trustworthy gentlemen on the one hand, and, on the other, without the threat of external aggression, will perish. Only then do we realize that anxiety and distress lead to life and that ease and comfort end in death." The neo-moderns, perhaps inspired by the example of Israel, intuitively understand this, while the post-moderns yearn for the comfort that leads to oblivion.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 25, '04)

Well, maybe from the relative comfort of a New York library the turmoil wrought worldwide by your "neo-moderns", whom everyone else calls neo-conservatives, looks like the salvation of Western civilization, but we find your analysis America-centric. For just one example, international terrorism was "a real external threat to Western civilization", primarily in Europe, long before it hit Americans as well on September 11, 2001. And while the European reaction to such threats may be less Mencian than you would prefer, there is little evidence that the US approach has made Western civilization any safer - many think the contrary is true - or that the cost to other civilizations is worth it. Further, your claim that "what the neo-moderns are winning ... is the culture war for the soul of Western civilization" is surely overwrought when every non-American civilization has in one way or another vigorously resisted the neo-conservative model of an American empire. - ATol


Dennis Castle ([letter] Aug 24) is either a very, very bad reader or a transparently dishonest writer to assign to me positions, conditions and views that I briefly point out in order to challenge. But he did catch me craftily cherry-picking a few of Jesus' ideas, so in my next letter I will include the whole New Testament. Then we can see that "resist not evil" and "care not for tomorrow" have been taken wildly out of context, as have the Beatitudes - a throwaway monologue. This will be made even clearer by citing the many occasions where Jesus implores his disciples to hack and cleave their enemies and to pursue material wealth. But seriously folks, should Christians be only slaves and martyrs? If you take Jesus literally - which is to say if you take the religion seriously and believe that a non-competitive life yields spiritual rewards and eternal life can be gained through suffering in this world - then you definitely run the risk of winding up on the shitty end of the stick. But then Jesus had no inclination to build a state-capitalist civilization bent on incorporating all life and material into itself. He didn't even have a serious idea about community organizing, so the early Christian communities shared their meager means amongst themselves not to demonstrate a modern political model - an extrapolation Castle apparently makes and then overcomes with his idiotic farm-pharm comparison - but "communistic" fairly describes the shared values of early Christians. The point I was making, obviously, is that Christian spiritual individualism is not translatable into entrepreneurial spirit, and I assumed that most readers wouldn't need to see this written in crayon. The problem is that a religion that makes sense for the individual is being used, again and again, to orient people to a cause that contradicts it - why not just talk about straight power concepts? But Castle wants to keep "Christian" soldiers on the warpath and the plunder flowing in the right direction, so for his kind all discussion necessarily leads to the same conclusion and even flashing lights won't check his rhetorical stride. On to Israel: If my pointing to Israel as a major factor in US policy in the Middle East is a degeneration of views, then how low must one go to place Castle's worn-out, obnoxious equation that treats critical opinion as being tantamount to desiring "Jew-killing privileges", or some comparable bluster designed to extinguish expressions of self-interests or rational discussion and thought. It is here invoked in the effort to shame and cow people and deter them from seriously assessing either the nature of the Israeli state, its conduct and even the divisions within it, because to do so would complicate matters for "pro-Israel" and millenarian fanatics. Perhaps a quarter of Israelis are atheists (and many of them, other secular Jews and the ultra-orthodox, are fearful of the Christian Right), and within Israel there is a long-standing opinion among articulate and rational people that US hawks (Jewish or not) and subsidies have distorted the society, militarizing it and favoring aggression and expansion over reconciliation - this kind of knowledge thickens the air against those who call for a continuing crusade and makes Castle's kind of simplification look pushy and inane. On the other side of the ocean, a recent Zogby poll found that 45% of US Jews and 49% of conservative, born-again Christians approve of an Israeli accountability act for "maintaining programs of weapons of mass destruction and for its human-rights violations in the Palestinian Territories", these being the other half of a dialogue that Castle and his ilk desperately want to prevent. He goes on to cutely observe neo-conservative accomplishments: the ousting of the Taliban (but not the warlords' return and opium production); the demise of Saddam [Hussein] (but not the chaos and uncertainty); Libya's tactical adjustments (but not the persistence of Iran or North Korea to develop nuclear weapons); and the demonstration effect of US aggression that he hopes doesn't fall flat on its face, and others hope won't catalyze another world war. Castle's estimate that Israel's enemies are in their historically worst position is probably true, but the unhappy part is that thanks to [rude word deleted] like Castle himself this is becoming generally true for everyone.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 25, '04)


Note: Asia Times Online published three letters on August 23 about Ehsan Ahrari's August 21 article Iran: The babble and the bomb. Dr Ahrari responds to all three here. - ATol (Aug 24, '04)


I refer to Iran: The babble and the bomb [Aug 21] by Ehsan Ahrari. Ahrari has probably lived too long in the West and is probably suffering from Westoxication, a disease that afflicts most of those brought up on Western education. Fortunately, the Iranian leadership is neither Westoxicated nor stupid. In comparison to many Muslim countries, Iran has made tremendous progress towards self-sufficiency in various fields, and despite American and British efforts to isolate it, it has established itself solidly in the world arena and commands the respect most of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The disarming of Iraq should be a lesson to all the Third World countries, and Iran should not and must not give up its nuclear option because the West's nuclear weapons are for exclusive use on the non-white people of the world. America's policy of preemption was designed specifically to keep the non-white countries of the world under its heels to rule over them as colonial masters for eternity. A nuclear Iran led by a committed Islamic leadership is a deterrent to the neo-colonial aspirations of the West. America and its poodle will have to think very carefully before taking on Iran.
Vincent Maadi (Aug 24, '04)


I had to question myself as to why after reading Pepe Escobar's report on the global oil situation, Oil's slippery slope (Aug 24), I didn't feel an urge to raise my hands to protect myself from the falling sky as I did when I read the reports of the top oilmen of the world's largest oil conglomerates reporting the same information.The answer I found was that Pepe didn't tell us there are currently no solutions to the energy problem that will work, as [US President George W] Bush's top energy adviser and other oil industry leaders do. Here's my simple Texas solution for Americans to the oil "crisis", the American manufacturing crisis and the war in Iraq. All Americans demand those huge diesel pickup trucks that Texans are so fond of from the auto industry and refuse to buy any that aren't made in America. Ask any Texan, What would you rather buy, a big pickup truck for 30 grand or a tank that you don't get to drive for 5 mil? Since Bush hails from Texas, I think the least we Texans can do is implement this plan. Like my dad (the great kidder and independent oilman who told me natural gas is seemingly endless) told me once, I brought you into this world, I can take you out. The only foreseeable problem that I can see to this solution would come from the No 1 rival of the Dallas Cowboys (football team), the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Beth Bowden
Texas (Aug 24, '04)


Re Singapore, the safe haven [Aug 24]. Would Aileen Saw care to elaborate on what business can do in Singapore given that it has a rather small domestic market and few industries? I find it puzzling that street safety, cleanliness and efficiency in the mass transit system are major relevant considerations for investment. I wonder why anyone would invest in the US or Russia, where streets are mostly not safe or clean and public transportation like buses and trains is hopelessly inadequate (think of Los Angeles and the vast region west of the Urals in Russia), or what effects on business would be if 80-year-olds and 15-year-olds cannot walk alone at 3am. Or are these simply just what Singapore can offer, and the question of their bearing on business is put aside?
Paul Law
Berlin, Germany (Aug 24, '04)


I refer to the letter by Clement (Aug 23) ... In my reply (Aug 20) to Omega Lee, part of it was edited out - "We have never learned to trust the press, or any press for that matter. Most of the media (Western, Eastern, or anywhere else) suffer from an internal bias. Who watches the watchdogs then? As for the lack of opposition, how did it get to that stage? It was not for lack of opportunities as previous examples can attest. Instead, many of the opposition were interested in showboating. When we have more credible opposition, like Mr Chiam (Singapore People's Party, SDA) or Mr Low (Worker's Party), then the nature of the government will change." Yes, I will not hesitate to say that the PAP [People's Action Party] government is paternalistic, a "father knows best" type of behavior which at times seems stifling. However, is Clement saying that the government of the country (I am curious [which one] since he did not indicate) in which he resides makes every policy in consultation with him? That would mean constant referendums, and the only country that does so is Switzerland. However, the question remains: Is there a better party? As the election results and general opinion indicate, Singaporeans prefer to have the PAP run the show with opposition members keeping a check. Well, if Clement is so keen about changing our governance, please come to Singapore and become a citizen. Then, if you feel more strongly about it, register yourself or a party and maybe we'll vote you in as an MP [member of parliament]. In the past, it might be possible to say that the flow of information can be strictly controlled, and our thinking conditioned to a certain party's thoughts. In this day and age, however, I can always take a flight out (been to the US, Europe, Australia, China) or log on to the Internet to find out about the world and compare. In fact, I find it condescending that others take a better-than-thou attitude and tell us what to do and/or think. If this is what a so-called "liberal democrat" does, how far away are you from being a fascist or totalitarian? Or is it still a colonial mindset disguised as "political progression" or "bringing a civilizing influence"? Personally, I am apolitical - I don't care about wearing this or that party's T-shirt or waving their banners - but I do care about what they can do for Singapore. My definition of a stakeholder is someone who will be left to pick up the pieces. As the recent SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] and prior financial crises demonstrated, apart from the World Health Organization, did any "liberal democracy" come to our assistance or did they stand back, wag their tongues and fold their arms? It is easy for one sitting somewhere else in the world to lecture to us about trying to conform to their ideal type. In fact, if there is one country that we try to emulate, it is Switzerland. Now, we don't hear them haranguing other countries, do we?
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Aug 24, '04)


In Lawrence Grinter's article Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan [Aug 21] the author stated, "Beijing faces the dilemma of having to live with Taiwanese measures that come right up to, but stop just short of, a formal declaration." Actually, Lee Tung-hui, Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu have stated many times that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation that is not part of any other country, including China. Such statements have been made in declarative form. China chooses to ignore such statements, however, because they dispel the fiction on which the one-China concept is based and because they would force Beijing to act if acknowledged. Further, if Taiwan were to create a written declaration of independence, the declaration of independence would by its existence be an acknowledgement that Taiwan is part of China (even though it is not). So Taiwan will not create a declaration of independence, and Beijing will continue to warn Taiwan against doing something that Taiwan would not do in any event. This plays very well in Beijing's fictional one-China world, but it unfortunately means that it is nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about Taiwan's status with many people in China. The dialogue goes something like this: Chinese: "If Taiwan declares independence there will be war." Taiwanese: "Taiwan is already an independent country. There is no need to declare independence from a country that we are not part of (China)." Chinese: "Taiwan is part of China and if you declare independence there will be war." A rose by any other name ...
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 24, '04)


In regards to the article India as a rising power by Yevgeny Bendersky (Aug 21): Just as in fitness regimens, once the abdomen is sculptured, the rest of the body is more or less toned up, India is best advised to quietly develop economic prowess and witness everything else falling into place. Let there be no more overt display of keenness to play "a larger role in world affairs" et al. Just shut up and focus on the physical and social infrastructure in the country. It's a foregone conclusion that within the next couple of generations India will rise enormously in wealth and power. After all, no one - not even the government of India - can forever pin down the aspirations of a billion people. Let India take a leaf out of China's book and stop overt moralizing - in taking inflexible stances on Iraq or Palestine, for instance - and instead, unabashedly pursue naked self-interest, a la China. Ultimately India owes responsibility to its own people first, not to some abstraction called "world opinion".
Sudhir
Rochester, New York (Aug 24, '04)


Whenever I read a letter like the one from Jose Pardinas [Aug 23], I know that we indeed have contacted extraterrestrials: Only someone from another planet could write something as out-of-touch as "When Israel starts fearing for its very physical survival, it will start dealing more justly with its Arab neighbors." Let me quote some people from history, perhaps from a time when the letter-writer was not in our solar system:
"Kill the Jews wherever you find them, this is pleasing to Allah." - Mufti el Husseini, Radio Berlin 1943.
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." - Azzam Pasha, secretary general of the Arab League, May 15, 1948.
On May 27 the president of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel." - source BBC June 5, 1967.
"Death to Israel!" - source Iran - too numerous to count, continuously since 1979.
I could, of course, go on and on and on, but you get the point: Israel has ample justification to fear for its existence, and its fear of eradication is ample justification for its nuclear program.
Andrew Berman
New Jersey, USA (Aug 24, '04)


In his challenge to [Arnold] Toynbee, Joe Nichols' Aug 23 letter cherry-picks a few passages from the New Testament to insinuate that true Christians should either be slaves to tyrants or martyrs. He even writes that because some early Christians lived in communes, that made them communists (as though living on a farm makes one a pharmacist). I'll take Nichols' word that his world view was influenced by movies and "wretched fiction", but I certainly don't see Toynbee or anyone else owning such nonsense. What is always fascinating to me is how quickly his diatribe and those who hold his views degenerate into the "dilemma of Israel". If only the neo-conservatives would give everyone back their Jew-killing privileges they could earn some respect from Nichols and those on his side of the argument. To ATol, the neo-conservatives may not have won much (the removal of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and sons, the weapons program from Libya, an ongoing march against al-Qaeda and the certain knowledge of an American response to the support of Islamist terrorists aside), but this is no small accomplishment: those who threaten the nation and people of Israel have never been in a worse position in the history of the world.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 24, '04)


After much soul-searching and extensive research of a couple or three minutes about the much-ballyhooed views of the Anti-whiners, a simple and logical posit would be that Whiners (of which I am one) follow the dictum "I think therefore I am." Non-whiners symbolize the dictum "I kill therefore I am" or "It's only through killing others that I become." That retired US air force captain who enjoyed flying a jet more than having sex (at taxpayers' expense), no Whiner he, said it best: If you aim to kill me then I will kill you first [letter, Aug 17]. Logically then the other Non-whiner has as much right to do the same. What's left then is for a Whiner to shout to call out to the Non-whiners, "Let the killing games begin."
ADeL (Aug 24, '04)

A brief history of the world, n'est-ce pas? - ATol


[Re] Iran: The babble and the bomb by Ehsan Ahrari [Aug 21]. Mr Ahrari makes several good points. In addition I would like to see him follow the logic through of what will happen if the US and/or Israel do attack Iran. A friend of mine is convinced that if the US gets tied up in Iran then China will use the opportunity presented to try to take over Taiwan. He says China is already practicing air-raid drills in Shanghai and the US has practiced evacuating the head of Taiwan's government. Any comments or referrals to past/future articles would be appreciated.
Bach McClure (Aug 23, '04)

Have a look at The year to fear for Taiwan: 2006 (Apr 10). - ATol


[Re] Iran: The babble and the bomb [Aug 21]. I don't get Ehsan Ahrari's argument. The ability of Israel and the USA to act militarily with absolute impunity in the Middle East rests ultimately on their implicit capacity to deploy nuclear weapons. How can Ahrari counsel Islamic societies under such circumstances to accept permanent nuclear disarmament? Even an individual human being under the constant threat of physical violence would soon procure a stick, a stone, a knife or a gun for self-defense. How can it be different with nations? For Iran, accepting the status quo on nuclear-weapons possession would amount to a surrender of its very survival to Israel and the USA. Neither of these two countries merits such trust, as their behavior toward others has clearly indicated. I'd like to argue that even a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have to wait for, at least, a partial redressing of the power imbalance which currently obtains. When Israel starts fearing for its very physical survival, it will start dealing more justly with its Arab neighbors. And the Jewish political lobby in Washington, principally responsible for the violence visited on both Iraqis and Palestinians, will start pushing the American politicians toward more diplomatic approaches to the resolution of regional conflicts. The Iranians would have to be crazy to abandon their nuclear-weapons program!
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
Miami, Florida (Aug 23, '04)


In Iran: The babble and the bomb, Ehsan Ahrari uses the phrase "Western-style democracy". Implicit in this statement is the idea that there is an "Eastern-style" democracy. I would like to learn the author's definition of both and examples of the latter.
Dale Stoy
Saline, Michigan (Aug 23, '04)


In regards to the article India as a rising power by Yevgeny Bendersky (Aug 21): They say that the term "China expert" is an oxymoron - no truer than for those who try to predict the future. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, "experts" predicted that China was the next domino to fall, but instead China was the firewall to further disaster and the reason why all the economies around it are flourishing today. For years previous to China's admission to the World Trade Organization, "experts" predicted living under WTO rules would collapse China's economy. Instead, China launched skyward to become the second pillar behind the US to hold up the global economy. Everyone can see India touting the virtues of being colonized by the West and its choice to be on the losing side of the Cold War with the Soviets shows the rosy perfect path to the future, unlike China. Those that continue to predict the demise of China are more running on envious wishful thinking than the cold-hearted reality of fact. Too bad the so-called "players of the future" are more obsessed with holding titles than fighting poverty.
Perry
USA (Aug 23, '04)


[Re] Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan [Aug 21]. Taiwan is already independent. The Republic of Taiwan was founded in 1895, shortly before the Japanese invaded and used it as a stepping stone against China. Taiwanese used a series of resistance and guerrilla actions against the Japanese, who oppressed them. In 1945, the last of the Japanese moved out and the United States enacted the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In that treaty, control over Taiwan was returned to no one. Chiang Kai-shek and his supporters fled there in 1949 and Chiang set up his government-in-exile with hopes to recapture China from the communists some day, and of course that never happened. In 1958, the two superpowers actually engaged each other during the Kinmen War, with Taiwan (under the name ROC [Republic of China]) winning and gaining another island, Kinmen, from the Chinese (under the name PRC [People's Republic of China]). Chiang Kai-shek [was] no angel as many tend to think he [was]. He enacted martial law on Taiwan which repressed the Taiwanese people for 40 years and only his son, Chiang Ching-kuo, lifted it and gave Taiwan's freedom back to its people. When he died, Lee Teng-hui, who was then vice president (personally chosen by Chiang Ching-kuo for his similar vision of reform and the fact that Lee was a native Taiwanese), became president and continued the reforms. In 1996, Taiwan had its first direct presidential election. During this election, China fired some missiles and had them land close to Taiwan's shores. This intimidation by the Chinese backfired, with Lee Teng-hui winning the election. In 2000 and 2004, Chen Shui-bian won the election. The ROC-in-exile (also called pan-blue with its ally, the People First Party) is now just another guest on the island with the Pan-Green Group (consisting of the Democratic Progress Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union) as the main ruling party. While still carrying the name ROC, Taiwan is and has long been independent of the PRC. Taiwan is a democracy. Taiwan has its own armed forces, its own telephone country codes, its own currency, its own Internet code, and its own citizenship.
Alex Cross
Bothell, Washington (Aug 23, '04)


This is in reference to [Syed Saleem] Shahzad's [Aug 20] article Pakistan serves the US heads, not tales. He delineates the efforts of the intelligence agencies working in Pakistan well as he reports on their recent activities. However, he does a poor job of correlating this dragnet with the aspirations of peace-loving Pakistanis. This roundup of suspect terrorists is not happening in a vacuum. It is a well-known fact that all roads to international terrorism now go through Pakistan. Mr Shahzad's name-dropping alludes to this reality, but fails to capture the mood of the people of Pakistan, who are at Ground Zero and have had enough of these asinine jihadis. The war on terror, as concerns Pakistan, is no longer "so-called". The rogue elements identified by US and Pakistani intelligence are no longer a threat to the USA alone, but are wanted for crimes against the people of Pakistan. Local blood has been spilled, and local justice will be tossed. The beards can still muster ragtag bands of protesters to shout anti-American and anti-Musharraf slogans to make the 9 o'clock news; that much is true. But what is also true is the fact that the silent majority continues to distance itself from these harbingers of "jihad" and their brand of Islam and brotherhood. They have come to a point where they simply look the other way when a firebrand cleric is taken out of circulation. Pakistan's honeymoon with militant Islam has come to an end, and foreign men with heavy beards and heavy guns can no longer use the local madrassas as their Holiday Inn. You can give all the credit you want to the US, but this housecleaning has domestic momentum now.
Moiz Ali
Oregon, USA (Aug 23, '04)


I am a Pakistani-Canadian living in Toronto. This refers to ... a story on Pakistan by Syed Saleem Shahzad (Aug 19) under the title Pakistan turns on itself. In the preambulary note, a Pakistani general's hat is shown under a military boot. I wonder what this archetype has to do with the article, when the story is all about Jamat-i-Islami [JI], religious fundamentalists and Pakistan's coalition with the United States ... This image has absolutely no relevance with the story as neither [a] Pakistan general nor the military is against the United States. Under no circumstance could you condemn the general or the military. If the hat was under a terrorist gun, that would be a different scenario. It is disrespect to our general's hat with the army insignia on it. I seriously protest your unprofessional, unscholarly and sloppy journalistic policy. This is being highly rude, disrespectful and outrageous. Because you are journalists, that does not mean "zoo does not require cages".
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Aug 23, '04)

According to the article: "So both within Pakistan - including in the army - and abroad, the JI has deep links. By taking on the JI in Pakistan, Musharraf could face a situation of virtual civil war." And as the summary on the Front Page spells out: "The Pakistan government, by taking on the Jamaat-i-Islami ... is driving a stake into the very heart of Pakistani society, which includes the military." How to represent Pakistani society (which includes the military)? President General Pervez Musharraf's (military) hat serves, as he is leader of both civil and military society. How better to represent the pressures coming to bear on that society, from both within and without, than with a heavy-duty military boot about to stamp on that hat? The illustrator regrets he had not previously heard the expression "a zoo without cages" - that image, he feels, would have represented perfectly the situation in Pakistan. - ATol


Dear David Scofield: Your two articles on China and Koguryo [China puts Korean spat on the map, Aug 19; China ups ante in ancient-kingdom feud, Aug 11] are excellent and they helped me greatly to grasp the motivations of this historical distortion by the Chinese authorities. From the earliest times, Chinese annals speak of Koguryo as a kingdom and China's arch enemy. In AD 12, the Chinese, enraged by the victory of the armies of Koguryo, changed its name into Haguryo, replacing the Chinese character ko (gao in Chinese), "high", by the character ha (xia in Chinese), "low" (page 56 of my book Histoire de la Coree, 2000, Paris). Curiously, nobody, as far as I know, mentions the Japanese sources: the Nihonshoki (AD 720) where Koguryo is mentioned more than 15 times as a Korean kingdom. Even in the Manyoshu we find poems referring to Koma nishiki ("Koguryo brocade"), brought back to Japan by Japanese envoys. Hoping to read more from you on this subject - and on other themes.
Andre Fabre
Professor Emeritus
Paris School of Foreign Languages (Aug 23, '04)


First I read David Scofield's article China puts Korean spat on the map, [Aug 19], then I read the ATol editor's note [letters, Aug 20] saying that the article had been amended to take some of Shaun Darragh's objections [letter, Aug 19] into account. For the benefit of those of us who didn't see the original article, could you please tell us what exactly was changed? The article still treats China and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] as synonymous. It still entirely ignores the fact that Taiwan officially became a part of Fujian province in the 17th century - when the CCP and KMT [Kuomintang] did not exist - and a province in its own right in the late 19th century. China's claims to have owned Taiwan for 2,000 years might be debatable, and I take no position either way on China's demands on Taiwan now. But to suggest that China did not make those claims until 1941 is simply a lie. To support this argument, David Scofield refers to a draft paper by Alan Wachman. When the paper is actually published, could you inform us so that we can see Professor Wachman's arguments and evidence in his own words?
Robert Farr
Beijing, China (Aug 23, '04)


To Arnold Toynbee Jr (letter, Aug 20): For the "West", you champion the advocates of war and denigrate the rest as ineffectual "post-modern" slugs and whiners. This is a call to war. And this call to war is so obviously "faith-based" that your denial suggests several personalities, cognitive dissonance, or, perhaps, a preference on your part to appear aloof from your topic and non-ideological at the end of the day - which would be strange, because as I read them your arguments are ideological through and through. By this I mean that you prescribe a course of action on the basis of ideas, beliefs, and maybe doctrines, and the "rightness" of your prescription will theoretically depend on the legitimacy of your ideas, etc. Now, this is arguable along one important line - "rightness" can be either "true" to the extent that it can be determined, or it can be "good" for some purpose, group, cause, etc. For example, you depend heavily on the term "Christian" to make your case, but there is so little correlation possible between either the people and their history, the civilization or the cause that you advocate and the recommendations of Jesus, a normal mind must reel in the effort to bring them into focus together for any purpose. "Resist not evil", forsake material wealth and find God "within"; a virtual celebration of poverty (the Beatitudes), redemption through suffering, resignation and not war of any kind (care not for tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself) - these are Christian beliefs, none of which either you or Spengler or the majority of "Christians" apparently share. Fine, and I don't want to appear naive, but you should not indicate that your cause is a Christian one. Even though individualism can be extracted from Christianity by means of the soul concept ("which temple you are"), the original Christian communities were utterly communistic. Still, there is something to defend - a current civilization, a way of life and a body of ideas. But you are creating an insurmountable impasse to dialogue by romanticizing these things. I also grew up watching John Wayne, seeing and reading portrayals of European and American colonials "defending" themselves, and enjoying Mickey Rooney in Young Tom Edison, a movie showing us the way to a brighter tomorrow through entrepreneurial pluck. My point to you is that such material generates beliefs that should be looked at critically and honestly, and there is nothing post-modern about this (such labels obscure issues). In history, you must really bother over what it looked like on the ground, who fought whom for what - going through the details and comparing fine phrases to gritty reality. Then ask: Can the belief be salvaged after an examination of what actually happened? Can this belief be applied to what is actually happening now? From my view, the greater part of what you and most Americans believe about the past or the present is no more than wretched fiction, based on a narrative so contrived and tendentiously constructed that it is useless for anything except erecting obstacles to thought and discussion about current conditions and choices. Essentially, your mythical narrative presents us with false propositions that cannot be answered without breaking them down into meaningful statements and questions. As to your challenge about "creative alternatives" to the neo-con-moderns, there are so many out there and at your fingertips that the question only shows how narrowly you are casting your net for ideas and examples. Don't depend on government. But I'll give you this much. Guys like Paul Wolfowitz and R James Woolsey, at least, do strike me as having a good grasp of many of the most important dynamics challenging the continuation of American power and the dilemma of Israel. They are very intelligent, consider history closely and even understand a lot about environmental constraints and competition for resources (Woolsey, especially). They are even cynical men, unlike you. But they are flogging the dead horse of US hegemony (as much for Israel as anything) and leading people like you by the nose, hastening a catastrophe that won't affect their lives or families and only makes them appear more indispensable to the people they use along the way. Whatever they could win, it wouldn't be for people like you and me. We are paying for all their failures, though.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 23, '04)


I am always impressed with Arnold Toynbee Jr's clear explanations of the neo-conservative position. Regardless of your perspective, it is always helpful to find a non-hyperbolic thinker and writer who isn't just baiting the other side (thank you to all the writers on this forum on all sides of these issues who fit that description, it makes this space a daily must-read for me). Thus I am lax to take up ATol's challenge [Aug 20] to Toynbee to describe just what the neo-conservative side thinks it is "winning", because I have no doubt Toynbee will do a much better job. Allow me to take a stab at it nonetheless. I believe that neo-conservatives are not attempting to convert the world to a particular religion or force anyone to a particular lifestyle or grovel to some corporation. Instead I believe their goal is to make it possible for every nation to be ruled by the governed and to be able to choose whatever religion one wishes. In other words, the goal of neo-conservatives is individual liberty. The fact an Iraqi soccer player can speak derisively about his government without fear for himself or his family is victory. Neo-conservatism finds the cynicism that Arabs or Muslims are culturally incapable of liberty and freedom to be the height of racism and bigotry. What do neo-conservatives think they are "winning"? Whenever a person is free to despise neo-conservatives or any other idea without fear, that is victory.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 23, '04)

The neo-conservatives driving US foreign policy may well have lofty goals, but who doesn't? The point is that there is very little evidence the US neo-cons have achieved any such goals. Toynbee speaks as if the people he calls "neo-moderns" have actually "won" something worth crowing about. As he is an articulate neo-con apologist, we'd like to know what their achievements are in his view. - ATol


Arnold Toynbee, Jr [letter, Aug 20] clarifies his thesis on the clash of civilizations with definitions on neo-, post-, and pre-modern parties. He includes the Washington, DC-based neo-cons in the neo-moderns, French in the post-moderns and gathers up the Islamic terrorist in the pre-moderns. His central point is that the post-moderns have no belief and thus no creative response to the challenge, which is the war between the neos and pre-moderns. Assuming his triangular classification is correct, the most logical response for the post-moderns is to wait out the war between the other two classes and then defeat the weakened victor (ie RISK). Since this strategy is nothing new in world history, I imagine this is the reason he bemoans the lack of "creative" response. Watching the Russian and Chinese moves into Central Asia and current EU expansion, I sincerely doubt that the post-moderns are sinking into oblivion. Not to mention the US pleas for UN assistance in Iraq. In reality, the geopolitical interactions between nations is much more complex than three simple boxes. Subsets of his model should include US-China-Taiwan-Japan-Korea, US-Russia-China-Central Asia, US-India-Pakistan-China and EU-UK-USA, just to name a few. The overlapping subsets indicate friction points in the model that may be used by a super-set or subset to gain advantage in the conflict (see Pakistan). Finally, the classification of pre-moderns into a distinct set is a misleading characteristic of the model. This set can be found in the two major sets and also subsequent subsets. Therefore, two parallel universes with separate sets and subsets must be constructed with additional interactions between universes. This could result in a single set having a conflict with the same set in a different universe with highly amusing results, if it wasn't true. Kind of like a snake swallowing its tail. I give thanks to Mr Toynbee's inspiration to my new discovery of Multi-Universal, Multi-Set Conflict in Geopolitical Affairs, which I will publish exclusively with [Asia] Times. A footnote to Mr Toynbee somewhere should be ample.
Ernie Lynch (Aug 23, '04)


There is no such thing as "Singaporean stakeholders" - it is a throwaway phrase invented by the PAP [People's Action Party] to encourage Singaporeans to believe that by supporting the ruling party's vacuous drive to "democracy" without any substantial reform of the political system, political change can occur on its own. In fact in Tino Tan [Hai San]'s letters [Aug 20, Aug 18], he has not said anything that would indicate an independent stance from the PAP party line. The two "distinct" entities of Singapore and the PAP have been and still are enmeshed together, as demonstrated (mentioned in my previous letter) by the ruling party's mandates to the people to procreate and the fact that Singapore has become Asia's gay entertainment capital is not left to the design of the citizenry, but that of a select few in its society - keeping in mind the size of the city-state. For these so-called "Singaporean stakeholders", are there politicians who would represent their interests and values in government? Is there a free press where newspapers may take a different political stance from the PAP?
Clement (Aug 23, '04)


Daniel McCarthy is so predictable. In my previous letters, I said if a person who does not agree with a white American, that person will be labeled either a communist or a terrorist, or he is anti-American. At least, his idea will be labeled un-American. Daniel McCarthy [letter, Aug 20] did just that. I am sure Shaun Darragh [letter, Aug 19] is none of those. Just like many of us who disagree with those white racists here. Speak of China's national treasures in Taiwan. Those treasures belong to Chinese people. It is not other people's rights to use them as bargain chips for their political gains. That act itself will start a war. So far I have not heard [Taiwan President] Chen Shui-bian and his DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] mentioned anything about returning these treasures and several hundred tons of gold to China. Daniel is trying to romantic himself again. Reality is not always what you dreamed of. Before you know it, America will be dragged into another bloody East Asian war. It is also American people's best interest to dissuade Chen Shui-bian from making any moves towards declaring independence. China is not going to attack if nothing is changing. The peace has been kept that way for more than 50 years. It is very important to keep that now. Unless you like to watch real bloodshed on TV, it is the best interest for everyone not to make trouble in the Taiwan Strait.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 23, '04)


[Re] Seattle's Frank letter of August 20: While one's memory, once the magic age of 39 is history, becomes ethereal I definitely recall that the young Egyptian's name [the one selling the amulets] was Alirad Kleef. In any case, Washingtonian Frank's asides as to the whites' views of Asians and vice versa brings to mind a friend. A native Alaskan, at least he claims generational eras as proof and whose name is David Twain, often refers to himself as an American even though he is often alluded to as an Aleut by residents in the lower 48. It's a mad, mad, mad world, Frank. Consider the death threat of one retired air force captain (a regular writer to ATol) to another letter writer to ATol by the name of Ali. C'est la vie, non?
Armand De Laurell (Aug 23, '04)


[Re] ATol's reply to Vincent Maadi (Aug 19). I am no expert on the Talmud either, but the claim of Ishmael, the traditional ancestor of the Arabs, being Abraham's illegitimate son is false. It is my understanding that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, was his legitimate second wife.
Luay (Aug 23, '04)

It's probably a matter of interpretation. Hagar was the servant of Abraham and his wife Sarah, and had relations with Abraham,  initially with Sarah's permission, and bore his son Ishmael. Later, however, Sarah was less accommodating about the arrangement with Hagar and got Abraham to banish her and Ishmael to the desert. - ATol

The young Egyptian in Armand De Laurell's story [letter, Aug 19] is named David Scofield. The same guy is using a map to prove Taiwan is not part of China [China puts Korean spat on the map, Aug 19]. However, if you pay attention, you will find that map was published by the government [that currently] resides in Taiwan. How interesting. Can you white people just leave Asians alone? Now we see their intentions of troublemaking are not limited to Taiwan and Islamic countries. They want to create greater troubles to Asia. Whoever oppose them are either communists or anti-Americans. At least they are un-Americans. Regardless of what Asians do, if they refuse to wiggle their tails for white people, they must be against democracy. Just like David Scofield, they will pull a coin, a map, an unknown treaty or a glass of powder to prove that. If you are an Asian, it is time to wake up. After Taiwan, your country will be next for division. I am sure they will find a coin stamped XXX independence or simply WMD on the back. If you do not believe me, read a history book.
Frank Seattle, Washington (Aug 20, '04)


Like the Chinese Communist Party that trod this ground before him, letter writer Shaun Darragh of Seoul, South Korea (letter [Aug 19]), relies on evidence of past Chinese invasion of Taiwan to make a logical leap to the conclusion that Taiwan is somehow part of China today. Please be informed that the name "Republic of China" was imposed on Taiwanese by Chinese dictator Chiang Kai-shek at the point of a gun. At no time did Taiwanese willingly agree to become part of China. Likewise, the contents of the National Palace Museum in Taiwan are the loot that Chinese dictator Chiang carried with him as he fled China. I am sure that the people of Taiwan would give the loot back in an instant if only they could be free from the threat of military attack by China. As far as the international community, they will generally recognize the status quo, whether just or unjust. That is why it is so important for Taiwan to preserve its status quo as a separate and independent nation from the People's Republic of China, just as South Korea must preserve its status quo as a separate and independent nation from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. On the day that Mr Darragh agrees to be ruled by communist dictator Kim Jong-Il, I will begin to give some deference to his position that Taiwan should be part of China. Until then, I can only see it as hypocrisy.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 20, '04)


I was surprised to find an article by John Tkacik on ATol [China's power struggle by the sea, Aug 20]. Mr Tkacik works for the Heritage Foundation, infamous for its unlimited support for Taiwan. While the Heritage Foundation could be seen as a US "think-tank", it's a politically dependent lobby group as well. Mr Tkacik finds it ironic that "if the US administration ... wants to moderate China's bellicose rhetoric, it should announce the approval of Aegis destroyers for Taiwan" and he continues, "moderation from Beijing would have far greater chances of success with Beijing's increasingly suspicious and alarmed Taiwan compatriots than unbending hostility". Simply looking at the past articles written by Mr Tkacik, which are often hardline, short on analysis and long on his neo-conservative ideology and bluntly anti-China, the only irony and hypocrisy I see are the comments coming from him. If Mr Tkacik [were] on the Chinese side writing articles, he probably would have no problems in supporting a more hardline policy that the so-called "Shanghai Faction" is advocating. He's simply a US equivalent of this political group in China. He may even find a soulmate in Jiang Zemin?
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Aug 20, '04)


The article Nepal's king puts faith in loyalty by Dhruba Adhikary [of] August 18 prompted me to make the following observations: a) Mr Adhikary appears to be unfairly pointing his fingers at King Gyanendra for all the political woes that Nepal is facing today. It is not true. Political compulsions and his responsibility towards the country and its people made him assert himself into active politics, temporarily though. b) A notorious palace caucus representing various vested interests has taken hostage of King Gyanendra whose accession to the throne was as fortuitous as manna from heaven. This very caucus has been claiming a lion's share in every sector of the governance. The recent appointment of a notoriously incompetent ex-foreign secretary as Nepal's envoy to Washington is indicative of that syndrome. The King was a successful businessman and not endowed with qualities that are required of a monarch. Hence, he cannot be held squarely responsible. c) Lastly, Mr Adhikary fails to point out how Nepal's political elite has remained shackled by feudal legacies. The outrageous corruption, rise of Maoist insurgency and failure of democratic institution are some of its byproducts. Forsaking the malignant feudal tradition is beyond the competence of any political leader in Nepal, be it the King or the King's men like Sher Bahadur Deuba.
Bikram Samser Rana
Kathmandu, Nepal (Aug 20, '04) 


[Re] Geopolitics in Iraq an old game [Aug 18, by] Henry C K Liu. Much of this article is supported by A Peace to End All Peace albeit that this latter book interprets the same facts to vindicate [Winston] Churchill. However, Liu omits the virtual bankruptcy and decline of the British Empire and the rise of US power which were associated with Britain's Middle East adventures. Historians from former British colonies are often critical of Churchill's pet ideas which killed tens of thousands of (colonial) soldiers. An interesting inside story from a colleague of Churchill, Sir Edward Heath, The Course of My Life, describes how Sir Edward helped to shape more moderate conservative policy and postwar peace in Europe, known as the European Community. The same source provides an inside story of the Suez Crisis where the American power apparently dictated policy to economically vulnerable Britain. Again there is similarity to current American government and trade structural deficits and vulnerability to foreign financing of American adventures. The Emperor's Club, a film about the education of the children of the wealthy, laments the way a future American leader ignored the study of empires and relied upon cheating instead. How pathetic. How prophetic. The fortunes of the present US power is discussed in www.foolishthoughts.com which warned prior to the Iraq war: "Attack the Rule of Law and you will destroy a great empire - your own!" An updated application of the Delphic Oracle.
Pantony
Canada (Aug 20, '04)


[Re Geopolitics in Iraq an old game, Aug 18] Well-written analysis of current affairs and insight of past adventures in the Middle East by Western nations. This is a tough subject to tackle because to stay objective on this topic one needs to have an unbiased view or else the West will continue to repeat the same mistake of naked arrogance. So far Mr [Liu]'s work is balanced.
Asgar Hussain (Aug 20, '04)


It's getting very interesting to read the Letters to the Editor section now. I'm not saying I did not read Henry C K Liu's Geopolitics in Iraq an old game [Aug 18]. Very happy to see that ATol still has some decent and real unbiased people like Mr Liu. I'm looking forward to the rest of the articles. I just want to say to Ali [letter, Aug 19] that he's wasting his time and energy arguing with the famous Captain of Central Valley, California. He's full of hatred and ignorance, so why even bother and step down to his level? This guy watched to many Rambo and John Wayne movies in his life. Just remember, Ali, that 50% of Americans voted for Al Gore and that does not mean that the other 50% are like Captain Richard Radcliffe. Yes they are under the effect of all the garbage on TV, from Fox to CNN, and all their reality shows, but that's what the neo-cons want. Keep America busy with garbage while they go on with their plans to control the world. I never argued with an ignorant [person] in my life and won. So don't bother, and see what other good American people are writing in the same section of Letters to the Editor.
M Sabbah
Montreal, Quebec (Aug 20, '04)


I refer to the letter by Richard Radcliffe [Aug 17] in response to Ali Atlagh. Radcliffe is so drunken with power that he does not realize he is talking absolute nonsense. America has reached the apex of its power and is on a path of self-destruction because of its arrogance. This arrogance comes through in people like Radcliffe - totally devoid of any cultural, philosophical or historical knowledge. Two hundred years of plundering and murdering the brown- and black-skinned people of the world has made them feel that they will be a power for ever. Little do they know that they are about to be beaten by the barefooted and wretched masses of the world. Most probably already in Iraq they will get a big slap in the face in a very short time. Mr Radcliffe, continue getting your education from Hollywood, because ignorance is what you deserve.
Vincent Maadi (Aug 20, '04)


I see that my coy reference [letter, Aug 18] to the cultural war between Islam and Christianity left Captain [Richard] Radcliffe in the dark [letter, Aug 19]. I shall elaborate for his benefit in more elementary terms. Basically, you and your neo-con advocates have declared war on the immovable object, which I define as Islam, with your indestructible force, which I classify as Neo-Judeo-Christianity. You may reverse the classifications as you see fit - it is irrelevant for this discussion. Both entities have adherents whose beliefs are extreme, moderate and, for a lack of a better word, don't give a damn. As pointed out by [letter writer] Arnold Toynbee Jr, faith is a very powerful force, but not a rational one. You have created in a classical sense a binary conflict with no social or diplomatic solution for each party. But perhaps this was your objective. If so, then the faith of the jihadis will equal the faith of your adherents. An explosion will not result, only a implosion is possible. And the results are unpredictable. But I strongly suspect that the faith of Islam will overwhelm the faith of the Neo-Judeo-Christianity sect. Why? Because Islam, like old [Judaism], is a clean, original religion, unlike Christianity that borrows from the ancient religions of the gods that they eradicated. The Prophet is the slave of Allah and the messenger of Allah and never professes to be anything other than that. In Jesus' defense, he never claimed to be the Son of God; a manifestation was created by a vote by later Christians. Therefore, the logical line of progression from the Word to the Prophet to Allah is clean, distinct and without argument. This reinforces the faith of the adherents. You may argue about the word but never the progression. Christians, on the other hand, shed much blood over the core beliefs of their religion, whether Jesus was or was not the Son of God or the role of the Virgin Mary. This indicates to me that there must be some doubts about the genesis of Christianity. Muslims may slaughter each other over who is in charge, but there is no doubt about the line of progression to Allah. Therefore, Captain Radcliffe, you may have the bigger battalions, but that does not mean that God is on your side. And, to clarify my point on Dumbo's intelligence, review his last press conference ...
Ernie Lynch (Aug 20, '04)


With reference to Omega Lee's letter (Aug 19), let me reiterate my points concerning the letter I wrote (Aug 18). The main focus of that letter was (a) to show that the people [of Singapore] do and still have a choice in choosing their government; (b) people with no stake in the well-being of Singapore should not interfere in how we govern ourselves. The last time I checked that a power took part in our defense, [they] were the ANZAC [Australian and New Zealand Army Corps] forces under British command, in the early 1960s when faced with the konfrontasi (confrontation) by the Indonesian government under Sukarno, who opposed the then-merger between Malaysia and Singapore in 1963. The British then withdrew in 1967, and thereafter the US came into the picture because of the Vietnam War. Concomitantly, investments and relationships increased - so much so that when we hosted the numerous USN [US Navy] vessels, our neighbors complained that we were insensitive to them and even accused Singapore of being a US lackey. While the US presence has been benign, we are under no illusion that they are here while we are useful. To extend a popular African saying, "Whatever the elephants decide to do, the grass still gets trampled." Singapore is very aware how small it is (since we are constantly reminded), and it is very much a pawn in a geopolitical game. Nonetheless, in case Lee misses it, my previous letter has more to do with the fact that prior to criticizing others, they should look at themselves first. To paraphrase Confucius, "If a nation is good and well-governed, people and nations will follow it" ... There seems to be a great many people, even among Singaporeans, who confuse the state (Singapore) with the government (PAP). Both are distinct entities, with only the latter helming the former. The bottom line is we keep what works. There is no question that Singapore will always have to find its place under the sun especially with the rise of China and India. The only pertinent fact is that ultimately as stakeholders in Singapore, we will have to face it and deal with it in our own way.
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Aug 20, '04)


Re Joe Nichols ([letter] Aug 19). "In the condition of right or law, then, the ethical world has vanished, and its type of religion has passed away in the mood of Comedy. The 'unhappy consciousness', the soul of despair, is just the knowledge of all of this loss." - [Georg] Hegel (my apology for laughing at your sincerity). As an Advaitan, I appreciate bookends for their ability to put a stop on knowledge/ego, which is endless without bookends. As an American, raised Christian, I accept your challenge to share knowledge, for whatever it's worth.People worldwide are being played like pawns.The enemy is not political ideologies, or religious ideologies or a lack of either. The enemy can be defined as powerful people worldwide from all sorts of backgrounds who will do anything to maintain their power and have not an inkling of humanity left in them. They work together, why can't we?
Beth Bowden
Texas (Aug 20, '04)


To Joe Nichols [letter, Aug 19]: I have made no "call to war", faith-based or otherwise. What I have tried to do is to explain why the so-called "neo-con" party has carried the day in terms of having their policies implemented, much to the chagrin of their opponents, foreign and domestic. I have couched this explanation in terms of challenge and response. The neo-cons, more accurately termed "neo-moderns" (as opposed to post-moderns), do indeed base their call to war on faith, and that is precisely why they are winning. In the strength of their belief and the vigor it gives them, the neo-moderns actually strangely resemble the pre-modern forces of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. So the great fight of our time is between pre-modern and neo-modern forces, while the post-moderns sit by and whine, rendered ineffectual and impotent by their lack of positive belief in anything. As Spengler has neatly illustrated in slightly different terms, the post-moderns, modeled by France, have no creative response to the challenge, and are therefore sinking into oblivion. That, and not some sort of jingoistic diatribe as many have interpreted it, has been the essential point of what I have written here, and so far no one has chosen to respond to it.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 20, '04) 

Before they do, perhaps you should clarify for us again what exactly you think your neo-con/neo-moderns are "winning". - ATol


David Scofield's article on China, Taiwan, and Goguryo [China puts Korean spat on the map, Aug 19] must have suffered in the editing. I do not see anything about Taiwan being ceded to Japan in 1895 as a result of the Sino-Japanese War, which itself grew out of a call from the Korean government to China for troops to put down an indigenous revolt known as the Tonghak Rebellion. Apparently the Japanese recognized China's claim to Taiwan, and the international community of the period accepted China's right to cede it to Japan. At the time, the indigenous tribes (Negrito and Malay-Polynesian) were a far greater percentage of the population than they are today, which perhaps explains why China saw them as a minority. Whatever the point in history when Chinese immigrants outnumbered the Aborigines, the fact remains that modern Taiwan is culturally Chinese and still labels itself as the "ROC" [Republic of China]. Coincidentally, their "national" museum also possess the greatest collection of Chinese art treasures in the world, which arrived in Taiwan in 1949, after various sojourns in Chungking, Nanjing, and Peking. If Taiwan is "not" legally Chinese, should they not return these treasures to China?
Shaun Darragh
Seoul, South Korea (Aug 19, '04) 

The article has been amended and now may speak to some of your concerns. - ATol


Right now, the Iraqi people are fighting for their freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that many of the dead are being killed by their own people. A man wants to be a policeman, they kill him. A man wants to teach at a university, they kill him. Girls want to go to school, they kill them. So what if your religion is a little different than your neighbors'; that is no reason to commit murder. Syed [Saleem Shahzad] is absolutely correct, [Muqtada] al-Sadr is doing nothing but prolonging the US presence and creating enemies among the people; this man is a loose cannon [Threat to the political process, Aug 18]. Iraqis want to open their stores, schools and businesses; they want to live out their lives in peace and prosperity. He and his followers are keeping the US soldiers there longer - how stupid can this man be? Al-Sadr is nothing but a gutless wonder anyway, hiding in a holy place, which, by the way, the United States soldiers do not intend to enter - we will let the Iraqi military and police force handle that.
Vera Rector
Missouri, USA (Aug 19, '04) 


Dhruba Adhikary's article on Nepal [Nepal's king puts faith in loyalty, Aug 18] shows that monarchy in that country has not yet learned lessons from elsewhere. Better to learn it now or else it will be too late for the king as well as for his courtiers to realize their foolishness.
Samatha Lewis
Australia (Aug 19, '04) 


Henry C K Liu [Geopolitics in Iraq an old game, Aug 18] and ATol are to be congratulated and praised, Liu for his sedate and historical thesis and ATol for providing its readers a primer on the origins of the present geopolitical thrusts of the George W Bush administration in that part of the world. While visiting the Pyramids some years ago we were offered "pharaonic amulets" that we were assured were over 2,000 years old. When GI Joe asked, "How can you prove that this thing is over 2,000 years old," the young Egyptian hustler responded, "See. The back. Stamped 2000 BC." No wonder Spengler's claim as to who eventually will win out. I and assuredly most all of your aficionados look forward to Mr Liu's continuations.
Armand De Laurell (Aug 19, '04) 

Should have taken the hustler up on his deal: by our math, the amulets were actually about 4,000 years old. - ATol


While I understand the desire for short letters, and I endeavor to accomplish that, it is not always possible. Yet my [Aug 18] response to [Johannes Michael] Curley and [Carl] Hershberger [letters, Aug 17] was edited - that which was cut out being a key point: a sequence of known facts refuting the claim that the US is about "bringing democracy" to Iraq. It would also not have hurt to have retained the "personal" facts, as those refuted Curley's (typical) presumption: that I am impliedly young and naive; that I "hate America," and that I'm a foreigner who should go back home. (I'm not young; I exercise my constitutional right of dissent; and I was born in the US.) The same applies to my comments re the US constitution - of which I am a decades-long student: cutting those undermines efforts to inform and refute. In fact, I e-mailed your editors some time ago asking the requirements re articles, as I had an idea which would refute a widespread, major misconception about the US constitution. I did not receive any response to that query. I'd ask why, but I fear that too would be ignored.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 19, '04)

Many of your letters are not only long, we sometimes receive several of them a day. Although your letters are often well written, such prolificacy (not to say bloviation) runs a high risk of coming under the editor's scalpel - or ax, on a busy day. As for article submissions, they should be directed to our Speaking Freely department; click on the link and follow the instructions. In the meantime, just so you don't feel ignored, we'll run another of your letters. - ATol


Jay Liu is, of course, correct [letter, Aug 18]. As the US constitution's Framers did not trust democracy (their views on this point are expressed in The Federalist), some seeing it with distaste as "mob rule", they included a "check" against "excessive democracy": the anti-democratic Electoral College. Odd as it may seem, the very same view which falsely denies the Electoral College is "anti-democratic" also insists - at other times - that the US is "not a democracy but a republic". In fact, as the essence of democracy is elections, and elections are stipulated within the US constitution, the US is a democratic republic. Those who hold the odd views noted also hold an equally hilarious view of the constitution's Second Amendment because they put self-interest and ideology before history, fact, and law.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 19, '04)


Jay Liu's letter of August 18 is largely right regarding the indirect system of the Electoral College. I would like to mention a few things that Singaporean friends have told me. Although they have elections, opposition candidates do little campaigning as after the election the ruling party will file a lawsuit which it is "guaranteed of winning". The demand that Daniel McCarthy etc stop passing judgment until the US has its house in order is somewhat reminiscent of the Chinese government's answer to charges of human-rights abuses: No answer, but a reversal of the charges back at the accuser.
Peter Mitchelmore (Aug 19, '04)


If we were to be blunt and crude, without the United States of America, there wouldn't be a Singapore, in terms of its economy, sciences and military (covers about everything, doesn't it?). However, since every country has its own sovereign rights, it does have the choice to bite the hand that feeds it. We keep hearing how utopian Singaporean society is (mostly from some Singaporeans [eg, Tino Tan Hai San, Aug 18]): 1) How mighty the GDP [gross domestic product] per capita is (to the extent that foreigners might imagine the city-state's streets as literally paved with gold), without mentioning the standard of living and "property" prices (subsidized government-owned highrise apartments). 2) How safe the streets are perceived to be or the apparently low crime rate (which I reserve comment on until independent press studies are carried out on the crime rates; anecdotally it is not safe to the extent that you can stroll alone in the wee hours in residential areas and expect that the risk of crime occurring not increasing substantially). 3) How content and happy the populace is for the ruling party to micromanage every aspect of their society (from encouraging the populace to produce more children to "relaxing the rules" to become Asia's gay entertainment capital - in a city state of 600 square kilometers). 4) How transparent and corruption-free the political system and hence "democratic" - when there is no free press which is critical of government policies, when the ruling party uses the courts to persecute political opponents (which is well documented), when a particular family and associates are in control of Singapore's financial assets, the "state-owned" telecommunications company and other "key industries", and most importantly when government becomes a rubber stamp for the ruling party's policies due to lack of opposition (regardless of the number of political parties), which is not accurately reflected as representative of the people. This oft-repeated tune in favor of political repression is out of date - Singapore has much bigger problems due to globalization and recognition that its place in the region is undermined by the emerging economies in Southeast Asia, India and China, which I would venture that the ruling party would be overwhelmed by in a decade's time, despite its best efforts. I wonder that if and when my proposed scenario eventuates, would the same people who posted these letters remember their party line?
Omega Lee
Melbourne, Australia (Aug 19, '04)


I wish to set the record straight on the misrepresentations of the intent of the [US] Electoral College. One reason for its creation was an attempt by the Founders to check the passions of the people. The fear of pure democracy was that it would descend into mob rule - and the French Revolution would prove their fears well founded. Secondly, the Electoral College is part of the Great Compromise, without which there would be no United States. The compromise was that the House [of Representatives] would be represented by population, and the Senate by state. In this way the small states could not be dominated by the large states. This was extended to the Electoral College, where the number of electors apportioned to each state is the number of representatives and senators sent to the Congress, thus giving the small states slightly more weight in a presidential election. So in sum the Electoral College, and in fact the entire constitution, is designed to keep power in check. The Founders didn't believe that a tyranny of 51% is any better than a tyranny of one. They protected minority interests, especially the rights of the smallest minority - the individual. If you think the Electoral College undemocratic, how about the Senate, where 21 states could successfully shut down the government indefinitely if they didn't like what it was up to (as the Senate is currently doing with respect to President [George W] Bush's judicial nominees)? In addition, only one-third of the Senate is elected every two years, so it is conceivable that it could take six or more years for a radical political realignment. As history proves, America has been far more centrist than most other democracies, which have at various times elected fascists and communists, because the majority is forced to bargain with the minority. Anyone who wants to better understand the functioning of the constitution would enjoy reading The Strategic Constitution by R D Cooter. If you can get your head around the idea that for Americans (and more generally Anglo-Saxon nations) individual liberty is the most important thing, then you'll come to understand things more clearly. (And why terrorism is such a threat not just to our lives but to our way of life.) As someone once said in reaction to Turkey's possible election of extreme Islamic government, he'd rather give up his right to vote if it meant the army would protect his rights to listen to rock music. The Founding Fathers believed that power was best entrusted to the people, but that they were human just as a monarch or an army is, and could fall prey to the temptation to abuse power. I think that America's current position in the world and the number of America- or Bush-bashing letters and opinions that originate from American addresses, many of which have Asian names, only proves the wisdom of [Thomas] Jefferson, [James] Madison, [Alexander] Hamilton, and their compatriots. "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those others that have been tried" (Winston Churchill).
A Capitalist Tool
Massachusetts, USA (Aug 19, '04)


For longer than I care to remember, I have been clicking on to ATimes to sharpen my focus on world events. Lately, however, I've been clicking on to Letters first, to enjoy the liveliest political discourse to be found on any online news site on the planet! Occasional death threats notwithstanding (yikes! - Richard Radcliffe, Aug 17), keep up the great work, ATol. You are a valuable resource. PS: Richard, you need to chill.
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Aug 19, '04)


First: I am not spring-loaded to the "nuke 'em 'til they glow position". Violence is the last resort and to be used only in cases of defense of life and property against a hostile person. However, Ali Atlagh's [letter, Aug 16] expressed level of anger and intimation (hope?) that the establishment of the Islamic Kalifah will occur sooner than people think leads me to believe that he is, or would become, a jihadi. He makes himself a threat to me and to all non-Muslims because of his expressed single-mindedness and his obvious fervor to see the Kalifah established whatever the cost. As long as he seeks to establish the Kalifah by persuasion, I have no problems with him. But if his intent is to establish the Kalifah with AK-47 in hand, then he is a priori a threat to me and I will remove that threat. However, before Mr Atlagh begins his quest to establish the Kalifah, he should look around at the rest of the world and seriously ponder why almost all the Islamic states are still trying to climb out of the 7th century. Second: [Ernie] Lynch [letter, Aug 18], I would hardly call anyone with a master's degree in business administration from Harvard "Dumbo". Having associated with some of these people, there is no way I would call them uneducated simply because they don't share my world view. As for my school and class affiliations, that was for the benefit of [Ben] Tanosborn [Muslims' turn for fear and hate, Aug 17], who happens to be a graduate of my cross-town "rival". But I do understand other cultures, having lived for a year in Korea and for over eight years in Germany. Disagreeing with the norms of another culture does not necessarily indicate lack of understanding. Third: When an immovable object collides with an indestructible force there is usually a large explosion. Not knowing what you refer to as the immovable object and the indestructible force leaves me a little in the dark. Could you please define these two items for me? Fourth: We [the US] did support a lot of bad people who happened to be in power in strategic countries, or their enemies. We supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq against ayatollah [Ruhollah] Khomeni and Iran. As long as they were busy slaughtering each other's youth, they weren't concocting ways to make our lives miserable. We also supported the Nicaraguan "contras" against the communist-supported and Cuban army-backed government of Daniel Ortega. May I suggest that you go rent the movie Red Dawn and once you get past some of the less-than-sterling performances, concentrate on the scenario and the dialogue. At the time that movie was made, the scenario of an invasion from the south was not as fantastic as it sounds. In fact, some people have theorized that Red Dawn was made to deter such an invasion. Fifth: It is still a jungle out there. Few countries play by our rules. So when we go walking in the jungle it is prudent to take along things that will dissuade the wild animals from attacking or stop their attack dead in its tracks. For a current example I suggest you review the genocide in Sudan. This genocide will only be stopped by sending the jannaweed and their superiors off to explain their conduct to Allah in person. Now who would you suggest gets sent to be Allah's travel agents? You all be careful out there.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, USAF (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Aug 19, '04)

Why should those of us who happen not to be Americans play by your rules? Because you're rich, have a huge military, and have made some good movies (Red Dawn notwithstanding)? But read what Ali has to say, in the next letter. - ATol


I am rather surprised to see that one of the readers of your magazine has issued a threat to shoot me first [Richard Radcliffe letter, Aug 17]. What puzzles me is that I have not mentioned shooting anyone as far as I know. Apparently when a Muslim asserts himself/herself, they are authoritarian, brainwashed, violent, and the countless names one sees floating in the media. Mr Radcliffe behaves in a typical arrogant manner that now symbolizes the US government. You don't agree with us, we will shoot you! Democracy this, democracy that. But God forbid you should think for yourself, especially when what you are thinking doesn't jive with what the secularites would like you to think. It is not the Muslims who are occupying other countries and murdering them by the thousands. It is not the Muslims who started the so-called World Wars. It is not the Muslims who initiated the Crusades. It is not the Muslims who wiped out the [native] Indians of North America nor the Aborigines of Australia. I will leave the rest of the list to you to fill out, Mr Radcliffe. I am not a worshipper of people nor their ideas. I can still think for myself. I don't get a steady diet of sitcoms, reality shows, and the countless junk the majority of the US population is subjected to on a daily basis. This is a war on Islam. As a Muslim, I will not sit and let lies and fabrication be propagated by so-called "experts". If Islam is indeed what you say it is, and I doubt if you have read anything about it directly (let others do the thinking for you - it might hurt your head), then it will lose eventually. Islam is not a Johnny-come-lately phenomenon. Your assertion of it being a dictatorship shows how little, if any, you know about Islam. If I defend this religion from the bigots out there and I am accused of being vindictive and full of hatred, then I am indeed so. I will speak the truth come hell or high water. The enemies of Islam and Muslims are numerous and they will use any method to try to scare the rest from even finding out the truth for themselves. When I said that Islam will win, I have not mentioned through bombers, cruise missiles, and the countless weapons this fine country of liberties has used on the hapless Muslims of Iraq and by proxy in many parts of the Muslim world. Islam will win because it is the truth, and as hard as you and others might try to put this light out, you will fail. Your threats don't scare, Mr Radcliffe. Your educational background doesn't concern me. Your writing tells me a good deal about the reality that Muslims have to face in the US and even their own countries: If you speak out and defend you rights, you'd better be prepared to be shot. I suggest you read some history (real [history], not from Fox News and other media outlets) about Islam and you will come to know that Islam is here to stay long after you check out of this world. As you can see, I have not threatened to shoot you. But I will in self-defense, make no mistake about it.
Ali (Aug 19, '04)


Carl Hershberger's letter [Aug 17] states that I loathe Americans and don't quite know them. My having been born and raised in the American heartland suggests some complications to his ideas. I come from blue-collar experience, raised by a mother orphaned during the Great Depression and a father who was a farm boy in Illinois, a World War II marine grunt in many major campaigns in the South Pacific, and then a very capable and conscientious working man until his death. I, myself, quit high school and labored in factories, on farms and at construction sites in over 15 cities and eight states, and I was in the US Army and the Peace Corps. I don't have to guess about the people I'm describing. But do I respect them or loathe them? I try to relate to individuals much more than I do to groups when the situation allows, and so my rough generalizations about Americans are necessarily deficient and I know this. But - and the point is - local knowledge is an embarrassingly inadequate resource for guiding the world, which theoretical democracy in America presumes to do. When holding a lever against a fulcrum that crumbles, the workman will curse it. When that fulcrum is ignorance and the lever is truth, the workman gets cursed too - bad feelings all around. But I can guarantee you that when it comes to keeping company with those who toil and knowing how to respect them (showing it and meaning it, in face to face encounters), whether they are in the US or elsewhere, my critics have nothing to teach me and probably a lot to learn, and would most likely rush away from people with whom I would eat from the same bowl and have. In many respects, the "working class" is my preferred company, but in the context of understanding particularly the issues that relate to US foreign policy, Americans are a darkly ignorant crowd in general and not up to the demands of their citizenship. That needs to be said again and again from many directions and for many reasons. A few gibes, if allowed: Smug Beth Bowden from Texas [Aug 18] wants to make me a bookend for her assuredly vast knowledge of the world, but can she offer her own concrete examples that reduce mine to products of my imagination? Is she content just to be amused? [Arnold] Toynbee Jr [Aug 18] missed my point about "all states [being] corruptions of their professed ideals". What has been lacking in his now clearly faith-based call to war is any evidence that he knows about, understands and is prepared to answer for his own nation's long, hugely consequential and criminal history of such corruption. His conceding to the generalization doesn't suggest real study and reflection, after which I would expect his overall attitude would possibly change. He might want to go back and reread the New Testament, as well. Then there is Jon [ Sreekanth, Aug 18], whose positions in his last letter showed real thought and independence, I believe. Even though we disagree on many points of interpretation about the "free-enterprise system", we do seem to agree that it has played its part and should not be the governing idea going forward. Current trends should therefore challenge his optimism as much as mine, but his general remarks about faith are well taken, even though I think all the evidence argues against having any.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 19, '04)


I would like the ATol editor elaborate on the comments "Racism does not usually arise in a vacuum." Let me try to understand your logic here. If a race is weak and disunited, that race is one of the reasons of racism. That does not make sense. However, I do see some reality here. If you want respect from other people, be united and fight for your existence. In that way, you will be left alone. On a similar subject, it is very interesting that white racists are telling us Singapore is not a democratic country, maybe because of the ruler is not white. Or maybe because people in Singapore refuse to be tail-wiggling puppies of white people. Or democracy is a relative word.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 19, '04)

The comment was in response to letter writer Vincent Maadi (Aug 18), who claimed that since neo-conservatives are racists (according to him), their actions cannot be said to be driven by ideology. We suggested that racism itself is usually driven by an ideology, eg the belief that if your skin is of a particular hue this makes you superior to different-colored people. In extreme forms, this way of thinking can give rise to a definitive ideology such as that embraced by Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan. Such ideas tend not to blossom "in a vacuum" but are instilled in children by their parents, or in worshippers by their religious leaders, or in patriots by their rulers. Maadi himself clarifies his point below. - ATol


I refer to your comment to my previous letter [Aug 18]. Agreed that they [neo-conservatives] do have a basis in ideology, but it is certainly not Straussian. The only ideology in which this whole racist fundament is anchored is the Talmudic racism, which makes the Jews the chosen of God and the rest of us non-beings. According to Talmudic traditions, non-whites are the children of Ham, who was the illegitimate child of Abraham from a black woman, and therefore they are lower beings and to be oppressed.
Vincent Maadi (Aug 19, '04)

We are no experts on the Talmud, but it is our understanding that Ham was traditionally the second son of Noah, not Abraham, and the brother of Shem, the ancestor of the Semites. Abraham's most famous illegitimate son was Ishmael, the traditional ancestor of the Arabs. - ATol


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FH18Ak02.html [Re Geopolitics in Iraq an old game, Aug 18] by Henry C K Liu: I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this series. It's refreshing to learn what happened from someone who doesn't let religiosity get in his way.
Harald Hardrada
New York, New York (Aug 18, '04)


I refer to the article Neo-con ideology, not Big Oil, pushed for war [Aug 18] by Jim Lobe. What a load of hogwash! The neo-cons do not have any ideology, Straussian or otherwise. They are a bunch of racists who have total disregard for non-whites of the world and Arabs especially. Covering up their racist crimes in mumbo-jumbo of ideology and all other fine scholarly words cannot hide their racism. The people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and other places where these racists have created hell will never accept such nonsensical arguments about ideologies. They see their lands occupied, their homes and fields destroyed and their people mass-murdered with unmatched hate accompanied by the worst racist propaganda about Islam and Muslims. This is the reality that we see and hear and the rest is all hogwash and waste of words and time.
Vincent Maadi (Aug 18, '04)

Racism does not usually arise in a vacuum, however empty-headed its proponents, but is driven by ideology, or the distortion or misinterpretation of ideology. - ATol


I read the article Economic impact of the Civilizing Mission [Aug 18] on ATimes and am looking forward to the second instalment hinted by the author's statement: "This disequilibrium contains vast ramifications for the political economy of global capitalism. I can only itemize these ramifications here; their elaboration would require another essay."
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Aug 18, '04)


In the new spirit of anti-bloviatism, I shall keep my usual sarcastic remarks short. Your editorial comment about Captain Fantastic's [Richard Radcliffe, letter, Aug 17] tendency to shoot first and never ask questions is spot on. Americans who lack comprehension in global affairs in general and other cultures in particular tend to be the ones you have to worry about. It is the fear factor that causes them to act irrationally. Only through knowledge does one gain wisdom and hence enlightenment. Though exceptions do prevail, the higher literacy rate that one obtains in the US tends to indicate their geopolitical thinking. Proof of point is the Dumbo in the White House who never reads anything longer than a postcard. Having a higher level of education in America is not an indication of intelligence due to the fact that the institutions are merely diploma mills for the masses. So, Captain, please spare us your titles and institutional affiliations. Quickly moving on, we find Carl Hershberger [letter, Aug 17] starting off with Saddam [Hussein] and ending as an apologist for the Cold War US despots. He should tie up both ends and discover why we are living in such interesting times. Arnold Toynbee, Jr, after a long hit on the bong, lays on us a metaphysical discussion about the power of faith [letter, Aug 17]. But what happens when a immovable object collides with an indestructible force?
Ernie Lynch
School of Hard Knocks '58 (Aug 18, '04)


I am highly amused by both Joe Nichols' and Arnold Toynbee's bloviating letters [Aug 17]. Joe Nichols holds on to his truth like a secret shroud and Arnold Toynbee presents his truth as a banner yet waved. What a pair of bookends! There is no solution to creative imagination. The prevailing problem is that not one knee-jerk wants to be united with another knee-jerk unless there is a problem that the other knee-jerk can solve.
Beth Bowden
Texas (Aug 18, '04)


Quickly summarizing the first part of Joe Nichols' letter [Aug 17], it comes down to "contradictions of interest", and a hint that the division of the fruits of the labor has been inequitable. Well, we have to go by results at this point, and the track record of the free-enterprise system has been pretty good, at least in wealth creation. A focus on the redistributive aspect only has often degenerated into command-and-control dictatorships. I fear that Joe has lumped me among the dumb supermarket-shopper class, because obviously optimism is childish if not suicidal, and nuance and gray are the thing. To be properly nuanced, I could easily concede that the current moment represents the high-water mark for the "free-enterprise system", with multiple independent actors, and the invisible hand. Maybe the alternative was ahead of its time in terms of being unimplementable, and we're on the cusp of some revolutionary computing technology which actually lets us centrally control and produce exactly as many pink bathrobes as consumers will want in a given month. No matter. The original discussion started, if anyone remembers, about whether or not to be optimistic about comfortably supporting 10 billion people by the end of the century, or simplifying even further, whether to be optimistic at all. Optimism always comes across as naive because it separates the nuance and complexity of the analysis phase from a simple prescriptive action, which is the only way to move things forward. Selling illusions has always been a part of the grand scheme of things, no one has built a scalable, survivable system without it, and in some quarters, it is referred to as faith.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Aug 18, '04)


[Johannes Michael] Curley [letter, Aug 17]: My comments concerning marines' failure to think, and to consider consequences, is based upon decades of observation - both up close, and up to date. (My comments actually apply to the broader military: I cannot count how many times I have been confronted by angry veterans screaming about how they "defended my rights", therefore somehow got the idea that I had to get their permission before daring to exercise my rights? That attitude, I submit, is not one arrived at by means of thought - let alone thought about consequences.) The utterly wrongheaded approach - after the fact of the illegal invasion of Iraq - to Fallujah occurred not once, but repeatedly. And that was politicized, and grounded in egotistical effort to save face. It was a standoff (or, if you prefer, stalemate), and the marines announced they would attack - or withdraw - it's no longer clear. Then they did either the opposite of what they had announced, or did neither. Their ultimatums were certainly as out of place (and meaningless) as the fact that they are in Iraq to begin with. Ultimately, as only the US media did not report (exactly as the last on the planet to learn of [Richard] Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia was the US people), the number of civilian casualties was much higher than the marines reported - because, of course, if the marines kill a person, it is axiomatic (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that the person killed was an "insurgent" or "terrorist". Always. Even when the person killed was an infant guerrilla fighter "hiding out" in a civilian home. All in all, the marines' effort backfired: it alienated not only the alleged "insurgents" and "terrorists" but also the civilian population. Perhaps, in your view, that was the planned consequence. If those facts are fulfill your notion of military wisdom, then so must the depraved conduct of the larger military, authorized from the top, in the emblematic "liberation zone" named Abu Ghraib prison. Apply the same facts to Najaf, then repeat ad nauseam ... To Carl Hershberger [letter, Aug 17]: your naivete and trust of the word of the Bush War Crimes Family (have you not heard his belief that it is inherent in the power of the president to "set aside the law" - which includes the constitution?) is stunning ... It should go without saying but obviously does not: one does not "bring democracy" to a country by appointing a puppet dictator to run the country in accordance with the whim, will, and orders of the appointing power. Were it logically possible to do so, then Augusto Pinochet, as only one of many examples, would be an appointee of whom to be proud, and even to boast.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 18, '04)


Thanks to Grumpy [letter, Aug 17], another important card is now on the table - the second law of thermodynamics and the entropic-heat death of the universe. To borrow a phrase from Spengler, it is not the end of the world, it is just the end of you. You sit in California, a cooling and moribund particle swept along with the westward movement of the American frontier, now closed for a century, and await the end. You are not in bad company, as Henry Adams felt exactly the same way a century ago. At least in his time these ideas were still able to generate some creative expression ... where now they lead mostly to croaking. As Ben Franklin noted in his Autobiography: "There are croakers in every country, always boding its ruin ..." Grumpy [and fellow letter writers] ADeL and Joe Nichols are all croakers, particles in the process of cooling and slowing down, on their way to sputtering out. Entropy indeed! The mythical atomistic society that was the dream of the postmoderns is a dead end. Psalm 1 illustrates in a beautifully metaphoric and uniquely poetic manner the process of entropic heat death. First, the wicked person walks in the counsel of the ungodly - he begins to listen to and adopt bad ideas. Second, he stands in the way of sinners - he has gone from walking to standing, becoming entrenched in his ideas, his feet mired in a slough of despond. Finally, he sits in the seat of the scornful - from walking to standing to sitting with a crowd of like-minded croakers, all prophesying doom while active and energetic souls fight it out in the arena of life, doing great deeds and making monumental mistakes. The response of these croakers to the central challenges of a broken world and a fallen humanity is to point out the impossibility of perfection, the inevitability of failure and tragedy. So Grumpy recommends a hastening toward extinction, ADeL a paralytic dwelling on catastrophe, and Nichols a pseudo-philosophical musing on the thoughts (or lack thereof) of frozen-food shoppers. Thankfully, America's faith has allowed her to see past the tragedy to the promise of a brighter future, and has given her the strength to act in response to the challenge.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 18, '04) 


With regards to the letters by Daniel McCarthy (Aug 16) and Carl Hershberger (Aug 17), I am curious as to their casting Singapore as undemocratic. Is it due to their sources of information? Or is it the projection of their world view? Let's see, in Singapore we have one man (or woman), one vote. Hmm, it looks like that in the UK and US (I hope) too. We have a unicameral parliament where we vote directly for the members of parliament (MPs) representing a constituency. That you have to blame on the British for showing it to us. After the legislative election, the leader of the majority party or majority coalition is appointed the prime minister (PM) (primus inter pares), who acts as the head of government (HG). Whoever becomes the PM has been elected first by the electorate, via the MP route. The chief of state (CS) in Singapore is the president, who is also directly elected, unlike [in] the US, which has the president as the HG and CS. In addition, the [US] president is elected by an Electoral College. I can now see direct democracy at work here. In Singapore, there is a total of eight political parties (PAP, DPP, NSP, PKMS, SDP, SJP, SPP, WP), whereas the USA has only four (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens). Should I suggest to the other parties to merge to bring the number to four? Come election time, rallies are held by all parties in the open, [and] banners and posters are placed in the contested constituencies. I think this should pass. Oh wait, is there any violence? No, well maybe the electorate is not quite so free. Anyway, there are 82 PAP [People's Action Party], one SDA [Singapore Democratic Alliance] and one WP [Workers' Party] MPs. Not quite the picture of a free democracy, is it - too much power in the hands of one party - maybe it should look something like 43 PAP and 41 others. Yes, the PAP is the dominant party and tries to keep it that way - then again, which political party does not? Sure, Singaporeans grumble about taxes, the government, jobs, the weather and everything else under the sun. However, once you step beyond the shores and compare Singapore to many others, you begin to realize what works and what doesn't and pretty much cut out the hot air associated with all the nice-sounding theories. I don't wish to sound like an apologist for the present government, but until a better party comes along, I will stick with one that gives us results. The results matter where the GDP [gross domestic product] per capita is now US$23,700 (UK = $27,700; USA = $37,800, 2003) versus a fraction of that when we first achieved independence in 1965. Though not perfect, we have a clean and safe environment where families can be safely raised, where one doesn't have to worry every day about being robbed, raped, assaulted or burgled. We can pretty much wander at any time of the day and feel reasonably safe. Can I say that in the cities of America, where even the locals warn you about the places to avoid after dark and it is best to stay indoors or, as they say, where angels fear to tread? Isn't it ironic then [that] decent folks have to stay cooped in like caged rabbits while the wolves wander at will? If the anxiety of being mugged is not sufficient, you wonder if he's coming after you with a knife or a gun. If this is the result of unfettered democracy, no wonder other nations have a hard time digesting it. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "Too little liberty brings stagnation, too much liberty brings chaos." Perhaps those who agitate blindly for complete freedom live in large, comfortable houses out in the suburbs, where people don't have to worry so much about their next paycheck or their immediate neighbors. Let's not even start with Hong Kong. Since it was forcibly ceded to [Britain] by Qing China, it was ruled primarily as a cash cow, to be squeezed for all its worth. Only when the talks came up on handing over the New Territories (which would have made the Hong Kong island untenable) to the People's Republic of China (PRC) did the British colonial overlords suddenly have a change of heart. The colonial overlords then felt that it would be a wonderful gift to bequeath on the poor suffering sods the gift of democracy and all that - sorry, old chaps, if it came about 150 years later than expected. As in many other places that the colonial overlords went, the natives were second-class, beyond the pale so to speak. So all this talk about bringing democracy is exceedingly hypocritical. In fact, the land of the free and the home of the brave may be having some problems of its own, where the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] is knocking on political troublemakers and having a tete-a-tete with protesters [as reported by the New York Times]. As the saying goes, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Perhaps it's best to tend to one's own house first and your immediate problems ([Osama bin Laden] et al) before blithely pronouncing who's democratic or not (according to their definition). The best ones to decide what form of democracy will do are the people who will live and work with the system day in, day out.
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Aug 18, '04) 


It is so typical for a white American, Carl Hershberger [letter, Aug 17], to label others who disagree with him as anti-America. If you listen to the presidential debates, you will find that American leaders are always labeling their way as the American way, [and] whoever does not agree with them as either un-American or Anti-American. So are Chinese leaders. However, if the doers are colored people, they must be either dictators or communists. If a person does not agree with a white American, that person must be either a communist or a terrorist, or he is anti-American. At least, his idea is un-American. However, that is called democracy here, because the doers are non-colored. I bet Carl Hershberger is non-colored.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 18, '04) 


It is rather silly to see how hard Daniel McCarthy and Stephen Renico (letters, Aug 16) try to sugarcoat the Electoral College, be it part of a "constitutional representative democracy", "democratic republic" or any other such "hundreds and hundreds of statements by some of our most famous historical figures". The unforgiving fact remains: the current occupant of the White House is a loser of the 2000 popular vote and the majority will in the nation has not been respected. The Electoral College, at the best, is a simple and clever design by the Framers to contravene decision-making of the ordinary citizens in this country to chose their own president. Although it has gone through superficial changes in the US history, the anti-democratic core of the Electoral College remains intact today. I will leave it to McCarthy and Renico to tell us how the Electoral College came about and why it is still needed at all (a little history homework and truth discovery will not hurt if they do not know yet). My argument is quite simple: stop demanding popular elections in other countries until the US has them first. Will it ever dawn on McCarthy, Renico, and the like that they live in a big glass house and, therefore, should not throw any stones (or lecture, patronize, and affront the intellect of readers on this website)? Singapore has made tremendously extraordinary progress since its independence only 39 years ago and already holds regular elections for its institutions. Hong Kong has already been provided with its own version of the Electoral College, ie, the 800-person Election Committee that includes a fairly broad representation of its citizens (incidentally the composition of the 2007 Election Committee is still to be determined). How McCarthy could fail to foresee all the possible opportunities and mechanisms available in Singapore and Hong Kong to make political and electoral system changes is beyond reason and, thus, beyond help probably. Giving the overwhelming hurdles laid down by the Framers to amend the constitution, the US president will never be "directly elected by a popular vote", quoting McCarthy, before people in Singapore and Hong Kong actually attain direct elections of their leaders. Meanwhile, McCarthy will no doubt keep telling others to do as he says but not as he does. Such is life.
Jay Liu
USA (Aug 18, '04) 


May Sage [letter, Aug 16] has raised some very relevant points in her response to my earlier comments about the Maoist/Naxalite insurgencies inflicting large parts of India; however, her view seems a little simplistic. My resigned acceptance of the use of force has been interpreted as pessimism. Maybe I should have clarified better - use of force is not a solution (as agreed, it has been tried and failed in various parts of the world) but it is definitely a necessary part of the solution. Force is supposed to be the stick in a carrot-and-stick approach. Moreover when I use the word "force" I don't mean that the whole countryside should be swamped with troops armed to the teeth, rather that the police presence should be stepped up and improved to ensure that people choosing to break from the Maoist death grip are not executed. As it is India has among the lowest police-to-population ratios in the world. The national average is 1.3 cops per 10,000 people, and even those few are usually armed with nothing better than bamboo batons. The guns used by ordinary policemen are colonial-era pieces that are notorious for getting jammed at the wrong time, while the terrorists they are up against have sophisticated, modern weaponry. The violent Maoist movement in India began in the Communist Party-ruled state of West Bengal when firebrand youngsters in the party accused it of betrayal of the communist cause for contesting elections like any other party in a democratic system. However, before the movement could take off the party pulled the rug from under these revolutionaries' feet by enacting sweeping land reforms that empowered the rural poor. So the revolutionaries took their movement to the neighboring states, which were under political turmoil at that time - and thus temporarily incapable of enacting any legislation. By the time some political stability was achieved and the decision to implement land reforms taken, it was too late - the Maoists had already taken over the countryside. Thus we already have an Indian version of the Hernando de Soto solution that has been proved to work. The question is: What is going to make the Maoists allow this solution to be implemented in the territories they control? Since they are reluctant to put themselves out of business, the use of force to displace them becomes necessary. This is hardly a bankrupt, pessimistic solution, or a lack of will to implement real reforms. I don't know anything about Peru other than where it is but I'm pretty sure that the military/police force must have been used in conjunction with granting of property rights in order to break the death grip of the Shining Path.
Amit Sharma
Roorke, India (Aug 18, '04) 


Consider the interesting juxtaposition between the column by [Ben] Tanosborn [Muslims' turn for fear and hate, Aug 17], the letter by [Ali] Atlagh [Aug 16] and their authors. Mr Tanosborn is displeased to have received indirectly a letter expressing less than respect for Muslims. He is quick to point out the factual errors in the letter involving the percentage of the French population that is Muslim. Contrast that column with the invective-filled and hateful letter of Mr Atlagh. Mr Atlagh is offended by Spengler's suggestion that Islam is not a religion even though Spengler goes on to prove that Islam is a religion [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. But look at the character of the two gentlemen involved. Mr Tanosborn holds a graduate degree from the University of California, Los Angeles. I don't know about Mr Atlagh's education or even where he is from, so it is difficult to compare the gentlemen based on their level of intellectual achievement. But it easy to compare them based on their level of civilization and civil discourse. It is the invective and obviously hatred-filled Muslims like Mr Atlagh that are generating an equal amount of invective and hatred against all Muslims. Mr Tanosborn suggests that Muslims are in the same position as Catholics were before 1960. Then many Americans believed that a Catholic president would mean the subordination of the United States to the Holy See and the pope. One of the greatest fears a person has to face is the fear of the unknown. Certainly education and knowledge of the world can mitigate that fear. After 1961, Americans experienced the conduct of president [John] Kennedy and their fear of the Vatican went away. Our [America's] body politic added to its fund of knowledge the fact that merely being a Catholic was not a determiner of national policy. Mr Tanosborn is incensed by the hate-filled letter he received, but the writer of that letter is at the same time fearful of and incensed by statements of the kind made by Mr Atlagh. Mr Atlagh's concluding statements are indeed reminiscent of another event of the era: Nikita Sergeivitch Khruschchev pounding his shoe on the desk at the United Nations and yelling, "We will bury you." Mr Tanosborn may fear that he will suffer for his religion even though he is not an Islamist. Mr Atlagh wants us to suffer because we are not Islamic. Whereas the pope has no battalions and preaches universal love for all mankind, gentlemen like Mr Atlagh preach hate for everything non-Islamic and incite their followers to violence in the name of Allah. One of the things that Americans have learned about Islam is the concept of jihad. While it is true that the total meaning of jihad is not holy war, it is true that Islam has been and is militantly and violently aggressive and has been violently aggressive against the United States. We can argue over the "original sin" that started the Crusades and brought Islam and Christianity into conflict. But contrary to Mr Atlagh's assertion that Islam will win, Islam will lose. Mr Atlagh need only look at the glorious civilizations that are the current Islamic nations to understand just how badly Islam will lose. While many "Western-educated" Muslims maintain their religion, many also become apostates and try another religion and lifestyle that offers them the advantages of modern civilization. The more that Mr Atlagh and his compatriots fight violently against modern civilization, the quicker and more violently they will be overcome. Were the Islamic world not floating on lakes of oil, it might well find itself in the same economic position as it was in the time of Mohammed. In fact, if Mr Atlagh were to expose himself to theories of modern political science, he might find that Islam is conceptually closer to other totalitarian systems like fascism, National Socialism or communism. The fact that one "worships" a godhead instead of a person or a theory of social evolution is irrelevant. What is relevant is the amount of personal freedom that the system permits. That is another thing that Americans have learned about Islam: its systematic control of the individual in all areas of life. The world islam may mean "submission", but in operation as the Islamists desire, it is theocratic slavery. I do not fear Mr Tanosborn and I am sorry that he was exposed to an apparently irrational and error-filled letter deprecating his religion. I will shoot Mr Atlagh on sight, before he does the same to me.
Richard Radcliffe (USC '68 and '79)
Apple Valley, California (Aug 17, '04) 
bigbird@kwamt.com

Maybe it's just such a tendency - of which Americans are rightly or wrongly accused, and which you have more than once defended on this page - to resort quickly to violence, whether in domestic or international disputes, that frightens both Tanosborn and Atlagh. - ATol


Dear Spengler: I just recently discovered your column and have spent the past few days scouring through them [see The Complete Spengler] and other articles on the ATimes site. Your columns are refreshingly thoughtful and prescient, a product of your broad insights and vision. I wanted to send along a story as an adjunct to your column on "only the Jews ..." Roughly 30 years ago, I was on a British Columbia ferry boat crossing over from Vancouver Island to the Canadian mainland. I was a teenage hippie then, with long scraggly hair and a beard. I was sitting quietly reading, as I recall, a translation of the Vedic scripture the Sri Ishopanishad. Suddenly, I noticed a middle-aged woman standing over me. I looked up. "The Jews are God's timepiece," she said to me, and then walked away. Ever since, I have wondered about the meaning of her comment. Now, I am Jewish but hardly look it, and even if she knew this, why me? Aside from those personal considerations, my main contemplation has been over the stand-alone meaning. I think I now understand. The Jews are somehow a totem for the human race. As the world treats them - or they treat the world - so goes all our affairs. Consider this: the persecution of the Jews always seems to spike at times of great human conflict (the fall of Rome, Crusades, Inquisition, the no-state-for-Israel/end-of-states World War I timeline you mention, World War II). Now, many of the Jews of Israel have taken up the gauntlet of hatred against the Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, such that even reasonable people speak of them as "animals" while protesting they don't hate anybody. With Jews spilling their own poison into the well of global hatreds, the clock may be running out for all of us.
Barry Brown
Toronto, Ontario (Aug 17, '04) 


A few comments on Joe Nagarya's letter of August 16. I didn't read it all, as fortunately I can now identify Joe's bloviating letters before finishing the first paragraph. But I read the last sentence as well, feeling it would be "rude" to merely skim to his signature. Joe, marines may not be known among your crowd for considering the consequences of their actions, but I assure you they do, particularly combat marines. They may not consider your opinion of their actions as thoroughly as you think they should, but that is a different thing. As to your conception of totalitarianism as "deranged and loudmouthed", I believe this is a personal projection - perhaps you could take a class at a local university to learn about the phenomenon. Better yet, perhaps you could take the class in your country. As we both know Boston real estate is inflated, and your leaving would permit you to make the first contribution of your young life to that fine city.
Johannes Michael Curley
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts (Aug 17, '04) 

We had to look up "bloviating". Good word, and it presents an opportunity to remind letter writers to try to keep their correspondence short. Today's crop of letters is particularly interesting and we are running most of them largely uncut, but we cannot always do this and must pare overly long or rambling letters down, or simply not run them. Keep to the point, so as to make sure it doesn't get excised by an overworked editor. - ATol


In regard to the usual anti-USA letters [Aug 16]: Perhaps I am also one of those "[pseudo]-patriotic bullies" that Joseph Nagarya writes about as he castigates the USA's invasion of Iraq, but I feel that trying to bring democracy to Iraq will help the Iraqis in the long run. Does Nagarya feel that leaving Saddam [Hussein] in power until he died, then letting his two murderous sons take over, would have been better? I suspect the Kurds would disagree as well of many relatives of those found in the mass graves. Are innocent people dying? Surely. How many died under Saddam and how many would have been killed by him and his pathologic offspring had the US not invaded? I can definitely see the downside to the invasion, listed by numerous writers on this forum, but can they not at least admit that those who disagree may not be evil or brainwashed? Certainly the USA could have left Fallujah and Najaf alone, but does it not sound plausible that the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and those of [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi would soon be at each other's throats trying to impose repressive theocracies similar to those of the horrible Taliban? Joe Nichols has a loathing of Americans that I don't share. "You can look in the face of some middle-aged person in the grocery store ... and know with a certainty that he/she doesn't have an idea in their head," he writes. I think if [he] actually got to know these people he might actually develop a genuine respect for them, their hard work, and their endeavor to do their best in a very difficult world. Most would not feel they are superior to Joe Nichols; someday he might learn to reciprocate. Dennis Chua's overly sarcastic letter defends Singapore's lack of democracy by condemning the USA's support of several thugs (he could have listed many more) during the Cold War. One of my happiest days was watching [president Richard] Nixon resign, so it is hard for me to defend him, but I must say that nobody knew during the Cold War how it was going to end. Certainly if the USSR had won the world would have been as happy as Eastern Europe was under communist rule. And though the USA supported some awful people who did some horrendous things to their own countrymen, it did have a strategic purpose, just as supporting [Josef] Stalin did during World War II. Looking back, it all could have been done differently, but would Chile or the Philippines been better off with Marxist governments?
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Aug 17, '04) 


Joe Nichols [letter, Aug 16] conveniently illustrates the Anglo version of the continental European stupor which I described in responding to [letter writer] ADeL, and from which, by the way, [US presidential] candidate [John] Kerry also suffers. Mr Nichols further exposes the amazing and disgusting superiority complex endemic in such "intellectual" circles, when he claims clairvoyant power to read, with "certainty", the apparently empty minds of American supermarket shoppers. Finally, he unsurprisingly admits that his side is exhausted and discouraged, when he declines to be the midwife of my "enlightenment". Such is the attitude of postmodern "liberals" (they are not at all liberal in classical modern terms) when faced, to their dismay, with people who actually believe in something, even something as shocking as good and evil, or God. Faced with an overwhelming "mass of information", these poor postmoderns become bogged down and paralyzed, attempting to sort out the "nuance". A medieval foe with high-tech, extremely unorthodox and destructive weapons attacks the nerve centers of our civilization, and Mr Nichols opines that "beneath the high-minded proclamations of principle and intent, all states are corruptions of their professed ideals". What a revelation. This is analysis worthy of a public-school kid wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt. Most significantly, it leads to no positive action. It's a broken world we live in, Mr Nichols, and we are a fallen humanity. Both the faithful and the faithless acknowledge that central fact and challenge. In response to that challenge, Christians believe in a redeeming God, who sacrificed himself on a cross to reconcile humanity to himself. They believe that that sacrifice has set them free from the bonds of sin and liberated them to act for good in the world - that evil has been defeated and they are here to claim the victory. That faith gives them power, as witnessed in those who braved persecution and infamy, left their ancestral homes behind, and established a new and wonderful country in a wilderness. Unfortunately for you, they still exist, and the country they founded is now the most powerful on Earth. Somehow their faith sustains them, and it is a mystery both to them, and more especially, to you. In response to the same challenges of brokenness and fallenness, you and ADeL and Michael Moore sit in the seat of the scornful, trumpeting your hatred of belief and the decisive action that flows from it. Occasionally one of you may do something like eat McDonald's for 30 days straight to prove some unamazing hypothesis like "fast food is bad for you". Ironically, you might very well be swallowed up by Islamic fanatics if not for the igno-supermarket shoppers and their warrior sons, but because of their efforts you are permitted to stew in your negative juice until some less romantic doom befalls you. The truly liberal preacher Norman Vincent Peale described faith and its power in a series of books and sermons delivered throughout the second half of the 20th century. Ralph Waldo Emerson, another liberal and the preeminent American philosopher (and philosopher of America), discussed the very same things a century before that. Each of them, in his own unique way, was an apologist for and translator of the original Calvinist Christian ideas brought to America in the early 17th century and absolutely central to any understanding of American history and culture. You and those like you would do well to read them, if only to gain a better understanding of your adversaries. There is amazing power in faith. It simply seems to be an immutable law of the universe that you cannot fight belief with unbelief. Belief leads to action - right belief to right action, wrong belief to wrong action. Unbelief leads to no action, as a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Postmodern absurdism and deconstructionism are therefore impotent in the face of Islamic terrorism, undeniably a body in motion. Because of that, bristle as you may, the West's own believers have naturally assumed the mantle of leadership against this foe. In sum, Mr Nichols, you are not clever and I am not angry. In fact, it may be just the opposite.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr (Aug 17, '04) 


Joe Nichols' explanation [letter, Aug 16] of why so many eschew arguing with the hopelessly dunderheaded is excellent as far as it goes. When confronted with "thinkers" that do not understand that, in an entropic universe, virtue is encapsulated in the aphorism "Don't just do something, sit there", the task of basic education, especially against determined resistance, is too daunting for all but the most heroic. But there is another reason for non-interference. Our movement as a species from more sustainable to less sustainable modes of life appears to be what financial chartists call a "secular trend". It appears to be built into us to defecate in our own food until we and every living thing around us chokes to death. I find the evidence overwhelming that Homo sapiens [is] a pest species, and that the sooner we go to our fate the less damage we can do - therefore the better for the sustainability of life on Earth. Thus one refrains, to the extent that one's temper and temperament permits it, from doing anything that might somehow "wise up" the Toynbee Jrs of the world, and thereby delay Mother Nature in her appointed rounds.
Grumpy_and_the_other_six
Central Valley, California (Aug 17, '04) 


I would like to first commend Joe Nichols' surgical and reasoned response [Aug 16] to Alexander's challenging letter and defense of [Arnold] Toynbee's ... explanation that American foreign policies are based on doing "good" for all the peoples of the world. Toynbee Jr's meandering response [Aug 16] to my letter compels the choosing between two venues as a starter to respond. One comes under "whoa there, buckaroo". The other befits his letters' not-so-subtle hints that I must be a European continental and comes under "en garde, Monsieur Toynbee". Answers to the two following questions by either Monsieur Toynbee and/or his alter ego Alexander would facilitate opting for either. Question 1: Since the end of World War II which nation and/or group (say, Islamic terrorists) has been responsible for the deaths of more people? Question 2: Who financed, armed and supported Islamic fundamentalists from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other nations to kill Russian troops in Afghanistan? As far as Monsieur Toynbee's young blond girlfriend in Lyon who was harassed (by Muslims), is she the one who later claimed that she made up the story and has been reprimanded? By the way, Junior, where were faith, hope and charity during the Agent Oranging of over a million Vietnamese?
ADeL (Aug 17, '04) 


I am pleased Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth (letter, Aug 16) found flattery in my assuming his youth from his evident optimism, optimism that is to me suicidal. Jon is evidently a big fan of "liberalizing" trade tools like the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, so obviously good for everyone that even in the US it had to be hidden from Congress. The lesson behind solar panels being beyond the reach of Cambodian villages is not about being selfish or evil or holding anybody back, although these are often features of many specific situations. The lesson for me is about necessary contradictions of interest and a gaggle of sophisticated illusions employed to disguise them. In Civilization and Capitalism, Fernand Braudel quotes a French wholesaler in 1655: "It is certain you cannot enter a partnership with people who have no funds; for they share in the profits and all the loss falls on you." In his conclusion to the second volume of this work, Braudel outlines several necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the formation of the capitalist process and then identifies what was the one indispensable thing: "long distant trade was not everything, but it was the only doorway to a superior profit level", leading to "the international division of labor and (of course) the fruits of that labor". In the third and final volume of this delightful history, we are promised a closer look at the "world economies", "enclosed areas ... [that] expanded as Europe embarked on her conquest of the world". And how little of any of this had to do with "free enterprise" is astonishing; and as though Asian miracles didn't have a lot to do with oligarchic, command state interventions, or their significance to the US during the Cold War, or even all that wealth stolen by Japan and then quietly put to use. Braudel cites Harvard University professor of economics, Stephen Marglin, to emphasize another important finding: that a consistent and essential feature of capitalism from its beginnings (for Braudel, as early as the 13th century) is its unlimited flexibility "to direct and control change in such a way as to preserve its hegemony". Jon even gives us an example in his being conned to equate "batik furniture" (sic) with intellectual property - if there was only any rattan left, or the value of craft goods weren't gobbled up by middlemen. So many illusions: the US has "low energy costs" if we ignore "defense" expenditures, interest on the national debt, the cost of infrastructure and environmental costs; low food costs if we ignore swine and cattle feedlot pollution and land conversion, subsidies, etc; the Internet displacing travel, except for the thousand websites that effectively promote travel. Better to be a futurist than to deal with the real world. It is true that capital is being invested in Cambodia, in a way that Jon might approve - it's going into casinos, where the people who deal the cards control the odds and most people walk away losers. It's like capitalism itself; if only we take into account enough territory and time.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 17, '04) 


First off, as an American, I would like to offer an apology on behalf of [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy for his condescending and insulting attitude to everyone he disagrees with. I hope people around the world will realize that even here in America, there are many people who deplore arrogance, brutality and ignorance. The many "super-patriots" that loudly proclaim America's superiority usually know little about America, nor anything else, for that matter. McCarthy refers to "directly elected congressmen" as if they were something to be proud of. These congressmen are elected by 20% of the voting population (the rest don't vote), and the districts they represent have been created solely to ensure their election, through a process known as "gerrymandering". Anyone with a decent knowledge of US politics knows that although there are over 400 congressional seats up for election every two years, only a dozen are competitive. The rest are foregone conclusions. Moreover, the candidates for these elections are selected based on their connections to party insiders and business interests. Anyone with an understanding of American history would be revolted by the current state of politics. One need only listen to American politicians speak to realize the low moral and intellectual character of these people. I believe that East Asian nations have made great advances in governance, combining compassion for the poor and elderly with disciplined management of the budget and economy. There is much that Americans could learn from them. Singapore lacks not only constitutional amendments, but is also free of armies of homeless, drug addicts and vicious criminals roaming its streets. And just as Hong Kong's weighted voting system skews the balance of power towards pro-Beijing legislators, the arcane American political system tilts the balance of power towards big business, corrupt unions and political insiders. Except in Hong Kong, no person, regardless of their nationality, will be denied medical care due to lack of funds. And the educational level of the typical Hong Kong legislator (who will be fluent in two or three languages with advanced degrees) far exceeds that of his "democratic" counterpart in the USA. However, many Americans believe that any place that is not like America is inferior. This ridiculous attitude leads to utter blindness towards America's own problems, and other countries' advantages. One of the advantages of the US is its democratic system. But this system is very troubled, and by no means a good example for other nations (unlike say, Canada or Sweden). Americans, however, believe every nation must have democracy, supermarkets and freeways to be happy. That people could be happy living in a totally different society is an almost impossible concept to Americans. What is very strange is that Americans themselves are generally quite miserable in their own lives, yet they manage to convince themselves that their hollow, materialistic misery is indeed happiness. We must go beyond this silly idea that "we are the best and you are inferior". America's vast social problems are nothing to crow about. The hordes of uninsured, homeless, drug addicts, and violent criminals make this country one of the most fearful places in the world. The mission of Americans should be to put their own wretched house in order, not to tell others how to live.
G Travan
California (Aug 16, '04) 

We're not suggesting it as a panacea, but if only Americans would travel more here in Asia and elsewhere outside of the US and US-clone tourist resorts it would probably go a long way toward curing some of the ills you cite. We also suspect that many Americans unfamiliar with Asia would be surprised at how warmly they - if not their way of life necessarily - are welcomed over here. - ATol


I totally agree with Professor Yu Shiyu's premise that Korea is of historical military and economic importance to China, and vice versa [Another (Asian) look at China-Korea ties, Aug 14]. I greatly appreciated the points salient to that argument that he raised. Many of the tangential points he raised relating to other matters, however, can be disputed. To date, no credible report exists to confirm a "massacre" a No Gun Ri, and certainly not as first depicted in the wire stories. It appears that the good professor had not read the official US report. I suggest that he do so. Likewise, history is best confined to facts, and not innuendo. Kim Ku, he informs us, was "assassinated by pro-American elements" as "many claim". What precisely does this mean? That Kim Ku was "assassinated on orders of the American authorities". All right, where is the credible proof? Likewise, we have "universal agreement" that Mao Zedong complacently accepted orders from Josef Stalin to "rescue North Korea"? What, the sacrifice of so many Korean comrades in both the anti-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War was totally unappreciated? China had no interests of her own in the Korean War? Hey, how about a little judgment based upon historical analysis here? He again resorts to innuendo concerning [Theodore] Roosevelt's distasteful but realistic acknowledgement that the Japanese could do what they wished in early-1900s Korea. There was (again possible) "Anglo-assistance" to the Japanese navy during the Sino-Japanese War; this, apparently, the opinion of one, unnamed Korean historian. And Roosevelt represented "Anglo-Saxon" interests, therefore by inference, there must have been some Anglo-American plot afoot to divide and control Korea. Ah yes, and the Kwangju Massacre occurred "under the watch of the US". This canard has been around for quite a while. The fact that the ROK [Republic of Korea] did kill numerous protesters, and that this occurred while US military forces were on the peninsula and members of a combined US-Korea command, does not mean that the ROK forces were operating in Kwangju under US command. That is not stated, but it is implied. Again, Professor Yu's method in innuendo. It does not do him justice as a historian. Not too long ago, revisionist historians were busy trying to prove that the United States and the ROK started the Korean War. That thesis died when the Soviets fell. If the professor wishes his theses to survive challenge, and establish himself as true revisionist historian of note, he needs to find more facts, and ditch the innuendo.
Shaun Darragh
Seoul, South Korea (Aug 16, '04) 


[Another (Asian) look at China-Korea ties, Aug 14, by] Yu Shiyu and [China ups ante in ancient-kingdom feud, Aug 11, by] David Scofield [are] excellent articles demonstrating the relative intelligence of Asia Times Online. Rather than think of America and China as vying for No 1, we may consider a new paradigm - rule of law. As far as I know rule of law has never extended to nations, or rather superpowers. It is arguable that America's current exploits in the Middle East demonstrate that superpowers don't allow the rule of law to apply to themselves. However, at www.foolishthoughts.com I argue that rule of law is a probable paradigm arising from the current global strife.
Pantony (Aug 16, '04) 


Fu Zhen [letter, Aug 13] makes some mind-boggling comments about Michael Schwartz' Bush gambles as Najaf burns [Aug 13]. The only question is where to begin: "A desperate military adventure?" Jingoists and marines, never known much for the "caution" called thought, let alone considering the consequences of their actions, have one repetitive one-note refrain: We win, you lose. Unfortunately, they assert that mantra even when wholly refuted by reality. "Destruction of whole neighborhoods?" Apparently Mr Zhen hasn't been following the news - or considers any news he does not like to be the product of "liberal" media which only exist in his rationalizing fantasies. The US's destruction in Najaf (as in Fallujah) has been tantamount to indiscriminate, with the number of innocent civilians, including women and children, far outnumbering the total (politically correct smear-words alert) "insurgents" and "terrorists" killed. Jingoists and marines never ask questions: if a US government they like tells them those killed were "enemy", then they believe that those killed were "enemies" - exactly as happened during US involvement in Vietnam. "Major military defeat?" The marines' efforts vis-a-vis Fallujah, now being repeated for more than the first time with Najaf, were a military standoff - despite the horrendous carnage against civilians, including women and children. So severe was the loss for the marines that they appointed one of Saddam Hussein's former generals to establish control - which he did. Now he is leading the Fallujah "insurgents", who control Fallujah, against any US efforts to establish external control over that city. Fallujah was, thus, both a military and political defeat; it first branded, then actively made, the people the US claims to be "liberating" into the enemy. Think about that: the US illegally invades Iraq, and "succeeds" in making those who legally belong in Iraq into the "enemy" in Iraq. The trespassers, after breaking-and-entering the country, burglarizing its institutions, and torturing those it "liberated", claims to be the "good guys", while labeling those who defend against their illegal invasion and crimes "insurgents" and "terrorists". As the "enemy". It seems success is, in the eyes of those trespassers, in the ability to call other people dirty names - and shoot them if they object. "Our marines are going to kill that vicious murderer and inciter [Muqtada al-]Sadr ..." Unlike [US President George W] Bush, his fellow jingoists, and the politicized US military leadership, I'm still waiting for evidence that Sadr committed the crimes they allege he committed. (I gave up waiting for the "evidence" of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq before the illegal invasion occurred.) And, given such evidence, a trial, in keeping with US traditions of justice, which begins with presumption of innocence. (Bush and jingoists have no use for that tradition of justice; so long as they have the might, Bush's lynch-mob mentality will prevail.) "... Because he's pretty much making us do it ..." There was a time in the US when the rapist blamed his victim for the rape. Some still live that irresponsibility of blaming their victims. "... And we're going to annihilate anyone stupid enough to fight with him." An instance demonstrating that law exists to protect the weak from the strong: the US illegally invades Iraq, makes and chooses who will be its "enemy", then sets out to kill them without trial. Not because that conforms to the rule of law; not because it is consistent with international law or US traditions of justice; but simply because it can. And let no thought or consideration of consequences get in the way. "... And the marines with our British allies will do it with almost no collateral damage (defined as innocent, unintentional deaths and destruction of property). Again, Mr Zhen has not been listening to the news for at least the past three-and-one-half months. Or has been dismissing it out of hand because "liberal", rather than admit that matters are not going as he falsely imagines. "Gamble? Sir, the marines don't gamble. They accomplish. Period." In Fallujah, and as they are repeating with Najaf, the marines "accomplished" extraordinary bad politics, and extraordinarily bad consequences. They have increased the number of "insurgents", "terrorists" and enemies. Only jingoists - and fools - would consider those disasters to be "victories". Exactly as they did with US involvement in Vietnam. And it is just such jingoists and fools which prolonged that disaster, and increased the number of deaths, on all sides, by which means they only delayed the inevitable. ... The US is illegally occupying Iraq; it has no grounds - legal or moral - to be threatening anyone there with death based upon unsubstantiated allegations. But that has never bothered the pseudo-patriotic bullies who wrap themselves in flags the world around; all that matters to them is the sound of their own voices as they shout down all opposition. And when the opposition is not silenced, threaten it with death. And when the opposition is still not silenced, shoot it. Thus we see deranged loudmouthed totalitarianism falsely claiming to be acting in the name of "freedom".
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 16, '04) 



Spengler [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10] needs to know that a religion centered on God can also be defined as our concept of us, the Creation and the Creator and their benign inter-relationship. "Afterlife" is a concept that is not such that a religion cannot be without it. "Sin" is a concept in all religions but some view it differently. It is incorrect to deny a religion as defined above if its one or all beliefs are not congruent with any belief in another religion. One has the right to change the definition and that is the curse of a mind not in control of itself. For minds polluted by ego, greed. lust and envy or other evils that their owners can seldom know, the subject religion has myriad aspects. For a purified mind, the reality can and therefore is only one as God is in all religions. All religions in the definition above have two parts. The spiritual part is inside each and invisible to any. It can be and so is one in all religions. The non-spiritual part is inert and comprises visible practices of a religion and regulations of society of followers of a religion that are the containers of spirituality as a cup is for water. When the follower mistakes the cup for water or visible practices and laws as spirituality, the curse of violence and wars springs. The above distinction of the cup and water is invisible for 2,000 years in the west of India. There the cup is water. The result is continuous ethos of genocidal violence. Why was there no genocidal violence and conversion of India to Islam in 1,200 years if Mr Spengler's thesis is correct that Islam is not a religion? In India Islam was not merely a religion but a rock solid one without violence for centuries? Even violent and revengeful Pashtuns of Afghanistan under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan in a part of India were non-violent fighters in Mahatma Gandhi's movement for the freedom from the British. The earlier Western thinkers understand spirituality as our relationship with, God our reach in it and our effort for it, the better for world peace. The earlier the mind-polluting ego of superiority of race, religion and culture arising from both is given up and all men seen and treated as men, the faster we shall all become human and cease to be barbarians that today are called civilized. Even India in the last half a century is becoming civilized in the Western model of burning human beings alive. It is Hiroshima on a small scale for a poor country.
Prakash Narain (Aug 16, '04) 


I have read the article [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10] by Spengler, a fictitious character, whose articles show nothing but utter ignorance. I would like to know who this guy is, if he is indeed real. And if he is, what is his/her real name. It is easy to hide behind a pen name and spit garbage. I am a Muslim, like it or not. Your garbage is nothing new. This filth you call journalism has begun a long time ago and the Crusades are there to witness the barbarity of those whose revulsion of this deen [Muslim way of life] is plain to be seen. You can go around and claim whatever you want; one day you will have the pleasure of answering to the garbage you are writing. Your hate of this deen has obviously made you blind to the truth, but some people deserve to die ignorant and you are one of them. The only people you quote as Muslims in your article are as far from Islam as one can be. Ali Sina should find a different name. He is not worthy of the name Ali, but he uses it so that he misleads people into thinking that he is a Muslim with a different point of view ... Islam is here to stay. It will be the last man standing, not because of your garbage arguments and falsities, but because it is the truth, and Allah is sufficient as a witness for the truth. Believe or don't believe, one day we will all find out and on that day you shall ponder what you have been saying in this flimsy life. For now act like there is no tomorrow, but tomorrow is sooner than you think!
Ali Atlagh (Aug 16, '04) 


I just wanted to respond to what ATol fellow reader Amit Sharma said about my comment on [the] article [India playing with Maoist fire, Jul 31]. Amit agrees that hard tactics have failed and root causes need to be addressed but says that Maoists have become so strong that they have made it difficult for root causes to be addressed because they have removed government institutions (this is quite common in rebel-areas and isn't unique to India). His view is a very pessimistic one and seems to support force to prevent breathing room - though admitting it has failed to turn the situation around. I want to add something else that illustrates how the dynamic can be changed. In Peru, the Shining Path insurgency was reduced by taking constructive action. A decade ago, the most vicious, entrenched insurgency in the Western Hemisphere was the Shining Path in Peru. It had 80,000 armed soldiers. Hernando de Soto, the Peruvian economist who is promoting the policy of property rights, saw his actions lead to concrete results. He and his team spent two years planning property reform for the impoverished Peruvian coca farmers, whose sons populated the Shining Path. Just six months after the de Soto program was launched, the Shining Path leaders were in jail and their army had melted away, choosing to work in their newly legal farmsteads. De Soto convinced the peasants and slum dwellers that the state would guarantee their property better than the guerrillas, and so the poor people of Peru turned against the Shining Path almost overnight. So obviously another country, less well off than India, has shown this can be done. If India cannot look to addressing this issue constructively, then it lacks the will. It and its fellow insurgency sufferers have this common failing. Nepal's example which I mentioned in my comment is very recent, and it doesn't have an entrenched insurgency. But ignoring root causes is going to ensure its insurgency will not fade. FARC [Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia] is an entrenched insurgency that is fueled by coca production support. FARC also has used negotiations to buy time (nothing unique to Indian Maoists). But is Colombia trying anything like Peru? It's chosen option is trying the force method to no avail. [Sultan] Shahin's perspective is as bankrupt as the Colombia one. Time to look at other measures. The negotiation tactic can provide breathing room for both parties (which seems to have escaped Mr Shahin's notice) and if the government has constructive follow-up plans it can use this moment to try changing the perennial dynamic.
May Sage
USA (Aug 16, '04) 


Letter writer Alexander (Aug 13) ponders why ATimes' bevy of foreign intellectuals doesn't fight back against Arnold Toynbee Jr's "well reasoned" letter (Aug 10) describing "the American point of view" on war, terror, dictators, national defense and negative nabobs. One reason might be that it is exhausting and discouraging work to try to be midwife to the enlightenment of Americans like Toynbee Jr, who at the very beginning of speaking and at every subsequent turn demonstrate how completely unwilling they are to complicate their world view with an already existing, enormous mass of information capable to do so. In his letter, Toynbee Jr does nothing more than assemble a list of propaganda points for American consumption that have been shredded by analysis the world over, including in the US. We get the terrorist label without inquiry, context or nuance, the stupid idea that the US only now is breaking free of its restraints and its hobbling by world opinion, and the complete absence of any healthy cynicism (no matter your interests and strategic choices), which recognizes that beneath the high-minded proclamations of principle and intent, all states are corruptions of their professed ideals. As far as offering us anything even remotely interesting or useful to apply to the US invasion of Iraq, Toynbee Jr hops atop the rickety soapbox for generic, American speechmaking but skips over the issue of oil as if it was a bad card in a poker hand - so too with the history of US support for Saddam Hussein, or the Israeli lobby in the US, or Christian fundamentalists, or even the untidy fact that this war started not because of any kind of aggression towards the US, but began back in 1991 after Iraq's invasion into Kuwait and it just hasn't stopped. Toynbee Jr should have instead called himself Ronald Reagan Jr, or Horatio Alger Jr, from whom one could get a comparable sense of history and US conduct in the world. But Alexander - as Toynbee Jr's champion and as our reliable pollster and expert on cross-cultural miscommunication - appears to feel that he has something of importance to offer by his reassurance that there is a centrist position in the US (small, but apparently mighty enough to overcome the appearance of polarization) that agrees with our new historian's heavily elided version of America's righteous mission, exemplified by non-ideological, pragmatic Anthony Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But it has proved to be tricky for foreign intellectuals to embrace such American centrists' views on what Alexander calls America's "best interest in military affairs and international relations", in part because the center for these interests is found in America and held to be greater than the totality of differing or conflicting interests throughout the rest of the world ... You know, I've met lots of people in other countries that had narrow opinions and weird ideas, but the US has a special formula for creating the most willfully ignorant type of person possible, and this must have a lot to do with advertising products, Hollywood and TV, the way Americans do or do not travel overseas and the abstractions upon which the nation must depend for its identity. You can look at the face of some middle-aged person in a grocery store here, staring through the glass at the frozen foods, and know with a certainty that he/she doesn't have an idea in their head. If you ask them anything about the world outside of the town they live in, mentally they are thrown into a whirlpool of confusion, but can soon right themselves with the belief that either it doesn't matter or you must be wrong. You can run through the spectrum of all walks of life in this country and find people like that. With varying degrees of internal sophistication, their narrative of life is essentially one clutching to the myths that have been given them. And if you're not clever, they can get really angry.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 16, '04) 


It is disappointing to read that Jay Liu [letter, Aug 13] understands neither the constitutional representative democracy that he lives in (USA), nor the undemocratic systems of Hong Kong and Singapore. To help him better understand the differences between these systems, I will pose three questions and the answers to them. (1) How can US citizens change from their current electoral college system for choosing a president (a republican form of government) to selection of a president by direct popular vote? Answer: Constitutional amendment, which they can request from their directly elected congressmen. (2) How can Singaporeans change from their current lack of participation in choosing a national leader (either prime minister or senior minister) to a system in which the national leader is directly elected by a popular vote? Answer: Singapore's system of government provides no mechanism for the citizens to make that change. (3) How can Hong Kongers achieve direct election of their chief executive via popular vote instead of having a puppet chief executive appointed by Beijing? Answer: They cannot. Regardless of what Hong Kong's Basic Law (mini-constitution written by Beijing) provides, it is trumped by imperial edicts from Beijing. In case that is not clear, Beijing recently sailed its navy through Hong Kong and held a military parade in Hong Kong to let Hong Kongers know there is force behind Beijing's words.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 16, '04) 


During his letter-to-the-editor debate with Daniel McCarthy, Jay Liu [letter, Aug 13] called the Electoral College "anti-democratic in its core as well as historical roots in the US" ... He seems to be unaware that the Electoral College is part of the very constitution of the United States, and that the United States has never passed itself off as a true democracy, but a democratic republic instead. There are hundreds and hundreds of statements by some of our most famous historical figures which refer to the United States as a republic. In case Mr Liu is interested, a republic is defined as "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". Mr Liu would do well to keep that definition in mind and forget this fantasy in which he sees the United States not as a republic.
Stephen Renico
Detroit, Michigan (Aug 16, '04) 


[Daniel] McCarthy, how right you are [letter, Aug 12]. I cannot begin to fathom the subtle workings of democracy that you are no doubt an expert on. Now that you said it, I have to admit, I am confused as hell. Needless to say, I am sorry to disappoint you that I cannot tell when the popular election for national leaders in Singapore will be held. But perhaps you can. I was hoping that, in the near future, America will suddenly develop some concerns for Singapore and give its citizens the gift of democracy, just like it has given to Iraq, a former dictatorship. On the other hand, that may be asking for the moon, just like the Filipinos under Ferdinand Marcos while the US maintained its Subic and Clark bases in the country, or the Chileans who suffered oppression from the Pinochet regime, after its democratically elected Allende government was taken over by the military, which I heard from the grapevine was supported by the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency]. Now I am really confused.
Dennis Chua
Singapore (Aug 16, '04)


Let us follow Dr Tzu-Hsiu Tseng's [letter, Aug 13] and Daniel McCarthy's [Aug 12] logic. If Taiwan is already a country, what is the rush of declaring independence? Why cannot Chen accept the status quo and get on with the live? Why do other outside people want to change that? Let us face it. Taiwanese people are happy with what they have today. So are PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders. Taiwan Strait is in peace for more than 50 years. Chinese people do not want to change that. Why do Daniel McCarthy and other non-Taiwanese people want to change that and push Taiwan into a war? I do not think they do that for the benefit of the Taiwanese people. Read from the history. If there is a war, the whites are not going to be the people to spill blood. All white people who are promoting Taiwan independence now will flee the area as fast as they could, just like they did in World War II. They will leave the Taiwanese people to suffer the consequence of the war. To them, Taiwanese people are worthless pawns.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 16, '04) 


ADeL's response [Aug 12] to my letter of August 10 reinforces my original point. Whether or not he is himself a continental European, he certainly gives insight into the paralysis and inertia that characterizes the nations of the West today, especially France. His response to the hopes of America in its global war on rogues and terrorists is to point out that anyone can buy a suitcase nuke and blow it up wherever they want. Aside from being a cliched half-truth, this does not address the central point, which is the challenge of and response to Islamic terrorism. America's response to this challenge has been active, energetic, and real. She has taken out two rogue regimes in the heart of the Muslim world, and is in the process of hunting down, capturing, and killing terrorists around the world. As importantly, America has emphasized the positive in Islam, often without strong support from the allegedly numerous moderate Muslims, and has continued to support the assimilation of Muslim immigrants into the fabric of American society. Crescent moons and stars appear alongside creches and stars of David in wintertime on a typical American village green. American Muslims do not harass Christian and Jewish Americans on the streets or attack their places of worship. Although Americans are quite sure that Muslim terrorists lurk in secret cells in their very midst, they have not lashed out in hatred against Muslim communities in general, but have used every effort to isolate the terrorists without offending law-abiding, hard-working Muslim Americans. Judge for yourself whether this is actually a proper Christian response to America's Muslim neighbors, at home and abroad, and to the threat of Islamic terrorism. France, as exemplary of the less active side of the fractured West, has given half-hearted support to America's global offensive, and actually led the opposition to the war against Saddam Hussein's rogue regime. She has showed the Muslim world that the West is not united against the forces of Islamic terrorism, invigorating the terrorists by exposing a large crack in the foundation of the West which was at the very least well-concealed during the Cold War. She has, after a history of the worst kind of colonial abuses, swallowed a poison population of Arab Muslims who hate her and wish to destroy her. She has reacted to the challenge of a large, hostile, and foreign population with welfare handouts and spiteful, petty laws like the banning of headscarves in schools. She has attempted to forcefully proselytize Muslims with her official creed of Secular-State Atheism, but has instead succeeded in radicalizing them. Muslims in France have attacked French Jews, who are now in the process of a new exodus to Israel, taking their culture, knowledge, and money with them. A typical incident occurred only recently when a French woman on a train was harassed and attacked as a Jew (which ironically she was not) by Muslim youths. The French men and women on the train, paralyzed by fear, did nothing to stop the attack. A female friend of mine in Lyon reports that such incidents are the norm, as her own blond hair elicits hateful shouts from Muslims when she ventures through their neighborhoods. In short, France's response to the challenge of Islamic terrorism has been passive, inert, and supine. And so ADeL's response perfectly illustrates the existential absurdism of the French attitude. Why fight the terrorists? Anyone can buy a suitcase nuke and blow you up, so just wait for Godot at the cafe, smoke your cigarettes one after another, and hope that cancer gets you before the Muslim children in your ghettos grow up to destroy you. Which attitude is "infantile" depends upon semantics. If infantile means childlike and idealistic, then perhaps the Americans are somewhat infantile, even along the lines of Matthew 18:3 ("except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"). If, on the other hand, infantile means indecisive and unable to support oneself, then perhaps it better describes the French attitude.
Arnold Toynbee, Jr
New York, New York (Aug 16, '04)


Joe Nichols' letter [Aug 11] flatters me by calling me young, though I'm actually in the gray middle-aged zone, and as my daughter says, "every day, day by day, you get older". Well, anyway, parsing with care as usual, it was not my intention that there would be some Council of Wise Experts which would guide the developing countries into a certain lifestyle. The free market, aka price, is a wonderful tool. In the older industrial towns in New England, you still see triple-deckers and tram lines, now defunct, because that was the only way to make the numbers work a century ago. The degrees of freedom that we have in the US today, low energy costs, low food costs, supersize hamburgers, are what they are, but they are not the only accepted definition of the good life - ask the French. That's what I had in mind, that it's not an imposition, or a degradation of living standards, to live in a more sustainable way. I grew up in India, in the pre-liberalization days, so I'm quite familiar with the hankering for high-tech toys. There is an important sub-text : the new technologies, such as the Internet, are deflationary, meaning they have a lower cost than the alternatives (physical travel) and drive efficiencies in unexpected ways (ebay). So a comparable "standard of living", however defined, comes at a decreasing "real cost" in materials, energy, etc. Many of the problems you mention are real, but there are too many dangling threads. What is the lesson behind the solar panels: rich countries are selfish, multinationals are evil, IP [intellectual property] rights are holding the poor countries back, all of the above? The most amazing thing to me is that in the last few decades multiple countries, mostly Asian, have progressed from dirt-poor to comfortable, even with current technology, simply by harmonizing with human motives (free enterprise) rather than fighting them. Going forward, the challenge for poor countries is to mesh with the global system: for example, develop their own IP for sale (such as batik furniture at Pier One), and accept foreign capital investment (without the danger of government confiscation of the investment or the profits) for installing solar panels, etc.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Westford, Massachusetts (Aug 16, '04) 


Just want to express my gratefulness for Asia Times. Your excellently written, thought-provoking, in-depth articles put events and prevailing concepts all over the world in perspective - you are a daily must-read. I know no other news source with your particular angle.
Ole Engholm
Hoersholm, Denmark (Aug 16, '04) 

Concerning Michael Schwartz' analysis of [US President George W] Bush's motives concerning the battle in Najaf [Bush gambles as Najaf burns, Aug 13], I wonder about another, more ominous scenario that Bush (or his puppeteers) might be attempting to accomplish. Given that it seems clear that the administration's next target is Iran and that it seems equally clear that a draft will be required if the war is widened to include Iran, might the Najaf situation be meant to compel Iran to enter the war against the US in order to avenge the slaughter of their fellow Shi'ites in Najaf? Such a move by Iran would provide the US government with the pretext for attacking Iran and for the necessity of a draft. The draft argument would be immeasurably strengthened if US forces were overrun, even temporarily, by an Iranian attack, not a far-fetched notion given how thinly stretched US troops are in Iraq. It would also give an electoral boost to Bush. It's a possibility.
John O'Kelly (Aug 13, '04)


What planet (or universe) is Michael Schwartz living in (Bush gambles as Najaf burns [Aug 13])? A desperate military adventure? Destruction of whole neighborhoods? Major military defeat? Our [US] marines are going to kill that vicious murderer and inciter [Muqtada al-]Sadr because he's pretty much making us do it (we'd earlier preferred not to) and we're going to annihilate anyone stupid enough to fight with him. And the marines with our Iraqi and British allies will do it with almost no collateral damage (defined as innocent, unintentional deaths and destruction of property). Gamble? Sir, the US marines don't gamble. They accomplish. Period.
Fu Zhen
Seattle, Washington (Aug 13, '04)


As ATol does not have a comic section, the next-best thing is the near-apoplectic responses to any Spengler article. Spengler is, of course, a troll. Imagine the following scenario: All the "Big Noises" of ATol - Jim Lobe, Henry Liu, Pepe Escobar - and the other excellent contributors are gathered in the office to discuss next week's content. Editor says, "Jim, I'd like you to do another 'Spengler' article - you know, the usual 'Arab' stuff with a good dose of dark Northern European pseudo-philosopher junk - try Wittgenstein this time - you haven't done him for a while." Jim, in the best Colin Powell tradition, says: "C'mon boss, I'm not saying that BS anymore. Henry doesn't have to do it, and anyway, I did it last week. It's Pepe's turn." One has to say, the well-reasoned article Bush gambles as Najaf burns [Aug 13] by Michael Schwartz is in excellent counterpoint to Spengler's confused ramblings.
Palmer
British Columbia, Canada (Aug 13, '04)


I see from articles such as David Scofield's China ups ante in ancient-kingdom feud with Korea [Aug 11] that you are still dutifully repeating Western propaganda like a bad habit. At a time in which North and South Korean anger against American imperialism is at a high point and US influence is on the wane, Scofield's article on the dispute over the history of the Koguryo kingdom appears to be an obvious attempt to foment and whip up tension between the Koreas and China - and of course deflect anger away from the USA. Nice try, but no cigar. In fact, Scofield's sense of frustration over the lack of South Korean anger about the litany of Chinese "transgressions" which Scofield lovingly details is quite palpable throughout the article and betrays his cynical agenda. At one point, Scofield even whines that South Koreans are too quick to criticize the USA and Japan but not China. Perhaps the fact that American troops are occupying South Korea and running over teenage girls with their military vehicles might have something to do with that. What is more outrageous is Scofield's and Asia Times' attempt to insinuate that the Koguryo issue is part of a grander plot by China ultimately to place troops in North Korea and gain access to North Korean eastern ports and airfields. Which nation is attempting to demonize North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" again? Which global empire has tacitly threatened war against the North if it refuses to give up its nuclear program? Never mind the fact that it is America which has tens of thousands of US occupation troops, high-tech bombs, stealth fighters, and no doubt WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threatening North Korea. And yet Scofield attempts to point an accusing finger at China, and even feigns concern about how North Korea's "cultural fabric" is being threatened. Moreover, Scofield's glib speculation on US efforts to bring about Iraqi-style "regime change" (ie, war of aggression and colonization) in North Korea is further representative of the Orwellian world that Anglo-Americans live in. Scofield engages in propagandistic speculation about what China would do as a response, but carefully avoids even addressing the criminal nature of an American war which would be the inevitable instigator of such a "regime change" in the first place. All this is coming from someone who formerly taught at a "Graduate Institute of Peace Studies" no less. Ultimately, your article reveals how warped the Anglo-American political class truly is, whether that be in academia or the media.
DP
USA (Aug 13, '04)

For an expansion of this view, see a new article on Asia Times Online, Another (Asian) look at China-Korea ties. - ATol


Re Commentary: Asian values behind Singapore son's rise by Gary LaMoshi [Aug 10]. This is not a commentary. It is a biased report befitting of one's dairy, not a newspaper article. In his nonsensical and baseless rumbling, Gary has successfully transformed this paper to a tabloid. I shall no longer read this paper. There is absolutely no balance or maturity in the article, but the same accusations that one is tired of hearing after three decades. If Singapore is really so bad, why are the people generally happy? Has he actually talked to the average Singaporean? If Singapore is so bad, why are there thousands of foreign researchers working in her research institutes? Perhaps the writer would like to believe that all Singaporeans are fools and incapable of making intelligent judgment. That Singapore is so successful and will continue to do so will only upset the likes of Gary. Because Singapore has gotten it right and he has not. And because we know better. Seriously, are disordered streets, dysfunctional families, confused sexual identifies, perversions, and messed-up druggies that appealing? I am an oncologist working in Los Angeles. I love Los Angeles, but I will not trade my Singapore home for LA. Never. Because Singapore is a great place to live and the authorities have gotten most things right.
Dr Lim Soon Thye
Los Angeles, California (Aug 13, '04)


Dear Spengler: I regret the fact that you used what Ali Sina writes over and over on his website to warn the West about Islam (the analogy with the Borg is so true) to regress into a useless philosophical discussion [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. It's like someone is telling you, "Wake up, your house is on fire," and you are spending valuable time to think what started the fire. Ali Sina is not a secular Muslim! Ali Sina is an apostate! When will the West and East see that what happened to the Middle East can happen to them as well? It was assimilated and Arabized into what it is today, [as] Salman Rushdie described a city in Haroun and the sea of stories, "a city so sad that it forgot its name". Arabs clashing with Americans in the Najaf cemetery today are not aware that this so-called city is built on long-forgotten churches. The Middle East is disintegrating into chaos, the chaos and controversy Mohammed started in the 7th century. Just wait and see, this is only the tip of the iceberg - wake up before it's too late. Ali Sina and many other intellectual Muslims who abandoned Islam cannot do more than tell the world about these dangers.
Live Long and Prosper
Y Rosenberg
Netherlands (Aug 13, '04)


Spengler poses a rhetorical question asking, Is Islam a religion or a political movement [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]? He then cites Muslims (Ali Sina) who argue that Islam is not a religion but a political movement. Spengler then proceeds to prove Ali Sina incorrect by proving that Islam is a religion. Both are correct. Islam is the penultimate theocracy: a system of rule by reference to the tenets of a religion conducted by the members of the hierarchy of that religion. Spengler is correct that Islam poses the ultimate danger to other religions and cultures like the Borg do. Only Islam does not wish to assimilate the best of other cultures, it wishes to impose its culture upon their people, assimilating the population while destroying its culture. One of the measures of the success of a culture is the lifestyle it permits its members. For approximately 500 years, since the second Battle of Vienna and the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, Islamic lands were pretty much isolated from other parts of the world, especially Western Europe and the Americas. It wasn't until the discovery of oil in the Arabian Peninsula and the recognition of the importance of that discovery that Dar-al-Islam was more or less forcibly exposed to "Western" civilization. Even then, such exposures were limited to those necessary to the development and production of oil. It is only since the introduction of worldwide satellite television and other mass and cheaply available communications media that the Islamic masses have been somewhat exposed to the modern world. Even now, Islamic governments find it necessary to restrict access to Western media and have created their own outlets like alJazeera and al-Arabyia to try and combat Fox News and CNN. The jihadis are simply a manifestation of a common occurrence in all religions: those for whom the religion becomes the all-encompassing ideal. In Christianity we call them "Jesus freaks". In Islam they call them jihadis. The difference is that eventually the "Jesus freak" will take no for an answer. The jihadi cannot. He (and recently she) knows that the lifestyle that is Islam cannot survive in the face of the advantages of following the current Western lifestyle. Given a free choice, bikinis will trump burqas every time. Or consider the problems of being a male obstetrician and gynecologist in an Islamic country. Hence the Islamic "brain drain" lamented by T Kiani in an earlier letter. The Islamic jihadi must be defeated if any civilization other than Islamic is to continue. The jihadi must be fought in the same way that we fought the kamikaze of World War II Japan. For although the motivating factors are two different religions, Bushido and Islam, their tactics and techniques are the same. The Japanese samurai died for the emperor, his god on Earth. The jihadi dies for Allah, his god in the clouds. Japanese civilization has rebuilt itself for the most part in the image of its conqueror and Japan is the second-largest economy on Earth. If Islamic society cannot re-create itself in a non-threatening way to the rest of the world, then it must be conquered. The continuance of our other civilizations demands nothing less.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, United States Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Aug 13, '04)


First I'd like to thank you all for providing such diverse opinions and insights into so many problems that the world faces today. It is a pleasure to read the articles herein. I've noticed a lot of venom in the Letters section directed toward Mark LeVine and Spengler for their respective writings on Islamic fundamentalists and the kulturkampf they're in around the world, from the Philippines to Palestine. I found the commonality between Mark LeVine's Toward a truce with the Muslim world [Aug 6] and Spengler's Islam: Religion or political ideology? [Aug 10] exemplifies a quote from the Roman writer Terence, "Hoc tempore obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit." People invariably react negatively to what they don't want to hear, whether it be the truth or not. Whereas Mark LeVine's writing is a bit heavy-handed with the West, for crimes it has honestly committed against the Middle East, Spengler is heavy-handed in his writing with the Muslims and the crimes they honestly commit against themselves and others. I believe that this conflict can only be resolved with an honest review of both sets of problems, and uncomfortable recommendations to resolve them. Mark LeVine speaks to the hearts of the humanists in Western civilization, and rubs the noses of the hawks in this conflict like puppies that aren't housebroken. Mark LeVine's call for the removal of Western military forces from foreign nations that don't want them there is perfectly sound; but he falls flat asking Muslims, rather weakly, to "soul-search" in order to resolve the plethora of violent behaviors amongst their most devout. The severe ambiguity of that requirement demonstrates the effectiveness it will have. Spengler, as always, antagonizes the humanists with the sound notion that the murderous threat posed to every religion, including Islam, by militant Islam won't go away with flowery words or hugs and kisses. Spengler enthralls the pugilists with his arcane references to a Europe which actually had a sense of self-worth (one in which people could be bothered to breed, one that wasn't co-dependant on US hegemony and pride) and regales them with historical references to a clash of civilizations which would seem to be thousands of years in the making. Spengler's call for the West to get a lot tougher or just convert to Islam is not necessarily wrong. It's hawkish, but there's some truth in it. The West has an amazingly low birthrate, and its economy can only survive by taking in the children from other cultures and making them dishwashers. The West cannot stomach the level of violence that the Middle East has had to endure for decades. All of this is true. Where Spengler falls flat is in his inability to recognize the vast majority of Muslims as multidimensional human beings, undergoing the same existential condition the rest of us do. Where Spengler falls flat is in his inability to recognize that the violence Muslims have had to endure for decades has a lot to do with the violence they radiate now. And while the West has slumbered peacefully, the RoW (Rest of the World) has borne the brunt of the weight of their affluence. In closing, both Spengler and LeVine speak the truth - each a different subset of the truth, and each receive a different subset of the hate mail for it.
Terence Redux
USA (Aug 13, '04)


In you article Mahathir is right: Jews do rule the world, you made the point that Jews played an important role in shaping the Western-style democracy as we know it today. But [former Malaysian prime minister] Mahathir [Mohamad] is right on another account: modern economics and finance are largely based on the principle of interest and banking system developed by the Jews. Mahathir, in fact, wanted to tell his fellow heads of states/governments at the OIC [Organization of Islamic Conference] that modern democracy and capitalism, which dominate the world today, were largely developed by the Jews. Islam, after 1,400 years, still has to demonstrate to the world that it has a better system of government and socio-economic development. How can a few million Jews do what 1.2 billion Muslims cannot? This is perhaps why Mahathir is lamenting that Muslims must think.
A Zuber
India (Aug 13, '04)


Daniel McCarthy (letter, Aug 12) misses the whole point in the first part of my letter (Aug 11): it is outrageously hypocritical for him to demand popular elections for national leaders in another country while the US has a loser of the 2000 popular votes sitting in the White House. He should stop patronizing and insulting the intelligence of ATol readers. The Electoral College is anti-democratic in its core as well as historical roots in the US. As Dennis Castle (letter, Aug 10) already pointed out truthfully and any Poli Sci 101 student would know also, the US is a federal republic but not a true democracy where majority rules. It is precisely my prediction that people in Singapore and Hong Kong will be able to change their electoral systems and have popular elections for their leaders before the US becomes truly democratic. In addition, McCarthy's own examples of plurality governments in Italy, Taiwan, or even Israel revealed another truth: they tend to be quite dysfunctional and chaotic in nature. What good is democracy if they can't even govern well? As to the second part of my letter, I agree with the ATol editor that China treats Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan the same way. It is ludicrous and laughable for McCarthy to assert that "China recognizes Taiwan as a country". Does Dan not realize that he already lost his argument when he absurdly put up the 27 poor small countries in Africa, Central America, and the Pacific Ocean whose diplomatic relations with Taiwan have basically been bought and sustained with monies from Taiwan taxpayers' pockets? Dan will be better off definitely to recognize the US position that regards the Taiwan independence and sovereignty claim as purely a political statement.
Jay Liu
USA (Aug 13, '04)


As a Taiwanese, I take offense at ATol's [Aug 12] comparison between Taiwan and Hong Kong and Macau when you stated [under a Daniel McCarthy letter], "As we have pointed out, different people have different definitions of 'country'. Many of the 'defining' controls you mention could also apply to Hong Kong and Macau." Hong Kong and Macau both answer to a central government in Beijing. Such central government provides for their defense and directs their interactions with foreign governments. The national government of Taiwan is in Taipei. Taipei answers only to Taipei. The central government in Taipei provides for the defense of all of Taiwan and its off shore territories. The central government in Taipei also dictates its own foreign policy. The above reasons are why Taiwan is a country and Hong Kong and Macau are SARs [special administrative regions] of China. While ATol may have many definitions for the word "country" or "nation", I suppose I'm a bit too simple for that. To me, there is only one definition: a territorial division containing a body of people and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status. Taiwan satisfies this definition. Hong Kong and Macau do not.
Dr Tzu-Hsiu Tseng (Aug 13, '04)

You missed the point of our comment. We were not suggesting that the two SARs are countries; on the contrary, we were noting that some of the factors letter writer Daniel McCarthy said "defined" what a country is could also be applied to Hong Kong and Macau, a fact that tended to weaken his argument. For McCarthy's reaction, read on. - ATol


With respect to characteristics of a country ATol stated [under McCarthy letter of Aug 12], "As we have pointed out, different people have different definitions of 'country'. Many of the 'defining' controls you mention could also apply to Hong Kong and Macau." Yes, that is because those are remaining vestiges of the time when Hong Kong and Macau were not part of China. As those features are also possessed by Taiwan (and France, Mexico, etc), they also show that Taiwan is not part of China. Regardless of whether ATol agrees, if Taiwan were part of China then China would not need to invade.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 13, '04)


ATol editorializes, ever so sanctimoniously [under Gongshi's letter of Aug 12]: "[Perhaps] the salient point is whether Japanese misbehavior justifies Chinese misbehavior." Ahem! With the US on a murderous rampage in the Middle East, in response to al-Qaeda's misbehavior ... ATol (American-funded, most likely) should study their mirror carefully, before handing our pious advice. In fact, to paraphrase them, "Perhaps the salient point is: all human beings are endowed by their Creator, with a faculty called memory, and anyone hoping to pursue life, liberty and happiness, etc, needs to use all his faculties, including (of course) memory."
Mary Chang (Aug 13, '04)

Sanctimonious? Nous? In point of fact, many of Asia Times' writers have been highly critical of the US "rampage in the Middle East", and we have no problem with what we see in the mirror. And we are not "American-funded", other than a few ads we have sold in the US. - ATol


I love your paper and read it daily. However, when there is a big blinking ad on the page, it's impossible to read that article, and in fact, makes me switch to another news source immediately. I would never consider clicking on such a monstrosity. Those ads are very destructive to one's brainwaves, and give your paper the cheesy look of the New York Post. Please, please, do not batter our eyes and brains with those obnoxious ads (the big, bright blinking ones), or we won't be able to read your fine paper and will take to going elsewhere.
Barbara Barg (Aug 13, '04)

Some of our advertisements are animated, but we do try to avoid "big blinking ads" on article pages (as opposed to index pages, where we are a bit less restrictive) because, unlike other websites, we want to spare our readers from annoying distractions. Unfortunately we cannot avoid advertising altogether, as we need revenue to keep going and are not "American-funded", as some apparently believe. - ATol


I would like clarify something to Amit Sharma (letter, Aug 12) in respect of the "form" of written Chinese. This is bit harder to explain in English than in Chinese because in Chinese, there are specific terms for "system of speech", "system of writing", etc - but Chinese has a basically ideogrammatic "system" of writing composed of characters or shapes, as opposed to a basically phonetic system of writing composed of [alphabetic letters]. In this sense, it is a bit strange to say that there is a lack of diversity in written Chinese, because there are not that many systems of writing (as oppose to systems of alphabets) in the world anyway. I would also like to point out that the system of written Chinese had already "coalesced" or "stabilized" some 3,000 years ago - for example, to this day the character or ideogram resembling an inverted Y means "person" or "human" because it represents the idea of a biped (figure walking on two legs with a straight back). On the other hand, the Chinese "language" (as oppose to the system of writing), ie pronunciations, meanings, grammar as well as the "fonts" or scripts used for the characters or ideograms, is continually changing like all languages - only experts will be able to fully understand ancient Chinese literature without annotation or translation. So while the influence of totalitarian control in "homogenizing" China cannot be understated, the effects of "natural selection" cannot be overstated either - simply put, one of the reasons why the same system of written Chinese prevailed throughout China was because it "worked" and nothing was found to replace it (at least up to now). The most recent example would be in the last century during Mao Zedong's time, when some Chinese scholars were tasked to "replace" written Chinese with an alphabet - they failed, and merely created the Hanyu Pinyin system for the phonetic transliteration of Mandarin into Roman alphabets. So the Chinese language, meaning the language(s) in use in China, has always had wildly differing regional variations or derivatives which even the most totalitarian government was unable to eradicate (again "natural selection"). Finally, the same "system" of written Chinese is in fact used in different "forms", ie with new or alternative characters or ideograms, for non-Mandarin dialects such as Cantonese or even non-Chinese languages such as Japanese in expressing different pronunciations, meanings and grammar. To use an analogy, the fact that the Chinese are predominantly rice-eaters (I apologize for this generalization) doesn't imply that they were "forced" to eat it. I hope Amit Sharma, as an Indian, can also appreciate that given this unhealthy lack of diversity, the degree of diversity in the styles of cooking remains impressive.
Sing Yung
Singapore (Aug 13, '04)


To Dennis Castle, Portland, Oregon: In your squib about neo-con(artists) you write [letter, Aug 11]: "No better expression of [their] positive hopes ... can be expressed ..." The only "positive" hope of the neo-con(artists) is that their core belief - that governance by lying to the people is acceptable - not be fully exposed for the anti-democratic/Americanism it is. Perhaps you are different, but most do not like being lied to; not even by arrogant, condescending anti-democratic pseudo-intellectual elitists who falsely delude themselves (if they have any ideals at all) that they have the interests (best or otherwise) of the targets of their lies in mind. The only purpose of lying - prohibited by the commandment "Thou shalt not lie" - is to take advantage of the deceived, without regard for the deceiveds' view of being lied to. (Read Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1977) by Sissela Bok.) Nor are such "conservatives" actually "conservative" (except as to conserving their illegitimate hold on power by any means they view as being necessary). By contrast, a free and democratic society is founded upon a citizenry informed with truth - not with lies, fictions, fantasies, and megalomaniac delusions of grandeur which, when imposed upon actual reality, produce unmitigated disaster, as we see in Iraq. (As with Vietnam, "staying the course" can only worsen the situation - the current assault on Najaf is creating even more enemies, not all of them "terrorists" - for the US and postpone the inevitable. And that inevitability, that loss - which has already occurred - will not be "caused" by acceptance of those facts and realities. No matter how prolongedly one hits a screw with a hammer, the screw will not be made into a nail.) And you write: "The US is unapologetic in moving forward regardless of any opposition ... " So was [Adolf] Hitler - and with as little self-examination and self-doubt as you mistakenly propose as being both reasonable and sane. (People said, "It can't happen here!" even while it was - with [Richard] Nixon.) Your irrationalities aside, the US is not a military society in which its citizens are required to obey the orders of anti-constitutional/American election thieves. It is, rather, to be "a system of laws, not of [liars]," with the people having the ultimate right to vote for candidates who do not tell any lie and manipulate any event solely to "win" election so to continue lying to the people. As to that lying, I refer you back to the above comments thereon. I also refer you again to the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land - above even the pseudo-intellectual neo-con(artist) ideology.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 12, '04)


So ... Arnold Toynbee Jr writes one of the most articulate and well reasoned letters [Aug 10] ATimes has ever seen about American interests from an American perspective (which I, coming from the American center, agree with completely, by the way), and the foreign intellectuals who routinely bash America have nothing to say? And here I was so looking forward to their responses, as this is an excellent opportunity for them to cut past the stereotypes and cross-cultural miscommunication that I see so often in the media and attack the heart of why America is really at war. And yes, there is such a thing as an American center, despite all that you hear about the country being completely polarized. Not everyone considers themselves members of the left or right. For me, too many members of the left don't know how to throw a punch and too many members of the right are too rich and too white for this poor black boy. As an example to prove that there is a center (if a small one), the writings and analysis of Anthony Cordesman over at the Center for Strategic and International Studies eschew ideology and are only interested in using intelligent pragmatism to reach our best interest in military affairs and international relations.
Alexander
East Coast of America (Aug 12, '04)


Nadia Mushtaq Abbasi (Muslims in Europe, Aug 11) observes, "The problem is that the Muslim communities have been the underclass of the European societies in which they live... [and] ... for the most part, many Muslims are among those with the lowest incomes and the largest families in their countries." These are important points to understand, to be sure. But when she goes on to conclude "either the continent's 20 million Muslims will integrate smoothly into their countries' economic and political life, or they will remain on the margins, disaffected and potentially dangerous", why does she not go on to suggest that one factor that might help to bring about the happier conclusion would be for these low-income Muslims to not have such whopping-big families? In societies that are barely replicating themselves, the smooth integration of immigrant communities might ultimately depend on it. It might not hurt their economic prospects either. If Muslims want to really be European, they need to take up birth control, have small families, advocate homosexual rights and the acceptance of women not to marry or have children without losing face. This is a big part of Europe's political economy. If this means fiddling a bit with Islam and cultural preferences, then do it - or don't complain about the fact that many Europeans see current demographic trends as threatening: They are. This is 2004, not 1904. It's ridiculous to have large families that compound your problems simply because it feels important to have big families. It's offensive to act as if this topic is off-limits, while trying to reduce the debate to a collection of principles, the onus of which will be upon the very people you're trying to convince to muster their good will for your cause. Expect reaction.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 12, '04)


[Re] Islam: Religion or political ideology? [Aug 10]. To paraphrase [Bernard] Lewis and [Samuel P] Huntington, we are witness to a clash of traditions. And as a systems-science person, let me draw some parallels. The new code known as Windows XP contains massive amounts of "compatibility" software, simply in order to support Windows 98. Now we all know W98 is a dead-end tradition that had its uses and its loftier days, and which is in the process of being supplanted by WXP. But nevertheless it exists there for good reasons, and introduces massive inefficiencies and dislocations in the system which [have] to be constantly and painfully dealt with, only because more inefficiencies will be introduced with its abrupt demise. Now if you define the operating system as the "religious tradition", then we conclude by analogy that it is indeed religion that fuels this clash of traditions - but the forces below, that give rise to traditions and religions, is indeed a secular non-metaphysical force, wrapped in the obfuscatory cloak of metaphysics in order to account for ontological consciousness. So you are right, and Sina is wrong, but ultimately it [Islam] remains a secular force, unless proved otherwise.
Mohammad Salimabadi (Aug 12, '04)


Dear Spengler: A simple translation of the word "Islam" would solve the mystery and prove that it is not a "political ideology" nor does it "extend through conquest", but that also means you won't have anything to write about [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. Islam recognizes the trait of prolonging non-existent issues to gain small benefits and addresses it. "These are the men who have purchased error at the price of true direction: but their traffic hath not been gainful, neither have they been rightly directed" (Koran 2:16). "Clothe not the truth with vanity; neither conceal the truth against your own knowledge" (Koran 2:41). Islam instructs submission only to the will of his [Allah's] divinity, which means we are all equal under God. "Surely those who believe, and those who Judaize, and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believeth in God, and the last day, and doth that which is right, they shall have their reward with their Lord; there shall come no fear on them, neither shall they be grieved" (Koran 2:61).
Luay (Aug 12, '04)


[Re] Islam: Religion or political ideology? [Aug 10]. Again Spengler is up to something, he turns and turns, plays with words, tries to make it sound intellectual, but as many of your readers mentioned they are getting tired of his BS. Why don't you say it out loud? [That] you are a Wolfowitz, or a Rumsfield, or Sharon, and that you hate all those Arabs and Muslims and that you wish to see nukes dropped on their heads? Why all the BS? Say it ... dry and straight. Don't try to soften it ... [Do] you think everyone is stupid out there? I read every article you wrote and the bottom line is hatred against Islam from the beginning. It's just getting worse. Get to the point and tell the Christians that they must kick all those Muslims out of their countries "on your behalf", [and] kill them if you have to, because those who are educated are more dangerous than [Osama] bin Laden and company ... Like one of your readers said: "Unless you exercise better quality control there will be little point in looking at your website."
M Sabbah
Montreal, Quebec (Aug 12, '04)


I am writing this in defense of Frank [letter, Jul 29] and Spengler. Frank has attracted heat from some Indian letter writers for suggesting that it would be a mistake for Indians to lose their own culture (especially language) in pursuit of a more glamorous or globally useful one - that of the West (ie, English). Although I too found Frank's tone to be irritatingly condescending, I had to agree that some of what he said was unfortunately true. Those attacking him for what he wrote should first reread his letter. As for ATol's reminder to Rakesh [Aug 10] that China is not a land of identical clones (as many people resentful of China would like to believe), the degree of diversity within China still seems to be a tad inadequate for a country of its geographical and human size. I'm guessing this may simply be due to more than 2,000 years of strict control by a strong, centralized empire and bureaucracy - leading to the present situation where there is only one written form of Chinese ... whereas there are multiple spoken forms. Spengler also has been attracting criticism for his comments on Islam's outward posture and consequent expansionism (the militant form of which is perpetual jihad) [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. He would do well to re-remind people that this focus on expansionism applies to all ideologies that attempt to unite a diverse group of people under one umbrella by brushing all differences under the carpet. All such ideologies must continuously find/invent new enemies to wage war against or to assimilate - sort of like the Borg on Star Trek - the implicit motto being "expand or implode". This applies not just to Islam but to any monotheistic ideology, including communism and ultra-patriotism/nationalism.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Aug 12, '04)


Readers should not rush to take sides between Mark LeVine (Toward a truce with the Muslim world [Aug 6]) and Spengler (Careful what you Bush for [Aug 3]). Okay, Spengler invites disdain. He knows we are warned to be wary of generals who plan a past war, and to observe that when history repeats itself it does so as farce. Then along comes Spengler and invokes a rerun not of Vietnam, or even World War II, but the World War before that, as analogy for the current world situation. The nature of the combatants changes. In World War I, European imperial powers were fairly equally exercised by nationalistic sentiments and affiliations. In contrast, the outbreak of World War II was highly asymmetric, with one side driven by ideology of national expansion. Now, according to prevailing prejudices, there is a worldwide civilizational conflict with both sides driven by ideology. However, prejudice feeds on itself. While those at the forefront - the US government and al-Qaeda - are both committed to unleashing destruction on each other anywhere in the world, we would be wise to look further. On one side, the broader Islamic swell, on which al-Qaeda rides, does not demand global domination. It lays claim, rather, to global disengagement - the freeing of Islamic peoples from "crusader" impositions. This accords with historical tradition - that Islamic rulers allowed African and Asian (Coptic and Nestorian) non-combatant Christians to continue free access to Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other holy sites during much of their war against European Crusaders who had started the trouble. On the other side, the US populace apparently backs its leader's desire to impose on the entire world that ridiculous oxymoron, a "free-market democracy". Even John Kerry is not disputing that issue with George Bush. However, the US is not the "free world", as Kerry will discover. Most of us are neither US citizens nor Muslims, and we do not feel party to this dispute. Nor do the unfree. Mark LeVine points out there are also millions of "free world" Muslims. Their existence suffices to give the lie to that call from both sides - "Those who are not with us are against us" - which is the defining essence of the extremist. Spengler goes further (When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27]) by predicting Russian intervention in Iraq. I reject almost the entirety of this analysis. Yet it contains an important observation. What if nations now contribute to military conflict for their own ulterior motives? Once motives break free from any logic of civilizational conflict cum "war on terror", so even more assuredly will the outcome.
Bodenca
Europe (Aug 12, '04)


In response to recent letters [regarding] the Chinese reaction to Japan in the soccer Asia Cup tournament, some records need to be set straight. I can only list the most egregious of the Japanese actions that caused such a negative impression among ordinary Chinese. 1) Sixty years after World War II, Chinese civilians are still suffering from the abandoned chemical weapons left by Japan; one was killed and 40 were injured in northern China last year. Just recently the Japanese government admitted Japanese chemical weapons injured two children in China (Japan Times, Aug 3). Under the urging of the Chinese government, Japan still says it may not finish cleaning up its abandoned chemical weapons in the next 10 years. 2) Governor Shintaro Ishihara has repeatedly denied Japanese atrocities in China during World War II as fabrications before and after his election as governor of Tokyo. 3) Japanese officials, including the prime minister and his cabinet, have started [honoring] the Japanese World War II Class A war criminals as a yearly event. Again it's the Japanese who refuse to let go of history. The analogy would be a German chancellor worshiping the tomb of Adolf Hitler with his cabinet every year, while claiming he supports reconciliation with the Jews; and someone who claims the Nazi atrocities in Europe were fabrications [being] elected mayor of Berlin. Given the above facts (which are conveniently left out by the mainstream Western media and some "unbiased" websites), is it too hard to understand the unpopularity of Team Japan among Chinese fans? It's indeed important for Japan to avoid the same mistake Germany made after World War I.
Gongshi
USA (Aug 12, '04)

Perhaps the salient point is whether Japanese misbehavior justifies Chinese misbehavior. - ATol


Captain Fantastic [Richard Radcliffe] again proves that he is a man that climbs trees to look for fish [letter, Aug 11]. He eloquently and piously states that he has no doubt that [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell would lead the negotiations for world peace with "militant" Islam. But against [whom]? he despairs. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are obviously excluded due to crimes against humanity. Poor Yasser Arafat is dismissed as being ineffectual. Therefore, with no "moderates" in sight, the US must let the show (bombing) go on. No "moderates" in Washington, DC, either. The Captain invites us once again to remember (the US version, that is) that Desert Storm and Shield [were] due to the instigations of Saddam Hussein, who failed to use the good offices of the World Court and UNSC [United Nations Security Council] to settle his grievances. He must write this in jest, hoping for worldwide amnesia of [US President George W] Bush's past actions with the UN, not to mention Bush's feelings about the World Court. Note how the Captain cleverly evades the subject of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. Being a visionary, the Captain wishes well for the future young Palestinian man gainfully employed as a teacher, butcher or a welder under the Zionist thumb. Forgetting that the Palestinians also have an opposite gender, he beseeches the Taliban to respect the female sex while settling down to the peaceful life of voting and capitalistic servitude. I imagine after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan young Radcliffe toured the Afghan villages advocating these same principles. Throwing off his wolf skin (we all remember his Mecca episode), he turns to the other cheek and pleads "But let's try" and saddles his donkey and crosses the California desert to Irvine. Better yet, Captain: Go climb the Pamirs and if you survive the bandits, yetis and US Special Forces death squads, the old man in the mountains just might hear you out. Mention my name if you run into problems.
Ernie Lynch
Formerly of Gitmo (Aug 12, '04)


Arnold [Toynbee Jr]'s letter [Aug 10] reads like an infantile attempt at denying suicidal tendencies that may be exhibited by all other nations excepting the US. Faith, hope and charity are not valid excuses for an amnesiac torpor. In this day and time everyone (and that means everyone including faith, hope and charity) has the ability to do to others what is being done to them. According to military experts the number of nuclear weapons in the shape of suitcases are now readily available to anyone willing and or able to pay for them. The world of the 21st century can be likened to what took place in Texas a few years ago when a law was passed that permitted anyone and everyone to carry a firearm. Instead of faith, hope and charity, the words of a prominent and outspoken woman reflect the reality of the world we live in and require us all to consider that everyone now carries a gun (or, if you prefer, a suitcase). By the way, the words spoken were, "Shove it."
ADeL (Aug 12, '04)


I would not like to nitpick Jay Liu's statements (letter, Aug 9), but his misstatements could convey misinformation to some readers. First, Mr Liu apparently does not realize that many multiparty democracies, such as the US, Italy and Taiwan for example, have elected national leaders with less than 50% of the popular vote. Some vibrant democracies, such as the UK and Israel, do not provide for direct election of the national leader, leaving the issue to the legislature, instead so in those cases the national leader receives no popular votes at all, but they are still democratic systems. In Italy and in Taiwan a national leader can be elected to office with less than 50% of the popular vote when the vote is spread across three or more candidates and none garners a majority, but the candidate with the most votes still wins. In the US, an electoral-college system is used to select the president. Each state's voters vote for a presidential candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a particular state wins the electors from that state. The presidential candidate who wins the most electors across the nation wins the election. Due to population differences among states, it is possible for the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide to be a different candidate than the one who garnered the most electors. If Mr Liu does not agree with this system then he can ask his congressman to introduce a bill in Congress to change the US constitution to provide for direct presidential elections without the electoral-college process. If the bill passes Congress and a sufficient number of state legislatures, then it will become an amendment to the US constitution. Do either Singapore or China provide the common people with a similar mechanism for changing the way in which their national leader is selected? Mr Liu's second piece of misinformation relates to use of the word "country". The word "country" existed long before the United Nations and a country has never needed UN approval to be legitimate. The historic notion of a country is a political entity with definable borders, a definable population and a government that exercises sovereignty over it. Taiwan is such a place. Mr Liu seems to think that no other countries recognize Taiwan's sovereignty, but in fact 27 other countries have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and US law treats Taiwan as a country even without diplomatic recognition. Chinese law also treats Taiwan as a country, imposing border controls, immigration controls, currency controls, [and] trade controls with respect to Taiwan, and even imposes punitive tariffs on goods from Taiwan. Since actions speak louder than words - it seems China recognizes Taiwan as a country.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 12, '04)

As we have pointed out, different people have different definitions of "country". Many of the "defining" controls you mention could also apply to Hong Kong and Macau. - ATol


I discovered ATimes several weeks ago and have read a couple dozen articles. They've all been very well written, [in] style and content.
Peter
Thailand (Aug 12, '04)


Are you really an Asian [medium] with an Asian perspective or an American front driveling out the predictable garbage?
Richard Adams (Aug 12, '04)


Dear Spengler: After reading Peter Brown's great book The Making of Western Christendom (second edition) I thought I would point out that the book shows you to be wrong about the relation of Christianity to nationality [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. Brown asserts that it was conversion to Christianity that gave rise to nations among the barbarians who had overrun the Western Empire, giving as the most striking example the Venerable Bede's invention of England in his history. Bede imposed the historical pattern he found in the Old Testament on the congery of Germanic tribes and conquered Britons that occupied the geographical area of England, and put across this idea to the inhabitants, making them believe they were a nation like ancient Israel. Brown sees one of the great achievements of the Dark Ages as the way the barbarians invented histories for themselves, borrowing ideas from the Bible (which of course became available to them as a result of Christianity) and thus conferred upon themselves national identities. (Other great achievements of the Dark Ages were the development of punctuation, and the invention of haystacks, which permitted draft animals to be fed over the winter.) Prior to this time, the barbarians seem mostly to have been organized in somewhat unstable groups centered around war leaders, rather than anything that could have been called nations. So Christianity led to the birth of nations, rather than calling them to extinction. I would not be surprised to see it produce rather similar effects in Africa, by providing the sole basis through which to understand and legitimize the former administrative units of European empires that got told the were countries during decolonization. (An example might be the Congo, where the Catholic Church, despite its many problems, is the only organization that gives any sort of structure to society.)
John Lamont (Aug 11, '04)


I've just read Pseudo-Spengler's latest meshuga, Islam: Religion or political ideology? [Aug 10]. I wish he would investigate the millennialism that has characterized Christianity for the last couple millennia and how it conditions the current invasion of Babylonia. While he's at it, Pseudo-Spengler could turn his eyes towards [US President George W] Bush's claim to be directed by God. How does the Almighty pass on His orders? A burning bush? A pillar of fire? A still, small, voice? Does someone speak in tongues and another interpret?
Lester Ness
Huaqiao University
Quanzhou, China (Aug 11, '04)


[Re] Islam: Religion or political ideology? [Aug 10]. What complete and utter rubbish. Unless you exercise better quality control there will be little point in looking at your website.
Amjad (Aug 11, '04)


Spengler's When Grozny comes to Fallujah [Jul 27] is an annexation of "groupthinking" - a term adopted by the US Senate Intelligence Committee for the intelligence failure regarding Iraq - and elucidates a similitude of the fanatic ideology of the neo-cons and extreme Christian right in the Bush administration with that of his. Spengler's juxtaposition of the logic that the Israeli extrajudicial killing in occupied Palestinian land with that of the US should do the same, only officially paints the US as a rapacious imperialist - not as a liberator, not as a promoter of democracy and human rights as [President George W] Bush often screams about. His contumacious exhortation of "Poor intelligence capacity eliminates ... pursue the enemy regardless of the cost in civilian lives ... Turning the matter over to the Russians would be a masterstroke ..." - as I have [seen] evidenced in his other articles - applies gross disregard of Iraqi lives by killing them in absence of good, solid intelligence - a common phenomenon of the Israeli regime - is not only insolent, but should be treated as worse as [Osama] bin Laden's terrorist activity, if not more ...
Nasim Islam
Salinas, California (Aug 11, '04)


David Henderson [letter, Aug 10] asks an interesting question of Spengler: How was Islam "so successful in converting millions, whether Christians in North Africa, or the Hindus of Jakarta? Unlike in Arabia, these were not pagan tribes." However, his question omits one very important religious group. Slate ran a piece a while back titled "Why Jews don't farm" which contained this tidbit: "Second, we can look at population trends: While the world population increased from 50 million in the 6th century to 285 million in the 18th, the population of Jews remained almost fixed at just a little over a million. Why were the Jews not expanding when everyone else was? We don't know for sure, but a reasonable guess is that a lot of Jews were becoming Christians and Muslims." The Jews too converted to Islam, and it is likely that many of them count themselves amongst today's Palestinians.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Aug 11, '04)


Dear Spengler: I can see you so clearly, over the hissing fires, stirring the cauldron, cackling like a madman as you prepare your next intellectual stew! It's what I love about your essays. Whether I agree or not is completely beside the point. It's your twisted curve ball; I see it coming, so why does it end up hitting me in the back of the head? Now I'm standing on first [base] wondering how I got here and wondering what will happen next. Here's what I want to happen next: that people of faith will join together in recognition of the fact that we all worship the same god, and as God said in His Holy Koran, "Those who believe [in the Koran), and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (002.062). And, as God said in His Holy Bible, the greatest commandment is that we are to love God and the second-greatest is like the first, we are to love each other. God wants us to love each other. He does not care if we worship on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. He does not care about who is right or wrong about the ten thousand little things. He cares about the big things. Do you love your brother, your sister, your neighbor, mother and father, or do you hate them? Do you love the stranger, the foreigner, the beggar, the king, or do you hate them? Among Muslims, Christians and Jews there seems to be a misunderstanding. Let's get over it. Let's get to God.
Mike
USA (Aug 11, '04)


I applaud Dr [Mark] LeVine's efforts to arrange a truce between militant Islam and the "West" [Toward a truce with the Muslim world, Aug 6]. In fact, I support all efforts to stop the killing. To that end, would Professor LeVine amplify his thoughts on the practical aspects of such a hudna? For example, would one "global" truce be negotiated for the entirety of militant Islam or would we negotiate a truce for each particular conflict? I suspect the latter would be the case as we are dealing with different groups with different agendas in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Exactly whom would we negotiate with? I don't doubt that Secretary of State [Colin] Powell would lead the truce negotiations for the United States in cooperation with the foreign ministries of our coalition partners in Iraq and perhaps the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] secretary general in Afghanistan. But who would negotiate for the Islamic side? Neither Osama bin Laden nor Mullah Omar could really be considered valid negotiating partners. The former is wanted for about 3,000 counts of capital murder, along with others like Ayman al-Zawahiri, for planing and directing the destruction of the Twin Towers [of New York's World Trade Center]. Mullah Omar and the members of the former government of Afghanistan are not valid partners either as they brought on the conflict in Afghanistan by refusing to hand over Mr bin Laden and his associates for trial. Perhaps a noted and widely respected Islamic cleric such as Sheikh Yusef al-Zawahiri could negotiate for the Taliban. He is well respected throughout the Islamic community and might be able to command the loyalty of the Taliban and negotiate and enforce a hudna in their name. In the case of Iraq, a truce may not be appropriate. If you read reports from other than the "mainstream media" here in the United States, you find out lots of interesting things. You find out that the Iraqis are more than visibly upset with Mr al-Zarqawi and his band of foreign fighters. It appears that his car bombs have been killing more Iraqis than infidels. As was reported recently, the current government of Iraq is well able, at the presidential level and with his personal involvement, to dispense justice to such people (I believe that it was 9mm justice). Therefore, it is well within the capabilities of the current government of Iraq to solve such problems. As the Iraqi security forces and military come back on line, less and less presence of coalition forces will be required other than to make sure that the Iranians stay on their side of the border. We would all do well to remember that Desert Storm II, Desert Storm and Desert Shield were caused by the actions of an Iraqi, Saddam Hussein, who chose to invade Kuwait instead of taking his case to the World Court or the United Nations Security Council. In the case of the Palestinians, could we really negotiate with Chairman [Yasser] Arafat? We did have a hudna between the "Palestinians" and the Israelis. It was called the Oslo Accords and it lasted almost the 10 years allowed by the Shariah. We tried again at Wye River to extend and solidify that truce into a permanent agreement. Prime minister [Ehud] Barak was forthcoming, president [Bill] Clinton did all he could to facilitate, but Chairman Arafat was not there to conclude a broader interim agreement. He was there to accept a surrender and that he did not get so we have the current intifada. Those who have been reading this part of Asia Times Online recently know that I have no love at all for that band of thieves called the House of Saud. But we all must remember that it was an alliance between the Houses of Saud and Wahhab that allowed the consolidation of the various tribes into what is now Saudi Arabia. Other than for personal friendships, I suspect that we really don't care who rules in Saudi Arabia as long as the oil keeps flowing at market prices. I know I don't care. So Professor LeVine, if you could explain who we negotiate this hudna with, how we enforce it, etc, I am all for stopping the killing on all sides. I would much rather that young Palestinian men see their future as a teacher, or a butcher, or a welder, or another professional that their people truly need rather than as a human bomb. I would like to see the Taliban become a part of Afghan society that respects one person (of either gender), one vote and settles its political differences via the ballot, not the bullet. But that does not take a truce, that takes a change of heart, and I'm not sure that we can do that. But let's try. May I stop by some time and discuss this with you, as Apple Valley is only about two hours from Irvine in good traffic?
Richard Radcliffe
Captain (Fantastic?), US Air Force (Retired) (Aug 11, '04)
bigbird@kwamt.com


No better expression of the positive hopes of neo-conservatism can be expressed than Arnold Toynbee Jr's response to ATol, Spengler and Kiani (letter, Aug 10). For those questioning US actions and attitudes and why the US is unapologetic in moving forward regardless of any opposition, I strongly recommend reading the letter.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 11, '04)

Toynbee's letter was an articulate and reasoned explanation of the policies that the US has imposed on the world, often to the alarm and bafflement of non-Americans, since September 11, 2001. - ATol


Jonnavithula ("Jon") Sreekanth's (letter of Aug 10) style of difficulty with the enigmas in my pessimistic letter (Aug 5) suggests to me that he is young. As for the "fallacy of straight-line extrapolation" he detects in my understanding vis-a-vis the technology of today and that of the future, I will be generous and grant him colonies on Mars, nanomachines that wipe your bottom or turn sawdust into skyscrapers, bio-miraculous livestock made from cauliflower and telephony embedded in his brain. But I am reminded of a young Shell Oil Co rep I met in Phnom Penh, whose job it was to find Cambodian villages capable of paying for a solar panel able to generate electricity for five or 10 lightbulbs - he was getting discouraged. Perhaps Jon has noticed that we have made enormous technological advancements in this last century, so the fallacy might be to argue that another century of the same "progress" will have a significant impact on the catastrophic conditions that are upon us now - except perhaps to exacerbate some of them. As is evident in FTAs [free-trade agreements] and WTO [World Trade Organization] negotiations, all those tech miracles will be accompanied by rigorous intellectual property rights. On another note, I would ask the writer in Massachusetts how he imagines "the goal ... for developing countries" (or even one developing country) is itself developed, articulated, arrived at. Not unlike his (our) own country, there is a multiplicity of interests and conditions residing in any state, and it is an unfortunate convention we must often adopt to pile them all together. Each country constitutes a struggle in itself, and in most countries the notion that there is "a goal" is not only fallacious, it is laughable. With this fundamental misunderstanding in tow, Jon further instructs me about how other cultures' definition of the "good life" differs from America's, as if these are static entities, singular in each state, equally "good" for all its members and not being challenged or undermined at every turn by the competitive overlay of technologies that are for Jon full of such promise. And when I saw the proliferation of satellite dishes and children's bicycles in basic villages in Laos along the Mekong River - surrounded by all that good forest - I did extrapolate. In a poor fishing village where I lived in the Philippines, a neighbor without a well and threatened by periodic malnutrition had a television running 16 hours each day, visible to me through the open door of her bamboo-and-nipa hut. She bought her share of individual-size shampoo packets and snacks, from companies like Unilever, which are clogging up the waterways and littering the public plazas everywhere such goods are sold - and advertised, to capture the marginal consumer. So Jon might want to reconsider his portrait of the happy vegetarian pedestrians of the future in cultures where the good life is three meals a day and a cot: As much as I might want the same thing, even for myself, the idea doesn't fit the trends. In cities like Lagos, Caracas, Rio, Manila, Dhaka, Beijing, Maputo, Moscow, Casablanca, or even Kabul, Medan or Tashkent, I'll wager you can find very few people who don't appreciate the status, convenience and income potential that comes with a truck or automobile. In countries like Swaziland - where I lived for a year - footpaths across the countryside deliver pedestrians to its few tarmac roads where they either continue to walk for long distances, catch a bus or pay a fee to passing vehicles for a lift - with or without market goods - into town. I took the bus, whose ticket-takers would literally shove people into every square inch for a death ride to any destination. Whether under such conditions (which are fairly typical, and the steady cry is for farm-to-market roads), or in the sprawl and congestion of many cities (where people hustle through the fumes), Jon's pleasant notion that they will languidly "walk or bike to work" after the friendly renovation or "public spaces" - well, it's like a good punchline to a cruel joke. Besides, all the best ideas for such planning were laid out over 50 years ago by Lewis Mumford, and the best we got is Brasilia, or Peachtree City, outside Atlanta, where wealthy retirees have broad sidewalks with ramps, and bravely limit McDonald's to using only a small, generic sign. I would like to be invited to Jon's big, global town-hall meeting when all cultures, states, settled agriculturalists and nomads, petty traders and finance big-wigs, think-tank wonks and poets, hunter-gatherers and computer nerds all sit down to sort out how to stop the world long enough to get a read on everybody's goals. The "high energy cost" country reps can tell the OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries], street-hawker, rentier-capitalist and warlord reps about the virtues of "human scale" lifestyles, like they occasionally do in Seattle. Maybe they will pass the good news along to the hundreds of millions of people who have steadily shuffled into overcrowded, often crumbling and polluted cities around the world to eke out a living and send money home, or to experience the good life that can be found there - as they culturally define it, that is. I can't even touch Jon's idea that people can have the goal of being "lower on the food chain". However, Jon is right about one thing: A hundred years is a long, long time. It is also a long time from now.
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 11, '04)


To Dennis Castle, Portland, Oregon [letter, Aug 10]: First, thank you for characterizing my letter [Aug 9] as "smarmy"; I do my best, though I don't believe I achieve "smarm" in that letter - the facts get in the way. You next engage in the typical divisive name-calling about some "liberal" media and "spin" or other, failing to resist slinging that which you uninformedly view as a dirty word. (The [US] Founders and Framers were liberals. Read John Locke.) As you make a big deal of polls you like, I'll mention one you fail to cite: the recent Pew Poll that found the media lean "conservative". (When [George W] Bush led [John] Kerry, the polls were "unbiased"; but now that Kerry leads Bush in those same polls, they are "liberal" polls - correct, Mr Castle?) As for the fact that Bush did not win the election but instead was appointed by the US Supreme Court - an obvious no-brainer - in violation of separation of powers: read the constitution: the Supreme Court has no legitimate role in resolving election disputes - as it has held in all other instances. In all those other instances, the court held, "This is a non-justiciable political question. Take it to the legislature [Congress]." And read the Debates by the Framers. Therein it was suggested the president be appointed by the Supreme Court. "Father of the Constitution" James Madison responded: "Out of the question!" He understood that which should be obvious: one does not place the resolution of a democratic election into the hands of the unelected. Thus, as the constitution stipulates, one puts the resolution of election disputes into the hands of the elected so that during the next election cycle the voters can throw out those who decided differently than they would have liked, should they feel that way about the resolution. That "original intent" - that such disputes be brought to the legislative branch - was shown in action by two who understood it: Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, when their election ended up in an electoral tie. They brought it to Congress, as the constitution stipulates. See how easy that was? No need to cite polls, or distortions and misrepresentations of Florida elections law (despite Republican assertion, there was no "crisis": there was a sitting president; nor a "drop dead date": [Richard] Nixon contested JFK's [John F Kennedy's] election until the day before JFK's inauguration in January of the next year), to get to the facts and law on the matter. No need, in short, to blow smoke in effort to avoid the supreme law of the land, the US constitution.
Joseph J Nagarya
Legal professional and constitutional scholar
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 11, '04)


Daniel McCarthy (letter, Aug 9) asked [letter writer] Dennis Chua "when there will be a popular election for national leaders in Singapore". A better question for McCarthy to ask himself first should have been when there will be a popular election for the US president. Does Dan not know that W [George W Bush] only got a minority of the popular votes in the whole country (less than the "travesty-creating" Al [Gore] received) in 2000? How is this as a prophecy for Dan to contemplate: by the time that Singapore has popular elections for its national leaders or by the time that Hong Kong has universal suffrage, a minority of all voters can still elect a president in "this here the United States of America". Carl Hershberger (letter, Aug 9) seems to be truly confused when he talks about Singapore as a country in the '40s (as Aug 9, 2004, actually marks Singapore's independence for the last 39 years). No wonder he does not know that Taiwan is not a country in the sense of any normal independent sovereign states having official relationships with other countries of the world. Carl and Dan should ask themselves why else the US would regard the claim that "Taiwan is already an independent, sovereign country" as merely "a political statement". Some sense of history and reality seems needed for Carl and Dan, apparently.
Jay Liu
USA (Aug 11, '04)

Your definition of the word "country" is legalistic in the sense of how the United Nations would define it. There is nothing wrong with that, and ATol, like you, strives to avoid the words "country" and "nation" when speaking of a political entity that is not recognized by the UN as fully sovereign. Not everyone chooses to define "country" so narrowly, however, and it is common for such entities as Taiwan (which has functioned under a de facto independent political and economic system for many decades), the Cayman Islands, Greenland etc to be referred to as "countries" by some people as a matter of convenience, and not necessarily out of ignorance or political activism. - ATol


Spengler restates an appealing case [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. Unfortunately, he fails to recognize that Islam's philosopher-warriors, like our philosopher-warriors, are completely irrelevant. Forty years from now, Islamic radicals will be seen in context to be very much like the Weather Underground, the Baeder-Meinhoff gang, the Red Brigades, and the Symbionese Liberation Army - mere spectacular sideshows, grist for the propaganda mills that desperately try to convince the Stepfords, in the face of all evidence, that their lives have some tiny shred of meaning and that their strivings have some tiny impact on a totally indifferent universe.
Grumpy_and_the_other_six
Central California, USA (Aug 10, '04)


In Spengler's article Islam: Religion or political ideology? [Aug 10], the entire premise is off track. He claims "Islam, by contrast, seeks to prolong the life of traditional society indefinitely, by extending it through conquest." And he further says, "Islam acknowledges no ethnicity (whether or not one believes that it favors Arabs)." Perhaps Spengler needs more reading before he can take the training wheels off. I'll tackle these with well-known and well-understood instructions in Islam.
"... Made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you" (Koran 49:13).
"And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Verily, in that are indeed signs for those who know" (Koran 30:22).
In Prophet Mohammed's last sermon, one which is conveyed to Muslims many times in a year, "an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a Black, nor a Black has any superiority over a White - except by piety and good action." Spengler, it looks like you have a lot of learning to do. "Jihad, that is, conquest and forcible conversion of the Dar-al-Harb (the realm of war), is the quintessence of Islamic prayer," says Spengler. It is acknowledged by most historians that upon conquest most lands ruled by Muslims retained their own culture and religions for long periods of time. For instance in India, Muslims remained less than 25%, in Spain even less for 800 years till they were forced out of Spain. Moreover in Indonesia no Muslim army went and today there are 180 million Muslims, similarly 50 million in Malaysia. No Muslim army went to East Africa. Just as there is no Muslim army present in the USA, where millions of Americans of all races have embraced Islam. Spengler's article has some of the most absurd claims and a few outright lies. Ali Sina is a faceless person/organization. Ali Sina does not claim himself to be a "secular Muslim". On his website he/they claims that he is a person who has abandoned Islam and is no longer a Muslim of any kind. Spengler says that Islamic expansionism is "holy rage" against modern society. Pray what modern society existed 1,400 years back? ...
Pervez (Aug 10, '04)


Dear Spengler: Excellent article (Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10). But here lies an interesting question: we seem to know where Islam draws its strength from in the defense (and you are correct in pointing out that this current problem the world is having is a defensive reaction on the part of Islam), but how was it so successful in converting millions, whether Christians in North Africa, or the Hindus of Jakarta? Unlike in Arabia, these were not pagan tribes.
Dave Henderson
Canada (Aug 10, '04)


I am writing because I am becoming truly concerned for the nature of your website. ATol has been a major source of hard news for me for about two years now. I find no other website that provides the detail and analysis that your articles provide. Recently there have been articles that have literally caused me to do a double take. One was an article that said the neo-cons did not control the USA. That was after I had read maybe 10 articles in your publication saying that the neo-cons do indeed control the USA government. Then there are the Spengler articles. Spengler's job is to put a happy face on Israel's and its colonies', Britain and the USA, world domination plans. [The Aug 10] article takes the cake in unmitigated gall, though. The Spengler article has the title Islam: Religion or political ideology? Where is the comparative article directly beneath Spengler's that says "Judaism: Religion or political ideology"? I would offer some critique of Spengler's actual article. Reading his twisted logic makes me physically ill so I cannot do this. His style of propaganda writing is designed to damage the minds of readers. Why does a site providing in-depth analysis of Muslim Pakistan, Muslim Afghanistan, Hindu and Muslim India give top-of-the-front-page billing to a writer who supports the Israelis, people who are killing Muslims as fast as they can? It is not as if the Israelis need ATol as a mouthpiece. All major media in both Britain and the USA already act as propaganda outlets for the Israelis.
David Little
USA (Aug 10, '04)

There are different points of view on the extent to which neo-conservatives still control the White House, and we run different points of view. In any case, Jim Lobe, who has written extensively about the Bush administration on this website and elsewhere, argues that the neo-cons' influence is on the wane, so naturally our articles change focus as the situation changes. On the matter of the nature of Judaism, Spengler spoke to that briefly in his article, which was about Islam, not Judaism. - ATol


Spengler's latest, adorned with an outline of an automatic rifle with a "cross" as its target, a "crescent" as its trigger and a "star" as the bullet clip, overshadows his dissertation, whose conclusion is basically that both Judaism and Islam are fundamentally not religions in the Christian sense of the word [Islam: Religion or political ideology?, Aug 10]. Not being a cognoscente I'll defer to his dissertation and to those who, it's almost certain, will argue with his conclusions. Still, it's quite tempting to exchange the positioning of symbols, say of the trigger from "crescent" to "star", the clip from "star" to the "cross" and the target into the "crescent". Either way it seems that man's salvation lies in killing mankind.
Armand De Laurell
Planet Earth (Aug 10, '04)


I would like to thank Asia Times Online for the recent articles by Sean Curtin (Japan 3, China 1 - but both are losers, Aug 10) and Tang Liejun (A brighter future for China and Japan, Aug 7). These articles can be synthesized to illustrate a union between official government rhetoric in China and the behavior of the Chinese populace. The Tang article shows us that Chinese who were not even born before the end of World War II have been so propagandized about the war that they linger in a frenzied stasis able to be set off by the slightest trigger. Their stasis is usually maintained by economic rationality, but can be unexpectedly triggered into surprising violence. The Curtin article gives us an example of such a trigger - a soccer match won by Japan. Regardless of the arguably bad refereeing that may have occurred during the match, Japan won by either a one- or two-point margin (depending on your view), but that alone was enough to set spectators off on a riot. This event is substantively different from European soccer hooliganism, which is a result of drunken fans rooting for a team. In contrast, the Chinese soccer riot was a mass of enraged commoners wanting to wage war with a foreign nation. Of course the China-Japan soccer match was only the trigger for the riot. The underlying cause was the stasis of rabid hatred which so many Chinese unfortunately live in as a result of the propaganda education that they have undergone. In the past the Chinese government thought it could manage crowd hysteria to its political gain, as it did with the 1999 burning of the US consular residence in Chengdu. Emotional ultranationalism coupled with a good dose of paranoia is nothing new in China, but we have not seen it run amok to this extent since that unfortunate decade that began in 1966. The Curtin article shows us that the Chinese government may have gone overboard with its propaganda in recent years, creating an irrational monster that will destroy all in its path once the trigger is pulled. Once the trigger is pulled, no matter who pulls it, the monster will be on the loose and the central government of China may indeed lose control. It leads one to wonder whether persons outside of China may have their finger on the trigger as well. Perhaps another embassy bombing or spy-plane incident, or even something as minor as another defeat for the Kuomintang in Taiwan, could be the trigger next time.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 10, '04)


"The most fantastic assumption of the book is the China-India alliance ..." writes Chanakya Sen in reviewing The Writing on the Wall. India Challenges America 2017 by the former Indian General Padmanabhan [Future shock, Aug 7], which I found to be intellectually stimulating. But this is and, indeed, has been what I have been saying over the past three years to all those who would want to hear. Furthermore, it is my judgment that unless the future Eastern Coalition is extended to include mainland China, then the USA, whether led today by its neo-cons and Zionists or tomorrow by a warring Pentagon, is most likely to succeed trying to impose its hegemony over the whole world. People of the East, particularly, must regard themselves as having been warned. Beware!
KA
United Kingdom (Aug 10, '04)


Joseph Nagarya's smarmy letter [Aug 9] took Spengler to task (Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3) for daring to state the obvious: George W Bush was elected in 2000. He then ranted the classic liberal spin that the Supreme Court violated the [US] constitution and selected him. At the risk of allowing the facts to speak for themselves, here is reality: Let me educate you about the 2000 election and the American election system.
George Bush - 48% - 50,456,002 votes (30 states won: 271 EC [Electoral College] votes)
Al Gore - 48% - 50,999,897 votes (21 states won: 266 EC votes)
That is a difference of 543,895 votes, which is irrelevant in a federal republic as is the United States where the states elect the president, not the people. Each state (Electoral College) merely votes according to the wishes of the majority of the people in their state based on the votes the people cast. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes based on Population + 2. As for Florida: the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Tribune Company, the Palm Beach Post, the St Petersburg Times and the Associated Press put aside their journalistic egos and pulled out their wallets to pay for a US$900,000 study. They employed the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. NORC in turn employed 153 "ballot examiners" to inspect some 175,010 Florida ballots. The main difference in this recount was that they weren't trying to decipher whom the voter was trying to vote for. Instead they were simply recording any and all information about the marks on each ballot, for example, things like editorial comments, X marks and the manner bubbles were filled in. To guard against inaccuracy, three "examiners" scrutinized each undervote (ballots thrown out because no discernible vote for president was made). Overvotes (ballots thrown out because more than one vote was made) had only one examiner because they are easier to analyze and record. Here is what they found: the LA Times reported, "Floridians wrongly drew stars, circles, and Xs on ballots ... they tried to erase errors or fix them with tape and staples ... many tried in vain - and in error - to vote for two, three, or even all 10 candidates ..." So yes, weird ballots and antiquated machines, but most of the problem was due to human error. We all saw the demonstrators down in Florida screaming that their voting rights had been violated. "One person, one vote," their signs screamed, but that is where the truth lies. Gore only wanted recounts in four heavily Democratic counties, but the study shows that Bush still would have won by 225 votes. If all overvotes had been included Bush would have won by 908 votes. The United States Supreme Court later stepped in to stop the recount, but the study also showed that if the recounts had gone forward, with all 67 counties, Bush still would have won by at least 389 votes.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 10, '04)


I hope Atimes publishes much more of Henry C K Liu's work in the future. He is one writer I always look for.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Aug 10, '04)

See the ATol note under Henry's latest letter (Aug 9). - ATol


To ATol, Spengler, and T Kiani [letter, Aug 6]: An attempted explanation of the American point of view, with regard to the letter of Angy Perrus [letter, Aug 5]: When Americans say that we will bring the fight to the terrorists we mean that we will attack and destroy them before they arrive on our shores to work their acts of violence and sabotage. Whether Islamic terrorists have land or not, they certainly think they have it - the Dar al-Islam. At the very least that is where they are born and bred. It is true that the liberal nature of Western societies provides opportunities for Islamic terrorists to gather and make their plans right in their target countries, and that therefore societies that find themselves under attack by terrorists must continually ferret them out in those locations as well. But that does not mean we should not go after them where they are from. The tacit or express condonement of the cause and even the means of Islamic terrorists in their home countries forces the Americans to pursue a global war against them. What is amazing about non-Americans' perception of the deposal of Saddam [Hussein] and the forceful institution of at least a semi-liberal government in Iraq is that they insist that somehow the only justification for it would have been if Iraq had had something to do with [September 11, 2001]. Americans, on the other hand, notwithstanding Michael Moore and his minions, do not care whether Iraq was involved in September 11, or even if Saddam was an imminent threat via weapons of mass destruction. Rather, we saw September 11 as a watershed event in our history, after which it is simply unthinkable to tolerate regimes like Saddam's that openly proclaim their hatred for and wish to destroy the United States, and pursue the means to do it, whether or not they have the competence. The shock of 19 men commandeering passenger jets with plastic knives and taking down the tallest buildings in New York has led us to re-evaluate our dealings with these forces. In the aftermath of September 11, we simply cannot afford to underestimate the destructive capabilities of today's terrorists and rogue leaders. (For those who point, albeit disingenuously, to Iran and North Korea, I would say stand by for [President George W] Bush's second term.) What has the war in Iraq achieved? It has shown the world that the United States will not seek permission to defend itself and that it will pursue military solutions to the threats posed by rogue regimes in the event diplomatic efforts fail. (Diplomacy only works when the threat of military action is perceived to be real. What diplomatic leverage does France have? Would any country on the other side of a tense negotiation with France actually believe that France might invade them?) It has brought to justice one of the great international war criminals of our time, and led another to abandon his previous course of action. It has placed large, powerful armies next door to Syria and Iran, two of the leading sponsors of international Islamic terrorism. Perhaps most importantly, it has made Iraq a battleground in the war on terrorism, attracting fanatical Muslims from around the world to Iraq like moths to a flame, and distracting them from planning and executing attacks on Western civilian targets. Even more importantly, what may the war in Iraq yet achieve? It may begin to transform the Middle East from a bastion of hatred, ignorance, and fanaticism into a free and prosperous region, at peace with the world and itself. It may provide opportunities for education, politics, social justice, and economic enterprise that were unthinkable before. It may bring Iraq back from its long exile, into the family of nations, a benefit both to Iraq and to the world. Ultimately, it may be the spark of a renaissance in the Middle East, when the Islamic nations rediscover the true glories of their culture, religion, and history, not in senseless violence and rage, but in cultural, scientific, philosophical, religious, and economic contributions to humankind. All of these are contingent on the continuing commitment of the US-led coalition, and it only makes it more unlikely that these benefits (which are benefits to the whole world) will be realized when our efforts are met with the stiff-necked obstinacy of the ubiquitous "nattering nabobs of negativism". Imagine how much more successful the Iraq war could have been had continental Europe had the wherewithal to support it, had the West had the fortitude to present a united front. The French-led resistance was and is motivated not by a commitment to peace and justice, but only by a jealous desire to undermine American power in the world. It provides no positive alternative or method of meeting the challenges posed by international terrorism, as witnessed by the effects of the Spanish bombings. As Spengler has pointed out, the nations of the West are dying out, led by France, whose enormous, unassimilated Arab-Muslim population menaces Jew and Christian alike, and plays no small role in determining French foreign policy. Is the United States to be guided with respect to matters of its own security by nations who exhibit such suicidal tendencies? I do not ask that you agree with this point of view, but only that you consider it and attempt to understand it. It may not always appear so from where you sit, but it does reflect, however imperfectly, some of the best and most enduring aspects of the American character - faith, hope, and charity.
Arnold Toynbee Jr
New York, New York (Aug 10, '04)


It was difficult to parse through Joe Nichols' pessimistic letter [Aug 5], but there seems to be a fallacy of straight-line extrapolation. The 9 [billion] or 10 billion or whatever the population a hundred years from now will not need to be sustained by today's technology, but that of a hundred years from now. We have been wrong before about space colonies and "energy too cheap to meter", but 100 years is a long, long time. Also, the goal for developing countries is not necessarily the American lifestyle, large suburban houses, cars and interstate highways. This is the other fallacy, that other cultures' definition of a "good life" is similar to the American one, which was shaped by its own distinctive culture, and has a high energy cost. The goal is for the 9 [billion] or 10 billion people to be well fed, maybe predominantly eat vegetarian, to be lower on the food chain. Maybe they will walk or bike to work, because the scale of public spaces is more human. Etc.
Jonnavithula ("Jon") Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Aug 10, '04)


Frank from Seattle [letter, Jul 29] hails the Chinese attitude towards their own language while seemingly complaining that Indians don't go to the same lengths to preserve their language. Well, firstly, most overseas Indians whom I have met seem to be making conscious efforts to teach their foreign-born kids the basics of their mother tongue along with their cultural heritage. The second important point is that the Chinese language cannot be compared to Indian, simply because there isn't any one specific Indian language or even script that is uniformly and equally used everywhere. While yes, Hindi is the national language and most literate Indian people can read, write and understand it, India still has more than a dozen fairly major regional languages. In particular, there is a sharp distinction between the Dravidian (South Indian) and the Indo-Aryan (Northern/Western/Eastern) groups of languages. Then you have Sanskrit, the rich ancient language, that is today largely limited to religious ceremonies. And then there is Urdu, which seems to be limited to poetry and Bollywood lyrics. In short, a complex scenario. Thirdly, I hope Frank realizes that English in India is not a foreign language in this day and age. Most middle-class people of my generation grew up speaking English at school or colleges, or among friends, while speaking their mother tongue at home and within one's close community. I personally don't see anything wrong with multilingualism. In fact, I think it makes you much more open-minded - more open to new ideas, cultures, and opportunities. The real power and prestige of a language often lie in how the language is used, and what it is used for, rather than who uses it. Without innovation and creativity any language becomes sedentary, and can decline. Can Frank tell us how many original research papers were published in Chinese? How many school and college textbooks were written in Chinese that weren't mere translated replicas of their English counterparts? How many original movies, dramas, novels, songs, poems are being written in Chinese? I hope the overseas and other Chinese who Frank tells us are going to great lengths to preserve their language are paying attention to the real substance behind the language; otherwise, all we have is language-based emotionalism, or worse, chauvinism ...
Rakesh
India (Aug 10, '04)

China is more linguistically diverse than you suggest. Although the official Chinese language, Mandarin, is very widely spoken, at least five other Chinese languages (plus myriad dialects) have more than 10 million speakers each; Cantonese and Wu each have about 65 million speakers, according to The Columbia Encyclopedia. There are also several non-Chinese languages spoken by large ethnic minorities including Tibetans, Mongols, Uighurs and Koreans. One advantage the Chinese languages have over the many languages of India is the writing system: as it is ideographic and not phonetic, written Chinese can theoretically be read and understood by speakers of any Chinese language even though the spoken forms may not be mutually comprehensible. - ATol


[Re Before the bomb: A young girl's diary, Aug 7] I wonder about the diary. The plane that dropped the bomb was a B-29. The B-52 came perhaps 10 years later. What am I to think ... a translation error?
Steve Johnson
Glen Ellyn, Illinois (Aug 9, '04)

That is precisely what it was, and the article has been corrected. Perhaps more interesting than the mistake itself (typographical errors, after all, happen more than any editor would prefer, unfortunately) is the deluge of letters we got, many using this simple typo to allege that the diary itself was a fake and/or that this was another example of "anti-Americanism". The following letter is a fairly typical example, and helps explain why the mistake provoked such a reaction. - ATol


Concerning Adam Leibowitz' Before the bomb: A young girl's diary, I smell a rat, and you should too. The use of fraudulent documents for propaganda purposes is a technique going back centuries. During the last half of the 20th century it became one of the staples of the professional anti-Americans. And this article immediately raises some tell-tale red flags. The fact that the Japanese author Nosaka is described as a "historical materialist", together [with] his other quoted statements implies that his politics are both anti-American and Marxist. Given the Marxist tradition of pleading that "political truth" trumps "bourgeois truth" (otherwise known as objective fact), there is reason to question that the authenticity of the document if discrepancies can be found. Naturally, the purported author, Moriwaki Yoko, is conveniently dead. Within the document itself there is at least one such serious discrepancy suggesting that it was either faked, or, if real, distorted. This is found in the following entry: "April 13: Today I saw one of those hated B-52s for the first time. It left a long, beautiful smoke trail, circled once in the sky above Hiroshima and then left. I felt really sad. The air raid signal went off again and we went home at noon." The fact that Moriwaki made reference to the "hated B-52s" is the evidence of fabrication. In Japan, in 1945 everyone knew about the B-29, which bombed Japanese cities. Nobody was concerned about the B-52, an airplane which was still over a decade into the future. However, the "hated B-52" was well known to anti-American "peace warriors" during the 1960s and 1970s, and later. Such a mistake is exactly what we might expect if a "peace activist", ill-founded in the details of military history and science, were to try his had at creating Moriwaki's diary retrospectively.
George Mellinger (Aug 9, '04)

One of our more helpful letter writers, Donald G Campbell, advises that "the first B-52A flew August 5, 1954". - ATol


I was surprised to see the article A brighter future for China and Japan (Aug 7) by Tang Liejun. The writer's angry tone does a fine job displaying the anti-Japanese sentiment the Chinese hold ... It is clear that the brighter future won't be achieved until the Chinese people understand that the Japanese have apologized and have moved on. It makes no sense to burn flags and throw garbage at the new Japanese generation who weren't even born when the war took place. To see the younger Chinese generation involved in this kind of act saddens me, because it shows the successful brainwashing that has been done by the older generation. Not only did the uncivilized [Chinese] fans threaten innocent Japanese soccer fans who only wanted to enjoy the game [Asia Cup final, Aug 7], but they proved their barbaric nature to the whole world. Perhaps it's time to put aside the grudge and jealousy and become focused on the future for achieving better ties.
Kristy
Hong Kong (Aug 9, '04)


[In] A brighter future for China and Japan [Aug 7], Tang Liejun writes: "Japanese scholars still deliberately avoid discussion of Japan's wrongdoings in World War II in their textbooks." The myth of a conspiracy preventing Japanese citizens from knowing about Japan's wrongdoings in World War II needs to go the way of the 1980s North American myths that the Japanese were incapable of creativity and that Asian languages obstruct intelligent thought. In The Nanjing Massacre History and Historiography (The University of California Press, 2000), page 74, I find: "In November 1946 ... the elementary schoolbook textbook Kuni no ayumi (ge) (The Course of the Nation, Volume 2, 1946), for instance, stated: 'Our army devastated [arashi] the capital of China, Nanjing.' The junior high school and high school textbook Nihon no rekishi (ge) (Japanese History, Volume 2, 1946) read: 'Atrocities [zangyaku koi] committed by our army at the time of the capture of Nanjing resulted in an all-out anti-Japanese struggle by the Chinese.'" On page 84, I find: "Although [Nihon shoseki, Kyoiku shuppan, and] two other [junior high school] publishers mentioned the massacre, the other four did not mention it at all. High school Japanese history textbooks ... all described the massacre, but no numerical death toll was mentioned in them." Best-selling books have been written in Japanese by Japanese about Japanese World War II atrocities for at least 30 years by my count. This can only be surprising to people who get their information primarily from newspapers. Tang Liejun also writes: "... when the war ended Chinese treated Japanese war prisoners very kindly, an unimaginable thing in a country filled with hatred for Japanese atrocities and brutality". Unimaginable? Page 22 of the above book clarifies things a little: "The trials of Chinese collaborators also drew attention away from trials of Japanese war criminals, because those Chinese who had served Japan were the real focus of Chinese anger. From September 1945 until June 1946, a lead story about Chinese collaborators appeared almost every day in the Chinese press, and only the most notorious Japanese war criminals could elicit equal interest. Chinese courts passed sentence on more than 10,000 Chinese for collaborating with the Japanese enemy by the end of 1947 ... these numbers overwhelmed those from Chinese trials against Japanese war criminals ... even trials by other countries took a more serious stand against Japanese aggression. For example, the British had a higher conviction rates, the United States tried more Japanese, and the harshest courts were those of the Dutch." And many of the Japanese convicted of war crimes were actually Taiwanese (178) or Korean (148). Plus, formal public apologies for World War II aggression began to be given by Japanese prime ministers way back in 1991, as I recall.
Biff Cappuccino
Taipei, Taiwan (Aug 9, '04)


In regard to Tang Liejun's article A brighter future for China and Japan [Aug 7]: I think this article should be distributed to every Chinese and Japanese citizen. During my time in China I went to see the Nanjing Massacre museum, and in addition to being horrified to see pictures of what I had only previously read about, I came away with a feeling of hope. The end of the exhibition had pictures and comments from the Sino-Japanese friendship association. The Chinese friend I went with (now studying in Japan) translated some of the wreaths that had been left there, including one from from a Japanese that stated shame for the past and hope for the future. I felt a little sorry for Japanese students I knew who were given a rough time for events of 30 years before. One evening, these students, Chinese friends, myself and other assorted Westerners teaching in China all went out together and it was good to hear some of my Chinese friends talk of how they had changed their minds at least a little regarding the Japanese. Long may it continue.
Peter Mitchelmore (Aug 9, '04)


This is in response to the article by Ian Williams [Presidential war games, Aug 7]. Ever since I discovered the online version of your paper it has become one of the core sites I get news from. As a Vietnam-era veteran, I can tell you that for some of us this emphasis on a person's military record has really hit home. Mr Williams said the president was AWOL [absent without leave] from the Alabama Air National Guard. I'd like to correct him on that. When I was in the regular [US] Army, and if I was not present for eight months or more, it would not have been called AWOL. In fact it is desertion, and in time of war, by a commissioned officer no less. If any member of our corporate-controlled Congress had a backbone, impeachment proceedings would have begun long ago. Then the president could have cleared his name or been thrown into the trash can of history. Do keep up the good work as well as your different viewpoint of American politics. Over here we only get very distorted news, if you could call it that. Your coverage is refreshing. As for you Mr Williams, good going and don't stop.
Dan
Reno, Nevada (Aug 9, '04)


I read with interest your [Aug 7] article titled Presidential war games. a few things bothered me about the article, such as your failure to state that the Vietnam War was actually started by then-president Dwight D Eisenhower (at the urging of then vice president Richard M Nixon), when he (Eisenhower) formed the Special Forces specifically to aid the South Vietnamese army in 1954. Further, I believe it was appointed president Gerald Ford who declared victory in Vietnam and then ordered a total retreat, leaving thousands of Vietnamese who sided with us to be tortured and slaughtered. All were Republicans.
Charles J Henderson
Fort Worth, Texas (Aug 9, '04)


[The Aug 7] article by Sudha Ramachandran, Muqtada stirs new storms, is a bit confusing. The article's headline, and sentences such as "Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - [whose] supporters are said to be behind the attacks on Christians", imply that al-Sadr's supporters are thought to be behind the recent wave of bombings of Iraqi Christian churches. No evidence or sources are given for this claim. Yet later in the same article, Ramachandran writes that "Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Tawhid and Jihad, which has al-Qaeda links, has emerged as the foremost suspect for the Iraqi church bombings". [She] quotes no evidence or sources for this claim either. Presumably the author knows that Zarqawi and his ilk are vehemently anti-Shi'ite in ideology, so how can [she] claim two contradictory theories in the same article? And are both theories the author's own speculation? If not, [she] should tell readers [her] sources.
Jim Sadler
Brighton, England (Aug 9, '04)


The article by Sudha Ramachandran Muqtada stirs new storms [Aug 7], in my opinion, and in agreement with what I have read, falsely places blame for recent violence against Christians on [Muqtada] al-Sadr. I am only going off the newspaper article I read the other day which quotes his aides as condemning harshly those bombings. Apparently the verdict is out, but I would like to see some proof before Ramachandran confuses the situation for us even more.
Joe Shmo (Aug 9, '04)


I am really surprised to read the report on the Iraq situation by Sudha [Ramachandran] blaming the Shi'ite Muslims for attacking Christian churches [Muqtada stirs new storms, Aug 7]. Western media, which [are] engaged in reporting against Muqtada [al-]Sadr to defame him and his followers, are even blaming al-Qaeda, and surprisingly Sudha is blaming the Mehdi Army! Basically I am not clear on whose direction Sudha is working? Surely in this era every editor ... and reporter is sold out for money and reports according to the will of those on whose hand they have been sold out. Hence no [medium] is reliable and readers have to really scrutinize the facts peeping out from behind the fabricated stories by these sold-out journalists and reporters.
Anis Sayani
Toronto, Ontario (Aug 9, '04)

If we've all sold out, why aren't we rich? - ATol


Re: Pakistan backs off Balochistan by Syed Saleem Shahzad, August 7. Being an American of Pakistani origin it is easy for me to get lots of news and information about Pakistan on the net, but it is really difficult to know the truth as what is really happening inside the country. Reports by Syed Saleem Shahzad in Asia Times are one of the few sources of truthful and unbiased information for me here in USA. I thank you and appreciate Asia Times for its high standard of journalism and for fulfilling the need for truthful and timely information.
Sohail Ayyubi
Houston, Texas (Aug 9, '04)


Dr [Mark] LeVine's obvious subtlety that Europe would be a more "honest" broker in the Muslim world may be the beginning of the "dawning of reality" [Toward a truce with the Muslim world, Aug 6]. The Europeans (including the New Europe made famous by [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld), whose histories included warring on each other as well as colonizing a goodly part of the planet, are rapidly becoming the entity that is representative of what globalization is intended to be. The primary justification [is] that issues between nations require resolution through understanding with a certain "give and take" rather than through preemptive military conquests. It's going to be a long and arduous road for attitudes to change from "incinerating Mecca, Medina, Khartoum and most all Muslims [terrorists]" to one paralleling the European approach of trying to resolve global issues by non-military acts as a first or primary option.
Armand DeLaurell (Aug 9, '04)


As a new reader to atimes.com allow me to say it is the most intelligent and diverse online magazine on the Internet. I have just pulled myself away from reading all the Spengler archives and feel I deserve college credit! I've e-mailed the link to Sibel Edmonds' letter to as many mainstream news sources I can think of (alas, no takers yet) and find the international responses in the Letters section revealing much more than just the authors' intent. The biggest joke, oft repeated, is the parochial assent that Americans are clueless regarding the nature of the world we live in and incompetent dealing with her affairs; the irony is thicker than the UN's oil-for-food scandal! I noticed that Mike LeVine (Toward a truce with the Muslim world [Aug 6]) makes one throw-away comment that ends up being the crux of every pro-terrorist argument: the world will love America if only we turn our back on Israel. Sorry everyone, your Jew-killing privileges have been suspended; deal with it.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Aug 9, '04)


Spengler is as fatuous and overblown as ever [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3]. Another way of saying it: he takes himself too way too seriously, and grandiosely exaggerates his "intellect". Yet again he allows his out-of-control his neo-con[artist] wishful-thinking - delusion - drown out reality while pretending his finger-crossed hopes are prediction: that George Bush will be "re-elected". Bush will not be "re-elected" for two reasons: 1. As I've made clear before now, Bush was not elected in 2000; he was appointed by a US Supreme Court, which violated the US constitution in order to do so. Thus it isn't complicated: unless one has been elected at least once, one cannot be re-elected. 2. Nor will he be elected (this time either). He will be thrown out of office by the voters. The only question is the size of the margin by which he will lose. There is a sense that a momentum is building which will make it a clear and convincing victory for Kerry-Edwards. And current polling data indicate that the real poll numbers and "news" are under the radar of both pollsters and media. Add a most significant voting block which usually goes 80-20 for Republicans: the military. The margin will be, at best for Bush, 60-40 - and that will be big news ... Spengler's uninformed pontifications about a country about which he knows nothing but the specious neo-con[artist] hoax ideology - stench - is an insult to the US, to its "system of laws, not of men" (John Adams), and to basic human intelligence. Perhaps he shall cease to be immune to illumination and thus keep to matters closer to home about which he might actually know something valid.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Aug 9, '04)


Yeah! Mr Spengler. How dare you assume that [US President George W] Bush - being an MBA, Harvard University, 1975; BA, History, Yale University, 1968, etc as noted by Frank O Hinckley [letter, Aug 3], does not know [Georg] Hegel? Mr Spengler, I believe you have "misunderestimated" the man.
Dennis Chua
Singapore (Aug 9, '04)


In response to a reader's inquiry, the editors of ATol wrote [Aug 6]: "Henry C K Liu advised us some time ago that for reasons of his own, he wanted to concentrate his talents elsewhere. Whether this is a temporary hiatus or not is up to Henry." The reasons are not personal. ATol rejected an article of mine comparing the battle of Fallujah to the battle of Bunker Hill. While I respect ATol's editorial prerogative, I find it necessary to protest by not submitting more articles and have so informed ATol. This divergence of views has since been resolved through friendly communication, albeit the divergence remains nevertheless. I intend to submit more articles to ATol, although the prospect of further editorial rejection does inhibit free-wheeling thinking on which original insights are harvested, slowing the rate of production. Please be patient if I need "a temporary hiatus" to recuperate.
Henry C K Liu (Aug 9, '04)

Dear Henry C K Liu, would the prospect of an in-print debate with Spengler lure you back? Spengler is willing. - ATol


Dennis Chua of Singapore (letter August 5 below) takes a rather harsh view toward the US political system when he hints that some of the government in Washington may not be "duly elected". Probably he is referring to George Bush and the travesty which Al Gore created by a selective vote recount in Florida in which the re-counters kept mysteriously finding more votes for Gore with each recount. Please note that the Miami Herald, a newspaper that leans toward the Democratic Party, performed its own recount and found that Bush won the majority of votes in Florida, although the anti-Bush forces do not like to acknowledge that. But I doubt that the subtle workings of a democracy are possible for Mr Chua to fathom since his experience in Singapore is limited to observing the workings of a dictatorship. Perhaps Mr Chua can tell us when if ever there will be a popular election for national leaders in Singapore.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 9, '04)


With regard to several insulting anti-American letters: T Kiani [Aug 6] complains from London that American intelligence is an "oxymoron" and that proposes the cruel idea that Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban. As for American intelligence, we are no less intelligent than we were in 1943 when the English welcomed us with open arms and put their armed forces under overall command of one of our generals. As for Afghanistan, I suspect those saw the stoning of Afghan women for trying to obtain employment, or those who suffered clitorectomies, would disagree with T Kiani. In a couple of months Afghanistan will hold its first democratic election, an event that should be celebrated throughout the world, but apparently will be lamented by some for the sole reason that the USA helped bring it to fruition. Dennis Chua writing from Singapore [Aug 5] makes the remark that "everybody outside the US knows how ignorant the majority of Americans are of the world around them". He also complains of the USA government selling arms to Taiwan. Again, few in Singapore were complaining about American ignorance in 1945, despite the fact that we as a country were much less educated then, as we helped rid the country [Singapore, then a British colony] of the dreaded Japanese army, thus ensuring Singapore's autonomy. It is very difficult for me to see how anyone in Singapore would not want Taiwan to also be autonomous rather than end up invaded by a foreign conqueror. The fact is, is the USA has attempted the nearly impossible: bringing about peace in the Straits of Taiwan. Without the support of the USA, Taiwan would have been invaded a long time ago, and just as Americans did not send their sons to die in 1941 for the freedom of Singapore, they won't send their sons and daughters to die for Taiwanese independence. They will send them, however, to stop a belligerent imperialist China.
Carl Hershberger
Sacramento, California (Aug 9, '04)


In one of your many replies to letters to the editor (from Angy Perrus, August 5), you said, "Iraq had nothing to do with any of the terrorist attacks you mention." This is not completely accurate. Among others, Iraq was a sponsor of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which carried out the attack on the Achille Lauro. US forces captured the leader of that group in Iraq shortly after the invasion. More, an Iraqi national and al-Qaeda operative named Shakir was apparently involved in the USS Cole/[September 11, 2001] planning cell in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in January 2000. While he was not an Iraqi government official, the Iraqi Embassy apparently found him his job at the airport in KL, which led him to be involved in the planning cell and two September 11 hijackers who were on Flight 77. Twice arrested in two different Arabic counties for suspicion of terrorism, authorities found in his possession contact information for top al-Qaeda operatives, including another Iraqi national with government links who helped bomb the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Eventually, the Iraqi government diplomatically wrestled Shakir from a Jordanian jail. Accordingly, if one is objective, one could argue that Iraq seemingly used the PFLP as a surrogate. Perhaps there is something to Angy said after all. Moreover, one could similarly argue that Shakir might have been an Iraqi cutout. It needs more investigation. Perhaps ATol could use its high-powered investigative prowess to run down these leads. While you are at it, here are a few other examples of how Iraq allegedly sponsored terrorists through the years. Perhaps you could investigate these as well and educate your readership on the findings. Perhaps you could prove them bogus. Or not. For your reference: "Carlos the Jackal" (front man for the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] in Europe in the 1970s reportedly temporarily lived in/operated from Iraq at a presidential palace); Abu Nidal (died in Iraq); the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Saddam funding their cause); al-Qaeda ([Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi received medical treatment in Iraq in 2002 from wounds received in Afghanistan).
Jeff
USA (Aug 9, '04) 

Thank you for publishing Ritt Goldstein's [Aug 5] article Whistleblower explodes 9-11 report. Almost 24 hours since it first appeared, the mainstream US media [have] yet to pick it up. A search of Google news results in a few hits, none mainstream. Two are yours ... Perhaps Ritt's next assignment could be lack of coverage of the news by US media.
J Boudreau
Bolton, Massachusetts (Aug 6, '04)

Because of an editing error, an early version of the article misidentified Behrooz Sarshar as a Federal Bureau of Investigation informant. In fact, as Sibel Edmonds' letter makes clear, Sarshar was an FBI translator. The article has been corrected, but we apologize to Behrooz Sarshar and Ritt Goldstein for the error. - ATol


Re: Toward a truce with the Muslim world [Aug 6]. Mark LeVine is right: his statement is naive and defeatist. But I think he is only half right to direct it toward Europe, since they would appreciate the defeatism but not the naivete. Even if Mr LeVine is unaware of why Europe has totally failed as an honest broker (with the exception of some Scandinavian countries) with regard to Israel since their less-than-nuanced treatment of Jews led to its creation more than 50 years ago, he should still know they are incapable of acting as an honest broker with regard to the US and the Muslim world. That would be like asking a sheep to be an honest broker between a wolf and a wolfhound. Besides (although I'm an American and lack the geographic skills of others in this world), isn't France in Europe?
Johannes Glock
New York, New York (Aug 6, '04)


In response to the article by Syed Saleem Shahzad Musharraf steps back from the US [Aug 5], I would like add a few more observations and comments. Yes, indeed, [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf is now stranded in between the two extreme sides, the US policymakers and the armed Muslims (I will not call them terrorists). And finally, it is the time to chose between the lines as you can keep happy both the bosses. So far he has done a great job. Sustaining the pressure from the US and at the same time not letting the allied forces a safe hand in the northern Pakistan and Afghan regions. Repeatedly, there has been resistance by the fighters in that area and it is the only place left for the Taliban freedom fighters to regroup and devise a strategy that would lead them to Kabul. Back to the core issue, there is no way that [a] Pakistani general would send troops to Iraq. If Mr Syed thinks that he would, then keep dreaming on. Also, there is no need to ask anyone to dramatize a protest, every Pakistani is against the issue. Even the army (I mean those who put rifles on shoulders and not the ones who sit in offices and attend meetings) is unwilling to go there for the key reasons: they would be up against a fellow Muslim Iraqi brother, fighting in a different terrain and of course, no one wants to be beheaded. Considering the facts on the ground, there will be more resistance against the Pakistani army in the recent days in the country and eventually, there would be a no-go decision. On the other side, yes I would agree that there will be a consistent supply of arrested al-Qaeda militants to the US in order to keep the war on terror series alive. [Whether US President George W] Bush wins or loses, Musharraf is there to stay anyway.
Addy
United Arab Emirates (Aug 6, '04)


ATol has given an excellent reply to the letter by Angy Perrus [Aug 5]. It's strange how no matter how many times you try to make this distinction clear, they will still give the same reply - we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because of what happened on September 11 [2001] etc and we will take the fight to our enemies' land, not realizing that their enemies have no land! I think Angy is right when she says that "Bush has tapped on the grassroots emotions of the average American" because emotional she is. It would've been better for the whole world if he had tapped on the grassroots intelligence of the American people (or is that an oxymoron?). Now please allow me to make a comment about the [Aug 5] article by Dr Michael A Weinstein [Forces that would rip Afghanistan apart]. This might be taboo talk I am going into, but I think rather than sweeping the Taliban government away like they did, the US should have recognized the Taliban government and dealt with it, just like it should have recognized the Khomeini government in Iran and dealt with that. True, the Taliban had some massive problems, but they were the closest thing to stability in Afghanistan, and would surely have "normalized" with the passage of time if only the world would give them the respect they were so hungry for. Now, the US and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] forces can stay in Afghanistan as long as they like, but whenever they leave, or even before that, Afghanistan will once again plunge into civil war, and this time around even Mullah Omar will be unable create calm. And as for stopping heroin production, well the West can forget about that for good.
T Kiani
London, England (Aug 6, '04)


Spengler's latest, doleful forecast about [US President George W] Bush's re-election and sad aftermath was perhaps more amusing than intended [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3]. Even so, Spengler is a good pen name for someone with his point of view. I'm happily living and writing (when the muse strikes) in Chiang Mai [Thailand] and miss little of what was left behind in the USA. Yet I doubt that things will turn out quite so poorly there as he foretold. On the other hand, Apollo blessed Cassandra with the gift of prophecy but also cursed her with the disbelief of anyone who heard her forecasts. So who knows? Is there a bright side to what has happened? Maybe not, but the surge in anti-American sentiments worldwide since the invasion of Iraq just might also put the brakes on the spread of US "pop culture". Now that would surely be good news worth reading.
Dan Stephan (Aug 6, '04)


In response to the letter [Jul 29] from Frank of Seattle regarding the article Speaking English, like Indians [Jul 29]: There is no common Indian language. In India you will find about 2,000 different languages. Only one other country in the world has more languages, and that is Papua New Guinea. English is widely spoken and understood in India. In every corner of India you will find official signs in the local language and in English. English is used in the judiciary, in government and in higher education. The command of English is one of the factors that has given India the edge over rivals such as China, Russia and the Philippines in attracting information technology and recently biotech investment from the West, along with its abundant supply of qualified engineers. Rather than trying to impose a language on India, which could have undesirable consequences, in my view it would be far better to follow the example of the UK (with the Welsh) and Spain (with the Basques) who have allowed minority languages and culture to flourish.
T Ghataura
Paris (Aug 6, '04)


Spengler: Your contention that Russia will send troops to Iraq is probably true [When Grozny comes to Fallujah, Jul 27]. However, I disagree with your reasons why [Russian President Vladimir] Putin will put his troops in harm's way. After our Warrior King either wins or steals the 2004 election, he will act even more recklessly. To be specific, either [US President George W] Bush will order a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, or have [America's] "tail that wags the dog", Israel, do the heinous act. This is when the world finds out if Iran truly has nuclear weapons, because I believe Iran's aging mullahs will order their use in an act of self-defense. If Russia did not have several divisions of troops in Iraq, she might be inclined to enter this nuclear fray so close to Moscow. However, Bush and his chicken hawks will use Russia and her troops as a pawn to keep Putin on a short leash.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Aug 6, '04)


Have not heard from Henry C K Liu for a long time. Is he still with you? Do you still publish his writing?
JT (Aug 6, '04)

Henry C K Liu advised us some time ago that for reasons of his own, he wanted to concentrate his talents elsewhere. Whether this is a temporary hiatus or not is up to Henry. In the meantime, a collection of his previous articles remains on this website. - ATol


Despite what Saleem Shahzad has to say on the topic [Musharraf steps back from the US, Aug 5], I think it is highly unlikely that Pakistan's ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] has got a whole bunch of these al-Qaeda operatives waiting in "safe houses" to deliver to the US from time to time, unless of course the White House and CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] are also in on this. Despite the notoriously poor intelligence of the Americans in general, it is very far-fetched to think that Pakistan has delivered 350-odd fugitives to the US and they still haven't been able to figure that one out. It is common knowledge that the Pakistani agencies can track down anyone at any given time within the country, if they have the will to do so, and the chances are that if someone's not been delivered yet it is not because he or she is in a safe house, but because the will is not there (or the individual is not there). But can you really blame Pakistan for not trusting the US government after they have been left high and dry time and time again? The US has always been Pakistan's ally, but never its friend. Pakistan was left to take care of its own business during the '65 war and again in the '71 war, despite Pakistan having defense treaties with the US. It was after this that Pakistan realized it can only rely on its own muscle for its defense against an enemy five times its size with the full backing of the Soviets. Today the US's insistence that Pakistan give up its nuclear capability and the US will guarantee its security is just laughable; we have been there before! The Pakistanis who are in government and in the army today also remember what happened after the Cold War, and they were forced to think hard and make plenty of Plans (Bs, Cs and Ds) before deciding to back the US once again. Some Pakistanis are criticizing the government for doing the US's dirty work, but remember, it takes two to tango. While the US is using Pakistan, Pakistan is also using the US. It is an open secret in Pakistan that to make government, one has to get the backing of the US first, so how ironic that today the actions of this same country, sitting on another continent, may go a far way in determining who rules the US over the next four years. Maybe this is a good time for Pakistan to show a finger to the Democrats who "graced" it with a five-hour visit when they were last in power?
T Kiani
London, England (Aug 5, '04)


[Re What's his name with the turban?, Aug 5] Remember Osama? We must recognize that the Bush government is controlled by neo-conservative traitors. They wanted Likud enemy Saddam [Hussein] destroyed, and used their power to divert this ignorant president to that goal. We are now hated by at least half the world for our destructive course in Iraq, and the hundreds of billions being borrowed to finance this disaster will soon force America to accept a much lower standard of living. Thanks for your "reminder".
R T Carpenter
Florida (Aug 5, '04)


[Re] What's his name with the turban?, Aug 5. I too have been wondering if Osama bin Laden would put in an "appearance" prior to the November [US presidential] election. Probably the reason for this thought was [my] viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11. I find it remarkable that people in my country have such short memories (or none at all) about events that happen here. Please note that [Ronald] Reagan was the president-elect to his first term; he had not been re-elected yet, and [Jimmy] Carter was still in office at the time of the [Iran] hostages' release. Thank you for the comment by Ian Williams.
Ruth-Ann Radcliff
California, USA (Aug 5, '04)

The hostages in the US Embassy in Tehran were released on Reagan's inauguration day, January 20, 1981. - ATol


In Of aging societies, lost women, lost consumers [Aug 5], Jayanthi Iyengar opens with these glad tidings: "Remember the fears of population explosion, when the world's biggest developing nations would push the global population to the catastrophic figure of 10 billion by the turn of this century? Those fears are fading." According to her references, we are to be relieved of 1 billion from that catastrophic total, so an intelligent rewrite should read: "Remember the fears of global population growing to 9 billion? Those fears are alive and well, and there seems to be no hope for the future!" I had read some of Phillip Longman's material at the New America Foundation's website, which Iyengar cites prominently, and got drunk that night - clever people thinking inside the box. Haven't they noticed that the world is shuddering under the demands of even the current human load? Don't they know that human migrations are increasing due to desperation more than opportunity? Are they thoughtful of the fact that all infrastructures everywhere supporting human wants and needs have to be systematically replaced? Or that billions of people will always want more than they can get, billions who live at bare subsistence? Even in Longman's subtitle, some contradictions are right in your face: declining population and longer life "[threaten] world prosperity", and Iyengar worries about the possibility of declining "consumption bins", which had theoretically promised to fuel production by drawing down an ever-declining natural capital. They have succumbed to the ideology of the dominant economic model - a vision of humanity that needs growth, so that Canada, Europe, the US and Japan "need" immigration yet buck against it with dark forebodings of a violent reaction, and this will trap the however slowing, swelling populations in developing countries, which in many cases have already passed the point where catastrophe could have been avoided. Both Longman and Iyengar need to think more holistically, taking into account that many past possibilities have eclipsed and cannot be retrieved; and certainly of such things as industrial emissions, watershed and soil degradation, the depletion of fisheries and dying reef systems, the loss of biodiversity, pollution and silted rivers and the dangerous conduct of nations in the scramble for diminishing resources - especially energy resources - all increasingly pushing the world to the brink of disaster right now ... Rather than seeing declines in population growth in the developing world as reasons for optimism, I rather see them as indications that those areas are already beyond their capacity to carry the human load - and this is frankly obvious. And to look upon affluent countries as possible social or economic models for those now underdeveloped and overpopulated is to either ignore the critical role that the exploitation of other places and peoples has played in their achieving affluence, or it is to remove the severely stressed nations, quite naively, from their specific current condition and place in history; those possibilities have already played out in such a way that India, Mexico or Indonesia, for instance, will never be able to satisfy more that a small portion of their populations' appetite for high material living at the best, and the rest have not seen the worst by a long shot. The statistics showing population declines means nothing in the near vacuum in which they are being regarded by Longman, Iyengar and others. One must also consider human nature, culture, the behavior of nations, the impermanence of everything we have already built, and above all an environment already stretched to its limits or beyond them. Consider: If the Earth were by chance a much larger planet, population growth would be humming along and wouldn't go into decline until a later date, and it wouldn't stop until it was forced to stop. What, on the whole, is slowing it now? It certainly isn't enlightenment or collective action ... Here's a pretty document, telling us a great deal about the past, present and future: The Earth at Night. What's wrong with this picture?
Joe Nichols
USA (Aug 5, '04)


I found a lot of insights I hadn't considered before in your article [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3]. I also found some interesting omissions that you might want to consider. President [George W] Bush (yes, that's President Bush) has tapped into the grassroots emotions of the average American in a way that neither [Al] Gore nor [John] Kerry have. Although I supported Bush in the last election and will do so again, I and many others realize that he has some serious flaws. The terrorists and those regimes that have supported and sponsored them have tweaked our nose, murdered our citizens and soldiers, wreaked havoc on civilian [infrastructures] for years. The Achille Lauro, the Beirut barracks, the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, the Pentagon, the second World Trade Center [attack], and others too numerous to mention. All the acts of cowards. How much of this crap did you think America was going to stand for before taking the fight to this scum? You might be surprised at how the average American is unhappy with this administration for its restraint. Muslim fundamentalists have declared war, not only on America, but on Western civilization. President Bush has rightly decided that this war will be fought on their soil, and why not? The critics of this policy have their heads in the sand while their own citizens in Spain, France, the Philippines, and scores of other nations stand by while their citizens are slaughtered, not because they are in Iraq but because they are not Muslim. While you busy yourself imagining this war is about oil, you might want to busy yourself realizing this is about religious fanaticism. I also was not amused by your photo of President Bush and your comment regarding his drinking history. America is the land of the second chance. If that wasn't true, your immigrants wouldn't be flooding our borders.
Angy Perrus
United States of America (Aug 5, '04)

You still miss the point of the nearly global opposition to the Iraq war. Iraq had nothing to do with any of the terrorist attacks you mention, and so it has been difficult for many US allies (or former allies, now) to see what it had to do with the "war on terror". Iraq is arguably a greater hotbed of dangerous, exportable fanaticism now than it was under Saddam Hussein's secular regime. - ATol


Wow ... That was a tired waste [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3]. Spengler? Thanks for the mindless fantasy. Sounding like someone is truly misplaced some serious partisan anger and blindness ... Pathetic ramblings of a conspiracy addict.
William Holl
New York, New York (Aug 5, '04)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. We'll do better next time. - ATol


In response to Gunther Travan's letter [Aug 4]: He [says]: "All Taiwanese came from the mainland at some point." I am sure there is an oversight here in that all Han Chinese in Taiwan came from the mainland at some point. The "original" Taiwanese are more Polynesian than East Asian. The problem with the Taiwan issue is not just the argument before or against reunification, it is also the fact that holes can be picked in both.
Peter Mitchelmore (Aug 5, '04)


I also agree with Chris Davies [letter, Aug 2] (and Frank [Aug 3]) that most Americans are not even aware there is a Taiwan issue and frankly couldn't be bothered with it. This is not a surprise as everybody outside the US knows how ignorant the majority of Americans are of the [world] around them. The point here is it is not the American people who decide what country the US should meddle in. It has always been the powers in Washington, be [they] duly elected or not. I am sure that nobody will object to the status quo in the China-Taiwan issue. But the problem is Taiwan is agitating independence and US - in its usual hypocrisy, promoting democracy in one country while supporting dictatorship in another - is trying to sell arms to Taiwan while giving its usual lip service in support of the one-China policy. What would you do if somebody sells your neighbor arms with the intention of using them on you? We all know, maybe with the exception of most Americans, how Washington reacted when the Soviets delivered missiles to Cuba. Mr Davies, please stay in the US. Your travels have not widened your mind a bit.
Dennis Chua
Singapore (Aug 5, '04)


The tragedy of the recent Korean War film Taegukgi could not escape me - brothers fighting brothers, Koreans fighting Koreans. And while there are many who can be blamed for the events of the Korean War - North Korean aggression, Chinese and Russian blank-check support for the North Korean regime - I feel the party that really holds blame is the United States. The USA let it come to this by inviting the Russians into the Pacific War near the end of World War II in order to limit its casualties, thus dividing Korea along the 38th parallel and setting the stage for future inter-Korean conflict. [Americans'] shortsightedness and [their] tendency to take the easy path or short-cut has time and time again resulted in greater instability in their region of intervention in the long run, as well as situations in which brothers face off against brothers - mainland vs Taiwanese Chinese, North vs South Vietnamese, North vs South Koreans, and now attacks on Iraqis by Iraqis in Iraq. The US's so-called "war on terror" is a case in point of the USA taking the easy way out and, in doing so, creating a bigger mess. Rather than going after the focal points of international Islamic fundamentalism (ie Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria), the US went after the easy, already isolated and weak target, Iraq, as well as making a token intervention in Afghanistan where there are merely 20,000 US troops and 10,000 NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]-backed ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] forces; considerably less than in Iraq. The result: the terror threat is not diminished and the US has now created the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists in Iraq. While the values and ideals upon which the US intervenes on the international stage are commendable and its mission often just, it tends to lose its way in carrying out its policy, opting for the easy way out and thus setting the stage for future conflict and instability.
Chietigj Bajpaee
Hong Kong (Aug 5, '04)

Surely brothers who choose to make war on their brothers should take some responsibility for their own actions, rather than putting all the blame for such conflicts on outside influences, however powerful. - ATol


Are any of the hostage takers [in Iraq] non-Muslim? Then why are we are being flooded with the propaganda that Islam is a peaceful religion?
S Varma (Aug 5, '04)

Were any of the perpetrators of bloody violence in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles" Muslim? Most if not all of the major and supposedly "peaceful" religions have seen crimes committed in their name. - ATol


Spengler's assertion [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3] that "replacing the commander-in-chief in the midst of war is something Americans never have done" is only formally correct. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson would almost certainly have lost had he chosen to run again, notwithstanding having won in a landslide just four years before. And in 1952, [Dwight] Eisenhower's fame and his pledge to "go to Korea" would likely have carried the day, even against an incumbent. In the instant case, there is also a mechanistic argument for a [John] Kerry victory. The divergence in 2000 between the electoral vote and the popular vote is the rarest event in American politics. It hadn't happened since the late 19th century, and regression to the mean suggests it is unlikely this time around. If that is so, then [George W] Bush will have to trump the half-million-vote excess [Al] Gore racked up last time. Right now, it's very hard to see where those votes come from.
Johnny West (Aug 4, '04)


Spengler's article Careful what you Bush for [Aug 3] was pretty interesting (despite the not-so-creative title). Reading his last few articles I was mistaken in thinking he had said what he had to say and was now just scraping the barrel. But I particularly enjoyed his comment: "Dubya will be the president who led the US into a world civilization war, although it is more precise to say that civilization war led the US into it." I have had discussions with and read on some prominent and influential (but non-political) names in Asia, and they all seem to agree that we are fast heading towards a civilization conflict, despite what the Western "intellectuals" would have us believe. And there doesn't seem to be any way of avoiding this either, it seems more or less inevitable, and a continuum to the long-standing struggle for dominance between Islam and Christendom which has been all but one-sided for the past century or so. It remains to be seen what triggers the events or, as Spengler puts it, what Russian doll is opened at what stage, but some have already started to call on the Muslims settled in the West to seriously start planning to immigrate back to "Dar-Al-Salam" for their own good, suggesting a time span of eight to nine years tops? This might seem crazy to most, but with the likes of [George W] Bush sitting on the throne in the US (which says less about Bush himself than it does of the people he represents), and at least seven former US presidents firmly believing in "Armageddon" (and the "final battle" which is said to begin from a mountain in Palestine) and to have taken into account the biblical descriptions of these events before forming some aspects of foreign policies, is it all so surprising? I agree with Spengler's first prediction and believe that Bush will indeed win a second term in the White House, but I do not agree with his second prediction, as I do not think Bush will ever, even for one day, feel sorry he did. While he is being elected by the people of America, he thinks he has already been selected by God himself to "free the world", and that, my friend, takes serious conviction. The US already finds itself bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are historically two of the most fiercely independent parts of the world. Having hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan can only get worse unless the US performs the mirror image of the reverse on Taliban that it forced Pakistan to do. It is not that Afghanistan has never been occupied in the past, but no occupying force has ever been able to settle down. The first few years of the Afghan resistance have always been calm, giving the occupiers a false sense of security before all hell breaks lose. The Americans now find themselves in a position that they can neither stay in nor leave these countries. They are now not in a position to open another front in a third country, but a sudden change of events or ground realities in, for example, Iran or, more dangerously, in Saudi Arabia could force them to allow Israel to attack that country. And that could just be the final blow. A situation like this is not likely to occur in the next year or two, but in the longer term, Iran will carry on attempting to develop nuclear weapons, while the House of Saud is increasingly looking like a house of cards, and when it falls, it will take many with it. The difference is that despite Spengler and the likes writing many amusing articles about how the West could lose, they do not seriously believe that to be true themselves, and their articles are more pro-status quo than anything else. But one thing that is bound to alter in such a deadly scenario is the status quo.
T Kiani
London, England (Aug 4, '04)


I found the article [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3] interesting and thought-provoking. The doctored picture was insulting and unprofessional.
Richard Mills
US (Aug 4, '04)


Re Darfur: The case for intervention (Jul 30) by Ian Williams. One wonders what response Mr Williams has to an article published in The Guardian titled "The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war: Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan", by John Laughland on August 2. ATol readers should also read that article. I will also add here that Jim Lobe, whose articles are often carried in ATol, published an article that also defines what is taking place in Darfur: it is a resource war and also is partially at some level a response to an insurgency. His article for IPS [Inter Press Service] that I refer to of December 17, 2003, was titled "West's policies sow seeds of internal conflict" and discussed a report by Population Action International (PAI) that was based on a review of 25 years of research of 180 countries that found high population growth, rapid urbanization, and land or water scarcity to be important factors for internal conflict within poor countries. The latter two causes seem to be fueling the Darfur conflict.The PAI report, it should be added, discusses future potential and finds 21 countries particularly vulnerable. As noted in Mr Lobe's article, "Countries with low availability of cropland or renewable fresh water were about 1.5 times more likely to experience civil conflict as those in other categories, added the report" ... Mr Williams and ATol readers should know that a resource conflict has been ongoing for a quarter-century much closer to ATol's home, namely in Bangladesh and more specifically in the Chittagong Hill tract region. Part of this example is also insurgency-related to which the government responded by bringing in settlers from other parts ... Mr Williams seems to be caught up in all the hoopla of those who see the tree but miss the forest. The question here is to prevent more Darfurs to come by developing a coherent policy that is proactive, not the hapless reactive one that is the one currently in place (ie Ian Williams' notion of humanitarian interventions). The world also seems to be very selective in terms of which countries it thinks of intervening in and which countries it leaves to its own devices. When the issue is one that has many examples it is not one that can prevent the problem developing if the pervasive approach remains in place. The more constructive one is to prevent the root causes from developing, and when global-warming effects benefit some and harm others, it is imperative that there is a policy framework in place to address the issue of growing inequities that are sure to fuel more fires to come.
May Sage
USA (Aug 4, '04)


I thank Mac William Bishop for replying [Jul 30] to one of my letters. The point that I made was not about how to describe and call Taiwan. The point I made is how to make sure the reporting is neutral in this very sensitive topic. Bishop called the two sides of the Taiwan Strait "China and Taiwan". This in itself is not neutral, because many consider Taiwan to be part of China, so labeling the two sides "China and Taiwan" suggests Taiwan is not part of China. I offered a way to avoid this by calling the relevant parties "Beijing, Taipei and Washington". Although very awkward, calling them "mainland China" and Taiwan may do the trick as well. I understand journalists write for a broad audience, so calling the parties "People's Republic China" (PRC) [and] "Republic of China" (ROC), which would be the best, may sound too diplomatic and confusing. However, oversimplificaton may make a piece erroneous and biased. I agree this is a very complicated issue and hope it will be resolved in the near future. Also I wanted to respond quickly to Daniel McCarthy, who's talking [letter, Aug 3] about the number of Chinese immigrants to Taiwan. G Travan [Jul 30] puts that number at 50%, McCarthy says 15%, and I'd say 98%. All who live in Taiwan may be called "Taiwanese", but 98% of them are eventually Chinese immigrants.
J Zhang
Chinese immigrant in the Netherlands (Aug 4, '04)


A clarification of my statement [letter, Jul 30] that "half of Taiwanese are immigrants from the mainland". I take the term "immigrant" in a broader sense, and generally refer to those people in Taiwan with strong roots in the mainland, including children of immigrants. In my experience, Taiwan's people are evenly split along these lines. I include many "native" Taiwanese, or immigrants from Fujian who came before 1949, in the category of immigrants, simply because of their extensive ties to the mainland. All Taiwanese came from mainland at some point, and I believe the even split between the pan-blues (more conciliatory towards China) and pan-greens (more assertive of Taiwanese identity) reflects this. As to the question of who threatens war, it is irrelevant. A declaration of independence will mean a futile, horrendous war, in which the only winner will be the maniac right wing in the US, which cannot stand any independent nation prospering. The dead, wounded and bereaved will not care "who started it", as this is not a game for armchair generals like [letter writer Daniel] McCarthy to toy with. If Mr McCarthy wishes to experience war so much, I suggest he book a flight to Baghdad or Kabul. Sadly, the US is in the grips of a militaristic fever, and warmongering has become a common hobby here, regardless of the place or the cause. There is no reason for Taiwan to trigger a war. China is not threatening the Taiwanese people's way of life, nor demanding any concessions. Any sensible person with a shred of humanity would wait for both sides to initiate direct dialogue, and not rock the boat in such delicate circumstances. I believe that the massive changes in both China and Taiwan has made real cross-Strait dialogue inevitable. The days of Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong battling over Matsu and Quemoy have given way to the era of Hu Jintao and Chen Shui-bian holding military exercises. As peace is visible on the horizon, those who have no respect for peace or reconciliation will exert every effort to ensure that peace has no foothold. I have never bashed Taiwan, and I admire profoundly the success of the Taiwanese people in dismantling the KMT [Kuomintang] dictatorship, as well as Taiwan's strong respect for traditional Chinese culture. Those who press for a war that will annihilate Taiwan's accomplishments are the true Taiwan-bashers. Their desire to inflict suffering on China as a whole overwhelms any regard they may have for Taiwan. Indeed, it is odd that people who seem to loathe the KMT would find nothing in common with the communists, who after all were once the KMT's sworn enemies. Nevertheless, Taiwan's fate will never be separate from China's: there will be either peace or war on both sides of the straits. I prefer peace, others prefer war.
Gunther Travan
California (Aug 4, '04)


Dear Spengler: Georg Hegel's bones must be twitching with your writing him into the same sentence as George Bush [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3]. Hegel's idealistic philosophy (thesis + antithesis = synthesis = new thesis + new antithesis, etc) proposed an upward spiral of rational thought leading to higher levels of thinking, while Bush seems to be on a different path, a reduction to breathtaking simplicity. And this, I suppose, is where he gets his power. "Never overestimate the intelligence of the American consumer," says the mass marketer. Bush is simple, clear and easy to understand. [John] Kerry is complex, thoughtful and a little murky at times. Kerry calls for the new intelligence czar to be a cabinet-level position. Bush wants him in a think-tank across town. Never let it be said that there was any intelligence residing in the Bush White House.
Mike
USA (Aug 3, '04)


Mr Spengler: In your piece Careful what you Bush for [Aug 3], you wrote, "In his own unassuming fashion, [US President George W] Bush is a world-historical figure in Georg Hegel's sense of the term - never mind that he does not know who Hegel was." How do you know this, given his education profile, MBA, Harvard University, 1975; BA, History, Yale University, 1968; etc? Or are you just being gratuitous?
Frank O Hinckley
Vestavia Hills, Alabama (Aug 3, '04)


The all-seeing, all-knowing Spengler's dictum that [US President George W] Bush will win [re-election] and regret it implies a given with [the support of] mostly circumstantial evidence [Careful what you Bush for, Aug 3]. A reality to which he alludes to, en passant, is that there is ofttimes an eternity between the talkin' and the doin' which will have to be accepted by the ensemble. He also conveniently forgets that a play requires supporting actors, ie, China primarily, Europe and the usual bit players often referenced by Town Crier Tom Ridge. Que sera, sera. Better still, "the movin' finger havin' writ moves on, and on".
Armand DeLaurell (Aug 3, '04)


Re: How Kerry is different - and how he isn't (Aug 2). The people working in his campaign are different too! The Americans Overseas for Kerry-Edwards (AOK) not only want John Kerry to win the [US presidential] election, they also want to encourage a democratic voting process. One of the first steps towards this goal has been to set up a streamlined online overseas voter registration and absentee ballot request process that has reduced the complexity and chances of error and even prints out the envelope to send it in. A lot of volunteers worked to help get this site launched. Diana Kerry, the founding chair of AOK, worked as a drama and English teacher at international schools in Iran, Paris [and] Thailand and more than 10 years in Indonesia. [She] announced the site in Boston last week. See www.OverseasVote2004.com. Overseas Registration and Absentee Ballot Request forms should be sent in by September 15.
Marina Mecl
AOK volunteer
Munich, Germany (Aug 3, '04)


The letter by May Sage (Aug 2) raised some very relevant points about the various Naxalite/Maoist insurgencies inflicting large parts of India. Nobody denies that the tactic of "force over negotiation has been tried and failed in just about every country where intractable insurgencies persist"; and that "the real solution is to attack the root causes ..." What [Sultan] Shahin was trying to communicate in his article [India playing with Maoist fire, Jul 31] is the sheer hopelessness of negotiating with the Maoists. As he mentioned, every attempt at peaceful negotiation has failed because the insurgents are not interested in peace - their bread and butter are extortion and war. They just use the breathing space provided by ceasefires to arm and prepare themselves for renewed fighting (in new territory). The government cannot even think of alleviating poverty, especially worsening regional disparity, unless the government machinery is allowed to run in those regions. However, the Naxalites have hounded out the government from their territories and are running their own parallel administration, which should have considerably improved people's lives by now if these terrorists are truly better than the despotic capitalist government they rail against. The Naxalites acquire dominance in a region by a combination of several means: destroy all symbols of government (this includes whatever few police stations, schools, hospitals, post offices, roads, railway tracks, etc, the government may have set up); tell people that the capitalist government is doing nothing for them; declare that the Naxalite outfit is the only one that represents workers/people, and kill those who dare to object to the revolution; start levying taxes/protection money; completely destroy all economic activity by extorting businesses into bankruptcy; and finally - start enlisting the now desperately poor, hungry, unemployed people as cadres for revolution in new territories. It is a relentlessly destructive cycle and even though force is never a positive option in tackling insurgencies, its frankly difficult to think of anything else that might work. Forget about government agencies, even non-governmental social organizations dare not venture into Naxalite areas and establish schools or hospitals, or do anything else to make people's lives better. The Naxalite engine will grind to a halt if the absolutely misery and poverty is allowed to end.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Aug 3, '04)


I'd like to comment about the article Blood-stained ladder to Indonesia's presidency [Jul 27] by Gary LaMoshi. The author wrote: "General Sutiyoso attacked the headquarters to eject the occupiers." First, as far as I know, Sutiyoso has never been a general. During the incident, his rank was major-general. Second, I think the one who initiated the "attack" was Soerjadi, the person who was considered the legitimate leader of PDI-P [Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle]. The government was also said to be supporting Soerjadi as the leader of PDI-P. However, as the followers of Megawati [Sukarnoputri] opposed Soerjadi, they took over the PDI-P's headquarters in Jakarta. The clash erupted, and the military was involved in the clash. Several names in the military were considered as suspects such as Sutiyoso, Feisal Tandjung, Syarwan Hamid, Hamami Nata, and the current presidential candidate: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. However, further thorough investigations regarding these suspects never took place, even after Megawati became president. Many considered that the re-emergence of the case recently was more of an effort to discredit Yudhoyono, though ... The truth regarding the incident has yet to be revealed. Gary LaMoshi's [article was] a bit too focused on the role of Sutiyoso, while he was not the sole actor during the incident. Additionally, the author didn't mention Soerjadi's name at all. The second article that I'd like to comment is US, Taiwan military exercises ominous signals [Jul 29], a comment by Tang Leijun. Indeed, a great article. It pointed out the possibilities regarding the issue of Taiwan. While the author included China, Taiwan, the United States and Japan, he seemed to forget two other great players: North Korea and South Korea. If a war erupts between Taiwan and China, the Koreans will surely play some major part in it. Having a seemingly closer relationship with China, North Korea will likely stand by China's side, while South Korea will likely to choose whomever the United States chooses as an ally, which I think will be Taiwan. Russia, on the other hand, may also be dragged into the conflict, due to its relationship with China. However, like Japan, Russia may be better off standing on the sidelines. The war on Taiwan may escalate the tension between the Koreas, too. And in the end, it would be very damaging to the region should these conflicts escalate.
Andre
Indonesia (Aug 3, '04)

A major-general is a rank of general; in US military usage, he or she is a two-star general, slotting between a lieutenant-general and a brigadier-general. As for Soerjadi, he was the person appointed to lead the PDI (Indonesian Democratic Party) by Suharto in place of Megawati Sukarnoputri. The clash was about the legitimacy of leadership. Gary LaMoshi says the purpose of the article was not to focus on the incident itself but rather on the pivotal role of Sutiyoso, a commander with responsibility for the forces that stood and watched the attack at best, and participated at worst. While supporters of Soerjadi may have been directly responsible for the attack, and maybe they weren't actually soldiers, there is no way such an attack could not have taken place without the complicity of the military and, in all likelihood, Suharto himself. The main point, as you say, is that the crimes of July 27, 1996, have never been investigated. - ATol


Because I found Jim Sadler's letter of July 30 factual, lucid and even-handed, it seems appropriate that I acknowledge my misunderstanding of his previous letter, while dropping the sarcasm. I also enjoyed David Peterson's blog's coverage of the [Iyad] Allawi rumors that Mr Sadler cited, finding it the most concise summary of Western (or English-language) coverage of the allegations I've seen. I was prepared to bookmark Peterson's blog, but then read Peterson's description of Robert Fisk as a "superb British journalist"! I'm sorry, but if I must forswear sarcasm, then I must expect everyone else to do so as well.
Johanness D'Sincerio
New Hampshire, USA (Aug 3, '04)


I agree with Chris Davies [letter, Aug 2] that most Americans are not even aware there is a Taiwan issue and frankly couldn't be bothered with it. Just as, Chris, I don't know a single American who'd be willing to give his life to secure Taiwan's independence either. Using American blood to secure Taiwan's independence is nothing but a dream. Let us not to forget, there is no oil in Taiwan.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Aug 3, '04)


I was disappointed to see the letter of G Travan from California (Jul 30) published with a gross and uncorrected factual error. Mr Travan stated in part, "... the Taiwanese people, half of whom are immigrants from the mainland ..." Actually, only about 15% of the people in Taiwan are waishengren (recent immigrants from China and their offspring), while the number of "immigrants from the mainland" is even smaller and shrinking every day because most of those folks are reaching the end of their life expectancy. The vast remainder of the population is either Taiwanese or aboriginal (shan di ren). Further, I must ask Mr Travan who exactly is fomenting war. Taiwan does not threaten to attack China. The US does not threaten to attack China. China threatens to attack Taiwan. However, Mr Travan's point that China does not respect Taiwan's views is well taken, even if in general Mr Travan would be considered a Taiwan basher.
Daniel McCarthy (Aug 3, '04)


I cannot help but to post my opinion regarding the Taiwan issue, although to state my opinion is not in my nature and I would rather listen to others' opinions. Chinese culture is rich and so ancient yet so fresh, unique and admirable even to many non-Chinese. And Chinese can be found all over the world, not only in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan. When I say you can find Chinese all over the world, what I mean is people of Chinese ethnicity and proud [of it], not merely of ethnicity, and this kind of mindset and behavior will guarantee the Chinese will live on even if somehow all Chinese land is destroyed and taken over by a superpower empire. I am a Chinese ethnic of four generations born outside mainland China, I cannot speak or write Mandarin because where I live it [was] against the law to speak and write Chinese until recently, yet I [am] proud of my non-official Chinese name and speak Hakka at home. I can say that not only me but many Chinese like me ... proudly identify ourselves as Chinese although we [were] born, live and make a living outside Chinese-controlled land. I don't mind who is in control in China, whether the PRC [People's Republic of China] or ROC [Republic of China], but [what] I always wanted to see is a united China, not only a strong PRC or a strong ROC but a strong, independent, united China. For many it must be very strange that a person who is of a non-Chinese nationality who cannot write [Chinese] or [has not] been there cares much for China, [but] for me and many other of Chinese ethnicity, that is very natural. Believe me when I say we might have a lot of different opinions among us but most of us [are] proud to be Chinese, for its culture is so rich, so diverse, so distinct, so unique. If you are talking about law, treaties and all that bunch of other measures, of course my opinion [may be] trash but it does exist.
Li Weixia
Indonesia (Aug 3, '04)


The Letters section of your wonderful website could prove very effective if you create threads of letters to the article it's directed towards. I have to search through all the archives to get viewers' perspectives on an article of interest. I hope other readers will agree with me.
Rudy Banerjee, PhD
Berkeley, California (Aug 3, '04)

We are looking at ways to make the Letters section more usable without creating a lot of extra labor for our small staff. The use of threads and forums is under discussion, as is a link at the bottom of articles facilitating readers' comments, and improvements to the archiving system. Input from readers on how to improve this section is welcome. - ATol


It has come to my attention that there [were] no letters to the editor on Friday, July 30. I can't believe that not one person on this Earth inflicted the readership with their views. [Have] Captain Fantastic (Richard Radcliffe) and the Red-Neck Cowboy (Daniel McCarthy) ceased dispensing their wisdom (gasp)? Or is the problem, as you would say, in my set? Please advise. But I strongly suspect you tossers where "tying one down" at the Good Luck Dancehall on Friday. Wish I was there.
Ernie Lynch
Gitmo (Aug 2, '04)

The truth of the matter is much less interesting: a technical glitch during the uploading process. The problem has been fixed and the July 30 letters are now online, right under this lot. - ATol


[Sultan] Shahin's choice of force over negotiation has been tried and failed in just about every country where intractable insurgencies persist - including the one most discussed, the example of the Palestinian resistance [India playing with Maoist fire, Jul 31]. The real solution is to attack the root causes, which India like other countries is most reluctant to do as that means reforming the status quo. The UN, which has a wider perspective, would have given Mr Shahin a better perspective than his visit to the Indian region. In fact, just an understanding of the Nepalese Maoist insurgency reveals how this dynamic works: The conflict in Nepal in 1996 started from the mid- and far western districts, which were isolated for generations and lack basic infrastructure. The people (especially the poor and the disadvantaged) strongly felt that they were discriminated [against] by the state. Once the security forces were mobilized in those areas, the local people were badly suppressed, leading to serious violation of human rights, and more and more local people became Maoist supporters or rebels. With the high intensity of security operations, the rebels left their villages and scattered themselves all over the country, and again they mobilized the most disadvantaged groups (Dalits, Tharu, indigenous people etc) in those areas. Now the conflict [was] not confined to a village or a district but grew nationwide. As to the fact that regional disparity is the core issue, the Nepal example is also illustrative: the national average life expectancy in Nepal is around 59 years, literacy is about 60% and in the major cities these [percentages] are [even] higher, whereas in a remote district like Mugu the life expectancy is 35 years and literacy is below 10%. The UN even has maps from Nepal and Indonesia (another country like India racked with insurgencies) that show regional inequalities in levels of human poverty, child nutrition and human development ... coincide with regions of internal conflict. India's problem can show a similar dynamic, if you ask the right sources.
May Sage
USA (Aug 2, '04)


I would like to thank Sultan Shahin for a string of very nice articles over the last few months, especially the latest one - India playing with Maoist fire [Jul 31]. I would also like to thank Asia Times and all their other contributors for providing very balanced articles on Asian and global issues. Keep up the excellent work.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Aug 2, '04)


In response to Raja M's article [India's history textbook turmoil, Jul 31] I would suggest that you get a historian of Southeast Asia to review works that mention Vietnamese history. Unbeknownst to Raja M, Ngo was a nationalist leader who was not able to focus his power in order to oppose Ho Chi Minh. As a Catholic, he was not able to participate in the communist government, but that does not mean he was a supporter of French colonialism. Raja M does not grasp the complexity of Vietnamese history. Ngo Dinh Diem was eliminated because he did not follow American orders. His death was the death of any possibility of a non-communist success. He was the last nationalist with political power. He was succeeded by a series of military men who could not create a political counter-force to communism. Raja M should read more and write less.
Charles M Rice (Aug 2, '04)


I am a great fan of Pepe Escobar and no great fan of American TV networks. In his online article [Barack Obama rules, OK, Jul 30], however, Escobar claims that none of the networks broadcast Obama's speech at the Democratic convention. We live in the Pacific time zone and saw/heard the speech. A friend in the Eastern time zone also saw/heard the speech. Neither of us have cable. I don't think Escobar is correct in saying that millions of Americans missed it. PBS covered it very well in all time zones. We watched NBC and/or PBS for the convention proceedings. If we weren't tuned to NBC for Obama's speech, we were at PBS - in either case, we and friends around the country did see/hear it and I'm hoping there were many millions of others who did as well.
Molly Larson Cook (Aug 2, '04)

Well, it wasn't on any of the channels they were showing at the Good Luck Dancehall. - ATol


[Re] Darfur: The case for intervention [Jul 30] by Ian Williams. Let me see. The US should do what? How about this: The US should tell the Asian community, the French (yes, they are our enemies based upon the clear and constant attacks by Jacques [Chirac]), and the Africans to take care of it themselves. I am sick and tired of the US pulling people's ass out of fires and getting grief for doing it. You sorry, weak, spineless individuals had better get a clue. The US is at war right now and this isn't the Sudan either. We are in a World War against [Muslims] who would love nothing more than to collapse the world's entire economy and with the help of the French and to a lesser extent the Germans (and let's not forget the media) they just may do it. These are a people who want to live in the 14th century and would love to take us there in a box. It was long in coming but George Bush has the spine to tell the UN and their French lawyers to shove it. So does Tony Blair! They are willing to take the fight to the enemy and do whatever is needed to win the long fight (yes long, decades). If the US and Britain had not stood up to take on the dirty work, no one else was ... The UN needs to be gutted. Talk about bloated pigs, thieves, crooks and scum.
Paul Orton (Aug 2, '04)


Re: US, Taiwan military exercises ominous signals [Jul 29]. As an American who recently returned home after living in China for close to three years, I read Tang [Leijun]'s article with interest. Until I read the blurb at the end stating Mr Tang's credentials, I was truly alarmed at what he said. Then I quickly became amused. While I was impressed with how well he expresses himself in English, I was dismayed by how he made such outlandish claims while offering no evidence that what he says is true. As a university professor I'm sure Mr Tang is a [Communist] Party member and is expected to toe the party line whenever he says anything. I saw quite a bit of such behavior while I was in China. What amused me to no end was the enormous gap between what many "educated" Chinese actually know and what they think they know. Many Chinese, for reasons I don't completely understand, are convinced that the "Taiwan issue" is as important to America and Americans as it is to Chinese. The reality is, it's not. Most Americans are not even aware there is a Taiwan issue and frankly couldn't be bothered with it. I don't know a single American who'd be willing to give his life to secure Taiwan's independence. It's laughable to even suggest it. After this Iraq debacle you can rest assured any American president will have to prove there is an "imminent threat" to America before the country marches off to war again. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with American politics would know this. Next, Taiwan may be a "life and death issue" for most of the Communist Party leadership, but when I had honest conversations with my young Chinese students few expressed any willingness to die to bring Taiwan home to "Mother China". My view of the whole mess is that the Taiwan issue is a tool the current regime uses to manipulate public opinion, and most intelligent Chinese are all too aware of this. By creating a "Taiwan would come home if not for external influences" myth, the leaders create a sense of "China against the world". What I witnessed in China was that the status quo helps everyone. Taiwan invests in the mainland. The mainland invests in Taiwan. Folks are getting a rich as a result. There will be no war over Taiwan and both sides know it. Either side would be foolish to start one. But for both sides it's a big "posturing" thing and I'm convinced both sides know this. Mr Tang, please ... stick to teaching English.
Chris Davies (Aug 2, '04)


I would suggest that [letter writer] Daniel McCarthy go to Taiwan and receive an honorary citizenship of Taiwan, and while there declare independence of that country to the world, something even its own big protector has not done. Also a good question for all levels of students is: name one "independent" country which avoids formal declaration of independence.
Seung Li (Aug 2, '04)


Esam Sohail's largely accurate Disturbing colors of anti-globalization [Jul 28, was] painted with too broad a brush. Esam Sohail has identified falseness and impure motives among opponents of globalization in the US. However, I found myself, as a man who favored Pat Buchanan in the last four presidential elections, disappointed as being, as such, characterized by Mr Sohail as supporting positions "overtly xenophobic" and that concerns for American deindustrialization stem from no more profound economic considerations than "the barely coded message is that the yellow man or the brown man is taking away the middle-class lifestyle entitled only to his white brethren." Mr Sohail has just erected a wall between himself and me and he wants readers to join him on his side behind it. If you accept Mr Sohail's blanket characterization, while ignoring the Americans, like me, who are blocked from the mass media because of our well-reasoned and thoroughly humanitarian anti-globalist views, who understand and oppose the injustice and piratical devices of globalization (imperialism, finance capitalism, international conspiracy etc), then aren't you in fact assisting globalization in carrying out its oldest tactic, that of divide and conquer?
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington (Aug 2, '04)


An interesting letter [Jul 29] by one of your readers (Frank) about culture and language! I had a Nigerian friend who once said to me, with great pride, that everyone in Nigeria spoke English. He was surprised and not very amused by my reaction! Most developing nations have confused modernity with "Westernization", and this is pretty sad because it means the sidelining and eventual decline of some very colorful and marvelous cultures and civilizations. How many non-English-speaking developed nations are there whose people are as proud of their ability to speak English as the Indians or the Africans? Many apologists argue that you have to be obsessed with speaking English to develop in today's world, which is in total contrast to what we see in countries such as France, Germany, Japan and China. This trend makes sense in Africa because there is no such thing as an "African civilization", or a Nigerian one for that matter, so it is natural that they would want to cling to someone else's culture. Yet still, it is sad that they seem content in adopting "Westernization" while there is no such apparent urgency for "modernization". As far as India is concerned, Frank talks about their rich culture and civilization, but to be honest, I am not really sure what an Indian civilization really is. India is not a country and civilization rolled into one like China (or at least it has not been for some 150 years). There is certainly a Hindu civilization which dates back centuries and is very rich indeed, and then there is an Islamic civilization which has had its fair share of impact on the Indian subcontinent over a smaller period of time. But since modern-day India claims to be a secular state, then can it really call on the Hindu civilization or the Islamic one to represent it? Indians today, just like the Africans, can hop from civilization to civilization because they do not have a civilization of their own unless they change the basic setup of their country (and maybe elect Narendra Modi as their prime minister?). Speaking English and wearing Western cloths [have] become a status symbol in a country already preoccupied with castes and divisions. This is also due to some clever thinking on behalf of the British Raj, which, unlike the Americans today, had the ability, determination and the attention span to study and learn the local cultures before setting off to destroy them. Going back to Frank's letter, though, I guess in today's Western-dominated social structure, all people are losing parts of their civilizations without realizing it. Different people have different priorities and so they cling to different aspects of their civilization while letting other bits go free. While the Chinese must be applauded for keeping the Chinese language alive 'n' kicking, their ability to adopt Western names would seem very strange to an Arab or a Muslim in general. A person's name means a lot in the Islamic civilization, and no self-aware Muslim could ever dream of giving up his/her "Islamic" name for a Western one, even if only to put on your CV [curriculum vitae] and sound more "white". In fact, if a non-Muslim (Eastern or Western alike) were to convert to Islam, then traditionally, one of the first things they would do would be to change their name to an Islamic one to proclaim their faith with pride.
T Kiani
London, England (Aug 2, '04)