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.

September 2004

In Kevin Ewing's article Media fail to report for duty (Sep 29) he argues the problem with [US] news media is that [they are] biased or agenda-driven. He then goes on to attack President George W Bush using the exact language from the shrillest pro-John Kerry news media. Even the inexcusable and apologized-for forged-document story presented by CBS reporter Dan Rather in order to influence the election against President G W Bush seven weeks out is spun by Mr Ewing, who uses a bizarre rhetorical question to prove that Mr Rather was compelled to commit the act by those supporting the president. The truth of this entire concern is that the highest echelon of American news media has been both shamelessly nepotistic for generations and patronizingly liberal since the late 1960s. Consumers that have been waiting for media to express both sides of an issue are supporting those venues willing to break the nepotistic/liberal hold, much to the chagrin of people such as Kevin Ewing.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 30, '04)


Kent Ewing's article on failed US news media [Media fail to report for duty, Sep 30] is right on the mark! Good reporting, Kent.
Rick
Northern New Jersey, USA (Sep 30, '04)


[Re Media fail to report for duty, Sep 30] There are many reasons why the [US] media kept silent against the war drums for Iraq. It was in their best interest to see an Arab country humiliated in a fashion so blatant that no one else would dare challenge the will of the superpowers of today. The Arab world has always had a problem with our [US] foreign policy ... The media saw the war on Iraq, a constant threat to Israel, as a way of sending a very strong message to the "axis of evil" that threats to an ally would not be tolerated. The security of Israel was first and foremost on their justification of the war. To them it is a win-win situation. If the war succeeded, the message is loud and clear. If it did not, it would be perfect for them to make the war "the" campaign issue for this upcoming election and put their man in the White House, thus regaining the liberal access which they've ... had for many years, therefore pushing their liberal agenda ... So to expect more from the media in this case is naive. If the war was against someone else, the media would have stepped up to the plate. And we have many examples on that. At one point the term "weapons of mass destruction" became [such] a household term that even the MTV-generation kids were talking about WMD like it was a new fad. So the media pick and choose when to be more aggressive or less passive. Why is everyone surprised about the Muslim world's reaction to our campaign on Iraq? They still believe that it is a war against Islam and until we prove them wrong, they will continue to believe it regardless of what we say. It is what we and Israel are doing that make them stick to that belief. How can anyone deny the Palestinians a homeland? How can any people stay without a homeland? A two-state solution has been discussed and approved by all parties, so why drag it any longer and allow more innocent civilian victims to perish? If we don't have a more credible Middle East policy, the Muslim world will always see us as the enemy. Why do we prefer to keep our heads in the sand?
Noel Francis
Chino, California (Sep 30, '04)


There seems to be a logical error in Sudha Ramachandran's algorithm (System error in India's Silicon Valley, Sep 30). She seems to equate IT [information technology] with infrastructure when she describes the new Karnataka government as not having an IT minister. Pray, would it be the job of the IT minister to provide roads, electricity, housing, clean environment and so forth? If your answer is yes, India can happily bid goodbye to one industry that is not micromanaged by the government. If you answered no, then one wonders what does an IT minister do? Seems to me that this is one more instance where government has not delivered and the IT industry that pays no taxes is demanding too much from the government. At least the idea of the tollway where the user pays the fees is a good beginning.
AP (Sep 30, '04)


Dear [Mahan] Abedin and Asia Times Online: Thank you very much for the great analytics that is regularly published by your publication. This kind of analytics is rarely published by international media. So I appreciate your work. The [Sep 28] article Iran at sea over Azerbaijan [contained] some details that I want to bring to your attention ... This particular statement appears imprecise: "The geopolitical space that is now the Republic of Azerbaijan had been an Iranian territory for millennia before it was incorporated into the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century." This is indeed a commonly held belief by many Iranians, one of those unfortunate cliches that seems to make sense but is contrary to facts. Actually, it was Iran [that was] under Turkic (Azeri) rule for the previous millennia, a fact that is known and acknowledged grudgingly in Iran. Consider the following historical developments: from the 4th century BC until the 7th century [AD] all of the territory of the North Azerbaijan belonged to the Caucasian Albania - which at some times, as all other states in the region, indeed fell under dependence of a stronger southern neighbor, Sassanid Iran, yet was independent, had its own army and king, minted its own coins, etc. However, by the 7th century it was definitely independent, as Sassanid Iran was at war with Jevanshir the Great, the king of Caucasian Albania, and unable to conquer him. Also, the state of Atropatena existed in South Azerbaijan for different periods. From the 7th century AD until the early 10th century, the entire region of Azerbaijan, Iran and beyond was conquered by Arabs, the Abbasid Caliphate. Yet already starting in AD 879 parts of Azerbaijan had re-established self-rule under the following dynasties: Sajid, Shirvanshah, Salarid, Sheddadin, Ravvadid and Naxcivanshah. The breakup of the Arab caliphate was in major part due to the powerful liberation movement headed by an Azeri Spartacus - Babek. What is more important and well known, however, is that by 1051-1060, the Seljuk Turks entered Azerbaijan and the centuries-long rule of the entire Caucasus and Iran began. Under the domain of the Seljuk sultan, an Azeri state of Atabeks was established in 1136, which ruled all of Azerbaijan and Iran (the rulers, the Atabeks, who were Azeri, were the teachers of the young Seljuk sultans). In 1225 the region was conquered by the Mongols, and the rule of the Hulaguids, Tamerlane and his son Miranshah lasted until the late 1300s. In 1410 the Azeri states of Gara-goyunly and Ak-goyunly were created in the territories of Azerbaijan and Iran. Finally, in 1501 the rule of Shah Ismail Khatai Safavi began, and the rule of Iran and Azerbaijan by a Turkic (Azeri) Safavid shah dynasty last until 1736. It is then replaced by another Azeri dynasty, the Afshars, and then again by the Qajars, which lasted until 1925. Only then did the Persian dynasty of Pehlevi come to power in Iran (there was also a short rule of the Persian Zend dynasty in between the rule of the Afshars and Qajars, but it was a weak dynasty and Iran did not exist as a single, strong state under it). Regardless of these facts, in 1747, [on] the death of Nadir-shah Afshar, some 15 khanates, sultanates and beglyarbeys were established in North and South Azerbaijan, with the majority of North Azerbaijani khanates, such as Ganja, Karabakh, Sheki and Guba, being independent from Iran or anyone else. Thus the wars with Russia in early 19th century were not Russo-Iranian, but Russo-Azerbaijani. Not that it matters too much, as Iran was ruled by an Azeri dynasty, speaking Azeri, and sometimes placing the capital of Iran in such Azeri cities as Tebriz. I hope that all of the corrections will be carefully reviewed and after any additional verification, will be applied to the article and considered in the future.
Mahir Iskender
Washington, DC (Sep 30, '04)


The reason I think Jayanthi Iyengar [China power crisis dims production, Sep 24] cannot understand this large complicated ancient country [China] is the fact that this author regards her ignorance about the rapidly changing China as paradoxes. China's power shortage caused by faster-than-expected development is temporary. The world's third-largest river is to provide 20% more power to the people it has nourished for the last 5,000 years. There are many reports on ATol regarding China's achievement of exploring renewable-energy sources. Jayanthi Iyengar cannot understand that. Instead, she is blinded by jealousy and hate. Labeling me with many names does not make you or Jayanthi Iyengar look better. I suggest DNT [letter, Sep 29] look [in] the mirror first before talking about the concept of academic debate.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 30, '04)


Taiwan "premier" Yu [Shyi-kun] has called for a "balance of terror" by threatening to attack mainland [China] cities such as Shanghai if the mainland does not allow Taiwan to become independent peacefully. Of course [everyone] knows that Taiwan can never become independent peacefully. Therefore Singapore's newly installed Premier Lee [Hsien Loong] is right to say in his inaugural speech that "China will fight. Win or lose, Taiwan will be devastated." Taiwan "foreign minister" Mark Chen tries to deny reality by shooting the messenger. He described Singapore as a "piece of snot" who sought favors by "embracing China's balls". Most of the 26 countries that either only recognize the ROC [Republic of China] as the sole representative of China or recognize Taiwan as a country are even smaller than Singapore. I then guess that Taiwan's diplomatic allies even can't pass for a "piece of snot" ... I mean, one can wonder how peaceful "democratic" Taiwan is. Not long ago there were reports that Taiwan should attack the Three Gorges Dam which would kill millions of Chinese people. This idea is not very farfetched, as the Pentagon has officially informed the US Congress that Taiwan is developing ballistic- and cruise-missile capabilities that present "credible threats to China's urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam". Well-informed American experts on China-Taiwan affairs have also revealed that the island has revived its secret nuclear program that was halted in 1988 under US pressure. Michael Le Houllier [letter, Sep 28] makes a comparison with Cuba in his letter. The US is preparing to sell Taiwan arms worth billions of dollars, which pose an imminent security threat to the mainland, just as the missiles installed in Cuba by the Soviet Union posed an intolerable threat to the US. Former US president [John] Kennedy was able to stop shipments with a naval blockade and have the others removed. China should prepare to stop any shipments of US arms to Taiwan by a naval blockade as well. The US has effectively contained Cuba, which no longer poses a security threat, and is seeking regime change today. The hostile regime in Taipei poses a significant security threat to the mainland as listed in my letter. The Beijing leadership should prepare to do a "regime change" with a preemptive strike, because the separatist hostile regime in Taipei can no longer be appeased or tolerated, unless it stops its anti-China activities that pose a security threat to the mainland, desinification policy on its Chinese population and stops seeking permanent independence.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Sep 30, '04)

For the record, Foreign Minister Chen actually said Singapore was "smaller than a piece of snot", though no doubt J Zhang captures the tone of the remark correctly. For an in-depth analysis by Laurence Eyton of the Singapore-Taiwan war of words, see the new ATol article Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat. - ATol


In his September 18 article Operation enduring millstone, B Raman writes, "At the risk of being called mad, let me suggest restoring Saddam to power and quickly withdrawing from Iraq." Why not just put Saddam Hussein's name on the January ballot? As I see it, there are two possible outcomes. First, Saddam could lose the election. In that case, the Iraqi people would have chosen a new leader, and rejected Saddam themselves. I believe the world would recognize the legitimacy of the new government under these circumstances, assuming that the elections were held in all parts of the country. The resistance would probably continue at some level, but I think that many Iraqis would say, What more could we ask for? The US could immediately announce a schedule for removing troops from Iraq. If the violence did not subside, then at that point there might be an international consensus on UN peacekeepers, or maybe a force [composed] of Arab League states. On the other hand, Saddam could actually win the election. In that case, the US would be embarrassed, but by releasing Saddam it might regain some of the respect it has lost. Colin Powell could say, Look, we don't really understand this, but we have to respect the vote. The US would finally be playing by the rules. If Saddam Hussein were elected president of Iraq, and the US troops began to leave, it seems reasonable to expect that the insurgency would soon run out of steam. Voting for Saddam would be like voting for John Kerry. Nobody really likes him, but just look at the alternative.
Paul Wolf
Washington, DC (Sep 30, '04)


This refers to many spirited e-mails on this forum on [V S] Naipaul, "Islamic atrocities" on India etc. As a liberal Indian who is also a Hindu, I would like to say couple of things. Did anybody [expect] so many e-mails from Indians full of historical references, especially from abroad? Folks engaged in information technology are reading history very closely. Very unusual! This is much more complicated than [it] appears. Ashis Nandy described it as a "return from exile", return from colonization of India during British period. Indian is not non-West, it is India. The evidence of Islamic atrocities is India is undeniable but forms a small part of the story. It's a distraction at best. The real story is how [the] growing Indian middle class is rediscovering [its] past, getting decolonized, standing on its feet. India treats [Mahatma] Gandhi as [the] father of the nation, but discarded him in many ways after independence. [Rabindranath] Tagore wrote extensively on complete dislocation of Indian educational system during the British period. He was so disgusted [he] had to found his own university at Shantiniketan ("Abode of Peace). This controversy [was] started in the mid-'80s by "left fundamentalist" historians in India, who got control of key academic institutions ... during the time of Indira Gandhi. They started writing history [and] social-sciences textbooks for Indian schoolchildren. It's as if Noam Chomsky [or Antonio] Gramsci were entrusted with writing school textbooks in the US or in Italy ... The Ayodhya controversy had its effects when Indians started learning about Islamic literary ... evidence of [the] destruction. Naipaul lent his weight through his superb prose. The hold of Marxist historians started to loosen on society. Postmodernists like Ashis Nandy [and] Partha Chatterjee questioned the Indian model of "secularism". The Indian right had already started moving into the mainstream. Partha Chatterjee showed the Hindu right can live with separation of church and state. The Hindu right's rhetoric is more political, and not religious, said Ashis Nandy. With liberalization, success in Information technology made the Indian middle class more confident. I know [technology] graduates living in the US for many years suddenly started discovering Vastu, a 2,000-year-old Indian architecture style. Travel guides in Vijayanagara, the ruined city, are more assertive. They now say we are proud of this city which was destroyed by Muslim invaders. My personal take? Take it seriously. It's already well documented that religious riots [and] strife [are] an urban phenomenon in India. So is the Hindu right. What hope does India have with more and more industrialization [and] urbanization? More social strife? At least it can be said [that] the Indian model has failed to provide tolerance. Something needs to be done urgently. Folks, grab Partha Chatterjee [and/or] Ashis Nandy to understand this rediscovery. It has a wonderful secular discourse with strong nationhood in place. Did anybody ask about [the] Muslim president in India? Look at his achievements: top defense scientist, missile man of India. He was proposed by a Hindu nationalist government. It's a way of telling Indian Muslims: come out of your ghettoes. Modernize, prosper and make your own country strong.
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Sep 30, '04)


This refers to Shah's [letter, Sep 29] and reference to William Dalrymple's [Guardian] article. This article proves nothing, defies even basic logic. It doesn't reconcile the multiple original sources which describe the horror. If there were so much Hindu-Muslim [camaraderie], as the author tried to portray by example of the king wearing Muslim court dress, why so much of destruction? Farukh Dhondy wrote this wonderful rebuttal in the liberal Outlook magazine. Mr Dhondy was head of multicultalism programming of Challel 4 in the UK, which is a left-of-center liberal channel. Thankfully, Dr [Manmohan] Singh, current Indian prime minister. referred to these types of mindset as "left fundamentalism" in a recent press conference in Delhi. Mr Shah, what you are doing is hiding under [the] "secularism", "democracy" [and] "plurality" of India. Come out in the sun. Nobody blames Indian Muslims for these atrocities. But it's your denial, it's your not shouldering the pain [and] anguish Indians endured during that "dark" period [that] irritates common Indians. Mexicans treat Hernan Cortes as an invader, a ruthless general, the destroyer of Aztec civilization. Do Indian Muslims treat Mohamad bin Kasim, the first Arab invader of Sind, [in a] similar way? Or [do] they treat bin Kasim as [the] bearer of the true faith, Islam, in India? Now do you see how prophetically correct [V S] Naipaul is? Indian Muslims claim they are indigenous, but share just the opposite view on invaders who caused so much of death and destruction of their culture [and] civilization. Sure, there are exceptions. But I guess that doesn't prove it wrong. Mexico's biggest stadium is Aztec Stadium. The Mexican flag has an emblem of an eagle with a serpent, which is of Aztec origin. Can you cite a single example of this magnitude from Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan [or] Central Asia? I hope now you understand the contempt Islam breeds amongst converts against its own culture [and] civilization.
Bhaskar
Connecticut, USA (Sep 30, '04)


My dear Shah [letter, Sep 29], why do think India is secular or even democratic? Don't you think India is most secular country in the world, at least by constitution (the whole world is either Muslim theocracy or Jewish or Christian secular, which means after Christians the rest are immaterial). So tell me one thing: What will happen to India the day Muslims become the majority in India and you and [letter writer] Fareed [Zahid] are at the helm of affairs in India? Do you guarantee me that India will not turn into another Pakistan? If not, than I really appreciate your concern. If yes, then please next time cut this secularism concept, because Islam doesn't recognize it and India and Hindu are synonymous words and it is because of majority Hindus that you are fancying this "secular" world which is not part of [the] Islamic dictionary.
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Sep 30, '04)


Dear Mr Shah [letter, Sep 29]: [G] Travan [letter, Sep 28] has every right to express his opinion as much as you and requires no validation whether he is right or wrong. You make a claim that [V S] Naipaul is clueless about India and Islam. Actually I have read his book Among the Believers and I thought his claim about subcontinental Muslims was not totally off the mark. It was based on his interviews. According to his research, he showed that Muslims in all places save the Middle East are nihilist - meaning they are in denial of their history and heritage before they became Muslim. For example, Pakistani history books start only from the 10th century onwards when Islam came into the subcontinent. It does not take the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] to remind you the shared heritage of the subcontinent lies in Sanskrit and not in Arabic and Saudi Arabia. Mr Naipaul is no historian. He is a writer with an attitude, so let's cut him some slack. His writings are not binary. If that's the case you have to accept that Salman Rushdie's writings about Allah [were] either right or wrong. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Your claim that Naipaul is a card-carrying member of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and RSS is so blatantly invalid. Mr Naipaul is agnostic and non-political and no friend of any party in the UK or in India. If the only sin that the BJP did was to invite him to a Non-Resident Indian meet, which by the way included Salman Rushdie, then you should be praising the BJP for upholding freedom of speech, not brickbatting it. After all, the Congress party did not give Salman Rushdie a visa to enter for fear that it [would] upset the Muslim voting bloc. Your point about the BJP being decisively rejected at the ballot [box] because of their vision is a poor reading of facts. They were defeated because their vision to "Turn on the Light to Make India Shine" was shared by everyone, but not experienced by everyone. Are you telling us that [the] "darkness is a virtue" vision of the Congress is the decisive mandate? I am sorry Mr Shah, that vision of darkness did not work for the Congress under [Indira] Gandhi's emergency time and it is not going to work in the 21st century.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Sep 30, '04)


The interest of G Travan [letter, Sep 28] in India is appreciated. The Taj Mahal is an architecture of stunning beauty. It stands for the love of an emperor for one of his queens. Very romantic, and having seen it, I agree if you have not seen the Taj you have seen nothing. Now the background of the Taj is as nostalgic as other wonders of the world, such as the Pyramids, which were built on the sweat and blood of slaves. Shahjehan had the right hands of all the main architects and artisans amputated so that they might not build any other building of such beauty. What a royal reward. The queen was the wife of one of the soldiers of the emperor who was sent to a battle to be killed so the emperor could get her. You can forget history only on the peril of repeating the same mistakes. In one of his many plundering visits to Somnath Temple by Mahmud of Ghaznawi, he beheaded all the 50,000 inhabitants of that campus and destroyed all the idols, emulating the Prophet himself, one of whose many names is "the destroyer of idols". Now these are authentic accounts and not fictions of such as [V S] Naipaul. Do not Christians feel sorry for the crimes of Nazis? Is it okay for Jews to forget their Holocaust and others to admire their casinos and worship the Statue of Liberty?
RR (Sep 30, '04)


[G] Travan [letter, Sep 28] is wrong if he thinks that the recent debate in this column is a symptom of malaise in the Indian polity. With increasing globalization and access to the Internet more and more Indians are venturing out and learning about the events that shaped the modern world from a close angle like never before. It is these new perspectives that induce them to have a relook at their own history. In their curiosity most of them ask inquisitive questions that are never dealt with in the schoolbooks (Indian federal and state governments keep a tight control on the content of school textbooks; detailed study of inconvenient and embarrassing historical events are deliberately neglected so that the children are spared the trouble of reading and remembering tragic events). But one cannot censor and doctor the entire medieval history of Indian for long. Sooner or later people will dig out the facts or at least ask "troublesome" questions. I don't think one can brand a person who refuses to follow the "corrected" version of history as one spewing hate. I believe the sense of shame and hatred lies in the dastardly acts and not in the writings that point them out. Even if [V S] Naipaul is biased when it comes to dealing with the treatment of Muslim culture, the critics have the right and liberty to express their opinion and give the world the proper perspective. As for Shah [letter, Sep 29], I find it amazing that he seems to close his mind to Naipaul's writings just because the writer is a supporter of RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. Supposing Naipaul changes his name to Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden: will Shah accept his views? Instead of looking at who says it, Shah, should rather be glancing at what he says. Indian Muslims are the fortunate ones to enjoy democratic rights that are rare in the ummah. They must exercise these rights to isolate the bad elements who bring/brought shame to the entire community by their acts and not the ones who ask valid questions. The community should be projecting its intellectuals and not the bloodthirsty morons. Most Indians have no prejudice against minorities. The Indian president, Abdul Kalam (not Abdul Kalam Azad as Siddhardh Srivastava has written [India's man for all seasons, Sep 29]) was a technocrat and an excellent leader who was able to build organizations from nothing and deliver goods against the odds (a difficult proposition indeed given the fact government organizations are rather noted for their lethargic attitude and infighting). Once when he was asked the secret of his success he said very clearly when a worker faces a problem he goes to him and sits with him to sort it out (regardless of his rank within the organization). Not many people in the higher hierarchy would be willing to stoop down to lower level and interact even if there is a severe problem. It is these admirable qualities in him that made him acceptable to all right thinking persons, regardless of the caste, religion and region. India is truly proud of its first citizen.
Kannan (Sep 30, '04)

Various media refer to the president of India by various names, but according to his website, his full name is Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam. - ATol


I am deeply saddened by the arrogance and vitriol with which [Sep 29] letter-writers V Lotke and Sri responded to my letter [of Sep 28]. Let me state for the record that I am not Muslim, nor Indian, but I come from a Muslim country, Iran, where I have seen first-hand the effects of extremist hate-mongers hiding behind the veil of Islam. There are people who blame all of Islam for the acts of a few of its practitioners, which differs little from racism. V Lotke asked for one example of a positive side to Muslim history in the Indian subcontinent. Can he really be so biased in his thinking, and hate Islam so much, as to deny an entire people any merit to their history or culture? If the Taj Mahal offends him, perhaps he can read the work of some Muslim Urdu poets, or listen to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. He might be surprised to learn of a happy, human side to the religion he paints so blackly. Although Islam has been a divisive force in India, it is a uniting force for many peoples, who put aside their ethnic grievances to form a brotherhood of mankind. Of course, this ideal is honored more in the breach. Lotke and Sri bear striking resemblance to the right-wing fanatics in the USA. For example, Sri somehow starts down the road of listing the great virtues of the Hindu people, who are responsible for India's diversity. What does this have to do with anything? I was not discussing all Hindus in my previous letter, but a specific group of virulently hateful people who hide behind their Hindu identity. I am sure that the great majority of all Indians, Hindu, Muslim, etc, are tolerant. Sri's statements are the type of racial incitement, abundant in every ethnic and religious group, that leads to horrible civil wars. I also abhor the extremist strain of Islam that hates all other religions, but not because it claims to be Islamic, but because it is just another excuse to hate hiding behind lofty ideals.
Gunther Travan
California, USA (Sep 30, '04)


I'm reading [Carl] Jung. Does it seem like too great a coincidence that the two greatest extroverted civilizations are falling into a civilizational war: America and Islam? I've reached these conclusions due to your [Spengler's] conclusions about mainstream Islam and my conclusions following a trip through the United States. My proof: I visited Florida theme parks for the first time in my life. An introvert could feel nothing but a psychic wasteland devoid of meaning (or if they are a natural optimist, could be quite happy with the place). An extrovert would feel the collective joy and significance of the enchanting kingdom (or guilt for not feeling so). Both civilizations wish to paint the world with their collective paintbrush, for in their own minds, relativism - ie other ways of living, are devoid of any value. This goes as much for Democrats as for Republicans. America is a nation of natural Hegelians - the same goes for much of Islam. They believe fulfillment comes from society, whereas an introvert could be happy in the worst of circumstances, or unhappy in the best, the physical environment having little to do with such matters. Obviously every nation is a nation of extroverts, but to greater and lesser degrees. This might even explain why South Korea has largely rejected Buddhism for Protestant Christianity. The former had a greater inner-mind focus, while the latter allowed for a greater sense of collective identity and is far more life-affirming (or worldly). America's strength lies in the fact that [Americans'] collective lives are so powerful that no matter how much modernity corrupts their inner lives ($100 billion porn industry), they cannot fall into despair. And unlike Islam, that corruption cannot destroy their extroverted lives.
Dave Henderson
Canada (Sep 30, '04)


I thank Michael Schwartz and ATimes for his excellent article on America's new strategy in Iraq [Sep 29]. ATimes has become a must-read for me each day.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Sep 29, '04)


I am always bemused by your correspondent Phar Kim Beng's often analogic and romanticized world view. Not only that, I am constantly amazed at how such a scholar, as he claims to be, can even make as many fundamental errors of fact as he has - and simple ones at that, such as in one previous piece where he claimed the second round of Indonesian presidential poll was to be held on September 15 when in fact it was always penciled in for September 20. He has made errors here on Asia Times as well as Malaysiakini and even in The Edge, a Malaysian weekly. But for all that, let's take one example of this scholar's simpliisticism which Mr Phar ([Indonesia's peaceful poll: How they did it] Sep 29) passes as analytical. He claims that international observers at [the] Indonesian poll had possibly prevented any violence that would have marred the presidential election. He also claims that the dispatch of Indonesian military and police across the volatile Indonesian archipelago was aimed at stamping out the same sort of violence during the election. Big deal. As a scholar, he should know international history, and if he did, he would know that international observers are often dispatched to observe that the polls are kept clean and that there isn't any rigging of the ballot. Their job is not to control or indeed even prevent violence from breaking out. That's the mandate of the local police and, if the police prove incapable in stemming the violence, then needless to say the trigger-happy Indonesian military will deal with the perpetrators in the only way [it] knows best [sic]. But worse is this scholar's inherent tendency towards contradiction, for in the very same breath he says this: "Nevertheless, Indonesia conducted the direct presidential election orderly and peacefully, without disruption to voter access. Many observers also acknowledged significant improvements in the way the elections were administered." You could be forgiven for thinking that Mr Phar had attributed credit to the international observers for the conduct of the election. Then there is this gem, in the very next paragraph: "But neither local nor international electoral watchdogs alone can take credit for the smooth process of the polls. The police and civilian guards played an important role too." Now I ask you: if the police and civilian guards aren't local folks, or Indonesians, who else could they have been? Indeed, what kind of "scholar", apparently trained at Cambridge and the Fletcher School, would produce this kind of bunkum? As for Mr Phar's romantic world view, here is one example: "So, despite the attendant (minor) imperfections in the Indonesian elections, it is clear that Indonesian democracy - at least of the electoral kind - is on a roll. Just how Indonesia progresses depends hugely on its ability to use the same amount of energy and dedication shown in monitoring the elections to eradicate corruption." If only Indonesian political reality and history - as with any other country - were so precise and clear-cut; then we would never ever have to worry again about the return of rottenness among those who seek political power and center it in their hands. How nice and uncomplicated a world Mr Phar paints for us through his rose-tainted [sic] glasses.
Ari Abidjani
London, England (Sep 29, '04)


I refer to the article Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28] by Spengler. Spengler can dream on about American power and victimization of Muslims. Except for a very minute minority of Muslims who live in the US or Europe, the rest of us don't give a damn about America or Europe and have no fear about the future. America is on a downward slope and it won't be long before the Empire falls. Islam and Muslims have gone through Crusades, invasions and colonialism, but have never been defeated and will never be defeated by Johnny-come-lately cowboy power. For us the robbing of our resources and imposing puppet governments is not considered a defeat. We have fear only of Allah, and it is that which motivates us and protects us from the illusionary powers of the monsters like the US. Our minds will never be defeated by illusionary powers. Any evil and false ideology which seeks to oppress mankind will by its own [evil] self-destruct, and this is what is happening to America. Witness the oppression and injustices perpetrated on its own people through the various acts such as the [USA] Patriot [Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism] Act and the oligopolistic economic system and you can see the end is near for them. Fortunately the laws of the universe are not only physical but metaphysical, and that can never be manipulated by any power.
Vincent Maadi (Sep 29, '04)


For further proof of Why al-Qaeda is winning, kindly read Spengler's Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28].
Luay (Sep 29, '04)


First of all, thank you for the great variety and depth of your articles, as well as their authors. Although I do not always agree, I do find that I often leave with a broader point of view and greater consideration and respect for differing opinions. I find it sad, then, that many readers are less broad-minded and open. I take the frequent respondent "Frank" as an example. His often vitriolic, ignorant, exclusionist remarks make one wonder if the centrally important concepts of academic debate and dissent register at all on his radar. I find it especially comical when, for instance, he criticizes Jayanthi Iyengar [China power crisis dims production, Sep 24], "being an outsider", for not "understanding China" - comical since the sources Iyengar uses inevitably come from a large number of Chinese [letter, Sep 27]. I don't even have to assume that China's Development and Reform Commission is run by Chinese. I do know that other sources, such as the firm Morrison and Forester, employ mainly Chinese in their Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong offices. The same is true of nearly all China experts, who always employ Chinese research assistants and such. Of course, one does not need to be "Chinese" to understand China. What is required (as with any other country), is great endurance, willingness and, most of all, an open mind. As evidenced by quite a few of the posts, this last value is missing among many.
DNT (Sep 29, '04)

Iyengar's main oversight, apparently, was not having her article vetted by that great arbiter of truth, Xinhua, before submitting it for publication. - ATol


I would like to ask Michael Le Houllier [letter, Sep 28] if the United Nations Charter guarantees the right of self-determination of peoples. Should KMT [Kuomintang] Chinese people living in Taiwan be allowed to declare independence from Chen Shui-bian's government? In the news, there are many millions of Chinese people living in Taiwan [who] do not recognize Chen Shui-bian as their leader. Can they self-determine their own leader?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 29, '04)

Not to second-guess Michael Le Houllier, but we believe the process you refer to is called "voting". Can Chinese people on the other side of the strait determine their own leader? - ATol


To respond to Michael Le Houllier's letter [of Sep 28], I think that the salient point for pro-reunification Chinese is that links with the mainland pre-date things like the SFPT [San Francisco Peace Treaty]. Moreover, the SFPT is merely "words on paper" for many Chinese. National feelings go deeper than such things in most parts of the world, and quoting such a treaty isn't the beginning and end of the issue. Times change for sure; however, many aspects of China are so deeply ingrained from its history that bits of paper such as the SFPT are largely irrelevant.
Peter Mitchelmore (Sep 29, '04)


I have been following the debate regarding the Muslim rule in India in this section. I don't quite understand why G Travan [letter, Sep 28] would automatically assume that Indians (at least those writing on this forum) are distorting the suffering of their forefathers. If it comes from the accounts of the historians that are from the courts of the Mughal (not Mongol) kings, why should I doubt the veracity of that narrative? I am sure that the "proponents of pure Hindu culture" would acknowledge the positive side of Islamic history as long as it needs to be done in context of a different geographic entity. Burying one's head in the sand, equivalently not learning from history, is a sad crime Indians have been guilty of one time too many. [V S] Naipaul's writings are entirely irrelevant here - I doubt if any of those "Hindoo phanatiques" ignite their hatred based on his rants. Coming back to the "positive side of Islamic history", would you care to elaborate on this point with regard to the subcontinent?
V Lotke
Utah, USA (Sep 29, '04)


[G] Travan, thank you so much for admiring the astounding diversity and tolerance in India where minorities can aspire [to] and often occupy such high positions [as] president and prime minister [letter, Sep 28]. Now, do you know why all this is possible? Because the majority of people in India are Hindus and hence genuinely secular - in spite of their history. We don't care if a Muslim or Christian is our leader so long as that person is qualified for that role. Have you ever remotely heard a whisper of an African-American or any other minority candidate for the presidency, or even a woman, in the United States (none practicing a different faith than Christianity, mind you), which is supposed to be the yardstick for measuring freedom and equality in today's world? Your letter is full of contradictions. You think those of us that question Islam's role in India are intolerant and suffer from a sense of victimization but you admire India's tolerance without having a clue as to where that tolerance is coming from ... Are you in the esteemed company of [letter writer] Fareed [Zahid] in denying the barbarism committed by Islam in India? If so, there is no point talking with you. Travan, who so admires Islam's contribution to India's culture, have you heard of Kashmir? The capital of Kashmir is Srinagar, which is a Hindu name, and has been for a while. No Muslim came up with that name, let me assure you. There used to be until as recently as 10 years ago a few million Hindus there. Now, they did not migrate to Kashmir from the rest of India. Hindus have been in Kashmir since time. Now do you know where they are? In refugee camps in Delhi and other states. No, Travan, they did not leave on their own. They were forced to flee for their lives. Do you know why? Because your current-day Muslim (not all of them but enough number of them) is taking a page from his glorious past and trying to de-Hinduize Kashmir. Why? Is he persecuted there? Have you heard of Muslims being massacred there [so] that they have to drive out the Hindus to feel more secure? No. And Fareed, who is an Indian and should know his history, arrogantly denies his past, and present, and like you thinks the Taj Mahal makes up for Islam's bloodbath in India. If you reread all the letters written by other Indians you would note that no one is calling for jihad against Islam or asking for Muslims to get out of India. I had said in my last letter [Sep 24] this very thing. Any Hindu who asks inconvenient questions is painted [as] an intolerant fanatic. Thanks for proving me right. If Hindus were driven by hatred and a sense of genocide, as you foolishly conclude, then there would not have been this diversity and tolerance that you so admire in India. So go and get yourself a new thinking shirt that is colored in reason, logic and plain common sense.
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 29, '04)


G Travan's letter of September 28 is correct: [V S] Naipaul's "fearless veracity" is alas clueless when it comes to India and Islam. ATol's editorial intervention was thus not entirely accurate - none of those quoted in the Guardian article thought he had a clue about Islam; the only positive comments were, appropriately enough, about his works of fiction. For a more balanced historical view of Hindu-Muslim relations, see the excellent Guardian article by William Dalrymple. Naipaul is in fact an open supporter of the BJP/RSS [Bharatiya Janata Party/Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] "Hindu nationalist party". What can a "Hindu nation" mean in secular India, you may ask? According to one of their leaders, M S Golwalkar, writing in 1939, "the Hindu nation is one where all those not belonging to the nation, ie Hindu race, religion, culture and language, naturally fall out of the pale of real national life. The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea except the glorification of the Hindu religion and culture, ie the Hindu nation, and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race or they may stay in the country wholly subordinate to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment of even citizens rights." Fortunately, this vision was decisively rejected at the ballot box by the shrewd voters of India in the recent election - long live democracy!
Shah (Sep 29, '04)


Kudos to Asia Times Online! Where else can a reader go for so succinct an expose of US grandiloquence and hypocrisy as we find in Stephen Zunes' [Sep 28] article [Bush's UN speech, de-mythologized]? In this country [US, President George W] Bush's speech went either largely unexamined or was taken at face value, and with a tear in the eye, by the imbeciles that make up his constituency.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD (Sep 28, '04)


Stephen Zunes' argument in his article Bush's UN speech, de-mythologized (Sep 28) did not strike me as very sophisticated. To each of President George W Bush's points, Mr Zunes basically said "O huh" and left it at that. I understand he has a very low opinion of the United States in general and President Bush in particular, but just being contrary doesn't do anyone any good. One obvious example: he takes issue with Security Council Resolution 1441 reading "serious consequences" against Saddam Hussein and insists it demanded a second vote before those consequences were implemented. Well, there were two versions of 1441, the French version that required a second vote and the American version that did not. It was the American version that received unanimous approval by the Security Council. Then he considers it Orwellian to imply that the meaning of "serious consequences" is obvious. It would be more illuminating to read how Mr Zunes would have written the speech. At least then we could determine if Mr Zunes' perspective or vision is preferable.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 28, '04)


[Richard] Radcliffe (letter, Sep 27) states, "When a major unfriendly power in the area also obtains nuclear weapons or the presumed capability to make nuclear weapons, that is a condition that Israel cannot allow to exist." At this time Iran is allowing inspections of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and as pointed out by Stephen Zunes (Bush's UN speech, de-mythologized [Sep 28]), "Since 1981, Israel has stood in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which calls on that country's government to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency." Therefore one would assume that a nation (Israel) that refuses to have its nuclear facilities investigated yet reserves that right to unilaterally destroy another nation's (Iran) nuclear facilities would be classified as a rogue state, and should be punished accordingly. And I hardly would call a unilateral attack on Iran "an accommodation". One could sympathize with Israel if it lived within the pre-1967 borders, did not invade Lebanon and halted its persecution of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet Israel's history is one of expansion and persecution of the Muslim. I suggest you read Noam Chomsky's Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Though you may scorn the author's political leanings, he has compiled an extensive bibliography to back up his research, most of which came from Israeli sources. You ask for my proposals for a Middle East peace:
1) Israel's right to exist will [be] reaffirmed by all nations, including those in the Middle East.
2) The nation of Palestine will be recognized as the borders of the West Bank and Gaza.
3) All nations in the Middle East shall renounce "terrorism".
4) Israel removes all settlements outside of its pre-1967 borders. Compensation to existing settlers will come from the American taxpayer.
5) The United States will guarantee the borders and security of both states by issuing troops to patrol the buffer zone between both nations. All nations are "invited" to participate with humanitarian, economic or military aid to ensure the security of both states.
6) The Middle East will be declared a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] free zone and all nations will fall under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency and all WMD will be decommissioned.
7) The current Iraqi situation will be "solved" by [a] massive amount of international humanitarian, economic or military aid. The United Nations Security Council will govern the nation of Iraq until free elections are established. Though I admit No 7 is iffy, with full international assistance there is no reason to believe that the violence in Iraq can be stopped. With the Palestinian problem solved, no nation has any grounds to object [to] assisting in the formation of the new Iraqi nation.
Therefore, Mr Radcliffe, I respectfully invite you to submit counter-proposals and further discussion of the above "Lynch" Plan.
Ernie Lynch
Skunk Hollow, Pennsylvania (Sep 28, '04)


[Re] Spengler's Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28]. Spengler's warning of dire consequences to Muslim individuals in the West as a progression of G W Bush's "if you are not with us you are against us" can only result logically [in] the flip side of the same coin - which one would guess would be (from a Muslim point of view) "if you are not with us then we are not with you". Or would that be elevating the Muslims' intellect to our own?
ADeL (Sep 28, '04)


[Re] Spengler: Squeegee men and suicide bombers [Sep 28]. This problem is very simple. There are two relevant facts: 1) Osama bin Laden has said we wishes to use a nuclear weapon on an American city. 2) Majorities in nearly every Muslim nation view bin Laden favorably. In light of these facts, I fail to see how the West can afford to do anything else but take harsh measures for its own defense. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Brian Dunstan (Sep 28, '04)

Not to detract from your point, but it is difficult or impossible to tell what bin Laden wishes to do at the moment, or whether he has the wherewithal to acquire or use a nuclear weapon on the US or anywhere else, or what effect such a desperate act would have on the "favorable" opinion many Muslims have of him (usually in comparison with someone else, notably US President George W Bush). According to an article published by Pakistan's Dawn newspaper in November 2001, bin Laden did tell Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir: "We have chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent and if America used them against us we reserve the right to use them." - ATol


Your [Sep 28] article Iran at sea over Azerbaijan by Mahan Abide was a very informative and enlightening one. However ... there is a slight omission that the Bolsheviks in 1917 for the first time coined the term "Azerbaijan Republic" to denote the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan. Of course the intent was to entice the progressive Azeris of the Azerbaijan Province which had so brilliantly spearheaded the then-recent Persian Constitutional Movement into joining the newly established republic. Iran in the late 1910s was a stagnant, decadent, ailing empire, and the euphoria of change and progress and socialistic egalitarianism was hoped to prove attractive enough to cause an Azerbaijani breakaway possible. Mr Mahan's analysis clearly explains why this did not occur. Prior to that time, all the maps and traveler accounts and historical documents indicate that it was called Maavaraa Ghafghaaz, Trans Caucasia, Aran, Eran or even Albania. So indeed the territories taken from Persia were never referred to as Northern Azerbaijan in the referenced treaties. I have Iranian Azeri relatives through marriage [whose] surnames indicate their origins in parts of the locations in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan - eg Ordoobaadi, meaning one from Ordoobaad. They still are in contact with cousins and other relatives there, and one who recently returned from a "roots" trip said [that] in Ordoobaad, they all still identify themselves as Iranians. So any traveler to rural Azerbaijan Republic is well advised to be mindful of the pro-Iranian sentiments there.
Nader Rastegar
Atlanta, Georgia (Sep 28, '04)


[Mahan] Abedin (Iran at sea over Azerbaijan [Sep 28]) makes a detailed and - within the space of a small article - balanced appraisal of Iran's concern over Azerbaijan's position. However, I believe that in the international environment, other important regional players must be brought into the analysis - as Iran and Azerbaijan themselves would do. This mainly concerns Russia. Though not an alliance, Russian-Iranian cooperation in the Caucasus allows both states to maintain their own influence and contain foreign inroads. It is very likely that a US base in Azerbaijan would call on Russia to apply some pressure on the at least 2.5 million Azeris living in Russia and transferring approximately $5 billion a year. Would the US be willing to offset even half of that money? Since only a fraction of the funds likely would trickle down to the needy Azeri families and to the migrants returning from Russia - this is not in the security interest of Azerbaijan; US bases do not add to security against terrorism as was shown in Uzbekistan in 2004, and as seen in Iraq, they might actually attract it. In addition, stationing of US forces in Azerbaijan would all but make Russian military-base presence in Georgia and the radar station in Azerbaijan permanent - and any attempt by Azerbaijan and the US to flame up ethnic separatism in northwestern Iran would provoke a much more dangerous Iranian reply-in-kind through the support of Islam in a rather repressive Azerbaijan. True, Azerbaijan - like any country in a difficult and important geopolitical region - needs options and different allies; it is still not clear, though, whether it will risk social and political instability in return for the chimera of security and prestige that an American base will provide.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Sep 28, '04)


Re Whispers of regime change [Sep 24] by Ehsan Ahrari. I read your piece in the online edition of Asia Times. A few comments. 1) I find it amazing that there is all this focus on Iran while Israel maintains stockpiles of 200-300 nuclear weapons. Also Pakistan, India, China, the US, Russia, etc have nuclear weapons. Are there any demands on these countries to reduce their stockpiles of these weapons? 2) Iran has threatened to attack the Demona reactor in Israel at the slightest hint of an attack on Iran. If this happens, this is going to widen the war in the Middle East. I view this as an extremely reckless and dangerous provocation which is going to further destabilize the Middle East and the rest of the World. I am fully supportive of nuclear disarmament and blocking the spread of these weapons. However, I don't think this will occur under conditions where some countries are allowed to possess these weapons while others (typically those countries populated by people of color) cannot. What is going to happen to the world economy if Iran is attacked and [its] oil exports are disrupted? Bush has gotten the US bogged down in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that have turned into military, political and economic disasters. Now these folks want to open up additional wars. Where are the troops going to come from? How is all of this going to be paid for?
Paul Billings
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (Sep 28, '04)

The declared nuclear states have been signatories to treaties obligating them to reduce their stockpiles, and some progress was made for a while. For a thorough analysis by an expert on this subject, see Salvaging the nuclear non-proliferation regime (May 19). - ATol 


Sai Wansai's remarks [The case for sanctions on Myanmar, Sep 10] are to the point, highly relevant and a cogent summary why economic sanctions are necessary and towards its intended aim to pressure the brutal Burmese dictators to quit their continued illegal seizure of power and to honor the people's wish to [be] rid of them. The result of the May 1990 elections was absolutely clear. It is obvious that ASEAN's [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations'] strategy of "constructive engagement" is morally bankrupt and has patently not worked while at best it was a cynical excuse for neighboring commercial and political interests, who shall remain nameless, but we all know who they all are, to carry on profiteering and gorging on the destitute corpses of the peoples of Burma [Myanmar] as vultures on carrion.
Tiger Yawnghwe (Sep 28, '04)


I have been reading the debate regarding Muslims in Indian history on Asia Times' Letters section with some sadness. Why do so many Indians yearn to paint themselves as victims on an unprecedented scale? Do they envy other victims of genocide and conquest so much that they must distort their own suffering at the hands of Mongol-Muslim conquerors to be more like the Holocaust or the Spanish conquest of Latin America? I had a great regard for India's diversity, with a Muslim president, a Sikh prime minister and an astounding number of cultures. The proponents of a pure Hindu culture refuse to acknowledge the positive, human side of Islamic history, which must require an immense amount of hate in the land of the Taj Mahal. I hope that, as in Iran, people with such views are seen as the narrow-minded, hateful fanatics that they are. A letter writer mentioned the accuracy of V S Naipaul's writings on the non-Arab Muslim peoples. Naipaul's views on Islam are extremely biased. I quote from a Guardian article on Naipaul: "Edward Hoagland in the New York Times thought Among the Believers a 'vitriolic tour [that] evinces an inherent antipathy to the religion of Islam so naked and severe that a book taking a comparable view of Christianity or Judaism would have been hard put to find a publisher in the United States'. [Columbia University Professor Edward] Said describes Beyond Belief as an 'intellectual catastrophe. He thinks Islam is the worst disaster that ever happened to India, and the book reveals a pathology. It's hard to believe any rational person would attack an entire culture on that scale.'"
G Travan
California, USA

The Guardian article (A singular writer, Sep 8, '01) also noted that "Naipaul's reputation, as a novelist and travel writer, has always been split" and that "Naipaul is never short of champions of what is described as his fearless veracity". It also cited numerous fans of Naipaul in addition to the two detractors you have selected. - ATol


I don't completely understand Singapore's latest proclamation that Taiwan had better not provoke Beijing for the sake of maintaining peace in this part of Asia. Taiwan, by being a peaceful, democratic state in East Asia, is doing nothing that ought to be provocative to China. It is, in fact, China that is responsible for the rising tension in the region, not Taiwan. By Singapore's logic, if the government in Kuala Lumpur decided that Singapore ought to do as KL says or risk invasion by Malaysian military forces, Singapore's government ought to toe the line for the sake of regional security in Southeast Asia. This, of course, [would ignore] the fact that Singapore is a sovereign government and Malaysia [would be] the aggressor. However, as Singapore urges Taipei to not provoke Beijing, Singapore should similarly not provoke Kuala Lumpur. In the early 1990s, Iraq made similar demands of Kuwait, a much smaller neighbor in the Persian Gulf. For the sake of maintaining peace, perhaps the sovereign government of Kuwait ought to have done exactly what Baghdad asked [it] to do. That would have maintained the peace. It didn't. However, was Kuwait blamed by the international community? No, of course not. Iraq was. Similarly, if China attacks Taiwan, who would be at fault? The peaceful, democratic government of Taiwan? No! The totalitarian, aggressive government of China would be. Unfortunately, many governments either don't realize, or simply ignore, the fact that Taiwan was never given to China following World War II. The San Francisco Peace Treaty simply does not make any mention of Taiwan being handed over to China following the war. To be sure, Japan surrendered sovereignty over Taiwan, but there is nothing that says China is to assume sovereignty over the island. That often brings up the question from China's apologists: Is such an explicit mention of transfer necessary under international law? The answer is absolutely yes. Customary state practice is one of the most important sources of international law. In countless treaties, the beneficiary of a transfer of territory is specifically mentioned. The Treaty of Versailles that followed World War II specifically mentioned France and Belgium as the beneficiaries of territory ceded by Germany. The fact that those territories were already occupied by the countries mentioned didn't change the necessity for their transfer to be mentioned specifically in the peace treaty. The United States conclusively defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War in 1898. In the Treaty of Paris that concluded the war, Spain ceded the Philippines and Puerto Rico (among other territories) to the United States. It would seem safe to assume that since the United States and Spain were the only combatants in the war and were the only two parties of the treaty, a simple statement of Spanish relinquishment of claims would be enough. However, in following customary practice, the transfer to the United States was clear and specific, despite the fact that the United States already had military control over those territories. However, while Spain relinquished sovereignty over Cuba, and even allowed for occupation of the island by the United States, there is no mention of cession to the United States. Accordingly, Cuba was granted its independence rather than becoming a territory of the United States. The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the very treaty in which Taiwan was transferred to Japan, includes similar specificity of transfer of sovereignty from China to Japan. So does the Treaty of Portsmouth, in which territory is specifically ceded from Russia to Japan. So why is there no such mention in the peace treaty of San Francisco? Perhaps because there was absolutely no intention on the part of the signatories of the treaty to give Taiwan to China. Perhaps, similar to Cuba, Taiwanese were to be allowed to control their own destiny in the future. Unfortunately, the KMT [Kuomintang] illegally usurped the right of the Taiwanese people to a plebiscite that would allow them to so control their destiny. Chiang [Kai-shek] maintained a fiction that Taiwan was a part of China, but maintained martial law and White Terror over the masses in Taiwan to maintain that fiction. Now that Taiwan is a democracy, they [Taiwanese] are now asserting the rights that they should have had five decades ago. The United Nations Charter guarantees the right of self-determination of peoples. Why Singapore opposes that right for Taiwanese makes no legal or moral sense. However, since Singapore also is not a democracy, it shouldn't be surprising.
Michael Le Houllier
Taichung City, Taiwan (Sep 28, '04)


In her article Iraq held hostage to terror [Sep 25], Sudha Ramachandran asserts that Muslims, by their silence, are saying that beheadings may be okay, depending on the nationality of the victim, and blame coalition forces for all of the Iraqi civilian casualties. I also gather she is sympathetic to that viewpoint.
Dale Stoy
Saline, Mississippi (Sep 27, '04)


Thinking reflectively about [Yoel] Sano's review [Closing the globalization 'Gap', Sep 25] one is left with the feeling that he was treading softly around the edges of [Thomas P M] Barnett's thesis. A recent editorial in a major British publication had the following-titled commentary: "We all should vote in the US presidential elections in 2004". Would not such an approach be more forthcoming as well as less costly in human and financial terms than invading/liberating the nations that the superpower wants to include under the heading of its tutelage of "Cappo di Gap"? While to some the present may be likened to a Don Quixote endeavor, to others it may be representative of a memorable song in an American musical whose repetitive words of "Anything you can do I can do better ..." reflect the basics of what the Gap is telling the Core, and the Core responds, "No you can't," followed by "Yes I can ..." The Gap then either attempts to seduce the Core by entering into a dialogue amongst equals or, as the present effort in Iraq symbolizes, by killing almost all of the recalcitrants. It may be that most all of those nations that fall under the heading of Core have taken up Tom Paine's cry of "Give me liberty or give me death."
ADeL (Sep 27, '04)


What is going on at Asia Times? This recent trend toward the reactionary and delusional has its latest example in [Yoel] Sano's fawning review of Thomas Barnett's paean to globalization (Closing the globalization 'Gap' [Sep 25]). Quotes like "Globalization empowers the individual at the expense of the collective ..." or "No growth equals no security" are the sort of thing one expects from Francis Fukiyama or the Wall Street Journal, not Asia Times Online. Let's ask the workers of Honduras or Haiti if globalization has empowered them. Or Bolivia or Sierra Leone. Or Slovakia or Ukraine. The draconian policies of the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and World Bank have brought only destruction and increased poverty to the developing world. Beyond that, Mr Sano mentions how Barnett wants (nay, insists) on a "happy ending to the war on terror". Say what? The implicit rationale for war that runs through the entire review is really reprehensible and suggests Sano needs a primer on poverty and Third World realities. Actually, Sano might have a future writing speeches for Dick Cheney. The "war on terror" is a pathetic excuse to keep hyper-militarization going, finding ways for that billion-dollar-a-day (and then some) defense budget to be kept running. Make bombs so you can use them up - that's the idea behind the war on terror. The most glaring example of Sano's and Barnett's cluelessness is the excuse and explanation for bombing poor countries - those of the so-called "gap" - when the obvious reality is that they get bombed because they cannot bomb back. Where does terrorism originate? Do Barnett or Sano ever wonder about that? Does the stork just sometimes deliver terrorists to their mothers? Please, editors, let's try and find some better and more critical analysts, and really, why are you bothering to even review crap like Barnett?
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Sep 27, '04)


Jayanthi Iyengar (China power crisis dims production [Sep 24]) does not understand that China is a dynamic society. China is changing very rapidly. However, China is not a country of paradoxes for sure. Nuclear power stations generate a very small portion of the power. Hydropower stations are one of the most important sources of power. The world's largest hydropower station has already generated electricity. China is to receive 20% more power from this power station in the next year or two. And more hydropower stations are on the way. Jayanthi Iyengar does not mention a word of those projects. This author should visit China more often before writing about China. ATol should let more Chinese authors write about their own country. Some outsiders just cannot understand this large complicated ancient country.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 27, '04)


From his contradictory statements against both the former government (NDA [National Democratic Alliance]) and the current UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government, Ramtanu Maitra [Dull, and downright hopeless, Sep 24] seems to be indulging in Lalu or Basu-speak. For one, he seems to ignore cases of infrastructure reform such as construction of roads and telcom reform during the NDA government did bring real change. I suggest he travel on some of the newly constructed highways and do some cost-benefit analysis of paying tolls and gaining efficiency in terms of time and fuel cost or talk to the numerous urban and rural poor who can afford cell phones. Not only that, real interest rates did come down from the low teens to 8-9%. Presumably, the growth in construction that followed must have created jobs. But the jobs the left-wingers are worried about are of the "government" kind where people get a paid lot of money for doing no work (read downsizing of banks, opening insurance and airline sector to private companies, privatization of industries and so forth). By that standard, both Manmohan [Singh's] economics of the '90s, the Jaswant [Singh] economics following that and now Manmohanomics again must be terrible. But Mr Maitra, even our standing comic Lalu could tell you good medicines, either of the Aurvedic or Western kind, always seem to be bitter in taste.
AP (Sep 27, '04)


Though I strongly disagree with Ahmad Chalabi and wish him due punishment for his actions against the people of Iraq, it is unprofessional for you to spread misinformation. Regarding the article Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran [Sep 21] by Spengler, I searched the original interview on the Middle East Quarterly [MEQ] website and could not find his Sunni reference, and I only found this:
MEQ: Some high-profile American analysts, such as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, have called for Iraq to be split up into three states. Are they right? Should Iraq be broken up? Why shouldn't the Kurds have independence?
Chalabi: All peoples have the right to self-determination and that includes the Kurdish people. Why should they be any different? If the exercise of that right leads them toward independence, then so be it. We will negotiate with them. The days of using violence to hold this country together are over.
(Source: http://www.meforum.org/article/626)
There is no mention of "The simplest way to deal with resistance in the Sunni triangle is to break off the oil-rich Kurdish north and Shi'ite south, and let the Sunni center eat sand." In Arabic parlance, this is real anathema. Are you spreading misinformation? This is very damaging to the credibility of your site.
Imad Khadduri
Richmond Hill, Ontario (Sep 27, '04)

The sentence you mention was written by Spengler, and was not quoted from the MEQ interview. You may have been confused by a missing line space (caused by a technical glitch) between the two-paragraph blockquoted (double-indented) excerpt of the interview and the next paragraph (beginning "Iraq's Shi'ites"), which was part of the body of the Spengler article. - ATol


Dear [B] Raman: Thank you very much for your excellent article [Operation enduring millstone, Sep 18]. It was brilliantly written. To refer to this situation as a "quagmire" is to glorify it. Rather, this tragic occupation of Iraq will be a watershed in world history of immense consequences. It is indeed tragic that with the demise of communism we should be faced with yet another cataclysm of epic proportions. God help us all.
Kingsley Hooker
Memphis, Tennessee (Sep 27, '04)


Adam Wolfe's article China takes the lead in strategic Central Asia [Sep 17] is sadly like most of ATol's propaganda about Central Asia. Wolfe credulously repeats Anglo-American alibis that the West is fighting "terrorism" in Central Asia, when this is a Big Lie that even you don't believe. The Anglo-American agenda in Central Asia is to seize and control Caspian oil in competition against Russia and China. All the other justifications are disinformation, just like the lies about WMD [weapons of mass destruction] used to justify the Anglo aggression against Iraq. Wolfe comically discourses at length about China's motives in Central Asia but never questions the real reasons why an extra-regional power like the USA invaded this area in the first place. What's the matter? Are you afraid that questioning America's bogus war on terrorism would ultimately lead to questioning the curious events of September 11 [2001]? After all, it is the USA which most benefited from the September 11 attacks. More hilarious is the attempt by ATol's assortment of hacks to posture as advocates for human rights, democracy, or independence for Uighurs in China. Notice how most of them like Stephen Blank, Adam Wolfe, and Stephen Sullivan all [sic] work for Western militaries, corporations, or business firms - not exactly institutions known for their humanitarian instincts. Western concern for Uighurs is like Western concern for Iraqis before the 2003 invasion - a cynical humanitarian mask to hide the predatory policies of these imperialist nations. Like the British Empire, the American Empire loves to divide and conquer opposing nations by sowing ethnic division. The USA in particular wishes to destabilize and weaken China through [its] not-so-covert support of ethnic separatist movements in China, from the Uighurs to Tibet to Taiwan. In addition, the Uighur issue is useful for the USA to prevent or at least hinder China's attempt to access Caspian oil in Central Asia. And Wolfe has the nerve to suggest that Washington is interested in financially supporting these groups through a CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] front group like the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] in order to gain "human-rights concessions" from China. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. I would like to see the Western reaction if China started supporting independence movements in Aztlan, Hawaii, Northern Ireland, Aboriginal [lands], or indigenous nations ruled by the Anglo colonial states of the USA, UK, and Australia. Indeed, ATol's studious silence on issues of Aboriginal self-determination in Australia (such as the murder of T J Hickey) is revealing and betrays your cynical pretenses. Maybe one should ask your editor Allen Quicke why this is. ATol has also either tried to downplay or even to label as "terrorist" national-liberation movements in countries allied with the USA - such as the ongoing rebellions in Turkish-ruled Kurdistan; the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines; Manipur, Assam, and Kashmir in India; or the recent uprisings in southern Thailand. Why haven't you reported on these developed independence movements with the same sympathy and enthusiasm? The answer is obvious.
DP
USA (Sep 27, '04)

As a rule we avoid reporting anything with "sympathy and enthusiasm" - we strive to present objective pictures of Asian events as viewed by experts on those subjects. That's the goal, one that we sometimes miss, partly because writers who gain intimate knowledge of their subject matter - which we encourage - also gain passionate viewpoints, which are sometimes reflected in their articles. As for the Aborigines, Asia Times Online's coverage area does not include Australia. - ATol


Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] by Pepe Escobar offered very little to the discussion of the so-called "war on terror". But it certainly provided clear evidence of the author's crippling cynicism. As usual, any action taken against the murdering terrorists of the world is deemed to be politically motivated and furthering America's "imperialist" foreign policy. But whether or not America is imperialist is not the issue. Any objectives, whether political, cultural or otherwise, that the world's terrorist groups have are moot. Organizations that further their "objectives" by randomly murdering unarmed, innocent people, with a special talent for killing children (for example, by shooting them in the back of the head as they run away for the safety of their parents), do not merit a place at the table of global diplomacy. Imagine a world where all one needs to do to achieve an objective is to murder a few children. To acquiesce in any way, large or small, to the demands of terrorists is to truly legitimize them. Recognizing murderous, amoral thugs as a threat to the civilized world and then taking steps to kill or disable them legitimizes them only in the eyes of people who are helplessly and irretrievably cynical. When one reaches this level of cynicism, it is time to retire from the civilized world. Mr Escobar is there already.
James A Barrett
Napa, California (Sep 27, '04)


I was blown away by Pepe Escobar's article Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] - I wish we had this kind of quality journalism here in America. Our media [have] become so useless that I can't even watch [them] anymore, especially the coverage of election issues (it's nearly impossible to find out what [President George W Bush and challenger John Kerry] are ever trying to say because they dumb everything down into meaningless slogans and attacks on each other - I haven't heard [either] one of them offer a genuine discussion on real issues). I am sure that many of my fellow Americans will probably be upset about the point of view that the article is written from but I commend you for it. If we cannot understand the point of view of the radicals then how can we ever hope to resolve the situation? No one ever stops to think that if they had been born into an Islamic family in the Middle East and had experienced the same things they have gone through in life, they would most likely end up doing the exact same things. People's experiences define their identity and perception of the world around them - we need to look objectively at the situation and figure out what experiences create "terrorists" and what we can do to improve those situations. Mr Bush as a "born-again Christian" would do well to listen to the words of Jesus, like "love thine enemy", as well as the ideas of compassion for all living things and understanding. Of course these ideas are so intensely foreign to most people that the idea of these things seems completely ludicrous to the conservative right. Thank you for your excellent work and open-mindedness - may your time here on Earth be as happy and wonderful as the creator intended it to be.
Justin (Sep 27, '04)


You [Pepe Escobar] are a sick man - your sickness will consume you some day.
Sid (Sep 27, '04)


[Ernie] Lynch [letter, Sep 24]: as I am not a lackey of the Israeli government or the Jewish lobby, neither am I a lackey of the Zionists. If the State of Israel did not exist, I would not be clamoring for its creation. But Israel does exist and we must take situations as they are, not as we wish them to be. The point behind my last letter was that Israel will, like any organism, defend its existence with all the weapons available to it. Those weapons presumptively include nuclear weapons. When a major unfriendly power in the area also obtains nuclear weapons or the presumed capability to make nuclear weapons, that is a condition that Israel cannot allow to exist. Hence the destruction of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli air force. I have no doubt that the same will occur to Iran if it continues on its current course towards mastering the nuclear fuel cycle. It was 31 years ago during Yom Kippur that the world was facing the immediate prospect of global thermonuclear war. While that threat is not present this Yom Kippur season, the specter of regional nuclear war still haunts the Middle East. Here mutually assured destruction (MAD) is not really an option as the enemies of Israel have made it clear in their public pronouncements that their goal is its destruction, not an accommodation. Yasser Arafat turned down the chance for an accommodation with Israel at Wye River. His failure to obtain Israel's surrender has led to the current campaign of attrition that is called the Second Intefada. The Arab side claims to want Israel to withdraw from its settlements in the territory it seized in 1967. Yet when Israel prepares to do so from the Gaza [Strip], it is met not with cheering as it leaves but with harassment as the Arabs attempt to kill as many Israelis as possible before they can be shielded by the "wall". After all, how can the various terrorist organizations attrit the Israeli army and tie it up with no settlers to act as bait? That is the current problem that Israel must solve: how to stop the attrition caused by the Intefada. Since Mohammed's creation of the belief system called Islam, Muslims have equated victory in battle with Allah's favor. Defeat in battle was Allah's wrath. The greater the defeat, the greater the displeasure of Allah. That leads to the question of just how big a defeat it will take to break the Intefada. Peace, after all, requires that the parties to the dispute actually want peace. When one side only wants jihad, peace is hard to find. Hence the suggestion that one way to relieve the pressure on Israel and perhaps defuse the immediate threat to its existence would be not to invade Iran, but to invade Syria. As Mr Lynch pointed out, my geography was in serious error (and I thank him for correcting me) but the strategy is still valid. The only difference is that it is a shorter distance from the beaches of Beirut to Damascus than it is from northern Syria to Damascus. But the result is the same: lots of terrorists get to relocate, some even to paradise. But Israelis in the northern part of Israel get to sleep nights without worrying about "incoming" and we all get to learn the secrets of the Bekaa Valley. Anything that reduces the threat to Israel's survival reduces the likelihood of nuclear war. That is a very good thing. I doubt that Mr Lynch and I will agree on how to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But talking is always much better that fighting. Let's continue to talk about possible solutions the conflict.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain (Brevet Feldmarschall), US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Sep 27, '04)


Dear Dennis [Castle] from Portland [letter, Sep 24]: You will know the answer to your question, whether the militants of Islam are adherents to the text or are a deranged cult, when you finish reading the Koran. My question is, if Islam preaches killing and everybody believes it, would:
a) All killers embrace Islam and get to "Jihad (English definition)?
b) All the other killers start a crusade to rid the world of Muslims?
c) All of the above?
Luay (Sep 27, '04)


To Dennis Castle [letter, Sep 24]: Finally you raise a strikingly relevant question: "Who has the best imaginary friend?" And you ask it with perfect timing: As [US President George W] Bush is being challenged about the divergence between reality on the ground in Iraq, and fantasyland on Bush's tongue, he is being asked how he manages to be his own best imaginary friend. It was interesting to learn from him, during the Bush-Allawi press conference, that it was not US troops but the Afghan army which assaulted Najaf. That the Afghan army is part of the army. And that a "right track/wrong track" poll he saw showed that more Iraqi people think things are going well in Iraq than Americans believe about America. I especially appreciate his latter inadvertent admission of how unpopular he and his extremist agenda are with the US electorate. John Kerry, prosecutor, is establishing the case against the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory. Sharon Barone writes [Sep 23]: "We do not sit still and negotiate with terrorists." Actually, we do. In fact, president Thomas Jefferson paid a $150,000 bribe to the Tripoli government in exchange for US citizens held hostage. Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld re-established relations with Iraq and Saddam Hussein - recall the photograph of Saddam and [Donald] Rumsfeld shaking hands? - in order to be able to provide him weapons for his war against Iran. They continued to give him weapons before, during and after he allegedly "gassed his own people". You also write: "Did you forget the terror that Saddam [Hussein] did to the Iraqi people?" You mean, of course, that [president George H W] Bush Sr told the Iraqi people that if they arose against Saddam Hussein, he would provide them support. When they arose against Hussein, he did nothing ... as with the "gassing his own people" episode. What is the Bush estimate of how many Iraqis were killed by Hussein while Bush Sr looked the other way? But you're right: we don't "sit and negotiate with terrorists". Instead, we fly to Iran, with a "Bible", a cake, and some missiles, in violation of the US "Trading with the Enemy Act", and - the negotiations concluded - hand the missiles to the terrorists. It was Senator Kerry who exposed the Iran-Contra scandal, the Contra-cocaine connection, and the BCCI [Bank of Credit and Commerce International] scandal. It's an impressive resume from a criminal prosecutor. Up against a non-lawyer criminal CEO and war criminal: it was Bush, not Hussein, who authorized the torture in Abu Ghraib. Torture is prohibited by both US and international law ...
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 27, '04)


In John Steppling's letter of September 23 he writes: "Those countries in [Eric Koo Peng Kuan's] region who [sic] have developed rapidly did it through state involvement - including Singapore. The free market is a bit of a myth, I am afraid." Taiwan's economy developed rapidly over the past 50 years of US hegemony as this kept Mao [Zedong] and the Great Leap Forward at bay across the Taiwan Strait. But the making of money by the overwhelming majority of the people of Taiwan was not the result of any states' involvement; indeed, it was despite state involvement (as was also the pattern under the Ching Dynasty and Japanese rule, and which is also the pattern with the Chinese diaspora despite being slaughtered in country after country, century after century). The Kuomintang (the political party of Chiang Kai-shek) established a whole host of state monopolies in Taiwan after it arrived in the late 1940s, thus restricting the operation of the free market. Almost every government agency was corrupt to the hilt and it required a bribe to get anything done in [Taiwan] until 10 years ago. For example, customs and immigration up at Keelung (just north of Taipei) used to print brand-new customs declaration forms every month and required all shipping agencies to use the new forms. The customs people, ie the state, had a kickback scheme going with a local publisher. At one point, all of northern Taiwan's shipping agents refused to process any shipping through Keelung Harbor. This one-day embargo was national news but neither the city nor national government did anything to change the kickback scheme. Another way in which the national government assisted local business was by skimming 5% off all foreign currency coming into or exiting the country and this only ended when Lee Teng-hui became president of the country in 1988. As it stands, Taiwan's Kuomintang [KMT] party remains the richest political party in the world. [This week] the Taipei Times is reporting that the KMT is trying to get its grubby hands back on to another US$1 billion worth of what should be public assets (state-operated television stations, etc). The state used to be so corrupt here that during Taiwan's economic boom of the early to mid-1990s, something like 50% of the private sector was completely under the table. In short, the state did nothing to help the private sector. For that matter, states seldom ever do. States are in the business of helping themselves, just like everyone else is. But while business folk are always hunting for a fresh opportunity to make a deal and a profit, bureaucrats occupy themselves primarily with snoozing or kickbacks. And as to whether or not "the free market is a bit of a myth", I have experience exporting umbrellas and commemorative pins. Basically, all you need to set up a business in Taiwan is a three-day loan to fool the government into thinking you have financial assets. Following this, all you need is some real cash in your pocket, a taxi to take you to several vendors, a bank to assist you with writing up letters of credit, a shipping agent, and a bank account in which to stuff your profits. Does this sound difficult? Business was so easy that even a moron could make money in the 1990s; in fact, many morons still do. One in every 125 Americans is now a millionaire. I have several friends who are self-made millionaires. None of them, I regret to say, shows any particular talent for the business of making money. They just work hard. Personally, I can't be bothered anymore. But I don't cry for the state to save me from myself.
Biff Cappuccino
Taiwan (Sep 27, '04)


Reading Fareed Zahid's (Aug 21) astounding [letter] questioning Islam's atrocities in India, and even arrogant rationale that, if wished, Muslim kings could have converted all Indians to Islam, is actually vindication of V S Naipaul (Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples). Everywhere, be it in Europe [or] North/South America, there is major thrust amongst local people to rediscover their past, which is surely non-Christian. I can think of no Mexican, even if he is from Spanish stock, denying great destruction was caused by [Hernan] Cortes. Every Mexican is proud of the past Mayan civilization of North/South America. I can never think of any Mexican taking pride [in the fact that] if Cortes wished, [he] could have converted everybody to Christianity. Islam imposes an erasure of traditional culture of the converted - a denial, which leads to neurosis. There probably has been no imperialism like that of Islam and the Arabs - Islam seeks as an article of the faith to erase the past; the believers in the end honor Arabia alone, they have nothing to return to. For Zahid's information, it was not like veni, vidi, vici for Muslims. Arabs were driven out 17 times by Rajput kings. Mahamud Ghori lost to Prithviraj Chowhan many times and once his life was even spared. It was Shivaji who broke the back of mighty Mughal Empire. Muslim empires in India were never settled - forget forceful conversion of all Hindus.
Minu
Stratford, Connecticut (Sep 27, '04)


This refers to the letter of Fareed Zahid (Aug 21), where he commented [on the] destruction of temples or forcible conversions as "unadulterated hogwash". I know of no historian, even from India's Marxist cabal, who ever said it's "unadulterated hogwash". There are tons and tons of documentary evidence available of all sorts: ... proceedings from royal courts, [literature and] folklore. Most of the sources are Islamic. S R Goel compiled some of them, and just Islamic evidence counts 61 kings, 63 military generals [and] 14 Sufis destroying temples for a period of 1,100 years on a wide geographical area, from Kabul to Tripura, and from Transoxiana to Tamil Nadu. This is what is written in a mosque in the famous Qutb Minar Complex in Delhi: "... The material of 27 idol temples [meaning Hindu/Buddhist], on each of which 2 million deliwal has been spent, [was] used in the [construction of] this mosque." The source is Epigraphica Indo-Mosemica, 1911-12, page 13, a government of India publication. The temples were not only destroyed, they were used to build the mosque. Many times in modern India, when the Archeological Survey of India wanted to do repair work in old mosques, parts from Hindu temples came out. Or to put it differently: Many Chinese came to India to study Buddhism. Famous are Fa-Hien [and] Huensang. They described vividly hundreds of Buddhist learning centers in Central Asia, north India [and] eastern India. Where are those Buddhist shrines [and] places of learning? Who destroyed Nalanda, the famous university of the Old World? Want to know how respected "left" historian Romila Thapar describes the demise of Buddhism at the hands of Muslims? Please read pages 263-264 of History of India, Vol 1, [published] by Penguin. Destroying temples has a very prime place in Muslim history, which was done by the Prophet himself. It's sanctified by religious injunctions. The way age-old civilizations like the Persian [and] Central Asian were destroyed by invading Islamic [armies] is unprecedented in history. Fareed, if you say that temples were not destroyed in India, Mohammed, the Prophet (PBUH), probably is turning his head in heaven. You are forgetting what a true believer is supposed to do.
Arindam
Hanover, Pennsylvania (Sep 27, '04)


It's difficult to become informed on all of the trouble spots of the world, especially when so many unreasonable people can sound so reasonable to the uninformed. Sometimes when I find myself in this situation, I find it helpful to look at my atlas. [Fareed] Zahid [letter, Sep 21], you are not convincing this Texan that all of the problems in Kashmir are between Indians. If you look at your atlas, you will see [that] Texas borders Mexico. There are no other states in the union whose public schools teach Spanish to their children starting in Grade 1. There are no other American citizens from other states who have been in as many automobile accidents with uninsured Mexican motorists. No other state in the union is a right-to-work state, which means labor unions have no power here. In America, we don't look to Mexico to solve these problems. It is not a coincidence that [the] recent complete restructuring of our public school system (which in my opinion by its design will create a much larger and incompetent lower class) is the pet project of our current president, [George W] Bush, whose former governmental title was governor of Texas. I view this restructuring of our school system with its design of accelerating the children of the privileged, educated parents at the expense of the children of single mothers and struggling working two-parent families as a greater threat to the future of America than any terrorist could dream of. I applaud the Indians for seeking assistance from Pakistan in their Kashmir problem. God knows what consequences this new firmly placed American school system will have on Mexico in the future.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Sep 27, '04)


I got interested by the spirited debate on "Islamic atrocities" in India by Fareed [Zahid], Kannan, Sri, Rabb [Rakha] etc. This topic is one of most actively debated globally where Nobel laureates ([V S] Naipaul, Amartya Sen), leading writers like Salman Rushdie, leading historians, intellectuals like A L Basham, Alain Danielou etc are deeply engaged. Today we don't see any grand temple [or] monument of the pre-Islamic era in a vast land from eastern Bangladesh to Afghanistan. Do note, this area [was] the cradle of Indian civilization for 4,000 years before the advent of Islam. Why are there no gorgeous temples like what we find in southern India [or] Southeast Asia? What more proof is required for large-scale systematic destruction? If one is interested in documentary evidence of death and destruction from Islamic invasion, they need not go beyond Vijaynagara. This magnificent southern city was destroyed in 1564 when four Muslim confederates attacked together, and completely destroyed it. This was probably the most magnificent city on Earth at that time, as Naipaul [and] others indicated from many Western [and] Arab traveler accounts. The Islamic chroniclers who accompanied the invading Muslim confederates painted a horrible, horrible picture. It took nine months to carry the war booty by the winners. The women [and] children were systematically killed [or] raped. They were even sold to the slave markets of Iran and other Middle Eastern countries for pennies. This destruction cost [many] more human lives [than] when [Hernan] Cortes destroyed the Mayan capital of Tenochtitlan in Mexico. There is no parallel in history of this kind of total destruction, at least not in India in the pre-Islamic period. The city is still in ruins today. It's the account of court chroniclers accompanying invading Muslim kings which is in question today. Is there any reason why those accounts will be disputed? Indian Marxist historians, Salman Rushdie etc are not able to answer this question. Fareed, what's your take?
Bhaskar
Connecticut, USA (Sep 27, '04)


Reacting to my suggestion in my letter (Sep 10) that Pearl Harbor could be construed as a Japanese preemptive attack on US strangulation via embargo and World War II began as a US vengeance for the "Day of Infamy", a reader implied that I "would have liked to see the Japanese succeed in breaking the stranglehold embargo and see the whole of the Chinese mainland swallowed up in Imperial Japanese military aggression" (Terence Redux, Sep 14). Pre-World War II US-Japan conflict was not based on US intent to liberate China from Western imperialism. The US became a new Far Eastern power through the acquisition of the Philippines in 1898 at a time when foreign partition of pre-revolutionary China appeared imminent. The US, as latecomer to the game, strove to prevent the partition of China by European powers and Japan by proclaiming the "Open Door" policy, a principle rooted in the "most favored nation" clause typical of unequal treaties imposed on China by Western imperialist powers after the Opium War (1839-42). The policy demanded that European powers uphold Chinese territorial and administrative integrity by not interfering, within their respective extraterritorial jurisdictions, with the vested economic interests of other nations, particularly the free international use of treaty ports. By March 1900, US secretary John Hay announced that the powers had granted "final and definitive" consent to his "Open Door" request and declared it an international policy. Only Japan challenged this declaration. After the xenophobic Boxer Uprising in 1900, Hay again reasserted the Open Door Policy. Two years later, the US protested Russian encroachment in Manchuria as a Open Door Policy violation. When Japan displaced Russian influence after the Russo-Japanese War (1940-45), Japan and the US agreed to the maintenance of a mutual policy of equality in Manchuria. A flagrant violation of the Open Door Policy occurred in 1910 when Japan presented China with its Twenty-One Demands, which precipitated violent revolution in China. The US then recognized Japan's special interest in China while Japan pledged to uphold the Open Door principle, which had been eclipsed by a series of secret treaties in 1917 between Japan and the Allies, promising Japan all German possessions in China after the war. The deterioration of regard for the Open Door Policy was the main reason for the Washington Conference of 1912-22, which, among other agreements to uphold the Open Door principle, also produced the Five-Power Treaty, limiting tonnage of aircraft carriers and other capital ships of Britain, the US and Japan to a ratio of 5:5:3 respectively, the violation of which led to the US embargo of Japan. US hostility toward Japan, which eventually led to war, did not have much to do with liberating China from imperialism, but was based on a clash of big-power imperialist interests in China. I accept the reader's assertion that I would agree with his observation that he has met "too many kind Chinese people to imagine them speaking a pidgin Japanese". However, for Chinese people, the difference between speaking pidgin Japanese and pidgin English is purely phonetic.
Henry C K Liu (Sep 27, '04)


I was able to read a few of your articles regarding the United States and its global war on terror and it wasn't long before realizing that your paper wasn't much more than an anti-Bush propaganda machine masquerading as a legitimate impartial news organization. As an Asian-American in the United States, it shocks me that so many people in old Europe and and the so called "Asian Tiger" countries are underestimating the economic, military and overall strategic strength of the United States. You can go tell your bourgeoisie handlers in Beijing that China may be growing, but on a per capita basis, it's still a poor country. As far as your news reporting, I understand that you will probably not change [your biased] view on the US. And I'm completely sure that this letter won't help that at all. So don't blame the US when Red China storms Hong Kong and Taipei and crushes any true democracy remaining in the country.
Paulo MacHan (Sep 27, '04)


I would like to tell you that I appreciate your articles very much. They are very valuable and give me a lot of background information and provide neutral evaluations about some matters. You don't find a lot of articles which are not influenced by some governments etc. Continue like this. Have a lot of success!
Horst Grahn
Hamburg, Germany (Sep 27, '04)


We found the articles by Safa Haeri (Iran asks the world to nuclear party) and Ehsan Ahrari (Whispers of regime change) in the Asia Times Online of September 23 very informative and insightful. But they also seemed to us, like just about all the coverage of Iran's nuclear story, to miss an important point. That is that the nuclear issue is part of a larger issue, the dreadful nature of the regime in Tehran. In recent weeks, the news media have widely covered the question of Iran's nuclear policy and the responses to it by the United States, European countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is certainly an important issue for all those parties. But in concentrating on the nuclear issue the forest has been missed for the trees. That is, Iranian nuclear ambitions are just one aspect of a greater problem, the existence of the mullahs' regime that is pursuing those ambitions. Dominated by fanatics, thugs and opportunists, the regime is a danger not just because it is seeking a nuclear arsenal. That it is doing so can only be doubted by politicians, polemicists and officials whose jobs sometimes rob them of clear-sightedness and clear speech. It makes as much sense to believe in Iran as committed to peace and stability as it did to believe in appeasement before World War II. As Ehsan Ahrari points out, "Iran now has a full-blown credibility problem vis-a-vis the international community." It constantly makes promises to be cooperative about its nuclear program but then breaks them. The mullahs are perverting the Shi'ite concept of protective dissimulation for political ends. They are certainly seeking to protect themselves, but not only that. They want to advance their international ambitions. If and when they put together a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-3 missiles, they will certainly be in a stronger position to do both. They will be in a powerful position to intimidate all of their neighbors. The mullahs must be judged not by what they say, but by what they do. What they have done is intervene directly and by proxy in their neighbors' affairs. Their creation of and support for the Lebanese Hezbollah is well known. They have poured money, materiel and men into Iraq, financing the renegade Muqtada al-Sadr and preventing Iraqis' emergence as a liberal representative state. Even before the war, in the autumn of 2001, the mullahs enabled al-Qaeda trainers to join with Iraqi Kurdish Islamists to setup the murderous Ansar al-Islam and install Taliban-like rule in villages on the Iraqi side of the border. With Iranian connivance, an estimated 5,000 armed Turkish Kurdish insurgents, driven out of Turkey, created a mountain holdout in Iraq from which they continue to be menace Turkey. In Afghanistan, the mullahs helped the Islamist warlord Ismail Khan take control of Herat and install a repressive, Islamist rule while challenging the authority of President Hamid Karzai's central government. But the greatest suffering the mullahs impose has been on the Iranian people who they govern by repression, corruption and grossly inefficient economic policies. Their operatives have not shied from murder. Religions other than their kind of Shi'ite Islam are persecuted. They have reversed reforms in the treatment of women. An "intranet" is being created to take the place of the Internet, which millions of Iranians turn to for trustworthy information. Regime change is badly needed in Tehran. How it could be brought about [is] difficult to foresee, but it is a matter of urgency.
Derk Kinnane Roelofsma
Editor, Alliance for Democracy in Iran
Washington, DC (Sep 24, '04)


Wow. I just read the [article] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi regarding pitfalls in a nuclear bargain with Iran [Refocus on the big picture, Sep 17]. Sure, as always blame it all on the Jews and Israel. Of course Iran is not to blame for anything. The most brutal wars in history have been fought by people who presume to have God on their side. Iran is no exception to this. There is always a large danger when the world has to deal with a leader and/or country that is run by fanatical religious leaders. Why doesn't Iran join most of us in the 21st century? Yield a little freedom and democracy to your people. Is that such a crazy idea, or are your leaders worried that they would lose their stranglehold over [their] citizens? Imagine what it would be like to be a member of the world economic market. Does Iran really want to push the nuclear envelope and risk a confrontation with the US down the road? That is a no-win situation for both sides. Why [do] not all of us concentrate on those people in the world that, as I write, are starving to death or dying from the dreaded disease called AIDS?
Jordan Johnson (Sep 24, '04)


After reading Pepe Escobar's article Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] I felt that I must contact you in order to give you an American perspective on this article that I feel is both evil and inaccurate. Throughout the article it is as if Mr Escobar is actually rooting for the terrorists - he attempts near the end of the article to legitimize al-Qaeda by referring to them as "an obscure sect as a worldwide symbol of political revolt". Is it "political revolt" to fly jets full of passengers into buildings full of people from various parts of the world who were simply trying to provide for their families when they were incinerated? This was not an action of a political revolt, it was a criminal act called mass murder. Exactly how many Americans have been killed on US soil by Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001? The answer is exactly zero. So, contrary to what Mr Escobar has written, Americans are in fact safer as a result of the actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and actions such as the passing of the Patriot Act here in the US. Yes, US military personnel have died in combat in their attempts to fight a noble war against these barbaric, cowardly criminals who don't have the honor or courage to put on a uniform or to be represented by a country and fight like true soldiers. They must hide like the cowards they are and have 18-year-old girls do their dirty work. How could Mr Escobar write an article that seems to take the side of these hate-filled criminals? Instead of accusing the US of imperialism, which is really just a way of voicing one's jealousy of the US - the US has done nothing in the last 200 years that could remotely be construed as imperialist - Mr Escobar should ask why the US has risen to the level of power that it has. The answer can be found in its level of freedom the US constitution provides and its system of government. This freedom has led to the "pursuit of happiness" amongst the population that our government defines as an "inalienable right" of all of its citizens. This has led to great innovation and the creation of a strong economy. Rather than be jealous, Mr Escobar should encourage his nation (wherever that is) to adopt the same principles. Publishing such false information recently got Dan Rather at CBS news in a lot of hot water - I hope Mr Escobar can learn from Mr Rather's mistakes that this is an abuse of the privilege of being a good journalist. In my opinion, al-Qaeda is losing. They are a minority of radicalized militants that have hijacked a religion and whose beliefs are not shared among the majority of Islamic people in the world. I believe that eventually, the majority of Islamic people will soon grow tired of these few desperate criminals (whose motivation, by the way, seems to stem from a jealousy of the West) and will rise up against them and put them down and the US will no longer be needed to provide this force.
Scott (Sep 24, '04)

The use of barbaric techniques does not disqualify al-Qaeda from symbolizing a "political revolt": not all of the actions, for example, of the American Revolutionaries against the British were particularly savory, and numerous other modern states were founded on acts of violence up to and including "mass murder". Simply recognizing this reality, as Escobar has done, in no way condones or encourages it. Your assumption that the lack of terrorist attacks on US soil since September 2001 is the result of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq etc lacks evidence. It could just as well be that the terrorists have their hands full attacking Americans and their allies everywhere else (global terrorism has increased, not decreased, during the course of the "war on terror"), or, more ominous, that they are simply biding their time and planning their next outrage, as they did for years before the September 11 attacks themselves. - ATol


I take it "Dirty Dog" [letter, Sep 23] was being a bit sarcastic in his admiration for my point of view. Nevertheless, my point about Raja Raja Chola was not whether there was misrule or forcible conversion, it is that "empire building" is just another name for unprovoked aggression. The way I'm visualizing it, there were these Sumatrans, minding their own business, and doing whatever it is that Sumatrans do when they're not doing anything else. Up comes a flotilla of warships demanding tribute. It is exactly the same thing as getting mugged on the street, and I don't see what there is to be proud of, for those of us who think Raja Raja Chola is "our guy". The other point you raised, about closure, is well taken. The pope has apologized to Jews, the Kanchi Sankaracharya talks about untouchability as a social evil, and so on, and while reality on the ground might be different, at least the intentions are there. The way things are going, we may have to wait a little while before the Muslim community unambiguously repudiates force, but what is the point of creating more grievances in the meantime?
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Sep 24, '04)


It is heartening to read the note [Sep 23] from Rabb Rakha. I am a regular reader of the Letters section and it is a rarity to find a Muslim writing without a jihadi pen, anywhere, not just here. It helps restrict the urge to paint all Muslims with the same brush - all apples are not inherently rotten. People like Fareed [Zahid] help propagate the intolerant side of Islam (the only side) in their ridiculous arguments that make sense to only those people who believe in 72 virgins guaranteed in heaven for every suicide bomber. He stands as a shining example to belittling the baseless claim that modern education ("Christian convent" included) promotes tolerance. Other writers (Dirty Dog - a cute misnomer, Kannan) have cogently rubbished the pathetic statements of this Indian Muslim who is unable to distinguish between sarcasm (did you go to school in Pakistan, Fareed?) and argument. Muslims all over have a siege mentality, which is spiraling them towards a bleak future. It is amazing to see such a self-destructive strain in a religion. The greatest irony is that this is the fastest-growing religion in the world. Islam needs more Rabb Rakhas and [fewer] (actually none) Fareeds to climb back into civilization.
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 24, '04)


I read the recent comments in the Letters section with interest and would like to thank the editor for airing different views. I was not intending to write another letter so soon so as to leave some breathing space and let the heat generated to cool down with time. But Nitin Shekhar's letter [Sep 22] provoked me. First of all, I am not a Hindu fanatic as he would like to portray/believe. I believe in humanity and express my thoughts as I feel it on issues that catch my attention. If Nitin does not believe in God, well and good. But it is not polite to label others as dumb just because they don't concur with his views. And if he is not happy with what is being debated, what right has he to command others to get out? I think he needs to introspect and respect others' right to express their opinion, even if it does not match with his views.
Kannan (Sep 24, '04)


The recent spate of letters between Hindus and Muslims of India paint a painful picture of the status of minorities in Hindu-dominated India. I am sure that ultimately, different ethnic groups in India will find some solution to this morass, one way or another. But I am concerned with the attitude of some Indian Hindu letter writers who invariably drag Pakistan into their problems. Whatever is wrong with their country is not Pakistan's fault and Muslims of India are not Pakistanis either. It is a historical fact that present-day India has never been a single country throughout history and in its present shape was cobbled together by the British only in late 19th century. Most of the areas now making Pakistan had remained independent for long periods. The people of these areas always resented their forced union with British India and got out of it at the first opportunity. Therefore, it is totally absurd for some Hindus today to imply that all Indian Muslims are somehow linked to Pakistan. Therefore, they should concentrate on finding an amicable solution to their problems and stop dragging Pakistan into their internal squabbles.
Ahmed Zaheer
Pakistan (Sep 24, '04)


[Richard] Radcliffe (letter, Sep 23) also suffers from misconceptions, as I stated he was a lackey of the Zionists, not the Israeli government [or] the Jewish lobby. But he does speak the truth when he declares the US can control "any other place we want to any time we want to". Unfortunately the sands of Mesopotamia shift with the weight set upon [them]. Control Fallujah, the freedom fighters move to Samarra or back to Baghdad. You never did learn from Vietnam, Richard, did you? Yes, the people in Iraq no longer fear the secret police or the "rape rooms" because the fear has been transformed into the US soldiers, daily bombing runs and "torture rooms" at Abu Ghraib. Schools, roads and the electricity worked quite well, thank you, before the Americans came. Of course, Halliburton would not make as much money then. Field Marshal Radcliffe goes on and describes how he will invade Syria from Baghdad yet supply the invasion force from Aleppo in the west. Magically, piers and beaches appear at Aleppo, which is 100 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. The 6th Fleet, without a doubt, is very powerful but still lacks overland capabilities. Therefore we will assume the Field Marshal meant Latakia on the coast. The marines will walk ashore, opposed only by flowers, strike inland to Aleppo, dash, a la [Erwin] Rommel, to the Euphrates at Ar Raggah and stroll down the river and meet the GIs at Abu Kamal. The "secure" 500-mile supply line will be used to strike onward to Damascus. Field Marshal [Bernard] Montgomery could have used this type of critical analysis at Arnhem (a bridge too far) during World War II. Radcliffe laments about the long odds for Israel in a full-scale, mass jihad where any simple research will indicate that Israel has the most powerful armed forces in the Middle East, subsidized by Americans. Some even indicate that Israel's armed forces are the fourth-most-powerful in the world, kind of like the new Sparta of the Middle East. It is the rest of the Middle East that desires deterrence from Israel while the Zionist desire conquest. Deterrence works both ways and the evidence being US-USSR relations. MAD (mutually assured destruction) will go a long way to a peaceful solution in the Middle East. A true solution to the Palestinian problem would assure it. And when did Israel allow international nuclear-weapon inspections? The whole world knows that the US acts as a hypocrite with regards to its relations with Israel and the Muslim world. Only when Americans discover [their] backbone and throw off the Zionist chains will there be peace in the Middle East. Your path is the total submission of the Muslim people to the Zionist. The Muslim submits only to Allah, no other.
Ernie Lynch
Skunk Hollow, Pennsylvania (Sep 24, '04)


Luay's response (letter, Sep 22) to Richard Radcliffe was very touching and beautiful. I only wish he could have explained how those Koranic verses Mr Radcliffe quotes are out of context. Having begun a study of the Koran myself (using the grammatical/historical method asking, basically, when it was written, who wrote it, who the original audience was, what they would have thought the message meant and ultimately the intent of the author) I am deeply intrigued by whether the militants of Islam are simply being faithful adherents to the text or are a deranged cult. The letter was especially poignant following Nitin Shekhar's letter, which basically said this is all an argument about who has the best imaginary friend.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 24, '04)


I was amazed to read Eric [Koo Peng] Kuan's defense of the US (The US as benevolent hegemon, Sep 23) because of the picture he painted of a saintly America that steadfastly guards the world from all threats. Incidents such as Abu Ghraib are excused as mere aberrations in order to bolster the claim that the US has always respected human rights and international law. On the contrary, the US has a muddy history of colonialization and committing war crimes. In the 1899-1902 Philippines revolt, American troops massacred 3,000 Filipinos in Manila, razed villages and used methods such as the infamous "water torture" on prisoners. These actions met with approval in newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and Salt Lake City Tribune. While in Haiti in 1918, US troops frequently engaged in indiscriminate killings (Picking the Bones, Geoffrey Regan, 2004, pp 99, 164-169). The Vietnam War was even more savage, ranging from indiscriminate bombings all over Indochina, which destabilized Cambodia leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, to the use of the chemical weapon Agent Orange, causing birth defects which continue to this day. Moreover, sources such as John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign relations Committee and the Toledo Blade's 2003 Pulitzer Prize-winning report have shown how troops both officially and unofficially perpetuated torture and killings against unarmed civilians. Covert operations carried out by US intelligence have not managed to keep the casualties down either, usually leaving thousands dead, economies shattered and countries destabilized, eg Chile, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iran. Moreover, the US has proved to be uncooperative at the international level with its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Treaty because of the perceived threat to its interests. Faced with these facts, it is difficult to see how exactly the US matches the description of a benevolent superpower. Perhaps superpower plain and simple would be more appropriate. No doubt events in Iraq will further undermine this idealized image that Mr [Koo] has presented to his readers.
Philip Lim
London, England (Sep 23, '04)


[Eric Koo Peng Kuan]'s absurd bit of sophistry [The US as benevolent hegemon, Sep 23] is wrong on so many levels that I am a bit confused [as] to the best place to start. Let's start with this notion that US intervention was mostly approved of by the international community (never mind who that really is). Ask the Palestinians about US intentions, or those under the bombs that fell over Belgrade, or maybe how the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] rigged things for [Augusto] Pinochet, or how the US supported the Shah of Iran, or hey, how the US helped keep Saddam [Hussein] in power. Wait, maybe let's revisit Guatemala, or El Salvador, maybe even Greece. What about Mobutu [Sese Seko] and what about [Jonas] Savimbi? The US interest in keeping these areas safe for business was the primary feature of US foreign policy (which overlapped with anti-communism). Selling off the former Yugoslavia was about business, so were most of the involvements listed above. [Koo] seems to live in a strange world of isolated think-tank academic fantasy. Imperialism is always about domination and finance, and domination continues today in the occupation of Iraq. The US has several hundred military bases around the world, and plans on building more. What is this if not a 21st-century version of colonialism? Nothing at all has changed. Dollar hegemony and Wall Street's need for domination has certainly affected [Koo]'s part of the world, but apparently not [Koo]. Those countries in his region who have developed rapidly did it through state involvement - including Singapore. The free market is a bit of a myth, I am afraid. The US control of the World Bank and IMF [International Monetary Fund] are simply another from of imperialism. Look at the debt-ridden countries of Africa. The US is rightly distrusted throughout most of the world, not supported. Buy a ticket, Mr [Koo], and travel a bit - third class maybe, not business. See for yourself if anyone has trusted the Empire for over 50 years.
John Steppling
Krakow, Poland (Sep 23, '04)


First of all, I must congratulate Asia Times [for finding] a sensible non-communist commentator from West Bengal in [Kunal Kumar] Kundu [The inhumane face of India's reforms, Sep 23]. Having said that, Mr Kundu raises a very valid point that should otherwise be the job of the [Indian] opposition party. But now we have reforms with a so-called human face. This human face will mean more roads to nowhere in Bihar, lots of free power for crops that can't be sold in Andhra and so forth. One set of reforms have worked in telecoms, and plain old-fashioned profit was the motive. Capitalism anyone? The letter from Fareed Zahid [Sep 21] should be an eye-opener to all (pseudo) secular Indians who try their best to get under the Islamic burqa or the Christian veil. For a supposedly non-madrassah-educated Muslim (Zahid seems to take pride in convent education) to question Islam's very violent past (and arguably questionable present) must have a very simple explanation. It probably comes back from the Koran where any non-believer is a kaffir and then it is a good Muslim's business to either convert or eliminate them. Perhaps it is about time that Zahid's fellow convent-educated Hindus stop kissing the mullahs' ass. If that is indeed too much to ask for, then at least they should stop bad-mouthing the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh] and VHP [Vishwa Hindu Parishad], who are fighting to look after Hindu interests in a supposedly secular (non-Islamic, non-Christian) country.
AP (Sep 23, '04)


Dear [Jon] Sreekanth [letter, Sep 21]: I admire the speed with which you as a citizen of the world and befitting your Hindu heritage (from your name) recommend a forward-thinking solution. That's commendable. Nevertheless, your solution begs the question "to what problem?" The problem is not one of the future or living in the past. It's about authenticating Indian history in the face of convenient amnesia. [Letter writers] Sri and Kannan are pointing out that Indian history has a rich legacy of Islamic Invasion. Islamic invaders were pretty cruel (Gazni, Gauri, Timur Lane, Babar, Humayun, Aurangazeb etc) to their Hindu subjects on the plains of Hindustan. Why on earth are the mountains protecting the plains called Hindu Kush (Hindu Kill)? The Islamic rule was a case of autocracy (with despots) with no protection for the Hindu majority (temple, culture, women etc). Every historian - [Arnold] Toynbee, [A L] Basham, [Nilakanta] Sastri, Bernard Lewis - and philosophers Radha Krishnan [and George] Moore have commented on how the Mughal Empire, a subsidiary of the Islamic Caliphate, systematically destroyed the Vedic culture in India. [Letter writer] Fareed [Zahid] counters by saying that it did not happen and even if it did, it was not a deterministic plan by any hierarchy. (Try giving the true explanation about random riots in Gujarat to Fareed.) In other words, Fareed wants to be in self-denial and practice revision of Indian history. That's like saying Taj Mahal is a Hindu monument. Your solution "move forward and forget the past" works only if there is a proper accounting of the past. Would you tell your wife after you have had an adulterous affair, "Let's move forward, honey, nothing really happened"? Of course, she is going to demand an accounting. That's precisely what Sri, Kannan and I are doing. Your example of Raja Raja Chola and his empire of the south seems to have no relevance. When I "Google" on him I see no quote of misrule of his subjects in India or elsewhere or conversion of the natives forcibly to Hinduism. In fact I see a beautiful account of the structured style of government that the Cholas introduced everywhere they ruled. So your theory about reparations does not arise. The case in India is different, with a rich history of invasions and conversion by the sword. In Rajasthan, for example, there is a community subset that were Kshatriyas (royalty) before they were forcibly converted by the Mughals. The Rajput rulers treated these Muslims even better than they treated the Jats since they considered them to be Kshatriyas. By the way, what about reparations? There is nothing wrong with [them]. The German government paid to the Jews for Nazi cruelty, the US government is paying the native Americans and Japanese[-American] World War II interns on a daily basis and African-Americans may end up getting the same. My opinion is perhaps the greatest reparation that Indian Muslims and Muslims around the world can pay to Hindus, Jews, Christians and to world humanity is to be sensitive to the long legacy of intolerance and cruelty to other faiths. There is no record even today of a minority living safely under Islamic majority rule or of an Islamic minority living without friction with a non-believing majority. If we are to live in the present and the future, we should ask a simple question: Has there been a fatwa (ban) against Osama bin Laden from any Islamic country? I rest my case.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Sep 23, '04)


I have been following with interest the letters from Fareed [Zahid], Kannan, Sri and lately others and I thank ATol for this stimulating but decent discussion. I assume Fareed is a Muslim from India whereas Kannan and Sri are most likely Hindus. I am a non-practicing Muslim with exposure to both Islam and Hinduism ... I want to ask Fareed what kind of evidence [he needs] for the atrocities of Muslims throughout the ages in the Indian subcontinent and beyond. Is he looking for a murder weapon and a dead body? There is enough evidence out there in memoirs like the Shahnamas (Royal Chronicles) of Mughals and other authentic writers. Some have already mentioned Babar and Gahznawi and Ghauri, but there are several more with equally gory records ... His question [of] why the Hindus were not totally exterminated ... can be easily answered. The Hindus and Buddhists did get exterminated from most parts [of what are now] Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Even more modern methods of mass execution [such as the] guillotine by the French and gas chambers by the Nazis could not wipe out the entire target populations ... The Muslim invaders' main interest was plunder and rape. And then some stayed back to rule rather than make long annual returns. To rule you need slaves and subdued population and not dead bodies. Now coming to Fareed's deriding of Hinduism and its caste system ... he suffers from the same disorder that afflicts the whole of humanity. Everyone thinks his or her belief system is superior to others. The caste system in Islam is as deep-rooted and the edict of kullu wahid (all are one) is an oxymoron. The Koran and Shariah divide society into the castes of, in descending order: 1) free Muslim men, 2) slave Muslim men, 3) free Muslim women, 4) slave Muslim women, 5) slave non-Muslim men and so on. The Hindus may take solace that their caste system has been breaking down in modern times ... Finally I will end this letter with a question to Fareed: Why do the mujahideen, freedom fighters or Islamist terrorists, whatever you may call them, carry one book (the Koran) in one hand while they behead their victims in medieval savagery while reciting its verses, from Iraq to Kashmir to Chechnya, and have a smile on their faces even when killing children? If you respond to my letter, I want you to begin your response by answering this question. Don't we all have soft spots? Thank you, Fareed, for your scholarship.
Rabb Rakha
Florida, USA (Sep 23, '04)


[Re] Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11]. You have no idea of what America is all about. We do not sit still and negotiate with terrorists. President [George W] Bush took the battle to them. As you have stated, the main terrorists are not Iraqis. They are from all over the world and now they are all in Iraq to fight the Americans. Was there not violence in Iraq before we came in? Did you forget the terror that Saddam [Hussein] did to the Iraqi people? President Bush said from the beginning that this will be a war like no other. He did not set a deadline for it to end. That will be up to the terrorists. This war is not about Iraq. It is about terror. Iraq happens to be the battleground for now. President Bush has stated we will hunt them down anywhere in the world. Right now most of them are in the Middle East, so that is where we must go after them. We will win.
Sharon Barone (Sep 23, '04)


Re [Pepe] Escobar's nonsense article [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11]. Peepee, you are a dumbass and underestimate the Americans. If need be Islam will be wiped from the face of the Earth, and damn well bring them on. I did not misspell your name by the way.
Max Jones (Sep 23, '04)

It is articulate, constructively critical letters such as this that make our hard work worthwhile. - ATol


After delighting myself reading of such hatred that your website has for America, it shows how much worthless your opinion is. You elevate the importance of the terrorists. You are the pigs that give the credit to poisonous murderers. I am glad that we [are] a democracy because if was I in charge I would have beheaded, the same way they are doing it in Iraq, all the war prisoners in Guantanamo. Eye for an eye. But [US President George W] Bush has not done it. Maybe it has not hit your home like it did ours or have lost a close relative like many people in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and others all over the world. I am glad I have read this junk and realize that it will be the last time I waste my time reading your filth.
Richard Garcia (Sep 23, '04)

You will be sorely missed. - ATol


Dear Spengler: I have decided, albeit against the better of valor, to request your take and/or explanations as to why are there such discrepancies in the different ways men primarily kill other men, women and children, with specific reference to the ongoing liberation of Iraq. In the case of those, for example, that are called terrorists/insurgents etc in the Western media and whose preferred way of making short shrift of their "enemies" is by beheading them in private as well as on camera. These individuals are always referred to in a derogatory manner, going so far as to be called evil savages. While the descriptive part of how the opposition accomplishes its mission is usually referred to as "helicopter gunships attack insurgents loyal to ..." and as an addendum a reference is made to the number killed by missiles fired from helicopters. Does such reporting convey in any way that one side is more humane in its acts of killing? If one were asked, for example, "Do you prefer being killed by a young woman wired with bombs or by being beheaded or as a result of a missile strike?" or vice versa, "How would you prefer to kill your enemy?" can one come up with a universal answer? Thanks in advance if you do decide to share some of your thoughts.
ADeL (Sep 23, '04)


Let's start with some of [Ernie] Lynch's misconceptions [letter, Sep 22] and clear some air right now. I am not a "lackey" of the Israeli government or any "Jewish lobby". Second, we [the US] can "control" Fallujah, Samarra, Tikrit or any other place we want to any time we want to. We call in the heavy air support and turn these towns into smoking holes, killing thousands like we did in World War II. Instead, we have chosen to take the casualties required to convince the inhabitants of those cities that we are really there to help them restore their lives to normal as free people. Mr Lynch should remind himself that since the destruction of the Saddam Hussein government, the Iraqi people no longer live in fear of the secret police. The "rape rooms" are closed for business. The electricity supply is increasing and is being more equitably distributed throughout the country. Roads are being repaired. Schools are in session. The list goes on and the lives of the Iraqi people will continue to improve with time. Rome wasn't built in a day and it will take longer than tomorrow to reconstruct Iraq. Mr Lynch should remember that the "Sunni triangle" is the home of Saddam Hussein's tribe and many of the inhabitants there are his clansmen. Former members of the Ba'ath Party and others in the Sunni community are upset because they will no longer govern Iraq. They will become second-class citizens as they live in an area with little oil or perhaps few other natural resources. The [Shi'ites] have oil. The Kurds have oil. The Sunnis have mostly desert and they really would like to restore themselves to power. Together with the Islamofascist militants like Musab al-Zarqawi, they can make our lives in Iraq miserable and cause brave people to die. Eventually they will be defeated, and most likely by the Iraqi people who will see the terrorists standing in the way of better lives for themselves. As for the "Camel Corps", Mr Lynch should be aware that it is standard procedure to supply units across beaches and piers, say at Aleppo. Besides the possible armored thrust down the Baghdad-Damascus road, there is this group of ships called the 6th Fleet that will most definitely be involved in any operations against Syria. We also can drop supplies from the air and, unlike the Germans at Stalingrad, we can supply an army from the air. "What will it take to keep the Israeli air force out of Iranian airspace?" was not a rhetorical question. There is not a Jew in the world that I know of who does not have the word "Holocaust" burned into their brain. No Israeli government, whether it be led by the National Religious Party, Likud, Shas, Sinui, Labor or a coalition, will ever fail to do all possible to preserve the State of Israel. While Israel can survive the occasional homicide bombing, it cannot survive a full-scale, mass jihad against 25:1 or 30:1 odds. The Israeli solution has always been to ensure that it is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the area. It is called deterrence. When Saddam Hussein attempted to fuel the Osirak reactor, the Israeli air force wrecked the containment vessel. We can presume that the same kind of thing will occur if the Iranians attempt to fuel the Bushehr reactor with fuel from the French, the Russians or their own enrichment program. Therefore, as in 1973, nuclear war is an option and the probability of it grows with every move the Iranians make to complete the nuclear fuel cycle. I would really not like to see millions of people die in a nuclear war between Israel and the Arabs. There is one sure way to guarantee that such a nuclear war occurs: abandon the Middle East. The real path to a peaceful Middle East is for all the people there to have too much to lose to fight a war. It is surprising how enlightened self-interest in preserving one's lifestyle can overcome such petty thoughts as killing Jews and infidels if the result of such killing is watching your lifestyle really be reduced to 7th-century norms. We are starting the lifestyle-enrichment process in Iraq. But it takes time. Will Mr Lynch and those among us who believe likewise give us the time to complete the mission?
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Sep 23, '04)

Judging by the escalating mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will not be up to Ernie Lynch or any well-intentioned American whether the "mission" is completed but will be decided by the emboldened anti-US forces in those countries. Your perception of what "lifestyle enrichment" means to such people seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. Perhaps a reread of Spengler's Why Islam baffles America (Apr 16) and 'You love life, we love death' (Mar 23) is in order. - ATol


To MC [letter, Sep 20] and Dr [Ehsan] Ahrari [Sep 21]: just to let you know, my previous letter [Sep 16] was not posted in its entirety. Half of it actually contained examples of practices of a "moderate" Islamic state. The editor of ATol chose to delete them, which changed its meaning to a large degree. I leave my e-mail address at the end, please drop me an e-mail, I'll send you the complete letter. I am a chemical engineer. Basically, an engineer applies scientific theories/natural laws (science) to the test, to make them work. That is, putting theories into practice. How well they work is dependent on the amount of my understanding of these natural laws governing the properties of the physical substances I deal with. The more I know, the more perfect will be my design, or I get better at solving the problems arising from the application of the equipment/process. "Knowing" is the keyword in this instance. In addition to acquired knowledge/experience of others, it also means learning new things from observations, investigations and tests, and most importantly, discarding or improving old ideas, especially incorrect ones. In other words, accepting that perfection is not achievable but an ideal goal, one has to be completely open-minded to continuously explore, discover, and then add new findings to the knowledge base. Equally important, the framework/management practice must provide for such openness. It has to constantly encourage and allow it to exist. In the end, the only criterion is profits from good performance and results. Well-managed companies recognize this and thus they have excellent engineers who produce superior products/results. This is usually verified with a methodology called benchmarking carried out over several years. MC, you certainly don't need 1,000 years to judge this! This mindset of openness/framework to accept new, more correct findings and cast off old, unusable ideas, and admit nothing absolute/dogmatic, would not be any different if extended to society. After all, laws governing societies (political-economical systems) come from what men want from nature and their own kind. Their existence depends on human existence, and as such much less immaterial than natural laws governing the existence of the natural world. There is nothing absolute/infallible about them, except those who make them out to be so and those in power who have vested interests in keeping them to perpetuate their rule. For a society in which a person's mind and the framework for thoughts have to submit to some absolute dogmas, especially political and religious, untested, unproven, and blindly deemed unquestionably perfect but rigidly enforced because the theocracy or polity demands it, that society surely cannot progress. Is it not minds that question the existing order, world views, and all knowledge to bring about change? There is a good example in the book review posted on ATol July 5, Screaming 'idiot' in the middle of Iraq. To paraphrase the Japanese journalist Hashida Shinsuke, "Human mentality hardly changes or progresses throughout history. We are animals who don't learn from history but our science and technology surely does progress ..." There is engineering excellence/technological progress because of the non-absoluteness of the methodology and the provision of an open thinking framework. There is lack of social progress because there is inadequate holdback from wanton, selfish human interests/wants and the effect of absolutism in thinking, with the latter often reinforcing and serving the former. Human interest/want, be it individual, social group, ethnic group, to the extent of a nation, is the main reason of conflicts, which is difficult to resolve but it can be ameliorated by doing away [with] all absolutism or extremism such as jingoism, religious fundamentalism, monarchism, totalitarianism, militarism, racism, racialism, etc. It is on this ground that I have aversion for absolutism of all kinds, including their apologists. As such, I am all for comprehensive benchmarking of political and nation-states to measure and track social progress. The UN does that to some extent, so does Amnesty International, New Internationalist, and a number of NGOs [non-governmental organizations]. I think theocratic and totalitarian states inevitably rank the lowest. I cannot imagine them amenable to open/liberal thinking. Lastly, I want to say that I am indifferent to the terms "atheism", "agnosticism", "secularism" and "secular humanism". Except for atheism by definition, I don't know much about the rest. Dr Ahari can dogmatically brand me into any category he likes. I am just a simple engineer who is well versed in engineering methodology and corollarily use [it] to reason out why there is little progress in human mentality. One who doesn't believe in fairy tales but one who does hope the human race can do away with as much as possible unnecessary wanton material needs and absolutism to achieve an open, thinking society to attain social progress by becoming more humane at each other at all levels, be it an individual or a nation. I am all for an open and knowledgeable society in which all forms of absolutism, conservatism and extremism can be more plausibly kept to a minimum. If this advocacy turns me into a secular fundamentalist (Dr Ahari's definition), then every person is a fundamentalist. And there can be no standard or reference. Without any criterion to measure up to as such, it serves to maintain the status quo. Those in position of authority and wealth would definitely love it.
JW
Australia
gugubarra2003@yahoo.com.au (Sep 23, '04)

Those who think our editing of overly lengthy letters "changes their meaning" should avoid that peril by self-editing. - ATol


[Noam] Chomsky notes that intent is in the eye of the beholder [The resort to force, Sep 22]. It is very risky business attributing motives to others; the attributions usually turn out to be a sort of projection of the speaker's own intentions. [Henry] Kissinger and [Arthur] Schlesinger are quoted as saying this new National Security Strategy, in which the intentions of others are taken to justify military action, is revolutionary. The two are old and have forgotten already the theory of nuclear deterrence, a theory which neither understood very well to begin with. In the 1964 [book] Deadly Logic: The Theory of Nuclear Deterrence [by Philip] Green it was pointed out that deterrent value, being tied to the state of mind of one's opponents, was unverifiable and unquantifiable. Yet the US military-industrial complex steadily increased military spending on nuclear explosive devices (to call them "weapons" is to grant them military value which they never had) and their delivery systems, on the pretext that deterrent value was both quantifiable and verifiable. Kissinger and his ilk argued that the theory of nuclear deterrence had been tested and verified, and never fully grasped that the theory is based upon a logical error, called "affirming the consequent". This error is seen in the belief that garlic cloves worn around the neck prevent vampire attacks, and the lack of such attacks is supposed to be evidence for the truth of the proposition. What we are seeing here, this "revolutionary" National Security Strategy, is really nothing more than the continuation of the garrison state, driven by fear of "terrorists" instead of communists. And military industrialists are the ones who benefit. Chomsky has it right, "... the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded ... to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world's major energy resources, understood since World War II to be 'a stupendous source of strategic power'" and wealth. The allegedly revolutionary National Security Strategy is just business as usual.
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Sep 22, '04)


It is indeed good news to the Myanmar people that the hardliners have strengthened their hands in the SPDC [State Peace and Development Council] leadership [Myanmar's junta hardliners gain upper hand, Sep 22]. I believe that the generals have been able to withstand both international and domestic pressure for so long only due to the continued economic and political support given by both China and ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations], which try all the while to justify their funny Asian way of doing nothing in their neighborhood with non-constructive engagement.The military junta has never really been isolated and did not pay any great price for [its] brutal policies. With hardliners on board and with the passage of time, it would be increasingly difficult for the other Asian leaders to justify their continued support. The people of Myanmar are one step nearer to the day when they can regain their precious freedom [of] self-determination.
Dell
Singapore (Sep 22, '04)


As one of the trim, college-educated, blue-state residents (who has also visited other countries), I am profoundly conservative. Though I agree in large part with your analysis [Why Americans love George W Bush, Sep 14], I would beg that you don't view us all as religious zealot farmers from the Midwest. There are a great number of social and economic reasons for sustaining a free-enterprise, anyone-can-make-it-here system. My father was a clerk, my mother a housewife. I have been a schoolteacher and a corporate vice president. The only limit on me, or anyone else here [in the US], is the limit of drive and imagination. It's a place where hope is guaranteed and accomplishment is available to any who aim for it. George Bush wants to let me succeed. John Kerry says I can't succeed without his party and the beneficence of the government he desires to create. That is why Bush will win.
Clark Alexander (Sep 22, '04)


You [Asia Times Online, under the Sep 21 Nagarya letter] comment, "As defenders of the Iraq invasion never tire of pointing out, [Saddam Hussein] had possessed and used chemical weapons in the past." I've noted this fact, along with the support he received, before, during, and after doing so, from the Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld axis. And the fact that that axis did not object at the time, nor for 16 years thereafter; thus it is reasonable to conclude that they had no objection either to his having them, or his use of them against the US's "enemy" Iran. Moreover, that was before the first Gulf War; and the pretexts for the first Gulf War did not include even mention of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. From those facts, and as silent and active collusion is assent, one can only draw the conclusion that WMD were not a concern when he in fact had them. Subsequent to that war, and prior to the current, an issue was made of his having WMD - though not, notably, his having had and used them against the US's "enemy" Iran, nor to his having "gassed his own people". Those were acceptable to the US, as evidenced by its actions and inactions while he actually had them and was actually using them. After that war, and before the current, on-the-ground inspections were initiated, by both the US and UN, and any remaining were destroyed. Inspector Scott Ritter, who notably opposed the current war, pointed out beforehand that there were no remaining WMD. And none have been found. They have not been found because they do not exist. So we arrive back to where we are: the effort to apply irrelevant evidence to a "case" which was disproved by inspectors, yet again, before the illegal invasion. And the effort to palm off the fantasy that Iraq "hid" its non-existent WMD "somewhere". As with any fanatic, a thing exists even when proved not to exist, therefore must be "somewhere", because "a lack of evidence is not a lack of evidence" - and actual evidence be damned. To paraphrase a trial law maxim: "If the law is against you, pound on the facts. If the facts are against you, pound on the law. And if both law and facts are against you, pound on an illusion" ... To Dennis Castle [letter, Sep 21]: I beg to differ with your ad hominem attack that I am "the most unhinged poster in this forum": at best, I am the second-most-unhinged, not wishing to compete with your expert abilities in that field of endeavor. Here's the latest reason why. You write: "An American was beheaded by terrorists [this week] in Iraq, more specifically by members of a terrorist group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." This is an example of a "fact" which is not a fact. As most will recall, the first beheading, of [Nicholas] Berg, was allegedly committed by Abu Masub al-Zarqawi. How do we "know" it was committed by al-Zarqawi? 1) Because Prophet "I Never Make Mistakes" Bush says so, though his entire foundation for his illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has been shown to be false - no WMD being foremost - by investigation and reality. Though allegedly "unhinged", I do know better than to expect a proven liar to be a source of truth. That rule - knowing that a liar is not instead a source of truth - is "moral clarity". 2) In the video of the first beheading (as with all subsequent) is a group of persons wearing ski masks. They wear ski masks to hide their identities so no one will know who they are. The apparent leader of the ski-masked group read a statement. According to Bush, known for using self-serving mistranslations, in that statement the person reading it allegedly identified himself as being al-Zarqawi. Odd, is it not, that a person would identify himself to the world while simultaneously wearing a ski-mask so no one would know who he was? Clearly, Bush and Mr Castle have an advantage over everyone else in the world: like the fictional character Superman, they have X-ray vision.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 22, '04)


Richard Radcliffe's latest ([letter], Sep 21) ravings indicate a continuing deficit in geopolitical scholarship and I am starting to doubt his military credentials. For one to compound the error of invading Iraq by even considering invading Syria or Iran verges on madness. Even Napoleon burned Moscow before retreating instead of invading China. Radcliffe indicates that, yes, we [the US] have free forces to invade Syria by striking down the old King's Highway. But there is a small problem with supplying these "free" divisions. Unless the US creates a new Camel Supply Corps to trek across the desert, the supply line runs from Baghdad through Fallujah, which due to a small oversight on Bush's part the US has failed to control - though this may be a clever strategy by Bush to reduce unemployment in the US by sending tens of thousands of American truck drivers to try their luck dashing through RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] Alley. Deciding that the Lions of Fallujah may prove to be too hard of a nut to crack, Radcliffe gazes longingly at the hills of the Medes. He joyfully discovers that he can bypass the Sunni triangle by striking northeast of Basra, thus avoiding the river crossing at Abadan. After liberating Khuzestan to the burning refineries and cheering crowds of Shi'ites carrying stones, Marshal Radcliffe discovers that he now controls 5% of Iran and sees the towering Zagros Mountains ahead of him in the 400-mile trip to Tehran. Bush schedules a carrier landing in Los Angeles. Meanwhile back at the ranch, in Iraq all hell breaks loose while Sunnis, Shi'ites and the Kurds divvy up the spoils. The Taliban regenerates in Afghanistan and [Bashar] Assad gives Israel the finger and the Hezbollah starts using those FROG-7s. Iranian cruise missiles and skyrocketing shipping insurance close the [Persian] Gulf and oil reaches $100 a barrel. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin gleefully rubs his hands over all the cash and regenerates his military. Only gods knows what will happen in the Far East. Sniveling over Israel's fear of the future Iran WMD [weapons of mass destruction] proves to be Radcliffe's true objective of the whole abortion, and shows that he, like Bush, is a lackey of the Zionist. And he even attempts to convince us that cheering crowds of flower-bearing Iranians await us since "60-70%" of the population despises [Grand Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei. I seem to remember hearing those same words one year or so ago in Iraq. If this is the scenario to his rhetorical question, "What will it take to keep the Israeli air force out of Iranian airspace?” the world better hope for a [John] Kerry victory in November.
Ernie Lynch
Skunk Hollow, Pennsylvania (Sep 22, '04)


Fareed Zahid [letter, Sep 21] hit a soft spot of not just [letter writers] Sri or Kannan, but a soft and sweet spot of every reader of Indian history. I happen to be one. Though I am glad to hear that you did not attend a madrassah, it seems you want to absorb a version of history that suits your thinking. I went to a Christian school with the same textbooks [as] every other institution in India. Reading about the Islamic invaders from Ghazni, Gauri [and] Tamer Lane and the destruction of temples such as Somnath and the carting of treasure from Hindu temples made the whole class silent. But the incredible tolerance and respect for other faiths of the Hindu majority in the class kept it quiet just as much. It is the same with the polity in India. There was no chanting of "death to the invaders". You accept that bad things happened to Hindu subjects, but without a diabolical plan to rid all Hindus. Though you are splitting hairs (determinism versus random theory), you get by with no evidence. In the same breath, without a shred of evidence, you make a claim that Hindu rulers were cruel to their subjects. For your information, the ruler of Travancore (a Hindu rajah) gave the Jews who landed there land and protection and the same to the Arab traders who landed there. The same goes for Tamil Muslims in Keela Karai. They had the generosity of Pandyas. The only historical explanation as to why the north of India is [bereft] of temples while the south of India abounds with them has to do with the Mughals' lack of reach there, in other words it did not fall within their annual strategic plan. Nevertheless, through stone cuttings we now know the Mughal mercenaries (such as Malik Kafur) pillaged the south as well. Go to Tirupati in India and you will see a stone cutting indicating where the deity with all of his ornaments from the temple of Sri Rangam (in Trichy) was lodged for several years to avoid the pillaging by Malik Kafur's men. There are numerous stories of Tipu and his father Hyder Ali's cruelty to the Hindu subjects in Karnataka around Seringapatnam. You challenge Kannan about the passages in the Koran. I don't see you objecting to the passages advocating death to non-believers. But yet you object to his request to ban the book. Would you tell us if you would stop from asking for a ban on a Hindu book that prescribes death to all non-believers? Of course you would, and you should, and I am sure Sri, Kannan and [I] would agree with that.
Dirty Dog
San Francisco, California (Sep 22, '04)


I have gone through the reply of Fareed Zahid [letter, Sep 21] expecting to find intelligent response with counter-arguments to prove his point. All I got in return was an evasive reply (brushing aside my questions as filth). How convenient. Fareed, I can also return the same compliment to your arguments. Whether you like it or not, the Koran does have some verses that are diabolical and abusive that need to be expunged in keeping up with modern times. The same verses are a source of inspiration for Islamic radicals worldwide who use them as a God-given right to indulge in criminal activities. When a religious book sanctions violence against non-believers, then there has to be a mechanism to curb this. What would happen if people of other faiths retaliated? After all, everyone in this planet has the right to live. When Mohammed Ali Jinnah raised a cry about "Islam in danger", not many believed him. Now his words appear to be true. The danger is not from people of other faiths, but the threat comes from within Islam. Nowhere else could one find gun-toting police patrolling [places] of worship as in Pakistan. Isn't it ironic that the Islamic radicals, while repressing Ahmadiyas, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs in their own back yard, jump to the street when a Palestinian finds injustice against Israelis thousands of miles away. Fareed, how can I be spewing hate when I reproduced your forefathers' work verbatim? Except in south Asia, nowhere in the world can one find converted people forced to abandon their cultural heritage by detaching them from their roots and trying to find a link with an Arab tradition. In addition, the converts in order to be accepted into the mainstream and to prove their identity start by debasing their own forefathers' religion as well. On the other hand, Egypt is a Muslim country that is at home with the Pyramids and the Sphinx. Similarly, Italy and Greece even after embracing Christianity cling to their archeological treasures as their heritage.
Kannan (Sep 22, '04)


I think Amit Sharma [letter, Sep 21] said it right that different well-intentioned people might look at historical events in India in different ways. But it's pointless to try to settle scores in hindsight. A quick Google search for Raja Raja Chola, [whom] I picked at random, says, "Under the rule of Raja Raja Chola, the Chola empire spread all over southern India, the Deccan, Sri Lanka, parts of the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra." Does this mean that present-day Hindus or Tamils owe reparations to people of those countries? Clearly, Indian Hindus need to exorcise some demons from the past, and I submit that the more important ones are the vestiges of socialism (with its instinctive suspicion of enterprise, and enterprising people), and Macaulayism (with its instinctive disdain for Indian heritage). Those of us who lived through Indira Gandhi's emergency and the "permit license and quota raj" can hardly believe the amazing transformations that India is going through now, and the degree of confidence and respect India is getting. For Indian Hindus to blame current-day Indian Muslims for historical events is not only the wrong target, but will also derail our current progress. This does not mean ignoring history, it means a clear-eyed acknowledgement that atrocities have indeed been committed in the past, and maybe use the Jewish/Israeli model of "never again". That is, Indians (Hindus) must build economic and military strength so that never again will our temples or cities be plundered by any outsiders, and so on, but not turn on people in our midst who may have once been outsiders, but are now one of us.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Sep 22, '04)


Well, this discussion is [too] dumb to even discuss, but of course in this world we have no dearth of stupids who still think that God exists and God sends some stupid person to Earth to preach some dumb shit to other human beings (or God itself comes to Earth). And here we have two holy warriors (educated for the sake of their holy gods) who are hitting at each other's soft spot. Do we actually have to hear from anyone else how dumb this whole idea of God is? So plzzz next time take this fight to some other place. And funny how people defend any shit so confidently, eg Fareed, is it untrue that Islam is a retrogressive religion? Hinduism (if a religion) is an ailing religion from the very beginning (though it has very slight chance to moving ahead). At the present time nothing beats Christianity (I am a Hindu and I am not going to convert). The way Christians have moved ahead with time is noteworthy. Maybe next time introspection will be better than telling others what horrors one religion has caused on another or on their own kin.
Nitin Shekhar
Cincinnati, Ohio (Sep 22, '04)


The Koranic verses [Richard] Radcliffe used [letter, Sep 20] to prove that Islam preaches killing are out of context and his shallow understanding is reminiscent of Osama bin Laden's own. Birds of a feather flock together indeed. I suppose it would be easier for Mr Radcliffe to kill if he convinces himself that he will be killed. I also suppose that Mr Radcliffe was led to this state of mind by serving mentally superior officers in the US Army who brainwashed him and added a new dimension of paranoia that mirrors the terrorist's thoughts. God created us in different shapes and colors for better reasons. If you don't know why, ask a child. If love is not the answer, then let it be fear. If you direct all your love to God, you will love all his creations. If you direct all your fear to God, you won't be afraid of anything else and will find a path to cross without sin. God said to Moses, "Thou shall not kill," and to Mohammed, "Killing one human life weighs the same as killing humanity." This rule will stay till the Day of Judgment and you will be punished for killing, even if you pushed a button to drop a bomb from an airplane because you were following orders, or even if you filled that airplane with gasoline. Imagine!
Luay (Sep 22, '04)


Spengler, you've been staring at your Ouija board too long [Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran, Sep 21]. I suggest you open the window and look outside instead. One of the first things you might notice is that the US doesn't have enough troops to hold Iraq, never mind to try to occupy an even larger country with almost three times as many people. Then there's the issue of oil. Iraqi oil production has already dropped off, raising the price of oil to much of the West. If Iran were destabilized and oil production there were threatened, it might be our economies that topple first. Sure, the US could blow up lots of buildings and destroy lots of infrastructure in Iran, but in the end we [the US] need a stable government there that can guarantee dependable oil production. And after Iraq, only a fool would think that is something the US could provide Iran. One unforeseen consequence of Iraq War II (at least by the Bushies) is that by destabilizing the Middle East and raising the price of a barrel of oil, we enrich countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, as we, the world's largest oil importer, get poorer transferring more of our money to them. The longer the Iraq war continues, the stronger and richer Iran gets at our expense. And invasion is not an option. Spengler, you say: "Personalities are less important than the layout of the chessboard. America's next move will be to break out of the stalemate in Iraq by widening the conflict." But it's not a stalemate - America's losing. And you assume the game our adversaries are playing is this tired version of 19th-century geopolitical chess, just because that's the game you think we're playing. In fact, [US President George W] Bush is playing checkers (and not even to win - to get kinged seems satisfaction enough for him), while our opponents have another game in mind altogether.
Russ Winter
Washington, DC (Sep 21, '04)


Spengler seems as lost as his heroes in the Bush war cabinet. If I understand him correctly (Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran [Sep 21]), he is suggesting that the Bush administration solve the tactical problem of having lost Iraq by "widening the conflict" by attacking Iran after the November elections. Let's see, the 150,000 troops the US has in Iraq can't stop the insurgency, and Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld has about another 50,000 or so scattered around the world to put to use in Iran. Hmmm. Are we to believe that the US air and artillery superiority will win a war that in the end has to be fought on the ground against and endless army of lightly armed insurgents? Just like in Iraq? And maybe the Shi'as in southern Iraq would join the US to fight against the Iranians. As usual, Spengler, like the Bushies, is living in an antiquated paradigm of war, and makes the other Bush mistake of thinking if he just wishes something hard enough it will be true. He should remember before offering Marshal [Ferdinand] Foch in 1914 as a model for the US in the Middle East, that Germany lost the war. And by the way, Spengler, the Russians were never coming.
David Sheegog
Paoli, Oklahoma (Sep 21, '04)


I have decided to change my past decisions not to comment on Spengler's commentaries. The reason is Spengler's latest, Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran [Sep 21]. Boxing terms have always struck me as symptomatic of basic human instincts to "feint and parry" as well as quite visually symbolic. Another reason to null-and-void my previous decision is the realization that Spengler's real "moniker" might be the same as that of the retired air force captain in Apple Valley, California. Given the theme expounded by Spengler (if that is his real name), present-day and future Americans will need the creation of a dual, if not multiple, budgets to fund the continued adventures under the banner of bringing democracy to all non-Judeo-Christian nations, especially the ones that "sit on" oil deposits. The most likely candidate after Iran then would be the Sudan.
ADeL (Sep 21, '04)


Spengler is correct that someone will attack Iran shortly [Bush, Marshal Foch and Iran, Sep 21]. But it may not be the United States all by itself. There is growing concern, as stated by Avi Dicther, the head of Shin Bet, that Hezbollah may transfer the Iranian equivalent of the Russian FROG-7 missile to the Gaza Strip after Israel evacuates the area. This would give the Iranian-sponsored and -directed terrorist group the ability to bombard almost all of Israel from either positions in southern Lebanon or positions in the Gaza. Should this happen, Israel may well consider its survival to be at stake and react in a very ugly manner. To prevent Israel's direct attack on Iran with conventional or possibly nuclear weapons, I would postulate that the United States would attack Iran and therefore continue to be the "Great Satan" for the region. This would also allow Israel to reserve its defensive power for local attacks on Hezbollah, Hamas et al, which it can do better than the United States. One of the alternatives to attacking Iran is to finally get rid of Bashar Assad, get Syria out of Lebanon, destroy the Hezbollah and other terrorist facilities in the Bekaa Valley, and remove the immediate threat from Israel's northern border. While Iran can send money and supplies via Egyptian territory through tunnels into the Gaza, this is nowhere as effective as having a direct presence on a border of Israel. Removing Syria from active participation in supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, as well as allowing the effective sealing of the Syria-Iraq border and the detention of former Iraqi officials now resident in Syria, makes this alternative to attacking Iran very attractive. We should all remember that while we [the US] have several divisions committed to assisting the Iraqi provisional government , we also have sufficient free forces to take on Syria. Nor would it require a lot of time or energy to reconfigure the divisions in Iraq for a strike right down the Baghdad-Damascus Highway. Then there are the Kurds who, besides hating the Syrian Arabs, would be happy to make Assad's life "fun" in return for the northeast corner of Syria to be part of Spengler's postulated Kurdistan. The Kurds would also be happy to add the northwest corner of Iran to that Kurdistan. Spengler mentions the large Shi'ite population in southern Iraq as being desirous of not being part of a united Iraq. While there is currently little love lost between Iraqi Shi'ites and Iranian Shi'ites, the thought of a Shi'ite theocracy including Iran, southern Iraq, Kuwait and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (80% Shi'ite) should make everyone nervous. That area comprises the majority of the oilfields in the Middle East. There then become strategic reasons other than the survival of Israel for an attack on Iran before it progresses much farther towards acquiring even rudimentary nuclear capability. We should also remember that the current mullahocracy of Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and associates is not popular with some 60-70% of the Iranian people. There is no shortage of Iranians who wish to stay in the modern world and not revert to the lifestyle of the 7th century. Therein lie the fertile seeds of an internal revolution which we would do well to promote as an alternative to open warfare. But perhaps the most important question to ask here is, "What will it take to keep the Israeli air force out of Iranian airspace?" The answer to that question may well determine the timing of Armageddon.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Sep 21, '04)


I write from Arctic Norway. Thank you for your essay [Turkey snaps over US bombing of its brethren, Sep 18]. I have a Persian friend who is all the time telling me that ethnic and territorial issues in Iraq are much, much, much more complicated than CNN or the US generally seem to understand, or even care to understand. Your essay very nicely clarified some of these issues.
Floyd Rudmin
Norway (Sep 21, '04)


[Re] Refocus on the big picture [Sep 17] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi. Your article deserves rebuttal. First with regard to the following: "What [Larry] Diamond and other like-minded pundits consistently overlook, for obvious political reasons, is that what happened on June 28 [in Iraq] was a transfer of administrative authority from one US hand, namely [Paul] Bremer's, to another US hand, namely the new US ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte." I thought the transfer was to [interim Prime Minister Iyad] Allawi and the Iraqi counsel. How is this wrong? And then it comes back to Israel again ... How do you get away with this stuff? "Yet the more Israel presses on this warmongering course of action ... the Israeli army's role in training prison interrogators in Iraq in 'mild methods of torture', which is sanctioned in Israel's own laws ... of Israel enjoying the nuclear blackmail of the Middle East ... spirit of the American republic increasingly infected by the virus of neo-colonialist expansionism exuded by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Likud branch of ideology ... The de-Likudization of US politics today is a sine qua non of retrieving the great republic from the brink of self-metamorphosis into a world-despised empire." Of course everything Israel does takes place in a vacuum, doesn't it? There is no legitimate reason for stopping terrorists from infiltrating Israel and bombing innocent people in buses. There is no reason whatsoever that Israel should have held the West Bank, since its borders were so wide that an Arab army would never have been able to cut it in half and crush it. There is no reason that Israelis elected Sharon, is there? After all, [Ehud] Barakh's initiative to return 98% of the West Bank and Gaza was so warmly received by the Palestinians and their Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat. And of course the Israelis have such a steadfast peace partner to negotiate with, don't they? After 50 years of Arab intent to wipe out Israel from the face of the Earth, don't you think the Israeli people would be a little fed up?
Stephen Scholle (Sep 21, '04)


I usually avoid debating with readers unless their response is thought-provoking. MC's letter of September 20 related to my article The clash of fundamentalists (Sep 11) belongs to that category. He is spot on in terms of describing secular fundamentalism or even fanaticism in Europe and elsewhere in the West. I have been witnessing it for many years in my travels and conversations with a number of Westerners. Mind you, these are good people; however, they are just as convinced about their moral absolutism and correctness as Christian fundamentalists or Islamists are regarding their respective moral position. That is one reason I gave the example of France's decision to ban hijab and other religious symbols from public schools. In all likelihood, those who wear those symbols are not fanatics. They are the believers in their respective faith; only they want to make their religious preferences known to others. There is nothing wrong with that, if we were to believe that all religions are in essence forces of virtue, and there is ample room for all of them to co-exist. Secular humanists, on the contrary, have their own bizarre brand of superciliousness, according to which everything (or almost everything), if it is not part of atheism, agnosticism, or strict separation of religion and politics, should be banned. When I examine this position, I find it not very much different from the type of fanaticism that the extremists of different religions are promoting. The funny part of it is that the secular humanists are virtually unaware of the rigidity and inflexibility of their own frame of reference. If you point out the aforementioned similarity, they refuse to accept it. They seem to be saying, We can never be fanatics about anything, not even about secular humanism! I even contend that France would not have been allowed to get away with the bizarre policy of banning the wearing religious symbols under different circumstances. However, in the environment post-September 11, 2001 - and especially since it was primarily done to ban an Islamic symbol, and other religious symbols were added only as an afterthought - they escaped the criticism and condemnation of a whole lot of fair-minded people of the world.
Ehsan Ahrari (Sep 21, '04)


The Turks threatened to respond to the bombing of Turkmen peoples. Would [they] do the same if the Kurds were bombed? The [Persian Gulf] countries sent aid, medicine and food to Sunni Fallujah after they were bombed, but did nothing when Shi'ite Najaf was bombed. The Shi'ites of Iran cried loudly for Najaf when it had its share of the bombing, but stood still when other cities were bombed. The pope condemned the bombing of the churches of Baghdad and the rest of the world condemned it with him, but not even one Christian condemned the bombing of the mosques of Iraq. France never cared about the blood spilled by the hour in Iraq, but was shaken when the two French journalists were abducted and showed anger. The world answered by patting the French on the back and offering their condolences, even though not a hair from the journalists' head was touched by their abductors while at the same time, a group of Nepali workers were butchered the same way animals are and no one said a single word. I thank the leaders of all nations and religious entities for clearing the picture and showing us that human [lives are] still bought and sold as if they were fish in the market. Just as Iraq carved the fundamentals of civilization before, now Iraq writes the lessons of humanity with its own blood. This war has exposed the stink of humanity, emptiness of human souls, deterioration of faith and falsity of beliefs.
Luay (Sep 21, '04)


At the risk of responding to the most unhinged poster on this forum, Joseph J Nagarya (letter, Sep 20), I do so only because of your [ATol's] "Amen" post following his letter. An American was beheaded by terrorists [this week] in Iraq, more specifically by members of a terrorist group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is a close associate of Osama bin Laden, and his ideology is nearly identical to bin Laden's. He is not a product of this war. He fought against the US in Afghanistan before moving to Iraq where he was the guest of Saddam Hussein. And while enjoying his refuge in Iraq before the war began, he masterminded acts of terrorism, including - to take just one example - the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan. I realize that ATol believes that Iraq is unrelated to the war on terrorism; in this respect ATol is dead wrong.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 21, '04)

How many Americans, Nepalis or other non-nationals were murdered in Iraq before the US took it over? How many terrorists were known to be active there two years ago, compared with now? - ATol


Re the ATol editor's comment upon my response to Dennis Castle [Sep 20]: the US has a glib saying: "Anything is possible." While that can have a constructive purpose, if not a surrender of critical thinking, it usually indicates that the person uttering it is both at a loss for anything further to say, and stubbornly unwilling to examine other points of view. Rarely is it replaced with "some things are not possible". Regardless undisciplined imagination, it would not be possible, given the limits imposed by reality, for the esteemed Richard Radcliffe to fly without an airplane. So "anything is possible" is a constant and convenient substitute for thought - the refusal to accept the limits of reason, evidence, and reality. Those limits have consistently been rejected by those bent at all costs upon invading and occupying Iraq. When, as example, Saddam Hussein was allegedly playing his WMD [weapons of mass destruction] "shell game" with weapons inspectors, the immediate conclusion to which jumped was that it "proved" he had WMD - even though, because of said "shell game", it was not possible to see such alleged WMD. Though the objective granted the possibility that it could mean he was hiding that which could not be seen, therefore for which there was no evidence - WMD - they also noted that it could mean he was intent upon persuading those who expressed fear of such weapons that they should not, therefore, attack. If a person points an unloaded gun - no one ever saw the alleged WMD - at another, then that other would probably jump to the conclusion that he is at risk of actually being shot by means of the unloaded gun. And, strategically, Iraq would have been well within reason to endeavor to persuade its enemy Iran - and even [US President George W] Bush - that it would be costly to attack. At the same time, weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq, searching, and finding no WMD, thus exposing Iraq's ploy for the hollow ruse it was. In reason there is a hierarchy marking out degrees of likelihood: impossible, the realm of [US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld's incoherent "an absence of evidence is not an absence of evidence"; possible, reasoned speculation not limited by fact or reality; plausible, reasonable but doubtful in view of fact and reality; [and] probable, reasonable prediction of the likely based upon fact and reality. Rumsfeld, in an interview on BBC TV broadcast to all Europe, said the US knew exactly where the WMD were stored. Certainly, in the first hours and days of the illegal invasion, those locations were scoured for the WMD which would without doubt be found. But they were not found because [they were] not where Rumsfeld knew without doubt they were. Shall we again join Rumsfeld on his incoherent merry-go-round? Because "anything is possible", we are now given the unsubstantiated grasping-at-straws fantasy that Saddam Hussein "hid" WMD proven not to exist in suspiciously convenient scapegoat Syria. And based upon that impossibility begins yet another string of unsubstantiated excuses for threatening to attack Syria next. (We are to ignore that the US does not have monetary or military means to do that - which does not mean the US will not do so anyway: flag-waving chickenhawk architects of disaster do not live, fight, and die in their disasters.) As the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was based on delusions and lies exposed as such by both investigations and realities on the ground, the reasonable are careful to remain within the limits of reason, fact, and reality. Reason dictates that, if one does not have WMD, then one cannot "hide" them in, as example, Syria. But that, for Bush and his supporters - who occupy the realm of impossibility and irrationality: that Bush is superhumanly incapable of error - is to accept and admit reality, thus surrender to the "negative", so they resort to yet another in the serial string of escapes therefrom. In short: "an absence of evidence" is just that: an absence of evidence. Iraq had no WMD, and there is no evidence that Hussein "hid" those non-existent WMD in Syria. The only substitute for that inconvenient set of facts is wishful thinking defeated by fact and reality, leading to wishful thinking defeated by fact and reality, and escaped from into yet another round of wishful thinking which will be defeated by fact and reality, at the cost of still more US and Iraqi lives - not including those of Bush and his gung-ho "anything is possible" illusionists.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 21, '04)

You write as though suspicion that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD was completely beyond the pale. As defenders of the Iraq invasion never tire of pointing out, he had possessed and used chemical weapons in the past and there was some evidence (albeit embellished by the rush-to-war crowd) that he had backed a nuclear-weapons program. Further to this, few - even the most bitter opponents of the US-led war - disputed that given Saddam's violent and paranoid nature, he was not the sort of dictator who would willingly disarm completely. - ATol


Firstly, thank you for publishing Sri's and Kannan's rebuttals (Sep 20) to my most recent letter [Sep 17]. Looks like I've really hit a soft spot with these guys. Goes to prove that whenever an Indian Muslim (by the way, Sri, I am not from Pakistan and neither was I educated there; I thank my stars for receiving first-class schooling from a Christian convent in India) resists being intellectually pushed around, the venom really starts spewing. To Sri: Your accusation that Muslims unceasingly went about "destroying thousands of Hindu temples in north and western India", partook in "forcible conversion of millions into Islam over centuries", and were "determined ... to destroy Hindu culture" is, sorry to say, absolutely spurious, and laughable were it not so serious. Obviously, I don't subscribe to the "VHP [Vishwa Hindu Parishad] History Digest" from where you get your daily dose of anti-Muslim propaganda, so I can't quite agree with your jaundiced version of the past. Now, if you read carefully, nowhere in my letters did I state that mistakes and atrocities did not occur under Muslim rule (as they did under Hindu rule as well - and let's not forget the Brits). All I said (and continue to say) is that there was never a diabolical "Islamic" plan to rid India of Hindus nor was there ever a concerted policy of genocide and mass conversions that went unchecked for a thousand years (boy, I am really getting tired repeating this like a mantra ... oops, no pun intended). If there were such schemes, I'd be writing this letter in response to "Abdul" and not "Sri", because Hinduism as we know if today would have ceased to exist. It's that simple. The audacity, my dear fellow, rests in the way you expect all Indians to subscribe to your version of history, where the advent of Islam and Christianity in India is invariably looked upon with such unbelievable disdain. By your standards, Indian Muslims, in particular, have to be ashamed and apologetic of their past, and dare not question the version of it that's stuffed down their throats. We have to accept mosques being torn down in Gujarat and Ayodhya (where, by the way, the evidence is questionable to this day whether a mosque was indeed built over a temple) only because your version of history suggests that's what our ancestors did, so here's payback time. What unadulterated hogwash! And whenever a Muslim stands up to critique the status quo, there comes that big stick of secularism. How hypocritically convenient. You guys have it good both ways, don't you? When things are not going your way, let's blame it on secularism; and when minorities start whining, shove that secularism card in their faces to shut them up. Give me a break! As for the Hindu caste system, I wasn't the first to drag it into this discussion (that dubious honor lies with our compatriot, Kannan), and I am certainly no one to tell you people how to rectify the horrors (yes, horrors) of your haunting history. But boy that topic sure did touch a brahmanical nerve in you, didn't it? To Kannan: your letter is not even worthy of a response. Your sentiment suggesting that the Koran should be banned is a clear indication that you need to be weaned off the prejudicial filth you've been raised on. Kindly sell your hate elsewhere. And one more thing: proof of genocide does not mean citing examples of Babar's inherent cruelty and intolerance or writing utter gibberish about jihad factories and the like. Such a paltry defense only highlights your desperation in trying to keep a failing argument alive. To Asia Times: Looks like I am beating a dead horse here and, consequently, will bow out of this fray. Thank you so much for entertaining my opinion. Till next time ... up, up and away!
Fareed Zahid
Waltham, Massachusetts (Sep 21, '04)


The debate between Fareed Zahid and those opposing him reminds me of the cliched saying that everything one says about India is true and the opposite is also true. Those who resent Muslims would like to believe that Islam spread in India (and everywhere else) through violence alone while Muslims themselves would like to pretend that no innocent blood has ever been shed by any Islamic cause. As usual the truth is somewhere in between; and as per the words of the historian Will Durant, if you try to walk down the middle of a road you will get hit by traffic going both ways. So at the risk of being hit by both sides I will say the following: the serious divisions between various Arab tribes seems to have made their monotheistic unification dependent upon the familiar principle of finding enemies to fight against. This is hardly unique to Islam: various countries and ideologies have gone through the same procedure - the most convenient example being post-Civil War USA. So the Arab armies swept through most of the Middle East and North Africa in a surge of expansion following the death of their Prophet, constantly seeking out new enemies to fight. What set India apart from the other regions conquered by the Arabs was its sheer size, and this made it a tough nut to crack - calling for tough measures (genocide?). Considering that the majority of India's population is lower-caste, if the caste system was as horrible as it was made out to be, Islam would have spread through India like wildfire instead of taking several centuries and still managing to convert only a quarter of the population. Logically, any invader will try to justify his presence by claiming that the natives are savages needing to be civilized. The more recent experience of natives in the New World highlights this. That the military expansion of Islam in some regions makes the religion itself intrinsically violent (causing some people to mention that the Koran deserves to be banned more than other books) is in my opinion a pretty illogical and stupid deduction.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (Sep 21, '04)


[In] my humble opinion, there is not much difference [between] radical and moderate Islam. The reason is that the radical wing is the actual voice of Islam whereas the moderate wing [is] those who wishes to live with others. When Mohammed was starting his so-called prophetic ministry, his teachings were moderate, but when he reigned supreme, his teachings were strict. That moderate face of Islam is an illusion that deceives the rest of the world to think that Islam is a benign religion. Islam means submission, in case you do not understand. It has a list of dos and don'ts. It also has laws, basically Arabic laws. It claims to have a divine commission to subject the people of the world to Allah's laws. But has anyone make a thorough study of their laws, whether they are universal, just and logical or otherwise? It has a subtle form of government that weakens and slowly dominates you. When they are weak as in Europe now, they ask for equal rights. Do you know what will happen in a society under Islamic rule? Have you heard the Sharia law: the testimony of a Muslim man equals to two Muslim women or infidels (unbelievers)? Do you know that society has to fund the construction of their places of worship, even for a private enterprise? Have the feminists considered the privileges of Muslim women? Imagine sharing your husband with other legally married women (of course, there are guidelines and so forth in polygamous marriage). Even by saying all these I could be charged with blasphemy. I believe Islam could be accommodated if they would renounce the death sentence to all who depart from Islam. Otherwise how could one have the freedom of believe if one is born in Islam and perpetuate future Islamic offspring? We must give due recognition to this matter. The Buddhists, Christians and Hindus have objected to the conversion of their kin to faith but they never resort to openly killing those converts. This I believe is the most important issue, but also the most difficult because there will be those Muslim zealots who are willing to die to kill all apostates (kafir, those who depart from the faith). I believe the West will lose in this struggle with radical Islam unless they can freely convert these Muslims to other faiths, or allow such measures to protect such converts and persecute those who kill in the name of their religion. For that matter Islam is very successful in their conversion of people of other faiths. If the present status quo is maintained, you can see that there is only one winner. As I said earlier, once you embrace Islam, you cannot depart from it except with the threat to your life. Let me end by saying that there will be exceptions amongst Muslim believers. There will be those who are rational, who will voice disapproval to certain things done in the name of Islam. But unfortunately, they are few even if they [exist at all], but they choose to keep silent. Remember September 11 [2001], how many Muslim leaders, mullahs, condemned it? Think about it. I think most say and still say that America deserved it. I hope the truth will prevail. I pray that the true and living God will prevail and will accomplish what He has purposed: that the individual right to have the freedom of conscience may be made available to all.
Observer (Sep 21, '04)


Richard Radcliffe (letter, Sep 20) makes the bold statement, "Jewish doctrine allows a permanent end to conflict ..." without providing us with a link or source of the statement. Reviewing Israeli history from 1948 onwards provides few clues to back up the statement, especially the Israeli misadventures in Lebanon in the '80s. Then the Captain contradicts himself by portraying the followers of the Prophet as killers by quoting several Suras and then stating, "The vast majority of Muslims are fine, peaceful people ..." Perhaps an e-mail transmission error truncated his explanation of why [US President George W] Bush is bombing these "fine, peaceful people". Mischievously, Radcliffe includes Iran's Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the list of fundamentalists but forgot to include many current Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. After all, remember the old Christian quote, "Kill them all, God will recognize his own." But I guess we have come a long way from the "[let him who is] without sin cast the first stone" times. The Captain's continuous attempts to portray a land and resource grab by the Judaic Christian fundamentalist as a moral crusade is becoming tedious, but I do thank him for the brevity of his [Sep 20] monologue.
Ernie Lynch (Sep 21, '04)


In response to the letter [Sep 16] from Claire M Lopez, I am reminded of a bit of wisdom my grandfather passed on to me. "You are born with intelligence ... and no amount of education or other exposure will alter the intelligence you possess." The letter from Ms Lopez seems to confirm that intelligence and education are very different indeed.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 21, '04)


Thank you, ATol, for another funny letter from Daniel McCarthy (Sep 14) regarding warnings delivered in person to Beijing by [US Vice President Richard] Cheney, [National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice and [6th Fleet commander Admiral Thomas] Fargo. Next in line will be the president himself and the Congress. That will surely add to the economy of the city. The last, effective person to deliver such warning should be Mr McCarthy himself.
Seung Li (Sep 21, '04)


Just to let you know that Asia Times is the first news source I go to daily, ahead of the Washington Post, NYT [New York Times] and BBC, etc. Thanks for providing thoughtful coverage.
Richard Trowbridge
Director, Transletix (Sep 21, '04)

[K Gajendra Singh:] What an excellent article [Turkey snaps over US bombing of its brethren, Sep 18] - the history you were so kind to write in was indispensable. I very much admire your work and always look forward to reading your articles - you are excellent! I am sad to admit to you that I am an American. I was aware of much of the evil this country had been doing through its covert operations, World Bank agenda, etc, but the Bushco regime has pushed us to new heights of mindless destructiveness - I hate what is happening now, to the point of tears. I am afraid, very afraid, of what the payback will be, for surely one is coming. Once more, thank you for all the insight and knowledge you have given me. Health and happiness to you and your loved ones.
Christina Kostoff
Chicago, Illinois (Sep 20, '04)


[Henry C K] Liu's series of articles about geopolitics in Iraq is fascinating and highlights much of of the history of the past 60 or years. His peculiar and distorted twist on events of that period is amusing and perhaps he is a worthy successor to Andrew Lang as a writer of fairy tales. In his latest chapter [Looking after the little man, Sep 17] he cites shipment of arms and technology to Iraq by the United States, the Soviet Union, Russia, Britain, France and Germany. However, I am puzzled as to why he omitted reference to sales of the same materiel by North Korea and China. The Scud missile technology that Iraq used against Israel during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait wasn't imported from any of the Western countries that Liu so likes to attack.
Robert A McCallister
Winchester, Virginia (Sep 20, '04)


Re Richard Radcliffe's letter to the editor [Sep 17] in answer to the article Refocus on the big picture [Sep 17]: Thank you, Asia Times Online, for pointing out to Mr Radcliffe that [his statement] "'Muslims cannot have non-Muslims as personal friends' is true only for a radical minority ..." I am an American who has many Muslim friends from Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria. The hospitality and warmth I received from the family I visited in North Africa was an experience I will never forget. A friend is a friend is a friend.
Marina Mecl
Munich, Germany (Sep 20, '04)


[Re ATol comment under Richard Radcliffe letter, Sep 17] Thank you very much for reminding me that there are two sides to every controversy. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have clean hands and the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang were as much terrorists as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, et al on the Islamic side. However, Jewish doctrine allows a permanent end to conflict and Islamic doctrine does not. As long as Islam insists in dividing the world into Dar-al-Islam (the "lands" of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb (the "lands" of war), then there is very little chance for peace. As long as the Koran speaks of killing unbelievers ("... slay the idolaters wherever ye find them ..." Sura IX:5; "I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads, and then strike off from them every fingertip," Sura VIII:12) and speaks of punishing those Muslims who fail to fight ("If you do not fight, He [Allah] will punish you severely, and put others in your place," Sura IX:39), there are only two ways for the current conflicts to end. Either Islam will change sufficiently that it can accommodate other civilizations as equals or Islam must perish. As long as Koranic scripture requires Muslims to treat members of the other "revealed" religions (Judaism and Christianity) as either dhimmis (second-class citizens in their own countries with no rights) and requires conversion to Islam or death from members of other religions, there will be conflict. The question at the moment is: "[In] which direction is Islam going?" The vast majority of Muslims are fine, peaceful people who wish for the same things as other humans: a better world for their children. But there are those fundamentalist Islamofascists who see the world only in Koranic terms, as there are fundamentalists in other religions. But the other major religions of the world no longer propound war (jihad) as a means of propagating their values and enforcing them on their fellow countrymen. It is the fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Musab al Zarqawi, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameni, and others who will end up bringing down massive death and destruction upon their civilization. Unless the Islamic world wants to see itself evaporate in nuclear fireballs, it had best learn to control those who will incite the rest of the world to war upon it.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Sep 20, '04)


I am a Canadian (of Caribbean descent) living in the USA. Having traveled a lot and, being an avid reader, I tend to see the mainstream media here [in the US] as inadequate for my needs and wants of reliable, unbiased information. Therefore, I have always sought news from a large group of mainly "foreign" organizations, Asia Times Online being one of them. However, reading Mr Spengler's article [Why Americans love George W Bush, Sep 14] made me realize that no matter how bad the US behaves, attitudes towards racial and ethnic minorities are still better here than in most places. He (Mr Spengler) states at some point that crime statistics for gun violence are somewhat [skewed] by the propensity of certain minority groups to commit these acts. Everyone could easily infer whom he was referring to. I would just like to remind or inform the Asia Times and Mr Spengler that it has been proved more than a decade ago by the US Census Bureau that the greatest predictors of "blue collar" crime are and have always been gender, age and socio-economic class. When adjusted for socio-economic class, black and Hispanic crime statistics line up 100% to that of the general population. I know of very few black millionaires (yes, there are quite a few of them, and not athletes and entertainers either) or just "middle class" who go out to shoot the local convenience store or for that matter Hispanic PhDs or just university-educated with a penchant for gun violence. I am just being fair across the board and usually am the first to decry "Asian bashing" when the shoe is on the other foot. May I suggest that your website be more vigilant to thinly veiled bigotry when it creeps up in one of its writers' articles - I'd hate to see black/browns looking at Asians and vice versa through the lens of inherited attitudes that now even in the US would not be acceptable.
Jean-Bernard Thesee (Sep 20, '04)


I thoroughly enjoyed Spengler's article Why Americans love George W Bush [Sep 14]. Spengler really hit the nail on the head. Making those disparaging remarks about Republicans sure got a bunch of those fat people to write in protest letters. You struck at them as they strike out at their political rivals, and they all bit hook, line and sinker. Enjoyed reading all the letters from the upset fat, pro-war, Christian, right-wing types. "Pro-war Christian" - that is a misnomer, but we have a lot of them in the [United] States. Keep up the good work.
Bob (Sep 20, '04)


[Re] No one expects the Spanish Inquisition [Jun 22]: As I read the article (very articulate but vastly incorrect), I pause and wonder, how does this site have the audacity of even putting this up? It's just embarrassing to continue reading it, but yet I continue. And the most striking manner written is its non-ambiguous nature of writing. As I major in economics and other social-studies fields, I disagree in its utmost meaning. Because firstly, the Spaniards (and I'm not Spanish) have a relatively high living standard, which is about the same as South Korea's. And the reason for its low birthrate (which is almost identical to the rest of Europe, ie, Italy, France) is because - let me see - having lots of kids is not a Western desire! And anyway, I think it's an intelligent cultural change, not necessarily very good for economics, but in a more personal manner. All the poor nations in the world have families with four to nine kids cramped in a small home. But as I read that particular statement ("infertile hedonists of today whose only claim to fame is the world's lowest birthrate"), I [told] myself, this must be an incorrect cultural assessment. I'm aware that Asia has the highest birthrates and so on, but yet this site that allowed this article to be posted should generally be embarrassed. But maybe the demand is there, and your readers love the taste, but please do not sacrifice good intelligent press for a few bucks. I can literally go on forever, but yet I must leave now, because I have successfully vented my uncomfortable feelings.
Mike (Sep 20, '04)


In reply to JW of Australia [letter, Sep 16], possibly Ehsan Ahrari [The clash of fundamentalists, Sep 11] is suggesting that secular humanists display all the characteristics of religious proselytizers in the way they attempt to propagate their belief system. Try discussing moral matters with a contemporary Swede, Dutchman or Englishman, and you will find the same confidence in the supremacy of their belief system, the same intolerance and ignorance of other belief systems, and, if you dig a bit, you will also find that the foundations of their arguments are just as tenuous as the supposition not only of the existence of God, but of what He's like and what He wants. Note that I'm not saying the secularists are wrong (you would need 1,000 years to judge that fairly), just that their attitudes and approach are the same as any other missionary's, and therefore just as vulnerable to the charge of fundamentalism.
MC
Australian in Sweden (Sep 20, '04)


[Dennis] Castle [letter, Sep 17]: It is astonishing that a person so focused on the Bush disaster in Iraq is so unaware of facts known for years before that illegal invasion and occupation, and since confirmed by US senators, and [President George W] Bush's own "expert" on Saddam Hussein's phantom WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. There are no reasonable means by which to persist in your lack of awareness in effort to perpetuate the falsification-advanced delusions upon which Bush acted:
1. "Can anyone doubt [Saddam Hussein's] earlier willingness to use illegal weapons or associate with those who commit mass murder for political purposes?" Not only can one not doubt Hussein's willingness to use illegal weapons to allegedly "gas his own people", but one also cannot doubt his association with the Reagan-Bush Sr-Rumsfeld axis which willingly supplied Hussein weapons before, during, and after he allegedly "gassed his own people". Nor doubt the obvious fact that that association resulted in the commission of mass murder for political purposes.
2. "ATol, along with many of the posters in this forum, will be surprised/dismayed in the upcoming US election by the number of Americans convinced that Saddam Hussein fit that description [of mass murderer] (regardless of his direct involvement with the events of [September 11, 2001])." The effectiveness of Bush's intensive application of the "Big Lie" that Hussein was (1) directly or indirectly behind or connected to the September 11 attacks has yet to transform "Big Lie" into truth, as the refutation of that lie by the 9-11 Commission - a non-connection Bush himself admitted - has made clear, and (2) the additional lie that secularist Hussein was associated in any way with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or any other Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. The actual facts both refute those lies and are affirmed, yet again, by the commission: Osama bin Laden had for years prior to September 11 [2001] made loudly clear that he wanted secularist Saddam Hussein overthrown and replaced with a theocratic government along the lines of that in Iran. You may not have been listening, but Hussein was, and as he - a secularist - and the Islamist fundamentalist terrorists were mutual enemies, he was not so stupid as to even consider giving weapons to those who would use them on Hussein himself. Those are sufficient reasons for the fact - as affirmed by the commission - that there was no connection between Hussein and either the September 11 attacks, or between [him] and such as Osama bin Laden.
3. "Your response to Mary McLemore that the 1,000 [sic] deaths of of US servicemen in Iraq is 'folly' makes sense only if it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein could have shared his poison with terrorists. The sacrifice of those soldiers means that we will never need to learn the answer to that horrible question." And as detailed above, with the affirmation of the commission, it is exactly that: "inconceivable that Saddam Hussein could have shared" his non-existent WMD with terrorists who were bent on overthrowing Saddam Hussein - a task accomplished for them by Bush, the direct result of which is the destabilization sought by Osama bin Laden. And though you may have yet to "learn the answer to that horrible question", that answer was delivered in part by the commission, and in part by [former US weapons inspector] David Kay: there were no connections between mutual enemies non-suicidal secularist Saddam Hussein and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and Saddam Hussein had no WMD to give to anyone.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 20, '04)

The fact that no WMD have been found does not guarantee that they did not exist, or that the Saddam Hussein regime did not stash some weapons somewhere, possibly outside Iraq, before the US invasion, as Dennis Castle suggested. If they do exist, then they might well be more dangerous now than when they were under Saddam's control - yet another potential legacy of a war driven more by ideology and vengeance than by sound intelligence and planning. - ATol


Fareed Zahid [letter, Sep 17] shows breathtaking audacity in claiming that Islam did not savage India over the past 10 centuries. He falls into the pattern of every rent-a-crowd expert on Hinduism (intellectually lazy and biased Westerners, motley groups of Indian socialists, communists and pseudo-secularists) when he blames the caste system for the "untold horrors it unleashed". When all else fails, blame everything in India on the evils of casteism - you know the self-flagellating Hindu mind will accept it. The charge of genocide under Islamic rule needs to be proved to this high-minded gent.That takes the cake. I guess the rape and pillage of sacred Hindu pilgrimage centers in Kasi, Varanasi, Mathura, Ayodhya and thousands of other temples in north and western India, forcible conversion of millions into Islam over centuries, razing entire cities to the ground, determined attempts to destroy Hindu culture, forcing Hindus to pay more taxes, all of which are well chronicled, and the marks of which are visible all over India, are a lesser evil compared to the caste system in Hinduism which according to him is the main culprit. And I won't even go into the persecution of Sikhs by Islam in India. Fareed, did you go to school in Pakistan? Your knowledge of history is refreshing. I am sure the "precious" contribution culturally (forcibly imposed) makes up for all the genocide. And more. When one mosque was pulled down in Ayodhya, built at a site revered by Hindus, Islamists were outraged. Strange that Fareed is not able to relate to similar anger and hurt in many Hindus who see stark evidence of Islamic monuments standing at the site of their revered temples all over the country. Or does he believe that Islam has a monopoly on outrage? Sunnis and Shi'ite Muslims are at each others' throat in the Middle East and Pakistan. Ahmedias are considered non-Muslims and persecuted in Pakistan. Bangladesh split from Pakistan because Bengali Muslims were considered "inferior" and not fit to partake in government. Sure, Islam is an equal religion. And Hinduism isn't. India is secular because only because a majority of the people are Hindus. No amount of fanciful argument can deny this basic fact. Muslims in India enjoy separate rights (polygamy, inheritance rights, etc) more freedom (if they don't take advantage of it to better themselves, that is their problem) and genuinely equality under the constitution from Day 1. Even America, that "beacon of freedom and democracy", did not constitutionally do away with segregation until modern times. Islam does not tolerate any non-Muslim and such an outlook has religious sanction. The easiest way to discredit someone is to demonize him. If a Hindu stands up for himself or protests against discrimination, then he is a "fascist","intolerant" or "fundamentalist". I think it irks people like Fareed, so used to dealing with pacifist Hindus, the cropping up of organizations that stand up for Hindus and retort in kind to the rhetoric from Islamists. Only in India can Muslims vote to partition India and still make India the second-largest Muslim country. Only in India can a serving secretary to the government of India, Wajahat Habibullah, go abroad and argue for the partition of India and not be remonstrated for his treacherous act ...
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 20, '04)


This letter is in reply to Fareed Zahid (see the letters below) who had asked for proof for the murders by Muslim invaders [of India] in the medieval era. I have just read the writings of one of the famous medieval invaders and founder of Mughal dynasty, Babar. I would like to share some of contents of the book that will clearly answer the questions that he had raised. In the memoirs (translated by John Leyden and William Erskine), Babar repeatedly mentions putting to the sword the men (the Hindus) and sending them to "hell" (a term repeatedly used by the invader for the slaying of the infidel), and women were reduced to slavery. Even the poor peasants were "put to [the] sword" (the frequent occurrence of this word in the book makes one wonder whether Babar and his army enjoyed this horrible act). Plundering and laying waste of the country [are] the often-used tactics to intimidate the enemy and subdue him. In fact under the command of his son, Humayun, he had ordered a series of plundering expeditions. The war with the pagan Rana Sangha is termed "holy". I do not know what is "holy" about this war, let alone any war. Every time Rana Sangha is mentioned in the book the word "pagan" accompanies it. Fareed, these are taken from the autobiography of Babar. When the perpetrator himself admits this, I do not know why Muslims in India have difficulty in acknowledging these horrible acts of terror. Babar never hesitates for a moment and thinks about the plight of the opponents. He himself inspected heads of his enemies as trophies of victory. I am not sure if Babar ever valued the human life (other than his and his son's) that God bestowed on this planet. There is also an incident that further illustrates his savage demeanor. Once when he fell ill because of the food that he had taken, he immediately ordered the killing of his cooks (each one of them [was] executed in horrific fashion; trampled by elephants, roasted alive, etc). Any respect that I had for Babar initially just evaporated away after I read his memoirs. I feel he is no different from Osama bin Laden and his bloodthirsty jihadists. One wonders why these murderers, hijackers, and suicide bombers are projected as the poster-boys of Islam. Why don't the respected religious scholars of Islam ostracize these bad elements openly? Those who commit disgusting criminal acts in the name of religion are honored, but if Salman Rushdie writes a book with a differing view on the Prophet, then immediately a fatwa is issued. If there is one book that needs to be banned, then I think it must be Koran. In the entire human history no other book lead to so much hatred and human misery as Koran. Some of the verses in it are openly anti-Semitic and preach/justify violence against infidels. This book inspired the past invaders [and the] current killings and certainly will cause violence in future given the huge jihad factories in the Muslim world. If Fareed takes some care in reading before jumping to a conclusion he will realize that I have never made a statement that the caste system is eliminated in India. Of course, it dates back to the pre-Muslim era and continues today. But since establishing educational institutions in India, literacy has dealt a solid blow to this system by making multiple job choices for the outcastes as well as backward people. Now one can find Dalit lawmakers, medical professionals [and] administrators, and even the highest office in India, the president, was a Dalit. However, the caste system still plays a crucial role in social aspects (marriage, for example, since most of the matrimonial alliances fixed by the parents and family are often based on caste).
Kannan (Sep 20, '04)


Henry [C K Liu]'s latest instalment [The burden of being a superpower, Sep 17] is pure brilliance and a very enjoyable read too. I salute Liu and ATimes.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Sep 17, '04)


[Re] The burden of being a superpower [Sep 17]: One cannot but conclude after reading [Henry] C K Liu's extensive overview that Seneca said it best when he stated that "a person that is feared by many [individuals] must also live in fear of many". Again kudos to ATol and HCK for contributing to an understanding of the early dynamics of the 21st century. The question that HCK Liu does not address is whether the US is capable of choosing the high road. I hope we do for our and our children's sake.
Armand De Laurell (Sep 17, '04)


[Kaveh L] Afrasiabi [Refocus on the big picture, Sep 17] and others should note the basic condition for peace between Arabs and Israelis: Israelis stop dying. The United States did its best at Wye River to cause there to be a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Prime minister [Ehud] Barak reportedly was willing to give Chairman [Yasser] Arafat almost everything he wanted, except the surrender of the State of Israel. That was before September 11, 2001. The good doctor [Afrasiabi] should also remember that it was the British Foreign Office that cobbled Iraq together out of the remains of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. They did a very poor job and ensured that there would be continuing turmoil [among] Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites. We are living with the consequences. One of those consequences is that even after 84 years as a nation, there is no loyalty to the country of Iraq but to one's family, tribe, clan or religious grouping. So now the various sub-groups in Iraq are doing exactly what Arabs have been doing even before Mohammed proclaimed his religion: fighting among themselves. It didn't take very long after the death of Mohammed for various clan groups to go back to fighting among themselves for land and power, something the Koran expressly forbids: Muslim must not kill Muslim. Perhaps the solution to the problem is for a great tide of national self-determination to occur. Then the Kurds could have their Kurdistan. We could split up Sudan between the rival tribal and religious groups and stop that conflict. The same could happen in Nigeria, or Liberia, or in any other "country" whose territorial boundaries were drawn by the respective Foreign Offices of the colonial powers. It might take a while for new maps to be drawn but eventually the world would get used to the changes. But then the Kurds would want about a third of what is currently Turkey, and we have seen over the last 20 years or so how well that would go over. I'm sure the same is true in the other areas. Maybe realigning boundaries would bring peace. But I believe not. Like it or not, the Middle East is now pretty well stuck with the national borders as they exist. But the crisis in Iraq is in no way related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Attempts by Middle Eastern countries and groups to link the two are spurious at best. The Arab-Israeli conflict is based more upon the Koranic injunction that the area we call the Middle East must forever be Islamic. This is especially true of Jerusalem, as this is where Mohammed supposedly made his "night journey" to wherever and talked to whomever. Unfortunately, the Dome of the Rock ... is built in the same place as the last Jewish temple. The only remaining part of that temple, the "Wailing Wall", is the most important Jewish historical and religious artifact in existence (unless someone knows where the Ark of the Covenant is). If you wish to connect the two conflicts, then it must be a religious connection. Both are related to driving the "infidel" out of Islamic lands. This being the case, no amount of diplomacy will settle these conflicts. Even a treaty of peace under Islam can only last 10 years. Therefore, the permanent settlement of these conflicts must be based upon one civilization conquering another. While the other major cultures of the world can co-exist reasonably well, the same cannot be said with respect to Islam. If Muslims cannot have non-Muslims as personal friends, how can we expect Islamic nations to get along with non-Islamic nations? When we figure this problem out, then maybe we will have peace in the Middle East.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, US Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Sep 17, '04)

Your last point that "Muslims cannot have non-Muslims as personal friends" is true only for a radical minority. Your main point about the religious roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict is well taken, but you present only one side, the role of Islam. On the other side, the movement responsible for the very existence of the modern State of Israel, Zionism, is rooted in biblical teachings about the "Promised Land" of the Jews. - ATol


[Adam] Wolfe's China takes the lead in strategic Central Asia [Sep 17] clearly neglects the rising Russian-Central Asia trade and cooperation as is evident in the Russian advance into the Kazakh and Uzbek telecommunications markets, Russian gas and oil contracts with Uzbekistan, Russian purchase of the bulk of Turkmen gas, billions of dollars sent to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan from their citizens working in Russia, just to name a few. China also has nowhere near the military presence of Russia in Central Asia. And on top of it all, A Wolfe neglects the "multi-headed" nature of a state, especially a Russian state: just because there are issues at home, or in the Caucasus or somewhere else, in no way means that Russia will not have the attention, political will and influence to retain and expand its role in Central Asia. And while the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] is not dominated by China, China needs it more than Russia, which has the CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization].
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (Sep 17, '04)


Yu Bin's article Hu-Jiang struggle: Not a shooting war [Sep 16] postulates that China will create a crisis in the Taiwan Strait because China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) will see Taiwan "as a key component of a de facto military alliance against China, and as a ready platform from which to launch military strikes on China's vital political, economic and population centers". If Yu Bin is correct in his belief, then thinking in the PLA has come full circle back to 1950s ideology when Taiwan was seen as an unsinkable aircraft carrier from which the US will attack China. That would seem to contradict Yu Bin's thesis that the PLA has been depoliticized during the past 25 years. It is also strong evidence that paranoia and irrationality are running rampant throughout both Chinese military and political thinking. What could possibly be more irrational for a nation (China) than to start a war against its top three investors (Taiwan, Japan, USA) and its top two markets (USA, Japan)? But rationality does not seem to play a role in much of China's thinking these days, with Taiwan being seen as a "breakaway province" even though it was Mao Zedong who formed a new nation on October 1, 1949, that did not include Taiwan. Nor does talk about Taiwanese "moves toward independence" make any sense, since Taiwan is already independent in all respects. Words on paper, such as scrapping the name "Republic of China" in favor of the more aptly descriptive "Taiwan", are not a threat to China and are not a legitimate cause for war, especially since the People's Republic of China refers to Taiwan as "Taiwan" anyway, not as "Republic of China".
Daniel McCarthy (Sep 17, '04)


Regarding you article Census snafu highlights Indian rift [Sep 15]: The author [implies] that Sikhs are involved in sex selection of fetuses, given the low female-to-male ratio according to the 2001 Indian census. In Sikhism men and women are equal. Sikhs have had women priests for over 400 years. Women fought alongside men during the [Mughal] tyranny. The founder of the Sikh religion, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, stated that "those who give birth to kings, poets and prophets are not inferior". During the 1980s and '90s many Sikhs emigrated abroad, mainly to the US and Canada. Their male children travel to Punjab, India, in order to choose a wife. The Sikh population has declined in India according to the census. This is partly due to emigration and an increase in literacy. Sikhs in India enjoy a 70% literacy rate and are generally more prosperous than other ethnic groups. Evidence from developed countries indicates that an increase in prosperity and literacy have an effect on birthrates. Apart from this one lapse, I find your paper informative and look forward to reading it every day.
T Ghattaura
Paris, France (Sep 17, '04)


While I agree with your other letter-writers that Richard Ewing's What the neo-cons can't tell Americans [Sep 14] is just nonsense - it doesn't even mention Israel - I'd have to disagree with letter-writer David Little's assertion [Sep 14] that Paul Wolfowitz is not a gifted intellectual because Michael Moore caught him putting his comb in his mouth. I'd say rather that this act proves that he's a true American, willing to swallow anything. That said, I'd like to go out on a limb and try my hand at What the neo-cons can't tell America: There [are] about 4 million Israeli Jews - less than 0.1% of the world's 6 billion people. There [are] 300 million Arabs - about 5% - and 1.3 billion Muslims, more than 20%. The Muslim population is growing at 3.5-4% annually, which means 40 million to 50 million more Muslims each year, while the Israeli Jewish population of 4 million isn't growing at all. Additionally, there [are] no appreciable natural resources in Israel, while an enormous amount of the world's resources is in Muslim-controlled countries. This is not a sustainable long-term position for Israel. Its survival strategy seems to be to exploit the US's (brief) status as sole world superpower and, through the machinations of the neo-cons, drag the US into a crusade against Islam. After what we've seen in Iraq, trying to impose our will on 25 million of the 1.3 billion Muslims (that's just 2%) at enormous expense - in lives, dollars, and prestige - it isn't going to work. Instead it'll drag the US deeper and deeper into a hole it'll never get out of. The neo-cons have successfully conflated the fate of Israel with the fate of the US, with little public debate and no explanation other than that each is a "democracy". That one is a 400-year-old enterprise of 300 million people and the other the last Western colonial gambit of an already-ended Imperial Age that exists for a relative handful hardly seems to matter. What would be a successful outcome for the neo-con strategy? Certainly not Democracy and Freedom ringing throughout the Muslim world - that's much too expensive for the US even to entertain. Instead, I imagine they're happy to settle for chaos, anarchy and civil war so that the Muslim and Arab worlds can never present a unified front to confront Israeli expansion, and the US can expand its bases into these soon-to-be-failed-state regions. Their strategy seems to be to reshape much of the world into a 21st-century Wild West, where Muslims get to play the Indians and we play the Good Guys. It should come as no surprise that not everyone wants to go along with that - because everyone's seen the movie and knows how it ends.
R Winter
USA (Sep 17, '04)


That letter writers take Spengler's views of the US [Why Americans love George W Bush, Sep 14] seriously is pathetic. Were they to stop and think, they'd recognize that he hasn't a clue on that point; rather, he is projecting his political ideology of that which the US "should" be in hopes that will overtake and subjugate the reality. Exactly as do Bush and the other neo-con[artists]. Contra Bush and Straussian neo-con[artists], US democracy requires an electorate informed of facts and truth; informed instead by practiced, professional liars, democracy perishes. And contra Spengler, the core of US democracy is not "Christian" "morality" - or more generally, "religion"; it is the right of individual conscience, thought, belief, and speech - including the right to believe that which most offends "Christian" "morality", "atheism". Spengler should take a break from his spotty, selective readings in philosophy of only those he hopes support his views (none of whom appear on the US Founders' "Recommended Reading" lists) - and dropping their names in effort to impress the uninitiated - and switch to studies in psychology, and there discover the consequences for delusion when reality refuses to submit, no matter how "clever" and convoluted the rationalizations, and regardless how much military might is behind the effort to dictate reality into conformity with the delusions. And while doing that he should endeavor to avoid falling into the traps set by such political operatives as B F Skinner and the other anti-"subjectivist" behaviorists, with the revealing exceptions of the stoicist "Bio-Behavioral" and "Rational Emotive" schools. He is also encouraged to ask why psychology, if a science, cannot agree on first principles, but instead as a matter of course blithely asserts, under numerous name-brand banners, "scientific" first principles which are antithetical from one school to another. The latter is not an effort to change the subject, but rather to "trick" True Believer Spengler into a self-critique of his imperfect ideas which is wholly lacking, and which, honestly pursued, would result in a humility which has been to date non-existent.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 17, '04)


In The clash of fundamentalists (Sep 11), [Ehsan] Ahrari shows a serious misunderstanding of Christian beliefs. He states that Christians believe that "... Christ can only land in a 'safe' area near Jerusalem". In fact, we believe that Christ, as the omnipotent Son of God to whom has been given all power in heaven and on Earth, can land anywhere He wants.
Dennis Moran (Sep 17, '04)


In responding to Kannan ([letter] Sep 16) once again, I am amazed at how he misinterprets and contorts what I have said in my letters thus far. Firstly, Kannan, the onus to prove the charge of genocide under Islamic rule rests with you and other like-minded individuals who accuse Muslims of committing these unspeakable crimes. I ask you again, where is the proof that, for a thousand years, Hindus by the thousands (or millions) were rounded up and put to the sword? This is a serious accusation and, in response, your complaint about Hindus not being fairly represented in government et al is indeed a very, very poor defense of it. And you continue to babble about India's lost glory during medieval times, as though Muslims brought nothing other than misery and a few monuments to the proverbial table (never mind their innumerable contributions to the arts, architecture, governance, language, culture and, dare I say, religion). I found your linkage between the decline of education and the caste system particularly laughable; pray, how in the world are Muslims to blame for that? Granted that the Mughals may not have set up great universities or other scholarly institutions, but to blame them for the continuance of one of India’s greatest injustices, the Hindu caste system and the untold horrors it unleashed, is ludicrous. The entrenched caste system and its concept of untouchability predates Islam by thousands of years, and yet, amazingly, you somehow manage to link the two. Even in the modern, relatively educated India of today, Hinduism's casteism is very much alive and kicking; how do you explain that? Kannan, it seems you are the one mired in the ideological/theological mindset that you conveniently accuse me of harboring. If India, as a democracy, has to be open about its past (as you so eloquently suggest), let’s first start with the past that predates Islam. There are plenty of skeletons in that cupboard to keep all of us busy for a while. And when the BJP/RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal/Shiv Sena and it legions of hatemongers come clean about their bloody 5,000-year history and their continuing fascistic pogroms vis-a-vis all things non-Hindu, we Indian Muslims will re-re-examine ourselves and declare, once again, that mistakes were made, but none that should cast us in a light different than anyone else. And then we can all move on, including the Parsis.
Fareed Zahid
Waltham, Massachusetts (Sep 17, '04)


I understand and respect the view of ATol that Saddam Hussein was not a legitimate threat to the United States (response to my letter, Sep 15). However, please recall that in the first Gulf War that Saddam moved all his fighter planes to a neighboring country instead of using them to face the US Air Force. Is it possible he used a similar tactic with his illegal weapons? ATol may feel that the blood and expense of removing Saddam Hussein was too high, but can anyone doubt his earlier willingness to use illegal weapons or associate with those who commit mass murder for political purposes? Your response acknowledged that America has the right to defend itself from legitimate threats (thank you) and ATol, along with many of the posters on this forum, will be surprised/dismayed in the upcoming US election by the number of Americans convinced that Saddam Hussein fit that description (regardless of his direct involvement with the events of [September 11, 2001]). Your response to Mary McLemore that the 1,000 deaths of US servicemen in Iraq is "folly" makes sense only if it is inconceivable that Saddam Hussein could have shared his poison with terrorists. The sacrifice of those soldiers means that we will never need to learn the answer to that horrible question.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 17, '04)

Of course it is possible that Saddam had dangerous and illegal weapons that he planned to use against the US, Britain, Israel, the Marshall Islands or whomever, and hid them in Syria or the vault in his Swiss bank or in his mistress's boudoir or wherever. Anything is possible. The point is that under the traditions of global peace espoused by most civilizations outside the US, mere speculation/wishful thinking about possibilities is not considered valid grounds for one strong country invading and conquering a weaker one and taking over its resources. - ATol


Your comments to Dennis Castle's letter [Sep 15] said that "very few contributors to this page, and few if any writers of Asia Times Online articles, have argued that the US does not have the sovereign right to defend itself from legitimate threats". However, very few letter or article writers treat China the same. That includes Dennis Castle himself.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 17, '04)

In fact, several letter writers take a very similar position to yours on the China-Taiwan issue and they are routinely published, as are articles by Chinese writers who, while refraining from radical rhetoric and insupportable accusations, sympathize generally with your pro-unification view. That being said, it would appear that you, like Dennis Castle, choose to extend the definition of "defense" to lengths not recognized by others. - ATol


I am a Brazilian correspondent in Israel. [I] am sending you these few lines just to express my respect and appreciation for your first-rate online newspaper. I cover for Zero Hora, head paper of a chain, and UltimoSegundo@ig.com, a portal. For your high professionalism you deserve praise, though [one might be] not always in agreement with what you say, for the way you say it.
Nahum Sirotsky
Tel Aviv, Israel (Sep 17, '04)


After reading Spengler's latest monograph [Why Americans love George W Bush, Sep 14] I was straining at the leash and biting the bit in anticipation of the coming comments from the estranged and sorely agitated readers I knew were sure to follow. I was not disappointed the morning of [September] 15 when I popped into the readers' [Letters] section and found a smorgasbord of commentary ranging from banal to the deeply aggrieved and outraged. Of the seven samplings, ol' Spengler scored six bull's-eyes without breaking a sweat. Only Mr Roostercockburn's retort demonstrated the mental acuity and spot-on counter-analysis [needed] if one dares to duke it out with the views of the agile and sprightly Mr Spengler. I have never enjoyed my coffee better and I thank Asia Times, Mr Spengler and Mr Roostercockburn too for the interesting dialogues and a very stimulating morning.
Robert Koehler
St Clair, Minnesota (Sep 16, '04)


Right after I sent [the above] missive I began reading the rest of the Letters page and lo and behold, I find a note and a link to a cornucopia of Spengler mail. My delight and enjoyment [were and are] beyond description or the telling. Nothing more decisively enshrines the success of Mr Spengler's wit and style than the manner and understanding (or should I say lack thereof) of readers who respond to his articles. He has truly outdone himself this time. But as much as I enjoy the angst, I don't enjoy that half as much as I enjoy Mr Spengler's perceptions and views. They are bravely, pointedly and without apology made. I really like that and am looking forward to further enunciations of his outlook and world views.
Robert Koehler
St Clair, Minnesota (Sep 16, '04)


I thoroughly enjoy Spengler's provocative pieces. However, this week he has it wrong [Why Americans love George W Bush, Sep 14]. Or perhaps he is just being provocative again. The Democrats, in the past, have traditionally supported the working class and the poor. The Republicans have traditionally supported the rich. This is a myth - the reality is that both parties are pretty much beholden to their large corporate contributors. No one in America wants to identify with the "unwashed masses". We are taught to despise losers. Real compassion is dismissed as bleeding hearts, ie, being suckered by the poor. We are terrified of being like them. No matter what their personal tragedies may be, if they can't make it here they can't make it anywhere, as the song goes - ie, they are losers. George Bush has brilliantly exploited this quality by pretending to be just like us, and we have fallen in line because we really want to identify with the beautiful, rich people. [The late US president Ronald] Reagan said at his first convention that "we Republicans are better dressed and better looking". This is true. Take a look at the sartorial splendor at any Bush rally. Then take a look at the Democrats. There really is a difference. Spengler is wrong. He may not have noticed this but the Democrats are a varied bunch and rarely dressed to the nines. The "fat" people he speaks about that live in the states with the highest unemployment are buying hope. They are wrong to look to Bush, but Spengler is wrong to dismiss their hopes and dreams, even if they are misplaced. It is up to the Democrats to stop patronizing them and take them seriously. They deserve better than they are getting.
Jeanne Doyle (Sep 16, '04)


As an overweight, dull and impecunious person, not living on either of America's glittering coasts, I would have relished Spengler's enjoyably stereotyping piece Why Americans love George W Bush [Sep 14] even more had it not been completely discredited by the following inconvenient facts:
1. "Attacking President Bush for his failure to win European support for his Iraq venture may be the stupidest idea ever advanced by a major-party presidential candidate in a US election." True. But not for the reason implicit in Spengler's assertion - an absence of European support. Fact: there are 16 European nations whose troops, despite intense local political opposition, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with US forces in Iraq. Britain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Portugal, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Georgia have all contributed and maintain troops in Iraq. Spengler unwittingly (or unwittedly?) propagates the offensive myth that the USA is all alone in Iraq, unfortunately a myth held by the Republican boneheads of the interior as much as by the Democrat cynics of the coasts - offensive because it dishonors the families of the allies serving in Iraq, particularly those whose sons have died there in the US cause.
2. "After the end of the Cold War America's strategic interest in Europe withered away. As Muslim immigrants replace the infertile Europeans over time, European and US interests will diverge. It is meaningless to speak of America's "European allies" at this juncture. It is much more likely that the Europeans will become America's enemies a generation from now as Muslims emerge as a new majority." Spengler can only be correct if Muslim immigrants do not integrate, or adopt the customs, culture and, critically, fertility rates of their new European homelands. Fact (or here): Fertility rates amongst immigrants tends to decline over time, approaching that of the indigenous population.
As things stand, I agree with Spengler's conclusion - that Bush will win a second term. It is more than a pity, though, that Spengler's arguments in reaching that conclusion so distort the truth.
Duncan Ellis (aka "Fatty")
Phoenix, Arizona (Sep 16, '04)


Why do you [Spengler] think that George Bush did not attack the wrong country when he invaded Iraq, as you state in [Why Americans love George W Bush, Sep 14]? Are you suggesting that there is a right country for invasion by the imperialist storm troopers?
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Sep 16, '04)


Dear Spengler: Your September 14 column Why Americans love George Bush had better be the tongue-in-cheek bit of deliberate instigation that I hope it is. Not knowing precisely where you make your residence or how much traveling in the US you typically enjoy, it is difficult to judge from whence come your hysterically skewed perceptions of George W Bush supporters. Overweight, dull and impecunious? Did it ever occur to you that slim, trim, perfectly coifed, well-educated and successful American citizens just might see something in our president that has earned our respect, our loyalty and our vote? Then, pending your next (?) sojourn to our fair shores, please allow this one fiftyish, advanced-degree-holding, six-figure-earning, multilingual, world-traveled, athletic American to explain. America has been under attack by radical Islamist jihadis for decades but George W Bush is the first president who not only understands that, but who unflinchingly has taken up the challenge to clearly articulate our national values, define in no uncertain terms what will be our strategic international position to defend those values, and then actually commit American blood and money to their defense. He finally has stood up before the entire world to promise that American values which cherish all human life and elevate the dignity and worth of each individual will no longer be enjoyed at home but sacrificed abroad in the name of political opportunism. The battle he has joined with the totalitarian extremist forces of the world will be a long and costly one, and one that we cannot now even be certain of winning. But under the leadership of President Bush, Americans know that we will never give up, never quit, never run away from the responsibility to fight that battle that comes with America's role as leader of liberal democracy in the world. I believe that many in my country and across the world take hope and encouragement from that vision and that steadfastness. No, I am not a neo-con and I am not affiliated in any way with the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Just an average-looking mom, with a daughter, a dog and a mortgage to go along with my advanced degrees, my well-stamped passport, and chic wardrobe.
Clare M Lopez
Alexandria, Virginia (Sep 16, '04)


Spengler's article [Why Americans love George Bush, Sep 14] had some good insights, that visitors should be wary of meeting only the "liberal elite" and extrapolating to the mainstream. I think this explains the difference between Pepe Escobar's and Spengler's sense of where America is. I think Spengler has a much better and more accurate sense of mainstream America, and it's surprising that so many Republicans seem to have taken offense at some throwaway observations that Spengler probably threw in there to build up to a conclusion. On that topic, anyway, I think Spengler got it wrong, because country-club Republicans, with good genes, good health care and perfect teeth, are actually quite attractive people.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Sep 16, '04)


Dear Spengler: You have stated that you think [invading a] country was the right decision [Why Americans love George Bush, Sep 14]. Why did you say that and what qualifies you to make a statement in correlation with the rest of the "fat stupid white" America (Michael Moore)?
Amar (Sep 16, '04)


Spengler: Perhaps it is just my imagination, but I think quite a few more Jews are voting Republican this election. Sure, most Jews remain rank-and-file Democrats, but many are saying "adieu" to the left. This shift makes sense. The left has spent the last few years belittling core Jewish concerns: Israel's right to defend itself, traditional religious faith, and Bush's war on Islamic terrorism. If demographics is destiny, this trend is likely to continue. Bush is most popular amongst the Orthodox. PS: The quality and quantity of your output amazes this humble reader. Please curb your enthusiasm, however; I don't want you to burn out your brain.
Yehuda (Sep 16, '04)


[Spengler:] You've got to be one of the most ignorant, out-of-touch (with the American conservative - hell, with the American Democrat also) writers I've had the opportunity to laugh at.
Jesse Locke (Sep 16, '04)


I was wondering: Does [letter writer] Daniel McCarthy have a job and a life? Or is it his job and life fulfillment to support Taiwan independence and writing letters [every day]? I think there are readers (and lurkers), like me, who find his letters predictable, repetitive and tiring. And responding to the article by Francesco Sisci [HK polls again spotlight China-Taiwan, Sep 14] the future is very unpredictable. Taiwan has become very pro-independence in a very short period of time. It could mean as well that this process can be reversed quickly if the mainland succeeds in not only winning the "hearts and minds" of the businessmen there, but the common people as well. The eventual solution may not be simple and needs more creativity than just "Hong Kong model". The light for peaceful reunification is still burning, despite fierce attempts to blow it [out]. Without this light, both Taiwan and the mainland will be darken. Would Taiwan blow [out] the light that keeps it lit?
J Zhang
Netherlands (Sep 16, '04)


I usually enjoy the articles by Ehsan Ahrari. However, his most [Sep 11] article The clash of fundamentalists is strangely out of par. Although it is probably correct to attribute conflicts to extremism of all kinds with underlying causes, I find the label "secular fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist" unacceptable. It is a familiar tautological argument from religious fanatics and religion apologists that non-believers still possess a "belief" system, such as atheism. Free thinking cannot exist, thus those who prefer secularism must be fundamentalists too. Surely such a statement is preposterous. Going beyond academic argument, it is most appropriate to judge a religion on what is practiced in real life borne out of that specific religion ... Historically, religions [have] hijacked morality, civility and ethics, and they always project these embodiments as [inherently] theirs and that as such religions or religious values represent the universal good. How ludicrous! There is only a thin line between religious moderates and fanatics - after all, they are the products of religions or religious teachings. To classify individuals who do not subscribe to religious belief or those who think that religious symbolism should be confined to a personal domain and should not be institutionalized as secular fundamentalists/fanatics is certainly absurd. In this instance, it is intellectually imbecilic. However, I have no problem with the hijab as a cultural and personal entity. If religions are moderated beyond theocracies and institutions, and religious values are only personal, then a person’s right to wear a hijab out of her true free will should be safeguarded in an open society. An open society in this instance is one as free as not permitting any person, including family members, to mold one into a particular brand of religion. It is a progressive society which favors moral and ethical standards based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of the individual members free from any doctrinaire values and absolutism, religious or otherwise. If this is advocating secular fanaticism, then I am very happy to make the choice.
JW
Australia (Sep 16, '04)


Regarding John J Tkacik's China's 'peaceful' rise at stake in power struggle [Sep 8], the entire propaganda premise of your article is laughably Orwellian. To be brutally frank, it is outrageous that Americans like this right-wing ideologue Tkacik would be preaching about issues of peace or war in terms of China. It is America and its "democratic [sic] friends and allies" that are currently waging a colonial war of aggression in Iraq to seize Iraqi oil resources. It is America that invaded Afghanistan and is waging yet another colonial counter-insurgency war there in order to seize control of Central Asia and Caspian oil. It is America that is threatening more wars of aggression against Iran and North Korea, based upon political pretexts about "weapons of mass destruction". The more your wonderful imperialist "democracies" preach about peace or democracy or freedom, the more people you slaughter around the world. John J Tkacik himself is affiliated with the neo-con Heritage Foundation, which has been a leading mouthpiece in the war against Iraq. And he still has the nerve to pose as a proponent of peace! The real issue of course has nothing to do with peace, but with maintaining American hegemony in Asia and the capitalist order there. Tkacik fears that the so-called rise of China will upset the existing capitalist order in Asia in which the USA and its "democratic allies and friends" dominate. One can only hope and pray that your unjust order is ended one way or another.
DP
USA (Sep 16, '04)


According to Vincent Maadi (letter, Sep 14) "al-Qaeda" is an organization that is run by CIA-Mossad-MI6 to perpetuate an imaginary threat and need for security for the Europeans and Americans, so that the corporations that thrive on making money in selling weapons and protection to the frightened public, and to justify grabbing of resources from producing countries. Now, to attempt to contradict Mr Maadi's classic Michael Moore-esque paranoia one would have to prove everyone really isn't out to "get him". Of course, that is the precise argument he would expect from his antagonists were his paranoia true. As definitive proof of his claim he can point out that weapons makers make money when people buy weapons! One cannot refute his claims or calm his fears because his arguments are circular. The advice to America I read most often from the Letters section of this fine site is that we should not defend ourselves and by doing so we prove that we deserve the damage we've sustained and the animosity thrust upon us, thus perpetuating the terrorism we seek to thwart. The point is no less circular than Mr Maadi's and every bit as deserving of a straitjacket.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 16, '04)

In fact, very few contributors to this page, and few if any writers of Asia Times Online articles, have argued that the US does not have the sovereign right to defend itself from legitimate threats. Rather, what some writers have argued is that in the name of "defending itself" the United States has started two wars in less than three years and has still failed to offer convincing proof that, at least in the case of Iraq, any real threat existed sufficient to justify a bloody and expensive conflict. - ATol


It is ironic that Fareed [Zahid]'s history source (see the letters below) has "proofs" about genocide in Africa [and] south India but nothing definite to offer on the spoils of Muslim rule in India for over 10 centuries. Let us try to weed out myth from facts and reason from the accumulated evidence rather than from ideological/theological basis. Except for a few years during the administration of Akbar, Hindus did not figure in the higher echelons of the government machinery in northern and northwestern India. Hindus vanished from the power scene during the succession of medieval regimes. India and the world lost one of the most reputed universities in the ancient world (Nalanda) to vandalism by barbarians in the medieval period (the other center for higher learning and seat of Gandharan arts and sculpture, Taxila, was destroyed during the Huns' invasion). People from the ancient world came flocking to Nalanda to enlighten them. It took over 1,000 years to set up a university in India. Education would have struck hard at the roots of the caste system (based originally on the division of labor) and offered a variety of job choices for the people. The medieval rulers, however, were not interested in establishing any center for higher learning. This perpetuated the caste system as the masses, devoid of access to education, were restricted to the profession of their forefathers. While Europe was entering the renaissance age with flourishing contributions in science, art and architecture, Indians were passing through difficult times looking for means to survive the onslaught of the invaders. On the trade front, India lost contact with the world after the rise of Muslim power. Except for the one-way link with the Middle East, India was isolated from the rest of the world until the Europeans stepped in and formed trade offices. A few notable monuments which have since become the icons of India (Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Grand Trunk Highway, Qutub Minar) along with mausoleums erected in memory of the kings and nobles remain the best of medieval period. The fragile strength of the regimes and the mutual distrust of the ruled and rulers made the European quest for power easy. Until recently, Muslim radicals in India termed anyone questioning their version of history as Hinduta. One cannot conveniently push under the carpet the embarrassing facts of history as something to be forgotten. India, as a democracy, has to be open about its past. The truth about the past may hurt some; it may embarrass a few others. But the past serves as a guide for the future and just cannot be wished away. After all, any ruling regime that discriminates [against] its own people will always be insecure (it was true in the past as it is now). The present generation cannot be blamed for the crimes of their forefathers. But negation of the past ills will not do anyone good. Does it mean Hindus and Muslims with different cultures cannot live together given the historical hostility and killings that still take place? No. Take a look at the Parsis community. They escaped harassment in Iran and landed in India with nothing except hope. Within a few generations they achieved remarkable success and contributed more to the social, economic needs of the people than anyone by their philanthropy. They did not get a favorable reservation. Neither did they kill anyone. They were able to achieve success without sacrificing their culture. They are the model community in a multicultural and [multilingual] India.
Kannan (Sep 16, '04)


Note: We are still getting lots of letters about the September 14 article Why Americans love George W Bush by Spengler. The latest follow; for the first batch, click here. For other letters not relating to this article, scroll down to the horizontal line. - ATol (Sep 15, '04)


First let me say I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat either. I don't care for either party as they are both liars and out to accomplish their own agendas. I don't care for the way GW [Bush] has led our country [US]. That being said, let me say that this "article" (and I use the term very loosely) about why America loves GW is the most disgusting pile of rubbish I've ever read. It's highly insulting to American people, not to mention extremely inaccurate. You've got the facts reversed anyway. Most Democrats are the low-income, barely educated people who depend on the Democrats to give them handouts without having to work for a living. They are the welfare recipients, college dropouts and hippie wanna-bes that want everything handed to them and not earned. They are lazy cowards who sit on their couches all day waiting for a free handout. They would let our country get blown to kingdom come before standing up for ourselves. They are the minorities who believe everything is owed to them because of a history that they were not part of. Republican voters (not the politicians) are mostly college-educated business people. These are the people who keep this country running. They are the ones who provide jobs, and believe in working for a living. Get your facts straight. How dare you publish such tripe? As for the insults to appearance, that was a massive slur to my people. So you'll excuse me if I say the Asian people in general have no room to talk about being unattractive. Or anything else for that matter. (There. How do you like it. Feels insulting, doesn't it?) I am willing to bet this Spengler "person" is as unattractive as he/she claims Americans are. In case you are unaware of how to run a newspaper (a respectable newspaper, that is), because I'm sure you're a little ignorant with the ways of the modern world (I dig again. Feels good, doesn't it?). The way to get a point across is not to insult people who have never done anything to you. Do not insult a nation as a whole. If you don't like our president, fine. Make fun of him, insult him, whatever (as childish as that is) ... but don't insult the people as a whole. That's irresponsible, unethical, and extremely childish. Grow up.
Karla Jensen (Sep 15, '04)


You say only one in six Americans owns a passport. My math makes it one in 4.7. Passports are good for 10 years. Sixty-three point five million applications for passports in the last 10 years. The US population is 294 million. This doesn't include immigrants who no longer own passports but who were born elsewhere, undocumented immigrants, and many who had passports in the past but no longer own passports because of age or carelessness or [lack of interest] in traveling. Hint: Try Google.
Nancy Reyes
Pawhuska, Oklahoma (Sep 15, '04)


Spengler's amusing article regarding the fat, ignorant, red [Republican] state Americans at least came to the correct conclusion - Americans will re-elect George W Bush. This writer, born and raised in the American heartland of Ohio, holds BA [bachelor of arts] and MS [master of sciences] degrees and was a liberal until about 30, at which time I woke up and saw the real world, not some imagined liberal socialist ideal I was spoon-fed by my left-wing college professors. I've traveled extensively in Africa, Australia and Europe numerous times. I love learning about new cultures and most of my non-fiction reading is about foreign countries. I've studied Italian for several years. I now reside in south Florida, where a large minority of our population continue to pour in from countries like Colombia, Chile, Argentina and yes, Cuba. These new Americans and millions of others like them are literally dying to get here. Like my ancestors, the original immigrants from European countries, our new immigrants for the most part, are a wonderful addition to our great country. They work hard, often two or three jobs, and they get ahead. Few here care about who their family was or where they came from. Most people I know from the red states, the people I know who admire George W Bush for his courage and leadership, are very much like me. Heck, most of us aren't even fat! Spengler's gross stereotypes, perhaps satire (one can hope Spengler isn't that ignorant and ill-informed), perhaps commonly held by non-US citizens, may make you all feel superior and comfortable, but they do nothing to help you understand the people of the most powerful country in the world. The US is the same country that, precisely because of its success, is the envy of others. Precisely the same country that millions of foreign-born want to claim for their own. Precisely the same country that seems to be the only country willing to call the slaughter in the Sudan genocide. The same country which can't comprehend how the world's citizens are willing to give Russia, France, Germany and other corrupt UN officials a pass on the Iraq Oil for Food scandal, which doubtless caused untold death and misery to thousands of Iraqis, while propping up a mass-murdering sociopathic enabler of terror. The US has absolutely made many missteps throughout our short history. But the United States, currently led by George Bush, seems to be one of the few countries capable of finally confronting a worldwide enemy which has attacked the US and others repeatedly over the last 30 years, while growing ever more menacing and bold each time the civilized world failed to respond. Sweet dreams, dear Spengler. Buona fortuna to us all.
S Boyd
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Sep 15, '04)


I totally disagree with what the writer has tried to establish in his article to convince readers. The truth of the matter is that American CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], the Pentagon and the abstruse ruling hand of America has its own agenda to rule America and impose its imperialistic policies around the world. Those "hidden hands" do not care whether [George W] Bush or [John] Kerry [is president], they simply fulfill their own agenda, what goes to the benefit of the United States as the superpower. The major security policies and America's strategic planning around the world do not change no matter who is in the musical chair. Presidents of the United States are simply puppets, stooges and rubber stamps in the hands of those hidden ghosts. President Bush has to win because whatever he started needs four more years to complete. Iraq and Afghanistan have to be cornered somewhere. America would open new fronts against Iran, Syria and North Korea (probably). Saudis have to be taught [a] lesson in the name of democracy and violation of human rights. The American people are the dumbest people on the planet. They are busy day and night making money and passing [a] luxurious life full of comfort, pomp and show and sex. They are like robots and programs that way. America cannot be defeated by al-Qaeda or any other power of the world and its end will come through the hands of mother nature, wrath of God in the shape of natural calamities and mishaps, human mistakes of their own. Its own development and technology would rock America.
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Sep 15, '04)


Spengler isn't quite right about why a lot of Americans will vote for [George W] Bush, but I give him full marks for trying to understand. Those who support [John] Kerry are protected from reality by their wealth, status, or occupation (the "ivory tower" of academia). In their post-modern cleverness, the only evil they recognize is America. We inland provincials know that we screw things up, but we also know that we have done a monumental amount of good in the world, when most of Europe sat on its collective hands and checkbooks. The John Kerrys of this world think the rest of us are so stupid and feckless that we can't possibly manage by ourselves, and therefore we should pay more taxes so "the government" can do for us what we should do for ourselves. In reality, most of us in the hinterlands want government to do much less and basically get out of our way. We'd like a part-time Congress so it can't cause so much mischief, and much lower taxes. Unlike Kerry, if we see someone who needs help, we'll reach into our own pockets. We think people who want to feel good by giving away other people's money are mentally deficient, no matter how many degrees decorate their walls, and morally vacuous. Most of all, we want someone who understands that you kill terrorists, not talk them to death. And it's our family and friends who do the deadly work. Ain't it amazing that 19-year-old marines understand what few American liberals and no European elites can grasp! Full disclosure: I have a college degree, and I've traveled in Europe, Asia and the Far East.
Mary McLemore
Autaugaville, Alabama (Sep 15, '04)

Who is going to pay for the massive deficit built up by the Bush administration if not you, the US taxpayer? Without disparaging the bravery of US marines, we can't help wonder how many of the 1,000 US servicemen and women killed in Iraq realized the folly of war too late. - ATol


Spengler, you are one of the main reasons I read ATimes. I love your work even though I rarely agree with you. As a Houstonian, I am surrounded by fat, ignorant (not stupid - stupid people don't build the greatest empire ever on the face of the Earth) people every day. I love my people no matter how fat and ignorant they are, although they disappoint me often. My whole family is fat and votes for [President George W] Bush. They are not stupid, they only know what they see on TV and really believe Saddam [Hussein] had something to do with [the attacks of September 11, 2001]. They really think that Bush is protecting them and they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. I am a contractor at a chemical company and it always amazes me how the people here travel all over the world but take Houston with them wherever they go. They do not learn anything when they travel. These are people that go to Paris and eat at McDonald's. When they travel, they go to make money, not to enjoy the culture of another country. In the opinion of the people here, all the media everywhere else in the world [are] propaganda but ours [are] good. All of the people I am talking about are college-educated, some with graduate degrees. At work I am surrounded by fat, ignorant people with PhDs. I think it is funny that a month ago people were calling Spengler a neo-con and now he being called a commie-liberal. If I am not mistaken, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and the American founders were all considered liberals and they probably would frown upon the Patriot Act. I don't think Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan would be happy with Bush's military Keynesianism, his increase of socialized health care, and incredible deficit spending, which are contrary to conservative dogma. As far as the wisdom of the common man here, I haven't seen it. I have seen fat, ignorant, ordinary people in bars drink 12-15 Coors Light and then try to start a fight with the nearest person while screaming, "I would rather fight than fornicate(they actually use another word)." These are the same people who think that Saddam did [September 11] and believe we should attack everyone but will not join the military. The ignorance bred by our public-school indoctrination here allows the common man to be manipulated very easily. Until Bush's America is affected by his policies without being manipulated by their ignorance into blaming foreigners for all the problems, the ordinary man will support people like Bush. I thought the communist had been replaced by the terrorist, but from seeing the letters, there are still communist insults being thrown around. As for John Kerry, how can anyone get excited about him? He is an empty suit. If those skinny elitists on the coasts think Kerry is going to do anything different than Bush, they are skinny and ignorant. The skinny elitists only disagree with Bush's execution, not his policies. Mostly they are just embarrassed by his doltish behavior. It amazes me that people here really think it makes a difference who they vote for. By the way, I am 5-foot-11, 175 pounds [180 centimeters tall and weighing 79 kilograms] and would rather fornicate than fight.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Sep 15, '04)


I have only one question for Spengler: "How much do you weigh?"
Michel
Montreal, Quebec (Sep 15, '04)

We'll be sure to include that information the next time we update our About Us file. - ATol

Nothing new in the world by Renato Redentor Constantino (Sep 15) contained numerous factual errors and misleading assertions. There was an insinuation that the Chile coup was similar to the Iran counter-coup of 1953. Nothing is further from the truth. In Chile, the military bombed the presidential palace and killed president [Salvador] Allende, who despite being warned to escape to safety remained like a hero and acted like a hero and did not abandon his rightful place of abode. In Iran, the outraged mobs swarmed prime minister [Mohammad] Mossadegh's home. There they realized the demagogue premier had fled to safety after jumping over the tall wall of his residence in pajamas. Mr Constantino's reference to this "Iranian colossus who happened to live in a frail old man's body" is comical because anyone who can jump over a 10-foot wall and land like a cat unharmed may not possibly be considered to have a frail body. In fact the army intervened to save the ex-premier's life only to be confronted with an angry mob demanding his head. After the assassination of Chile's Allende, tens of thousands of Chileans took to the streets. Many thousands were killed. Many more disappeared. Many homes were ransacked by the brutal army. Cabinet members of the Allende administration all were arrested and imprisoned or fled. Military terror became the order of the day. One cabinet minister still loyal to Allende was even bombed by Chilean Intelligence in Washington, DC. In Iran, the Mossadegh bubble burst within a couple hours. Not one person took to the streets to his defense. However, many hundreds of thousands poured into the streets of Tehran and all across Iran in jubilation dancing and waving Iranian flags ... Allende had been duly elected by the Chileans. He had upheld the constitution. He was serving his legal term when he was told by the army to resign or leave. Allende ordered an honorable and memorable defense of his palace. He commanded his troops as the rightful commander-in-chief. The army suspended the constitution. Allende was a hero. He is a hero. Mossadegh had been duly elected by the Iranian parliament. He dissolved the parliament unilaterally. He suspended the constitution. He did the coup when he announced his self-appointment and self-anointment as the leader of Iran. Mossadegh was toppled as an outlaw by the constitutional new premier of Iran, General [Fazlollah] Zahedi. Mossadegh was a traitor to the Iranian democratic process and progress. No one undermined the rule of constitution as he did ... There is much more to Mossadegh's myth. He did not nationalize oil as was his mandate by the Iranian parliament. He expropriated it ... The CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] has committed many crimes. The United States is guilty of many horrors. But the liberals of the world must not think that the 1953 Iran case was evil too. My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend ... Iranians carried out the counter coup against the illegal government of Mossadegh. I am not sure if any Iranian ever saw the text of the plan. It was for internal use only. So basically a legitimately appointed premier, armed with his legal papers of premiership, had the army roll the Jeeps into the streets. Film footage shows the population kissing the soldiers and dancing in the streets. Mossadegh is a farce. It is time to burst this fake bubble.
Nader Rastegar
Atlanta, Georgia (Sep 15, '04)


[Re The end of HK Democrats as we know them, Sep 15] There are many ways an election process would evolve over time. George [W Bush] was elected with less than 25% of eligible voters. The Canadian Liberal Party formed the government with a minority of votes. [Adolf] Hitler was elected with a majority with disastrous consequences. Unions elect their leaders in a delegates' convention. Some people look at the situation in Hong Kong this way. The British colonial Hong Kong government never allowed real democracy when it was in power. Then just before it left it planted a Trojan horse and what the Chinese are saying is that they would take 50 years to work it out. Maybe they are right?
David Chiu
Canada (Sep 15, '04)


I just finished reading Richard Daniel Ewing's submission What the neo-cons can't tell Americans [Sep 14] ... I find it nothing short of remarkable that Mr Ewing presumes to address such things as the driving motivations of the neo-cons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, without even a mention of Israel. Even in an essay of 1,000 words, such an omission is inexcusable and effectively undermines the writer's credibility on the subject. As even a cursory examination of the history of the neo-conservative movement will quickly reveal, the security of the State of Israel has always been a foremost consideration in the minds of men like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. The title of Mr Ewing's essay to the contrary, the neo-cons have most certainly spelled out their vision, in no uncertain terms, in a policy document called "Rebuilding America's defenses", released in the spring of 2000 under the auspices of something called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). "Rebuilding America's defenses" is practically a blueprint for the foreign-policy initiatives undertaken by the Bush administration in the three years since the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks - which is perhaps not surprising when you consider that so many of the founding members of PNAC have gone on to assume high-level positions in the present administration. In his essay, Mr Ewing desperately wants to cloak the neo-cons' ambitions with the noblest of motivations, particularly the motives of [US Deputy Defense Secretary] Paul Wolfowitz, a man whom Mr Ewing actually compares to the Greek prophet Cassandra. Unfortunately, "Rebuilding America's defenses" reads more like a primer for global domination than it does a handbook for delivering democracy to a region that has never experienced the thing. Not to mention the rather obvious fact that high explosives are a poor substitute for good policy planning. I guess it is easier for men like Paul Wolfowitz to spend other people's money, and lives, blowing up things in distant lands than it is to actually work towards a peaceful and free tomorrow. Remember, this is the man who, when questioned by Congress, had no idea how many Americans had died fighting his war in Iraq. The single most relevant fact to consider when dealing with the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is the fact that Israel is a nuclear power. And, in all probability, the Jewish state also possesses advanced capabilities in the areas of chemical and biological weapons systems as well. Israel refuses to even acknowledge its nuclear-weapons capabilities and will not allow any international inspectors to monitor its facilities. Now, one might argue, and not without some justification, that Israel needs these weapons to defend itself from hostile neighbors who are intent upon bringing about the destruction of the tiny Jewish state. Nevertheless, in the eyes of countries such as Iran and Syria, Israel's position smacks of hypocrisy and makes the laudable goal of a nuclear-free Middle East impossible to achieve. Mr Ewing describes Paul Wolfowitz as a "gifted Intellectual" who "fully appreciates the Iraq campaign's complexities and the historic parallels to Vietnam". I would dearly love to know where, exactly, Mr Ewing finds the evidence to support such an astonishing assertion. Perhaps Mr Ewing has had the opportunity to talk at length with the deputy secretary of defense; I am simply basing my observations on the record of the past 16 months in Iraq and it is not a pretty picture. If Paul Wolfowitz was one of the principal architects of the Iraq debacle, then he should be held accountable for the design and implementation of such a disastrous policy. The interesting thing is that I disagree with Mr Ewing on everything right up until the final paragraph of his essay. It is there that he finally "gets it right" (to quote Mr Wolfowitz's boss, Donald Rumsfeld). The result of President [George W] Bush following the advice of Wolfowitz and Co is indeed "a less stable Iraq and a more dangerous region". And, if Mr Ewing had not willfully blinded himself to some basic realities, then he would actually be in a position to provide some answers to the questions that he poses in that final paragraph.
Scott Tyson
New York, New York (Sep 15, '04)


Regarding Richard Daniel Ewing's What the neo-cons can't tell Americans [Sep 14], I will add my own voice in agreement with David Little that I also "resent being played for a fool". The article is nonsense. First, the Cold War is misrepresented in a bad caricature, in like manner to equally bad caricatures presented in other numerous Asian Times editorials. The stated purpose of the United States of America throughout the decades of the Cold War was to stop communist aggression. That was the victory attained, not a conquest or formal defeat of anyone, never mind the former Soviet Union. Second, it's not true that the neo-cons "can't tell us" any of this. Simply read William Kristol's most recent book regarding the amoral Machiavellian machinations that Mr Ewing alludes to here. Third, as to the plan being due to [the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001], then nonsense, the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the future should be dubbed the "war of the think-tanks". Begin with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and other such neo-con-dominated think-tanks, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the writings of prominent neo-conservatives back through the '90s (as well as some of their public writings complaining about the Reagan administration in the '80s) and it becomes plain that September 11 only presented the excuse for putting into motion the "ideas" (to be generous) that these people had already been concocting. Fourth, as to the lack of planning for the reconstruction phase in Iraq and the miserable and inept execution, then quite simply, the neo-conservatives are inept and grandiose "global" theorists, not men who pay attention to the practical details. They are incompetent and lack any practical strategic or practical skills. Fifth, regarding the doomsday caricature, then Mr Ewing gets it dead wrong when he states: "Perhaps, like Cassandra, [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz hasn't changed the future after all." Rather, by the United States' stupidly and disastrously invading Iraq in a blatant act of aggression against a sovereign nation that did not threaten us and was in no way tied to the assault upon our nation on September 11, 2001, then it is more a matter that if the United States stupidly continues to abandon our own principles and traditions by following such the disastrously bad and often immoral plans of the amoral neo-cons, then it is rather more likely to help to form the doomsday scenario that Mr Ewing so disingenuously presents. As former secretary of defense James Webb (whose very sound 2002 public objections to the US invasion of Iraq, like those of so many other retired officers, general and flag officers, and former Department of Defense secretaries and government officials at the time, were ignored) has so rightly said, the US "attacked the wrong target". Personally, I fully agree with General [Anthony] Zinni, USMC [US Marine Corps], retired, speaking of the neo-conservatives in this administration whose policies have had such disastrous influence on this president, that the president has been badly served by them and that it is time for a "clean sweep of these people". Lastly, once again, good for Mr Little and his comments on Mr Ewing's disingenuous propaganda. I too "resent being played for a fool".
Paul Crowley
Port Arthur, Texas (Sep 15, '04)


I was surprised Li YongYan's article [Power struggle: Will Jiang step down?] on September 11 was published. It's mostly hearsay without much concrete evidence. It appears to me that ATol's China reporting borders on propaganda as many accompanying cartoons of China articles suggest. For example, no other nation (not even al-Qaeda, except G W Bush as an individual) on this website is being so consistently subjected to a negative image - a menacing dragon, while the article could be on any subject industry, technology, politics and so on. It's well known in Western mythology [that] a fire-breathing dragon represents evil and death. The credibility of ATol, as many readers have mentioned, is established through its more balanced reporting on the USA. Yet such credibility is expended to portray a distorted view on China. The editor's disdain of China is also obvious in its [often] unfair comments on readers' letters. It would be more appropriate to leave the letters section alone. In professional journalism, the editorial section is reserved for editors to expose their views on various events.
GongShi
USA (Sep 15, '04)

The dragon has been a symbol of China for three millennia, and still features proudly and prominently in Chinese celebrations. While this mythical creature indeed has primarily negative characteristics in European folklore, this is not the case in China, and we are confident that most of our readers who are interested in China are aware of this. Besides, our cartoonist Gavin Coates uses a panda to symbolize China more often than not. - ATol


Although I am for giving every opinion its space in the letters section, kindly refrain from posting letters that are long and unsubstantial. I am sure the quality of the letters you receive will improve by posting fewer and better letters. That is the only complaint I have for you.
Luay (Sep 15, '04)

By and large we agree with you: we would rather have short, to-the-point letters so as to provide a broad perspective of opinion. There are several letters currently in our holding bin that are too long to run on days when we have received a substantial number of letters, as has occurred over the past several days. Unfortunately it's the well-written ones that are the most difficult to edit down, so during a busy period they tend not to get used at all. Shorter letters also help us reduce the number of times we have to archive older correspondence to keep this file from getting too large, which increases downloading time. Speaking of which, as promised some time ago, we have improved our archiving system to make it easier for readers to find older letters. Go to the archive buttons on the right, and the most recently archived letters will be found at the button with the biggest number. - ATol


Note: Asia Times Online received a large number of letters about the September 14 article Why Americans love George W Bush by Spengler. Please click here to read some of them. - ATol (Sep 14, '04)


I am writing in regards to the article What the neo-cons can't tell Americans by Richard Ewing. The title is quite catchy. I went to it immediately. I am writing because I resent being played for a fool. The article is pap. Is transmits no worthwhile information. The first clue is the listing of reasons for the Iraq war. Mr Ewing lists "filial revenge, oil dependency, or Halliburton profits" as the reasons to go to war. The article says this man is a "non-resident fellow of the Nixon Center in Washington, DC". You know, I am a resident of the USA, just a regular guy, and even I know that the USA invaded Iraq to stop Saddam [Hussein] from paying the suicide bombers in Palestine. Why is this reason omitted from the list provided by this Nixon Center Fellow? Carelessness? Lack of knowledge? Propaganda purposes? As if to taunt the world-wise readers of ATol, Mr Ewing then says that Paul Wolfowitz is a gifted intellectual. What? The whole world saw Wolfowitz swallow his comb, pull it back out, then apply it to his hair in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. I do not know about Mr Ewing. We used to laugh and point at the guys at school that did that. Working for a foreign country, Israel, while being paid as an official of another country, the USA, is not the sign of an intellectual, it is the hallmark of a traitor.
David Little
USA (Sep 14, '04)


If Richard Daniel Ewing is correct in his assertion that [Paul] Wolfowitz and the neo-conservatives launched the war in Iraq because they have visions of an unstable, nuclear-armed Middle East 40 years from now [What the neo-cons can't tell Americans, Sep 14[, someone should tell them the cautionary story about the famous German silent-film director F W Murnau. Murnau was notoriously superstitious and, after making his first film in Hollywood, Sunrise, in 1927, he planned a trip whereby he would fly from Los Angeles to the east coast. Prior to departing, he visited a psychic, who warned him that he would die if he went ahead with his plans. Much like Wolfowitz, empowered with his belief that he could see into the future, Murnau gave the matter some thought, and came up with a solution: he would evade the psychic's prediction by traveling by car to Santa Barbara [California] and board his flight there. Murnau died in a traffic accident between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Similarly, it appears that the decision of the neo-conservatives to launch a series of preemptive wars has only increased the probability that their vision of a dystopian future will indeed come true. If only the neo-conservatives had spent more time watching the great, long-running British science fiction television series Dr Who instead of obsessively parsing [Leo] Strauss. Consistent with Murnau's fate, the show often returned to one its perennial themes: the paradox that the more one attempted to prevent one's pessimistic view of the future from becoming true, the more likely it became that the nightmare would come to pass. We can only be thankful that the neo-conservatives do not possess, as Dr Who did, the ability to travel through time. With such power, there would be no end to their mischief. PS: I consider Asia Times essential reading for anyone wanting to sincerely understand what is transpiring in Asia and the Middle East, and enjoy reading articles at the website immensely. It provides an alternative way of understanding events that is almost completely absent from US media and opinion. If you are interested, I discovered the Asia Times website through a link provided in the News Sources section at antiwar.com, and I suspect that others have as well.
Richard Estes
Davis, California (Sep 14, '04)


Dear [Francesco] Sisci: Your article on Taiwan [HK polls again spotlight China-Taiwan, Sep 14] was very insightful. I have seen the massive Taiwanese investment in China for the past 20 years. Taiwanese concerns would be better directed not to whether or not China employs a military option, but whether or not China chooses to exercise an economic option. However, the role and influence of the Japanese is not being, for the moment, publicly scrutinized as to their role in the Taiwan-China conflict. Historically Japan's role in Taiwan, specifically from an economic perspective, has been greater than that of China.
Mario Ruffolo (Sep 14, '04)


The pro-Beijing pandering of Francesco Sisci in HK polls again spotlight China-Taiwan [Sep 14] may earn him a couple of free banquets in Beijing, but it is rather disappointing to those of us who prefer to receive our communist propaganda from the People's Daily. Sisci wrongly blames President Chen Shui-bian for any tension across the Taiwan Strait, stating that Chen is "engaged in a policy of constant brinkmanship". Perhaps Sisci should be reminded that Taiwan has not threatened to attack or invade China, but China has threatened to attack and invade Taiwan and is preparing to do so. Taiwan has not fired missiles at China, but China has fired missiles at Taiwan. Taiwan has not threatened a law aimed at annexing China, but China has threatened such against Taiwan. Sisci also falsely states that China wants to maintain the peaceful status quo. Can Sisci really live in Beijing and be so blind? Talk of war with Taiwan is rampant and has reached a feverish pitch, and such talk is directly linked to Chinese government propaganda on the issue. But perhaps Sisci's misunderstanding on that point is linked to his gross misunderstanding of the present status quo, for Sisci accuses President Chen of being "a zealot who wants independence for his island at any cost". If Sisci had ever traveled to Taiwan, or even if he had exposed himself to unbiased news sources, he would have observed for himself that Taiwan is already independent, notwithstanding a misdescriptive name for the country. But many countries have misdescriptive names, including the USA, which could more accurately be described as "The United Non-Sovereign States of That Portion of North America North of the Rio Grande". Sisci mistakenly concludes, "The US already has its hands full with Iraq, and doesn't want even to think about a double crisis in Taiwan and North Korea. In other words, the US cannot effectively deal with all problems at once - Iraq, North Korea and Taiwan - and if something must be sacrificed, it will be Taiwan." First, if Sisci conferred with any competent military analyst, he would learn that the defense of Taiwan will rely on US air and naval power, and that these assets have been almost completely idle in the Iraq conflict for more than a year and are available for action. He would also learn that although North Korea's military is formidable on paper, it is [currently] not mobile and likely could not invade South Korea without massive Chinese logistical support and a year of advance preparation. Sisci would also do well to read the newspapers and learn that US Vice President Dick Cheney, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and US Admiral Thomas Fargo, commander of the 6th Fleet, which is tasked with the defense of Taiwan, all traveled to Beijing this year to deliver a clear and unambiguous message: The US will defend Taiwan. But it is interesting that Sisci would mention North Korea as a threat against Taiwan, since that highlights Beijing's sinister motive in preventing discussions on North Korea's nuclear program from moving forward. Finally, Sisci has a false impression that if "one country, two systems" were successful in Hong Kong, that would magically [persuade] the people of Taiwan to give up their sovereignty, freedom and identity in order to be taken over by a dictatorship which still calls itself communist. Perhaps Sisci should take note that there is absolutely nothing for the people of Taiwan to gain, and much to be lost, by becoming part of China, and hence they resist the concept. If Sisci were to write an article on Italian culture, perhaps we could hear from him on a subject of which he has some knowledge.
Daniel McCarthy (Sep 14, '04)


[Re Hong Kong polls put spotlight on Taiwan, Sep 14] First off, [Taiwan President] Chen Shui-bian is not a "rogue". The shooting incident shifted at most 5% of the vote in a [presidential election] race that had been head-to-head for a long time. Did he capitalize on Taiwanese identity? Absolutely, but it wouldn't have worked if Taiwanese people didn't want it. The world, and especially China, must deal with the fact that Taiwanese people are more and more rejecting the mainland. Strategic talk about how Chen should be composing himself and playing the game against Beijing is all well and good, but we must not lose sight of the fact that if the world allows Taiwan to be forcefully taken over by China, regardless of who antagonized whom, it would be a horrible tragedy. Whatever ideals of self determination that still exist in the international forum would be crushed for generations. All hope for a more just, rules-based international relations would be dashed against realpolitik. The situation would be worse even than the one my hapless president ([George W] Bush) has created, because in his extraordinary naivete he is at least trying to establish a representative government. On a strategic note, I find the following question all to seldom asked: What if Beijing takes Taiwan by force, what will they get? Everyone says that Beijing cannot afford to lose Taiwan, but can they really afford to win either? They would take control of a badly damaged island and 23 million people who would hate them with a bloody passion. The Chinese government is currently groaning under the weight of a power struggle, bad debts, a bubble economy which will probably burst in the event of conflict, rampant corruption, and two defiant regions. Can the government really weather a bloody war? Can they really afford to manage yet another defiant region? Or is there a possibility that the Chinese people will decide that the communists have lost the Mandate of Heaven? Many people blame Chen for starting trouble, but I think the onus is on Beijing to cope with changing reality.
Ryan
US (Sep 14, '04)


Dear Pepe Escobar: It seems your latest and very well-argued (one of the best anti-[George W] Bush articles I have ever read) article has angered number of readers [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11]. It seems you have hit a nerve. Why? Your article never said America is evil or bad, just misguided. So, from personal experience, I know nothing angers people more than a very persuasive argument counter to their own beliefs.
Dave Henderson
Canada (Sep 14, '04)


Pepe [Escobar] is a poodle, a 21st-century version of the continental journalists who a generation ago made careers breathlessly informing the West of the relative superiority of a number of totalitarian Third World leaders while millions of people with the misfortune to live under them were slaughtered [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11]. He misses the point that "al-Qaeda" are basically an Islamic jet set who've adopted violence against easy targets as a way to impress people like Pepe, in doing so making a mockery of their people's supposed great regard for the sacred bond between traveler and host. Here in America, even on the coast, we sneer at Pepe and the cheese he certainly eats. It is only due to our good nature that we didn't give him a beating and steal his beret during his recent visit, but are happy he is back in the adopted home of the al-Qaeda he so admires. On the other hand Spengler's most recent column was not only funny but accurate in its analysis of Americans. The former is expected, the latter came as a surprise. Next time ATol sends a writer to tour America, please send Spengler and let Pepe watch The Simpsons and bore his acquaintances elsewhere.
Johannes Presley
Memphis, Tennessee


Pepe Escobar's insightful commentary on terrorism and the war on Iraq are worthy of praise in this overly sensitive post-September 11 [2001] era of journalism [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11]. Although a transparently anti-[George W] Bush tone is ever-present (as [it] is from any rational human being), Dr Escobar does well to express truth and honesty over the grim subjects that dominate our headlines. Perhaps if the ultra-conservative media outlets of the West would remove their glass slippers and report such subjects with a degree of honesty and understanding, as does Pepe, the layman would then grasp the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist. Brutal honesty comes at a premium. Pepe's the guy telling the wife she looks fat in that dress, that's all.
LT
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec (Sep 14, '04)

Pepe will be glad to hear that someone of your esteemed institution has awarded him a doctorate. We've always thought his writing is good for what ails. - ATol


The knee-jerk [xenophobia] expressed by people like Cassie Maldonado, Philip Meinert, Cassie, John Noonan, and bdcherry in [the Sep 13] letters is disheartening when not incoherent. Otherwise it is amusing in its naivete. I am embarrassed as an American for them. They probably all stood and cheered [California Governor] Arnold Schwarzenegger's rousing bit of fluff at the Republican convention about how the US is a source of aid for the oppressed and downtrodden the world over, about how the US is a beacon. Cassie Maldonado even thinks that the US is great because people are not trying to leave in droves for the Third World. The fact is that life for many in the Third World has been rendered hazardous by US military and police aid to dictatorial regimes, and by routine overthrow of any elected governments that sought to rein in exploitation by US corporate interests. John Stockwell, former CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] analyst, has stated that a conservative estimate of the number of civilians killed in the last 50 years by US military and covert operations is just over 6 million. This figure did not include the 3.5 million killed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia who came to power in the disorder and pandemonium caused by [Richard] Nixon/[Henry] Kissinger's secret bombing of that country, or Jimmy Carter's providing weaponry to those forces in the late '70s. Schwarzenegger and Maldonado suggest people come to the US because it is a beacon of hope when the real story is the US has helped to extinguish the light elsewhere. And now the Department of Homeland Security is dimming the light here as fundamentalist neo-cons are driving conscientious citizens to become ex-patriots by oiling the thumbscrews against dissent. Don't count on John Kerry to change things. The problem is systemic. One day the corn-and-meat-fed Midwesterners will be at each other's throats blaming their problems on some new minority or foreign populace, [and] will vote in new thieves and brigands. They will be too busy keeping body and soul together to read and analyze and understand that their leaders are the problem.
Gregorio Kelly (Sep 14, '04)


It is remarkable the extent to which you will publish writers like [Ehsan] Ahrari in their determination to ignore the facts in order to blame Israel [The clash of fundamentalists, Sep 11]. The facts are, [Yasser] Arafat has never taken any action to halt attacks against Israel from the very beginning, despite his obligation to do so under Oslo. In fact, documents captured from his headquarters proved his PA [Palestinian Authority] actively funded terrorist groups. Terrorist factions like Tanzim, Force 17, etc, that pledge their allegiance to Arafat have routinely engaged in terrorism against Israel. I myself knew that Oslo would fail due to Palestinian intransigence when I heard of the constant barrage of incitement and hatred against Israel and Jews in general from the official PA media. Meanwhile, most of the Israeli media were mostly bent over backwards to portray Arafat and the PA as true partners in peace. Furthermore, the conclusion that Arafat will never negotiate a legitimate peace isn't a conclusion restricted to [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon or the Bush administration. [Former US secretary of state] Madeleine Albright, who came into negotiations considerably friendlier to the Palestinians than the Israelis, came to the same conclusion. Nearly all of the Israeli liberal/left has come to the same conclusion. Their disagreement with the more conservative Israeli parties, such as it is, is in how best to deal with the reality of a Palestinian polity and people that do not accept Israel's legitimate right to exist and will back up this rejection with terrorism. Don't you think it's time you actually had a writer who was willing to consider the conflict objectively and factually? PS: There is little evidence that [Osama] bin Laden was motivated in any significant way with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That had been going on for years before he launched al-Qaeda. It was the first Gulf War that triggered him. In fact, it wasn't until other Islamic theofascists criticized him for neglecting the issue that he included it in his rhetoric.
Richard Sol
Los Angeles, California (Sep 14, '04)


I hope some of the columnists in Asia Times would give a little more thought to their language before they go ahead and publish their articles. Raja [M], a so-called "independent writer" from Mumbai, thought January 14 was just about flying kites (Holiday mania throttles India, Sep 9)! I have two explanations for the apparent ignorance or belligerence of the author: either Mr Raja became so "independent" that he lost touch with India and its culture or he must be one of those pseudo-Marxist ideologues for whom anything remotely Indian (or Hindu) is a subject of ridicule. Mr Raja, if you had cared to ask any Indian he would have told you that January 14 is the day of Sankranthi (Pongal). It's the day when farmers celebrate the Harvest Festival. It is widely observed in south India and is in fact the most important festival in lunar calendar of south India.
Nischal Reddy
Bangalore, India (Sep 14, '04)


I refer to your reporting on the Jakarta bombing in various articles [see Southeast Asia index page]. There is a certain pattern developing in the bombings worldwide, and that pattern is that whenever those governments who have supported America in its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq are under threat of being overthrown at the polls, suddenly seem to receive the gift of a terrorist attack, which then is claimed on a website calling itself one or the other Muslim group. In all cases the people who get killed in such terrorist attacks are from poor or working-class areas, such as Spain, or local innocent Indonesians as in the case of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. But not the elites. In this world of technological sophistication which can clone animals and humans, anyone with a PC [personal computer] can forge anything, and that includes a website, and give it any name it wants to achieve its propagandistic goal. In all cases of terror attacks an organization called "al-Qaeda", a name coined by an American CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] official, is involved. So if this al-Qaeda is so extremely sophisticated and seems to have worldwide reach including in America and Europe, where the people-control mechanisms are far more advanced then say in Iraq, why has al-Qaeda not used its sophistication or technology to defeat the invading forces in Iraq? Where are the dirty bombs, and the biological and chemical weapons supposedly possessed by "al-Qaeda" and why are they not using them to fight the Americans in Iraq? Iraq, after all, is teeming with Americans, British, Italians and other foreign targets and would be the easiest place for "al-Qaeda" to inflict maximum damage and achieve its goals. I will answer the foregoing question myself: "al-Qaeda" is an organization that is run by CIA-Mossad-MI6 to perpetuate an imaginary threat and need for security for the Europeans and Americans, so that the corporations that thrive on making money in selling weapons and protection to the frightened public, and to justify grabbing of resources from producing countries. Follow the money trail and you will find the terrorists.
Vincent Maadi (Sep 14, '04)


Thank you for your excellent article The global march of Islamic banking [Aug 20]. It is enjoyable to read about Islamic culture from a more objective point of view than is usually offered in the United States. I must point out that one reason for the lack of general awareness of these banks and their beneficial role is the relentless anti-Muslim propaganda that is fed to Americans, and to Westerners, on a daily basis. Every newspaper you open, every TV program, every book from every "scholar of Islam" is saturated with the bias that Muslims are ignorant, dirty, subhuman, unlearned, narrow-minded, uncivilized, women-hating, backward, prone to violence, etc etc. It has become part of our unconscious. I can't even discuss Israel with my own sister, who is a well-read, college-educated woman. This never-ending hate speech is kept going, of course, for a reason. The United States never fails to take Israel's side in their war on the Palestinians. And the US, with full cooperation from the Israelis, is now in the process of trying to obliterate Iraqi culture. They will happily do the same to Iran and Syria as well, if given the chance. I think the hate speech and incitement to war that [are] coming out of the White House, AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs] and the Project for a New American Century [are] a war crime and a very serious threat to the world. I really respect Islamic culture, because Muslims believe in God. Their faith in God is reflected in every area of their lives. Maybe that is why the Western media, and their handlers, hate Islam so much. God is a light that shines on everything, including our own evil.
Stephanie Bodene
Concord, California


I would like to ask that [Asia Times Online] rethink publishing letters from (presumably white Christian) anti-Muslim bigots. In their letters, it is very evident they are just not against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism but against Islam itself. If they have problems with people converting to Islam and praying five times a day, they should think about creating a fundamentalist state themselves, in which they insult other faiths as part of their daily routine, indoctrinate children into believing the superiority of their faith (and implicitly their race), ban conversions and persecute homosexuals and followers of other variants of their own faith. I do not want to sound like a broken record but as I have pointed out before, your articles should focus on Asian political players and economics and not the USA, which is stated in your "About Us" webpage.
Clement
Melbourne, Australia (Sep 14, '04)

Most (though admittedly not all) of our letter writers, when they make remarks about those aspects of Islam that they view with disfavor, do so in the context that they would not wish to have such religious practices imposed on them, which presumably is one of the goals of some Islamist extremists. - ATol


I had been accused of calling Chen Shui-bian supporters prostitutes before, although I never did so. Why? I am not going to attack them back this time. I realized that is a complete waste of time. A free and open discussion of the issues concerning China is welcomed. China is not a perfect country. If you do not like China, wait for a moment, China will change. If you pay attention to the news, you would notice that China is changing in a great way. However, non-discriminating attacks to China and Chinese people will not prevent a war at Taiwan Strait in the next four years. The people who hate China will not approve anything China does. How does Daniel McCarthy's calling for destruction of China engender any understanding to the issue? These people hate China for the purpose of hate. The authors of the ATol articles do not represent the proportion of the Asian population. Most articles concerning China are authored by white people who hate China. Most of the KMT [Kuomintang] people were educated in the USA. I am sure they can write English articles. However, there is no article authored by millions of Chinese people who live in Taiwan. Do you call that a free and open discussion? That is a one-sided attack.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 14, '04)

Well, if you doubt our word that no KMT supporters contribute articles to ATol, that's up to you. But it is a fact nonetheless. If you have KMT contacts in Taiwan who can write well in English, maybe you could do us the favor of encouraging them to make submissions. - ATol


In response to three letter contributors: (1) If Sam Liu (Sep 13) insists on accusing me of name-calling in my letters, then he should have provided some supporting evidence that could confirm his position since he, claiming [to be] a longtime ATol reader, alleges that I "do it in print for all of us to read". Otherwise, no meaningful discourse but groundless charges can occur. (2) If Chunhui Yang (Sep 10) can be a little less emotional and not get too exited or too personal, then he should realize that I never stated "that the judiciary process in Taiwan is a sham and that the Truth Committee set up by the Taiwanese legislature is doomed to fail". It was Laurence Eyton's article itself (Taiwan 'truth' probe said to rape justice, Sep 9) that provided ample justifications for the latter argument, and it was his earlier article (Taiwan: Recounts, fights, shredded democracy, Mar 24) that questioned the integrity and competency of the Taiwan judiciary to conduct a proper vote recount and the constitutionality of the recount itself. Yang should "read and reread, if necessary" (Yang's word in advising me before) these two articles. My point is rather simple: only a competent, unbiased and independent investigation can provide enough evidence for the public to judge whether the suspicion about a staged shooting can be ruled out. (3) If Daniel McCarthy (Sep 10) really believes that Taiwan has a "fair and impartial legal system", perhaps he should instruct the high court on the island to follow the precedent set in 2000 by the US Supreme Court and rule that a recount should not have been done at all. As it turns out, I should not have felt sorry for Dan earlier when he was called a "typical American nerd" because he only took this label as a harmless adjective, if inappropriately applied, to be replaced by "alternative adjectives". What a shame!
Jay Liu
USA (Sep 14, '04)


Henry C K Liu, in his response to Jeff Moore (Sep 10), spoke of it not being his function to further irritate his American readers with his "impeccable logic". This quote, of course, is vanity veiled in sarcasm and is not worth mentioning except for that fact that it concerns two dubious assertions. The first assertion is the use of quotes around the word "surprise" when describing [the Japanese attack on] Pearl Harbor to denote irony and subtly suggest it was no surprise at all. How frightful that Henry would choose to live in a world where governments routinely sacrifice their own people by the thousands to rally the survivors to war to avenge the dead. Henry clearly sees FDR [US president Franklin D Roosevelt] as an Orwellian dictator. Let alone that Henry's facts are a bit stretched, Henry has overlooked Occam's Razor. It seems far too convoluted a theory to believe that a populist president would sacrifice his own Pacific fleet and civilians' lives to start a war when given the far simpler alternatives. The second assertion Henry made was to suggest that Pearl Harbor was a Japanese preemptive attack on US strangulation via embargo and World War II began as "a US vengeance" for the "Day of Infamy". The latter is simply drawn askew by Henry's remarks as it is most certain by any account that the US was rightfully defending itself after the "Day of Infamy". The former is what troubles me because the tone implies Henry would have liked to see the Japanese succeed in breaking the stranglehold embargo and see the whole of the Chinese mainland swallowed up in Imperial Japanese military aggression. It is a very good thing that such a severe stranglehold was put in place against the Imperial Japanese war machine, for I have met far too many kind Chinese people to imagine them speaking a pidgin Japanese. I doubt Henry could disagree.
Terence Redux
USA (Sep 14, '04)


On September 3, [G] Travan wrote a letter [rebuking Daniel] McCarthy for calling John Kerry or Jimmy Carter wimpy. Mr Travan then predicted that "if war ever looms between China and the US over the Taiwan issue, you can be sure no members of the McCarthy clan will be rushing to Quemoy or Matsu to defend Taiwan". Through his previous letters, Mr McCarthy has given a very big impression of his full support for Taiwan independence and the freedom of the Taiwanese people. It would therefore be a great disappointment to freedom lovers of the world, particularly the Taiwanese people, should Mr Travan's allegation turn out to be true. As I have not had the chance to visit your website for the last few days, I was wondering if I missed any letter from Mr McCarthy, in response to Mr Travan's slander, assuring his Taiwanese friends that he will be rushing to Quemoy or Matsu to fight side by side with them at the first instance of Chinese aggression.
Dennis Chua
Singapore (Sep 14, '04)

Dear ATol entities: With friends like Pepe [Escobar], who needs enemies? Al-Pepe nearly had an orgasm explaining the inside workings of al-Qaeda [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11] - I mean, dang, Pepe, we all love an underdog but at some point you gotta rally 'round the family. There's no way to win with people like Pepe. If we got [Osama] bin Laden tomorrow, he'd cry, "But you haven't got so-and-so yet!" Or my favorite: the killing or capturing of tens of thousands of low-life terrorists is not only a bad idea, it's actually making the problem worse! For the former, you should be horse-whipped, at least; for the latter you can kiss my big fat white butt! The fact is, this is all high-gain pre-election rhetoric. My thesis: Pepe's article only glamorizes al-Qaeda. He sounds like he wants people to join! After all, America' s military strategists always make mistakes and al-Qaeda never makes mistakes. Pepe can get back to me and rub it in all he wants when I have to grow a beard [and] pray five times a day, and alJazeera is the only channel on TV.
John the Baptist
Florida Panhandler, USA (Sep 13, '04)


Is there any journalist more bold and audacious than Pepe Escobar? As good as Pepe's article Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] was, I think he missed a few points before reaching his conclusion. On the one hand, the typical American chauvinist views the Iraq war as an offense being the best defense, ie, fighting the war on Arab land as opposed to American soil. In this sense, the occupier has already won. No nation is free and independent if it is occupied by another; even Japan remains a puppet ally of the US. On the other hand, al-Qaeda may indeed be the winner given that it not only hit the US on September 11 [2001], but also forced the US to react in ways that are self-destructive. By this, I mean the cost of the US offense may be unbearable: the 1,000-plus American lives, the declining morale in the US military, the swelling US budget deficits, the declining share of US business brands in overseas markets, the declining value of the US dollar, the humiliation of the US during the prison-abuse scandal, the rejection of US dictates by the Philippines, Venezuela, Spain, etc and even bad luck in the grounding of US space-shuttle fleet. Meanwhile, the EU, China, and Mercosur are all consolidating power that was once usurped by Washington for its own selfish needs.
Roy
US (Sep 13, '04)


Shortly after the bombing in Madrid last spring there appeared a letter in BBC News Online that was allegedly from those responsible for that bombing. The authors stated that the last thing they wished to do was to upset George Bush's election chances since he was the best thing that had happened to the movement. The letter seemed a little hoaxish, almost as if it had been written by a Karl Rove-like Democrat. But [the Sep 11] article Why al-Qaeda is winning by Pepe Escobar provides a reading that suggests that the letter was completely sincere and honest. Bush and al-Qaeda are not opposed, but are complementary. Bush and the dual-loyalty neo-cons use the threat of al-Qaeda action to advance imperial goals and Zionist security, and their success induces the spread of worldwide counter-extremism.
Gregorio Kelly
California (Sep 13, '04)


Your article [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11] is more like a bed of roses. You are not telling enough of the problem. There may not be enough time in our lives to tell everything but [only to] explore what will or would have happened if there was no US presence. Has everybody forgotten that Iraq had invaded another country? That Iraq was in the process of invading another country? What would have happened if the US had not intervened? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Jordan? Others? President [George W] Bush probably had it right the first time when he said that the war on terror was not winnable, but what he meant and what everybody knows he meant was that the war will continue to go on even though all free countries will make it very difficult for a terrorist to strike. The issue of Israel is very complex and while Palestine has a right to exist as a free country, so does Israel. What everybody outside of the US seems not to see is that we don't want to be there ourselves. It was a humanitarian gesture - surely ill-planned, but would things have been any different? I think worse.
John Noonan
Savannah, Georgia (Sep 13, '04)

Which country was Iraq "in the process of invading"? How many countries has the US attacked/bombed/invaded in, say, the same time period during which Saddam Hussein was in power? - ATol


Pepe Escobar is an asshole [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11]. My dad is fighting over there but you [rude words deleted] are too cowardly to print the good things he tells me in all his letters that are happening. Hey Pepe, get a life! We are winning.
bdcherry (Sep 13, '04)

Winning what? Have your dad drop us a line. - ATol


[Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11] by [Pepe] Escobar is the clearest and most effective article I have read in the past three years. He does not repeat the usual cliches, and does not brandish useless slogans. Instead, he presents facts and draws the inevitable conclusions. No apologies, no sugar-coating, no double-talking, and no mincing of words; only a deep respect for, and profound understanding of, the true nature of a complex and fast-evolving issue. I have no doubt that reading the article would convince most readers to have second thoughts about [George W] Bush's qualifications as a president, if they had thought otherwise to begin with.
Aris (Sep 13, '04)


Dear Pepe Escobar: It seems from your article Why al-Qaeda is winning [Sep 11] that you sympathize with these Islamic fundamentalists, based on George W Bush's and America's foreign policies. Calling Russia a "repressive and inept regime" because they want to respond to a horrible attack targeted against little children is not only irresponsible journalism, it is fundamentalism in itself. I realize that there are children in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been killed in civilian casualties, but a deliberate attack on a school does not further the cause in Chechnya or any Islamic cause. You use certain phrases like "Bush's mission from God" and his "crusade", like how dare he, but isn't it true that when the Chechen rebels stormed that school, they screamed "Allahu akbar" ("Allah is the greatest")? Perhaps you need to deal with some of the hypocrisy within yourself. Now I must admit I am not familiar with Asia Times and it is quite possible that there is a large audience of terrorist sympathizers, but for Asia Times to publish this article and many like it makes them sympathizers also.
Philip Meinert (Sep 13, '04)


[Pepe] Escobar's article [Why al-Qaeda is winning, Sep 11] was probably the most slanted message I have every read, and he constantly contradicts himself, states facts, and then never addresses them. Mr Escobar, what is al-Qaeda? Could they possibly be anarchists? The only thing that may appease them is if the whole world unites under the Islamic banner, because that is what is written in their Koran. Are you willing to become Muslim, see your sister and mother stuck in a back room, swathed head to toe in clothes, not allowed to work or leave her home unless accompanied by you? What should the world do about Israel, kill everyone there that is of Jewish faith and heritage? And of course al-Qaeda wants all the infidels beheaded. Mr Escobar, are you familiar with Fidel Castro? He liberated Cuba and has provided a wonderful government for them for over 30 years, [Muqtada al-]Sadr could be his cousin. If you are lucky maybe Sadr will some day be running your mosque and taking your money as he wishes.
Marc L Horn
Orlando, Florida (Sep 13, '04)


I just read the article titled The clash of fundamentalists [Sep 11]. [Ehsan] Ahrari, isn't it wonderful that you live in a country where your arrogant, one-sided, overly simplistic views can be put into print or yelled from the rooftops without fear of retribution? God bless America!
Cassie
USA (Sep 13, '04)


[Re] The clash of fundamentalists [Sep 11]. I think the biggest problem the world has with President [George W] Bush is that he represents what we're feeling as a nation. We are supposed to support financially as well as militarily other countries in need, yet time and time again year after year we are viewed as an awful, arrogant society. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, people were not flocking in droves to leave our country. I don't see hordes of people requesting political asylum to flee from our government. Why do you think that is? If everything we do is so wrong, why do you think people are so drawn here? I think the American people are sick of hearing about this country that's upset with us because we didn't do things their way and this country that has issues with how much money we're sending them and the list of complaints goes on and on. I hardly think the woman who participated as part of the Afghanistan Olympic team would agree with your article, not to mention the Iraq team. It comes so easy to other countries to criticize us but, as the saying goes, when you're on top, people will always throw stones. I guess all of the criticism and attacks on my country just reinforce the fact that we are still on top. That's got to hurt, so go ahead, protest, write terrible articles, slander our name and our president's name daily - it only makes us stronger and more determined to prove you wrong.
Cassie Maldonado (Sep 13, '04)


I want to compliment Ehsan Ahrari on his excellent article The clash of fundamentalists [Sep 11]. He is one of the few writers who understand the important role of millennialism in US politics.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Sep 13, '04)


I have read Alan Boyd's analytical article [Jakarta blast a sign of what's to come, Sep 11] with interest as he had mentioned that JI [Jemaah Islamiya] faced internal conflict due to its "McTerror" strategy, as the mainstream media do not seem to have picked this up. Although I am not an analyst or a psychologist who spent years on the subject matter at hand, I would like to ask a few questions and venture my two cents' worth: 1) JI et al [are] basically described as "nihilistic" in the mainstream media which [say it] does not have a coordinated, practical or rational political agenda other than to impose an Islamic caliphate across Southeast Asia. I would like to ask whether this assertion can be verified and whether all the groups have this stated goal. It is my belief that there are many other (probably local or regional or anarchist) factors at play - some of which are probably unknown due to the shadowy nature of JI. 2) I feel that there is too much emphasis on the detection and capture of terrorists. If governments were to focus on stemming the recruitment of terrorists as well, I think this would be more effective in stopping terrorism. There are many theories floating around as to why terrorists can be recruited even in moderate Muslim countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia - the indoctrination by radical madrassas, poverty, the allure of "glory"/revolution to the [disfranchised], ignorance or pure bigotry, trans-national politics, a sense of injustice. But the problem is that no one can pinpoint exactly what the causes of recruitment are, with the emphasis on uncovering terrorist plots and taking preemptive action. I feel that intelligence agencies can only do so much to stop probably nine or 10 bombs and [there] is not a long-term solution to the problem. 3) If the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries and Australia were to cooperate in an overarching alliance intelligence organization, it would require an unprecedented political solidarity between all the ASEAN nations with each other and Australia. ASEAN is not a strong alliance at all, so I think it is unlikely that this would occur. Moreover, counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering [do] not come cheap in terms of money and human resources - I cannot imagine the kind of resources (and possibly anti-democratic legislation) needed in order to uncover all the terrorists in all of Southeast Asia. Meanwhile if you divert all your resources to anti-terrorism, what about the garden-variety criminals such as drug traffickers, mafia, etc?
Clement
Melbourne, Australia (Sep 13, '04)


I would like to express my appreciation for Li YongYan's comments on the struggle between Hu [Jintao] and Jiang [Zemin], as I am convinced this is perhaps the most significant event in East Asia at this time [Power struggle: Will Jiang step down?, Sep 11]. Li rightly observes that Jiang may be reluctant to step down because his enemies will demand their "pound of flesh". But I believe that whether there is a power struggle and what Hu can do to consolidate his power is not the issue; we know there is a struggle. Instead, the question is what are the potential consequences of this struggle? Because Jiang may not go down without a fight, I believe that we must watch China's actions towards Taiwan very carefully. Jiang controls the military and war elevates the military's power in any government. China does not have a tradition of retired leaders stepping aside peacefully; they usually have to be forced out or die. Therefore, if Jiang feels his back is against the wall, it is not inconceivable that he might attack Taiwan as a way of elevating and solidifying his power and that of his clique. The PRC's [People's Republic of China's] bellicose rhetoric has been laying the groundwork for Jiang to make this decision without catching the Chinese people off guard. It will be important to watch [Taiwan] President Chen [Shui-bian]'s maneuvers as well because we can assume that his administration is monitoring the situation closely. One thing I have learned during my time in China is that things can change very quickly.
Ken Arok
Jinan, China (Sep 13, '04)


I want to thank Li YongYan for touching on the subject of Falungong in his article Power struggle: will Jiang step down? (Sep 11), and offer a couple of remarks. The "master" of this sect has written a number of books in Chinese and English. I believe he had someone help with the translation as he did not have any formal education beyond high school in China. It is possible, of course, that he may have now gained knowledge of the English language after having lived comfortably in the US for a number of years and being supported by who knows whom. In essence, he concocted a routine of breathing exercises, which look very much like many other qi-kung schools, and he "invented" some special movements of his own to put a stamp on it. Yes, some people benefit from these exercises, as anyone would if yoga, tai-chi, or any other form is practiced. This is understandable. What is objectionable is that he considers himself (in his writings) as superhuman, being able to heal and even go through a wall. According to him, one can go to heaven when one, at the ultimate stage, can fire up a "wheel" turning in the area of the human body between the belly button and the genitals. Hence the word lun, the word for "wheel" in Chinese. It is not surprising that people can be indoctrinated, like the Moonies, the Jonestown followers, or the Heaven's Gate believers (who, despite their high level of education, died for their belief in San Diego, California). I think [fewer and fewer] people inside China are adhering to this sect as the government explained through the media the harm done to so many families. But the outside world is always interested in protecting the "freedom" of religion and is just too happy to stir up trouble. However, China is not interested in winning votes from these outside "defenders" of freedom. In my view anyone can practice any kind of exercise in private. But to be highly organized and reaping money as a national group is another matter, not to mention the preaching of a superhuman master.
Seung Li (Sep 13, '04)


Of course the world would want John Kerry because he is easily controlled.by the international leaders [If the world could vote, it's Kerry in a landslide, Sep 10]. He has proven to be very indecisive, and that is exactly the type of leader the world wants to lead the most powerful nation in the world. What better way to control the US's foreign policy than by having a "flip-flopper" as a president? Furthermore there are close to 50-odd Muslim nations that make up this "world of nations" and we all know they vote as a bloc and vote against American foreign relations. They want to undermine the USA, and John Kerry fits the bill. Also Europe is vying with the United States for global dominance led by nations like American-hating France and Germany. There [are] also many socialist governments in the European Union who detest the US$12 trillion market economy of the United States. Whether their dislike is driven by envy or an innate desire to see the United States lose some of its power who knows, but these are the nations that are voting for John Kerry. Their votes are not impartial votes that look out for the better interest of the United States but the better interest of their own agenda. The USA is not only the largest economy by far, it is also the third-most-populous nation in the world, and I believe the third-largest nation by size. We are a continental-sized nation by geography, population and economy. Do we really care what the world wants as our leader? Are they paying the US taxes? Are they voting in our elections? The answer is obvious. Therefore their Euro-trash opinion is really of no concern to us, nor are the [racist reference deleted] of the Middle East going to decide our future. We want a strong leader like President [George W] Bush who will lead another term. We want a strong leader who is not wishy-washy and will defend this country. For 200 years we have elected our leaders without any help or worrying about "world opinions" to guide our vote.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana, The Good Old USA (Sep 13, '04)


Henry Liu's self-described "impeccable" logic is actually a logic that slithers and slinks through the weeds, burying some facts from inconvenient sight, half-exposing and twisting others with clever wordplay. But never clever enough. In his article (Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization [Sep 3]) and his response to its critics (letter below), he on one hand tells of the "surprise" (quotes by Liu) attacks on Pearl Harbor, as in "not really a surprise" (wink, wink). On the other hand, he says his quotes were not meant to cast aspersions on the "technical validity" of characterizing the location of the attack as a "surprise". Surprise! Liu beseeches us to believe that his aspersions are instead cast against the surprise (expressed by whom?) that Japan and America were a train-wreck about to happen. Responding to [Jeff] Moore's (letter, [Sep 9]) point that it was unlikely that US officials had foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Liu, like a parlor magician, switches back to the first hand, saying "It was incontrovertible ... that Japanese plans were known in advance to US defense officials." Here is the deviously clever wordplay. Yes, some plans were known. What was not know was that Pearl Harbor was the target. Liu's sneaky response to a point specifically dealing with the targeting of Pearl Harbor with a general statement about US knowledge of "Japanese plans" is to lead you to believe a lie - that knowledge of those plans included knowledge of the targeting of Pearl Harbor. Liu continues this deceptive ruse by saying, "The exact attack plan by carrier planes had been worked out by General Billy Mitchell ..." Again, this is in response to Moore's specific comment regarding foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Liu does not want you to know that General Mitchell made his prediction in 1924! And that his predictions were not accepted by his peers. As Moore pointed out, and Liu side-stepped, had FDR [president Franklin D Roosevelt] known of the plans to attack Pearl Harbor, he would have ensured that the attack was met with force, knowing full well that a failed attack would be almost as offensive to American minds as a successful one. We were a much more bigoted nation then, and any attack by the Japanese, successful or no, would have unleashed war. Racism also partly explains the failure to take General Mitchell's views seriously and consider Pearl Harbor a potential target. It has been endlessly documented that US officials fully expected an attack, yet, through a combination of cultural blinders, racial hubris, and the belief that the Japanese were incapable of conceiving such an audacious plan, failed to consider Pearl Harbor as a likely target. With "impeccable" logic like his, is it any wonder that Liu also fails to comprehend the overarching objective of America's involvement in World War II? It was neither to "spread democracy" (Liu's straw man; although advancing the cause of liberalism was a secondary goal), nor was it some ulterior "geopolitical purpose", as Liu claims. It was to preserve liberal democracy - our own. Even a cursory reading of FDR, and those eventually swayed by him, shows that he viewed America's own freedoms as untenable in a future world dominated by fascism and militarism. The simplest truths are always the most difficult for ideologues to confront.
Drusilla
Suffering Succotash, Rhode Island (Sep 13, '04)


Dear [Henry C K] Liu: Thank you for your well-crafted reply [Sep 10] to my critique [Sep 9] of your article [Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization, Sep 3]. I suppose we could go back and forth on what conspiracy theories do and do not hold water, but that would waste my sunny afternoon and merely add to the occasionally scary back-and-forth literary duels ATol frequently prints. Ain't freedom of speech grand? I would, however, like to shore up a few facts. First, true, General [Billy] Mitchell did hypothesize an air attack on Pearl was possible, but Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto got the idea for Pearl Harbor from Britain's success with its attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto in 1940. Second, yes, the whole US fleet was larger than Japan's, but America's was split between two oceans, which made Japan's by far the largest in the Pacific. This was the gist of my argument. It was also more modern and contained one of the biggest battleships ever to set sail, the Yamato, launched on August, 8 1940. Third, while Washington did indeed believe war between the US and Japan was inevitable, it did not think an attack on Pearl was probable at the time. It instead assumed it more likely that the Japanese would strike the Philippines. Further, Admiral R K Turner, director of war plans and man of influence in Washington, was convinced the Japanese were planning to attack Russia and not Pearl Harbor. His thinking influenced other persons of influence. Fourth, attacking the US mainland was never a prerequisite for going to war with Japan. Attacking Pearl was enough. Japan did not have to assail Los Angeles too. As you indicate, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed about 2,000 and destroyed most of the [US] Navy's battleships and cruisers, leaving the Pacific Fleet with but a few carriers to Japan's more than 12. Immediately following, Japan attacked US forces in the Philippines, on Guam, and at Wake. This too was enough for war. Most importantly, Japan declared war on the US first, and this was enough for war as well. Further, Imperial Japan's rampage through Asia combined with its direct and devastating attacks on US interests and its alliance with Nazi Germany proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a threat to the US. Lastly, you are an enthusiastic commentator who puts forth interesting and thoughtful arguments, even though I don't agree with many of them. However, if you would curb your occasional condescending attitude and insults, readers might put more stock into what you have to say. The whole white-vs-yellow angle, and things such as "But it's not my function to further irritate my American readers with impeccable logic" take away from your arguments. Nevertheless, I look forward to reading more of your articles.
Jeff Moore
Author, Spies for Nimitz; Joint Military Intelligence in the Pacific War (Sep 13, '04)


Dear Spengler: I have been reading your columns since I discovered Asia Times Online a few months ago. I have found them very excellent and have not missed an opportunity to recommend them to my friends, many of which now agree with me on this appreciation. Although I have not seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ yet, I read your review of it [Mel Gibson's Lethal Religion, Mar 9] and found it, as usual, very amusing, witty and thought-provoking. At the end of your article you encouraged readers to listen to Johann Sebastian Bach's "St Matthew Passion" as an antidote against the cultural mediocrity of this movie. I certainly agree that this music is a potent drug against exasperation provoked by the ills of modernity, but have you ever listened to [Antonio] Vivaldi's recently rediscovered "Vespri per l'Assunzione di Maria Vergine"? If not, you should, for I believe it is even more puissant.
Alexander (Sep 13, '04)


I have been reading much of what Syed Saleem Shahzad writes and I am extremely disappointed. He has abused the codes of journalism over and over and his articles are often tainted by his narrow views as opposed to the truth. I am not sure if he serves the interest of truth or the interests of Pakistan.
A Tawab Hamidi (Sep 13, '04)


No, Jay Liu, I am not mistaken (letter Sep 10). You do call people names. You can make whatever excuses you like now but the fact remains you often call people names and you do it in print for all of us to read. End of story.
Sam Liu (Sep 13, '04)


As an India-born Indian who has spent 20 years in Malaysia, I concur with Jack Daniel's September 10 observation [letter below] of the treatment meted out to Indians in Malaysia. This, however, comes as no surprise to Malaysian-born Indians. All non-Malay Malaysians are aware of their place in the socio-political hierarchy and in their own interest are habitually deferential to the largely Malay officialdom. Indians coming from India, on the other hand, have long shed obeisance based on race or religion and by and large are vocally democratic. Small wonder that they are singled out for unsympathetic treatment in Malaysia. To make matters worse, the local perception of all Indians as backward and largely uneducated coolies of the rubber or oil-palm estates is slow in changing.
KV (Sep 13, '04)


[Lester] Ness's reference [letter, Sep 10] to an attributed quote in my [Sep 9] letter (to a native American saying) as being originally made by Heraclitus of Ephesus adds credence to the adage that holds that what is new is not always correct. As an aside to the Greek and native American connection: Some years ago a scientific magazine reported on archeological excavations in a state on the eastern coast of the US in which some artifacts were found and which resembled similar artifacts found in the Cyraniaca region of northern Libya. Interestingly enough, that part of Libya did have (may still have) a number of families that traced their origins to Old Greece. This of course in no way presumes any conceivable connections between a Greek philosopher and a nameless native America except, that Homo sapiens do seem to have a way with words. Thank you, Dr Ness.
Armand De Laurell (Sep 13, '04)


Joe Nichols' accusation that President George Bush deliberately pulled back our [US] guard in anticipation of September 11, 2001 (letter, Sep 10), is beyond the pale. If anyone wishes to know why John Kerry will lose by a landslide in November (and he will) it is in no small part due to the unhinged dialogue of his supporters. Regular folks read or hear such nonsense and think, "What kind of country would we have if these people were in charge?" Some are unable to hear how their own voice sounds to others; John Kerry supporters appear especially afflicted with that malady.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 13, '04)


Jay C Hudgins [letter, Sep 10] said: "We Americans believe in educating ourselves about the political process, the candidates and the reason why we vote." Well, I am sure that in many other countries, people do too! This remark is quite arrogant and "uneducated" about the rest of the world. Anyway, it is true that in many countries of the world including this one [US], people tend to think that others vote differently because they are uninformed or plain dumb.
Christopher
Seattle, Washington (Sep 13, '04)


[Re World votes for Kerry in a landslide, Sep 10] Interesting article - but [I] would note that there are many parts of the world that can't vote for leaders in their own country much less for the leader of the United States of America. With that written - I should also note that there is a saying in this country that an uninformed vote is a wasted vote. We Americans believe in educating ourselves about the political process, the candidates and the reason why we vote. This might be why [presidential challenger John] Kerry, at least for the moment, is behind in the polls. But good try - keep writing!
Jay C Hudgins
Austin, Texas (Sep 10, '04)


[Re World votes for Kerry in a landslide, Sep 10] I'm not sure just what the point of the poll showing "advantage Kerry" among other nations was supposed to be. I'm not aware that other countries give a bucket of warm spit what we think about their elections, so why does anyone expect the US to worry about what they think of ours? It doesn't matter what the general US foreign policy is, whoever it doesn't favor won't be happy. They never have been and never will be. Fortunately, the only voters the American candidates have to concern themselves with are American!
Walter W Matera
Lakewood, California (Sep 10, '04)

The article was the best-read on our September 10 edition, so apparently some people were interested. - ATol


Thanks to Arun Bhattacharjee for a very good article on Malaysia, our current prime minister's thinking on India, investment and India-Malaysia relations [Malaysia fishing for Indian investment, Sep 10], but ... Malaysian government officers of all levels (who are almost exclusively ethnic Malay) have a personal dislike for Malaysians of Indian origin, especially of Tamil origin. This dislike also extends to Indians and India, which explains why Indians and Indian companies will always be singled out for unsympathetic, harsh or even unfair treatment in Malaysia compared with investors from other countries.
Jack Daniel's
Malaysia (Sep 10, '04)


I've read N Korea's military edge over S Korea [Sep 10] by David Scofield. I always appreciate his quality articles.
Gomdori
Jeju, South Korea (Sep 10, '04)


If Jay Liu [letter, Sep 9] thinks that sinister insinuations make a good argument, he must have presupposed that ATol readers are ignorant dunces. While insinuating that the assassination attempt [against Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian] was staged, he has not provided a shred of evidence to justify his accusation. What he has considered as the corroborating evidence to repudiate Laurence Eyton [Taiwan 'truth' probe said to rape justice, Sep 9] is again nothing but insinuation. The strength of his argument is to cast doubt on President Chen Shui-bian's overnight shift of behavior in conjunction with the poisoning incident and the shooting separately. But the argument has exposed to us how little Jay Liu has been informed about modern-day medical procedures in the aspect of same-day surgery and anesthesia. He is probably also oblivious to what modern-day painkillers can do. But of course, he may be medically wise and the blooper that he has made with his so-called "repudiating" and "contradicting" evidence may have been engineered by his own zealotry to sully Laurence Eyton's integrity. (Here we must remind ourselves that "besmearing" has always been a familiar tactic used by the Chinese propaganda outlet.) Further, there is nothing original about his argument. He has merely plagiarized it from the KMT [Kuomintang] losers. Besides, we must be aware that Jay Liu is a cowardly insinuator. Throughout his argument, he has not enlightened us with any new insight. He does not dare to be original, such as what Sissy Chen, a KMT lackey and talk-show host, has done in suggesting that the shooting injury was doctored up by the medical staff at Chi-mei Hospital in Tainan. Also, maybe he could have been a little creative to state as a matter of fact that the wound across President Chen's belly was achieved through sawing, such as what my KMT friend in Taiwan has told me in confidence. All in all, Jay Liu's attack is not only a malicious attempt to tarnish Laurence Eyton, it is also a mockery of our intelligence as ATol readers. He thinks we are dunces and can be bought by his argument. This is nothing but a hallucinatory disorder shared by him and his comrade [letter writer] Frank. Just as Frank would like us to believe that "self-delusion" will maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, Jay Liu would like us to believe that propaganda by means of sinister insinuation is still a viable trick. Just as Frank has lectured us again and again on the topic of "mutual respect" while urging ATol to discontinue granting discussion on issues most important to the lives of the 23 million people in Taiwan and countless Chinese on the mainland, Jay Liu wants us to believe that the judiciary process in Taiwan is a sham and that the Truth Committee set up by the Taiwanese legislature is doomed to fail while giving us no justification as to his argument. We may be able to forebear Frank's childish discourse, but we expect Jay Liu to shun intellectual cowardice, if the latter does not want to be labeled "hallucinatory". Otherwise, perhaps Jay Liu and Frank would like to form a "confederacy of dunces" and bang each other on the head constantly like the Three Stooges with gibberish and "leave us alone" as Frank has appealed so earnestly to ATol.
Chunhui Yang (Sep 10, '04)


Frank of Seattle, Washington, wrote [letter, Sep 9], "My point is that your website is promoting hatred to China, Chinese people, and Chinese government." A free and open discussion of the issues concerning China and its belligerence should engender greater understanding, not greater hatred, and AToL is making its contribution. In contrast, the one-sided presentation of issues in the Chinese press has created an environment of intense war fever and xenophobia, at least among a segment of the population. Frank too contributes to this atmosphere by posing China's war threats against Taiwan as being caused by "white people" even though I think Frank would agree that the people in Taiwan and the people in China are both almost entirely "yellow people" (Frank's words). If it were really a "white" versus "yellow" issue as Frank postulates, then the people of Taiwan would side with China, but clearly they do not. Fortunately, [US National Security Adviser] Condeleezza Rice (another "white" people?) visited Beijing earlier this year in an attempt to dissuade yellow from attacking yellow. And regarding Frank's point about mutual respect, if only the Chinese government would respect the wishes of the Taiwanese people, then there will be no reason to resort to violence. The best method for ascertaining the true wishes of the Taiwanese people is to hold a plebiscite in an environment completely free from intimidation or threat of war. If this is really a "yellow" versus "white" issue, then surely China will agree to the plebiscite, since all "yellow" will vote as a unified voice, right? Final note to Frank: [letter writer] Chunhui Yang did not call you names; he used adjectives. If you feel the adjectives are inappropriate, then please suggest alternative adjectives. Jay Liu [letter, Sep 9] criticized Taiwan's judiciary for not reaching a final resolution quickly enough in the vote-recount imbroglio. Fair and impartial legal systems take their time to consider all the evidence and follow proper procedure before reaching a result. and Taiwan's is one such system (set up by the Chinese Kuomintang, by the way). Perhaps Mr Liu was hoping for a rapid result dictated by political leaders without regard to evidence as China's would have provided. By the way, how many presidential election vote recounts has the PRC's [People's Republic of China] legal system handled?
Daniel McCarthy (Sep 10, '04)


Sam Liu (letter, Sep 9) is definitely mistaken in accusing me of name calling in my letters. If he has indeed been a longtime reader of ATol as claimed, then he should know that my September 8 letter was not the first one in commenting on the phenomenon of ad hominem attacks by letter contributors (or even ATol editors). It has always been my belief that, in any meaningful discourse, one should present a position and then provide sufficient backing for the viewpoint. Whether Sam takes my comments seriously or not should be his own prerogative and beyond my control. In respond to Chunhui Yang (letter, Sep 9), I agree with the ATol editor that Frank "makes thoughtful and valid points from time to time". Some of the opinions expressed in ATol letters are quite fiery and inflammatory indeed. As long as Frank can support his views and Chunhui can rebut them without getting too personal, it is really not important whether I believe "that the ongoing debate on ATol will actually alter the state of affairs in regards to the crisis in the Taiwan Strait". I will certainly refrain from any "lengthy debate about Frank's mental status" no matter how egotistical I want to be. How can anyone pretend to know Frank's psychological state just by reading his letters? Chill out, man!
Jay Liu
USA (Sep 10, '04)


If Chunhui Yang, Sam Liu [letters, Sep 9] and some ATol editors do not approve the act of personal attacks, may I suggest you look into the mirror before making such charges? I presume that both readers are [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian's new human race. That is why they felt more superior to me. I may be a retard to your standard. I know one fact. You should treat other people the same way you want to be treated. I am sure the new human race is smart enough to know that. If you have disagreement with my point, bring it on. I am not against arguments in letter section. I think ATol editors did a great job by letting both sides express their opinions here. However, I would like to read more articles promoting peace and reconciliation in Asia. The articles for the purpose of diminishing Chinese will promote hate from both sides. They are no different than the articles published by Nazis to justify the killing of Jews. Such articles will lead indirectly to a war. History proved that in Europe 60 years ago. We do not want to repeat that in Asia in the next four years. Do you?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 10, '04)


My placing of the term "surprise" in quotes regarding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in my article Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization [Sep 3] has understandably rankled some American readers. Jeff Moore [letter, Sep 9] has reiterated the official US view on the subject by claiming US complacency, if not intelligence failure, which ironically echoes current official view of September 11 [2001] when some 3,000 perished, more than Pearl Harbor. Yet September 11 is not referred to as a surprise attack. The current war on terrorism should have been declared nine years before September 11, since the very same target had been bombed nine years earlier by the same alleged terrorist group. But the reality is that unambiguous public support for war is usually unavailable before a massive catastrophic event, on the basis of mere anticipation. Mr Moore argues that "if FDR [president Franklin D Roosevelt] had known about the coming attack, he could have both ambushed the Japanese at sea and still gotten Congress to declare war. The mere fact that the Nazi-aligned Japanese military was on the way to attack Pearl with a massive fleet certainly would have been enough for such a declaration." This argument is not convincing. It was incontrovertible that the US leadership regarded war with Japan as inevitable and that Japanese plans were known in advance to US defense officials. The exact attack plan by carrier planes had been worked out by General Billy Mitchell long before Japan adopted it. Mr Moore then went on to weaken his own argument: "Ambushing the Japanese would not have been a sure victory, by the way. At the time, the US fleet was twice as small as Japan's." This statement is factually inaccurate. The Washington Conference of 1921-22 produced the Five-Power Treaty, limiting tonnage of aircraft carries and other capital ships of Britain, US and Japan to a ratio of 5:5:3 respectively. Japan withdrew from the London Conference (1935) when she was refused naval parity with the US and Britain. Further, Mr Moore's observation unwittingly supports the claim by [conspiracy] theories that the US sacrificed obsolete battleships to achieve full popular support for total war. The point made in my article is that military conflict between Japan and the US should be no surprise to anyone familiar with rising tension between the two countries, and the "surprise" in quotes was meant to suggest the characterization as merely technically valid. The main strategic cause was US apprehension regarding Japanese control of China, for which the US has a historical interest in maintaining its "Open Door" policy, and regarding Japanese expansion toward Southeast Asia, including the Philippines, where Western colonialism was the order of the day. Mr Moore is correct that Japan was America's most lucrative trade partner at the time and that not placing oil, cotton, and metal embargoes on Japan and not going to war with it would have served US national interests best. This observation supports a key thesis in my article, which is that the misidentification of national interests often leads the US into war. Acts of embargo are generally considered warlike actions. There is a continuous tactical divide between the trade colonialists and the political colonialists in US foreign policy, with the latter leaning toward war as a preferred solution. Mr Moore is also accurate in observing that "America had spent years in semi-isolation in the aftermath of World War I and was reluctant to fight World War II". This is precisely why [conspiracy] theories suggest that a catastrophic incident, such as an unprovoked "surprise" attack, was necessary to get the American people to support US entrance into war in Europe as a priority. Mr Moore noted further: "Even with Germany sinking US logistics ships bound for Europe, with key allies such as France under Axis control, and with England suffering from torrid bombardment, America still did not go to war. If it really wanted to spread democracy through Europe, any of these would have been enough of an excuse to do so." This is also my point, that the US did not enter World War II to spread democracy but merely uses that slogan as a pretext for geopolitical purposes, the same way that the US is engaged in war in Iraq now not to spread democracy, but merely to use the slogan as a pretext for geopolitical purposes. Mr Moore's assertion that "history decisively demonstrates that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor - and therefore self-defense - was the key motivator behind America entering World War II" is not convincing. The US mainland was never directly threatened before or even after Pearl Harbor, and in fact all through World War II and after, until the arrival of the nuclear age. Hawaii did not become a state until 1959. One could argue that Pearl Harbor was a Japanese preemptive attack on US strangulation via embargo and World War II began as a US vengeance for the "Day of Infamy"." But its not my function to further irritate my American readers with impeccable logic.
Henry C K Liu (Sep 10, '04)


I'd like to respond to Kannan's letter dated September 9. Firstly, nowhere in my [Sep 3] letter (which Kannan responded to) did I state that Muslim rulers in India were always benevolent. I'd be delusional to think so. The Mughals, just like the Tughlaqs and all the other Muslim dynasties before them, were expansionists and militaristic, intolerant of any opposition to their rule. Resistance was often brutally suppressed. That, however, makes them no different than their contemporaries at the time, be they Hindu, Catholic or whatever. My letter merely pointed out the fact that, contrary to radical Hindu propaganda that abounds today, Muslims did not engage in a concerted policy of genocide and mass forced conversions, and that too for a thousand years. There is no evidence to suggest they did, none whatsoever. Was it because they did not have sophisticated weaponry, as Kannan suggests? Nonsense! Rwanda's Hutus didn't either, but they managed to slaughter millions with crude wooden clubs and rudimentary machetes. Now, this does not mean that India's Muslim rulers never committed an atrocity or looted a temple. Some did, and there's no excuse for it. The latter, as Kannan points out, was usually not religiously but economically (a la greed) motivated. Hindu temples in medieval India were also centers of covert political resistance (as many of them were constructed by, and paid homage to, Hindu kings), which made them natural targets for invading armies. No matter what the reasons were, I, like most Indian Muslims, unequivocally condemn these actions, for they go against the very nature of our core beliefs. Having said that, we are not responsible for the crimes of a few misguided forefathers, just as Hindus today are in no way responsible for the crimes their ancestors perpetrated in the name of religion (Narendra Modi is another matter, Kannan, and the fact that he's still in power speaks very poorly of how Indians look the other way whenever Muslim blood is shed). We can all stake claims on past injustices, but that does no one any good. Reasonable people must let, nay demand, the sleeping dog of history lie or zealots will very easily misinterpret and misuse it. Hinduvta anyone?
Fareed Zahid
Waltham, Massachusetts (Sep 10, '04)


"The quote attributed to a native American ... that the same river cannot be crossed twice is" - Armand de Laurell [letter, Sep 9]. Actually, it's from Heraclitus of Ephesus, the Greek philosopher. A literal translation of the Greek is more ambiguous: "everything flows, nothing stands still; we both step and not step in the same river, for ever and ever the waters flow on."
Dr Lester Ness
Huaqiao University
Quanzhou, Fujian, China (Sep 10, '04)


Actually, [Ahmed] Zaheer (letter [Sep 9]), some of us do find [B] Raman's articles to have considerable detail. If fact I suggest you read some of the Arab newspapers where a lot of the editorials have acknowledged that most terrorists in the world do happen to be of Muslim origin. Now back to India: just because Pakistan is exploiting bad management by Indian politicians does not make Pakistan correct or not guilty of the crime. Last time I checked, your own [Pakistan] famed military was guilty of mismanagement of even higher proportion than the infamous Indian political and bureaucratic class. Let us both worry about our own problems, and we shall be fine. That should leave Mr Raman free to compile on this continuing jihadi stuff.
AP (Sep 10, '04)


As Ernie Lynch notes (letter, Sep 9), madman Richard Radcliffe's re-fried speculation (letter, Sep 4) that George W Bush sat stunned and bewildered after being told of the disaster unfolding in New York on September 11 [2001] to avoid "scaring the children" is a hoot. It is more credible to think that he shat his drawers. In any event, those minutes and that face still want an explanation - here's mine: Bush got more than he bargained for in the attacks of September 11. During the preceding Clinton administration, hawkish elements in the US and Israel watched as such events as the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole were passed by as potential justifications for enacting a plan that had been cooked up as early as 1992 and has since been put into effect; namely (and for multiple purposes), to insert the US firmly into Central Asia and the Middle East. When the Bush team came to power, they waited for the next big event with their spin-doctors at the ready. They talked about it, planned for it and even pulled back their guard, opening the door a little wider to facilitate the next, big, inevitable terrorist event. They even dropped al-Qaeda and terrorism down a notch on a list of intelligence-gathering priorities, scuttling some investigations, blocking others and passing by the detection of planning and training activities as insufficient to rouse the nation - they needed a significant event. Bush was involved, of course. And the logic argued that since this kind of stuff (terrorism) is simply always going on, wasn't invented by us [Americans] and really is a critical threat to stability, order and good business, then it's only a nuance to help it along at the right time and on our terms - "our watch". What some of the principals and agents of this strategy might have known about the details of what was coming on September 11 was not in Bush's imagination. Plausible deniability is one possible aspect, but not likely, as the events themselves were beyond accounting for at any level. Bush was thinking USS Cole, or preferably US embassy, grade of disaster and outrage. And so the look on his face was fear; fear that what they had waited for and allowed to happen was too much to contain: it was too much and too big and too near. Imagine the embezzler hearing that there will be an audit; or the boy who burned down the barn on the day he skipped school hearing his parents have learned he wasn't in class. Bush's expression was that of someone afraid he would get caught and didn't know what to do. His sequestering in the following days was probably dedicated to reassuring him that that won't happen, "explaining" the matter, and more planning.
Joe Nichols
USA (Sep 10, '04)


Lately, some readers have been criticizing Asia Times for giving extraordinary coverage to your Pakistani bureau chief Mr Saleem Shahzad. I read his rebuttal [letters, Sep 1] against those objections. While I am not entirely satisfied by his rejoinder as it did not fully cover raised questions where he tried to talk "apples against oranges" and was pompous while responding to the criticism, when he only narrated himself as the champ of "breaking the news" after [September 11, 2001] in the context of Taliban, Afghanistan and war on terrorism in the area. My question today is utterly different. Are not there many more things and issues to talk about Pakistan and South Asia besides Taliban and Afghanistan? It is disgusting and I feel like throwing up - talking the same crappy topic back and forth, grinding Taliban and Afghanistan [and] picturing Pakistan and the United States? Give us a break, guys.
Shafiq Khan
Canada (Sep 10, '04)


Laurence Eyton must have been joking when he was trying to have ATol readers entrust the Taiwan judiciary to conduct an independent investigation of "Bulletgate" [Taiwan 'truth' probe said to rape justice, Sep 9]. The same capable judiciary so far has not even completed a simple recount of the votes for the March 20 presidential election yet. Eyton's portraying of the mysterious shooting of Chen Shui-bian on March 19 as an "assassination attempt" is already charitable knowing the fact, discovered by a team of international experts, that a home-made handgun was supposed to have been the weapon of choice by the purported "assassins". In addition, Eyton did his best to have ATol readers regard the suggestion that the shooting might have been staged to win sympathy votes as "laughable, consisting mainly conspiracy theories hatched on the Internet". However, Eyton's own assertions and prejudice can easily be repudiated and contradicted by Taiwan TV viewers who discerned a behavioral pattern when they recalled that Chen, as a candidate for a county executive 18 years ago, had supposedly been poisoned and shown with IV [intravenous] tubes in him the day before the election. Chen then appeared perfectly fine the next day, just as he did after the March 20 election this year, smiling, raising both arms high, celebrating with his supporters, and still suffering "deep flesh wounds" as reported at the time by Eyton himself [Taiwan: Recounts, fights, shredded democracy, Mar 24]. One probably can understandably argue that the committee set up by the Taiwan legislature to investigate the shooting is doomed to fail; nonetheless, Eyton has once again been shown to be of no help at all as a journalist in truth finding and has no shame in the least as a PR [public relations] consultant for Chen and his DPP [Democratic Progressive Party].
Jay Liu
USA (Sep 9, '04)


[Re Toward an Iraqi exit strategy, Sep 9] Best intentions notwithstanding, an "exit" strategy based on questionable "entry" strategies can only be reflective of haphazard thinking. The realities are such that there are basically two options: for the occupying powers to maintain their presence either covertly or overtly, or to just exit lock stock and barrel. Given its past [in]actions, the Arab League is as defunct as the League of Nations. The die, for all intents and purposes, seems to have been cast. The quote attributed to a native American (by the way, not one of those who claim Viking roots) that the same river cannot be crossed twice is applicable in this context regardless of academic or political pontifications or proposals. The option to stay put in Iraq is a costly one in terms of human casualties and financing. The option of removing all troops and surrogate Iraqis has to made as soon as possible with no conditions and with hopes for the best. Iraq and the Middle East as well as any other part of this planet cannot ever be a reflection of what the USA, England or any other nation [is]. The invasion of Iraq has only hastened the emerging of a new world order, for better or for worse. According to some observers the neo-cons may have started the days of reckoning for those who clamored loudly for the invasion of Iraq.
Armand De Laurell (Sep 9, '04)


Dear Spengler: [Phillip] Longman's book [The Empty Cradle] seems to show an ignorance of the declining influence of Christianity in America [Faith, fertility, and American dominance, Sep 8]. A recent poll shows: "The proportion of the [US] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001" (ARIS study). "'We the people' of the United States now form the most profusely religious nation on Earth" (Diana Eck). "There does not seem to be revival taking place in America. Whether that is measured by church attendance, born-again status, or theological purity, the statistics simply do not reflect a surge of any noticeable proportions" (George Barna). "... The number of Protestants soon will slip below 50% of the nation's population" (National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, 2004). While America may be a "religious" nation, religion is increasingly diverse but non-Christian. While Christians may have more children per family than non-Christians, their children are leaving the faith in numbers sufficient to barely break even. Converts aren't being made at a rate sufficient to make up the difference. The general population is growing faster than the Christian faith. "Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years - about 0.9 percentage [point] per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the US." "The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca - a neo-pagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months. " Also, unlike Islam, Judaism and other religions, Christianity depends upon a personal belief in Christ - therefore children of Christians are not automatically Christians unless they make that decision for themselves. So large Christian families don't really mean much unless the children accept their parents' faith. I haven't read Longman's book yet - but plan to - but it seems to me from your review that he is merely repeating an old refrain - fear of being overrun by the "fertile" minority, whatever that minority may be perceived to be at a particular time and place in history.
Ted Rice (Sep 9, '04)


"Already coined as Russia's September 11 by various Russian pundits and editorials, the tragic slaughter of hundreds of innocent people in a middle school in Beslan has the potential to trigger a major tremor in the foreign policy charted by President Vladimir Putin, perhaps even as far as heralding a new chapter in US-Russia relations, much to the chagrin of the so-called Eurasianists around Putin who have for a long time been advising him to steer clear of the US's 'war on terrorism'." [Russia forced to rethink US ties, Sep 8.] An alliance between [US President George W] Bush and Putin would truly be a marriage made in hell. It would bring back memories of the [Joachim von] Ribbentrop/[Vyacheslav] Molotov pact of 1939 in which Nazi Germany and communist Russia agreed to divide up Poland. This one is even more sinister. Bush and Putin might agree to divide up the world, using the bogeyman of "terrorism" as a pretext. I pray that God will save mankind from such an evil alliance.
Jerry Greenberg (Sep 9, '04)


To Won Joon Choe: I read your article on South Korea's retrograde politics [Sep 4] with great interest and pleasure. I agree with you that the Western media often misrepresent events in South Korea, and that perhaps no better example of this exists than the Western news coverage involving Roh Moo-hyun's impeachment last March. As you noted, what was particularly remarkable about the Western coverage of the Roh impeachment was that it couldn't even get the basic facts - and not just the analysis part - right. I was appalled that virtually all respectable Western newspapers and news journals claimed that the National Election Commission's memorandum to Roh declared that Roh had violated the election laws when it actually said precisely the opposite. How is it possible for everyone to get something so basic so wrong? This was simply a matter of translation, and the words that the National Election Commission used were not at all ambiguous. As a general rule, I also agree that South Korean politics is better explained through Confucian paradigms rather than democratic or liberal paradigms. Ironically, however, you were guilty of the same simplified, un-nuanced approach that you rightfully criticize in the Western media, in one respect. While it is true that the National Election Commission explicitly "stated that Roh had not violated the law" regarding the president's duty remain neutral in elections, you neglected to mention what it said in the next sentence. I don't have the text in front of me now, but I believe it said something like "we hope you will maintain neutrality in the future". So what the National Election Commission implied was: We believe you did violate the election laws but we will officially say that you did not violate the election laws this one time to avoid impeachment or other controversies. I wish you had discussed these ambiguities in your article, rather than simply opting for the literary translation of the National Election Commission's memorandum.
J Park
New York, New York (Sep 9, '04)


Henry C K Liu's Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization on September 3 misrepresents several facts regarding America's involvement in World War II. First, by putting "surprise" in quotes, he passively indicates president Franklin Roosevelt [FDR] knew about the coming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Neither fact nor historical US national-security patterns supports this tired premise. America's Pacific intelligence community was then highly disjointed between several small and ineffectual organizations. One of the many disastrous results was that communications intelligence was fractured between Hawaii and Washington, DC. No single entity was reading all the transcripts that might have led to the conclusion that the Japanese were on the verge of attack - shades of [September 11, 2001], by the way. Further, if FDR had known about the coming attack, he could have both ambushed the Japanese at sea and still gotten Congress to declare war. The mere fact that the Nazi-aligned Japanese military was on the way to attack Pearl with a massive fleet certainly would have been enough for such a declaration. Ambushing the Japanese would not have been a sure victory, by the way. At the time, the US fleet was twice as small as Japan's. More, Mr Liu indicates that the US fought in Asia to defend its "expanding national interests in the Pacific". This is misleading. Europe, with its numerous colonies, had much more at stake. The only colony the US had was the Philippines, and it was not any kind of linchpin economic or political entity. And Japan was America's most lucrative trade partner at the time. If you place the US in a pure Machiavellian light, which Mr Liu seems to do in this case, then not placing oil, cotton, and metal embargoes on Japan and not going to war with it would have served US national interests best. Interestingly, Mr Liu also seems to state that America would not have entered World War II unless it was intent on spreading democracy throughout Europe. Again, this sentiment does not mesh with actual history. America had spent years in semi-isolation in the aftermath of World War I and was reluctant to fight World War II. Even with Germany sinking US logistics ships bound for Europe, with key allies such as France under Axis control, and with England suffering from torrid bombardment, America still did not go to war. If it really wanted to spread democracy through Europe, any of these would have been enough of an excuse to do so. But the hard fact is that the US did not go to war with any country in the 1940s until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Accordingly, history decisively demonstrates that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor - and therefore self-defense - was the key motivator behind America entering World War II, a conflict it was ill-prepared to fight. Both the Japanese and Germans had better military technology, superior pilots, and more seasoned infantry at the time. Their officers had excellent training and performed effectively in the field. The Japanese were seasoned and had been invading and occupying other Asian countries since 1910. The US had nowhere near the military machine its opponents had, and it was not even close to being the power it is today. Additionally, its Pacific-based intelligence capabilities in 1941 were ineffectual, and the government knew it. The book And I Was There by [Edwin T] Layton provides an excellent description, warts and all, of how dysfunctional the US intelligence community was pre-Pearl Harbor.
Jeff Moore
Author, Spies for Nimitz: Joint Military Intelligence in the Pacific War (Sep 9, '04)


In a very interesting article, Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization (Sep 3), Henry Lui mistakenly attributes the original source of the phrase "Iron Curtain" to Winston Churchill: "Having been rejected by voters at home even before World War II completely ended in the Far East part of the British Empire, Churchill, out of office at home, worked on the US by inventing the concept of an Iron Curtain in his famous speech on March 5, 1946, in little-known Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, president Harry Truman's home state, and convinced an insecure and paranoid Truman to launch the Cold War." In fact the phrase was lifted straight out of a speech by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, titled "Das Jahr 2000" (The Year 2000), in the newspaper Das Reich on February 25, 1945. Referring to the Yalta conference, he claimed: "If the German people lay down their weapons, the Soviets, according to the agreement between [Franklin] Roosevelt, Churchill and [Josef] Stalin, would occupy all of east and southeast Europe along with the greater part of the Reich. An iron curtain would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet Union, behind which nations would be slaughtered. The Jewish press in London and New York would probably still be applauding." The fact that Churchill and others chose to instigate the Cold War was bad enough, but to use unattributed Nazi propaganda towards this end was surely shocking in the extreme.
Douglas Chalmers
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow, Scotland (Sep 9, '04)


[B] Raman: Generally, I enjoy your columns. They are brilliant analyses. The last one, with humor, facts and a highly in-depth view that takes the layers out of the fluff and sees the uncanny truth, is truly a "gem" [The al-Qaeda striptease, Sep 1]. In my experience as a consultant in the US, it is only a few people who care to and really actually see the real problems. Most American managers, including and specially those in Washington, see the symptoms and assume [they are] the problem. They buy off things and facts when lobbied hard and lured with things that are "too good to be true". It appears like fatalism. The true wise American people, not politically savvy, stay in lower rungs and their cries are not often heard by the big half-brained political bosses. Pakistanis are brilliant double-timers. They have Indian brains deviled by fanatic Islam, as a friend put it. They learned how to keep the Americans playing and dancing. As it appears from the observation of their bulk mechanics, dynamics, and kinetics, they will not stop their game until they achieve their pan-Islamic goal. It is silly to see the Americans being fooled continuously. After considerable root-cause analysis of their behavior, here is what I see: The British-conceived biblical Islamic little baby Pakistan, pampered by the Americans, mentored by the Chinese, and breast-fed by Saudi Wahhabism, will most likely become the reason, cause, and source [of] the destruction of civilization as we see today. The brilliant Chinese. while appearing to be played by the Americans, have successfully proliferated serious WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and rockets to every known and sworn American enemy. They appear to have a grand strategy to use the Pakistanis to do their dirty work. I wonder whether it is the Pakistanis laughing, or the Chinese, or the Saudis, for achieving their ideology and supremacy growth? Maybe all of them by themselves. I sincerely agree with you. Alqadians are nothing. It is the Pakistanis or possibly the Chinese that are everything. I seriously doubt the wandering Arabians could have pulled a grand strategy of this expansive terrorism without some serious technically trained Pakistanis adept in military and [intelligence] operations too.
Achyut Vadoothker (Sep 9, '04)


[B Raman]: The al-Qaeda striptease [Sep 1] made delightful reading.
Kumar (Sep 9, '04)


[Re] The al-Qaeda striptease [Sep 1]. Dear Raman: Congratulations on writing such an accurate and bold analysis about the happenings in Pakistan. You are 100% right about all you wrote. I am from Karachi (Pakistan) and wish you health and energy. Please keep tabs on these stripteases and keep recording them. One day these records will be judging these culprits. Waiting impatiently for "The Iraq striptease" ...
Shams Khan (Sep 9, '04)


It amazes and amuses me no end to see that whenever an Indian is talking or writing about anything in the world, he ends up dragging Pakistan into it and tries to blame Pakistan for all evils. I observed this phenomenon for the first time while in India and have been observing it ever since whenever I meet Indians anywhere in the world. I don't care what are the psychological reasons behind this phenomenon, but it is truly sickening. Pakistan was blamed even when a plague outbreak occurred in India a few years back. It was called a "germ attack" by the Pakistani ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence]! Now the same thing is happening at ATol. Every Indian writing on your website manages to drag Pakistan into his writings. For the sake of fairness, if ATol considers Indians as experts on Pakistani affairs and almost everything (except for writings of Saleem Shahzad) written about Pakistan on ATol is penned by Indians, then Pakistanis should also be given the chance to write about India. For this task, I volunteer myself. I may not have as fertile an imagination as B Raman has, but I sure can write some good fiction. Any takers?
Ahmed Zaheer
Pakistan (Sep 9, '04)


I am not suggesting that anything that appears on this website could "lead to a major war" [see ATol note under Frank's letter of Sep 8]. My point is that your website is promoting hatred to China, Chinese people, and Chinese government. That act will cause reactions from Chinese people to develop extreme nationalism. When the United States [is] under attack, American people are willing to or forced to give up some of their freedom to resist such attack. That [has] happened in China for the last 50 years. Chinese people were forced to give up some degree of freedom of speech to resist the attacks of Chinese people. History proved such extreme measure worked. Now, China is opening up gradually. First, economic freedom developed. Then, more free arts developed. As one of your articles [China's Hero, or maybe anti-hero, Sep 4] indicated, despite the disapproval of the central government and many conservatives, director Zhang [YiMo] staged the controversial Olympics show. Those are all good signs. Admit it or not, China is also much more open for freedom of speech than before. China moved one notch every year in all other areas including sports, science, and economics. I am sure if there is a fair measure for freedom, China is also moving up in that area at the same if not faster speed. If you can leave China alone, China will meet up your standard soon. If you make Chinese people feel like [it is] being attacked again, China will slip back to the status of 50 years ago. Your articles also mislead [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian towards his independence gambit. Such a move will definitely start a war. It is every peace-loving people's responsibility to dissuade Chen Shui-bian from declaring independence now. Do you love peace or war? You do not have to answer that in your comments section. Your choices of articles will reflect that. [Re Mitchelmore letter of Sep 8] I mistook Peter Mitchelmore [for] another Peter who complained about being treated with the cold shoulder when he tried to promote splitting the family who hosted him. I am glad that Chinese people treated this one well. I hope he will return the favor by leaving them alone.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 9, '04)


I am delighted to know that Jay Liu [letter, Sep 8] took offense at my comment in regards to Frank's recent letters to ATol. Before squandering our precious time on a lengthy debate about Frank's mental status, I would like to ask Jay Liu a question: "Do you believe that the ongoing debate on ATol will actually alter the state of affairs in regards to the crisis in the Taiwan Strait?" Frank believes that the debate has been inflammatory and can lead to war. Read and reread, if necessary, his letters to ATol, particularly the ones dated August 27 and 31. I would be very much obliged if Jay Liu could indulge me with a genuine answer.
Chunhui Yang (Sep 9, '04)


Was I the only one that laughed out loud when reading Jay Liu's admonition of Chunhui Yang for calling people names (letter, Sep 8)? As a longtime reader of Asia Times I have witnessed Jay Liu calling almost anyone who disagrees with him the most horrible names. If I am not mistaken he resorted to calling one letter writer's spouse a prostitute. I for one will never be able to take any of his comments seriously again. The man obviously doesn't have a sincere bone in his body.
Sam Liu
Taipei (Sep 9, '04)


Dear Spengler: Regarding radical Islam's unremitting hostility toward the US, above and beyond its adherents' distaste for Western civilization in general, there's one issue that hasn't been addressed often. Islamism purports to represent a total, perfected world view, against which only American-style capitalist democracy is arrayed now that communism has had its demise. The European social-welfare states make no such overweening claims, nor do the Confucian societies of East Asia or Hindu India. Therefore, it seems that for either universal ideology to ultimately triumph, the other must be completely defeated. The Islamists believe they destroyed communism via their resistance fight in Afghanistan, ignoring the contributions of 40-plus years of Western containment policy and the sclerotic nature of post-Stalin Soviet society. The Islamists are now confident they can defeat the immoral, decadent US too. Similarly, the Americans, with their economic might and fearsome weaponry, also predict ultimate victory for their side. What disturbs me nearly as much as the awful prospect of an eventual al-Qaeda triumph is that the US doesn't understand that to the Islamists, this war has been going on for over 900 years, since the launching of the First Crusade. Many of Osama bin Laden's followers might not care if the battle rages for another nine centuries, so long as they ultimately win. People willing to blow themselves up in cafes or crash airliners into buildings know they won't be attending the victory parade, so what matter is it to them whether triumph comes tomorrow or during the next millennium? Surely the Islamists are smart enough to realize that a drawn-out, low-intensity conflict is the only one in which they stand a chance against their enemy's huge financial and technological advantage. Those who predict a nuclear suitcase-bomb attack on an American city [within] the next few years have it wrong, or at least I certainly hope so. My reasoning here is that such a monumental attack would change the entire paradigm of the war, causing an all-out mobilization by the US and probably much of the rest of the non-Islamic world. All bets would be off. Iran and Iraq would be leveled. Pakistan and Afghanistan likely would be turned into a sea of radioactive molten glass. And that would just be the start of terrible things, as you presciently alluded to in your essay [Happy birthday, Abe - pass the blood, Feb 10]. A sustained conflict with no clear endpoint, however, is exactly the thing that the US will tire of sooner or later. Before being exhausted, the Americans will produce more Abu Ghraibs, more Guantanamo Bays, more Fallujahs, more Najafs, more Patriot Acts, and more Ann Coulters. In short, they will totally discredit what remains of their image in the world, allowing bin Laden to say that not only are American-style freedoms sinful, but they are also a lie. The US ideology will be exposed as bankrupt. Once the Soviet "Workers' Paradise" was exposed as a charade, no amount of perestroika could save it as a model civilization. I fear the same for the US, especially since the new enemy may be even more horrible than [Leonid] Brezhnev, [Nikita] Khruschchev, or even [Josef] Stalin.
E David
New Jersey, USA (Sep 9, '04)


With regards to Omega Lee's letter (Sep 7), again - what kind of views does he wish to hear? Singapore is a nanny state? The government is paternalistic? The people are soulless materialists, etc? One feels that only when the writing is unconstructively critical, will it be acceptable to Omega. Pardon me, but I must be getting old - could Omega show me when the Straits Times has ever published letters by me? Otherwise - wouldn't you be stretching your credibility and argument for freedom of speech when it is abused? Pertaining to the other questions: 1) Australia is a sovereign country - so it has a choice as to whom it wants to accept. (As for Pauline Hanson, not sure if she would have a problem in Africa as her platform in Queensland was anti-Asian - or perhaps Uganda if Idi Amin was still around). 2) Distance reduces the anxiety. It is not merely Tang Liang Hong's "anti-Christian" or Chinese chauvinism alone. If allowed to carry on, it would have stirred the chauvinistic tendencies of lesser lights (advocating their own race) in response. That was the danger. Moreover, come election time in Malaysia or Indonesia, some politicians always find it convenient to use Singapore as the whipping horse for all their own woes. 3) Yes, I believe that the coverage of the opposition is less than that of the ruling party. However, with 64.6% of 1,083,900 households in Singapore (2003) with Internet access, there are available avenues for alternative sources of information. At the same time, the websites of the various opposition parties are accessible. If Omega Lee's aim is for Singapore to have a freer press, then that is a laudable goal and I am for it. However, if it is to fit someone else's world view or timeline - are we any better off (being dictated to by someone as compared to one's own)? In addition, criticism is useful if its constructive. However, if its criticizing for the sake of criticizing (which many Singaporeans also indulge in), are we moving ahead in solving a problem? To hear it from others who have no stake in it makes it suspect. Nonetheless, for any institution to survive long-term, it must be indigenously nurtured. Perhaps Omega Lee would like to agree to disagree on to the path in which this will occur. Before I forget, while we readers have debated, I must issue my thanks to ATol for the opportunity to participate in this Letters column, which has incidentally become a forum for readers as well. While there have been some pretty outrageous ideas and opinions, it has provided an opportunity to hear out well-considered thoughts and ideas. Although ATol has been variously accused of being partisan by both sides, it has been willing to act on a fundamental principle of liberty: in order to have your say, you must be willing to let others have their say (even if you don't agree with them). May you live long and prosper.
Tino Tan Hai San
Singapore (Sep 9, '04)


I have to make a comment on the Letters section of this website. It's quite boring to see the same letter writers again and again making the same points, again and again.
J Zhang
Netherlands (Sep 9, '04)


It can only be inadvertent that Richard "(Islamic People's) Blood and Guts" Radcliffe uttered a bit of humor. He writes [letter, Sep 7]: "John Kerry is surrounded by at least as many ideologues as President [sic] Bush. However, Mr Kerry's ideologues are of the one-world, collectivist, European socialist or communist bent as opposed to President [sic] Bush's ideologues who are at the other end of the spectrum." The "other end of the spectrum" from his list, torn from the bloodstained pages of John Birch's Dictionary of Dirty Words (Berlin, Germany: One-World Press, 1939), is, of course, fascism. (You left out that some of the European countries you insult are democratic monarchies with democratically elected parliaments.) To be sure, fascism is totally anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, and racial-supremacist. But at least it's "Christian"! And damned be the First Amendment to the US constitution - not only because it secures freedom of conscience, belief, and speech - dissent - but also the right to be an atheist. Eh, Mr Radcliffe? While it is progress that you dropped the pretense of being ex-US military, and a lover of the US, it is not progress that you continue to preach "fire and brimstone" pre-Christian Old Testament tyranny while falsely calling it the "religion" named for pacifist Jesus "One-World Collectivist-Socialist-Communist/Turn the Other Cheek/Can't We All Just Get Along?" Christ. Nor progress that on election day we can expect to see you standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the fascist - as you call it - Bush War Crimes Family and its neo-con[artist] "Higher Command".
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 9, '04)


I am certainly glad my nemesis, Richard Radcliffe, has reappeared [letter, Sep 7]. I have been suffering from a slight depression fearing that I have vanquished him completely and he would never return. Thankfully, I can say that he is back and in good nick. Richard takes a jab at Senator [John] Kerry's position on the issues. Perhaps I can elaborate. Kerry has been a member of the [US] Senate for nearly 20 years and has voted on thousands of legislative bills affecting the lives of Americans. As Mr Radcliffe should know, these bills are packed with special-interest items, which may fall outside the primary scope of the bill. Being a senator, Kerry does not have the benefit of a line-item veto so he must vote either Yes or No. It is quite easy to look over Kerry's legislative record and find discrepancies out of context of the whole bill. Fortunately for [President George W] Bush, he evaded responsibility all of his life, beginning with his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War, continuing with two failed corporations funded by Daddy's friends and ending with a no-responsibility job as a Texas governor. The Bush record is virginal as a newborn baby. While Kerry risked his life or limb in Vietnam, Bush unflinchingly faced the dentist drill in Alabama. So the choice for America is choosing one man who analyzed the issues and selected a position based on the facts before him or a man who has little or no record and gaps in the record that exists. A man that turned a US$100 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit in less than four years, A man that is responsible for the loss of over 1 million jobs in America. You may rebut by listing such achievements as the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But the Taliban and [Osama] bin Laden still exist and Afghanistan is far, if ever, from becoming a model democracy. In Iraq, the USA has reached the dubious milestone of 1,000 US military deaths and the UN might postpone elections in January, due to a lack of security. Any CEO [chief executive officer], which the Bushites model their dear leader on, after spending over $100 billion and 18 months on a project with no visible means of progress, would be dismissed instantly. Unless you call whitewashing a few school walls progress. The final cost is not in and may run to $1 trillion before we exit the new Vietnam. On to Iran and North Korea. Bush has made the classical geo-strategic error of prematurely committing his resources. Both nations can develop WMD [weapons of mass destruction] without fear of a US retaliation. Bush "flip-flops" from his initial position of "axis of evil" and now calls for dialogue, conveniently forgetting that this is his only option. Iran and North Korea are not separate and distinct problems since they are using the American weakness to advance their position, and to state otherwise indicates geopolitical illiteracy. And if Bush really wanted to go to Washington or New York City on or around September 11 [2001], he could have overridden any Secret Service decision. If the vice president was secure he could have demonstrated his "I'm the War President" powers. Dismissing your lame excuse of "scaring the children", when the chips where down Bush froze and [had] no idea what to do. Kerry turned his Swift Boat around and charged the enemy fire. Kerry's record indicates a man trained to make the decision when one is called upon to make that decision. Bush flees and hides and his minions insert a backbone in his spine and [he] shows up days late and tells us how he, George Bush, is going to kick their ass. Frankly, Kerry can walk my slack any day of the week, but I would put Bush in the category of the movie-screen war heroes such as John Wayne and Ron Reagan, who both protected the actresses of Hollywood from a Japanese invasion. I won't waste your time by rebutting your "flip-flops" on Iraq WMD since the editor has done so. Finally, you state that the responsibility of the president of the United States is to defend the nation. Surely you must agree that Bush failed in this responsibility on September 11. And do you advocate that we vote for this failure?
Ernie Lynch (Sep 9, '04)


I read Fareed Zahid's letter [Sep 3] and would like to comment on it. India has seen and lived with numerous invasions in the past which had brought about enormous political, social upheavals besides causing death and destruction. There are always many opinions about the Muslim invasion/arrival (depending on the source) and its impact on India and its immediate neighborhood. You don't have to be a very good historian to notice a simple fact: the virtual absence of any pre-Muslim temples in northern and northwestern India (present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan; south India, on the other hand, was spared because it was too distant and it was not possible to invade and rule with the resources the conquerors had till the advent of the British). The only monument in Delhi which still stands is the iron pillar dating back to the Gupta period (AD 300-600). Buddhist monasteries and their places of worship were left alone since they had no treasure in them. The wealth in ancient India was localized in two places: palaces of kings and nobles and the abode of God, temples. The Muslim invaders (like the invaders before them and the succeeding ones) did not invade for religious reasons. They were lured by the wealth of India. The invaders had only one motive: plunder. Islam was brought in later as an afterthought. They constructed mosques, as they believed all their acts would be taken care of. If the Mongol terror, Genghis Khan, or butchers of Delhi, Timur or Nadir Shah had the technology of weapons of mass destruction I don't see any reason why they may not have used it on their hapless opponents. Thank God the science and technology arrived at a time when these invaders disappeared from the face of Earth as dust. Fareed would like us to believe that Muslim rulers were benevolent rulers compared to Catholics in North America. Well, if Mughals had guns in their armory I am sure there would be fewer people in India today. The last of the famous Mughals, Aurangazeb, fought till his death: first with his brothers to get the throne and later camped in Deccan to neutralize his enemies. South Asian Muslims have trouble acknowledging these historical horrors committed by their religious comrades. Perhaps the religious shell they withdraw themselves into forbids them to express it. If Narendra Modi builds a beautiful temple or mosque, will he be absolved of all the crimes that he committed? The founders of the Mughal dynasty, Babur and Advani, stand equal before the eye of law: they are both accused of inciting their followers to demolish an ancient religious monument. It is time the leaders/thinkers of the Muslim community break their silence and express what is morally right.
Kannan (Sep 9, '04)


Many thanks to John Tkacik Jr for his article China's 'peaceful' rise at stake in power struggle [Sep 8]. From this piece we can extrapolate that if Jiang [Zemin]'s Shanghai gang has its way, we can expect military confrontation between China on one side and Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and the US on the other side, all within the ambit of China's "peaceful rise". Such obvious contradictions are nothing new in the policy and actions of the Chinese Communist Party. Deng Xiaoping taught us that capitalism and private enterprise are really "socialism with Chinese characteristics". And Jiang Zemin has shown that the sacred mission of "reunification of the motherland" means affirming a Qing Dynasty treaty with Russia that ceded 3 million square miles [nearly 7.8 million square kilometers] of Chinese territory to the czar, supporting Mongolia's continued independent existence from China even though Mongolia was part of China for 900 years, and failing to assert any sovereignty claim over parts of Tajikistan that were once part of Qing China. The lesson we can take from this is that the Chinese Communist Party usually means exactly the opposite of what it says.
Daniel McCarthy (Sep 8, '04)


John J Tkacik Jr (China's 'peaceful' rise at stake in power struggle, Sep 8) underscores the commonly perceived worry of the emergence of China as a major military power. After the analysis of the different factions in the Chinese leadership, he concludes that Jiang Zemin's Shanghai Faction, presumably consisting of hardliners adhering to a strong military doctrine, gains an upper hand, and this spells an ominous sign for the United States and its democratic friends and allies in East Asia. The article is typical of elitists' view making rounds in corporate media, attributing ills to a small clique while wishfully thinking that there is another clique that is more benign. Remember the reform-minded and pragmatist Deng Xiaoping? It's now known that he's the one who ordered the military crackdown on Tiananmen Square in 1989. Despite Tkacik's judicious selection of the different views from Beijing, there is no reason to believe that they cannot co-exist. In fact, China's economy boomed during Jiang's reign, and there is no shred of evidence that the Hu-Wen clique does not favor military strength. The official policy towards Taiwan remains the same after Jiang's departure; it does not rule out force to resolve the Taiwan problem. The emergence of China as a major power and its pursuit of military strength are no surprise. The same is true of the United States after the Second World War. In fact, as lessons of history show, you must be militarily strong in order to be taken seriously. China under the Qing Dynasty was invaded because it was weak. Japan was nuked because its planes flew only as far as Hawaii. Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia were brutally attacked because they were defenseless. The recent case of Iraq is instructive. The UN inspectors came in to dismantle the little defense that there was, and then came Shock and Awe. The Soviet Union after the Second World War was spared the devastation, since it was militarily strong. Unless it stops bullying the world, the US will see a formidable Chinese challenge to its hegemony in East Asia. The countries in the region, formally democratic or not, have no cause for worry about China. The 2002 Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea between China and the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China's mild response to Vietnam's plan of commercial flights to the area, as well as the recent agreement with the Philippines on joint study of potential oil deposits (see Alan Boyd, Oil worries lubricate South China Sea pact, Sep 4) are indications that peaceful co-existence with China is possible.
Paul Law
Berlin, Germany (Sep 8, '04)


[Re Faith, fertility and American dominance, Sep 8] Spengler, again and again, imposes upon his material what seems clearly to be his personal crisis: "Mortal existence is intolerable without the promise of immortality." Then his syllogism builds, with modernity destroying faith and culture and then onto the consequent despair-driven failure of humans to breed sufficiently to increase their numbers. But that these same people who are breeding less - theoretically due to existential despair - are also living longer and are desperate to do so, seems at least to divide his premise into very different or complex responses. I can accept that there are individuals who despair after thinking through mortality to its bitter end and still love life. It is also easy to imagine individuals who despair and decide against having children. But to infer from the relatively rare cases of people in any culture who give such intensive thought to matters philosophical the discovery of the basis for huge, sweeping social change is often the dubious product of an inbred intelligentsia, I believe. The mechanisms that transfer the products of "high culture" to everyday decision-making need to be demonstrated; they need to be shown to offset or overwhelm the clearer, more compelling and more immediate material and economic conditions and impacts that can explain how things change. Spengler's account of suicidal tribes, for instance, is conveniently stripped clean of most of what they actually experienced. [Author Phillip] Longman is concerned about a demographic shift that demands an adjustment to the political economy from one of growth to maintenance or even to reductions in the population. If this was all there was to it, and if either Longman or Spengler possessed even a particle of intelligence or concern about the relationships between humans and the natural environment that sustains them, they might easily turn their theses from ones of alarm into ones of hope. But there is something else at work here, of course. Longman is concerned about preserving an economic model that is reaching its natural end, confusing a market economy with capitalism along the way. He is also rightly worried about religious radicals setting the tone for the future. Spengler rightly anticipates an escalation (perhaps a climax) of the struggle between uniformity and diversity, with his side appearing insufficiently girded for the task of wiping out all opposition. It would be nice if a bigger, more comprehensive vision of life on Earth would take the reigns of debate over such concerns.
Joe Nichols
USA (Sep 8, '04)


I refer to China's Hero, or maybe anti-hero [Sep 4], a critique by Li YongYan. I am not sure if he is accurate on certain details related to the Chinese presentation at the closing of the Athens Olympics. I don't know the origin of the song "Jasmine Flower". I remembered singing it as a child and I always thought it was a folk song for kids. In the Internet search, I could only find it being sold as a kid's song from Hebei province, which is a long way from Jiangsu. Hitherto enlightened by Mr Li's revelation that it was originally a brothel song from Yang Zhou, I feel like being deceived by my primary music-school teacher. I have to blame her for my sometimes salacious mind! I am more certain of the cheongsam. It has a rather long history of development, nearly as long as Chinese written history itself, although the Manchu qipao had a large influence. Millions of Chinese women, in the mainland or overseas, wear it. Those worn by the Chinese dancers at the Athens Olympics looked like a short-cut version. I am personally not averse to it. It is just a bit odd that it is suddenly classified as lewd and provocative. It sounds like Zhang YiMo, supported by the CPC [Communist Party of China], has the grand plan of turning China into a nation of prostitutes and pimps.
J Wong
Gugubarra, Australia (Sep 8, '04)


I've read Won Joon Choe's [article South Korea's retrograde politics, Sep 4] with interest but he seems not to have a quite good grasp of the impeachment move [against South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun] in detail. He wrote that there was no "legal basis" for impeachment, but I can't agree with his assertion. The Constitutional Court confirmed on May 14 at the main hall of the court that Roh violated the constitution and election laws but the court ruled that it didn't find his violation serious enough to unseat the president, and the impeachment case failed to be given enough support (more than 6 votes) among the judges to be adopted. Although the court turned down the impeachment motion it ascertained that Roh did violate the constitution and laws. If you look at the details of the ruling from the court, you will be convinced of his violation of laws and the constitution with ease. Moreover, the ruling came out after the Uri party's overwhelming victory. In addition, the court ruled that the parliament's impeachment move [was] legal and in accord with the constitution. Despite the fact the Constitutional Court found out Roh's violation, it rescued the president, so many speculate even now that the court may have been pressured to give a decision favorable to the ruling circles ...
Gomdori
Jeju, South Korea (Sep 8, '04)


Dear Spengler: Thank you for your excellent response to my previous letter [Ask Spengler: Know your enemy (including Commentary magazine), Aug 31]. Perhaps my previous questions and observations were not clear, or maybe I just need to elaborate. My point is that both Islam and communism are reactionary in nature. Christianity is not just a system of beliefs that is popular with people of "nations" threatened with extinction, but truth. Man in his natural (sinful) state rejects God, and the truths of God. I assert that both Islam and communism are manifestations of man's long rebellion against God and his truth. As God's truths and liberty are revealed to man, men reject and rebel. Men rally around a banner of one type or another; one being Islam, another being communism. I did not mean that Islam was a reaction to 19th-century liberal capitalism, but was a reaction to freedom. It became a curse upon the Middle East that still exists today. The rich lands around the Mediterranean and in the "fertile crescent" that were the source of wealth for the Greco-Roman Empire became, and remain, desert wastelands. Islam was just an excuse for organized brigandage, and tyranny in its wake. (This is documented very well in Bat Ye'or's book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam.) So I guess what I am saying is that Islam was a reaction to a 7th-century capitalist (free) system, just as communism was a reaction to 19th-century liberty and international trade. More to the point ­ a central tenant of the Christianity brought to America by European Protestants, and nourished here, is that God is the author and giver of liberty. Most of this nation's wars can be seen as battles against tyranny. Against the enemies of God given freedom. The great English Protestant tradition of fighting the tyranny of Bishop Laud was the genesis for the American Revolution against the "divine right of kings". We northerners saw the Civil War as being against rebellious southern aristocracy ­ tyranny. The 20th century saw three major conflicts. Two [were] against German reichs; the first was against German absolutism, the second was against the Third Reich of Nazism. The third conflict [was] the century-long war against the tyrannical system of communism. From the Red Scares of the '20s to our continued embargo of Cuba, this fight has taken many forms, on various battlefields. As you point out so well, we Americans are wholly ignorant of the tyranny of the Mohammedan, yet tyrants we know very well, and have defeated all comers. So to quote the president: "Bring it on!" We Americans believe that under freedom the truth of God will emerge from the "marketplace" of ideas. Papist, rabbinical, Marxist, fascist, Muslim, Hindu are all welcome to come and test their beliefs. The great question of our time is, Will this American system work? The great founder of this idea of "soul freedom" was Roger Williams. When Christians of various denominations ­ Anglican, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker etc ­ cobbled together a new nation, this idea was very useful. The freedom of religion was codified as a national right. Williams specifically noted in his writings that even a Mohammedan should be allowed to practice his religion in this free land ­ America. The question is this: Was he correct? Can the systematic tyranny of Islam be successfully held in check, or even defeated through the free exchange of ideas, or must America switch to the Spanish model to protect us from Mohammedan tyranny? Will Americans be required to fight wars in the future similar to the Spanish war against the Moors? As far as I know Roger Williams never had any contact with a Muslim. Cambridge University was as close to a Muslim country he ever got - far from the recent battles on the Iberian peninsula, and further yet from the ongoing battles in the Balkans. Did he really understand the tyranny of the Mohammedan political, economic, and social systems? The "American Dream" is freedom to do what is right, not license to do what you desire. Paul wrote of this 2,000 years ago. Americans, even after 500 years of dissertation and practice, have trouble understanding it and how to handle it. The teenagers in Japan you mention are wrestling with this as well. Freedom and liberty are not a panacea for all human ills, but a gift from God to be enjoyed. Its misuse can be disastrous, but its rewards are boundless. The great experiment of a nation dedicated to liberty and freedom continues.
Jim Hughes
Green Bay, Wisconsin (Sep 8, '04)


Kamran [letter, Sep 7], it is obvious that my responses are getting to your pressure points. Not out of any concern for your health but because of the sheer inability to communicate with you at any level, this is the last time I will respond to you. Which part didn't you understand? How much more plain can this be said - read the New York Times, Washington Post, Times etc, which substantiate what B Raman has said, what others are saying. Not all of them are India-inspired articles. I scanned your reply with a fine-tooth comb but could find no rebuttal to my statement that Pakistan is the mother lode of terrorism and that this is borne out from insurmountable evidence from various sources, very few India-centric. No challenge about the reference to the article by Javed Nisar, but the same old diatribe about India hating Pakistan into oblivion. Pakistan's record for catching terrorists is second to none?? If all of them are safely ensconced there I would think catching them would be as easy as throwing a net into a fish pond and hauling them in. So your record is indeed good. You should be proud. But why are they there in the first place and nowhere else? Because they get state sanctuary. And pray, why are they welcome? Because from your own rant I can see you are all breast-fed with the same reasoning - Indians are not reconciled with the creation/existence of Pakistan. If we were indeed preoccupied with you, we would have become a basket case like you, not one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. We really are not interested in "getting back" Pakistan. Trust me. It is like one wanting to acquire bubonic plague. Or worse. You keep it and more power to you. You are in complete denial of the sad state of affairs in your country and rankled by the amount of international criticism. You have brainwashed yourself into seeing an Indian hand in every terrorism report that fingers Pakistan. That is what mindless hatred does to a person. It makes them demented. The stupid kiss takes up more space in your lament than the larger issues of all your terrorist homies coming home to roost. You have enough problems of your own - real and imagined. So why should I add to your woes by asking you to defend the indefensible? You folks are doing a splendid job of screwing yourselves. We Indians couldn't have done a better job (of screwing you).
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 8, '04)


[Re] Roostercockburn's letter of September 7: Rooster asks, "Who decides what 'reputable scholarship' is?" Ideally, independent scholars, but in the final analysis those who read history themselves. Some things I look for: 1) a body of work; 2) longevity; 3) respect of peers, 4) breadth of sources. I'm sure Henry Liu knows others. Thank you for the suggestion to read the [Robert B] Stinnett book. I confess I have not, but I'm familiar with his allegations and don't consider them reputable or widely accepted. For an explanation of why, read former [US] Navy cryptographer Phillip H Jacobsen's rebuttal here. [John C] Zimmerman's review of Stinnett's book and revisionist Pearl Harbor lore in general is informative as well. One of the more glaring points they make is that although the US had broken Japanese diplomatic codes in 1941 they had not cracked the Japanese military communications, a point lost on Stinnett. I hope Henry Liu will read either of these men as well.
Bfardy (Sep 8, '04)


To Graeme, in Australia [letter, Sep 7]: Speaking for many in the US: we share your range of feelings - from horror at the murder of children in Beslan, Russia, and compassion for those who lost them, to outrage at that, and at the blind tolerance, and even cheering on, of those who idolize the Bush War Crimes Family. As we see in the ATol letters, there are those in the US who spend their lives endeavoring to "correct" those in the world - even entire countries - about which they know nothing except demagogic fictions, fallacies, and lies they've been fed since childhood - which they've never thought to question in keeping with their birthrights of freedom of thought and dissent. [There are] those in the US who spend their lies preaching hate against alleged haters; against those who are not identical to themselves; against the very things for which they claim their own country stands. Bigots preaching against bigotry. As Mark Twain said of such pseudo-Christian views: "Nothing needs reforming so much as other people's habits." Never before have I seen, anywhere, such blind arrogance, and blind certitude, as that held and wielded by wastrel [George W] Bush - that he, the perfect know-it-all, has the gall to preach to the world the meaning of "terrorism" - wholly ignorant of the fact that both Western and Eastern Europe have been dealing with the current wave of terrorism for decades, and, however much in fits and starts, has learned to deal flexibly with it, thus has much to teach. (Spain has arrested, and charged, many for the Madrid bombings, without sending its military storming into any country. How? By international cooperation in what is primarily a law-enforcement matter.) There [are] strength and wisdom in being able to compromise, exactly as there [are] in the ability to communicate between equals. (Both also happen to be the essence of democracy.) The UK learned that lesson, after many decades of blood, vis-a-vis Ireland; and the result was reduction, even elimination, of that terrorism. What did the UK learn? That terrorism has underlying causes; to admit that fact; and, then, to address the underlying causes. Where bombing and shooting people had not worked, compromise by accepting - and addressing - reality did. But Bush, already knowing everything that can be known (and much which cannot be known) is not merely unwilling to learn but unable to do so. To put it in Bush's simplistic terms: one either attends college to learn, or to "party hearty". Bush is one of those rare individuals who, having the free-rider's privilege, attended two top universities, yet came out of them as ignorant of the world outside his narcissism as he was before attending. "He who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it." There is also, in the US, a continuous sense of anxiety - of terror - which, for those who attend to other than preaching their pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualisms to the world, precedes [September 11, 2001] - all the way back to the theft of the election by the America-hating Bush War Crimes Family. For those in the US who inform themselves, however, the source of the terror is not from outside the US; it is from those who illegally occupy the White House. Why? One must watch one's friends (real or not) more cautiously than one must watch one's enemies, as one's friends are closer to oneself. The terrorists are in the White House, and they blatantly govern by generating and manipulating fear. There is more to fear from the consequences of the US "liberation" project at Abu Ghraib than there ever was from the mutual enemies named, respectively, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein - and more to fear from the Bush War Crimes Family's anti-democratic and extra-legal machinations and military might than from hypothesized election-year terrorist attack(s) which have been put forward as possible excuse to postpone, suspend, or cancel the election. Ninety-nine percent of the world, and a unanimous UN, responded to Bush's alleged case that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD [weapons of mass destruction], "We've seen your so-called evidence, and you haven't made your case." That not only did not deter Bush from his illegal rush to illegal invasion and occupation; it did not deter the US media, which continue to misstate the fact, from stating that Bush "made his case". Not even informed refutation of that falsehood on behalf of Bush can persuade that media to cease perpetuating that falsehood. My hand is extended to you, Graeme, and others with their eyes and hearts open, from the US northwest. We in the US, ignore it or not, live less in the heart of the beast than in the heart of the terrorism. And before the blind "America can do no wrong" mob cranks up its knee-jerk demogogery: recall that the American Revolution was an act of dissent, and read the First Amendment [to the US constitution]. And take to heart that almost entirely unique to the US is the fact that active dissent from government error and deceit is patriotism.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 8, '04)


Chunhui Yang (letter, Sep 7) is undoubtedly out of line when another ATol letter contributor was called "an idiot" and "a retard" in Yang's letter. Perhaps Yang should learn something from W: compassion. Are we as readers of ATol so unintelligent to judge ourselves whether anything is "imbecilic", "idiotic", "logorrhea", or "nonsense"? Simply labeling things as such will not by itself make them so. It is rather disappointing and ironic to read Yang's own letter that contained only searing personal attacks but nothing concrete to support and validate the name-calling. What could be more nonsensical than that?
Jay Liu
USA (Sep 8, '04)


If Chunhui Yang [letter, Sep 7] tried and failed to understand the realities I presented, how can my letter horrify him? [Has] my request [for] articles from both sides of Taiwan Strait horrified him? Actually, ATol had never published any articles written by KMT [Kuomintang] people from Taiwan. May I suggest ATol publish some of them? ATol should learn to promote peace and reconciliation to Asia. Instead, you have been trying to promote hate and war. Your promotion of separation of the largest Asia country will surely lead to a major war in Asia. You have the freedom to say or publish whatever you want; however, you need to watch out what you are publishing. For example, you do not promote freedom of speech by label other people's opinion silly?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 8, '04)

It is obviously silly to suggest that anything that appears on this website could "lead to a major war". Certain governments may not like what they read on Asia Times Online, but even Beijing understands the concept of free speech (even if it does not grant such freedom to its own people) and is hardly going to send troops to Taiwan just to spite ATol. As for contributions from KMT supporters in Taiwan, we would be pleased to publish them if we ever received any. - ATol


Frank [letter, Sep 7] must have mistaken me for someone else. My letter of September 3 added to [letter writer] Dell's comments by saying that transfer of jobs/ investment was intra-Asian as well as between continents. My other point was that it is such a shame that during my time in China, people behaved towards each other with hostility while treating foreign visitors much better. I got lost during my first week in Wuxi after buying a bike. The two people I asked for directions didn't just tell me the way, they took me there! Chinese friends of mine said that when they asked strangers the way, they would hardly get looked at in the eye. My four years of living in China did in many ways improve me as a person, and I saw little evidence of "the Chinese people disliking" me for "making trouble". I ate with a couple of families as it happens, and they were occasions I enjoyed a lot. I wonder how much these comments are really contributing to debates, and hope that rubbishing others' arguments rather than crude personal remarks can become the norm.
Peter Mitchelmore (Sep 8, '04)


In response to ATol letter writer Daniel McCarthy (Sep 2) regarding communist China, the Soviet Union, Korea, Pakistan, India and nuclear blackmail, some cases in point: The Cuban Missile Crisis, Nikita Khruschchev to Fidel Castro October 30, 1962: "Of course, we made concessions, accepted a commitment, action according to the principle that a concession on one side is answered by a concession on the other side. The United States also made a concession. It made the commitment before all the world not to attack Cuba." China has made no such promise not to attack Taiwan located off of its mainland, unlike the United States making a promise not to attack Cuba which is located off of the US mainland. If the Soviet Union was not a nuclear power, the United States could have attacked Cuba in 1962 without serious repercussions, namely, thermonuclear war. Regarding the Korean War and nuclear blackmail against the United States via the communist Chinese and the Soviet Union, from Dwight D Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56, "Of course, there were other problems, not the least of which would be the possibility of the Soviet Union entering the war. In nuclear warfare the Chinese communists would have been able to do little. But we knew that the Soviets had atomic weapons in quantity and estimated that they would soon explode a hydrogen device. Of all the Asian targets which might be subjected to Soviet bombing, I was most concerned about the unprotected cities of Japan." Obviously, the United States backed down from recapturing the entire Korean Peninsula because of the potentiality of escalating into a nuclear war. In the same manner and for the same reasons stated by president Eisenhower the US will be forced to back down from "recapturing" Taiwan if it is successfully invaded by the communist Chinese after having knocked out conventional US forces. And again, another case in point with Hungary in 1956, "But when the subsequent events in Hungary took a revolutionary turn, Eisenhower - not [John Foster] Dulles - came to fear that the Soviet Union might be 'tempted to resort to very extreme measures and even to precipitate global war'." (Memorandum on discussion at National Security Council, October 29, 1955, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955-57, vol 25, pp 295-99, at p 299. Excerpt from "NATO in the Beholder's Eye", The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.) So, as any student of international affairs can see, the US has either backed off as in the Cuban and Korean crises or stood down as in the Hungarian crisis. A fourth example is the Suez crises of 1956. Though the French and the British did take action and recapture the canal despite a mild nuclear threat by the Soviets, the US did not assist its allies militarily. Nuclear blackmail employed successfully by another nuclear power against the US is a lesson learned that Americans today should never forget and hope that the communist Chinese will never remember. In the past communist superpowers have used military force to protect themselves from threats to their national sovereignty by invading to rescue or control their satellites as with Korea and Hungary, or they have played the nuclear card to secure guarantees for their clients, as with Cuba. But Taiwan is not a satellite or client state of China. It is considered by the mainlanders to be an actual province of China - and to them that is something worth fighting for. It's their own "Manifest Destiny". And Mr McCarthy should remember that the man who dropped the [atomic] bomb on Japan, Harry Truman, was forced to retreat from North Korea and that World War II hero and Republican, Dwight D Eisenhower, not a "wimpy Democrat", as he puts it, was forced to stand back and watch Hungary be reconquered by the Soviets and declined to help the British and French militarily in Egypt. In summation, no matter how one looks at it, the US has lost, in a certain sense and to varying degrees, by default before when a nuclear card is thrown down. Its opponents know this. Regarding Pakistan and India and nuclear confrontation: Pakistan has lost every war fought with India with Pakistan suffering humiliating defeats. Without a peaceful resolution to the China-Taiwan question, or to the Korean situation, US Pacific forces for their own safety must be prepared for warfare launched against them with an opening attack that will dwarf Pearl Harbor.
Dan Piecora
Seattle, Washington (Sep 8, '04)


As mentioned in my last letter [Aug 30], I have been taking a break from ATol for a while, kidding myself into believing that if I ignore the likes of B Raman long enough, maybe they will disappear. But maybe not ... Anyway, what brings me here today is a question for Spengler: Do you still reckon Russia is about to send tens of thousands of its troops to Iraq?
T Kiani
London, England (Sep 8, '04)


I look to Asia Times for real news. Here in the US the press is very supportive of the Bush administration. If it weren't for Asia Times, there would be a real lack of information. Thanks for your efforts.
Candy Pulliam
Sacramento, California (Sep 8, '04)


To Dr Ehsan Ahrari: I read your article It's still a stark choice for US voters [Sep 4] and must say you are [a great] source of truth for America today. With such a divide in our country right now, people need to make themselves heard. I am a college student at Grand Valley State University [Michigan] and I also believe that if George W is re-elected our country will end up in worse conditions than ever before. The unilateralism that Bush has imposed on our country has created a divide in the world - one that's with us, an one that is against us. How many countries are with us? The Republicans can't see past their own naive self-righteousness to realize that our country is on a one way track to bigger problems. While our economy flutters in the wind, our president is more focused on a war that never should have been. How can they not see that we are creating more terrorism because of this war? For America it is about freedom, but for al-Qaeda or any Islamic terrorist groups it is their own jihad. Rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan should be the No 1 objective for our president; is it? Nope. I just wanted to write you and tell you how great it is that you are writing about this. It is a shame that I haven't read any of your articles before! Thanks a lot.
Jon McCarthy (Sep 7, '04)


[Re] It's still a stark choice for US voters [Sep 4]. Let's take this point by point and paragraph by paragraph. First, John Kerry is surrounded by at least as many ideologues as President [George W] Bush. However, Mr Kerry's ideologues are of the one-world, collectivist, European socialist or communist bent as opposed to President Bush's ideologues who are at the other end of the spectrum. It would be nice if we actually knew where Mr Kerry stands on the issues since he has become adept at being on both sides on an issue. His voting record, however, will tell us exactly where Mr Kerry stands and that may not go over well with the voters in time of war. You accept the interpretation that President Bush continued to read to the elementary-school children as "freezing". I interpret it as avoiding unnecessarily scaring those children. At that point there was nothing that the president could have done to prevent what had happened. As for the charges that he was afraid and running away by not returning to Washington, presidential-protection decisions are made by the Secret Service detail. Since when is it glib to say that a particular group of people hate us [Americans]? That is certainly true of Osama bin Laden and associates. In the case of al-Qaeda and its copycat and associate groups, finesse is not required. In fact, finesse is an anathema to these kinds of people as we saw in Russia last week. Finesse does not get you "air time". Brutal, ugly death and destruction gets you air time and that is the motive. If Islam divides the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam (the lands of Islam) and Dar el-Harb (the lands of war), can Islam not be criticized in the same manner that you criticize President Bush for stating a stark and simple truth: "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"? The way to deal with global terrorism is to root out the terrorists wherever they may be. If countries can be convinced that harboring terrorists is not in their best interests by talking rather than fighting, I am all for it. However, the Taliban government of Afghanistan didn't respond to talk. They did respond to military force. The same is true of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The author neglects to mention that Iraq ignored every UN Security Council resolution from the end of Desert Storm until the government of Saddam Hussein was removed by the 3rd Army because no consequences were attached. Whether atomic weapons or other WMD [weapons of mass destruction] are produced from Iraq is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein did have WMD and he used them on his own people as well as the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed drawing the terrorists out of hiding and into battle. The battle is not being fought in the United States but in their countries. I will happily let them destroy themselves and their resources. As for Iran and North Korea, they are two separate and distinct problems. Whether or not North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion. We will not invade North Korea for the same reason that North Korea will not invade South Korea: massive destruction of their societies. If North Korea does invade South Korea, there will be very little remaining in North Korea of any use shortly thereafter. Iran is already asking for trouble for its state sponsorship of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. Its "client" state Syria is also a possible target and perhaps higher on the list than Iran itself. An invasion of Iran may not be necessary but a change of regime certainly is. The Iranian people must understand the path of destruction that Ali Khameni has them on. Only for a liberal is the telling of the truth a "vituperate and malicious attack". Senator Zell Miller is not a person to mince words and is a Democrat to boot. Sorry, the truth hurts. But calling the exposition of the truth an attack, either by Senator Miller or the former comrades of Lieutenant Kerry during his Vietnam service, is not a defense. It is an attempt to stifle bad news. Sorry. This is the United States. Here we blaspheme everything. Get used to it. As for leading by multilateralism, fine if it works. But it is the responsibility of the president of the United States to defend this country first. If other countries want to assist, that is very good. But no president can be deterred because the French don't happen to agree with us. It is nice to be liked but it is better to be respected and even better to be feared. Let us not forget that the great bastion of multilateralism, the United Nations, has managed to effectively stop aggression in only two cases. The first was in Korea and that was a fluke. The second was Operation Desert Storm which forced Iraq to leave Kuwait. That was because the world realized that we could not let a megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein control a significant part of the world's oil resources. In both cases, the armed forces of the United States provided the majority of combat power required to solve the problem. The American people will indeed make a momentous decision this November 2. But I don't believe that Dr [Ehsan] Ahrari will enjoy the outcome.
Richard Radcliffe
Apple Valley, California
bigbird@ kwamt.com (Sep 7, '04)

In the global view the WMD issue is far from "irrelevant" - it was the primary excuse your country used to invade another that, as you admit, was in control of "a significant part of the world's oil resources", resources on which the US has become dangerously dependent and will evidently stop at nothing to obtain. Many countries have, or have had, or have used WMD, including (especially) the US itself, so allegations of their simple possession is not seen as a valid casus belli by most of the world community. The great majority of the opponents of the invasion of Iraq were not supporters of Saddam Hussein's regime, but many saw as a greater danger the prospect of a single country using its military might to decide whether a weaker country (in this case one that had been successfully contained for more than a decade and posed little or no threat to anyone but itself) lives or dies. That continues to be the central issue for non-Americans worried by what they see as a bullying and over-powerful United States driven by quasi-religious zeal (see the new article The Bush crusade), and it is an issue that has not been dealt with by either Bush or Kerry. - ATol


I am amused by the "analysis" of Li YongYan on the movie Hero and the attacks on director Zhang YiMo [China's Hero, or maybe anti-hero, Sep 4]. This action movie is meant for entertainment, not indoctrinating, and not to justify the wrong committed by Emperor Qin. (Incidentally if his "virtue" is to be extolled, the movie should brandish his very first introduction of national standardization of measurements in China.) All movies made anywhere, unlike scholastic history writing, may carry some deviations and exaggerations, like what we can call the equivalent of poetic license. So sit back and do not read too much into it. Li's critique of the closing ceremonies at Athens suggests a persistent, personal attack on Zhang. What is wrong to show something old and new? In this day and age, is it a crime for girls to be lightly dressed? These girls are not prostitutes but accomplished musicians and dancers, and yes, they have both beauty and youth. As to the comment on the song, "Jasmine Flower", that translation, "may I approach you", is sick. The poetic thought of picking a beautiful, fragrant flower and the fear of the thorns are as human as can be, in ordinary life. Why Li YongYan is so upset at the lyrics of this song and Zhang's adoption of it to be sung by a little innocent girl is beyond reason. Please confine your analysis to pure politics and finance.
Seung Li
USA (Sep 7, '04)


[Re] J Disappointio's letter of September 3. The molto adjectivized Johannes in his letter critiquing [Henry C K] Liu's [Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization, Sep 3] exemplifies the distinctions between a learned individual and one who aspires to be one by accusations that he is the only one who is not only exempt from but is also a cognoscente of who are the real "Internet wackos". "Honne soit qui mal y pense," Jean.
ADeL (Sep 7, '04)


Could Johannes Disappointio [letter, Sep 3] please cite the "reputable scholarship" (notice the quotation marks) that refutes the United States government foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attacks? Also, who decides what "reputable scholarship" is? I don't know whether this is "reputable scholarship" or not, but I suggest that Mr Disappointio read Day of Deceit by Robert B Stinnett. As Americans, I know it is hard for us to accept that we are no different than any other empire, other than that we are better at it than anyone else. We want to believe that our government is good. We want to believe we are different. In my opinion, we are not. I think that any other country would do the same thing if they could. So, although we Americans are no better than anyone else, we are also no worse, just more powerful. When the French are arrogant, stupid, decadent, and reckless it doesn't affect nearly as many people in the world as when the United States of America is. I would suggest that Mr Disappointio explore is own bias. He might be disappointed in himself. (By the way, I realize that I am biased. I am firmly against empire and the, in my opinion, manufactured events like Pearl Harbor used to justify it. Remember, what is in the interest of the elites of the empire is not necessarily in the interest of the people in the fatherland, oh, I mean homeland.)
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Sep 7, '04)


Sri's condescending and domineering attitude is obvious from the way he writes [letter Sep 3]. Alas, some of my sarcasm flew right over his head: I wasn't looking for any "advice", Mr Sri, even though I do bow to your higher wisdom. For the remainder of the letter, Sri just keeps rambling on and is quite unintelligible. Statements like "Now, do not insult yourself by flying off the handle and yelling that somebody else has usurped the identity of your honorable ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] chief for the sake of this article" are pretty delusional if you ask me - I don't even know what he is trying to get at. Now Sri, sit back, take a deep breath, relax, perhaps even smoke a joint and read. It is no secret that the entire focus of India has been to get Pakistan declared a terrorist nation and to sideline and humiliate it. This is the crux of every argument made by many Indians on this website and any other newspaper. The argument goes like this: [President General Pervez] Musharraf-Pakistan-terrorism-sanctions. September 11 [2001] seemed like a godsend - surely now Pakistan would be put under sanctions, perhaps even carpet-bombed aka Afghanistan and Iraq, and India would achieve its dream. Behind this is a pathological hatred for Pakistan and festering wounds from partition. Many Indians still harbor the concept of Greater India. As far as the rest of his arguments go, B Raman [The al-Qaeda striptease, Sep 1] was one of the heads of RAW [Indian Research & Analysis Wing] - how objective do you think he is going to be? Pakistan's record on apprehending terrorists is second to none, and given Pakistan's domestic situation what more can you expect? For some, no matter what Pakistan does it will never be enough. Apart from that I commented on [Siddharth] Srivastra's needless and gratuitous comments on Pakistan [What kissing James Bond means to India, Jan 9], which Sri conveniently sidesteps, such as "[Former Pakistani high commissioner Ashraf Jehangir] Qazi scurried off to Islamabad to kiss the feet of then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, explaining that the whole of Pakistan need not be outraged." And "We are a liberal country not in the mold of Pakistan ..." these statements were implicitly designed to show Pakistan in a bad light. Perhaps a known eightysomething womanizer like Khushwant [Singh], who describes his last book as "the [sexual] fantasies of an octogenarian", should have been sensitive to people's feelings before kissing the teenage daughter of Pakistan's high commissioner. I can see why this would upset some people, though it hardly caused a tizzy in all of Pakistan, as Srivastra would lead us to believe.
Kamran (Sep 7, '04)


Response to Kamran Khan's latest outbursts against Indians [letter Sep 2]: He says with reference to India: "It's this unholy obsession by a country eight times as big as Pakistan that lies at the root of South Asia's problems." For his information, the notoriety of Pakistan's Islam-obsessed regime that deliberately spawned and fostered the appalling Taliban and at least a dozen other international terrorist organizations has evoked so much concern worldwide due to its destructive potential that not only countries eight times as large in size as Pakistan, but several others that are eight times militarily stronger and eight times wealthier as well have this allegedly "unholy obsession". And I don't see this "unholy obsession" diminishing much as long as there continues to be a "holy" obsession within Pakistan to degrade, demonize and destroy the "infidels", especially Hindus (and Jews and others). Mr Kamran is irked by an AToI author's writing, "We are a liberal country, not in the mold of Pakistan ..." [What kissing James Bond means to India, Jan 9]. I would like to remind Mr Kamran of something that many Pakistani commentators routinely claim: "We are an Islamic country, not in the mold of India ..." (the implication of course being that piety and morality levels in Pakistan are way higher than those in India). Someone care to explain? Obviously, people like Kamran who are bitterly ranting about one or two rather harmless references to Pakistan in Siddharth Srivastava's column seem to have read the entire column with a predetermined goal of successfully finding offensive references to Pakistan. Mr Kamran's advice to "getta life" is hence best directed to people like him.
Rakesh
India (Sep 7, '04)


W Joseph Stroupe's August 19 article The inevitability of a Eurasian alliance is fully in support of the thesis of Dr Gabriel Kolko presented in a series of articles this last spring on the website at www.Counterpunch.org. Dr Kolko is an emeritus professor at York University in Toronto. In his "The US Must Be Isolated and Constrained: The Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power" he argues that the decline of the US as an imperial power (Stroupe also notes the erosion of US military, diplomatic, and economic power, and says this is pressuring the formation of Eurasian alliances to fill the vacuum) will be greatly facilitated by the election or reappointment of George W Bush. Whereas at one time I would have voted, as an American, for anyone but Bush, I think now that as a world citizen I might vote for that man to accelerate the collapse of an arrogant superpower with an international human-rights record more dismal than Joseph Stalin's domestic human-rights record. Militarism is a counterproductive approach to terrorism, and, in fact, involves its own form of state-sponsored terrorism. The discrediting of the US as a "city on a hill" will proceed apace if we see four more years of Bush. The US has lost what little moral authority it may have had during the Cold War, and now its economy is seriously losing its vigor as a result of the monetary, fiscal, social, and trade policies of the last 10 years.
Gregorio Kelly
California, USA (Sep 7, '04)


To Dennis Castle's letter [Sep 3], I did not say there is a "loud and clear" voice on the street for my point of view, I just suggested it as a direction for people's energies. Similarly, I did not say that there is popular and religious sentiment in favor of this idea; on the contrary, I commented on the non-scalability problem, meaning popular sentiment does not seem to respond strongly to faraway atrocities. The point about corruption is quite valid, so this means ignoring the sovereignty of developing countries, so we can take out the bad guys, and before you know it, it looks like bringing back colonialism, which as you know, some have actually proposed. The problem is the intended do-gooders get corrupted as well, aka the white-man's-burden syndrome. So we're stuck with waiting for the developing countries to build the infrastructure and institutions required to absorb external aid or investment, and ignore them unless either they are a threat to us, or they're dying in unusually embarrassing numbers. So it goes.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Sep 7, '04)


Reply to Fareed Zahid [letter, Sep 3]: Of course, Mr Zahid, conversions were forced in India. Not all Hindus were subject to bribery. I am not of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] school of revival. In their ignorance of their own religion, these promoters of hatred are a product of the Muslim conquering of India. There are power-mongers amongst every faithful of every religion. I'm sure you are aware of this fact. If such forces had met alone in India, every would-be Dawali and Ravana would be free to sit in peace, love and understanding with all of the other gods. Those in the 13th century who knew their religion followed Sri Jnaneshvar, the beloved saint of India, to his self-imposed tomb fully aware that Jnaneshvar fills the Earth and heavens and radiates his love and wisdom to all of the world.
Beth Bowden
Texas, USA (Sep 7, '04)


Peter Mitchelmore and Daniel McCarthy [letters, Sep 3] cannot understand why Chinese people dislike them why they are trying to make trouble in Asia. Apparently, they have never learned the principle of mutual respect. That is part of the values East Asian can contribute to this world. Let me try to help these two whites to understand that. When you visit a good family, they invited you for dinner. In return, you start insulting the hosts, discussing how you can dismember their family members, asking their teenage daughter to run away. Do you think you will be welcomed in that family? Being welcomed by East Asia people is your privilege, not your rights. If you cannot respect other people's desire of living in peace, you will not be welcomed. If you cannot respect other people's request of living in peace, do not expect that you will be welcomed. I hope other East Asian readers can chip in to help the white people to understand the principle of mutual respect.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 7, '04) 

No luck on that point today. Read on. - ATol


I have been horrified by [letter writer] Frank's imbecilic output lately. I tried to read him and failed many times to make sense of the realities that he presented. Reading him is not much different from reading the idiotic character in William Faulkner's fiction. You have to learn to perceive the world through the eyes of an idiot. Otherwise, very soon one begins to doubt one's sanity in trying to wrestle meaning out of a piece of a perfectly idiotic representation of the world around us. His most recent logorrhea [Sep 3] on the "peace-loving Chinese" implicates a charitable ATol that is willing to publish the nonsense simply because the expression of a retard is nonetheless valid. For this, I must applaud ATol.
Chunhui Yang (Sep 7, '04)

Frank's sillier offerings, such as accusing Asia Times Online of promoting war in the Taiwan Strait, tend to hoist him on his own petard, but he makes thoughtful and valid points from time to time. - ATol


I would like to respond to Ling Guan's [letter] (Sep 2) in which the claim "Taiwan Island is a province of China and governed by the central government" is made. Please forgive my ignorance (as I have only lived in Taiwan for half my life), but who in the PRC [People's Republic of China] central government currently governs Taiwan? When we are hit by a disaster, why does the "central" government offer no aid? Why does the "central" government do [nothing] but threaten me and my neighbors? I will accept Ling Guan's argument that in the past, Taiwan has had mainland links. These links, though, do not currently exist. Since the imperial government was unable to defend Taiwan against Japan, Taiwan has had to carve her own path. Taiwan is currently governed by a government selected by the people of Taiwan. Simply put, China does nothing for us here. If Ling Guan would like to tell me that my taxes go to Beijing or that the government in Beijing does anything for me, my family or my children here in Taiwan, I would be very interested in his figures. It seems to me that my child's school gets nothing from the agencies in China, that the money I use every day is printed here in Taiwan and that my taxes go to the "local government", and that the government in China does nothing related to governing life or society here. Even when my wife travels on her passport, she is seen as a citizen of Taiwan, not as a citizen of China. Respectfully, Ling Guan (or even Frank, for that matter), what does the government in Beijing do for me? They threaten the lives of my children and the leaders selected by my neighbors. When we are hit by a typhoon, illness or any disaster, Beijing does nothing but delay and prevent aid. If the "central" government honestly saw us as part of China, they would offer help and not get in the way when disaster strikes. Until China offers aid to Taiwan, please do not tell me that we are a province of China. Governments help their people, and if they do not they are not worth supporting. That is why there is very little support for "unification" here in Taiwan. We have freedom of press, of speech and of faith here on Taiwan. If Ling Guan wants the people of Taiwan to see China as anything but the enemy, I would suggest trying to get some changes done in the "motherland".
Kent Fields
Taiwan (currently visiting US) (Sep 7, '04)


Ling Guan [Sep 2] wrote: "Taiwan [has been] a part of China for tens of hundreds of years ..." Where I studied mathematics, "tens of hundreds of years" means thousands of years. But Taiwan first occupied by Chinese military forces only in 1683, and was not made a province until 1885. Prior to 1683 there were some Han immigrants from Fujian in Taiwan, but Han immigration did not make Taiwan Chinese, especially since the Qing told France that Taiwan was "beyond China's borders" when facing French protests about pirates based on Taiwan. According to my calendar, "thousands of years" have not passed between 1683 and the present time. Perhaps someone has been reading history books which include some factually inaccurate statements about Taiwan. Could those books have been published in China?
Daniel McCarthy (Sep 7, '04)


To Daniel McCarthy re "wimpy John Kerry" [letter, Sep 2]: These are the contrasts between [John] Kerry and [George W] Bush on the "wimpiness" measure: Kerry voluntarily served in Vietnam. Bush voluntarily served on a Senate campaign in Alabama. Bush, after having used family connections to circumvent the waiting list to get into the National Guard, had the "opportunity" to volunteer to serve in Vietnam but declined in writing to do so. Kerry was wounded in battles. Bush was grounded for "skipping" a physical which included testing for drug use. Kerry was awarded medals. Bush was awarded a "gentleman's C". Moreover, Bush went AWOL [absent without leave] - and long enough to be, as the law defines, a deserter. For years rewards have been offered to anyone who would verify that Bush was where he claimed to be while "serving"; but no one has come forward - except a commanding officer, and two members of the Alabama unit, to state that he was not there. Kerry has both witnesses and official record to his being in service, in battle, and wounded in battle, and verifying both his statements and that record; and those smearing him have been again and again, and repeatedly, discredited. Bush has only his own word, and continuous reference to an incomplete release of his "military service" record. The intellectual dishonesty about the contrast does nothing to vindicate Bush and everything to discredit the intellectually dishonest.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 7, '04)


In response to Tino Tan [Hai San]'s letter [Aug 30], I do not like to repeat myself and wait for a direct answer to the question posed in my earlier letters: Is there a Singaporean who will write to Asia Times and have an alternative view from the PAP [People's Action Party] or the Straits Times? Clearly, from Tino Tan's letters (who incidentally has had letters published in the Straits Times), he is not a member of the above-mentioned group. For example, I wouldn't mind reading a letter from a Singaporean which states categorically that he/she is in favor of Taiwanese independence, with his/her own justifications, whereas personally I lean towards maintaining the status quo and the Taiwanese citizens resolving the issue on their own without foreign interference, whether be it favoring independence or reunification ... I cannot claim to speak for the Singaporean opposition, but the questions I would like to ask are these: 1) If Tang Liang Hong is indeed a (Chinese) communalist as claimed, wouldn't the Australian government have considered him as persona non grata? It would be akin to Pauline Hanson seeking political asylum in Africa. 2) Why should communalism (not to be confused with communism or socialism) circa 1964 be resurrected as a bogey for 2004 (or 1998)? Moreover, Tang Liang Hong is branded (in the PAP's words) as an anti-Christian bigot and not anti Malay or Muslim as suggested by Tino Tan - hence why should it be spread into "the surrounding countries" (ie Malaysia)? 3) Is the Singaporean opposition granted press coverage like that in Western newspapers? Are there letters published in the Straits Times reflecting dissent from the general public? I absolutely agree with Tino Tan's assertion that Singaporean politics should be left to Singaporeans - the problem is that the political system is skewed towards a particular outcome and the media stifled. No other government is threatening Singaporean regime change by force or by espionage - simply criticism from some quarters of the media. If Singapore cannot tolerate that, then, in Tino Tan's words, what differentiates it from a fascist country? ...
Omega Lee
Melbourne, Australia (Sep 7, '04)


I was stunned by the first image I came across on the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corp] News site of a young mother at Beslan [North Ossetia] staring in incomprehension at her dead child. Such suffering deserves more than the simplistic and puerile response of the mainstream press - the strident cry of "terrorists, terrorists, terrorists ... lock up your women and children!" From [US President George W] Bush [on], this so-called new phenomenon of terrorism has been treated with self-serving contempt. No serious debate has been attempted to define terrorism and in particular to seek out the cause of terrorism. This is a concept that should be engaging the best philosophers of our age. In 100 years it should still be debated. What drives people to such acts of barbarism and desperation? I was heartened to see The Economist touch on the issues that motivate the Chechnya separatists. Until the underlying issues are seriously addressed, people will be driven to these extreme acts, to the diminishment of us all. Bush's speech was straight out of the Dark Ages, out of the blind ignorance that spawned the Crusades. Surely we are capable of more?
Graeme
Australia (Sep 7, '04)

Asia Times Online has two new articles on the Beslan tragedy. See Russia forced to rethink US ties and A lengthening trail of terror . - ATol


I read Part 2 of Henry Liu's analysis of Mideast politics [Geopolitical weeds in the cradle of civilization, Sep 3] with mixed emotions. It is always great to find a summary by someone as apparently well read as Mr Liu, whose catholic knowledge (small c) enables him to wield his broad brush. Yet it is disappointing to discover that Mr Liu is no less biased than those he implicitly criticizes. Perhaps that's his right, or maybe a personalized example of the phenomenon of "genetic hatred" he mentions. Although most of my disappointments were related to the slant, a couple of the most outlandish factual errors that should not be allowed to pass: his placing "surprise" in quotation marks when describing the Pearl Harbor attacks is insulting to many, and historically unsupportable. Although, as he points out, rising tensions between America and Japan made conflict likely, most expected it to begin in the oil-producing Dutch possessions of current-day Indonesia (where they did in fact occur at the same time as Pearl Harbor). Although it is fashionable to claim the US knew of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, no reputable scholarship supports this, while a number have refuted it. For Mr Liu to to join in with various Internet wackos and imply this snide claim in Asia Times speaks volumes. Secondly his assertion that the "IPC operated as a monopoly of Iraq's oil sector until its nationalization in 1972 during the Arab oil boycott" is clearly wrong. The IPC [Iraq Petroleum Co] was under pressure to make concessions from the time of the '58 coup, and the nationalization in '72 preceded the Arab oil embargo by more than a year - even a Yank knows the first Arab oil embargo did not occur until late '73, shortly after the Yom Kippur War. Kudos for carrying it anyway; one hopes his admittedly interesting summation will encourage those with a sincere curiosity and good hearts to pursue the truth in more detail.
Johannes Disappointio
New York, New York (Sep 3, '04)


I am not sure what line the author is taking in From puppet to prime minister [Sep 3]. However, except for the good doctor, the performance of the UPA [United Progressive Alliance] government or whatever it calls itself is somewhat of a disaster. Like the NDA [National Democratic Alliance], it also calls itself the party of economic reforms with a rider called "with a human face". The so-called "human face" means doling out freebies like free power, free rice, free pictures of Sonia Gandhi and so forth. This is just the beginning. The liberal finance minister's favorite Indian rope trick is to periodically declare amnesty to the powerful tax dodgers. It does help that the honorable finance minister is a practicing tax consultant when he is not busy writing dream budgets and passing laws that might influence his past tax "advisory" strategies might not be constituted as conflicts of interest. At end of the day, the NDA did come up with few notable changes in telcom, insurance, banking, petroleum and so forth. So far, all we have seen from this UPA government is replacing china with clay pots and other ridiculous freebies. I feel somehow people got used to the growing economy and absence of inflation and raised their expectations after 50 years of Nehruvian socialism. Perhaps after a few years of this UPA rule, they will recall the good old days when government got rid of lazy bankers, one did not have to bribe to get a phone, and more new private airlines were flying in.
AP (Sep 3, '04)


In response to the [article] by B Raman The al-Qaeda striptease on September 1, I would like to make some comments. The writer seems to be the Hindi-cinema-obsessed critic who just wants to criticize Pakistan. Well, this makes sense too as the guy was working for a high-profile government department. But at least there should have some intellectual arguments in the writing. Only fiction and dreams of a strip dance aren't enough to write on a topic like terrorism and Pak-US relations. Words like "They were conceived and executed by the mind of a Pakistani" give an idea of the low and biased mentality of the author. What does this suggest, every Pakistani is a terror mastermind or you want them to be? Well, be careful for what you wish for. Sheltering al-Qaeda in the past and now offering them to the USA is something that was bound to happen ... I will not go into the details on how and when US policymakers created these "mujahideen" ... and launched them all over the world. But the fact of the matter is this that the "al-Qaeda" brand has been recalled by the manufacturers and they will try something different. Maybe a new elite force that pops up from Iraq or Chechnya or even India is vulnerable to that. They need to keep up with the supply of arms and ammunition, and obviously it is a big industry. So they do need buyers. Even Russia's big arms manufacturers are looking for new buyers. All these companies have a strong voice over the government corridors, so they can always an influence on political decisions. Pakistan is a small country in the whole race and it acts only as a playground for the new sport, called terrorism. However, with the serious efforts of the current military regime and [President General Pervez] Musharraf's own will, there is going to be a cleanup soon. Try to understand that the focus is now shifting from South Asia and Afghanistan to the Middle East and sidelines of Russia territory. No one is worried about an Indo-Pak encounter, and please, Mr Raman, try to put the differences aside. Start trusting your neighbors, as the only solution is to live and let others live.
Addy Bhai
Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Sep 3, '04)


Kamran [letter, Sep 2], read this very slowly and carefully - don't come to me for advice. I don't believe in banging my head against the wall. I repeat - you can verify all this elsewhere, that is, if you care to. (Although I don't see why you would want to.) You would have to read the New York Times, Washington Post, Times and there are a myriad other articles on the web. Whatever B Raman has written [The al-Qaeda striptease, Sep 1] is a chronology of events that took place. They did not happen in his head. Only yesterday, I was reading an article in the South Asia Tribune, written by your ex-ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence] chief Javed Nisar. Now, do not insult yourself by flying off the handle and yelling that somebody else has usurped the identity of your honorable ISI chief for the sake of this article. He writes in loving detail about [President General Pervez] Musharraf's and the army's treacherous role in Kargil, how it [had] been in the pipeline for about a decade and how saner, less lunatic minds vetoed it, until Musharraf blundered into it. And Musharraf to this day denies the involvement of the army in Kargil. If the head of a state (even if self-coronated) suffers from abject delusion, what can one expect from others? You think I was disappointed that Pak did not implode after [September 11, 2001]. I never said that, nor is there any article that says Indians wanted that. That is the whole problem. That is your own neurotic paranoia. And there is no cure for that. The only outcome that India wanted out of [September 11] was international focus on curbing terrorism. Now if that is interpreted as wanting Pak to be "blown to smithereens", maybe you yourself see it as the likely consequence of the war on terrorism. Also, it is not the Pierce Brosnan kiss that caused a furor. It was Kushwant Singh's peck on the daughter of the then Pakistani high commissioner Ashraf Jehangir Qazi that hurt Qazi in Pakistan. Please contemplate and absorb what you read before you write.
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 3, '04)


In response to Dell's letter [Sep 2], there are a few things that need to be pointed out. France and Germany with their high non-wage labor costs are hardly examples of the decline of the West as a whole. May I point out that nations in Asia with higher average standards of living are also losing out to China in some ways. My case in point is the relocation of Honeywell's Asian HQ to Shanghai from Singapore. He might be right, however, in his comments about Caucasians being welcomed or more to Asia. The problem as I saw it in China is that as long as someone like myself behaved politely, I would be treated as being beyond suspicion or reproach. At the same time, fellow Chinese were treated with contempt and suspicion and were frequently rude to each other. Part of this, I believe, comes from a government which fails to lead by example.
Peter Mitchelmore (Sep 3, '04)


I am not as convinced as Jon Sreekanth (letter, Sep 2) that one can compare Massachusetts tax dollars going to Arkansas welfare recipients with those same dollars going to a welfare program in Africa. He believes there is a "loud and clear" voice on the street to overcome the artificial boundary of our nation [the US] and to begin transferring payments to the world's poor. It appears Mr Sreekanth is unaware of the propensity of warlords and tyrannical governments of Third World countries to embezzle, rob or otherwise abscond with funds, food and medicines meant for the weakest among them. Perhaps he missed the sex-for-food (and worse) scandals that are intrinsic in UN workers' relationships to those they are meant to serve. By comparing the US social-welfare program with setting up a transfer of payments to unaccountable governments abroad (and stating that there is a popular and religious sentiment for such) makes me think he is not fully considering the implications of his sentiment. Arguably the largest swindle in the history of the world was the recent oil-for-food scandal overseen by the United Nations [in Iraq]. One of the greatest atrocities of recent times was when UN soldiers fled their responsibility in Rwanda and allowed 800,000 innocents to be slaughtered with machetes. What is taking place today in the Sudan proves that the Rwanda incident is not the exception but the rule for what we can expect from the UN. I realize he did not bring up the world body, but his One World idealism (though it sounds noble in the abstract) only works on Star Trek.
Dennis Castle
Portland, Oregon (Sep 3, '04)

The specific cases you mention of UN malfeasance/incompetence are matters of fact, as is your observation of the propensity for tinpot rulers of basket-case countries to steal or misuse aid meant for their people. However, your criticism still smacks of overgeneralization - not all aid goes astray or is abused. It has also been argued, with some merit, that the very lack of oversight that allows negligence and outright crime to continue at the expense of the world's poor is a symptom of the rich world's lack of interest in their plight. - ATol


I was somewhat disappointed to learn that [Sep 2 letter writer Daniel] McCarthy was just another right-wing, red-neck bully. How can he take himself seriously when he writes, " Even the most wimpy Democrat, be he John Kerry or Jimmy Carter ..." So now we get to the bottom of McCarthy's entire world view: only those who lust for cataclysmic war and endanger the lives of everyone but themselves are courageous. How else could he term Carter "wimpy", who lied about his age so he could enter the [US] Navy in World War II as a submarine crewman, one of the most dangerous postings in the armed forces? John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and earned several decorations. But to McCarthy, the true brave patriots were the likes of [Vice President Richard] Cheney and [President George W] Bush, who used every possible means to avoid serving in a war they fervently supported, or [Ronald] Reagan, who made propaganda films while the "wimpy" Carter risked his life. I had taken McCarthy's statements about Taiwan seriously enough to consider his views dangerous, but this kind of empty boasting will always collapse when faced with a real threat, just as the "tough, patriotic" Bush's, Cheney's and Reagan's courage collapsed when their own lives were on the line. If war ever looms between China and the US over the Taiwan issue, you can be sure no members of the McCarthy clan will be rushing to Quemoy or Matsu to defend Taiwan. As for McCarthy's remark that China would still be occupied by Japan if it weren't for the US, this line has lost its effect even in Western Europe, which the US actually did liberate. In Asia, the US did not "liberate" China for fear of losing troops, and instead focused on killing enough Japanese women and children through conventional and atomic bombing to force a Japanese surrender. Just as in Korea, I believe the Chinese patriots, mostly communists under Mao Zedong, would have continued resisting Japan, to borrow a phrase from Bush, "as long as it took".
G Travan
California, USA (Sep 3, '04)


I am glad that Daniel McCarthy brings the issue of World War II out again. It gives me a chance to address the issue [letter, Sep 2]. In their previous letters, Daniel McCarthy and his Indian slave (or service provider in today's word) told us that the Japanese army was just trying to kick white people out of Asia. If that were the case, why would China be occupied by Japan? Were Chinese people white? Chinese people love to trade and be friends with white people. They do not hate whites. China does not have any intention to conduct a Pearl Harbor-style attack or any kind of nuclear blackmail to its largest customer and borrower. Actually, the Chinese government declared to the world that China would not first-use a nuclear weapon. If China were not threatened by such a weapon before, China might not [have had] a need to develop it. China has no interest to start a war right now. When China rises at today's speed, any war is bad, not to mention starting a war against the strongest country in the world. That is not a wise move for China. I hope Daniel McCarthy and many Americans can use a little logic, thinking and clearing up the idea that China will stage a Pearl Harbor-style attack to America. Chinese people would like to live in peace. I hope white people can understand that desire and respect our request. Is that racist?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 3, '04)


As an Indian Muslim, I take exception to Gautam Das' September 2 letter about Islam's supposed excesses during centuries of Muslim rule in India. Never mind the countless contributions that Muslims made to the region in the fields of science, literature, art and governance, the argument, especially by Hindu zealots, always comes back to the "horrors" of Islamic rule, albeit there is scant evidence to back the spurious claims of non-stop mass murder, forced conversions and destruction. If in fact, as Mr Das states, conversions were forced, there would have been few Hindus in India today. A thousand years of Islamic rule would have wiped out all traces of Hindu culture if indeed genocide, torture and tyranny ruled the land. One only needs to look at Central and South America, where a culture as rich and ancient as India's was practically made extinct by the Catholic onslaught. Heck, one only needs to look at Rwanda, where millions were butchered in less than four months. Imagine what a thousand years of hate and ethnic cleansing could have achieved! So, Mr Das, enough of the nonsense and disinformation. In fact, Hindus who keep repeating such garbage like a mantra should perhaps examine the persecution and slaughter of Buddhists (hmm ... I wonder why India, the cradle of Buddhism, has so few Buddhists?) under Hindu rule in India. There are numerous examples of this, including the incident in AD 640 when Sambanda Murti, a brahmin, won over the Pandya royal family and triggered the massacre of 8,000 Buddhist monks in Madurai; Buddhist nuns were reportedly made into devadasis (prostitutes). Now, I am not saying that Hinduism condones such behavior, but my point is that all major ideologies and religions have had their not-so-glorious moments. It's easy to twist history and interpret it to fit one's prejudices and hatreds ...
Fareed Zahid
Waltham, Massachusetts (Sep 3, '04)


To An American Reader [letter, Sep 2]: In defense of the extremist minority which claims to represent the [US] Republican Party at its convention, you ask: "Exactly what is regressive about being [as example] an evangelical, or owning a gun?" First, the Old Testament is pre-"Christian", with a tyrannical eye-for-an-eye "God". That would be, of course, in keeping with "owning guns", and the intended use of them, but it is not Christian. The Christian "religion" begins with the New Testament, the core of which supersedes that Old Testament and is contrary to the "need" to own guns: "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor as thyself". To avoid and ignore the New Testament by remaining bogged down in the superseded Old Testament is obviously both regressive and reactionary. As clearly, centrally consequent is the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (it does not read: "Thou shalt not kill - unless an evangelical"). A legitimate Christian does not claim a "right" to kill, let alone demand a "right" to own the means by which to do the killing. Christ was a pacifist; Christians "imitate" Christ. The confusion is grounded in part in the failure to distinguish between law, on one hand, and "Bible", on the other. The issue of "owning a gun", as falsely tied to a malreading - both illiterate and deliberate - of US history and law, is regressive because tied to a reactionary politics which harkens back to before the "American revolution" and claims a "right" which did not then and does not now exist: the "right" of "revolution". And which is contrary to the meaning of Christian. In fact, the same Congress which produced the Declaration of Independence - which has never been law - also produced "the Tory Act", which authorized the disarming of "the Tories". That obviously means that those who produced those two documents, and during the same session of Congress began framing the Articles of Confederation - which was law - were not opposed to gun control, or even prohibition. The assertion that the Second Amendment [of the US constitution] protects an "individual right to bear arms" is a fraud on the American people (as said Chief Justice Warren Berger), which is easily verified by reference to the Framers' debates of that which became the Second Amendment. We determine "original intent" as concerns constitutional, Bill of Rights, and other law by referring back to the debates of the document in question by those who framed it. The debates of that which became the second amendment includes this draft, which includes the "individual right" which was debated, and subsequently voted down: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" (Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress, Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991, Ed by Helen E Veit, Kenneth R Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford, at 30). Note the difference between plural and singular: the constitution opens with the words, "We the People". "We" is plural; and, consistent therewith, "People" is plural. And as that draft of the amendment indicates, by contradistinction therewith, "person" is singular. Thus the Second Amendment, consistent with its antecedents from existing state constitutions, concerns militia (which - you'll agree - is not "individual"); that draft not only affirms that fact but also substantiates that the "individual right" considered was the individual right to not bear arms. (The term "compelled" indicates the fact that militia service was not voluntary but - as had always been the reality - governed by law, including fining those who failed to serve, and from time to time drafting the unwilling into service.) And who are those "religiously scrupulous" of bearing arms? Christians who imitate Christ. And note the word "State": the constitution, and its amendments, are law, thus consist in legal terms. "State" is government, not "area of land"; and the purpose of the militia, as has always been under law, defense of government - the head of the militia is the state's governor - not opposition to it. The core regressive and reactionary could not be more obvious: Christians "imitate Christ", therefore "turn the other cheek"; they do not instead arm themselves to the teeth in order to be able to kill. And they certainly do not defend any "right" to kill or any means to do so.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 3, '04)


I note with interest the concern about getting the oil flowing in Iraq. Why? The US has ensured that the oil revenues will be used for reconstruction by US (and allied) companies and I am sure somewhere in their interim constitution is a section devoted to reparations and funding the ongoing cost of a standing US army - for security reasons only, of course. Whereas ... If the oil flow to the West is stopped there are several benefits for Iraq: 1. The oil stays in the ground as an Iraqi resource. Given the long-term projections for oil, that will mean that over time it will increase in value, probably exponentially. 2. Iraq can concentrate on getting rid of the Americans and gaining real autonomy and sovereignty - a forlorn hope, I fear, given the US's absolute reliance on a stable source of cheap oil. 3. If sovereignty can be gained, though, then the oil can flow again - probably at a higher price - and the revenue can be used for the reconstruction of Iraq with the priorities set by the Iraq people - again, a forlorn hope, but still, a hope. 4. In the meantime much international pressure will build up against the US. The real motivation behind the invasion of Iraq will be revealed and perhaps a just solution will be found - but given the dependence of the average person on the street on oil, I suspect that when push comes to shove, they will opt for the oil and to hell with that little foreign irritation - after all, we are told with great sadness of the death of a US soldier and yet the death of women and children in Iraq, blown apart by those soldiers, barely rates a mention. So there is absolutely no incentive for the Iraq freedom fighters (what is that I hear you cry in outrage, "They are TERRORISTS!"), as I said, for the Iraq freedom fighters to desist from blowing up the pipelines.
Graeme
Australia (Sep 3, '04)


[Re] Spy probe scans neo-con-Israel ties [Sep 2]. "Zionist lobby group"? Come now. Asia Times hardly ever uses the word "Zionist" outside of quotation marks, except when [Jim] Lobe is writing. Name-calling makes me think that glittering generalities and card-stacking aren't far behind. Is this a news article or an opinion piece?
Shanti Rao
USA (Sep 2, '04)


Thank you for balanced news reporting, an item almost impossible to get in the US: Pepe Escobar tells it all.
Tom Scanlon, US Navy (retired)
Arizona (Sep 2, '04)


Per Pepe Escobar's editorial on the Republican convention (In God, and terror, we trust [Sep 1]), exactly what is regressive about being a Protestant (well over half of America is), [being] an evangelical, or owning a gun? It sounds like you've hired a bigot to write your editorials. This is the work of a third-rate human being, not a journalist or op/ed writer. I haven't read any of his other pieces, but there was very little meat to this particular editorial, anyway. Not sure where he's getting his numbers, but [US President George W] Bush is up by 4% in Ohio and unemployment is down across the country and lower than it was for most of [Bill] Clinton's presidency. Pretty much every major polls shows Florida in a dead heat with neither Bush nor [challenger John] Kerry up by more than 2% or 3%. Escobar has apparently scoured the globe for a poll that puts Kerry up by 6%. Not a fan. You can do better than this putz. I'm normally impressed with your editorials, but this one was a total dud.
An American Reader (Sep 2, '04)


[Re Ask Spengler: Know your enemy (including Commentary magazine), Aug 31] Islam's conquest of India and its subsequent hold over the country till it was displaced by the British was essentially - at its worst - a rule of terror, and at its best, tolerating Hindus as second-class citizens. You only have to go through India's Islamic history, especially annals of the various Turkish, Persian [and] Arab writers and other Muslim court historians to gauge the extent of terror and plunder India was subjected to by hordes of largely Central Asian Muslim armies and by India's Muslim rulers - a process which carried on right till the bloody partition of the country (with a little help from the British). Conversion to Islam in India, even among the lower castes, was seldom voluntary and not just restricted to the lower castes. Had that been the case there would have been no Hindu low castes today. After all, Islamic dynasties, both foreign and Indian converts, ruled India for around 1,000 years. This is in sharp contrast to other areas conquered by Islam where the original religions have all but disappeared or were reduced to an insignificant minority. Consider Persia (originally Zoroastrian), Afghanistan (Hindu/Buddhist), Central Asia (Hindu/Buddhist), the Byzantine Empire and so on. Or for that matter even Arabia, where the original pre-Islamic Arab culture is now extinct. Your statement (response to Jim Hughes) that "Islam swept through the Indian subcontinent by converting the true wretched of the earth, namely the lowest castes of Hindu society", is in my opinion overly simplistic and in error. This is not to deny the horrors of India's rigid caste system, but your statement gives more credit to Islam than due. To quote Will Durant in The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, page 459: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."
Gautam Das
India (Sep 2, '04)


[Re Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan, Aug 21] The writer said "Taiwan is de facto independent and has been since the sovereign ROC government took over administration of the island in 1947." I think it is not the truth. Taiwan [has been] a part of China for tens of hundreds of years, especially after the Chinese Qing Dynasty, Taiwan Island is a province of China and governed by the central government. So I hold that the writer never studied history. Just nonsense.
Ling Guan (Sep 2, '04)


I would like to thank Sri for his gratuitous advice [letter, Sep 1]. Next time I have a problem I know where to go. Perhaps Sri, like other Indians, is disappointed that post-September 11 [2001], despite its efforts, India has not been able to achieve its cherished dream of sidelining Pakistan and having it blown to smithereens. It's this unholy obsession by a country eight times as big as Pakistan that lies at the root of South Asia's problems. If you want proof, look no further than [B] Raman's continuous rant for two years and further read some of the letters here on the ATol website. And while we are at it, let's indeed talk about the "cynical international politics that help thrive terrorism", starting with the state terrorism by certain countries - long before terrorism became a buzzword in the West ... Siddharth Srivastava's references to Pakistan in What kissing James Bond means to India [Jan 9] such as "We are a liberal country, not in the mold of Pakistan ..." were totally unnecessary and tangential to the topic - yet another attempt by another obsessed Indian to malign Pakistan. What has Pakistan got to do with India's inane obsession of one its actresses kissing Pierce Brosnan? And pray what yardstick of "liberalism" is Srivastava advocating? Kissing? Sex? Getta life.
Kamran Khan (Sep 2, '04)


Graeme's letter [Aug 31] is profoundly true, that since we [the US] are a democracy, we are responsible for the acts that are being carried out in our name. But I see the "obscenity" of the situation slightly differently: the existence of starving people (in Sudan or elsewhere) is truly that, but the existence of people who have a luxurious lifestyle is not. In a perfect world, the attempt should be to set a floor, a minimum standard below which people are not allowed to fall, but focusing purely on inequality of condition is a rathole. Plus, poor people in poor countries aspire exactly to our energy-rich and resource-rich lifestyle anyway, this is their incentive to extra effort, and an example of what is possible. The "loud and clear" voice on the street, in my opinion, should be to eliminate the artificiality in people's thinking, and hence politicians' actions, that the nation-state is the artificial boundary where compassion and transfer payments stop. In other words, Massachusetts residents are perfectly okay with their tax dollars going to welfare payments in Arkansas, but not Africa. We pay lip service to the concept, but our political systems (aka nation-state) or ethical systems (major religions) don't seem to scale globally.
Jonnavithula "Jon" Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Sep 2, '04)


Dennis Castle [letter, Aug 31] is apparently trying to make people believe that [President George W] Bush will not hesitate to lead America into another war. However, he may forget the age of slavery is over. Taiwan does not belong to America. Taiwanese people do not need the bloodthirsty whites to decide their future regardless who is the president of America.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Sep 2, '04)


ATol letter writer Dan Piecora of Seattle, Washington, has predicted [Aug 30] that China will successfully use nuclear blackmail to seize Taiwan. If nuclear blackmail were an effective technique, then North Korea would seize South Korea, Pakistan would seize Kashmir, and the Soviet Union would long ago have seized Western Europe. And Mr Piecora misunderstands the character of the American people and the American political leadership if he thinks that another nation can conduct a Pearl Harbor-style raid on US forces and not face the most serious of reprisals. Even the most wimpy Democrat, be he John Kerry or Jimmy Carter, would be forced by Congress to respond in such a circumstance. Pitiful letter writer Frank, also of Seattle, appears to be in constant near-hysteria over perceived racism when the actual topic of discussion is authoritarianism versus freedom.. Yet it is Frank who is the true racist, for he thinks that the lives of "yellow" people are somehow less valuable and may be sacrificed at will for purely political purposes (such as a Chinese takeover of Taiwan). Frank also postulates that in order to even engage in a discussion of the need to preserve and expand freedom in Asia, a participant in the discussion must first be pre-qualified by being "yellow". If that were our view, then China would still be occupied by Japan today. Fortunately for all of us, Frank's view is relatively uncommon.
Daniel McCarthy (Sep 2, '04)


Syed Saleem Shahzad should not take offense at criticism in Letters. The bulk of us who have read ATimes for a long time and rely on information provided are grateful for his contributions and hard work. I think there is a Latin saying illigitimus non carborundum, freely translated "don't let the b*stards wear you down", that Syed should consider at such times. Keep up the great work! If you weren't doing such a great job nobody would complain.
Rachel Hassold
Waco, Texas (Sep 2, '04)


I tend to agree with some of your Asian writers that the whites basically have no business to interfere in Asian affairs. While I do not doubt that some Western commentators are sincere in their comments, deep in my heart I always tend to believe that there might be some sort of conspiracy to weaken Asia. The ultimate aim is to maintain the status quo - that is, the whites rule this Earth. For example I can never understand why the USA is so worried about the situation in North Korea. Surely China and South Korea together with Japan would be the most affected parties should Chairman Kim [Jong-il] suddenly decide to drop his atom bombs all over Asia - why should President G Bush be so worried? I am pretty sure that North Korea does not produce oil, although they do have some natural resources such as marble, etc. It would be a different story if South Korea, Japan or ever China invited the USA to put pressure on Chairman Kim, but this apparently is not the case - at least not yet. Some of the Western writers also have a tendency to glorify dictators in Asia. I read an article recently by a Western writer in Singapore who tried his very best to portray the ruling generals in Myanmar as angels - men of honorable intentions trying to salvage the nation from disintegration. From where and on what he formed such opinion I really have no clue. Many Asian nations were under colonial rule for quite a long time. It is quite sad after achieving independence for so many years [that] many of us still have to open our arms and welcome the whites as masters returning "home" to Asia. One can easily observe this in many parts of Asia. In fact in Singapore there have been two lady writers who complaint to the press that when some white people insulted them while they were having their meals in a rather high-class restaurant, the manager and the staff there just turned their heads. Realistically Asia cannot do without the capital and technology of the whites now - this is a fact. But as some very talented writers have written in this paper, Asia should not just be happy to be slaves to their white masters, producing all the goods for the West to consume and earning peanuts in return.The way forward is for us to develop our domestic economies, establish proper political systems that suit our local conditions - whatever those might be. The rise of Asia will be at the expense of the West, there is no doubt about that. The transfer of wealth has already begun. Last year, Germany and France both suffered drops in their per capita incomes while China, India and many Asian nations rose (from The Economist) even though the figures were in US dollars and the euro actually strengthened against the US dollar in the last two years.
Dell
Singapore (Sep 2, '04)


I am a frequent reader of Asia Times on the Internet and enjoy the content of the articles presented on a daily basis. An area of the world that causes some intrigue to me of late is Australia and its positioning in the international community during the past 12 months. For example, the close involvement with the US in Iraq, the recent announcement to buy cruise missiles, strengthening its air force and plan to purchase a number of military personnel transport helicopters to only name a few. Can you tell me if your site or any other reputable information source has written an article on Australia and its current positioning in the global arena? I would be very much interested in reading a number of opinions on the subject area. Thanks for any assistance you may provide.
Terry
Canada (Sep 2, '04)

We don't cover Australia as a rule, but two articles that may be of interest to you are Fear and favor: Australia-Iraq-US equation (Jun 15) and Pentagon shuns Asia for Canberra (Jul 10). - ATol


Syed Saleem Shahzad responds to readers
Asia Times Online has recently received a number of letters critical of Pakistan bureau chief Syed Saleem Shahzad. He responds here to some of their comments point by point.
1. I have not emerged recently as a lead author in Asia Times. I have been writing for ATol since even before September 11, 2001. Recently, however, it has become more frequent that my stories go as the lead.
2. Before anybody else broke the story of US preparations to launch a catch-Osama operation in Afghanistan, I had the story. In fact, I had the basic story one month before, but in the process of getting relevant facts I took some time to get my hands on the information when the real developments started in July 2001.
3. When all the major press of the world, including that of Pakistan, said the Taliban were history, this scribe made the facts public that they were alive and kicking and gave the time frame when they would restart their activities. Later on, I gave a time frame on when they would go for full-scale guerrilla warfare and even when they would go for suicidal attacks (of which there was no history in Afghanistan before) - all information that stood true.
4. I gave the exact facts about when, where and why the Taliban, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence met for the first time to strike a deal. The story did not appear in top US newspapers for several month afterward.
6. I identified Angor Ada, South Waziristan, as a spot in January 2003 that would drag Pakistan into a troublesome situation.
7. I broke the news on proxy Taliban organization Jaishul Muslim about a year back and the creation of a moderate Taliban. All such information remained exclusive to Asia Times Online, and other major media published it only recently. I tried to put together different events and facts in a series called Revolution in the Mountains.The revolution is there as the basic dynamics of the area have been changed.
8. I covered the feeling of pan-Islamicism in the Pakistani army and its anxiety against President General Pervez Musharraf. My stories were supported with documents and sources that signaled a problem in the army that appeared in the shape of attacks on Musharraf and a corps commander, even admitted by Musharraf. Maybe still it is a coincidence for my critics, but it is a fact that I gave even the names of persons who were behind the attack on Musharraf several weeks before the incident happened. A few months ago Musharraf repeated the same facts and the same names.
These are just the few facts that shows that I have always been obsessed with objectivity and with efforts to get the news ahead of everybody.
Saleem Saleem Shahzad (Sep 1, '04)


In the spirit of your "Indian ownership" to malign Pakistan and the Taliban, I congratulate you on bringing B Raman back [The al-Qaeda striptease, Sep 1]. At least to some of us, a few minutes of his articles reset us with what is going on in the so-called "war against terrorism". Corollary: I am sure Republicans reading articles from him in ATimes might prompt them to believe ATimes is being bankrolled by a [John] Kerry-centric 527 group!
AP (Sep 1, '04)


I read B Raman's articles with great interest ... After a long time, an interesting article, The al-Qaeda striptease [Sep 1], came from him. Good one. God knows why [the] international community kept [its] eyes closed on the rulers of the country which is the mother of modern-day terrorism - the fact is that still they are keeping their eyes closed. Recently there was news that ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence) spent Rs50 crore (about US$10 million) annually to finance terrorist activities in Kashmir - a significant amount of money for a poor country. After all these terrorist activities - killing of innocent people, what Pakistan gains [is] backwardness ...
Shekhar Mehta
US/India (Sep 1, '04)


I thought [Houston, we have a Yukos problem, Aug 26] by Pepe Escobar deserves plenty of kudos - well researched, well written and a good read.
Eric Lee (Sep 1, '04)


Aaftaab's comment [letter, Aug 30] alleging that Indians want to "implicate" Pakistan in "everything they can think of" is funny. I read the entire What kissing James Bond means to India [Jan 9] a couple of times, and I found it to be light-hearted and humorous commentary on the subcontinental attitudes to high society "scandals" involving women. I have to confess I couldn't find any negative implication regarding Pakistan that Aaftaab sees. The only one was the mention of an issue in which a Pakistani female was kissed by an Indian writer, but again the big fuss made out of this issue was in Pakistan, and not India. Aaftaab's knee-jerk reaction, it seems, is a symptom of five decades of deliberately cultivated culture of screaming foul about largely self-inflicted victimization and depiction of some cosmic conspiracy by "infidel forces" against Pakistan, and even more strangely, by implication, against Islam - all thanks to Pakistan's selfish and arrogant military raj.
Rakesh (Sep 1, '04)


Nobody likes to have their dirty linen washed in public. So I guess it is normal for people like Aaftaab, Kamran Ali [letters, Aug 31] and their ilk to vent out at ATol for merely stating what you can find anywhere on the Internet regarding Pakistan's love affair with terrorism. I do not know if it is an ostrich-like obstinacy in refusing to see the way facts line up, mere dumbness or fanaticism that drives these noble gentlemen to heap abuse on ATol for the exposes. I have a simple solution, though. Gents, you seem motivated enough to write, so you can actually verify all these statements on the Internet, by reading other newspapers and journals, before you hemorrhage here. It may come as a shock to you to find out that Syed Saleem Shahzad did not write them all! Nor are all the authors Indians! I congratulate ATol for providing intuitive, logical analysis and exposing the cynical international politics that helps terrorism thrive. And you folks are spot on in your forecasts on how things are going to play out. (Unfortunately.) You know you are doing something right if you attract so much abuse.
Sri
New York, USA (Sep 1, '04)


Dear Grumpy et al: I must comment on your [Aug 31] letter regarding the amazing Spengler, especially your statement, "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." The significance of my own life is not dependent on such external matters but on my internal relationship with God. I am, after all, a son of God. Why, this very weekend, I witnessed a miracle of my own making. My own son, whom I helped to create in a most delightful way, bought my dinner.
Mike
USA (Sep 1, '04)


Having resided in California for some years one is always taken aback when the words "Central California" appear in print. The common description of a Californian is either a southerner or a northerner. Still, Grumpy [letter, Aug 31], presumably also speaking (writing) on behalf of the other six, alluded to [Rudyard] Kipling, Galileo [Galilei], Spengler and by inference others for their views on the predicaments of "intelligent and prosperous" Western man/woman. An incident that took place some years ago when I accompanied an American ambassador for a meet with several Touareg tribal chiefs in a North African country might corroborate Grumpy's comment about man discovering the truth of his place in the universe. The conversation took place after a sit-down dinner of lamb and couscous. The ambassador pointed to the night sky and told his host about the landings on the moon and that in time America would have several satellites traveling in space. While one of the Touareg chiefs seemed to be impressed, his comment was to the point that since he, his father, grandfather and beyond had used the stars to guide them from one oasis to another for years [and] that he doubted that the satellites would be of much value to him and his children. That man most certainly could not have lost the drive to breed his replacements. One can also wonder whether the average Touareg had ever heard of Galileo or his theories.
Armand DeLaurell (Sep 1, '04)


To those who falsely bash John Kerry as being "wishy-washy" and "a flip-flopper":
"This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it: we will win." - George W Bush, September 12, 2001.
"Can we win the war on terror? I don't think you can win it." - George W Bush, August 31, 2004.
"We meet today in a time of war for our own country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." - George W Bush, August 31, 2004.
Forget all that talk about the "Bush Doctrine" of "preemption"; and any mention of [Bush's] Iraq "miscalculation" is treason. And none of us had better remind the world - or Bush supporters - that [Ronald] Reagan, [Donald] Rumsfeld, and Bush's daddy supplied weapons to Saddam Hussein before, during, and after Hussein allegedly "gassed his own people".
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Sep 1, '04)


It's quite easy for many outside of the US to criticize this war on terror. Maybe it's not going as well as it should. Maybe the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] which were confirmed to have existed by many intelligence services around the world were never there [in Iraq]. But this is not [President George W] Bush's fault. More than 3,000 innocent people died here on September 11 [2001]. Except for the Israelis, no country has suffered this much in one single day. The rest of the world has not felt the sting as much, so I suppose it's not as urgent to many outside of the US. But here we take a more serious view on terror and many of us feel this war had to be fought. I hope other countries do not have to wait until they suffer in the same manner before they wake up to reality.
J Chua
Montville, New Jersey (Sep 1, '04)

Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, something a startling number of Americans still fail to understand. The fact that many nations choose not to battle terrorism the way the US does (eg invading countries whose links to terrorism are unproven but who have plenty of oil) does not mean they are asleep or don't take the problem seriously, or that they do not support Washington in its genuine anti-terror efforts. - ATol