|
|
|
|
Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence.
Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.
Please note: This Letters page is intended primarily for
readers to comment on ATol articles or related issues. It should not be used as
a forum for readers to debate with each other.
The Edge is the place for that. The editors do not mind publishing one
or two responses to a reader's letter, but will, at their discretion, direct
debaters away from the Letters page.
January 2012
While watching a program about America's addiction to prescription pain pills,
a commercial appeared pushing an anti-depressant pill. As if that were not
ironic enough, the end of the ad featured a description warning of the possible
side effects, ranging from headaches to disorientation to death. A savvy ad
manager would have inserted immediately afterwards yet more commercials
promoting aspirin, maps and life insurance but, alas, the opportunity for
Madison Avenue history was wasted.
This sort of unintentional humor fittingly frames Wonderland's obsession with
quick fixes and panaceas without any consideration of adverse effects. This
sort of Pollyanna obliviousness is routinely manifested in politics, culture
and business. Whether it is cosmetic surgery to combat the ravages of Father
Time or accounting hocus-pocus to make a depression look palatable or bullying
Muslim countries to support Zionism, Wonderlanders expect "magic pills," ie,
easy solutions on their terms with nary a nod to negative contingencies. What
needs to accompany these illusory "solutions" are suitable warnings, such as
leaking implants pouring toxic chemicals into lymph systems, or an increasingly
angry electorate ready to violently take matters into their own hands, or
stratospherically higher oil prices and ruinous wars in the Middle East
crippling the fragile economy.
It would be nice if our so-called "leaders" led us into some kind of national
introspection as to why things have gone so wrong. One would have thought that
perhaps some communal soul-searching about the reasons pain killers and
anti-depressants are so desperately desired by the zombified nation would be in
order. Perhaps somebody could connect the dots between all the miscalculations,
misjudgments and misinformation over the last 30 years and see how
disappointment and disillusionment have turned the nation into junkies and
pill-heads looking for a surreal alternative to the mess capitalism and
imperialism have left in their wake.
That approach would be way too anti-Wonderland to be palatable, since
everything and anything done by the Lord's New Chosen People (sorry, Hebrews,
you had your chance) is automatically deemed correct, appropriate and destined
to succeed. Warnings, cautionary tales and realistic forecasts are the moanings
and groanings of Cassandras who belong "over there", you know, in Europe, where
socialism has turned those Old Worlders into namby pambys who shun war and
embrace social equality.
Those ideas'll get you strung up here in Texas.
Hardy Campbell
United States (Jan 31, '12)
[Re The Iranian
oil embargo blowback, Jan 27] There are those of us in the US who
realize the stupidity of official antagonism to Iran, because it is done for
the benefit of Israel and not the benefit of the US. Unfortunately, the
avalanche of lies about Iran produced by Israel, by neo-cons, and by gutless,
pandering politicians in the US has convinced the uninformed in the US that it
is good policy to confront Iran.
Israel is not a friend of the US; Israel is only the friend of Israel. It is
very much past time for us to cut loose from the racist Israeli government.
Maybe it is already too late, because of how much damage has been done to the
welfare of the United States by its association with Israel. Even if that is
so, we should go our way and let Israel go its way.
Lou Vignates
United States (Jan 30, '12)
It strikes me as odd that no one has remarked on the similarities between US
policy towards North Korea and US policy towards Iran. The object all sublime
in each case is rollback or regime change. But the Barack Obama administration
also has to manage the "existential fears" of South Korea's Lee Myung-bak and
those of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lee's are easier to handle,
but not Netanyahu's since the Israelis are difficult to manage, and even then
the Americans are never sure that the Israelis wont to go it alone.
Washington's balancing act is unquestionably delicate and tricky: one wrong
move can lead to war with Iran. South Korea and Israel today are not in the
mood for negotiations, nor is the US. Hence the dangling sword of military
confrontation and economic disaster in pursuit of getting to no.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Jan 27, '12)
[Re East Asian energy
dilemma over Iran, Jan 23, '12] Like the Big Bad Wolf in the Brothers
Grimm fairy tale, the US Barack Obama administration has huffed and puffed and
failed to bring to a halt in Iran's nuclear program, which the United Nations'
International Atomic Energy Agency does a fairly good job in monitoring. Now,
the White House is leaning hard on Japan and South Korea, Yong Kwon tells us,
to reduce their dependency on imports of Iranian oil. Washington's pressure is
fueling resentment towards the US in these two countries. Had they their
druthers, they could play a card of their own to counter the US's call.
If the countries diminish dependency on Iranian oil would the US diminish its
dependency on oil from Venezuela, which accounts for a third of imports from a
regime the US excoriates? You would see how fast the Obama administration would
spin its wheels at such a suggestion.
Yong Kwon mentions Israel. The Zionist state does shilyshally in pursuing a
goal. It knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Consequently, it is
willing to put its money where its mouth is in bargaining either with South or
North Korea. Israel found a willing partner in the North for a goodly sum not
to sell SCUD missiles to Iran. At the last minute, Washington got wind of the
deal and it got scratched.
The moral of this tale is that US will get nowhere with its allies or "axis of
evil" states unless they are willing to pony up money or respond in kind. A
good example comes immediately to mind: Kruschev withdrew its nuclear missiles
from Cuba while the US closed down a North Atlantic Treaty Organization airbase
in Turkey very close to the Soviet border. Otherwise America's braggadocio ends
up in a cul de sac.
Abraham Bin Yiju
Palermo (Jan 24, '12)
Dear Editor,
I'm really not sure what wars Dennis O'Connell refers to in his latest letter
regarding US military might. The Persian Gulf war succeeded in getting Iraq out
of Kuwait, but conquering Iraq has proven to be a bit more involved. The
Iran/Iraq war wasn't a stalemate. Iraq was given every advantage by the Ronald
Reagan administration and made not a dent in the Iranian defenses. In addition
, your information that only 10% support the mullahs is clearly flawed , and
sounds more like neocon propaganda than reality. Like many in the US, he has
absolutely no idea of what the ordinary man and woman in Iran wants, needs or
thinks. Any hope of regime change is far-fetched. Whether we in the West like
it or not, the overwhelming majority of Iranians support the Islamic Republic.
There is no doubt at all about American military power, but you need to be
smarter than your scribes appear to be. "Overthrowing the anti-American thugs
that rule Iran is the only US option," O'Connell states. You don't understand
the pragmatism of the Shi'ites. Just one grenade on Tehran will send a flood of
outrage into neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan where tens of thousands of
shi'ite Muslims will no doubt want to rip apart the nearest Westerner they can
lay their hands on.
You need to listen to the late General William Odom who knew more about
counterinsurgency than anyone in the United States. I heard him in 2007 on
Charlie Rose and he described it perfectly. The issue is not whether Iran gets
a nuclear weapon or not, the issue is whether the US has a dialogue with Iran,
and can keep a foot in their camp. They have a great deal more in common than
they differ on. Right now you are driving them into the arms of the Chinese and
the Soviets and continuing to destroy your own economy. I can't understand why.
It is simple ... American foreign policy is dictated by Israel's domestic
policy. For God's sake grow up and stand up for America. Historically Iran has
to hold its nose when dealing with the Soviets, yet you drive them directly to
them.
Go ahead...bomb the hell out of Iran. You will pay , and pay handsomely. May be
not today , and maybe not tomorrow, but if the Shi'ites do one thing well ,
they retaliate. If you spent half the time studying Iran as you do counting
Newt Gingrich's wives , you would all be better off.
Miles Tompkins
Nova Scotia (Jan 24, '12)
In Another letter
from America for Iran [Jan 21, '12] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, it is
suggested that Iran will, indeed, block all oil from being shipped out, if
other contries follow the US in an embargo of Iran. Now, the European Union has
voted to stop all new oil contracts from Iran and to completely embargo Iran
including its central bank by July. This is an act of war against Iran! Imagine
if Russia and China acted together and stopped all trade with the US.
Certainly, we would interpret this as an act of war!
Iran, too, has great power. An effective response from Iran would be to stop
all shipments of oil to the EU, now, and not wait until July. This would send
energy prices to the sky and collapse the economies of countries like Greece
and Italy, which are already teetering on bankruptsy. I hope this would change
the minds of those in Brussels and in Washington to a more humble tone, and
avert another useless and wasteful war that we can not win.
Daniel N Russell
Willow, Alaska (Jan 24, '12)
[Re East Asian energy
dilemma over Iran, Jan 23, '12] Like the Big Bad Wolf in the Brothers
Grimm fairy tale, the US Barack Obama administration has huffed and puffed and
failed to bring to a halt in Iran's nuclear program, which the United Nations'
International Atomic Energy Agency does a fairly good job in monitoring. Now,
the White House is leaning hard on Japan and South Korea, Yong Kwon tells us,
to reduce their dependency on imports of Iranian oil. Washington's pressure is
fueling resentment towards the US in these two countries. Had they their
druthers, they could play a card of their own to counter the US's call.
If the countries diminish dependency on Iranian oil would the US diminish its
dependency on oil from Venezuela, which accounts for a third of imports from a
regime the US excoriates? You would see how fast the Obama administration would
spin its wheels at such a suggestion.
Yong Kwon mentions Israel. The Zionist state does shilyshally in pursuing a
goal. It knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Consequently, it is
willing to put its money where its mouth is in bargaining either with South or
North Korea. Israel found a willing partner in the North for a goodly sum not
to sell SCUD missiles to Iran. At the last minute, Washington got wind of the
deal and it got scratched.
The moral of this tale is that US will get nowhere with its allies or "axis of
evil" states unless they are willing to pony up money or respond in kind. A
good example comes immediately to mind: Kruschev withdrew its nuclear missiles
from Cuba while the US closed down a North Atlantic Treaty Organization airbase
in Turkey very close to the Soviet border. Otherwise America's braggadocio ends
up in a cul de sac.
Abraham Bin Yiju
Palermo (Jan 23, '12)
Dear Editor,
I'm really not sure what wars Dennis O'Connell refers to in his latest letter
regarding US military might. The Persian Gulf war succeeded in getting Iraq out
of Kuwait, but conquering Iraq has proven to be a bit more involved. The
Iran/Iraq war wasn't a stalemate. Iraq was given every advantage by the Ronald
Reagan administration and made not a dent in the Iranian defenses. In addition
, your information that only 10% support the mullahs is clearly flawed , and
sounds more like neocon propaganda than reality. Like many in the US, he has
absolutely no idea of what the ordinary man and woman in Iran wants, needs or
thinks. Any hope of regime change is far-fetched. Whether we in the West like
it or not, the overwhelming majority of Iranians support the Islamic Republic.
There is no doubt at all about American military power, but you need to be
smarter than your scribes appear to be. "Overthrowing the anti-American thugs
that rule Iran is the only US option," O'Connell states. You don't understand
the pragmatism of the Shi'ites. Just one grenade on Tehran will send a flood of
outrage into neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan where tens of thousands of
shi'ite Muslims will no doubt want to rip apart the nearest Westerner they can
lay their hands on.
You need to listen to the late General William Odom who knew more about
counterinsurgency than anyone in the United States. I heard him in 2007 on
Charlie Rose and he described it perfectly. The issue is not whether Iran gets
a nuclear weapon or not, the issue is whether the US has a dialogue with Iran,
and can keep a foot in their camp. They have a great deal more in common than
they differ on. Right now you are driving them into the arms of the Chinese and
the Soviets and continuing to destroy your own economy. I can't understand why.
It is simple ... American foreign policy is dictated by Israel's domestic
policy. For God's sake grow up and stand up for America. Historically Iran has
to hold its nose when dealing with the Soviets, yet you drive them directly to
them.
Go ahead...bomb the hell out of Iran. You will pay , and pay handsomely. May be
not today , and maybe not tomorrow, but if the Shi'ites do one thing well ,
they retaliate. If you spent half the time studying Iran as you do counting
Newt Gingrich's wives , you would all be better off.
Miles Tompkins
Nova Scotia (Jan 23, '12)
In Another letter
from America for Iran [Jan 21, '12] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, it is
suggested that Iran will, indeed, block all oil from being shipped out, if
other contries follow the US in an embargo of Iran. Now, the European Union has
voted to stop all new oil contracts from Iran and to completely embargo Iran
including its central bank by July. This is an act of war against Iran! Imagine
if Russia and China acted together and stopped all trade with the US.
Certainly, we would interpret this as an act of war!
Iran, too, has great power. An effective response from Iran would be to stop
all shipments of oil to the EU, now, and not wait until July. This would send
energy prices to the sky and collapse the economies of countries like Greece
and Italy, which are already teetering on bankruptsy. I hope this would change
the minds of those in Brussels and in Washington to a more humble tone, and
avert another useless and wasteful war that we can not win.
Daniel N Russell
Willow, Alaska (Jan 23, '12)
[Re The sleaze that
shames Seoul, Jan 20] Endemic corporate corruption is no stranger to
South Korea. It is almost guaranteed by the very existence of chaebols,
on one hand, and free market economics on the other. It is a mirror image of
Japan's zaibatsu.
Aidan Foster-Carter's disgust at "corpulent governance" is understandable. The
sleazy politics of the GNP under "Bulldozer" Lee Myung-bak has stirred unrest
among ordinary South Koreans. Recent elections indicate that his party will be
swept out of power in this year's presidential election. Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Jan 23, '12)
[Re Beijing expects pay
back from Ma, Jan 19] Yvonne Su's article is an example of the many
articles on the Taiwan issue that center on the consequences or implication of
dialogue between mainland China and Taiwan, such as the 1992 Consensus. But
this is not yet the essence. While talks at the moment have their rhetorical
impact of mollification, they do not bear rigorous implications.
The author states: ''Ma has reiterated that his administration's cross-Strait
policy focuses on 'three Nos' - seeking no unification (with China), no
independence (for Taiwan) and no violence (on the Strait), but he has failed to
elaborate on how he can honor these promises while continuing to seek closer
ties with China.'' The audience of the 'three Nos' is the people of Taiwan, not
the Chinese mainland. The mainland's response to the ''three-Nos'' is not
intrinsic and Ma is not expected to predict the mainland's reaction to them.
Given are the 'three Nos' which Ma adheres to; how the mainland respond to
them, closer tie or not, is not fundamental.
Basically, Taiwan is unwilling to reunite with the mainland no matter what; no
dialogue can change this reality. The mainland absolutely will not relinquish
design in recovering Taiwan as a unitary China with Taiwan as a part, no
federation will suffice. The issue of Taiwan will be resolved with some degree
of coercion. The flavor is that such coercion has to be minimized and presented
in the least offensive way. The significance of any dialogue, including for
trade favors such as Taiwan banana exports to the mainland, is predicated on
this crux. The major reason for coercion to be presented in the least offensive
way is to make autonomy credible to the people of Taiwan while coercive
pressure is exerted; the other is to facilitate reconciliation after coercion.
Coercive pressure can be exerted in the least offensive way because Taiwan is
an island with no energy. Upon the background of intimidating overwhelming
superiority in all fields, the mainland will just pinch on Taiwan's abjectly
vulnerable energy artery that will feel like a nerve. To break free Taiwan will
have to initiate the first major military offensive. After a few decades, the
mainland will basically control the viability of the Taiwan economy. While
''economic tie'' with the mainland is a restraining tool of control, the
mainland will eventually have a trump card that is far greater than any tie -
control.
While diplomatic dialogue between the United States and China in regard to
Taiwan, such as the three Shanghai Communiqu้'s (that indicate US
recognition of the Chinese claim that Taiwan is a part of China), have great
significance in terms of international reactions, those between mainland China
and Taiwan do not, since Taiwan is not a country but formally, per diplomatic
parlance at the UN, a part of China.
Jeff Church
United States (Jan 20, '12)
[Re Worries mount
over blowback of Iran attack and
US meets resistance to Iran sanctions, Jan 19]. It's safe to say that
other than Iran itself, no major player affected by the current crisis wants to
see the Islamic Republic nuclear-armed; as such, multi-channel diplomacy will
likely yield the most satisfactory resolution to the dangerous row.
[Re Beijing expects pay
back from Ma, Jan 19]. As long as the Taiwanese government doesn't go
off at a tangent and declare/imply independence as former president Lee Tunghui
did, China will be happy to abide by the status quo and let the cross-strait
relationship evolve naturally. At its core, the China-Taiwan issue isn't a
complicated one and doesn't deserve to be made so.
[Re China's
slowdown fears ease and Miners
charge ahead, Jan 19]. While a hard landing of China's economy seems
unlikely, the government still faces delicate macro-policy challenges ahead.
Absent any catastrophe occurring before late summer, the country's economy
should begin to show renewed vigor for the intermediate future. In the long
run, however, gross inefficiency in bank-lending practices will still need to
be addressed, the sooner the better.
John Chen
United States (Jan 20, '12)
[Re The myth of an
'isolated' Iran and
Red lines in the Strait of Hormuz, Jan 18] While the news headlines of
the young millennium have been dominated by military conflicts and economic
strife, the twenty-first century will likely go down as a period when peoples
and nations learn to work with one another for the greater good of humanity.
Though that notion appears far-fetched presently with the drumbeat of war
radiating far and wide and economic gloom seemingly ubiquitous, it will be
achieved one way or another. The world is a-changing, and there’s only so much
any superpower can do.
John Chen United States (Jan 19, '12)
[Re Red lines in
the Strait of Hormuz, Jan 18] George Friedman seems to argue the the US
and Iran are evenly matched. Yet early on in his article he sites the Iran-Iraq
war, which lasted eight years and caused over a million Iranian causalities and
ended in a stalemate. So how did the US do a few years later when it fought
Iraq?
The ground war lasted 100 hours with a little over 100 US dead and a massive
victory, so excuse if I fail to see your point. Mr Friedman points to Desert
Storm and Kosovo as showing American weakness yet both were successful, and
where are Saddam and Milosevic now? He downplays the importance of the fall of
Assad's Syria; this would be an extreme body blow to Iran's power in the
region, and Assad will fall - it is just going to take many months.
The US has the power to destroy Iran's electricity and oil infrastructure in a
few hours, and I don't think the Mullahs could stay in power if that happened.
The religious thugs that run Iran are down to around 10% support and this when
they control the airways and the press. As 2009 showed, they stay in power only
because they can and will inflict terror on the Iranian people who seem to lack
the intestinal fortitude of some of their Arab neighbors. Mr Friedman writes
that Iran wants "a redefinition of how oil revenues are allocated and
distributed". I have no idea what he exactly means by that. Overthrowing the
anti-American thugs that rule Iran is the only US option, yet we have spent
over 30 years playing footsie with the Mullahs as they have killed thousands of
Americans. It appears the Iranian citizens are not the only ones lacking
testicular fortitude.
If Iraq and Afghanistan are any guide the US is probably looking for a plan
against Iran that will cost hundred of billions of dollars, is doomed to
failure and will cause the needless death of thousands more Americans. I guess
we are looking for an Iranian exile leader who is a liar, thief and extremely
incompetent who we can hitch our star to, and with the neo-cons out of power it
is going to take a while.
Dennis O'Connell
United States (Jan 19, '12)
[Re The Ponghwa behind
Pyongyang's throne, Jan 18] Kim Jong-eun's utterance ''Even when I work
night after night, once I have brought joy to the comrade supreme commander,
the weariness vanishes and a new strength courses through my whole body. This
is what revolutionaries should live for,'' is an expression of filial piety and
loyalty which underpin the idea of virtue Koreans value.
The 'Dear Leader' is simply signally to his people that he will remain true to
the responsibilities of his office. Which in simpler terms means that like his
grandfather and father he will work tirelessly in a manner which Lee Yong-soon
described in a recent BBC interview of a tireless "company man". Obviously it
is too early in the game of North Korea watchers to piece together if the
"Ponghwa Group" will achieve an overarching influence.
Were the US and South Korea willing to normalize relations with North Korea,
being on the spot would allow a better understanding of what is going on in the
North, rather than hunting and pecking through second or third-hand sources in
foreign journals.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Jan 19, '12)
[Re God's
promises and man's preferences, Jan 17] For Christianity to succeed it
must "Judaize", exhorts Spengler. He looks to America, whose success he
attributes to its founders, for they sought to self-style their newborn nation
on the Jews as a new Chosen People in a new Promised Land. Yet by his own
admission, he speaks of this nativist impulse to incarnate the Word into the
living flesh of nation states as a "dark, existential longing which no
arguments can assuage."
Indeed, when Adolf Hitler proclaimed to the assembled masses that he had been
"sent by God to complete Jesus' mission" (that is, to exact revenge on the Jews
for putting Jesus Christ to death), there were very few brave voices that
argued otherwise. This Judaizing tendency may give the outward appearance of
success, but in reality it is dark and sinister and outright evil.
The American Declaration of Independence boldly asserts that "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." If this be the
case, then no nation can arrogate unto itself - in accordance with some form of
divine decree - that it has a unique mission to save the world. Instead, as in
the Holocaust, it ends up playing the deadly genocidal game of God with those
deemed less equal.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Australia (Jan 19, '12)
The typical Wonderland evangelical "Christian" that has so corrupted American
religion, politics and morality is a curious beast. He/she routinely condemns
homosexuals, using the Bible's proscription of it as their justification,
ignoring that the same book condemns even more vehemently adultery, greed,
theft and a whole host of other sins that the average Amerikan Neo-con
"believer" engages in with gusto and hedonistic abandon. I guess they figure
that Christianity's convenient Get-Out-of-Hell Card, unquestioned forgiveness,
applies only to "straight" people.
Equally curious is the fervor with which the white trash trailer-church crowd
embraces Israel and the Jews, apparently ignoring the fact the Bible quite
explicitly condemns Jews for their role in Christ's assassination (don't take
my word for it, sports fans; read Matthew 27:25.) This glaring inconsistency
has to also be seen in the light of the evangelical's nonsensical insistence
that the Bible be read literally, with no room for human-corrupting
interpretations.
Readers should know that I consider myself a Christian, though far removed from
the foolish evangelicals, and while I have no love for imperialist, Zionist,
apartheidist Israel, I bear no ill will to the Hebrew faith in general. I only
remark on how the evangelicals cherry pick scripture in order to justify and
rationalize their hypocrisy, illogic and treasonous politics.
They regularly characterize themselves as a persecuted, discriminated lot,
harassed by the liberal media and hounded by society, yet it is their
gun-toting minions that shoot Democrats, abortion doctors and anyone else they
deem "socialists" or "terrorists". It is their neo-con media pundits conduct
witch hunts, electronic pogroms and vicious slander campaigns, their Tea Party
mobs that intimidate and howl, and their well-coordinated protests that yank
corporate dollars from groups they consider too progressive or leftist. The
fact that George W Bush considers himself an evangelical Christian says volumes
about the kind of leadership they adore.
The Anglo-Saxon evangelical carries on a long tradition of narrow minded,
racist wannabe Christians whose only goal is to eliminate opposition to their
dream of a blue eyed, pristine white universe. They praise God and sings his
hosannas while they yell for more wars, less help to the needy and more
punishment to those of different color. Indeed, the passion they exhibit for
these ugly causes is matched only by the passion they reserve for underage
interns and other people's spouses.
Hardy Campbell
United States (Jan 19, '12)
[Re God's
promises and man's preferences, Jan 17] As usual the case put by
channeller David Goldman is deep and incisive: so much so that I hesitate to
comment. I will content myself in offering the following fringe observations:
Islam: the entire Koran (am surprised that critics have consistently overlooked
this point) is written in the form of suras - chapters of poetic verse.
Poetry is generally regarded as the language of emotion - poetry (unlike prose)
is not normally written to appeal to reason. Islam prospers because it
instructs its adherents by moving emotions and cannot therefore foster a regime
of Enlightenment based on empirical thought. Its redeeming side (which has
ensured its longevity thus far) is that it also sustains a sense of mystery.
Without mystery there is no religion.
Christianity: In Europe (by contrast) Christianity has arguably been the
ultimate victim of the Age of Scientific Enlightenment. To ask believers to
believe in the mystery of the Holy Trinity comprising three divine persons is a
big ask at the best of times. In a world where knowledge based on empirical
fact is preferred to eternal mystery the doctrine strains credulity to breaking
point. Little wonder that Christianity now prospers in parts of the World such
as Africa where empirical reason is still subordinate to a sense of mystery
manifest in (for example) African vodun (native spiritualism).
Elect Israel as the universal civilization? Perish the thought! Christianity
and Islam alike are both inclusive creeds: they both have a history of
welcoming outsider converts and even from time to time actively, even
aggressively, seeking them out. Judaism is exclusive. To be a Jew and accepted
as such by your peers you normally have to be born into a Jewish family. As
such it manifests more as a heirloom passed down from one generation to the
next and by virtue of that could be described as tribal rather than universal
in character.
Monsoonwind
Australia (Jan 18, '12)
Only in Wonderland would the perverse world of politics merge seamlessly into
the absurd universe of comedy with nary a bump in between. Amerika's favorite
faux conservative, TV comedian Stephen Colbert, upon discovering he had higher
poll numbers in his native South Carolina than an erstwhile "legitimate"
candidate, John Huntsman, decided to "explore" the possibility of running for
the GOP presidential nomination.
To do so, Colbert took advantage of the latest political gimmick to rig the
system in favor of Big Bribery Money, ie, SuperPACs, to fund his "campaign". He
does this with his customary straight face, praising the recent Supreme Court
decision's to treat corporate money as free speech in keeping with the
century-old status of corporations being "people." All the while, of course, he
is surreptitiously ridiculing what has become all too common in BizarroLand
USA, the expedient of twisting logic and ethics around the pretzel of legalisms
until what emerges is a slippery silliness that tightrope-walks the line
between tragedy and farce. To this end, his SuperPAC (theoretically completely
independent of Colbert - wink, wink) has created a mock TV attack ad, accusing
the former corporate raider Mitt Romney of being a serial killer "Mitt the
Ripper" (which, given the Supreme Court's specious logic, actually makes
sense.)
I doubt we'll see Romney in the dock for his corporate acquisition-liquidation
practices, just as we'll never see Obama's Wall Street cronies prosecuting any
fat cats for their economic rapes and violations. Nor will we see President
Colbert strutting around in the Oval Office, preening like a southern peacock.
Pity, really. At least we'd have some laughs before the Chinese take over.
Hardy Campbell
United States (Jan 18, '12)
"Class warfare" is the standard mantra of the WonderCon when the inevitable
results of capitalism's gross inequalities surface in the corporatist media.
They use the term pejoratively, of course, to denigrate anyone bold enough to
suggest that one class in Amerika is exploiting another. Perish the thought!
Another reason, perhaps more subliminal, is that to admit that classes are in
conflict in the Land of Opportunity would be concede Karl Marx's fundamental
thesis that history is forged by this class war. After all, Marx lost, didn't
he, when the Soviet bloc collapsed? No, in fact, what transpired after 1989
validated Marx's premise to the proverbial T. The grotesque excesses of
capitalism in the 1990s and 2000s could only have occurred in the absence of
the ideological conflict of the Cold War that kept the wolves of predatory
capitalism at bay for 40-plus years. While the Soviet Union offered an
alternative to an emerging, independent Third World, the US and its
minion-puppet "allies" had to rein in their worst
industrialist-banker-militarist impulses in a pretence of humanitarian and
social benevolence. Indeed, the social equalities promised by the socialist
commonwealth even compelled racist America to initiate civil rights laws long
overdue to its black underclass; not out of any concern for the injustices that
Jim Crow inflicted on this exploited strata, mind you, but for PR purposes to
the merging black, brown and yellow countries.
With the disappearance of state-promoted Marxism, all bets were off; the
capitalists wasted no time in rigging the game, corrupting the politics,
undermining the regulators and devising innovative ways to hold Joe Schmoe
American up by the ankles and shake him down for all he was worth. All the
time, the monopolists were insisting that all this was good for Joe Schmoe; the
North American Free Trade Agreement would create jobs, banks could sell stocks,
401ks would make every retiree wealthy, mortgages would be available to anyone
with a pulse and people would need special boots to walk through the streets
flooded with all that milk and honey.
This new form of economic slavery created a lumpen proletariat convinced that
they were just as bourgeoisie as the Wall Streeters, a delusion that ensured
all claims of "class warfare" would be met with catcalls and jeers. This
mythology is so engrained and indoctrinated that no amount of scandal, bailout
and economic skullduggery will deflect the average prol from the fantasy of
class equality. And so, despite the noise made by the Occupy movement, sounding
the clarion call for the deluded Joes to wake up, the neo-cons smugly and
successfully shout "class warfare" to drown out the truth. Surely Karl is
shaking his head up there in socialist heaven, wondering just what it will take
for Joe Schmoe to realize he's in a war for his very existence.
Hardy Campbell
United States (Jan 16, '12)
I found Robert Cutler's,
Chinese slowdown in the cards[Jan 13, 2012], very informative on the
future of the Chinese economy. Reading between the lines, I cannot, however,
agree with one of his conclusions on a future moves by the Chinese government
to deal with a slowdown: "As the indebted entities cannot pay their bills or
service their loans, the central bank may well feel that it has no choice other
than to print more money."
The US is indebted to the tune of US$16 billion dollars, a far worse economic
problem than what I see in puny economies like Italy or Greece. Next year at
this time US debt could be as large as $20 billion, with no light at the end of
this tunnel. Printing more money as a quick way out of economic duress does not
work and aggravates the situation, as the US is a good example of. The world's
largest economy seems extremely dependent on the the world's second-largest
economy. It appears that the biggest economy, isn't the strongest economy.
Bob Van den Broeck
USA/Canada (Jan 13, '12)
[Re Obama edges
toward regime change, Jan 13, 2012] President Barack Obama is acting
the fool when he tries to win over war-mongering neocons and Republicans.
Nothing he does will convince them to vote for him. On the contrary, he is
alienating those he convinced in 2008 that he was determined to change the
disastrous course our beloved United States was on during the George W Bush
years. He ought to listen to what Ron Paul has to say.
Obama is also a fool, if he believes that seeking to topple an elected
government in Iran is in the interest of the United States. The last time that
happened (when the US inspired and supported a coup against Mohammad
Moussadagh's democratically elected government in Iran) we ended up with an
Iran convinced the US was its enemy. The inevitable question that comes to mind
is: Is President Obama afflicted with self-destructive impulses?
Lou Vignates
USA (Jan 13, '12)
The illusory benefits of globalization have wrecked the American middle class
beyond repair. All sane people (ie, non-Republicans) realize that the word is
code for "lowest-wage-ization", which ensured the departure of millions of blue
collar jobs for distant shores. Globalization was sold to the public as
ultimately a job creator for Wonderland, as expanded trade would increase the
demands for American products. The corollary to that logic, well known to the
industrial cognoscenti, was that while American product sales might increase,
American jobs would not necessarily follow. Indeed, as barriers to outsourcing
vanished, the profits to be made overseas proved too tempting, and the sound of
shuttered factory doors slamming shut reverberated nationwide. The relentless
logic of capitalism demanded hungry, never-satisfied quests for profit
maximization.
What did not keep up with this New Philosophy of a Common Capitalist Village
was nationalism, the ardently held passion for one's nation-state as being a
sacrosanct and unique entity superior to all rival nation-states. This
illusion, so carefully crafted by governments to enable their citizens to
willingly and enthusiastically send their children to die in meaningless
plutocratic wars, emphasizes the local to the exclusion of the foreign "other".
This xenophobic process incapacitates the national patriot from imagining a
local industry deliberately gutting its work force in preference for
foreigners. Thus, the inherent dichotomy of capitalism and nationalism
cohabitating the same business-citizen zeitgeist is exposed for all to see. The
"good" American businessman forfeits his nationalism for his capitalism
virtually 100% of the time and gleefully pursues the skimpiest wage like a
day-leaving sailor in Bangkok's Patpong district. This ensures higher profits,
happy investors, boosted stock prices and fat year end bonuses, the sine qua
non of the American CEO. This may look like a form of treason to some, as this
promiscuous hunt for maximum profits hurts fellow Americans, but to many
WonderCapitalists, this is the essence of Americanism, the reward of the
industrious few versus the punishment of the laggardly many. Indeed, to many if
these modern Paladins of Plutocracy, the newly unemployed Yank looks little
different than a poor schmuck Mexican, El Salvadoran or Canadian, just another
no-achiever left on the roadside of progress.
When flag waving nationalism "sees the light" and goes the way of the dodo,
globalization will be perceived as the ultimate capitalist freedom,
unencumbered by the imagery of broadway parades, football pre-game festivities
and war-rallying crowds at the dockside. Everyone can profit anywhere, anytime,
so long as one tells their limo driver to drive quickly through all the
shantytowns lining the streets.
Hardy Campbell
Texas
The war dance is
in full swing [Jan 10, '12] by Victor Kotsev is an excellent summary of
our new cold war. He says, "If the most recent wave of escalations in the
Middle East is a bluff, it is a very convincing one." and hypothesizes, "there
is still a sliver of hope for negotiations with Iran to succeed". It seems that
the Western military-industrial complex is worried that profits from wars are
coming to an end. There is no imminent threat from Iran, just like there was
never any threat from Iraq. They are up to their tired trick of creating fear
to create support for an even bigger war. Now, an Iranian nuclear scientist and
professor has been murdered in cold blood. It bears the mark of Israel, because
of the advanced design of the device and because they never take responsibility
for their actions and crimes. The US bears some culpability, too. Yes,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the murder, but the US has not
called for any suspension of trade or aid to Israel. Indeed, all nations should
stop all trade with and aid to Israel until all suspects are prosecuted in a
world court for war crimes and justice is served. Let's put some teeth in your
condemnation, Clinton!
Dan Russell
Mat-Su Borough, Alaska
USA (Jan 12, '12)
[Re Overcoming the
'Japanese only' factor, Jan 11, '12] It is obvious to me that if you
are black, brown, yellow - anything but white - you are allowed to openly
discriminate and being a racist. The world would celebrate you for that. But if
you happen to have white skin, soft straight hair, and clear eyes then you are
labeled a racist at the slightest comment (like opposing illegal immigration, a
mosque in your backyard, or complaining about folks not learning the language
of the host country or disrespecting the law of the land that saved them from
starvation and extreme poverty). Just to get a glimpse of what I am talking
about read some of the letters from our favorite America hater Mr Hardy
Campbell. He spits hatred towards anyone of European ancestry and he gets a
free pass for it. Now imagine that someone named "John Clifford Smith" would
say the slightest thing towards a non-European group and I can guarantee you
that the editor would not let it be published in here. It's all a bunch of
rubbish and it will backfire in the near future. Just wait and see.
Ysais Martinez (Jan 12,
'12)
The omnipresent impact of China in every Wonderlander's life is so pervasive
that people have become accustomed and resigned to it. Oh, yes, there's the
occasional ballyhooed "boycott" of individuals who refuse to buy Chinese
products WHEN they can find an American substitute, but, overall, the consensus
philosophy is that "We don't like how the US economy has been relegated to a
subservient position on the planet, but the products are cheap, plentiful and
the Chinese recirculate those dollars by buying our overpriced Treasury notes."
The way this has been made palatable is by the very human adaptation to
unpleasant situations by gradual degrees of accommodation. The steady rate of
outsourcing American product manufacture over the last 20 years has been
gradual enough to dull the pain of lost jobs, making this reluctant
acquiescence acceptable.
But an event looms on the horizon that will be immediate, rather than gradual,
in its effects. It will occur so suddenly, and with so little advance warning
by the WonderWhores of the Zombie Media, that the Average Joe Schmoe WalMarter
will feel as if an asteroid fell on them from the sky. And it will be precisely
the sky from whence their shock will come, in a profound blow to the
WonderGeist exactly equivalent to the Sputnik Debacle of 1957. Indeed, the
eventual landing of a Chinese astronaut on the surface of the moon, sometime in
the next 10 years, will surpass the Soviet Union's severe denting of the
American assumption of natural superiority. For the symbolism of Asian
non-Anglo-Saxons tracking footprints over those left in the 1970s by their
American predecessors will signify more than just China catching up to us in
terms of economic power and technological prowess.
As the only nation whose citizens have planted their flag on the lunar
satellite, Wonderlanders have thought of that cold rock as American in all but
legal name. It was the last frontier, if you will, following in the footsteps
of old time Indian-killing imperialists who cleared the way for civilization
and blue eyed prosperity stretching from sea to Indian-less sea. But that first
TV broadcast of the star studded red flag of the PRC hanging limply in the Sea
of Tranquility will mean that yet another part of America has been taken over
by China, and when we look at that moon every night we'll feel the same fears
the Baby Boomers did, that now even the heavens belong to someone else. With
NASA a hollowed-out shell of its former star trekking self, the chances of the
US offering any sort of feeble astronautical response is less likely than Lady
Gaga entering a nunnery.
Perhaps that kind of shock can arouse us from our consumerist catatonia and
social apathy. Perhaps the realization that, while we sat on our derrieres
watching Oprah interview another mindless Kardashian, Chinese kids were
snatching up technical degrees right and left and doing all the things American
kids should have been doing instead of becoming junk derivative-crazed hedge
fund mismanagers. Perhaps Barack Obama or some other corporate slave squatting
in the White House can get on TV and deliver a rousing challenge to our youth
to meet the Chinese on a level playing field sometime in the distant future.
Odds are, though, we'll deny the present, switch the channel on our Korean TV
to watch commercials pitching German cars, Russian vodka and Swedish furniture,
and pretend like we will do the right thing real soon.
Hardy Campbell
DenialVille USA (Jan 12, '12)
[Re The war dance
is in full swing, Jan 10, '12] We are witnessing a war in the Iran
brouhaha: a war of words. The US and its ally Israel can bomb Iran's nuclear
installations but we are no longer in the science fiction world of HG Wells,
where massive bombing brings an "enemy" to its knees and peace ensues. As
proved by the American wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as Israel's
"Cast Lead", you need to put "boots on the ground" to win. Neither the US nor
Israel has the manpower nor the will to wreak general warfare with Iran. So,
they fall back on a political posturing and saber rattling.
The Barack Obama administration has shown little interest in talking to Iran
other than on the conditions it has laid down; they are not acceptable to Iran,
and that's the beginning and end of it. Sanctions may pinch Tehran's economic
shoe, but they will force a reluctant population to rally around the flag.
We are witnessing a squabble of young children in a sandbox. Of course, the
stakes are higher, but neither the US, Israel nor Iran want a war; for war
would spell disaster for Israel and Iran and would seriously shatter America's
military industrial pretensions as the only superpower.
Abraham Bin Yiju
Palermo, Italy (Jan 11, '12)
[Re Ahmadinejad's
tour tests non-alignment, Jan 10, '12] Politics indeed makes strange
bedmates. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so the saying goes, so the
outreach between enemy-sharers can bridge ideological, cultural and geographic
barriers with ease. Take the United States of Two-Facedness. In 1979, when
Vietnam defeated the Pol Pot regime, thus liberating millions from Khmer Rouge
brutality, the US decided to support the genocidal madmen that had wiped out
20% of Cambodia's population because, well, they opposed the Vietnamese, who
had kicked WonderButt to worldwide acclaim just 4 years earlier. So Jimmy
Carter, the morality president, shipped weapons and intelligence to Pol Pot's
gang without batting a Christian eye. We mimicked that betrayal of values
simultaneously with Saddam Hussein, who was at war with our new blood-foe,
Khomeinist Iran, so we overlooked the Iraqi tyrant's cruelty and gently laid
him into bed next to Pol Pot and did-I-forget-to-mention Ferdinand Marcos,
Nicolae Ceauescu, Somozas, Noriega, ad tyrannum? Indeed, for awhile it seemed
one of the State Department's criteria for enthusiastic support for dictators
was the number of their own citizens these goons killed.
So when we see Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez buddying up with Iran's
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad we see less disparate worldviews teaming up in the
WonderBackYard than "democratic" America's dalliances with bloodthirsty
murderers. Indeed, they share an anti-imperialist gusto that warms the cockles
of socialists around the world, and have taken dead aim at wrecking Hugo's
northern neighbor's hegemonic designs. Which brings us to Colombia, the
revolutionary Marxist FARC, US intervention, the drug "war" and da oyl bi'ness.
America has justified its massive aid to the reactionary Colombian regime under
the guise of the so-called (and hopelessly lost) "War on Drugs", all the while
more interested in protecting oil pipelines and reminding Hugo that he's got
Yankee neighbors now. The Americans have enabled the Colombian paramilitaries
and army to ruthlessly murder thousands of peasants, anhillate the Colombian
countryside with defoliants, and finance the right wing's very active drug
trade with the CIA.
Hugo, himself a victim of an attempted CIA-orchestrated coup attempt, is all
too cognizant of WonderDirtTricks, and has decided the best defense is a good
and active offense. The FARC, fighting a valiant battle against oligarchs and
imperialists, shares Hugo's aspirations for social justice, and its no secret
the Bolivarian has assisted them in the past. Now we can expect the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards' expertise to be used in taking the fight to Colombia's
oppressors, as well as supplying weapons, intelligence and money to the FARC.
To be sure, this will ratchet up the tension already stretched to the limit
between the Empire and its puppets, but both Tehran and Caracas figure the odds
are in their favor. The Empire is already leaning heavily to one side, to the
point of acknowledging the idea of two front wars is no longer economically
viable anymore. With Tehran's fingers up to its wrist in the Iraq Pie and just
getting its tips tasty-wet in the Afghan delicacy, coincident with America's
decision to go on a War-Diet in the meantime, times could not be more
auspicious for a pro-active approach to fighting imperialism. Chavez, in the
meantime, benefits from Iranian expertise in battling imperialist-inspired
dissent and pressing on with dismantling the capitalist-oligharchist
infrastructure in Venezuela. Though both heroes suffer horribly through lies
and vicious propaganda in the Western whore-media, both are basking in the warm
glow of praise from the Two-Thirds World that has had enough of Anglo-Saxon
exploitation, murder and rapacious war. Strange bedfellows indeed; one can only
hope they will spawn a whole generation of imitators.
Hardy Campbell
Texas, USA (Jan 11, '12)
Sir, Let me commend you for publishing, in your January 5 edition, the
excellent report by Aisling Byrne entitled
A mistaken case for Syrian regime change [Jan 5, 2012].
While Western mainstream media tirelessly expound, in unison, a surreal
narrative of events in Syria - in which regime troops ruthlessly massacre
unarmed civilian protesters representing the entire population (yet even
opposition forces admit, in their blogs, increasing casualties among the regime
troops and large pro-regime demonstrations in the streets of Damascus!) - your
report clearly exposes what is going on behind the scenes: Western skullduggery
in exploiting the divisions in Syrian society and fomenting (and arming) one
side against the other, in the hope of creating a pretext for Libyan-like
foreign military intervention.
It is a sad commentary on Western "freedom of the press" if we in Europe must
rely on newspapers published elsewhere to get at least a glimpse of what our
own governments are doing abroad. But such, apparently, is the case regarding
events in Syria and I therefore thank you for enabling Ms Byrne's report to
come to my attention.
Patrick Boylan
Chair of English
School of Humanities
University of Rome III
Rome, Italy (Jan 10, '12)
[Re Fear reigns as
Jong-eun stamps authority, Jan 4, 2012] Your January 4th article on
North Korea, "Fear reigns as Jong-eun stamps authority," presents as fact that
a purging is underway for those in North Korea who failed to display the
requisite grief and did not mourn convincingly over Kim Jong-il’s death.
Can you please substantiate this alleged purge for your readers.
If you are unable to explicitly substantiate the allegation, the article falls
into the realm of speculative fantasy. If this is the case, the article does
not meet your stated objective to inform and stimulate and as such damages the
credibility of atimes.com.
Peter Wilson
Dargaville
New Zealand (Jan 10, '12)
Many thanks for your interest in my article. The sources were largely analysts
with cellphone contacts inside North Korea. There have been many revelations in
recent years thanks to people calling on Chinese cellphone networks near the
Yalu and Tumen river borders with China. Another source is a missionary in
Seoul with access to recent defectors.
Also, you might want to look at this article published on the Daily NK website
around January 1, see
here. Clearly, however, analysts cannot identify contacts inside North
Korea. As you might understand, the desire to meet your demand "to explicitly
substantiate the allegation" is insufficient reason to betray sources. Thank
you again for your interest.
Donald Kirk (Jan 10, '12)
In Towards a
co-operative Korean partnership[Jan 9, '12], Leonid A Petrov tries to
defend and extol the virtues of the completely failed "Sunshine" policy. Over
10 years South Korea gave billions in aid to the North including 500,000 tons
of food and 300,000 tons of fertilizer on a yearly basis, and received nothing
in return not even a thank you.
North Korea illegally holds over a thousand South Koreans and despite all that
aid did not free a single one. On the day that North Korea announced the death
of Kim Jong-il the US was to announce a plan to provide the North with 240,000
tons of food aid in the next year. One of the terms of that agreement was the
North was to re-open talks with the South, but judging from the North's recent
talk of war with the South they are backing away from this agreement for food
aid, and I'm sure Petrov blames the US.
Regarding the recent provocations of the North in the sinking of the Cheonan
and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, Petrov blames "Seoul's actions in the
disputed waters". I guess the South had the audacity to put their island in the
way of North Korean shells. He states the cause of North Korean famine is
"severe floods, economic sanctions, and ineffective diplomacy." If ineffective
diplomacy is a cause of famine the US would have starved to death 70 years ago.
The cause of famine in the North is the policies of the Kim family spending
billions on nuclear weapons while farmers work with oxen and wooden plows. One
year after the North has a decent government hunger will no longer be a problem
for the North Koreans. North Korea does not change because the leadership
correctly realizes that economic reform will bring about their collapse. So
they try to stay in power by inflicting terror on the people of the North, as
the country is hollowed out and the people starve, unconditional aid to the
North will not help free its people and may help keep them in slavery.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Jan 10, '12)
[Re Towards a
co-operative Korean partnership, Jan 9, '12] Leonid A Petrov's
perceptive article points the way towards stability - and therewith prosperity
- on the Korean peninsula. Alas, as the adamant refusal on the part of the
United States to enter into talks to replace the armistice of 1953 with a
treaty of peace shows, not all parties engaged on the peninsula (even when they
are not of it) have such stability as their goal, and thus the likelihood that
this particular path will be chosen remains miniscule. Under these
circumstances, the best we can hope for under the present decade is that the
unresolved conflicts there do not develop into a thermonuclear conflagration
which will put an end to the short, happy (?) life of Homo sapiens sapiens on
this planet.
M Henri Day
Stockholm
Sweden (Jan 10, '12)
[Re Towards a
co-operative Korean partnership, Jan 9, '12] Leonid A Petrov's argument
does not go far enough. A state of war exists between the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (North Korea), the Republic of Korea (South Korea), the
United States wrapped in the United Nations' flag, and China. The US and the
South Korean regime under the lame duck President Lee Myung-bak have
aggressively revived a cold war with North Korea, a propaganda war with strong
military and economic tones which are hardly conducive for serious discussions
to reduce tensions, let alone improve diplomatic relations between Pyongyang
and Seoul.
To cut through the flimflam a Geneva-like conference is needed to replace the
1953 armistice with a peace treaty. Although South Korea refused to sign the
armistice despite US pressure to do so, it should be at the negotiating table.
A peace treaty would open the way for mutual recognition not only between the
two Koreas but also between Washington and Pyongyang. A peace treaty would also
lead to reducing tensions and solutions to denuclearize the peninsula, it seems
to me, as well as to food aid and economic cooperation.
Is the conference in the cards? Hardly. 2012 is an election year in South Korea
and the US. As things look, Seoul will shift towards a modified "Sunshine"
policy and away from Lee's hardball policy towards the North. President Barack
Obama, if he wants to be re-elected, wont raise the matter publicly. In fact,
his newly announced military policy does not encourage an opening to Pyongyang
in the next 18 months. Petrov is right in calling for a softening of
Australia's policy on North Korea. But, that, too, is not in the cards as
American troops begin a gradual buildup in Darwin.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Jan 10, '12)
[Re The US-Iran
economic war, Jan 6, '12] At the choke point of the Straits of Hormuz
the channel is only 21 miles [33.7 kilometers] wide. Half of that is Iranian
territorial waters in which Iran can do whatever it wishes. To block this choke
point with underwater mines would be easy. The mines should be big enough to
damage very-large crude carriers (VLCC), as in buckling its keel and hull,
propulsion and steering mechanisms, but not powerful enough to breach the hull
and spill out a horrendous amount of crude oil or keep a polluting oil fire
going for days. Or just creating serious anxiety for a VLCC captain about
entering those waters not to go there. Some 15 VLCCs transit the Straits each
day will then have to use the Omani half of it. This horrific traffic jam plus
the raised war premium insurance will be enough to send oil prices through the
roof. And this without a shot being fired from the Iranian side. If the US and
North Atlantic Treaty Organization wants to go in with all guns firing and
bombs a bombing they will have a lot of explaining to do the real world
community, not the faux "international" community they claim to be the leaders
of.
Pa Pa Peng (Jan 9, '12)
Again, again and again we see the Israel-firsters putting the welfare of Israel
ahead of the welfare of the US. As a World War II veteran, I am tired of seeing
this happen. I consider it to be a form of "soft-treason" to subjugate the
welfare of the US to the interests of any foreign country. Soft-treason is one
of the greatest dangers facing the US. I am proud to be an America-firster,
first last and always.
Tom Gerber
USA (Jan 9, '12)
[Re Invisible walls in
Xinjiang, Jan 6, '12] Dear Editor, Please thank Michael Rank for his
thoughtful review of my book The Tree That Bleeds. I only have one
comment to make, which is that in his closing paragraph he states: "And
absurdly, Yining (Ghulja in Uyghur) isn't marked on a sketch map of the cities
of Xinjiang." I just checked, and I'm afraid that it is marked Yining/Ghulja on
the map at the start of the book. If you could print a correction, I would be
most grateful.
Nick Holdstock (Jan 9, '12)
This has been corrected - Atol
[Re The US-Iran
economic war, Jan 6, '12] Huff and puff, puff and huff, goes the Big
Bad Wolf, threatening to blow the Iranian house down with banking sanctions,
rattled sabers and scary fleet maneuvers. It's enough to make one believe in
fairy tales, like the one about Wonderland being relevant anymore. The
delicious irony of it all is that criminal WonderInsitutions like the Central
Intelligence Agency have taught the Iranians a lot about shell companies,
smuggling, and embargo busting third party end-arounds, so the prospects of
Washington or any of its imperialist stooges deflecting Iran for its right to
protect itself from mad-dog, nuke-wielding Anglo-Saxons are slimmer than a
runway model on the Atkin's diet. And the flurry of activity south of the
border between the Islamic Republic and like-minded anti-capitalists like Hugo
Chavez and Evo Morales reminds Tio Sam that his efforts to marginalize its
Muslim "Chilly War" foe are failing miserably (again.) Meanwhile, Russia and
China will continue to frustrate any United Nations orchestrated efforts by the
neo-colonialists to isolate Iran internationally.
It needn't be like this, of course, but it would take an exceptional man of
moral rectitude, spinal integrity and massive gonadic sphericity to seize this
precise moment of maximum tension to "do a Nixon" and reverse this course of
pointless antagonism with Iran. Such a man would realize that these frictions
are fraught with all sorts of economy-imperiling dangers. He would tell his
traditional advisors that he has the courage to extend an olive branch to our
ideological adversaries, just as Nixon did in 1971 with our erstwhile and
deadly enemy, the "Red Chinese." He would say that we can profit from learning
to co-exist with an Iran that doesn't share our values but wants to conduct its
affairs in peace, just like us. (It is a matter of speculation how he could say
this last part with a straight face, I'll admit.)
Alas, in President Barack Obama we have quite the opposite. The reactionary
Uncle Tom sitting in the White House is exclusively a creature of his Zionist
masters. He and his war-mongering elite need internationally contrived
distractions to continue their own financial shenanigans under the radar of the
already-blind media. Iran, in the meantime, profits from artificially boosted
oil prices, at the same time that the so-called "sanctions" force the Iranians
to do what they should have done decades ago, develop their own manufacturing
infrastructure rather then depend on duplicitous Anglo-Saxon perfidy. But do
not doubt for a second that Israel and the CIA will not conjure up another
false-flag repeat of 9-11 to salvage their eroding Empire. But by that time,
hopefully, Iran will have achieved the same stature as North Korea, in which
case Washington's and Tel Aviv's tune may change considerably. Yeah, and maybe
pigs will begin taking off from Houston International.
Hardy Campbell
Texas (Jan 9, '12)
[Re War of words
aimed to avoid Iran conflict, Jan 5, '12] As the European Union
slouches towards an embargo on Iran oil, we are witnessing a replay of old
fashioned gunboat diplomacy. An oil embargo heightens the chances for a misstep
towards the collapse of the Euro or default for the EU's weaker economies; an
embargo signifies a serious spike in the price of a barrel of oil, which Europe
can ill afford and which would exacerbate internal social and political
tensions, as well as threaten banks reeling from toxic debt.
Following the US lead is not in the best interests of Europe, no matter which
way you parse the equation. The Barack Obama administration may wish to avoid
confrontation with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz, but the rising star in the
Republican race for the GOP's nomination for the presidency this year, former
senator Rick Santorum is ready to bomb Tehran if it does not allow UN
inspection of Iran's nuclear sites. It does. Santorum's boast on national
television was not corrected by the "savvy" moderator Gregory. This "oversight"
is indicative of the willful ignorance of America's political elite, which does
not augur well for the coming months, and furthermore raises the odds on
military confrontation.
Abraham Bin Yiju
Palermo (Jan 6, '12)
I am writing to correct a statement made by Jim Lobe in his
Ron Paul vote raises alarm [Jan 5, 12]. Lobe states "On economic
issues, he is a loyal follower of the tenets of the so-called Austrian School
founded by such free-market ideologues as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von
Mises".
As even a quick Wikipedia search will confirm that Carl Menger founded the
Austrian school with his 1871 textbook, Principles of Economics. Nor as
seems implied was Austrian economics founded with a mind to promote free market
ideology. Menger's main motive was to defend theoretical method in economics
from the German Historical school, and of the two followers who developed
Menger's work, only Bohm-Bawerk was liberal, Wieser preferring a kind of
paternalistic conservatism. To sum up to claim the Austrian school started with
Mises is to underestimate a historically important economic tradition going
back over 140 years.
Nicholas Panayi
London, UK (Jan 6, '12)
In Wonderland, few hobgoblins abound. That observation rests on the old dictum
about hobgoblins and consistency and small minds.
Consider the average neo-con Tea Partying Bible thumper. He rails against big
government and its involvement in every American's life, yet supports without
question such government entities and policies as the military, law
enforcement, FBI, CIA, unemployment benefits, Medicare and Medicaid. He rants
about government bailouts of corporations but has no qualms about tax breaks,
subsidies and protectionist quotas for these same corporations. A favorite
Obama target among conservative seniors is "socialized" medicine, yet many of
them regularly trot down or up to Mexico or Canada to take advantage of those
"socialized" countries lower cost drugs. They deplore leftist America's moral
decay and perversion, but enthusiastically forgive their favorite
televangelists when their own moral decay and perversion gets to be front page
news.
Neo-cons chant about the unborn's "right to life" 'til the cows come home, but
evidently those rights end when the fetus emerges into a neo-con universe where
those newly saved young 'uns need to march off to war against someone else's
non-Anglo-Saxon children. They praise Jesus and fervently await his Second
Coming, blissfully unaware that as soon as He returns and starts acting like
the revolutionary, long-haired, welfare dispensing, peace lovin' hippie He is,
they'll re-nail Him to the nearest tree with reactionary glee. They will go to
church every Sunday and hear endless sermons about mercy and peace and justice
and the sanctity of life and have no problem returning home to decry the
homeless as being "lazy bums", cheer for the death penalty and scream for war
against somebody Israel doesn't like.
The average Joe Schmoe Neo-Conman sings hosannas to global freedom and human
rights while supporting an Israel that bulldozes Palestinian homes and a Saudi
Arabia that won't allow women to drive or vote. Protection of the Second
Amendment's right to bear arms is sacrosanct amongst them, but beware you
Occupiers who try to exercise your First Amendment rights of free speech and
assembly; you may find the Second taking dead-aim at you through a scope.
WonderConservatives have only good things to say about capitalism, of course,
but somehow de-link that from mortgage meltdowns, corporate scandals, bank
collapses and outsourcing of jobs. They will denounce lying as the work of the
Devil but have no compunction about spinning bald-faced fantasies about Obama,
liberals, Muslims or any "Other." They grit their teeth in anger at "activist"
court decisions on things that should be left to the electorate but cheered
wildly when the Supreme Court performed its judicial coup d'etat in the stolen
presidential election of 2000.
But pity their plight, please. The 1950s, where your average white trash
neo-conner's mind still resides, will never return. Instead, their children
will have to work overseas to make a living, rubbing shoulders with brown
people, learning another language, becoming less and less of a true-blue
Imperial Wonderlander. Someday, the Wonderland of their dreams will be nothing
more than a fond myth, a land where hobgoblins sipped tea with unicorns and
honest politicians.
Hardy Campbell
HobGoblinLand, USA (Jan 5, '12)
[Re Iran feels the
squeeze, Jan 3, '12] The subject of Iran and the United States should
not be isolated from topics such as the desire of the US military and the
neo-conservatives to have wars, or the talk of a China/US conflict or the
coming US presidential election.
With the withdrawal of our "recognized" military forces from Iraq, and the
pending completion of failure in Afghanistan, it should not be surprising that
the military/industrial complex, the neo-cons, a failing president hungry for
votes, and other war seekers in the US are promoting a new war. The big
question is: which country to invade? Lou Vignates
US (Jan 4, '12)
[Re Fear reigns as
Jong-eun stamps authority, Jan 3, '12] All the drafty predictions about
the transition of leadership in North Korea after Kim Jong il's death have
missed the target or are effectively naive admissions of knowing much about the
internal workings of the Workers Party of Korea. In any case, Jong-il's death
caught the Pyongyangologists off guard, and as such, they had to scurry like
church mice to come up with explanations - and any explanations would do. Of
course the most facile is the fall back on regional instability.
Truth be told, the rise of Kim Jong-eun demands stability, not adventurism. The
US and South Korea's coordinated policy towards the North, euphemistically
called "patient restraint", however, is conditional on regional insecurity
since it is predicated on "rolling back" North Korea to the point of collapse.
Kim Jong-il's death offered the Barack Obama administration in Washington and
the Lee Myung-bak regime in Seoul a golden opportunity to start off on a new
foot with North Korea. Had they honored their pledges of food aid to the
starving population of North Korea, tensions would have eased significantly in
the divided Korean peninsula and Jong-eun would have pushed for an early return
of North Korea to the six party talks in Beijing. Instead these two allies
played hardball and they reaped the whirlwind of a harsh response from
Pyongyang.
Tying food to political aims does little good to North Koreans whom Washington
and Seoul "tenderly" care about. They don't in reality. And so instead of they
wasted a golden opportunity to get out of a quagmire of policies doomed to
failure.
Nakamura Junzo
Guam (Jan 4, '12)
With the test firing of a new radar-evading medium-range missile, Iran may be
sending a much stronger message than military prowess. What if the radar
evading breakthrough is a result of the capture of a US drone on December 4?
The drone captured by Iran was a Lockheed Martin RQ-170. This model
incorporates stealth technology. With the drone captured on December 4 and a
stealth missile test fired on January 1, it implies remarkably rapid reverse
engineering.
If, as has been speculated, the downing of the drone involved compromising
remote control, this could be a clear message about technological expertise in
Iran and limitations on remotely operated action.
Zoli
United States (Jan 3, '12)
I would appreciate if ATol can make a follow up on the health issues of the
brave workers who entered the radioactive Fukushima plant in Japan, thereby
saving many lives by risking their own.
How are they being treated by Tepco and do they have any health issues ?
Flemming Jensen
New Canaan, Connecticut
USA (Jan 3, '12)
The entire anti-nuclear movement depends on being able to scare people that
tiny amounts of radiation, at virtually homoeopathic levels can still kill
because there is "no threshold" level at which it is safe. Without that
radiation releases at a very low level would not be a fear. Without that the
alleged fear that it could be dangerous to store radioactive "waste" (most of
it is actually highly valuable) deep underground because it might, in
infinitesimal quantities, leak thousands of feet upwards would be a matter of
no importance.
This theory is known as Linear No Threshold Linear No Threshold theory of
radiation damage. There is not and never has been any actual evidence for it.
This fact is not disputed even by supporters, they have merely said that, for
low level radiation it is so statistically difficult to provide certain
evidence against it that it is an unfalsifiable theory and thus must be
accepted on the "precautionary principle".
Researchers at Berkeley have just announced that, using live imaging rather
than statistics, have now proven that the body's repair system does indeed take
care of the effects of low level radiation, as we long knew they do with other
minor damage. LNT absolutely depended on their being no repair mechanism for
tiny amounts of damage. Despite 50 years of support from governing
bureaucracies is certainly as false as Lysenkiosim was and thus virtually all
the anti-nuclear scare stories are also false.
Without that "unfalsifiable" claim the hysteria against nuclear power and its
suppression could not have been justified. It has left humanity with no more
than 40% of the electricity and therefore wealth we would have had if the trend
of building more nuclear plants before the anti-nuclear campaigners got going
had continued.
Neil Craig
Glasgow, UK (Jan 3, '12)
Decemebr Letters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2012 Asia Times Online
(Holdings), Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
