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.

(Or join the The Edge, the lightly moderated discussion board for our global community.)

March 2005

Re Siddharth Srivastava's article [India turns its back on US arms] on March 31: So the USA wants to bolster Pakistan's military and then use India against China? And if at some point the USA decides to ally with China, then India will be stuck with two well-armed hostile neighbors, while USA is sitting pretty with both Pakistan and China as "friends". If [US President George W] Bush is so desirous of making the Pakistani military highly powerful (he has also given Pakistan P-3C Orion, Phalanx systems and TOW anti-tank missiles and who knows what else is in store), then let him make Pakistan strong enough to counter China. India should have no part of this geostrategic stupidity. The Indian defense minister has already started shopping for non-USA warplanes, dismissing the USA's promises for now. I guess a bird (of prey) in hand is better than a dozen promised by a Bush.
Brij (Mar 31, '05)


Aruni Mukherjee [Delhi missing the point, Mar 31] blindly compares India-Pakistan rivalry to Cold War opponents and offers the same strategy used by Americans to bring down the rival. Soviets had no external help in financing their gigantic military enterprise. They had to allocate resources from their own budget. Besides military spending, US adopted a multi-pronged strategy to corner the Soviet bear until it buckled down. Can India afford to spend all its time and energy in cornering Pakistan? Does it have the power and influence to make the world capitals toe its policy against Pakistan? Islamabad uses its pack of cards judiciously: it plays its Islamic card to the Middle East to get oil and money, placates Beijing [with its India card] and gets weapons and aid, [and] being the frontline-state ally to the US, every time it wants something from Washington pulls out an al-Qaeda from a rat hole ... Defense and debt servicing of course takes away a major share of Pakistan's budget. But Pakistan has found a way to live beyond its means with external help. If the outside powers refuse to help Pakistan in future, who knows, Islamabad may blackmail the world: give money or I will distribute nuclear technology.
Kannan (Mar 31, '05)


Re the article Delhi missing the point: Aruni Mukherjee has stated his case based on fuzzy facts. He states that Pakistan "literally allowed the US to dictate its foreign policy since September 11, 2001". He failed to mention that Pakistan was a major supporter of the Taliban before September 11 and only after [US President George W] Bush had what one would call "a very strong persuasive" conversation with [President General Pervez] Musharraf that Pakistan did an about-face. What Mr Bush said in that phone call is not public but the result was Islamabad toed the US line on the issue even at [the risk of] Mr Musharraf's personal safety. Mr Bush did not have that type of leverage with New Delhi, for several reasons: India wasn't supporting the Taliban; India wasn't already so dependent on the US for her security and therefore India basically stayed out of the US/Pakistan nexus on the war against the Taliban. Mr Mukherjee states that India missed the issue regarding the promises made by [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice and later by the Bush administration of not only selling these advanced jet planes but transferring the technology along with it and in addition make India into a "major power". They are promises, empty promises that if even realized have to go through the democratic tangle of endless committee meetings, congressional hearings etc. Nothing that Dr Rice or Mr Bush [said] was carved in stone. Both can easily "throw up their arms" to the Indian leadership and say, "It was not approved by the Congress, sorry." Poof, there go their promises "to build castles in the air" for India. Finally but most crucially, [there] is the growing political presence of the US in South Asia. The US has managed to "rope in" Pakistan, whether willingly or kicking and screaming but now the US is more ambitious, she wants the nation of India to become another "junior partner" where the shots will be called from Washington, DC, for both Islamabad and New Delhi. That is the "siren call" from the US that India needs to be vigilant.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 31, '05)


I enjoyed the recent articles on Myanmar, Roland Watson providing interesting insight about the strategy [Taking the generals to the tipping point, Mar 22]. In addition to the five groups that he mentions as the key to democracy in Myanmar which can reach the tipping point, I think there is one more major (in fact, the most important) player - PRC [the People's Republic of China]. I often wonder how can such a highly brutal, highly incompetent regime survive for so long in this modern globalized age, even years after the departure of their first truly military strongman General Ne Win. The answer is of course the PRC. China had Tiananmen in 1989 and that changed the whole power equation for the entire region, which unfortunately prolonged the life span of SLORC [State Law and Order Restoration Council] (now SPDC [State Peace and Development Council]). It is important to work on the PRC for them to understand that their own long-term interest is better secured with an earlier return to normalcy in Myanmar. The day when the PRC moves on board the train is the day when we can all gather to bury the generals from the SPDC.
Dell
Singapore (Mar 31, '05)


First off, this Letters section is getting crazy. Second, while I know Lester Ness was joking [Mar 30], it almost doesn't seem that bad an idea to outsource all of our (the US's) Eurasian adventures to the Chinese. They got hella people, we need hella people. It's basic capitalism ... supply and demand. Next, Frank the nut job from Seattle: I don't even believe that Frank is Chinese, I think he just likes to pick a fight. I'm sure when Asterix was chiding you [Mar 29] for using Seattle's resources - he did not mean you were mining natural resources or overfishing the Pacific. Also, if you are trying to insult Frank, don't call him a rat - in China (if he's Chinese) the rat is sacred or revered or some such nonsense. Plus, generally speaking Chinese aren't so ignorant and quick to throw out stupid insults when they can't back it up. Also, when will we get to see (on pay-per-view TEEVEE of course) Joseph Nagarya vs Roostercockburn? They can start off by debating different ideologies and then get to the fisticuffs. (No worries, Joe, I got your back ... I hate everything about Texas, except the pretty girls in DFW [Dallas-Fort Worth]). I know if this gets printed you will stop it at fisticuffs. Good job, ATol, I love ya! I'm 24 and check this site every day. I implore my peers to read this too ... but they are too busy wasting away. Peace.
John Kiegel (Mar 31, '05)


How dare Lester Ness suggest that Chinese soldiers are for hire [letter, Mar 30]? Do you think Chinese are the same as Indians? From my observations of the history, Chinese solders regard their own loved ones inside China as their masters. They will not fight to keep a border decided by those white masters in the West. I suggest Lester takes a few Chinese history lessons in Quanzhou.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 31, '05)


[Lester] Ness's comments and suggestions [letter, Mar 30] regarding the US outsourcing its military needs to China reminds one of a couple of analogies. The first is about a young man on learning that his wife gave birth to a bouncing baby boy. Visions swirled in is mind about his son growing up to be a baseball player. By the age of of 10 the boy had grown to a height of five feet [152 centimeters]. The vision changed into one where the boy had the potential to become a football player. [That] vision changed when the boy reached the age of 14 and measured close to six feet, three inches [190.5cm]. A perfect basketballer, the father reassured himself. It was at the age of 16 when the boy grew to a height of eight-feet-nine [267cm] that the family, where both dad and mom worked for the minimum wage, realized that they had a problem, a big problem that required special clothing, footwear, bedding, feeding, schooling etc. The second analogy has to do with a deja vu of a deja vu circa Cold War. This time around though, the possibility that every UN member will act as a host nation of a base could become a reality.
ADeL (Mar 31, '05)


Although I don't understand the vitriol Frank has for Indians, as a white Texan, I completely agree with his [Mar 30] letter to the ATimes. We in the West should never lecture anyone about "mooching". In the United States we are sustaining our standard of living by "mooching" off the rest of the world right now. In fact, we are "mooching" mostly from Asia. Henry C K Liu has written voluminously about this in the ATimes. When Asians get tired of being paid with promises that we will pay them in the future (which we have no intention or capability of doing) we are screwed. The rest of the world does not need the United States. Also, after what we have done in Iraq, it is ironic that someone from the United States would talk of "Western standards of decency".
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 31, '05)


The world is certainly a dark and depressing place from where the America haters sit. Take [letter writer] Joe Nagarya from Boston for example. Steven Lee's letter of March 25 was about the China/Taiwan situation, but just happened to have a throwaway line "USA is a country with a very well-educated, prosperous and motivated population". Of course, any suggestion that the US has any positive features draws down Nagarya's wrath, with a tangent into the religious right, militia nuts and so on. And then we have G Travan [Mar 25], who deduces, from the purely human issue of lonely elders, an American moral failing, "outsourcing" of cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc. If he/she has ever been in a developing country, it is pretty much the norm that the more affluent families have maids, nannies, gardeners, drivers and so on, "outsourcing" far more than what is common or possible here [in the US]. Plus, this is actually a consequence of the fact that Social Security/private pensions allow such living apart, as opposed to the joint family with everybody squashed together, which has its own problems. I think ATimes is giving too much space to the perpetually outraged. From the point of view of your Asian readers, you are (i) giving them a skewed picture of everyday America and (ii) not equipping them with solutions to issues that they will inevitably face as economic development progresses.
Jonnavithula (Jon) Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (Mar 31, '05)


Joseph Nagarya writes [letter, Mar 30]: "I don't [watch Canadian TeeVee because "I don't live in Canada." Okay, I get the picture. There are other people out there with different views and they can be right too. Do not be afflicted with the dissenting opinion that wins the day. Politics is like the weather. Views change with circumstances. Presidents come and go. Cesspools are recycled. And we live in a democracy. Life is not that bad if you take a pinch of salt and be glad you are not a peasant in Sudan, Iraq or Afghanistan. Aren't we glad we have the luxury to discuss Terri Schiavo and not about basic survival?
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 31, '05)


Roostercockburn writes [letter, Mar 30]: "Joseph Nagarya is right [sic - 'correct']. There is a thing called separation of powers and only the [US Congress] has the authority to declare war because of it. His hero [Senator John] Kerry [I said no such thing - JN] was derelict in his responsibility to uphold the constitution because there has been no declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan." Again: John Kerry did not vote for war against Iraq (Afghanistan is separate in kind and was separate in time). Had Roostercockburn actually paid attention, and listened to Kerry's statement at the time of his Iraq vote, he would know that Kerry did voted to authorize [President George W] Bush to threaten the use of force to ensure [Iraqi president Saddam] Hussein did not interfere with the inspections which were going on at the time of his vote. Period. When Roostercockburn gets his facts straight, I'll respond; until then he puts words in my mouth in order to make assertions both unfounded and false. To David [Mar 30]: A central point made by another letter writer seems to have got lost in the shuffle: the conflict between mainland China and Taiwan is between three, not two, relevant parties. Taiwan was already occupied by the indigenous Taiwanese when Chiang Kai-shek fled mainland China to Taiwan and established his undemocratic governance over all on Taiwan Island. Did the indigenous Taiwanese agree to that governance? Did they agree to be brought into the argument between Chiang and Mao [Zedong]? Most who defend "Taiwan" against mainland China are actually defending the Chiang faction; they are either ignorant of the existence of the indigenous Taiwanese, or view oppression of them as acceptable, though they "oppose" oppression (at least when done by "communists"). Geoffrey Sherwood writes [Mar 30]: "What prevented the [US] Iraq war from being 'legal' was the opposition of France, Germany, and Russia, for self-interested reasons that had nothing to do with high-minded observance of international law." Typical of irrational right-wingers who hold the ideology of bullying as supreme, Mr Sherwood confuses - or deliberately substitutes - politics for rule of law. The two are not the same, or even identical. It's the view that "life is a dog-eat-dog jungle" which that "confusion" makes every effort to ensure. In fact, and to the contrary, Mr Sherwood, the US's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was and remains illegal as a matter of international law, in which it is defined as illegal (as written by the US itself) - not because of irrelevant political views of such as France, Germany, Russia, and yourself ... The profoundest "flaw" of your unreasoning position is that it is a moral bankruptcy based upon a claimed but non-existent moral position - a position that is instead that of the unprincipled bully. Thus everyone else - in this instance Saddam Hussein - must always obey the rules, while you are always exempt from them, outside the lie that you actually respect them, and the lie that you are for seeing them enforced for all.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 31, '05)

Most if not all dictionaries recognize that "right" and "correct" are synonyms in the context used by Roostercockburn. In fact, the two words are related to the same Latin root, regere - "cor-" is a corruption of the Latin prefix com-. - ATol


Geoffrey Sherwood's sudden love affair with the "right of self-determination" is stark [letter, Mar 30]. Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Palestine, Hawaii, even India, Hong Kong? Why did not anyone offer them self-determination? Oh, they did, but only when they could no longer hold on to them. Except for Hawaii, which was annexed a few dozen years ago and is still under US occupation.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 31, '05)


[Re] US scatters bases to control Eurasia [Mar 30]: If the Bush regime is going to keep on scattering bases around Eurasia, and conquering countries, it may need to start outsourcing its military, perhaps hire the Chinese army to make up for the low number of US soldiers.
Lester Ness
Quanzhou, China (Mar 30, '05)


Andrei Lankov's Democracy, Pyongyang-style [Mar 30] is a typical exercise in watching Korea from afar. The Australian National University lecturer, in waxing wordy on the role of a parliament in a communist country, has no explanation for the reason why the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's Supreme People's Assembly session is put off sine dia. Lankov is honest enough to say no one knows. Yet he is either ironic or ingenuous when he muses over who is Kim Jong-il's constituency. Everyone in North Korea, by gosh! Would that all North Korea watchers possessed a sense of humility. Remember the endless flow of printer's ink at the time portraits of the Dear Leader disappeared on the walls in Pyongyang. No one really can come up with a reasonable answer. Which is all to say, few have any idea of what is really happening in North Korea. Yet there is a cottage industry of experts who at the drop of a hat [are] willing to speak ex cathedra on this or that or still the other thing in the DPRK. And they are not spot on in their observations. There is a commonsensical solution to this reading of tea leaves. Engage in open discussions with the North Korean leadership. Clear the deck of past hand-ups, and tackle head-on outstanding issues, with a clear head, and please leave moral prejudices at the door. [Former US president Bill] Clinton has offered a piece of sensible advice: treat North Korea with dignity, but negotiate firmly. [Charles Maurice de] Talleyrand put it another way 200 years ago, and his advice is worth taking note of, the more especially since this erstwhile aristocrat and clergyman negotiated a career which stretched from ancient regime, the [French] Revolution, Thermidor, Napoleon, and the Bourbon restoration. In diplomacy he wisely suggested surtout pas trop de zele.
Jakob Cambria (Mar 30, '05)


In connection with your article Absolute monarchy to absolute democracy (Mar 30) by Kanak Mani Dixit, it appears to me that some truths are unrevealed to the extent that a line must be segregated between anarchy and democracy. What Nepal was surely going through was an extremity of anarchy. The source of anarchy could be difficult to pinpoint and a debatable theme. Democracy and anarchy are the antithesis of each other. Anarchy must be curbed to protect and sustain the values of democracy, pluralism and civil liberties. Some of the responses of the neighboring nation are outbursts of not seeking their prior approval and exaggeration of state of affairs by some media. Once again Nepal appears to be missing the dispassionate and fair evaluation of the situation rather than getting trapped [in] the old habit of distrust and mutual destructive criticism. [It will be useful to make] an environment ... where the activists can freely make a self-reflection and evaluation as a party and as a leader. The first step could be the release of G P Koirala and Madhav K Nepal. Their call [for] the party cadres not to escape the country and face the difficulties is a call in a right direction. Peace must prevail in this country; the killing of lives must be stopped. Rights of free movement and survival must be restored. Insurgents must be disarmed. The country's situation did call for a state of emergency. A little more patience will be helpful.
Shovan Dev Pant
Kathmandu, Nepal (Mar 30, '05)


Frank Yeo (letter [Mar 29]) perfectly illustrates my point about the reluctance of those who favor Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan to honestly weigh sovereignty vs self-determination. Whether or not I am a hypocrite, as Mr Yeo alleges, has no bearing on the sovereignty-vs-self-determination evaluation. And, yes, I am a hypocrite of sorts. I agree that abiding by international law is generally a good thing. But in the case of the war in Iraq, I think that breaking international law was also a good thing. France and much of Europe violated international law by sanctioning NATO attacks on Kosovo. I wonder if Mr Yeo and others like him have been just as indignant over that episode. What prevented the Iraq war from being "legal" was the opposition of France, Germany and Russia, for self-interested reasons that had nothing to do with high-minded observance of international law. There is nothing wrong with pointing out American hypocrisy. But you're not fooling anyone. It is only American hypocrisy that interests you. There's a big, frequently hypocritical world out there. If you climb down off your high horse, you might even recognize hypocrisy in yourself. So tell me: How do you defend paying lip service to international law and the United Nations Charter on one hand, and then ignoring what they have to say about the right of self-determination on the other?
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Mar 30, '05)


Regarding my letter (Mar 29) ATol shows generosity in saying that the [Chinese] Anti-Secession Law works "under parameters dictated by only one of the affected parties". It is not mentioned that the US professed its own dictates without even being one of the two parties. The usual claim that the Taiwanese are for independence is manufactured, as it is well known by pollings that only 20% of them prefer independence from the mainland. The recent March 26 protest seemed to show a huge crowd. In fact, Chen shui-bian came out with his entire family and so did the premier of Taiwan. Then following their bosses, the cabinet ministers and families did likewise, and so their subordinates, and subordinates of the subordinates. They required over 20,000 plainclothes military police for protection, and the government agencies provided vehicles to coax and bus any willing participants, including children. In Taiwan "democracy" is a hollow word as election corruption and riggings were rampant. To come back to the theme of my previous letter, now that the Anti-Secession Law is in place, there will be no war.
David (Mar 30, '05)

Actually what we said, in answer to your rhetorical question, "Peace, isn't that what everybody wants?" was that there are times when "peace" comes at too high a price, particularly when that price is dictated by only one of the affected parties. Your point here is well taken, however, that any peace process can be (and usually is) complicated by the interference of outside players, for example the US in the China-Taiwan issue and China vis-a-vis democratic progress in Myanmar. - ATol


Let me guess. Asterix [letter, Mar 29] is a white Texan. That is why he always forgets the resources in Seattle and in Texas belong to native American Indians. America's wealth is build on native Indians' resources and the free slave labor of blacks, Irish, and Chinese. I am not afraid of discussions of rats. However, I would rather compare Asterix to a shameless pink racist pig. After slaughtering most of the native American Indians, he dares to claim other people's resources are his.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 30, '05)


Steven Lee writes [letter, Mar 29]: "Joseph Nagarya has a problem with TeeVee in Canada" - actually I don't, as I don't live in Canada. "He failed to realize that what he sees in Boston is also seen in Toronto, most probably simultaneously." In fact, I can no longer stomach the happy talk which is palmed off as "news" on US TeeVee - and I don't refer to the extremist right-wingers on cable; I refer to the small and patronizing well-paid middle-/upper-middle class right-of-center "journalists" who utter no facts which might risk upsetting - ie, waking - the great sleeping unwashed masses, which pleases to no end the advertisers, and the political class. "He thinks that TeeVee is a medium that is lesser in value than print or the Internet." It isn't the [medium] that is of lesser value; it is the bottom-of-the-barrel content which insults the critically aware. Had I responsibility for it, I'd apologize to Canada. "Nevertheless, the points articulated are well known discussed to death on TeeVee and [in] print by both the conservatives [citing 'conservative' Cato Institute fake 'think-tank'] and liberals [also citing Cato Institute; or 'conservative propaganda mill American Enterprise Institute) ..." They discuss ad nauseam the fact that the US population is by-and-large - and obviously - steeped in a tradition of ignorance of which they are so proud they wear it on their sleeve as if their religion? Is the ghoulish Schiavo circus, based upon flat-out lies cesspooled primarily from the TeeVee "news" you so praise, representative of your notion of intelligence and "well educated"? The facts of the case are nothing remotely akin to the spew from the [medium] you praise; they are in the court documents, but those aren't sensational enough to assist in media concern No 1: ratings, ratings, and ratings - and advertising revenues. So we get sensationalism, confabulation, and pandering in place of actual fact - actual news - and the consequences, up to and including death threats against spouse and judges from the "culture of life" looney bin. "You have the freedom to cast your vote without fear." But accompanied by the legitimate fear that the vote won't be counted. Is that your notion of 'freedom'? "Based on any measurement [inches or metrics?] and statistics ['There are lies, damned lies, and statistics' - Mark Twain] published in print or announced on TeeVee, the US is an advanced country" - we love to tell ourselves self-flattering stories; it blinds us to our reality, and the outside world, while my country has demonstrated the most technologically advanced barbarism in history in the illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, where it continues to impose the barbaric war crime of torture; "motivated" by fear of continuing to lose ground economically - "and prosperous". In the form of the largest national debt in world history, and that continuing to grow without restraint or constraint ...
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 30, '05)


Joseph Nagarya [letter, Mar 29] is right. There is a thing called separation of powers and only [the US] Congress has the authority to declare war because of it. His hero [Senator John] Kerry was derelict in his responsibility to uphold the constitution because there has been no declaration of war against Iraq or Afghanistan. If he believes that Bush's negligence on [September 11, 2001] is grounds for impeachment, then why haven't his Democrats brought up charges? As concerns my absurd Skull & Bones conspirabunk: here is the substantiation for my wild and paranoid speculation. (1) John Kerry is a member of a secret society called the Skull and Bones. (2) George W Bush is also a member of that secret society. (3) Secret societies are conspiracies by nature. A person can read anything into that they would like but the indisputable fact is that John Kerry and George W Bush are involved in a conspiracy. My source is a paper from Massachusetts: Boston.com. Nagarya asks when will there be an alternative to either Republicans or Democrats which can actually win elections instead of draining votes away from Democrats? My answer: when corporations find another party willing to roll over for them more than the Republicans and Democrats. Then the corporations will buy them also and that party will win. If Nagarya needs the delusion of the New York Times version of life to feel his life has meaning, that is fine. When he rabidly tries to place limits (Republican position or Democratic position) on what others may question, that is counterproductive as well as being neurotic.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 30, '05)

This discussion is interesting but has nothing directly to do with Asia or any Asia Times Online articles. We suggest you take it to The Edge, ATol's forum. - ATol


In connection with B Raman's Lollipops and Iran (Mar 29), it is interesting to note that, in view of the fact that the whole affair is such a non-event, the sale of F-16s to both India and Pakistan has raised so much emotion on both sides of the Indo-Pak border. In this situation, with both countries armed to the teeth with short-range nuclear-capable missiles, it is difficult to see how these planes can make any appreciable difference, either in a deterrence or an offensive mode. So why the US gesture at this time? The reasons would appear to be fairly straightforward: A lollipop for [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf, which the general could definitely use as proof that cooperation with the US (for which he has been roundly criticized at home) pays; and creation of jobs in the US for which President [George W] Bush can take credit. As far as the Indian reaction is concerned, this is hardly going to disturb any sleep in Washington and if it does, the Indians can be given the argument above. The Indians on their part have to make the necessary noises (about the arms race in the subcontinent etc) but would not mind the fact that Pakistan is, at the end of the day, going to be out of pocket in a big way.
S Chawla
Montreal, Quebec (Mar 29, '05)


This is in response to the sale of F-16s to Pakistan and America's reasons for doing so. First let me deal with the latter part of my statement [The US comes out fighting with F-16s, Mar 29]. The State Department has come up with three reasons for the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. First, Pakistan needs these aircraft to fight the war against the terrorists along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border; the second is that Lockheed Martin needed these sales to save the jobs of their employees; and the third is that if Pakistan has these aircraft ... the possibility of Pakistan going nuclear is "less likely". What does the State Department think of the Indian leadership? Do they think they are morons? idiots? retarded? Taking the first "excuse", Pakistan may or may not use the F-16s against the terrorists since to date they [Pakistanis] have been lukewarm in delivering the real leaders and their cronies of al-Qaeda to the US while Osama [bin Laden] runs freely between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But it is absolutely certain these F-16s will be used against India, Pakistan's traditional arch enemy. The second "excuse" is to save the jobs of Lockheed Martin. India has a far larger military budget and [is] capable of buying many times the number Pakistan can buy and save those precious jobs so eloquently put by the State Department of the US. The third "excuse" is that this would deter Pakistan [from] going nuclear. Nobody, not even military analysts, can predict what one nation would or would not do during wartime. Rules are changed as the tide of who is going to lose or win changes. There is no guarantee that Pakistan would not use the "nuclear card", as the old saying goes "All's fair in love and war." The arrogance and ignorance of the State Department of the USA flies in the face of reason, logic and common sense. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the US is playing a dangerous game in South Asia - even an illiterate can see the double standards of the US. [If] the State Department thinks that [its] pathetic, hypocritical, lame and shallow excuses will be bought by the world at large, especially the Indian leadership, then they must think that their "excuses" are beyond world and Indian reproach.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 29, '05)


Re Mark Johnson's US Civil War 'secession' and rebel Taiwan (Mar 29): I rather enjoyed Mr Johnson's theory of varying ways in which a revolution or rebellion could be framed until he actually applied it to Taiwan. Discussing the current tension between the PRC [People's Republic of China] and Taiwan in terms of the communist followers of Mao [Zedong] and the capitalist (or thieving) followers of Chiang Kai-shek is a dreadful anachronism and a painful misunderstanding of current PRC obsessions with Taiwan. After 50 years of martial law under Chiang Kai-shek's KMT [Kuomintang], Taiwan is now governed by ardent democrats who happen to be locals; the native Taiwanese population whose ancestors lived on Taiwan prior to the KMT invasion make up 84% of the population. The "renegades" that Mr Johnson spoke of died with the military dictatorship of the KMT in 1991. To characterize Taiwanese patriots as "a group of people who by working with colonial powers made themselves rich" is an insult to the tens of thousands of Taiwanese who were murdered, tortured, and imprisoned so that they could taste freedom and democracy. Though Mr Johnson may be right that outside powers such as the US have their own motives for involvement in the future of Taiwan, to suggest that anyone other than the 23 million people of Taiwan have the most at stake is plain ignorance.
Kevin Hsu
Washington, DC (Mar 29, '05)


This is in regards to the article US Civil War 'secession' and rebel Taiwan by Mark Johnson (Mar 29). I hate it when people compare the PRC-ROC conflict [to] the American Civil War. The leaders of the PRC claim that they can reunify Taiwan with the mainland by force just like [Abraham] Lincoln reunified the southern states back to the Union by force. Here's the problem with the analogy: suppose the Confederate States of America won the Civil War and conquered all the Union territories except for the state of Maine. The state of Maine claims to still be part of the United States, but the Confederacy views that territory as nothing more than a renegade state of the Confederacy to be reunified by force if necessary. This is equivalent to the People's Republic of China winning the Civil War and conquering all Republic of China territories except for the province of Taiwan.
Allen Timothy Chang
Berkeley, California (Mar 29, '05)


I wonder if Mark Johnson, author of your article US Civil War 'secession' and rebel Taiwan, even knows that Taiwanese were not participants in the Chinese civil war because they were not part of China at the time. Without such an understanding, it is easy to see how he could come to the erroneous conclusion that the US Civil War is somehow a model for the China/Taiwan situation. But even if the US Civil War were relevant, Mr Johnson would need to acknowledge that the war started only when the South attacked Northern troops. If that is the model, then China should be preparing to defend itself against a Taiwanese invasion rather than building amphibious craft to conduct an invasion of Taiwan. And for Ralph Cossa, author of China's 'helpful' Anti-Secession Law, I would like to say that the only inflexible party in this imbroglio is China, which insists on a surrender by Taiwan prior to the commencement of discussions (ie, acceptance of the one-China principle). By passing an Anti-Secession Law, China has hardened its inflexibility even further, making the possibility of meaningful discussion approximately nil. However, since China's domestic laws by definition cannot reach beyond China's own borders, the Anti-Secession Law has no legal applicability to Taiwan, and Taiwan will be free to enjoy its status as a sovereign and independent state, even though Taiwan may continue to lack significant diplomatic recognition or membership in chic clubs like the UN.
Daniel McCarthy (Mar 29, '05)


"[By] thinking of Dr Condoleezza Rice as a wen guan the Chinese fell into a trap of their own cultural making [Dragon Lady Rice tackles China, Mar 24]." Jakob Cambria began his letter as above and presumptuously continued to write nothing that was not evident to all. His advice is redundant as if it was ever needed. He should save his scholarly dissertation for [US President George W] Bush, who is in need of any advice that he can get. Dr Rice is just a modern-day Topsy who has learned her lines by rote. Her record in Bush's first term proves it. "To them, if no one granted the Taiwanese that right in some hoary parchment, the right does not exist. They conveniently ignore that other hoary parchment - the United Nations Charter" - Geoffrey Sherwood, New Jersey, USA ([letter] Mar 28). Geoffrey Sherwood forgets that the "parchment - the United Nations Charter" that he holds aloft so triumphantly is the same "parchment" that the USA has been trampling underfoot in Iraq. Such is hypocrisy.
Frank Yeo
Halifax, England (Mar 29, '05)


Jakob Cambria (Mar 24) has made too much of Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice's recent visits to the East. In fact her predecessor Colin Powell has been right. She is just carrying out, in a skillful diplomatic way, the necessary adjustments in facing realities. Cambria's claim that China shot itself in the foot in setting up the Anti-Secession Law is hilarious. As everyone will see, there will be no war in the Taiwan Strait for a long time to come. The law applies; there will not be formal declaration of independence, and there can be only growling and tacit obedience of the law. Peace, isn't that everybody wants?
David (Mar 29, '05)

Yes, but not at any cost or under parameters dictated by only one of the affected parties. The people of Taiwan have indicated that self-determination and democracy are also desirable; the question all along has been whether both sides of the strait can have what they want, ie territorial integrity and face-saving for the mainland side and reasonable autonomy and democracy for the Taiwan side, or whether the two are incompatible. - ATol


Frank writes [letter, Mar 28]: "None of the English-speaking Indians provided solid evidence to contradict my comparisons." ... I am amused at Frank's revulsion [against living] by Western standards of decency on this forum when he himself is mooching Western resources in Seattle, USA. It reminds me of parasitic rats that mooch free food from [unwelcoming] hosts. So in keeping with the supposedly beloved East Asian tradition of comparing people [to] animals, I suppose Frank can be compared to a rat, unless of course Frank provides us all "solid evidence to contradict my comparisons".
Asterix
Houston, Texas (Mar 29, '05)

More to the point, because the dog analogy got out of hand, all such metaphors have been banned - and that includes rats. (We're still not sure about penguins.) - ATol


Joseph Nagarya [letter, Mar 28] has a problem with TeeVee in Canada. He failed to realize that what he sees in Boston is also seen in Toronto, most probably simultaneously. He thinks that TeeVee is a medium that is lesser in value than print or the Internet. To each his own. Nevertheless, the points articulated are well known, discussed to death on TeeVee and print by both the conservatives and liberals and depending on where you sit, right or left, you have the freedom to cast your vote without fear. At any rate, based on any measurement and statistics published on print or announced on TeeVee, the USA is an advanced country, well educated, motivated and prosperous. If the problems as outlined by Joseph Nagarya are the worst or most severe, most if not all the developing countries in the world would like to trade positions with the USA, including China. Remember, do not bite the hand that feeds you so democratically and well.
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 29, '05)

We've heard the Great Debate is still raging in Canada about whether to bring in Fox News. Without it, are you really getting the Big Picture about your American cousins? - ATol


Roostercockburn writes [letter, Mar 28]: "Excuse me for being an oversimplifying cynic, but anyone who believes that the election of John Kerry would have changed the direction of the United States at all is a fool. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war ..." The fact is, Roostercockburn, that I have watched Kerry's career up close as a citizen of Massachusetts. You, being from Texas, know nothing much about him - and most of that is false. As example: Kerry did not vote "for the Iraq war"; as you'd know if you'd listen/ed to his statement on the Senate floor at the time he voted, he voted to authorize [President George W] Bush to threaten to use force so [Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein would not interfere with the ongoing UN WMD [weapons of mass destruction] inspections. As for Kerry's saying we [US] haven't enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the alleged goals, he is correct. So were the several generals who were "retired" [by] Bush for saying the same thing. As for Bush "allowing" [the events of September 11, 2001] to happen: there is no "conspiracy" "theory" about that fact; as said, I don't "don't do" conspirabunk. First, the first responsibility of the occupant of the White House is national security; that is in the oath he takes. Second, having not prevented the attacks - as was his duty - he allowed them, whether through neglect, carelessness, or deliberation. The first - neglect - has been substantiated, and makes an argument for the second: neither he nor anyone else in his "administration" considered terrorism important (and [attorney general John] Ashcroft told his staff he didn't want to hear about it); and, as [former president Bill] Clinton did consider it important, it was therefore "a Clinton thing", so could not be important. That neglect is sufficient grounds to impeach, considering the circumstances, as it violates the oath of office. One need not imagine up conspiracies to explain the attacks being successful, and demand Bush be held fully accountable. As concerns the absurd "Skull & Bones" conspirabunk: provide substantiation for that wild and paranoid speculation. Or cease the tiresome effort to support your assertions with unproven nonsense. Roostercockburn asks: "How could a United States senator be unaware that the president allowed an attack to justify a war, if that is the case?" Not only is that not what I said, but there is a thing called "separation of powers" - and "executive privilege"; and, (1) the Bush War Crimes Family and Fantasy Factory doesn't tell Congress anything it doesn't want Congress to know; and, (2) it routinely and regularly lies to Congress. When you know more about Kerry, and it is actually factual, let us know. Likewise, when you find an alternative to either Republicans or Democrats which can actually win elections instead of draining votes away from Democrats, let use know.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 29, '05)


With reference to Sudha Ramachandran's article Japan-India ties under China's shadow [Mar 26], there seemed to be a belief that China wants to encircle India with the string of pearls strategy and so on. Seriously, China's population is 1.3 billion and the subcontinent's population of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh [has] exceeded China's already. Both countries have enough problems on their plate [without wanting] to encircle each other like some imperialist powers of bygone years. China's pre-eminent goal is to be a developed country and in the process raise the living standards of her populace. China's efforts to secure her energy needs are done in a peaceful manner, through dialogue and shared economic benefits of willing partners. If Japan wants to invest in India it is because Japan wants to do it in her best self-interests. The reason Japan invests in China so heavily is because it is in Japan's self-interests. To suggest that Japan invests in China and ... Southeast Asian countries because Japan wants to encircle some nations is ludicrous. The concept of encirclement is an imperialist doctrine of bygone years that ended with the fall of the Soviet empire. In this new era of the Internet, globalization of corporate structures and instant communication, we are encircled by thoughts, economics and information. The days of ambition by rogue nations are gone. Nations are now expected to explain and justify their actions on legal and moral grounds. We are now moving to the transparent age.
Steven Lee
Toronto, Ontario (Mar 28, '05)


[In] the article about Indo-Japanese relationships [Japan-India ties under China's shadow, Mar 26], especially in regards to military cooperation, one key player has been left out ... the United States. Japan after [World War II] basically became a surrogate to the US and still by and large the US dictates Japan's military buildup, some of her foreign policy etc. Japan takes orders from Washington, DC, not just from Tokyo. While India is not shackled the way Japan is, a military alliance will contain the fractures that Japan under the tutelage of Washington, DC, may be forced to change or modify any military alliances according to the dictates of the US. In addition the pressure from the other side - China has and will also influence Japan's foreign policy. Japan is a tricky gamble in military alliances as she does not act fully on her own. Ultimately it may come down to India radically changing to become a self-sufficient nation in military capabilities to realize her full potential. The article by [Siddhardt] Srivastava War and peace, Musharraf style [Mar 24] is exemplary in spelling out the dependence that the US [has] on [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf's aid in fighting terror. Mr Srivastava omitted mentioning that Mr Musharraf has not been completely forthcoming in [Pakistan's "aid" to the US against al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism. Pakistan still has to deliver [Osama] bin Laden. Pakistan still has to come clear on Dr [Abdul Qadeer] Khan's underworld network dealing with the sale of nuclear secrets. America's dependance on this vacillating nation of Pakistan is both a strength and a weakness in America's battle against terrorism and her "double faced" foreign policy. Between the strengths and weaknesses of the US so linked to Pakistan the weak points are a greater threat to the US's long-term fight against terrorism and her overall international standing concerning her foreign policy. All it would take is for Mr Musharraf to be removed and America will lose her "royal flush" in this world poker game.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Mar 28, '05)


In reading James Goodby and Donald Gross on the six-party talks [Six-party talks will test regional security, Mar 26], it is not difficult to see that America's well-seasoned experts in Northeast Asia do not take the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DRPK, or North Korea) seriously. They do, nonetheless, understand what atomic weapons are; the death and destruction that they cause (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Yet they approach the question of Pyongyang having a nuclear arsenal as though it were a consortium of investment bankers planning a series of stratagems for a leveraged buyout of a hostile target. We know this consortium of nations: the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. Goodby and Gross look to micro-manage the DPRK through pressure brought on it by Beijing principally and peripherally Russia, South Korea, and Japan. And here lies the weakness of [the] approach: the six-party conference has [proved] a weak vessel. The North Koreans simply will not play follow-the-dots to what they rightly perceive as a one-sided American solution. Goodby and Gross search out a quick fix to the matter at hand. They sidestep the need to deal with the root and branch of the question of North Korea ... The six-party talks may obtain something small. It is more to the point if a Geneva conference on Korea be reconvened after 51 years. Geneva is an ideal city for negotiations. It can gather four countries; the United States, China, North and South Korea, and then enlarge [that] to six by inviting Russia and Japan to join the talks. The reconvened conference can (1) deal with outstanding issues from the Korean War, thereby leading to a peace treaty; (2) with Japan and Russia as participants, the nuclear issue will be addressed; (3) it will afford a cover for Washington to talk directly with Pyongyang, something the present administration is loath to do ... So the circle is not squared: the Bush administration has to take back the initiative through patient, firm, and principled diplomacy. It has to treat the DPRK as an equal as it does in the United Nations. Will America be able to swallow conflated pride and deal realistically with North Korea? ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Mar 28, '05)


[Re Falungong stars on Chinese TV, Mar 26] Is it CIA [the US Central Intelligence Agency] that is playing the subversive Falungong card in China? These militant initiatives are not in the indigenous spirit of Falungong. Even 100 million meditating Falungongs would have no impact on satellite carrier waves. And genuine Falungongs would not use electronic chikane [sic]. It is certain that just as Zionism has hijacked Jewry, so there are devious operators who are hijacking Falungong. Who is hijacking Falungong in China? It seems to me that the mass media are cowed by the imperial "shock and awe" that issue from the neo-con Bolsheviks in Washington.
Kaj Krinsmoe (Mar 28, '05)


Steven Lee writes [letter, Mar 25]: "The USA is a country with a very well-educated, prosperous and motivated population." That must be the way it appears on TeeVee in Canada, because it is certainly not the fact within the US. In fact, the so-called "pioneer spirit" is traditionally and radically anti-intellectual; there is a pride in ignorance in the US, and a hostility to education, which is widespread. Take a look, for examples, at the US's "religious right" which makes a "bible" of determined ignorance; at its gun and fake "militia" nuts who insist that "education" is "indoctrination" and "brainwashing"; at the number of dupes who again and again vote for Republicans against their own interests. As for "prosperous": the massive Bush tax cuts give a huge amount of the US Treasury - and the Social Security surplus - paid as taxes by the vast majority of US workers to the top 1% of wealthy - those who need tax cuts the least - to be accounted for by cutting programs, including health care for those who cannot otherwise afford it, needed by middle and lower classes. (There are at least 25 million US children without health care; and [President George W] Bush wants to make that number larger.) As for "motivated": I assure you that middle- and lower-class US citizens who are working two and three jobs (and even then often unable to afford health insurance) are doing so because of outsourcing of decent paying jobs, often regardless their being "well educated", not because enthusiastic about loss and lack of employment benefits. Ira Rosen writes [Mar 25]: "I read your op-ed by Sami Moubayed regarding the Death of the Arabs [Mar 25], and was dismayed to see lies printed as fact. Even the UN has admitted that there were not 'hundreds of civilians' killed in Ramallah, yet [ATol] allowed it to be printed ... Those who allow the dissemination of lies are as guilty as those who actively [originate the lies]." Thanks for the "god" of small things; with his helpful deceit, we can be distracted from the bigger lies, such as those on which the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is premised, and the deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqis, even if that number does not include those from Ramallah. And even if none would have been killed in Ramallah had the original set of lies, and illegalities, not occurred. It's certain, of course, that were those Ramallah civilians Jewish, or especially Israeli, the "god" of small things, Mr Rosen, would be braying a different harangue.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Mar 28, '05)


Chalmers Johnson [The real 'China threat', Mar 19] says the US is obstructing a China-Taiwan rapprochement, yet doesn't say how. He fails to mention that only China sets preconditions to negotiating Taiwan's status: Taiwan must first agree that there is only one China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of it. One can imagine the uproar from California to Houston to Beijing if Taiwan announced that as a precondition to negotiating its status China must first agree that Taiwan has the right of self-determination. The competing rights of sovereignty and self-determination are enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Those who favor the right of Chinese sovereignty over the right of Taiwanese self-determination never weigh the one against the other. Those in favor of weighing the two are mislabeled as pro-Taiwan independence. This immediately identifies which side wants honest debate and which side wants to avoid it. Those opposed to honest negotiations set preconditions, pretend the right of self-determination does not exist, ignore the enormous significance of Taiwan's de facto independence, ignore that the people of Taiwan have never freely chosen to join the mainland Chinese polity, and ignore that the current unelected one-party dictatorship in China has never ruled Taiwan. Those in favor of honest negotiations feel that all of those factors should at least be taken into consideration and weighed against China's claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Those opposed to honest negotiations are fond of 60-year-old treaties and agreements, in none of which the people of Taiwan were allowed to participate. Those treaties and agreements do carry some weight under international law. They can't be ignored. They represent, in large part, China's claim over Taiwan. But those who think there can be a definitive legal resolution of the issue based solely on international treaties and agreements are deluding themselves. There is no cleanly analogous legal precedent for the Taiwan situation. Common sense will not prevail because China's domestic propaganda has painted it into a corner. Perhaps there is a way to see the evidence for Chinese sovereignty as weightier than the evidence against. But I have never seen anyone convincingly make the case. Instead, those in favor of China's claims betray their dishonesty by refusing to even consider the evidence in favor of Taiwan's right to self-determination. To them, if no one granted the Taiwanese that right in some hoary parchment, the right does not exist. They conveniently ignore that other hoary parchment - the United Nations Charter.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Mar 28, '05)


The article Pakistan weaves an elaborate web [Jan 19] is biased and ridiculous. As just one example, Pakistan helped [Osama] bin Laden on behalf of the US. Now they are fighting him ... on behalf of the US. So if you want to blame this bizarre flip-flop on someone, blame it on the US. Pakistan is merely a client state.
Cheryl Hutchinson (Mar 28, '05)


[Re letter from Joseph Nagarya, Mar 25]: Excuse me for being an oversimplifying cynic, but anyone who believes that the election of John Kerry would have changed the direction of the United States at all is a fool. [Democratic Senator] John Kerry voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the Afghan war, and homeland security. All of the crimes [President George W] Bush has committed have been supported by Kerry, his Scull & Bones frat brother and cousin. As a matter of fact John Kerry says we [US] don't have enough troops in Iraq and need to send more. I feel sorry for Joseph Nagarya and people like him who really believe the Democrats will save them. They probably think peace demonstrations will stop Bush too. If Joseph Nagarya thinks that Bush "allowed [the events of September 11, 2001] to happen, then exploited it to repeat the Vietnam error in Iraq" (now he a conspiracy theorist! Where is the substantiated fact that he so dearly loves?), where is his hero Kerry? Why hasn't Kerry exposed this treachery? Why has he done nothing but use this as an excuse to support all of Bush's war policies? Does that mean he is complicit? How could a United States senator be unaware that the president allowed an attack to justify a war, if that is the case? When will Nagarya allow himself to leave the confines of the left-right dogma he is imprisoned in? As long as people here keep falling for that we will continue to be useful idiots committing atrocities and sacrificing ourselves to support these criminals. Oh wait; the Democrats care and if we could just stop those bad Republicans (never mind that the Democrats had control of the Congress and the presidency for many years), one day we will have universal health care! That day never comes though, does it? But they are for abortion and gay marriage, two things that are way more important than all of our other problems! The same way it doesn't matter [to] many people of below-average means that Bush is impoverishing them and sending them off to die and commit atrocities. They vote for him because he is against flag burning, against abortion, wants to ban gay marriage (these things never get done even though Republicans control the Congress and presidency. I wonder why?) and is a Christian (supposedly). Wake up, Americans. Stop getting distracted. Do you want to try [to] get the republic back or do you want a failed empire? That is the real issue. Democrats and Republicans both support expanding the empire and their only differences are on tactics, not strategy. Thank you, G Travan [letter, Mar 25], for the insight and kind words.
Roostercockburn
Houston, Texas (Mar 28, '05)


I believe there is little disagreement that the greatest threat to peace, not just in East Asia but throughout the world, is the current USA foreign policy. I made it a point to take my children to Beijing during July 2004 just so that they could learn that the USA is not the only way. China is a dynamic country with an envious economy that will be greatly boosted with the Olympics in 2008. When the USA uses proxies (Japan, Taiwan, and the Koreas) to justify/rationalize foreign experimentation/"new world order" to maintain the status quo, recognition of the inevitable changes are ignored and friction just increases, enough to ignite war and the "I told you so" syndrome.
John Eyberg (Mar 28, '05)


Comparing certain people's behavior to animals' behavior is an East Asia tradition. Mongols and Tibetans are using such practices in many of their daily conversations, stories, and poems. Western culture may not approve such practices. That is their problem. None of the English-speaking Indians provided solid evidence to contradict my comparisons. All of their letters are just expressing their dislikes. East Asians cannot behave or express to please the Westerners and their Indian servants. Otherwise, they will become English-speaking Indians. That is why comparing China to India is offensive.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (Mar 28, '05)


This is for Jim Lobe on his article Too much for Mother Earth [Mar 25]. The immediate solution is very simple: stop wasting and start recycling, not only for the consumers, but more for the manufacturers who produce products not taking into consideration of recycling. This is the major fault of the American citizens and manufacturers. I am disappointed [an] article like this one avoids addressing this issue.
Benjamin Su (Mar 25, '05)


Not surprisingly, a one-sided piece by Rabbi [Moshe] Reiss regarding the Twists and turns in 'Syria first' [(Mar 25) is], after all ... listed under the Commentary section. The rabbi brings up many valid questions with little response. In agreement with some of his statements, Syria does account for many ills in the region. But why? The rabbi quickly hides the evidence by signing off on Zionism at the very beginning of his commentary. Zionism is the direct result of upheaval in the region and there is no denying that. Many "terrorist groups" within these Arab nations pose no global threat other than to Israel. These terrorist organizations have only one mission and that is the destruction of Israel. That would never occur, of course, but at the very least Syria and company want some clout at the bargaining table. If your neighbor was armed with nuclear weapons, would you not react in some way? [That is,] create "terrorist organizations", cooperate with non-nuclearized neighbors. I am not suggesting that such neighbors of Israel would not use such weapons, if acquired, but have we thought of weapons being used as a negotiating tool? Additionally, there is a United Nations Security [Council] resolution (at moments when the UN serves self-fulfilling matters) for the complete withdrawal of Syrian troops out of Lebanon. I urge readers on ATol to access the UN website and read how many outstanding UN Security [Council] resolutions there are regarding Israel and its dealings with its neighbors. This is not about bringing freedom to the Lebanese people, but rather a geo-military positioning that many parties play for a greater control within the region. There is no focus made on the constant offensive threat that Israel poses which inevitably results in these opposing actions (ie Israel's 1982 Lebanese offensive). Invasion of Iraq to find those elusive weapons that would wipe out the planet, Iran and their scheming nuclear proliferation, Syria's hand in holding back Lebanese freedom - three offensives against three enemies. Why, I wonder whose enemies these nations could be? For every action there's a reaction. Deception at its finest.
FK
Israel (Mar 25, '05)


I read your op-ed by Sami Moubayed regarding the Death of the Arabs [Mar 25], and was dismayed to see lies printed as fact. Even the UN has admitted that there were not "hundreds of civilians" killed in Ramallah, yet you allowed it to be printed in your "quality" publication. Those who allow the dissemination of lies are as guilty as those who actively do so. Stand up for the truth - it's your job as a journalist.
Ira Rosen (Mar 25, '05)


I would like to express my complete agreement with the statements by Ken Moreau and Roostercockburn in the Letters section [Mar 24]. I believe what lies at the heart of America's problems can be clearly seen in the much-loved film True Grit, especially its main character, Rooster Cogburn (Roostercockburn's namesake, no doubt). In the film, the weary old adventurer Cogburn saves a stranger who then promises to bury him in her family plot, saving him from an eternity of solitude. Rooster's roommate, an old Chinese man, is his only company. Although this character is now taken as the epitome of American heroism, his lonely, pathetic position in society is more telling. He is just an old man without a family, drifting around in the world with no roots. America today is full of such lonely people, as bonds of family and friendship have withered. To see old people eating by themselves at fast-food restaurants, barely able to hold their trays, is heart-breaking. The sad fact is that Americans begin and end their lives in the care of uncaring strangers, as their family are too busy to raise their own children and [care for their] elderly. But this side of America is just the modern world, taken to the extreme, and we can see it happening everywhere in the world. This "free" American lifestyle, where all the bothers in life (cooking, cleaning, raising kids, etc) [are] outsourced to hired help, is the envy of the entire world. Little do people outside America realize the tremendous suffering and despair that come with such "freedom". The fast-food version of life is simply not worth living. Perhaps people around the world will