|
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.
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.
April 2006
Rian Jensen's On pins and needles over Kim
Jong-il's heir [Apr 28] is an exercise in
trivia. Rather than speculate on whom the "Dear
Leader", who is in good health and in full command
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
might be grooming as his successor, it would
behoove Mr Jensen to propose concrete steps which
may help resolve outstanding issues between
Washington and Pyongyang.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Apr
28, '06)
Thousands of articles
have already been written on that subject. The
last time we ran one, the US and North Korea, to
our shock and dismay, ignored its recommendations
completely. - ATol
[Kaveh
L] Afrasiabi's analysis of the relationship
between Iran and the US is interesting [Iran, US in tug of war over Middle
East, Apr 27]. However, the repetition of the
assessment that uranium enrichment is aimed at the
production of a nuclear bomb suggests that his
analysis is not entirely objective.The fact of the
matter is that enrichment is necessary for the
production of nuclear fuel; the plutonium from
which weapons are constructed is actually a waste
product. When one attends to this error, it leads
to an other explanation of why the US is insisting
that only the recognized nuclear powers be
permitted to engage in the enrichment process,
retain the depleted uranium and reprocess the
spent fuel. It suggests that, under the guise of
preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
the US and the other nuclear powers are trying to
set up a nuclear-fuel cartel, similar to what the
Western oil companies enjoyed until the oil
resources and processing facilities were
nationalized. Since China is already in the club,
its attitude towards Iran is doubtless ambivalent.
At the moment, Iran would seem to be an ideal
surrogate for letting the US know that its plans
for hegemony in the region are going to be
resisted. Letting Iran be the fly in the ointment
is less dangerous than challenging the US
occupation of the Persian Gulf region
directly.
Monica Smith
USA (Apr 28,
'06)
The article Bomb for bomb: What Delhi's deal
means [Apr 25] paints a picture that already
exists. For the last 50 years there has been an
arms race between India and Pakistan, including a
nuclear-weapons race. India and Pakistan have
fought at least three wars, one of which divided
Pakistan and created Bangladesh. What [Pervez]
Hoodbhoy does not mention is the "China factor".
China currently has missiles aimed at India, and
Pakistan is a longtime ally of China, which by the
way helped Pakistan nuclearize itself. If
de-nuclearization is to take place in the region,
then this should include China, Pakistan and
India. I would just love to see how the world
could de-nuclearize China, or for that matter even
Pakistan. The failure to de-nuclearize these two
nations is the main reason why India needs to arm
itself with nuclear weapons too. As for Iran or
North Korea, the events taking place in South Asia
will have little to do with these two nations' own
military policies.
Chrysantha
Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 28,
'06)
Shawn Crispin's article What the US could learn from
Thailand [Apr 8] shows many things, paramount
of which is a deliberate, I must assume,
misrepresentation of key details that would
demolish his arguments. I will provide those
inconvenient key details now. Primarily, Mr
Crispin deliberately misrepresents activities
within the United States to compare President
[George W] Bush to Thai Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra. He cites the supposed "suppression of
the press" by President Bush. The American press
remains the most vocally anti-Bush element in the
United States with the possible exception of
academia. Vocal and often belligerent reporters,
such as the New York Times' Helen Thomas, have
unrestricted access to the president's briefings
and routinely mock and criticize him during them.
The journalists that Mr Crispin claims are
[intimidated] and manipulated are patently untrue.
If one believes this to be true, read the
editorial pages of any major US newspaper and try
to see the journalists toning down or otherwise
succumbing to "intimidation". The journalists, the
sole journalists, serving [jail] time in
relation to the president were not in any way
critical of him. The reporters Matthew Cooper and
Judith Miller were held on contempt-of-court
charges, not a felony conviction sought by the US
attorney. Second, Mr Crispin claims that
protesters were arrested for peaceful protests
outside of the president's ranch - more so, they
are "routinely" subjected to this. I assume he
refers to Cindy Sheehan, who has never once been
held on charges, and was only removed from the
White House grounds when she defied an order, in
place since time immemorial, prohibiting blocking
the sidewalks and roads of the White House grounds
area. She was subsequently released. Mr Crispin
also mentions that Ms Sheehan was removed from the
State of the Union [presentation] for wearing a
shirt opposing the [Iraq] war - so was the wife of
a congressman, for wearing a shirt supporting the
war. Political slogans and other such items
intended to provoke reaction from the galleries
are prohibited - I should know, I worked there.
And I removed supportive banners and opposition
placards with equal dedication to my job. If Mr
Crispin wants to chalk the removal of Mrs Sheehan
[up] to a quasi-police-state action, I would ask
him to explain why the wife of a pro-Iraq war
congressman was removed as well for the statement
on her shirt. And why has there has never been a
single instance of mass arrest, detention, or
deportation of an American citizen involved in the
Bush = [Adolf] Hitler cadre? Many posts on this
board seem to wonder how the people of the United
States are duplicitous in the eroding of our
freedoms and the subversion of our political
rights. They wonder why we do not rise up against
the president for his abuses of power. The fact of
the matter is, he has abused no power, has
undermined no United States law ([a warrant for
wiretapping] is not required in any way, shape,
form, or fashion if the communication is leaving
the United States. As soon as it [has] accessed
international lines, it is free from
constitutional controls), and has taken away no
freedoms. Many of the posts on this board seem to
be absolutely convinced that the United States is
invading Iraq, concerned about the genocide of
innocents in the Sudan, and pushing against Iran
simply because of oil and the desire to enrich
"cronies". Americans do not believe this; we gave
up listening to Soviet propaganda when that
regime, so lauded by the anti-American cabal,
collapsed. If these wars were all about oil, why
are Venezuela (a common gadfly on the US) and
Canada not being invaded? Canada alone routinely
tops the oil-exports list [to the US]. The simple
answer, though not the answer the socialist left
wants to hear, is that it is not about oil, and
never has been. Mr Crispin's article is well
stocked with innuendo and uncited assertions, all
pretty frightening stuff. Which makes it a good
thing that none of it is true. Had any rudimentary
fact-checking been done, within 20 minutes most of
his doomsday assertions of the American people
would be refuted. That being said, please continue
to provide quality articles and interesting
commentary from Asia. As an area specialist, I
enjoy your articles immensely.
Anthony
Holmes (Apr 28,
'06)
I'm studying
international relations with 95 students in my
year here in England. We all think you guys are
amazing! The way you get high-quality,
well-written articles out day after day astounds
us. We all wanted to say we read you first then
the other publications. You guys rock, and keep up
the good work!
Jabir Jones
England
(Apr 28,
'06)
Kaveh
L Afrasiabi's Iran, US in tug of war over Middle
East [Apr 27] is a very interesting analysis
of historical facts that have future implications.
It is indeed true that the main purpose of the
so-called [Iranian] nuclear threat to the world is
the black gold: oil. But Iran does not have huge
oil reserves (100 billion barrels) [like] Iraq and
Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the [US] government can
use the threat to trigger very high oil prices
that will benefit oil corporations, and this
threat factor has already been partly incorporated
in oil prices. What has been fascinating for me is
the fact, which has been ignored by the author,
that after the Iranian revolution in 1978, the
threat of exporting the Islamic Revolution to the
Arab world was used to entangle Iraq and Iran in a
devastating eight-year war. In other words, the
threat of exporting the revolution was successful.
Currently, the threat of the Iranian nuclear bomb
has been invoked to try to align the Arab world
against Iran. But this new threat has not been
successful in the Arab world because of the war
situation in Iraq. Many Arab regimes, including
the US-friendly ones, have been frustrated by the
destructive outcomes of the American invasion, as
many of them thought the US could rebuild Iraq and
make Iraqi people happier. Exactly the opposite
has happened, and Iraq may not even be an Arab
country anymore. This situation creates animosity
and hatred towards the US occupiers and the people
who support them. Since this is the case, US
imperialism has lost the hearts and minds of the
Arab people, and has lost the convincing means of
social interaction and the support of the Arabs
and other peoples. Consequently, it will be US
military power against the rest: Arabs, Iranians,
Afghans, and the like, a choice that was not
expected by the Bush administration when [it]
decided to invade Iraq. Stated somewhat
differently, US imperialism has been stuck in a
region and culture that [it] has never seen and
imagined before, no matter the sophistication of
technologies and the availability of finances.
Rationally, the easy way out for the United States
of America is to declare victory and depart the
region, a decision that will force the US to
explore [for] oil elsewhere and to purchase it by
using dollars that each cost 4 cents to
print.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA
(Apr 27,
'06)
Re Loud and clear: No respite in the
'long war' [Apr 27]: In the face of the
nomination of Jawad al-Maliki as prime
minister-designate and the high hopes of the
occupation forces attached to it, some loud and
clear message and line from Iraq's resistance
movements as to their position on this situation
was warranted and inevitable. It could not have
been clearer than the way they did it. After the
apparent success of Islamist jihadists in being
able to use the Iraqi battlefield in mobilizing,
galvanizing and stabilizing the jihadists in the
Middle East and stabilizing their bases around
Afghanistan, their next move to use the Darfur
battlefield for mobilizing and galvanizing the
North African forces seems a smart move. The
Darfur front may well turn out to be the biggest
and the most crucial one. Since the hijacking of
the Islamists' victory in Algeria, the Algerian
Islamists [have] been very angry and violent and
venting their anger at home and around the world.
The Darfur front provides them a front closer to
home and an opportunity to channel their energies
"positively" instead of fighting their own forces.
That front will also be a force for change in
North Africa in general. The Darfur situation,
like Algeria's, is of the West's making. Catholic
missionaries and in their disguise Western
intelligence agencies have for long been stoking
trouble in southern Sudan ... by distributing
weapons and money, and when as a consequence the
Sudanese rebels and ordinary civilians migrate
into the refugee camps in neighboring Chad, they
are provided food and shelter by the Catholic
missionaries and Christianized. That's an
abhorrent way of converting people. [Osama] bin
Laden's people could not have been oblivious of
what [has] been going on in there.
Rashid
Hassan (Apr 27,
'06)
Congratulations to
Spengler on finally finding the key to the liquor
cabinet on April 25 (Katrina and China's whirlwind
growth). Comparing China and New Orleans
finally revealed the inner workings of a writer in
need of a vacation. To suggest that the United
States should learn something from China's success
is ludicrous. Where were you in the 1980s when
Japan was considered the new Asian marvel and the
United States was in permanent decline? All types
of predictions were bandied about, including the
demise of industrial superiority, and that
Americans would soon relinquish [their] position
to this Asian powerhouse. So where is Japan today
in relation to the United States? Now we have the
China card being played. Add to that, we now have
Spengler's wisdom on answering the racial problem
in [the United States of] America by commenting on
the population of New Orleans and the recent
diaspora. Spengler should take time out from the
euphoria of the grape, and examine some of the
more meaningful cause-and-effect attributes in
this country [US], which include the wave of
illegal immigrants who, by the way, still find
time to make tortillas [by hand] while making
money. While you seem to enjoy the movement of
your pen in a negative connotation, you should
remind yourself to look at your past articles
concerning the demise of Europe. By your example
and wisdom, we should all give up, and look for a
sea of change which denotes the disappearance of
cultures every time something happens that is an
aberration from the norm. You fail in your
commentary numerous ways, one of which is failing
to recognize that the world is fluid, and not
really predictable until all is said and done. Why
not comment on some 20 other nations in this world
that are engaged in ethnic cleansing as we speak?
Slow news day maybe, so spew out some garbage
about New Orleans? This is 2006, not 1656. Lay to
rest your embrace of dusty books written by those
who told us the world is not flat, and that we
have gravity. Singular explanations and
revelations from the past have their place, but
only for scholars hanging on in fear of change.
Your column, while enjoyable, is in serious need
of a reality check. The United States, for all of
its perceived lackings, is still here, and I'm
willing to bet will be here after you're long
gone. The African-American population ... are a
part of this great country, and while you make a
point to incite a question about that, take note
in this. One only has to take a look at other
parts of the world to find a greater criminality
in [the] treatment of so-called "racial
residents". Until you take up residence here, and
understand the nature and history of this nation,
please refrain from expressing nonsensical
comments about our situation. It's deeper than the
bottle in which you found solace in your latest
article ... Americans are not above criticism. But
if history is the yardstick in which measurement
is garnered for judgment, I am willing to bet that
America will be measured highly after all is said
and done. That is what makes us. We are willing to
answer to those judgments, and make the necessary
changes, even if it requires a change of
leadership. You failed to recognize and
acknowledge that. America is still a nation of
free people. We will acknowledge our mistakes and
move on for the better good. You, however, seem to
think that we are nothing more than distracted
fools. This will be your [downfall], and the rest
of those in the world who think that we are
empty.
Jim Van
Chicago, Illinois
(Apr 27,
'06)
Reports that the military is
one Bush-whim phone call away from attacking Iran
should have all Americans horrified. Every sane
person must sense this would be the biggest
disaster in history. Think of financial panic and
a million suicide bombers in reprisal. Selling war
with lies is evil. The Iraqi people did no harm to
Americans. [US President George W] Bush has
imposed on them a dysfunctional Green Zone puppet
government. Civilians are slaughtered by all sides
and death squads that torture humans with electric
drills operate freely. By extending this war to
Iran, the only ones who win would be Texas oil
billionaires and war profiteers like [Vice
President Richard] Cheney and Halliburton.
Everyone else loses, the future is destroyed and
the Patriot Act stifles dissent. To conspire to
wage a war of aggression is a war crime. An
enraged citizenry needs to overwhelm Congress and
demand "no secret war plotting" and "no military
sneak attacks". The only hope for a decent future
is for Congress to impeach the Iraq war plotters,
deliver all records of the war plotting to the
International War Crimes Tribunal, cut off funding
of the illegal war and order the troops home.
John
Mackesy
Middletown,
California (Apr 27, '06)
Re Bengaluru: 'We
want our city back!' [Apr 22] ... Jobs for
locals really make sense ... As we know, the
population of Bangalore has grown significantly,
which resulted in many problems. It's high time to
stop the influx by giving jobs to the local
people. If an IT [information technology] industry
has 100 jobs, then supporting staff for that, ie,
security, catering, transport etc, have 1,000
jobs. These 1,000 jobs don't need much
qualification nor any great degree. Locals who
hail from deprived society [are] requesting these
jobs. It's a foolish act by the companies [to
neglect] local talent and [import the] same talent
from outside. Adding to this, rehabilitation of
the displaced persons who lost their land to IT
companies is a social responsibility of the
companies. [In the same way that] London, Tokyo,
St Petersburg, Chennai and Mumbai changed their
names, the name change to Bengaluru is completely
justified. The change didn't affect the ...
business/economy of any of the above cities. So
everyone should welcome this change rather giving
some foolish argument to oppose [it]. The problems
of local people are [prejudicially] and falsely
reported as fanaticism. It is high time [that the
media changed] their attitude.
Praveen
B S
Bangalore, India
(Apr 27, '06)
Your recently appearing "Year
to Fear" editorial is nothing but the final,
distasteful discharge of noxious gases from
somebody far too enamored with the now decades-old
novels written by Tom Clancy. The actions
attributed to China in no way represent the
mindset of a nation steeped in the notions of the
slow, resolute and unstoppable momentum of the
world's most powerful nation. This scenario would
only take place within the confines of a bad,
two-hour movie.
Dan Smith (Apr 27,
'06)
If you
are referring to The year to fear
for Taiwan: 2006, that
article in fact appeared more than two years ago,
on April 10, 2004. We still have eight months to
see how many of its prognostications come true. In
the meantime, we are open to offers from
thriller-movie producers. - ATol
I would like to make a
suggestion: Some ATol writers, [such as] Spengler and
Pepe
Escobar, have their own sections on the
website. Would you consider giving other writers,
[such as Syed Saleem] Shahzad, Sami Moubayed or
Ehsan Ahrari, their own section where all their
articles could be found in one place? I think this
would be good, since they have a long tradition of
writing for ATol and maintain their own
distinctive analytical and writing styles; and
they are hardly ever boring to read.
Mustafa
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Apr 27,
'06)
Thanks
for the suggestion. Readers' input on how to
improve this website is welcome. - ATol
The
article Attack Iran,
destroy the US constitution [Apr 26] jumps to
the conclusion that any [US] military action
without congressional approval is
unconstitutional. Unfortunately for the authors,
the US Supreme Court, final arbiter of the US
constitution, does not agree. Nor does Congress.
In 1973 Congress passed the War Powers Resolution
authorizing the US president to conduct war for 60
days without congressional consent. Certainly
President [George W] Bush could bomb whatever
targets he wishes to in Iran before the 60-day
time period runs out. And although Congress has
the sole power to declare war, there is no Supreme
Court decision precluding the president from
conducting military action absent a declaration of
war. Ultimately Congress can check the president's
use of the military by withholding funding. It
appears that the authors of the article were more
interested in putting out their anti-Bush message
than actually providing readers with reliable
information.
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 26,
'06)
I
appreciate the usual high-caliber analysis that I
find on Asia Times Online. However, I was
disappointed with the article Attack Iran,
destroy the US constitution [Apr 26]. There is
a great argument that indeed such preemptive
attacks without the authorization of Congress
violates the US constitution. However, that
argument was not presented in this article.
Instead the article was filled with public-opinion
references and repetitive assertions from various
members of Congress or retired generals and
politicians that such action is indeed
unconstitutional, or even illegal under
international law. Such hearsay is not informative
and is more typical of mainstream American
sources.
Matt McNeill (Apr 26,
'06)
Stephen Roach's Globalization's
new underclass (Apr 26) suffers from some
fundamental misunderstanding. American monopoly
capitalism has never had a competitive market
economy. All [existing] markets are monopolistic,
oligopolistic, and monopolistic competitive
markets. These markets usually suffer from
allocative and productive inefficiencies, which
make the cost and the price per unit of output
high. These markets have a tendency towards
stagnation, as actual output levels are forced to
be lower than capacity levels; hence employment is
very low. From the resource side, these markets do
not pay workers their productive contribution to a
particular firm. Wages are always lower than the
value of marginal product (or productivity) of
workers. The difference is looted by capitalists
as surplus value and monopsonistic exploitation.
These market conditions, along with the tax cuts,
mergers and consolidation, technological advance,
and corporate downsizing, have increased the Gini
coefficient [in the US] significantly over the
last 30 years. The author has made a mistake,
which may be a typo, by stating that the Gini
[index] in the United States of America is 41. In
fact, this coefficient has increased from 36 in
1973 to about 46 in the new century. This high
inequality of income distribution is manifested by
the fact that 20% of the population receives about
50% of the distributed income and the other 80%
receives the other 50%. Data [do] show that
poverty has also gone up to 35 million, and 45
million Americans have no medical insurance, as
the American economy has been creating low-paying
jobs over the last 14 years. This economic
evolution, which has resulted from government
economic polices, technological advances, and
monopoly capitalism, has been intensified by the
globalization process; but China has nothing to do
with the misery of American workers and families.
China is just a market socialist economy that
monopoly capitalism cannot currently compete
against. Because of monopoly capitalism's
inefficiency, it has become habituated to
government protection and imperialistic adventures
that generate easy ways for looting economic
resources from defenseless nations.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois, USA
(Apr 26, '06)
The US Census Bureau's most
recent Gini index figure, from 2001, is 46.6. - ATol
Please pass on to Spengler my
disappointment at his slander of New Orleans,
which he has never visited and whose charms he
regards with the "vast indifference" common to
those who are ignorant of what they preach about
[Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth, Apr 25]. It is a
city in long decline, whose woes have encompassed
many individual tragedies. But to say that it has
"produced nothing of note, housed no financial
institutions" etc is simply to lie. New Orleans
was for most of the republic's existence (and
before) one of its most important cities. The city
has been home to great innovation and financial
dynamism. Its material contributions - or
"productions" as Spengler might say - to the
development of the [US] south and the nation as a
whole remain far more important than those of
Atlanta or Miami or Houston, [which] have lately
outstripped it. Its unique contributions to
American architecture, food and music, for all
Spengler's ignorance of them, are arguably greater
than those of any American city beside New York.
As [William] Wordsworth counseled:
Men are
we and must grieve when even the Shade
Of that which once was great,
is passed away.
I join
Spengler in wishing new and satisfying lives to
all in the New Orleans diaspora. And I pray that
the tragedy which their city has suffered will
serve as the basis for its rebirth. Stranger
blessings have been given to places that deserved
worse.
Fred Gill (Apr 26,
'06)
I was
surprised by the degree of venom in some of the
responses to Spengler's column [Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth, Apr 25]. There are
two facts about [Hurricane] Katrina, which is that
poor people suffered disproportionately, and that
the poor people were disproportionately black.
Poor people always suffer disproportionately in a
natural disaster, and this is not exclusively an
American failing: take for example the heat-wave
deaths in Paris, which affected poor [elderly] who
could not afford air-conditioning, and the Asian
tsunami, which affected poor people living in huts
along the coast. The issue of black poverty in
[the United States of] America is a touchy one,
with explanations ranging from past and continuing
racism to the encouragement of victim attitudes
and politics. But the annoying thing is there are
some people of the liberal persuasion who believe
such questions should not be discussed, and impugn
the morals of anyone who brings them up: hence the
shrill charges of racism. Without offense to
residents or well-wishers of New Orleans, which I
have visited and enjoyed, it is also a fact that
the city was a theme park, which is not a bad
thing in America, because so is Las Vegas, and so
is Amish country. The problem is the
tourist-theme-park area was surrounded by urban
blight with the highest per capita murder rate in
the country. The local administration was on
corrupt auto-pilot. I don't think Spengler was
exulting in the loss of life so much as pointing
out that sometimes an external force is required
to break up an entrenched mal-equilibrium like
this. To those who complain about Spengler's
characterization of New Orleans' economic
vitality, there is a difference between economic
output based upon natural-resource extraction and
the quality of enterprise. A Silicon Valley in
high tech or a Hong Kong in financial services is
literally wealth created out of nothing.
Jonnavithula "Jon"
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (Apr 26, '06)
Re Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth [Apr 25]: Spengler
makes the startling claim that "the grossest act
of ethnic cleansing in years passed unnoticed last
week when Shi'ite militias drove 35,000
Palestinians from their homes in Baghdad, leaving
thousands stranded in tent camps on the
Iraqi-Jordanian border". I searched for some
confirmation of this, but found only one very
questionable source. According to a more reliable
source: "In the past month, about 100 Palestinians
[from Baghdad] have sought safe haven in Jordan
after coming under threat, Human Rights Watch
(HRW) reported on April 7. Jordan refused them
entry, and they remain stranded on the Iraqi side
of the border." That same article indicates that
people of almost all ethnicities are being driven
out of various parts of the city, with many (not
just Palestinians) living in makeshift tent camps.
Can ATol and/or Spengler substantiate his claim?
Patrick Smith
USA (Apr 26, '06)
We are having trouble
confirming the report, so reference to it has been
removed from Spengler's article. - ATol
I think it's interesting that
criticism of [US President George W] Bush and
current administration policies generally tends to
draw reaction similar to the snarling dog next
door (as in S E Robinson's letter of April 20).
Robinson states [that] Asia Times Online is "just
another rag sheet ... espousing anti-American
propaganda". Two points: (1) This sort of response
shows the classic ad
hominem trick, very common to political
discourse and election campaigns - smear the
opponent's character (much easier than actually
having to think and argue a position. (2) It shows
a profound lack of understanding about the nature
of democratic exchange and an essential principle
of democracy - freedom of speech and the value of
dialogue. Instead - bluster, shout, smear, avoid
the opposition (as with Fox News). This behavior
is called "patriotism" and smacks of "my country
right or wrong". Sheep running off a cliff
following the leader actually are morally superior
in this respect, since they bleat rather than
snarl. Poor things.
Peter Bollington (Apr 26,
'06)
In his
[Apr 25] column, Spengler elucidates the
foundational problem with Americanism in that it
ensures that everyone, and ultimately itself too,
will die irrelevantly in a world made unsacred and
unholy [Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth]. Americanism argues
unapologetically for the annihilation of
tradition, insisting that the crowning achievement
of human thought and religion ought to be the
"pursuit" of the amusement of our bestial selves.
Yes, there is much drumming up of the American
philanthropic spirit, of care given to residents
of Soweto and other such dilapidated places, but
guilt-ridden disaster recovery, gifted to peoples
beaten senseless into submission, hardly qualifies
as "humanitarianism". After all, what is the worth
of this plastic piety when it has not the teeth to
stop the rape of the world? In fact, Americanism
has lived well past its expiry date; it is now a
global cancer - its newest hosts India and China
and an unwitting Iran - and persons of faith
cannot easily shake off the feeling that it is a
terrible recompense for a humanity gone terribly
astray.
Zaheer Akmal
USA (Apr 25, '06)
Spengler's article [Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth, Apr 25] made for
interesting reading. It was fascinating reading
his columns, and tracing his evolution as a
writer: from dropping the names of old
philosophers nobody reads (at least I don't) to
taking on contemporary controversial issues, such
as Palestinians and American black poverty.
Spengler, on a personal note, it might be time to
start using your real name; I'm already seeing
blogs mention your columns at ATimes, and I think
you're well on the way to the lecture and book
circuit. I say this only slightly tongue-in-cheek
and with the best of intentions.
Jonnavithula "Jon"
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (Apr 25, '06)
Spengler's Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth (Apr 25) is a poor
analysis because it is incompetent and racist. It
is incompetent because it shows a total
misunderstanding of the dynamics of American
monopoly capitalism. It is not the problem of the
black communities of New Orleans that has created
underprivileged families, but it has been the
uneven economic development generated by monopoly
capitalism ... The analysis is racist, because it
overlooks the fact that those poor black people,
whether in New Orleans or elsewhere, were
historically excluded and concentrated in these
poor areas by American capitalism, [and that
their] development has been inhibited and
sabotaged by external forces in order to downgrade
the black people further and to destroy their
ability to produce. In fact, this exclusion and
concentration, which is grounded in the "Jim Crow"
principle of exclusion and the operations of
capitalism, is similar to the concentration of the
native Americans, exclusion that destroys
productivity, self-esteem and incentives. That is
to say, capitalist dynamics [are] polarizing,
demonstrating one of the basic outcomes that
people who cannot afford to pay market prices are
excluded and marginalized. In addition, consider
the example where the American government
[thought] it was helping the people of New Orleans
[after Hurricane Katrina last year]. Most of the
contracts for developing these Katrina-damaged
communities have gone to firms from Texas that are
owned by white people who had connections with
some government officials. When these contractors
received government funds for rebuilding the
affected region, the funds went to external
agencies. Consequently, the cumulative process of
development continued elsewhere. Indeed, those
firms from other locations capitalized on people's
misery by making more profits. Specifically,
government spending and economic surpluses have
not been reinvested in these poor regions,
provided that New Orleans has huge oil facilities,
which are ignored by Spengler. Therefore, what the
US must do is not to expel poor people, as
Spengler suggests, because where can those
expelled people go if they are broke and
underprivileged? Instead, the government and
American capitalism must penetrate these poor
regions by investing where labor is not really
expensive. Government has also to provide tax
incentives for domestic and foreign manufacturing
capitalists to invest in these poor areas. The
forthcoming investments will require the
development of public infrastructure such as roads
and bridges, which the government has to furnish
to create basic opportunities for investors to
invest. Both private and public investments, along
with technology and education, will increase labor
productivity and will create employment and income
to many people for more prosperity and growth. At
this level of economic growth, the service
industry becomes a complementary aspect of
development. In short, money incentive (wages and
profits), which is the basic element of
competitive capitalism, is the fundamental answer
for cultural development in these poor
communities. It is not the forced relocation of
poor black people, because this is another form of
concentration and exclusion, which is incompatible
with participation, democracy and freedom.
Finally, excessive foreign capital can be used as
a starting means for redirecting and pouring
investments towards these deprived areas for
raising productivity and the standard of living.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Apr 25,
'06)
Concerning Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth [Apr 25]: Poverty is
not having enough food, clothing, shelter and
health ... While Spengler understands that having
more money is not going to necessarily make people
more happy, he believes that it will empower them.
Unfortunately we have enough miserable and
empowered people in the world. (That is why, while
millions of others starve to death, nuclear
scientists build bombs and eat three meals a day.)
Further, Spengler assumes that [people] will
better be able to "contemplate their unhappiness"
if they have more money, while in fact it is
usually, though not always, just the opposite.
Spengler should contemplate his own soul to see if
that is really true. He writes like someone who
has never truly known poverty or appreciated his
wealth ... For Spengler, "traditional culture" is
food, beginning and end. (He mentions something
about music and language once, but makes more than
half a dozen references to food.) This is actually
a worldwide phenomenon now: food and sometimes a
dance or two and an old building [are] considered
the "preservation of traditional culture". How one
can write an article about the loss of tractional
culture (and its causes and subsequent results)
and not mention the religious aspects is beyond
me. But then, what existed in New Orleans was
certainly not "traditional". One of the reasons
that people from traditional cultures "succeed" in
America is because they arrive in the wasteland
with a solid "culture" inside them. The Mexicans,
incidentally, were destroyed long before they had
to come to the USA to earn a living, but all this
is another story. I discovered ATol on April 1 of
this year. Thus the first article I read was Handing victory
to the extremists. This article was fantastic
and so I thought there would be much more like it.
Over the days of April I have become more and more
disappointed ...
Krischer (Apr 25,
'06)
Rarely
have I seen a more ignorant, misinformed,
thoroughly racist article as the one by "Spengler"
opining how the [Hurricane] Katrina aftermath was
the best thing that could have happened to New
Orleans Black residents [Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth, Apr 25]. You demean
your website by carrying such garbage.
Derek
Anderson (Apr 25, '06)
Spengler's article Katrina and
China's whirlwind growth [Apr 25] is filled
with misconceptions. Spengler compares China's
deliberate displacement of its citizens with the
disaster of [Hurricane] Katrina and the impact it
had on the poor black people of New Orleans. As I
live in this city, let me give some facts. It was
not just the Lower Ninth Ward that was devastated.
Other sections of the city were equally
devastated. Areas such as Gentilly, the Inner
Garden District, Lakeview, the Upper Canal, the
Carrolton, the Bywater and, most important, the
entire parish (county) of St Bernard [were] wiped
out. The displaced included poor and rich black
and white residents. My neighbor, a white man,
lost his home and all his rental property except
for the house next to mine, and one of my tenants
lost most of his house, and he is a white man. As
for his [Spengler's] claim that the poor blacks
did not count is absurd. Successive city
governments relied on their vote to stay in power.
The [last] thing the city government would want is
to see this voter block disappear. As for the
failure of the levees, that was a federal problem
caused by the federal army corps who built these
levees to withstand a Level 3 hurricane. We got a
Level 5 hurricane. As for the reason the old
sections of New Orleans survived, [that] goes back
to its foundation when French immigrants chose the
highest ground to build their city (which at that
time was the French quarter). It was only in the
20th century that low-cost land was used to house
the poor. It was low-cost because it was well
below sea level. New Orleans lost nearly 60% of
its residences and businesses, which were owned by
both white and black residents. Katrina did not
impact New Orleans alone but the entire coastal
area including ... the neighboring state of
Mississippi. Spengler claims this city has hardly
any business, but he fails to mention [that] New
Orleans contains some of the busiest and most
important ports in the nation and rivals ports
throughout the world, and Louisiana provides a
significant amount of gas and oil to the US
economy. For Spengler to string disparate issues
such as the ethnic cleansing going on in China
with the natural disaster in New Orleans is
[purely] asinine.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 25,
'06)
Thank
you for your continued coverage of New Orleans.
There is so much work still to be done, and
keeping us in your readers' minds is crucial. Our
tourism-based economy has suffered a severe blow,
yet there is a duality to New Orleans right now
that makes it a must-see for anyone planning a
vacation. The French Quarter is virtually
untouched, the Garden District is pristine,
eclectic Magazine Street, Faubourg Marigny and the
Bywater historic districts are hopping with
activity. Visitors could come to New Orleans now
and not see a thing wrong, but the large area of
destruction is a side trip they should not miss.
Our world-class restaurants, galleries, music
joints, and especially our wonderful small hotels
are all ready for you to come now. The climate is
delightful; the city has never been safer. Many of
our attractions are small businesses, owned and
operated by New Orleanians who are suffering
greatly. With no financial aid forthcoming for the
thousands of small businesses which are the very
heart of what makes the traditional "New Orleans
experience" so unique [sic], most are hanging on
by a thread. We are counting on the return of our
visitors to keep us going . We thank you, we love
you, and we need you.
Joanne Hilton
St Charles Guest House
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 25,
'06)
Indrajit Basu has written an
excellent article [Enter the
barbarian, Apr 25]. Private-equity investment
from America in India is at its beginnings. As he
so pointedly says, the subcontinent is ripe for
such investments, which will in turn bring
handsome profits. Nonetheless, the intrusion of
KKR [Kohlberg Kravis Roberts] in the Indian
marketplace is but the continuation of a trend of
infusing capital investment by New Delhi's Asian
neighbors. This time, however, the big boys are
muscling in [on] fertile ground as India's economy
has taken off at a rapid rate of development. Such
is the nature of finance capitalism, or capitalism
tout court ... In
brief, the lure for America's venture capitalists
in India is but another phase in globalization.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Apr 25,
'06)
[Re Bomb for bomb:
What Delhi's deal means, Apr 25] The problem
in the Indian subcontinent is not the recent
Indo-US nuclear deal. The problem is the
prejudiced and bigoted ideas that created and
sustain Pakistan. Pakistan's India policies have
become merely the extensions of China's and the
US's India policies. The only thing that Pakistan
adds to its India policies is the hatred of
non-Muslims. It would be utterly foolish to link
India's options with the options of a surrogate
power. India's budget for nuclear weapons will not
change very much with this deal. Pakistan's budget
will have to increase radically if it wants to up
the speed of the arms race - and I say so because
an arms race already exists in the Indian
subcontinent, and has existed since 1947. It is
baloney to claim that the arms race will "begin"
after this deal. As for the energy calculations,
every small increase in energy production will be
compounded over time. India needs every small gain
now, so that over time the gains get multiplied.
Pooh-poohing the 3% (at the least) increase in
energy output is a stupid argument - especially
when coming from a physicist like [Pervez]
Hoodbhoy. Like a dishonest scaremonger, Hoodbhoy
states: "By proceeding with the nuclear deal with
India, the US may destabilize South Asia. It will
also wreck the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
take the heat off Iran and North Korea ..." The
subcontinent was destabilized by China's
assistance to Pakistan in nuclear and missile
fields - in violation of the treaties that China
had signed, including the NPT. Stability can only
come now from the domination of the idea of
equality and interests of all humans, over the
idea of the glory of gods like Allah.
Brij
Chicago, Illinois (Apr 25,
'06)
I read
Syed Saleem Shahzad's article of April 24, Fighting talk
from Osama and the Taliban. I was hoping it
contained some critical thinking of the latest
Osama bin Laden message. I did not find what I was
looking for. Osama bin Laden has not been heard
from for some time. Then he suddenly pops up and
he talks about supporting Hamas and the fighters
in Sudan. Please. How much more convenient for [US
President George W] Bush and the Israelis could
this message be? Israel will use this message to
say that Hamas is al-Qaeda ... They will use the
message to justify more killing and destruction in
Palestine. The USA has been calling for actions
against Sudan because of the Darfur situation for
three or four years now. No one has supported the
call, mostly because they know that all the talk
of helping "the poor people in Darfur" is just
more lies like "bringing freedom to Iraq". Darfur
is an oil region. The USA wants to send troops to
Sudan to take over the oil just like they did in
Iraq. Right now the Chinese have contracts with
Sudan for oil. Just like the USA kicked out the
Russian and European companies with oil contracts
in Iraq, and then took them over for themselves,
the USA wants to use UN action against Sudan to
throw out the Chinese companies and take that oil
for themselves also. There is no real proof Osama
bin Laden is alive. All we have are "experts"
saying that the tape is really him. These same
"experts" could also work for the USA
psychological-warfare department. There have been
many news stories of the USA psychological warfare
people inserting false and fake news articles in
newspapers around the world ...
Woodrow
Gillian
USA (Apr 25,
'06)
Your
writer Michael T Klare (Containing
China: The US's real objective [Apr 20])
contains an interesting assumption. In order for
the US to contain China, China must be attempting
expansion of its boundaries. Yet that appears to
be true, with China planning to attempt to take
Taiwan by force, attempting to take over outlying
Japanese islands, and asserting a spurious
sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.
Daniel
McCarthy (Apr 25, '06)
Re The Gordian Knot
of the nuclear crisis [Apr 22] by Kaveh L
Afrasiabi: The Iranians were asked to live under
the condition of a circumscribed sovereignty by
the Americans. If they [did] not do so voluntarily
they would be made to comply by having their
nuclear potential eliminated through the bombing
of their nuclear installations. The choice for
President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad is simple and
clear-cut. He chooses to have the Americans do it.
Would it have made any difference if the president
had not threatened Israel? The answer is "no". A
parallel can be drawn with the example of Sino-US
relations. Some Chinese accuse the Americans of
implementing a policy of containment against
China. The Americans' answer is that such an
accusation of containment presupposes a policy of
expansion on the Chinese side. In other words the
Chinese accusation of a US containment policy has
simply provided the "proof" that there is a
Chinese expansion and a "China threat" against
American interests in Asia, etc. Was there a
Gordian Knot? Not really. Right from the beginning
the Iranians are placed in a position of having to
prove to the satisfaction of the Americans that
the Iranians have no nuclear weapons in mind. They
are given the onus to prove why they should not
have their sovereignty circumscribed. Would it
have made any difference if the Iranians protested
that there never was an "Iranian threat" just like
the Chinese's continuous protestation that there
was no "China threat"? No, it wouldn't. So why not
come right out and make a common course with the
Palestinians and the other Arabs?
Harry
Lee
UK (Apr 24,
'06)
Re Al-Qaeda finds
its missing link in Iran [Apr 22]: [Syed]
Saleem [Shahzad] is doing a wonderful task by
putting every viewpoint on the table for the
reader to buy the argument they choose to ... I
think Iranians suffer from what Saleem calls
"split vision" syndrome: they want Shi'ite
dominance in the region as well as the Muslim
world but will never be prepared for the center of
Shi'a Islam shifting from Qum, Iran, to Najaf,
Iraq (something that Arab nationalists like
Muqtada al-Sadr would want to see), and certainly
not on the watch of the Persian nationalists like
[Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad. Ayatollah
[Ali] Khamenei's much-publicized recent public
interference in which he advised the Iranian
regime to negotiate with the Americans in the
stabilization of Iraq supports this viewpoint. At
the same time Khamenei's public interference also
supports the skeptics' viewpoint that predicts the
desertion of Iran and its abandonment of Muslim
allies in the event of the Americans' agreement
and silence on a reasonable solution to the
nuclear standoff. In the wake of such complicated
politics and competing interests, it follows that
Iran will in the first instance have to rediscover
and stabilize its credibility and association with
the non-governmental Sunni Islamic movements
around the globe and then expect this association
to be extended to governmental level. Having said
all that, I also agree that American strikes
against Iran are inevitable. The Americans want to
do it at a time of their own choosing, although
the Iranians, instead of waiting, may be able to
provoke the Americans to start at a time of
Iranian choice. There is no going back. Iran must
get rid off the element of uncertainty caused by
the "split vision" message sent out by the
conciliatory tone of Ayatollah Khamenei. The side
that is more certain and chooses the timing in an
Iran-America conflict (which seems inevitable)
will get the advantage.
Rashid Hassan (Apr 24,
'06)
Speaking freely usually
doesn't amount to a hill of beans, generally
speaking, but [Victor N] Corpus's article [If it comes to a
shooting war ..., Apr 20] was and is, speaking
freely, profoundly true. Like the taste of metal
we can't swallow, the loose bowels inherent to a
peek at death, before it hits at Mach 3. So many
times I have asked about these same weapons
possessed by the Russians, Chinese and Iranians,
only to be met with replies [that] our [US]
"secret" weapons will will ensure victory ... Each
time my bowels move a tad. To mention the S-400
[missile] etc systems which really do work is
moot. Or for example, the Topel-M, which defeats
any missile defense even conceived, already. [The
United States of] America is a very sick and
psychotic nation now. Torture, murder, crimes of
any type are not seen, only denied in one way or
another. Very sick indeed. The rule of the day is,
"Why worry about what you can't do anything about?
Just be happy and look at the good stuff." Isn't
this the thought of a child? Mr Corpus has done
good. Real good. Which means his ... truths will
never amount to a hill of beans when everyone is
chowing down on rib-eyes. Kind of like a last
meal.
H P Bradish
Austin, Texas (Apr 24,
'06)
Re How
to Lose the War on Terror, Part 2: Handing victory
to the extremists [Apr 1] by Mark Perry and
Alastair Crooke: For me as an American this was
one of the best articles I've read with regard to
start the work of defusing some of the extreme
ideas, views and actions of people around the
world. I would readily agree that I am not happy
with my government's stands or actions of late. I
did vote for George Bush, but never imagined that
he would lead us to the situation we are in today
of non-compromising ideology and non-diplomacy. I
am currently supporting the logistics of the US
military in Afghanistan. I am here to support our
troops, and this does not mean I support the terms
or conditions of the [US] government's
"unwillingness to engage in an exercise in mutual
listening". I wish more people had access to this
article, as it has given me a refreshed view of
the world, my government, and other people's
views. Thank for for publishing this article and
keep up the good work.
Hank Oversen (Apr 24,
'06)
Recently [US] Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice has requested $75 million
to support pro-democracy elements inside Iran and
also assist the Iranian opposition groups outside
of Iran [see Funding regime
change, Feb 18]. While I am grateful for this
kind gesture from President George W Bush's
administration, I have serious doubts that this
amount can change anything in Iran. I doubt that
the $75 million (if Secretary Rice indeed receives
it) will be used effectively and wisely ... Mr
President, while I have supported your efforts to
liberate Iraq and bring democracy to the region, I
am afraid the key to peace in Iraq and the region
is in the hands of the Iranian people. As long as
the Islamic regime rules over the defenseless
people in Iran, Iraq will never see the light of
democracy. While we [Americans] are spending over
$200 million a day for the war in Iraq, in
contrast, a $75 million proposal to bring change
in Iran seems utterly unreasonable and
unrealistic. We are talking about the Islamic
Republic [of] Iran, "the world's most active state
sponsor of terrorism", according to the US State
Department. According to research by the Iranian
Studies Group, an independent academic
organization at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, more than one in four
Iranian-Americans holds a master's or doctoral
degree, the highest rate among 67 ethnic groups
studied. Iranians continue to be among the most
highly educated in the US and annually inject over
$600 billion into the US economy. It would be a
travesty for the Iranian opposition groups to
accept such an insignificant amount of money while
the Iranian-Americans are such large contributors
to the US economy. So far Iranian-Americans have
not given big money to the cause of liberating
their fellow Iranians in Iran, nor has the US
government given any significant amount for the
eradication of the mother of all terrorist groups
in the world, the Islamic regime in Iran. Again,
we are back to Square 1. The United States still
holds billions of dollars of Iranian assets in US
banks. It only makes sense to utilize this fund
for regime change by the Iranian opposition
abroad. This money must be returned to its
legitimate heirs, the Iranian people. So if the US
is serious about a regime change in Iran, if the
US is hoping for a democratic form of government
in Iran, and if the US truly advocates a broader
democracy in the Middle East, then I urge the
White House to consider unfreezing the Iranian
assets and supporting all the Iranian opposition
in doing what is best for their country. After
all, Iranians know Iranian mentality much better
than any foreign governments. It is time for the
US government to get serious about this issue.
Bombing Iran's installations will not help the
cause. As a matter of fact, it probably creates
unity with the regime inside Iran. The most
effective way is spending the frozen Iranian
assets in the right direction. Let us create a
secular, democratic Iranian nation and obliterate
the venomous theocratic regime in Iran, which the
majority of Iranians consider to be alien
occupiers. The clock is ticking and the majority
of Iranians want to be free from the oppressors
now. So I urge the [US] administration to stop the
bureaucracy and get down to business
immediately.
Amil Imani
USA (Apr 24, '06)
I was disappointed [on] April
17 when I made my way to ATol but saw no new
Spengler column for the week. Throughout the rest
of the week, I thought this might be intended to
permit Spengler time to collect letters for a
"Spengler responds to his critics" column. Having
seen no such column, I can only hope that Spengler
is enjoying a voluntary break, and that ATol has
not (contrary to its stated editorial policy)
suspended him or encouraged his absence. I look
forward to Monday, April 24, in hopes that
Spengler will be back in full form. On the off
chance that, for whatever reason, no new Spengler
column appears ... I suggest that the editors of
ATol may want to issue another editorial to
explain the reason why. Otherwise, the editor's
comments last week notwithstanding, one might be
left with the impression that Spengler is being
punished or silenced by ATol because of criticism
of his controversial column. That would be an
extremely unfortunate impression for the
credibility of ATol as an independent and
free-thinking publication.
Nathaniel J Reinsma,
Esq
Chicago, Illinois (Apr 24,
'06)
He's
back. See Katrina
and China's whirlwind growth. - ATol
The world often only cares
about North Korea for its threat of nuclear
weapons - this is both an injustice and doesn't
ease up tensions between the DPRK [Democratic
People's Republic of Korea] and the world - for
North Korea is seeking this for recognition as
well, and nukes are the only apparent way it seems
to be getting recognition. If it's the only way,
it will keep its nukes armed and poised, and
possibly eventually even fire them. The Stalinist
regime in North Korea is terrible - under the
guise of a pseudo "workers' state" it actually
destroys class consciousness and destroys the
workers physically as well through its famines and
executions while the ruling class lives in
luxuries and the foreigners dine in halls beyond
belief while the people starve - all the while
supporting their oppressors. The supposed "free
world", though, will do nothing against this. Karl
Marx once said that in capitalism, all social
relations are desensitized, and it is only the
logic and money that matter in dealings. And the
capitalists, seeking only their own gain, for the
nukes would devastate laboring power in their
nations, care about North Korea only for that,
nothing for its people. The liberation must come
from elsewhere.
Peng Dehuai
USA (Apr 24, '06)
Your article comparing Mao
[Zedong] to [Abraham] Lincoln [The Great Leap
Forward not all bad, Apr 1, '04] is simply a
typical biased joke. Where do you borrow your
"intellectuals" from? There is freedom of the
press and freedom of speech, but rhetoric of this
sort is a waste of keystroke caloric
consumption.
M E Forgey (Apr 24,
'06)
Perhaps
the same could be said of letters written more
than two years after an article's publication that
criticize without offering a single rationale for
the critique. - ATol
In response to the article by
Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed (To the
barricades! Snapshot of Iraq's civil war [Apr
21]): The role of Americans in the Shi'ite militia
raid on Sunni neighborhoods is extremely
troubling. Some background: Newsweek Online
reported in a January 8, 2005, article by Michael
Hirsh and John Barry that the Pentagon was
considering introducing its own kidnapping and
assassination squads to Iraq [see also Death squads: A
bad idea revisited, Jan 14, '05]. These squads
were to consist of personnel drawn from the
Shi'ite and Kurdish militias, and the scheme had
the enthusiastic support of America's favorite,
Iyad Allawi, then interim prime minister of Iraq.
The model being considered was that of the death
squads the US trained and supported in Latin
America during the Reagan administration in the
1980s. Its supporters in the [Bush] administration
apparently viewed it as a legitimate attempt to
fight fire with fire; that is to say, to fight
terrorism with terrorism. The program was to be
secretive, but the debate regarding it appears to
have been well advanced in the administration. We
don't know what was decided. About four months
later, by May/June 2005, the project (or one
identical to it) was up and running, with the
Iraqi Interior Ministry and Shi'ite militias
deeply implicated in the mounting body count. The
Bush administration didn't officially begin trying
to apply the brakes to Shi'ite militias until
early this year, belatedly (as always)
acknowledging that these groups were a
destabilizing factor that couldn't be controlled.
In light of Jamail's and Hamed's article, they
[Americans] haven't yet fully cut the cord,
playing a supporting role while the militias run
amok in Sunni areas. What is the relationship of
the US military with the militias in Iraq? How
closely is the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency]
(or more likely, the Pentagon) involved in using
these groups to take out Sunni targets? Do they
only do so with full-scale operations, or are they
also actively encouraging kidnappings and murder
when it suits their interests? Did the US get
around to training murder squads in Iraq, or did
the Bush administration just advance the idea and
then sit back while its Iraqi proxies ran with it?
Inasmuch as Shi'ite militias and their death
squads are probably the single most important
element in the run-up to civil war, this is a
matter of some historical (not to mention moral)
significance.
Nathan
Canada (Apr 21, '06)
All the arguments [letters,
Apr 20] in response to If it comes to a
shooting war ... [Apr 20] suffer the same lack
of common sense. No nation would dare start a
nuclear war just to achieve complete or partial
annihilation of its own population. Nor in the
heat of a conventional war and/or in the face of
huge losses would a country adhere to any pledge
of non-first-nuclear-strike. There is or will be
no 100% [effective] defensive system, as new
tricks and technology keep evolving to supplant
and outdate each other. This is already a mad
world ... Let us hope all the great religions may
help halt a continued slide into irretrievable
depth, if it is possible.
S P Li
(Apr 21, '06)
Regarding the suggestion at
the end of If it comes to a
shooting war ... [Apr 20], that [the United
States of] America can do good for the world, I
can't help but disagree. One only needs to look at
the ridiculous failure of that government in its
duty of care for its own people, and its
motivation. The US government may be elected by
the people (sort of), but it surely serves the big
businesses as a priority. Unfortunately the most
influential of these big businesses are evil
corporations closely involved in the business of
war. It is common to see very many executives from
these corporations, wearing the same civil-looking
business suits, periodically switch roles to
become senior government officials, and back. And
in government, they won't hesitate to go to war to
serve these corporate profit. They go to war to
bring business for their weapon-maker mates, their
war-logistic-services mates. They occupy a country
to steal oil; I don't need to mention the oil
business. They destroy - to give construction
businesses to yet some other mates. They kill - to
achieve the above objectives. The slogan "war as
the last resort" is left for spin doctors to bark
every now and then. One may hope to see cronyism
and nepotism situations in developing countries to
improve, but one would be naive to hope these
types of mega-cronyism, mega-nepotism in America
[will] go away any time soon. It is entrenched.
Surely there are Americans with integrity, who are
decent, peace-loving and responsible, but they are
of the dying species in their own country, being
on the fringe of the government process (they are
unlikely to have the deep pockets to even talk to
the politicians and government). The crazy
government has no time for caring for its own
citizens, much less time to reason with the world.
The country is overtaken by corruption,
mega-corruption, at the highest levels, rotten,
seemingly interested only in profiteering
businesses involving wars.
KH
Sydney, Australia (Apr 21,
'06)
I
would like to express my admiration for the
excellent review of Mary Habeck's book Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist
Ideology and the War on Terror by C Mott
Woolley titled Know your enemy
- and yourself (Apr 18). This review was an
eye-opener in interpreting American history and
understanding the jihadist belief system. It
explained to me how a secular constitution could
be forged in a deeply religious society as the USA
while non-secular constitutions can serve the
secular societies of Europe. I never appreciated
the role of the US constitution in averting the
chaos that engulfed France in the 1790s. Neither
did I fully understand the implications of
upholding state rights as a check on unbridled
authority. I do have a few questions. First, the
jihadist belief that the Koran is for all peoples
because it embodies the word of one true god: does
that explain the zeal of the Islamic conquerors of
the 9th-13th centuries AD to extend the reach of
the ummah by the sword?
Second, Woolley's article refers to Mohammed as
the last prophet, which renders the way of life
prescribed in the Koran immutable through the
ages. I am no expert on Islam, [but] the Shi'as
certainly believe in the return of the Prophet at
the end time. This implies jihadism is not in the
Shi'a tradition. If a return or second coming of
the Prophet is possible, then a reinterpretation
of Koranic law is also possible. If Mohammed is
regarded as the last prophet in the Sunni
tradition, then jihadism is a fundamentalist
school within the Sunni tradition. This begs the
question, what is the West doing in planning to
invade Iran in the name of fighting fundamentalist
terror? Finally, Woolley implies that a resolution
of this war on terror is possible only with the
ultimate defeat of the jihadist school, with its
Augustinian precepts of social control both for
the West and the Islamic world. This suggests a
long war not confined to the West versus the
Middle East but within Islam itself, much as the
Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation and the
religious wars in Europe stretched over centuries.
A thoroughly thought-provoking article.
Sona
Guysborough, Nova Scotia (Apr 21,
'06)
I am
not sure what humor Saqib Khan (letter, Apr 18)
saw in Bare breasts and
bare-faced politics (Apr 13) by Sudha
Ramachandran, to laugh out loud. My understanding
after reading the article is that she was more
concerned, and rightly so, [that] the people
making noises about the fashion show [should] show
more concern for the poor farmers committing
suicide and other issues. I would take the
protests by what Saqib labels as fanatic and
fundamentalist Hindus with grace any time [over]
his exalted co-religionists who would lash or
shoot women in the head for just laughing out loud
(Saqib can do that since he is male), just like
under his extolled Taliban ... If you did read the
article seriously, both the models were
non-Hindus, one of them with the last name of
Khan. So what made you drag it to certain Hindu
temples? ...
DB
Illinois, USA (Apr 21,
'06)
The
"wow, you need to take a history lesson" should
apply to Shawn Benjamin [letter, Apr 20] himself
first and foremost, it seems to me. After three
years in Afghanistan, the "pinko commie Soviets"
were doing a much better job [than Americans in
Iraq] holding the occupied territory - with far
more challenging terrain and ethnic composition -
together. And they never had "way more troops on
the ground". In fact, the number of US troops in
Iraq is an almost perfect match to Soviet
deployment in Afghanistan (130,000-140,000). In
addition, if Iraqi insurgents were supplied as
well as Afghan mujahideen, the comparison would be
even worse for the Americans. In short, there is
nothing for Mr Benjamin to boast about.
Oleg
Beliakovich
Seattle,
Washington (Apr 21, '06)
The claim is often made in
this column that the Koran correctly predicts and
accurately describes major scientific discoveries
that have been made in the West since the Koran
was written. The credibility of this claim is
weakened by the post
hoc nature of the evidence and the selective
nature of its application. The corresponding
reference in the Koran is discovered only after
the discovery is made and not before, and the
alleged scientific references are vague. They
embrace a wide range of scientific reality only
one of which is selected for interpretation.
Besides, it is somewhat ironic that they would
wish to link their holiest of books to the science
of the non-believers. One must also consider the
inconsistencies. For example, their calendar is
out of whack with the seasons, and the use of
sunrise and sunset to schedule religious events
such as fasting and prayer cannot rationally be
applied in all latitudes. We thank the Arabs for
alcohol, algebra, and the Arabic numerals and also
for the sublime poetry of the ancients but their
creative genius appears to have been mostly asleep
in the last few centuries during which virtually
all of today's scientific and technological
knowledge was accumulated.
Cha-am
Jamal
Thailand (Apr 21,
'06)
Victor
N Corpus in his Speaking Freely article If it comes to a
shooting war ... [Apr 20] spins an interesting
tale about a projected future war with China, Iran
and Russia. However, one would hope that someone
with his fine credentials would not be so naive as
to misrepresent the capacities of the parties
involved. There is no doubt that China has made
significant and impressive strides in the arena of
space technology. However, there is no serious
dispute - even by Mr Corpus in this article - that
China is still significantly behind the US in
military technological capability. Otherwise, the
warfare would not have to be "asymmetrical". Yet
it is the US, not China, which is experimenting
with the possibility of autonomous
satellite-intercept technology [see for example NASA keeps mum
on space robot's failure, MSNBC]. This
indicates two things that are damaging to Mr
Corpus' case. First, if China is in an
asymmetrical military technological posture, then
if the US can't get its satellite-intercept
technology to work, there is little reason to
believe that China would suddenly have leapfrogged
the US by some two generations of technology; in
fact, this is counter to Mr Corpus' assumptions.
Second, and perhaps more important, it shows that
the US is well aware of the vulnerability
(satellite reliance) that Mr Corpus has China
relying upon to enable its "assassin's mace". In
fact, the US has conducted public tests [see for
example Pentagon beams
over military laser test, CNN] designed to
determine the extent of its vulnerability - and,
one has to assume, countermeasures to it. Thus
China's "surprise" will be effective only if the
US is unaware of it, and if there are no
contingency plans in place. This is an assumption
that someone of Mr Corpus' experience should not
make. Yet the same error is made repeatedly
through Mr Corpus' analysis. He consistently
assumes that his hypothetical opponents to the US
have advanced several generations in technology
and tactics, entirely unforeseen and unmarked by
the US military, while also assuming that the US
makes no advances whatsoever in technology,
countermeasures, or tactics. This is a foolish
assumption. One may disagree with the US
military's size, its resource allocation, its
deployment, or any number of things, but to assume
that it is blind and incapable seems a very
foolish assumption that calls the entire analysis
into question. This deals only with China; Mr
Corpus' crediting of Iran with similar capacity
similarly strains credulity, as does his
invocation of the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation
Organization] alliance bringing Russia to actively
attack the US in what would be nearly a no-win
situation for the Russians (they are far better
off if the US and China both take a battering). Mr
Corpus' article raises intriguing scenarios, but
its analysis is undermined by the unrealistic
military assumptions accompanying it.
Nathaniel J Reinsma
Chicago, Illinois (Apr 20,
'06)
Concerning the article If it comes to a
shooting shooting war ... [Apr 20]: The writer
begins and ends with the incorrect assumption that
the USA is still the world's sole superpower. Your
initial statistics on China disprove your most
basic assumption. Further, we do not need
statistics to see the inner logic of the whole
affair: in short, the USA is finished, but like a
gigantic beast it will take a long time to fall -
and it will spit and roar and try to grab on to
anything to break its fall. As for the end of your
article where [the writer is] still assuming that
the USA is a great superpower that can take the
lead in doing good, this also is so obviously
false that I need only remind you of how the USA
did not even have the preparation or resources to
help the [Hurricane] Katrina victims. You might
wonder what is the connection between something
like Katrina and something as wide as leading the
world in fighting AIDS and poverty but as I am ...
living in a country that sent help to the USA
during Katrina, you must understand that the USA
is somewhat of a laughing stock and is ... only
admired blindly by those countries where there is
not enough food to eat ... Everything goes to show
that the USA is done for, but nothing shows this
more than the quality of a people. As an English
professor my first lesson of the semester is
always titled "Why America is the Weakest Country
on Earth". And the answer can be found in the
"rates". By this I mean the teenage-drug-addiction
rate, the alcoholism rate, the murder rate, the
"mentally insane" rate, the divorce rate, the
percentage-of-the-population-in-prison rate and so
on and so on. You must judge a country by the
quality of its people, and the North American
people (which includes Canada and Australia [sic])
are weak marshmallows inside, as one German friend
has expressed it. So we may talk endlessly of the
strategies of warfare and this kind of thing, but
it is all secondary to the inner strength of a
people. As an endnote, I lived in China for six
years and I can tell you that the will of the
Chinese solider would shame the will of the
American solider, if "soldier" we can even call
him.
Krischer (Apr 20,
'06)
Re If it comes to a
shooting war ... [Apr 20]: Americans did not
consider the worst-case scenario at Pearl Harbor
and the results were disastrous - wow, you need to
take a history lesson. The only reason Iraq is the
way it is is because it is allowed [to be]. The
Iraqi military is long gone. It's just peons in
the fight, and if it was the old world no Iraqis
would be alive today. The pinko commie Soviets
couldn't hold Afghanistan with way more troops on
the ground [than the US] and genocide tactics.
Just think about it. If the fight was really for
Christendom like it should be, it would already be
done and Zion would be ours.
Shawn
Benjamin (Apr 20, '06)
Retired General [Victor N]
Corpus has time on his hands to ponder over a
what-if worst-case scenario [If it comes to a
shooting war ..., Apr 20]. It would be good to
[remind] him that the late New York Times
journalist [Harrison Salisbury] in the heat of
America's war in Vietnam found the time to publish
War Between Russia and
China during the years of mud-slinging between
two Communist parties claiming leadership of the
vanguard of the proletariat. He was far off the
mark even when the book appeared in 1969 and sold
well. His years as a correspondent in the Soviet
Union had so colored his vision [that] he found a
worthy opponent to [Leonid] Brezhnev's Russia in
Mao [Zedong]'s China, racked by the ravages of an
unsettling Cultural Revolution. Salisbury's
prejudices led him into the temptation of
forecasting the near future. Like most such
musings, it gives free rein to our worst fears,
and are more telling about us than anything else.
A parallel trend is seen in the outpouring of
"scary" films since the terrorists' attack on the
[New York] World Trade Center. It is important to
not forget that in history relative parallels are
false friends, for the differences in reality are
extreme.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 20, '06)
Two observations about General
[Victor N] Corpus' sedate and colorful commentary
[If it comes to a
shooting war ..., Apr 20]. First, it reads
like one of the Star
Wars movies. And secondly one can almost
visualize the Chinese equivalent of [US President
George W] Bush's " bring it on". The world does
indeed conform to the motto of what goes around
eventually does come around again. Very timely.
Armand
De Laurell (Apr 20, '06)
Perhaps Victor Corpus (If it comes to a
shooting war ... [Apr 20]) should have run a
draft of his article by his friends in the US Navy
before having it published. No admiral will place
his ships any closer to hostile fire than
necessary, and the first step would be to take out
China's radar, missile sites and air bases with
long-range cruise missiles to clear the way for
safer ship movement. Further, the bulk of the
Chinese navy could be disposed of with a
combination of cruise missiles and fire from
attack submarines, so the supposed phalanx of
untouched Chinese naval vessels is unlikely to
exist in a real battle scenario. Another
assumption that Mr Corpus makes, which may be
false, is that Chinese weapons would actually work
and could fly to their targets. If the quality of
China's best high-tech products that I have seen
recently is any indication, such an assumption is
likely false. Add to that the fact that Chinese
troops had their last combat experience in
Tiananmen Square in 1989, and the likelihood of
severe disorganization, confusion and retreat by
Chinese forces must be factored in. However, Mr
Corpus' article could serve to help prevent a
completely inept commander from making such gross
errors that even an ordinary civilian like myself
can pick them out. Michael Klare's article Containing
China: The US's real objective [Apr 20] is
based on the premise that China wishes to expand,
because without planned expansion the idea of
containment has no meaning. Mr Klare is probably
correct that China intends to expand, as we see
China attempt to position itself for an invasion
of Taiwan, a takeover of outlying Japanese
islands, and assertion of a spurious claim to
sovereignty of the entire South China Sea which is
international waters. However, Mr Klare's theory
that the US has a grand design to contain China is
laughable, because no country allows its primary
enemy the advantage of a [US]$200 billion annual
trade surplus.
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 20,
'06)
This
is with reference to Michael T Klare's brilliantly
effulgent article on the real thinking of American
strategists [Containing
China: The US's real objective, Apr 20]. In
discussing the Great Game, under a new name, we
must remember the wise words of Lord Curzon's
world view, "Whoever controls Central Asia
controls the world." China, with the help of two
nascent nuclear powers, now has access to the warm
waters of the Indian Ocean. Today China and Russia
(along with the new [potential] members of the SCO
[Shanghai Cooperation Organization] India,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran) manage half the
population of the world, and huge energy
resources. This may be of concern to those who see
China as a threat. Asia and Europe do not see
China as a threat and want to become partners with
the sleeping giant that has woken up.
[Neo-conservatism] in the United States and Europe
is on the decline. Italy, Britain, and even the
USA are moving to the center, away from the right
[wing] extremists. A wise American policy would
[be] not to drift into McCarthyism, but work with
Asia to develop a better world.
Aliphbay (Apr 20,
'06)
How
shortsighted could the Indian leadership be in the
article India to build
gas pipeline [Apr 20]? Iran is daring the
world to confront it militarily on the issue of
its nuclear and foreign [policies], which by the
the words of [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad are
interlinked. Pakistan's deepening crisis in
Balochistan has led to several attacks on
Pakistan's gas line. The crises in both these
nations are [in their] infancy, and the way the
situation is heading it is going to get much worse
before there is even a ray of sunlight. In either
case India is powerless to solve these two crises,
and India wants to invest billions on such a risky
endeavor. Where is the logic in this?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 20,
'06)
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha's
letter (Apr 19) states, responding to China-India
trade grows amid friction (Apr 19), "Even
though nations [sic] as powerful as the United
States with a US$11 trillion economy have given
such a status to China the US is currently heavily
in debt to China's government-controlled cheap
items". Wijeyasingha seems to contradict the
article factually. The article states, "Nearly 50
countries, including members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), have recognized
China as a market economy. Other countries and
regions, such as the United States and the
European Union, also have not granted
market-economy status to China." Moreover,
Wijeyasingha asserts that most Chinese exports
today are government-controlled, despite Chinese
explanation. There appears to be a dose of truth
by proclamation.
Jeff Church
USA (Apr 20, '06)
M K Bhadrakumar gives another
interesting analysis in the article China, Russia
welcome Iran into the fold [Apr 18]. Yet,
observing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) over the past three to four years, it is
clear that it is not a military alliance - though
they have conducted war games and anti-terror
exercises - nor an economic-integration model. The
Chinese leadership has proposed the latter
development, but was not greeted with enthusiasm
by Russia, which has enough to handle trying to
generate and institutionalize economic integration
via the EurAsEC (Eurasian Economic Community) and
CES (Common Economic Space). In other words,
concerning mutual defense and economic
integration, joining the SCO is not yet like
joining NATO and certainly not like joining the
EU. The SCO, however, has become over the last
several years an effective political and security
organization, though not yet a military alliance,
that allows Russia and China to together decide on
key regional issues, creating the political
"critical mass" in the region, and doing it more
effectively than the Franco-German combine
attempted to do in Europe. While [I] do not posses
Bhadrakumar's knowledge and insight into the
issue, I nevertheless would not consider the
inclusion of India and Iran as full members as a
plus to SCO ability to function effectively, a
process that only recently has become noticeable.
With India and Iran, and Pakistan (?), as full
members, the SCO might experience a loss of
nascent coherence and relative unanimity, not to
mention the potential political difficulties and
possible loss of prestige if the US decides to
eventually attack Iran. Giving the benefit of the
doubt to Russian and Chinese leaders - the
"government knows best" assumption - one can say
that they must know something we don't regarding
the direction of the SCO and the current state of
relations [among] Russia, China and India.
Leon
Rozmarin
Hopedale,
Massachusetts (Apr 20, '06)
I went to your website to read
an article on economics in Japan and thought Asia
Times [Online] might be a serious and thoughtful
publication. However, when I read your Front Page,
I quickly learned that Asia Times [Online] is just
another rag sheet dedicated to Bush-bashing and to
espousing anti-American propaganda. Maybe some day
you can graduate from a rabid sheet promoting
kooks to some serious journalism.
S E
Robinson
USA (Apr 20,
'06)
You
mean like Fox News? - ATol
With respect to the article Why the Chinese
love Seattle (Apr 19), how can the Chinese
president miss a chance to follow the footsteps of
the one-man PRA (public relations agency) of China
- the one and only "Frank from Seattle"?
Mohan
Hannover, Germany (Apr 19,
'06)
We
haven't heard from Frank since Hu Jintao arrived
in the US. Coincidence? We think not. - ATol
The demand from China to India
[for] a free-trade agreement (China-India
trade grows amid friction, Apr 19) is
premature as India's manufacturing sector isn't
fully developed. Even though nations as powerful
as the United States with a US$11 trillion economy
have given such a status to China, the US is
currently heavily in debt to China's
government-controlled cheap items. The Chinese
refuse to [revalue] the yuan and recently the US
and the EU have threatened China with tariffs if
it does not comply. If India were to give this
same status to China at this early date in Indian
manufacturing, it could possibly have even a more
negative effect than what is taking place [in]
US-China trade.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 19,
'06)
Jim
Lobe [Rumsfeld's fall
will drag down hawks, Apr 19] is waking Donald
Rumsfeld. But Mr Rumsfeld is alive and well in the
Pentagon. He has the full support of his
[commander-in-chief], President George W Bush. The
Greek chorus of retired generals foreshadows his
demise [as US defense secretary]. The jury,
however, is still out on the matter. Let us
suppose that Jim Lobe is right, and that Mr
Rumsfeld takes the new White House chief of staff
Joshua Bolten up on his offer to leave the Bush
team by year's end. This in no way spells the end
of the hawkish conduct of the war in Iraq. It is
useful to bring to Jim Lobe's [attention] two
examples from 20th-century history. One [is late
US president] Richard M Nixon's pledge to bring an
end to America's war in Vietnam. That war was
raging still into his second term as president.
The other [is the late French] General Charles de
Gaulle's strong desire to end the war in Algeria.
It took him four years of bloody warfare to arrive
at his goal. If and when Mr Rumsfeld does step
down from his post, the United States is committed
to pursuing Mr Bush and Co's goals in Iraq. To say
otherwise is sheer wishful thinking.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Apr 19,
'06)
The
commentary by Matt Woolley Know your enemy
- and yourself [Apr 18] missed the mark of
truth. In the first place, not everyone knows that
American University is Roman Catholic, so his
views are very one-sided. When that poor Christian
man in Afghanistan was being tried by his [former]
fellow Muslims for being a convert to Christianity
... if he was found guilty, he would have been put
to death - this was what happened to dissenters to
the Roman Catholic Church during its reign of
tyranny and oppression during the 1,260 ... years
it reigned over Christendom, from AD 538-1798. At
that time it used the force of the state to
sustain its institutions and enforce its decrees,
and hundreds of millions either had their property
confiscated, were exiled, or faced trial by
inquisition for heresy, and were either burned at
the stake or rotted away in some dungeon under a
church or monastery. So the Roman Catholic Church
was no better than Islam or the Taliban. Also, his
recollection of history about the [US] south and
slavery came from who knows where? Revisionist
history (very popular and taught in the schools),
I would suppose. In the first place, the Catholic
Church wanted the south to win, so that slavery
would continue, and the Catholic slave traders
could continue their shipments of slaves from a
port in Africa, on the coast of what is now called
Liberia ... Also, John Wilkes Booth was a Jesuit
under oath, who was appointed to kill our
[Americans'] beloved Abraham Lincoln, who had
emancipated the slaves, said an ex-Jesuit priest
named Alberto Rivera. Booth claimed to be against
Roman Catholics, but that was just a cover, to
take the blame off his church ... Hate-mongering
goes both ways, and if only the Roman Catholic
view is allowed, you are plunging the very minds
you are trying to enlighten into utter
darkness.
Glittering Spear
Portland, Oregon (Apr 19,
'06)
[Re Why Rumsfeld's
time is up, Apr 18] You do not understand our
DOD [the US Department of Defense]. You do not
fire a leader [who] is doing exactly as he was
instructed to do and doing it well. Our president
managed a [professional baseball] club: he is well
aware of sports, the DOD and the difference.
Hugh
Coleman (Apr 19, '06)
Re Russia, China
welcome Iran into the fold [Apr 18]: I have
been unable to confirm in any source, ie,
Xinhuanet, China Daily, Pravda, the Moscow Times
or the website of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, that full membership in the SCO was
offered to Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia. Has
full membership been accepted? This is a huge
development, but how can I confirm it? Thanks.
Bill
Boericke (Apr 19, '06)
Our sources confirm that
current "observer" SCO nations, including Iran,
will be offered full membership at the SCO
meeting in June, and that Iran has indicated that
it will accept. - ATol
Commenting on China and the
US: Moving beyond talking (Apr 17), Jakob
Cambria (letter, Apr 18) imputes the PRC [People's
Republic of China] with alleged "outright lying
when it comes to SARS" [severe acute respiratory
syndrome]. I would like to direct the readers'
attention to Professor Ken Lieberthal's
accrediting of President Hu Jintao [All Things
Considered, National Public Radio]. There has
been much more Chinese openness on infectious
diseases, as Hu has been conspicuously decisive
and instrumental in championing such openness,
through high-profile personnel changes after the
SARS outbreak.
Jeff Church
USA (Apr 19, '06)
Writing on April 11, the
editor of Asia Times [Online] concludes The world's only
supersuicide bomber with: "If indeed President
[George W] Bush agrees with Spengler [attack Iran
before it's 'too late'], Americans may decide it's
a better idea to impeach their president before
it's too late." Given the latest scenario to
attack Iran, ordinary Americans like myself may be
concerned about how late it is. Like citizens in
several Vermont towns, we may be more willing to
think about impeachment than Congress itself -
which avoids even debating the issue. But this
concern is too widely spread throughout [the
United States of] America and the world to be
ignored much longer. Central to the difficulty of
holding the American administration responsible
for the damage brought about by the war in Iraq is
the question of motive from the elected officials.
At this time, there has been no compelling
interpretation of Bush's and [Vice President
Richard] Cheney's motives. Is their action
explained by their self-interest and pursuit of
power, by the misguided intentions of zealots who
mean well but are essentially incompetent, or by
their inability to explain how their maneuverings
have left the world better off? Does their
behavior fall into a category of incompetence or
not? Worse, is it unethical/criminal? A problem in
assessing the behavior of elected officials is the
tendency for ordinary Americans to deny that such
officials, somehow wrapped in the flag of America,
could behave immorally. The rationale of denial is
something like this: No, these men may have made
mistakes, but they have only the best intentions
for the USA and the world. To criticize the office
of the president is somehow unpatriotic. The
distinction between loyalty to the country and
respect for the official is blurred, as though
anybody elected (even dubiously) could not
possibly be inept, ruinous to the country,
unpatriotic, or downright evil. A sucker may be
born every minute, but that certainly wouldn't
apply to the American electoral system. A case for
impeachment of Bush and Cheney can be made on at
least one commanding basis - their repeated,
incessant tendencies to deceive. It may be said
that deception is fine and dandy in the interests
of national security. On the other hand, deception
for political and personal gain is reprehensible.
By now there should be no sticky wicket regarding
the lies manufactured in 2002 to convince Congress
and the American people that war [against Iraq]
was necessary. It is clear that war was not
necessary, and that in the well-known phrase from
Sir Richard Dearlove in the Downing Street Memos,
"The intelligence and the facts were being fixed
around the policy." We now know that Bush and
Cheney, elected to grave responsibilities in the
highest offices of [US] governance, ignored
intelligence reports on the question of uranium
from Niger. We also know they ignored intelligence
on the mobile labs and aluminum tubes while
clinging to the view these were evidence of making
weapons of mass destruction [WMD] even after this
notion had been [disproved]. The bogus
uranium-from-Niger theory and the phony
mobile-labs and aluminum-tubes theories were kept
on well after critical opposition from
intelligence experts. Instead the president and
vice president continued to give the impression to
Congress and the American public that a grave
threat was at hand from Saddam Hussein. If they
believed this in all sincerity, despite evidence
to the contrary, their incompetent clinging to
these dangerous ideas in itself indicates they
should be removed from office. If they clung to
these ideas, manipulating and omitting information
in order to stack the deck to buttress a slanted,
unreliable policy for self-interested purposes,
then criminal charges should be brought against
them. Additional serious questions remain over the
attack on [former ambassador] Joseph Wilson, who
had done the [US] a favor by investigating the
uranium-from-Niger claim and duly reported his
findings early in 2002. It is astonishing that
despite Wilson's work - let alone the work of
General [Carlton] Fulford and others in 2002 of
corroborating the worthlessness of the Niger
theory - the president continued to promote this
falsity in his State of the Union speech in 2003.
When Wilson attempted to correct this powerful
view from the White House, Cheney and Bush
engineered a response, once again, to deceive. The
NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] was
declassified but manipulated to avoid revealing
that in itself this report showed doubt regarding
the veracity of the uranium-from-Niger accusation.
Further, maliciously, Wilson's wife was slandered
and exposed to the press, ruining her career [as a
Central Intelligence Agency operative] and
exposing her to danger. This action is even the
more derelict considering she had been working on
tracking down WMD. Whether the idea to smear
Wilson and his wife was the work of Cheney, Bush
or somebody else, or if it rose out of the heated
circumstances of an office group under attack and
arguing together, one matter is clear. Bush knew
about it and is responsible for what happened. In
the best traditions of a military commander he
should take responsibility for the actions of the
personnel in his command. As commander-in-chief
[of US armed forces], his responsibility is even
more grave. In [late US president] Harry Truman's
words, "The buck stops here." As a [US] citizen I
believe these men should be impeached. Let
Congress meet, debate, and show me - and others in
the 60% bracket who disapprove of this
administration's conduct of the war - why they
should or should not remain in office.
Peter
Bollington (Apr 19, '06)
Peter Bollington is a retired
senior citizen in the US writing occasionally to
the local and Internet press. His most recent
contribution to Asia Times Online was Making the case
vs fixing it (Jun 24,
'05). - ATol
First off, I would like to
sympathize with Mehrdad Irani [letter, Apr 18]
regarding Western meddling in Iran over the past
150 years. His feelings are completely justified.
However, what he does not realize is that Iran is
an avowed enemy of the US, and after [September
11, 2001] the US will simply not allow Iran to
possess nuclear weapons. And the more Iran screams
and yells about "cutting off the aggressor's
hands", the more it freaks out the average
American. Thus, ironically, Iran is so mortally
afraid of being attacked by the US that it is
loudly and openly pursuing nuclear weapons, which
will finally result in the US attacking Iran.
Sometimes the wisest policy means flying below the
radar. By aggressively taunting the US, Iran is
flying too high and will end up having its wings
clipped. This outcome can be avoided if Iran just
keeps quiet for a few years, and waits for [US
President George W] Bush and the neo-cons to leave
office. I would like to point out that this is not
the outcome that I desire, and that I have no
objections to Iran having nuclear technology.
However, if Iran keeps taunting the US and Israel,
they will ruthlessly bomb Iran back to the Stone
Age, despite all the big talk by [Iranian
President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad.
Jack
Seattle, Washington (Apr 19,
'06)
Re China, Russia
welcome Iran into the fold [Apr 18] by M K
Bhadrakumar: As the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation
Organization] keeps its steady progress, Western
media [have] finally stopped [their] snobbish
denigration of the potentially most important
development of this century. Faced with the
unfriendly reality, [they] opted instead to
completely ignore it. Ariel Cohen [of the Heritage
Foundation] seems to be the only American paying
attention. Still, there is no hiding it. If the
SCO does admit four observer countries, its
[members' combined] GDP [gross domestic product]
at purchasing parity will exceed that of either
the EU or the US-Canada duo, and the population of
participants will comprise some 40% of the global
total. Even though its members are not yet rich
enough to engage in redistribution politics that
glue together the European Union, and [thus]
building will have to continue for another decade
or more, it nevertheless promises to be a massive
and influential political organization. If these
disparate countries manage [to get] through the
initial stages without significant ruptures, the
SCO's mandate will inevitably expand into economic
and defense cooperation. That will eventually
nullify all the recent moves by the US to position
India as the counterweight to China. When Turkey
finally grasps that it'll never be accepted as a
full member of the EU, it'll join the SCO as well.
Ukraine will follow. One has to feel the pain of
US policymakers. With all the aces handed down to
them at the end of the Cold War turning into
jokers right in front of them, and with America's
financial overstretch rendering them unable to
punish their enemies or accommodate their friends,
they are doing the best they can trying to bluff
their way to an acceptable outcome. But with the
Iranians calling their hand by openly laughing in
their faces, it's a terrible time to be an
American strategist - particularly when your only
dependable regional vehicle left is the world's
largest and most corrupt narco-state, the very
existence of which depends on the kindness of
strangers. All in all, kudos to the author. Great
article.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Apr 18,
'06)
Re China and the
US: Moving beyond talking [Apr 18]: Professor
[Zhiqun] Zhu looks at the forthcoming meeting of
Presidents George W Bush and Hu Jintao through
rose-tinted glasses. It is a lunch during an
"official visit". It is [as] though it were an
ordinary business meeting between two CEOs who
will talk of things of concern to Washington and
Beijing. It is hardly the proper venue to come to
decisions. Dr Zhu hardly brings up the reluctance
of China to devalue a bloated yuan, which is a
sore point with the United States, the more
especially because of the ballooning of the trade
deficit with China ... There are serious issues of
governance, imbalances and inefficiencies in
China's markets. And if one has to go by Beijing's
statistics, there are more doubts, lest we forget
the Communist Party leadership's propensity to
flummery and outright lying when it comes to SARS
[severe acute respiratory syndrome] and the bird
flu. Through rapid growth, China's society is
cracking at the seams. Look at the cancer of
corruption, the growing income gap, uncontrolled
pollution, and the pauperization in the backlands,
which indicate the coming grave social crises. As
for Taiwan, Mr Hu wants to open discussion on an
equal footing. Laudable as this wish is, he has to
do more; for equality means recognizing Taiwan as
a separate state. Mr Bush will want something more
concrete from him when it comes to North Korea.
This the Chinese president cannot deliver, since
it is not in his interest to destabilize a
quixotic neighbor. True, Beijing has seemingly put
[itself] on the side of the angels in the Iran
nuclear issue. It will not act more forcefully for
fear that Iran will turn off the oil spigot.
President Hu may come with all the goodwill in
world to Washington, but an exchange of polite
words and pretty phrases is not what Mr Bush
wants. He wants the Chinese president to put his
money where his mouth is. He has had enough of
Beijing's good intentions.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Apr 18,
'06)
I felt
obligated to write when I read the article by Pepe
Escobar (The war on
Iran [Apr 13]) and other people's comments. I
like to reflect back to history, to the 1860s, of
the Qajar dynasty of Iran, when Iran was weakened
from Western imperialism. An individual named
Miraz Taghi Khan Amir Nezam, also famously known
in Iran as Amir Kabir, came to power as vizier. He
was the new hope of Iran trying to free itself
from foreign domination. His reforms benefited
Iran greatly. The nation was on the verge of
development again. But foreign powers with the
corrupt shah forced him to abdicate and later he
was executed. Since the times of Amir Kabir,
Iranians have been fighting foreign imperialism
for independence and democracy. Since the times of
Amir Kabir the West has been crushing our
[Iranians'] chances for final democracy and
independence. The democratic constitutional
revolution of 1906 (the first of its kind in the
region) was brutally crushed by the Russians. The
constitution was destroyed when the British helped
Reza Khan (later Reza Shah) to the throne. Later
when he was found too independent and rejectionist
of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, he was brought down by
invasion in World War II. [Mohammad] Mossadegh in
1953 was brought down by American and British
intelligence as they installed the despotic shah.
Any way you look at this, the West has been the
enemy of Iranian independence, freedom, and
advancement. Now it is no different. A powerful
Iran is against Western imperialist interests:
Iran should be weak and a client state of the West
in order to win acceptance in the "international
community". But that is just not the case anymore
I'm afraid; with the nuclear threats against Iran,
the West has [proved] that Iranians should never
be advanced nor free. Democracy is poison for
American imperialist ambitions for the region,
because Iranians are simply too independent and
seek advancement, thus do not like to be clients
of others. The people of the West are too
brainwashed and voiceless to stop another war (of
oil). Pro-war propaganda, such as Spengler's [Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11], represent the
schizophrenic view of the majority of the American
public. Thus I hope Iran gets its nuclear weapons
as soon as possible. Forget democratic reforms for
now, because the Western plan for Iran is
equivalent to what Genghis Khan wanted but never
achieved: the total destruction of Iranian
nationhood. As he failed, the West hopefully shall
fail as well. A perfect nuclear deterrent is
necessary for survival.
Mehrdad Irani (Apr 18,
'06)
It
looks like a compromise may be worked out between
the Vatican and the Chinese government regarding
the conduct of Catholic religious activities in
China [Beijing, the
Vatican and the Zen factor, Apr 13]. While
other great religions of the world are set up and
properly registered [in China], and are preaching
and being followed, one wonders why Catholics
should be exempted and why they are afraid to come
into the open, since all they do is to preach and
teach. If in the Western countries there were no
Protestant denominations which [were]
self-governing and not answering to the pope, it
would be foolish to expect that those governments
[would] tolerate huge blocs of Christians to be
led by clergy who serve at the pleasure of the
pope. I suspect that Joseph Zen of Hong Kong was
awarded and elevated to the rank of cardinal for
having played the Vatican line, but it is time to
change course and be more accommodating, without
the necessity of causing any more "underground"
clergy to be labeled "martyrs".
S P Li
(Apr 18, '06)
I could not help laughing
aloud reading Bare breasts and
bare-faced politics [Apr 13] by Sudha
Ramachandran on the double standards of Hindu
fundamentalists, fanatic and Hindu right-wing
parties and individuals protesting and objecting
so vehemently about the bare-bosom Indian Padminis
modeling clothes in all provocative manners ...
when so many Hindu temples in India house
licentious statues of deities engraved on walls
copulating in all possible ways and displaying
whole sets of Kama
Sutra. And why should Sudha object on any
moral grounds when these fashion parades bring
billions of dollars to the Indian economy? A long
time ago, I wrote [a letter] objecting to a
similar kind of art form and display but was so
atrociously criticized by so many ATol Hindu
writers, and was told that the lewd display of
licentious orgies of statue-deities in the Hindu
temples represent sublime art-form erotica, and am
glad that viewpoint is getting across. Hindu
fundamentalists must get their ethos cleaned and
also seriously protest nationwide against vulgar
Bollywood movies and singing-dancing videos where
the female dancers wear as little as possible and
dance around like hookers looking for customers.
In Islam, emphasis is attached to modesty in
dress: a woman is to cover all that is beneath her
neck and refrain from exposing bare flesh; and a
man must also cover himself and never [expose
himself from the] navel down. Breasts are not only
adornments of a woman's anatomy but also are sign
of her fecundity, and therefore she must not
display them for marketing garments or advertising
for commercial greed.
Saqib Khan
London, England (Apr 18,
'06)
Re Francis
Fukuyama's about-face (Apr 12) by C Mott
Woolley: [This] critique of Fukuyama vs
neo-conservatism ... is not "about the US
constitution", though it touches on it beginning
halfway through ... but people need to understand
that [James] Madison was not one of the best of the
US founders and/or framers of the constitution. On
the contrary, he was what today is a "neo-con", or
today is a "Republican", or "false Republican".
The very fact, as quoted in that opinion piece,
that Madison says in The
Federalist Papers ... that "you must ...
enable the government to control the governed", is
the antithesis of true democracy ... making true
democracy unlikely to ever truly be realized on
this Earth short of God's intervention ... Madison
was very deceived and wrong to believe that for
"government to control the governed" in the first
place, the government would "oblige it[self] to
control itself". On the contrary, that level of
"control" is completely antithetical to democracy,
or true democracy anyway, and will "oblige" the
government to not
control itself, but become more and more
tyrannical and absolutely despotic, as the US
government has become today, not only in the
national sphere but in the international sphere as
well, seeking complete national and world
domination and subjugation, very unfortunately
soon to be realized ...
S Wolf Britain
USA (Apr 18, '06)
Although I don't share much
sympathy for Spengler's writings, I think there
might a small methodological point on which I can
agree with him. He supports a US attack on Iran in
order to prevent a larger-scale conflict in the
region, if not the world [Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11]. This sounds
good to those who believe that US devastation of
non-compliant states is actually a peacekeeping
mission, or those who see Muslims as a historical
anomaly which should urgently be dealt with. But
even those who don't share this world view could
(and perhaps should) use the same logic, only for
achieving a different goal. Let's support, even
insist on, an attack on Iran. Let's lure the US
into some real trouble, let's help them
[Americans] become, as the editors have said, a
supersuicide bomber [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11]; let's help them
end their own hegemony. Damages of an attack on
Iran, and by that I mean only damages done to Iran
and everyone else who would feel under attack, are
insignificant compared [with] what would have been
achieved: a US-bullying-free world.
Mustafa
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Apr 18,
'06)
After
reading the ATol editor's article [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11], I am more proud
to be one of your readers. I believe you
simplified the consequences of bombing Iran, and
who will be the biggest loser of all. The
administration of George W Bush is teaching those
with their senses still intact that possession of
nuclear weapons by any country, even those who
regard themselves to be utterly responsible in
having them, poses a great threat to the world.
Only a madman would even make such a hint to use a
nuclear weapon to get rid of his enemy. No country
must be allowed to use any type of nuclear weapon,
or threaten any other country with it. I believe
it is not only incumbent on Americans to impeach
Bush, [but] that the world community should also
do the same before it is too late. In regard to
Spengler's piece [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4], I can deduce
from reading many of his articles that no one
displays more paranoia than Mr Spengler himself,
and his like-minds about the rise of Islam. Mr
Spengler in almost all of his [articles] makes
Islam-bashing his centerpiece, then in the end
justifies actions that have nothing to do with
Islam. Mr Spengler [quotes] a Jewish professor
that Islam is a religion with an evil god, and
that [it is] incorrigible. I would like to ask Mr
Spengler, what is the Koran (words of God) saying
that frightens you and others in your group so
much that you have to misinterpret deliberately
with such [calculated] measures? Here I [would]
like to take the opportunity to tell Mr Spengler,
no matter what your religion is, either a Jew or
Christian, once you admit the existence of God,
then you must submit yourself to him, [and] by way
of this action, you are a Muslim. Muslim simply
means ... to submit yourself to God. Islam,
contrary to how people like you try to
misinterpret [it], is a continuation of religion
of Judaism and Christianity ... In conclusion, we
all should learn more from our history and try to
understand where everyone stands to get to the
bottom of the truth [and] therefore not to allow
bigots and fanatics to make a mess out of our
world. We all live under one roof and one God who
is the creator of all things and being whose
messengers are Abraham, Noah, Isaac (Isa'aq), and
Ishmael, not to forget Jacob (Yaqub), Moses, Jesus
(Isa), and lastly Mohammed. I hope Mr Spengler and
others who beat the drum of war would submit
themselves to God and become great servants for
him to protect life and limbs, things and beings;
not to burn them into ashes. It is the devil's
ambition to annihilate humanity and the world
through such people with evil nature, proxies of
Satan on Earth.
M Hashemi
Dallas, Texas (Apr 18,
'06)
This
is with reference to your excuses printed in The world's only
supersuicide bomber [Apr 11]. Your inane
apology for propagating the Islamophobic bigotry
and hate speech of Spengler does not hold any
water. Hate speech is not protected by the
American constitution or the United Nations. In
the interest of publishing many points of view
would you also publish the bigoted and nonsensical
balderdash of David Duke? If you ever did publish
the Duke twaddle, your anti-Semitism would be
slapped with so many lawsuits that it would make
your head spin, and this would probably be your
last publication anywhere. You do not publish
writers who spew venom against Taoism, Hinduism,
Judaism, Buddhism, or Christianity; however you do
allow your bigots to spew venom against Islam, one
of the greatest religions of our time. In this
open hunting season on Islam, the only reason you
allow bigots like Spengler to get away with
Islamophobic nonsense is because your esteemed
publication supports Islamophobia and does not see
anything wrong with being Islamophobic. Case in
point, you wish your readers a happy Easter, and
even a happy Thai new year, but do not wish your
Muslim readers and writers on the birthday of the
Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). I don't have any problem
with your hateful writers criticizing Muslims, but
I do have a serious problem with your bigoted
writers attacking the great religion of Islam.
ATol should publish a public apology to all 1.3
billion Muslims, move away from bigotry and stick
to news and analysis. In any case, may God bless
you!
Moin Ansari (Apr 18,
'06)
One
man's bigotry is another man's (or woman's)
analysis. You know as well as we do that, for
example, any article that Zionists deem to be
critical of Israeli policies in Palestine gets
branded as "anti-Semitic", and such pieces appear
often on ATol. For more on the thin skin of
certain religionists, see Why can't
Muslims take a joke? (Feb 7). As for our Thai new
year salutations last week, they were merely a
gesture of courtesy to the hosts of our Thailand
Bureau, where the Letters page is edited. We are
all the same under the sun (and moon), and
Songkran coincides more or less with Easter. - ATol
Greek mythology contains a
creature called Hydra that has nine heads. One of
these heads is immortal and indestructible. The
other eight have the property that if you cut one
of them off, two more will grow in its place. This
creature serves as a convenient metaphor for the
growth of Islamic fundamentalism in recent years.
The fringe elements of Islam had always been with
us, preaching deen, ummah,
khalifat, and jihad against the kafir, but they did not
find many sympathetic ears. The difference between
then and now is that they are now finding
sympathetic ears. The more we try to destroy them,
the more rational their message sounds; and the
more rational their message sounds, the more
sympathetic ears they find; and the more
sympathetic ears they find, the stronger they get.
This is the paradox of fighting Islamic extremism
head-on. The very act of fighting them gives grist
to their otherwise unreal message about global
jihad against the kafir. The war on terror
by George Bush has achieved these results on a
global scale. He may win the war with al-Qaeda,
but that will only cause many new al-Qaeda-like
organizations to take its place. In Pakistan, the
attack by President [General Pervez] Musharraf's
military on hitherto unknown fringe extremist
elements has given rise to armed rebellion and the
growth of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the
nation. The arrest of two of the leaders of JMJB
[Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh], an Islamist
organization in Bangladesh, has not uprooted
jihadist fundamentalism in the country but instead
has catalyzed the rapid growth in membership and
strength of other fringe groups with a similar
message. The more we fight them the more reason we
provide for their existence.
Cha-am
Jamal
Thailand (Apr 18,
'06)
How
many more deaths and heartache does our human race
need to endure before we can find that people of
all nations can live together in harmony? When
will the extremists ever learn that violence only
breeds more violence and this cycle of death and
destruction will never end? If they want their
generation and the next generations to find ways
to live in peaceful co-existence, they will have
to use their genuine desire for peace and
understanding through non-violent means, to
forgive and [be] ready to forget the ... violence
and destruction done by their forebears. This is
our only way to reach those in pain, to heal all
the wounds, so we can melt all the guns and give a
new world where we can live together as one.
Dr
Supong Limtanakool
National Broadcasting
Commission designate
Thailand (Apr 18, '06)
There has been a spate of
excellent articles on the ATol site recently and I
send kudos to many of the ATol contributors, but
it's Pepe Escobar's reference to George Orwell's
Nineteen Eighty-Four in
The war on
Iran (Apr 13) that prompted me to write. A few
years ago, when the Bush Jr cabal kicked into high
gear, I actually had to reread Orwell's book so
that I could get clear in my mind what was the
disgusting reality of the current Bush Jr
administration and what I remembered of the
Orwellian fantasy. In the decades before the year
1984, we students studied Orwell's novel and
imagined it as a portrait of a future evil
communist state. That's propaganda for you. How
horribly ironic to find that Orwell's novel has
turned out to be a prescient portrait of the Bush
reality in the USA today. Fantastically,
[President George W] Bush has managed to twist the
letters d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y to spell f-a-s-c-i-s-m.
He has managed to turn noble concepts like liberty
and freedom into things that are vile and dirty.
The names of government departments, legislative
documents, and war campaigns are all dripping with
ironic black humor. Under this US administration
truth is malleable, a momentary convenience, and
history is rewritten just like in the world of Big
Brother. With the propaganda machines in high
gear, paranoia turns everyone into the enemy. I
sometimes wonder, with all the recent buzz about
the history and philosophy of the neo-conservative
movement in the USA, whether the neo-conservatives
didn't just steal a page from Orwell. I wonder if
there could be a lawsuit in this [as with] The Da Vinci Code?
Although I suspect Orwell's estate would probably
win this one.
Jonathan
UK (Apr 17, '06)
Re The war on
Iran [Apr 13] by Pepe Escobar: Your article
referencing US intentions with Iran was
informative, but it presupposes US action as an
effort to engage in war with all of Asia. The US
entered Iraq because neo-cons firmly believe a US
presence on the ground is necessary to ensure
vital economic resources remain available to the
world market. It is not colonialism, it certainly
is not for our [US] financial benefit - as you see
the drain on US blood and treasure. To assume
[that] some "energy grid" between
China-Russia-India and the Middle East is of some
worry to us, with our access to our own oil,
Mexican oil, South American oil, Canadian oil and
the continued development of hybrid technologies,
is absurd. The US will engage radical Islam
because radical Islam declared war on us. I am
only sorry the rest of the world is so jealous of
the US that they do not support our efforts to
protect civilization. The Chechens continue to
attack in Russia - why? Radical Muslims are
anarchists and need to be defeated. We should all
be working together to defeat radical Islam,
protect global economic distribution. Good luck
with your world against the US mentality. I
wouldn't bet on its success.
Steve
Rodriguez (Apr 17, '06)
Re The war on
Iran [Apr 13]: It seems to me active conflict
and a clash between Iran and the West in the
[Persian] Gulf is inevitable. How soon it will
happen depends which side has the guts and takes
the initiative to seize the most suitable moment.
I personally think that if Iranians feel that
West's over-consumption in Iraq, the Afghan
insurgency's spring offensive and prospective
assistance from Iraqi Shi'ites and their personal
defense capability bring the best time on their
side, then they should take the initiative to
start saber-rattling, forcing the Americans to
strike and get sucked [in] instead of waiting for
the latter to strike at time of their own
choosing. The advantage for the Iranians in
starting the clash now will be that it is likely
to turn the direction of conflict in Iraq and
focus it against Iran's enemy and therefore help
Iran, as long as Iran is prepared for the time
being to be content with its own territory for the
advancement of the Shi'ite cause and is not
looking across the borders. The clash between West
and Iran is bound to happen in the coming
months/years for survival, dominance and control
in the region if that's what this is all about (as
it actually is), and the side with better chances
of advantage will be the side with better choice
of timing.
Rashid Hassan (Apr 17,
'06)
Pepe
Escobar's The war on
Iran (Apr 13) is a provocative and rigorous
analysis of the possible consequences of [a] US
attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. I agree with
his analysis, but some issues need to be clarified
and put in a logical order. Asian countries will
not support Iran in case of a US attack, given the
fact that all rich Asian countries, including
China, know and understand that US imperialist
activities in the Middle East are aiming at
controlling oil and consequently dominating the
rest of the world, including all Asian countries.
This should not be interpreted that these Asian
nations are cowardly ... A similar argument can be
used to analyze Russia's role. Russia is watching
the eventuality of US activities, and if this
eventuality turns out to be against the
expectations of the United States of America,
Russia can make its political move, generating
more wealth and power diplomatically (without
firing bullets) at the expense of other nations'
misery. With respect to the Iraqi situation,
historical and recent data do indicate that all
social and political groups in Iraq will be
against the imperialist occupation of their
country, and mullah [Muqtada] al-Sadr's situation
is the fundamental core of my point. Sadr tries to
establish a coherent and a united country against
the US occupation. In other words, whether Iran
will be attacked or not, the Iraqis whether
unified or not will fight the occupation, because
culturally those people do not like to submit to
imperialist domination. In any event, the
mechanism and objectives of this possible
imperialist adventure are very simple and obvious.
Whatever the Pentagon will do to Iran and whatever
happens to the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices will
rise tremendously and oil corporations will make
huge profits at the expense of people's death and
misery. By the same token, the American military
complex will receive billions of dollars from the
United States government to produce new weapons
and other military hardware, and the Chinese,
Indians, and other Asian and Middle Eastern
governments will keep financing these payments, as
they continue to purchase Uncle Sam's government
securities. In a way these foreign governments do
share responsibility of the death and misery of
other people, because they receive higher interest
payments stamped with people's blood. Therefore,
Mr Escobar needs to elevate his analysis by taking
the previous analytical argument seriously.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Apr 17, '06)
Pepe Escobar has written some
ridiculous things, but to state that Russia, India
and China believe that Iran does not have the
desire to possess nuclear weapons (The war on
Iran, Apr 13), because ayatollah [Ruhollah]
Khomeini issued a fatwa
to this effect in 1979 - well, this is the
absolute height of ludicrousness. How can anybody
write such trash? The editors need to rein him in.
Todd Beneke (Apr 17,
'06)
[M K]
Bhadrakumar's article End of story:
Israel triumphant [Apr 13] is insightful,
particularly when one realizes that most of Middle
Eastern oil lies in Shi'ite areas, even in Sunni
Saudi Arabia and most other Gulf states. Having
influence on the Shi'ites of the oil-rich areas is
a step towards having control of the resources.
Therefore, it appears that Iran and its influence
on the other Shi'ites in the area are being
contained.
Partha
Australia (Apr 17, '06)
I read the op-ed by M K
Bhadrakumar [End of story:
Israel triumphant, Apr 13] with great
interest. It may be true that Israel shares a
strategic interest with the United States in
preventing Iran from developing into a regional
power. But his thesis is extremely shortsighted.
It completely ignores other nations' interests in
keeping Iran out of the nuclear club, including Mr
Bhadrakumar's country of origin, India. And let us
not allow Mr Bhadrakumar to cast Iran as a
peace-loving nation: It funds terrorism not only
in Lebanon (where it contributes to that country's
continued difficulties) and Israel, but around the
globe. Finally, Iran's president does not help
others' view of his country as a terrorist nation
when he undiplomatically calls for Israel's
"annihilation". I wonder how Mr Bhadrakumar would
feel if a radical head of China did the same to
India over their long-simmering border dispute; I
bet he would appeal to the Unites States to
intervene then. The world, including every nation
in the Middle East (Muslim or not), would be
better off without a nuclear Iran.
Itamar
J Yeger
Rockland
County, New York (Apr 17, '06)
M K Bhadrakumar gives an
outstanding and concise explanation of what the
USA and Israel are trying to accomplish together
[End of story:
Israel triumphant, Apr 13]. But he leaves
unsaid, maybe because he doesn't want to sound
more than disinterested, how much the leaders of
both American political parties have blundered so
far by letting Christian fundamentalists and
Zionists set the USA's foreign policy. It's hard
for an American to seem even-handed in commenting
on these matters, since American Zionists are more
extreme than their Israeli counterparts in
spreading fear to raise money for Israel, to keep
American politicians in line and to paint their
opponents as being card-carrying anti-Semites.
Foreigners may think all American Jews are
Zionists, but if it weren't for Seymour Hersh, who
happens to be Jewish, we'd never find out ahead of
time what disasters our political leaders have
been planning for us. Looking at the anti-war camp
by ethnic group, odds are that an unusually high
proportion of American Jews were against our [US]
going into Iraq and are now against our attacking
Iran. But ultimate power lies with freaks of
religiosity: namely, Christians like [President
George W] Bush who are awaiting their so-called
rapture, the imminence of which makes futile any
effort to make peace, to contain global warming or
to save for a rainy day that's more than a year or
two away.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Regarding your [Apr 13]
article A rush to the
Taliban's call, [Syed Saleem] Shahzad failed
to mention that the Islamic terrorists who up
until now were fighting in Kashmir were trained
and equipped by the Pakistani intelligence and
military. Now they have joined the Taliban and the
tribes of Waziristan to fight the Pakistani
soldiers in a battle with far deadlier
consequences than the battle with Indian troops in
Kashmir. Though Mr Shahzad likes to sprinkle blame
on the US throughout his article, it is the
Pakistani-trained terrorists who have are now
fighting Islamabad. The rapidly growing battle
between the Pakistani military and the tribes of
Waziristan could eventually lead to the
balkanization of Pakistan, and Pakistan's leaders
are singularly to blame. Pakistan created a
poisoned sword by training terrorists to fight in
Kashmir; now that sword has become a double-edged
poisoned sword. On one end it stands to lose the
battle in Kashmir as these terrorists are
migrating to Waziristan, and on the other end of
the sword Pakistan is now fighting to keep its
territory intact in the Waziristan region. What
the Pakistan leadership has sown by training these
terrorists [it is] now reaping ... as they have
turned their [onetime] benefactor into an
enemy.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 17,
'06)
This
letter refers to the article King Gyanendra,
it's time to bow down by Dhruba Adhikary that
appeared in your online edition on April 13.
Adhikary has no doubt very successfully delineated
the political scenario of Nepal in such a short
write-up. I must congratulate him for being so
bold [as] to point out how King Gyanendra has, on
several occasions, resorted to such actions that
do not conform to the assurances he made to the
people publicly. People's aspirations for peace
have become a handy weapon for Nepal's political
actors who simply want to perpetuate their hold on
power. Adhikary appears to be too optimistic
towards King Gyanendra's future moves and has been
somewhat lenient towards the monarch in the hope
that the latter would come out of the rotten
cocoon of the feudalistic society which has always
been advocating monarchical absolutism taking
recourse to Hindu philosophy. As witnessed so far,
Gyanendra is not going to be moved by the
deteriorating plight of the people. The trauma and
trepidations that the Nepalese have been subjected
to for over 14 months now are insignificant for a
megalomaniac king like him. He will let the
country go to dogs, but will continue to lean
heavily on the shoulders of the political
hardliners advocating absolute monarchy. This pack
consists of Dr Tulsi Gir, Kirtinidhi Bishta, Kamal
Thapa, Shris Rana, Satchit Rana, and so on. These
are the people who oppose any political move
towards political reforms, if it would limit their
proximity to the power corridors.
Raj Man
Damai
Kathmandu, Nepal
(Apr 17, '06)
Mike Davis [The poor man's
air force, Apr 13] writes, "[the car] bomb is
the ultimate cheap, low-tech weapon, used to sow
terror by fanatical Jews, Christians, Hindus, and
Muslims, by French colonials, the Mafia, the Irish
Republican Army and the CIA". He goes on to list
places like Palestine, Belfast, Afghanistan and so
forth as places it has been used extensively.
Fine. Two things stand out by their absence.
First, he fails to mention places [where]
terrorists professing the name of Islam have used
this as a weapon to subjugate people of
non-Islamic faith. The second pertains to his use
of word "Hindu" in his opening statement. Is the
author aware of any example where the so-called
Hindu extremists have used this to inflict
casualties in predominantly Muslim or Christian
countries?
Rocky (Apr 17,
'06)
Re Beijing, the
Vatican and the Zen factor [Apr 13]: Henry of
Navarre thought Paris was worth a mass for the
crown of France. Pope Benedict through his
intermediary Joseph Cardinal Zen may very well be
willing to settle for a [Gallic] solution with
Beijing. The kings of France would suggest clergy
for bishoprics and the Vatican would in more cases
than naught acquiesce. And so heal the breach
between the Catholic brethren loyal to a
communist-controlled clergy and the underground
Catholic Church, long suffering and martyred since
1949.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 17, '06)
Referring to Sudha
Ramachandran's article Bare breasts and
bare-faced politics [Apr 13], it's not clear
what she would like politicians to do instead: not
respond to concerns that people have? It is
precisely the political process that needs to
mediate between the "old India" of mostly
conservative mores and the "new India", with its
more globalized attitudes. The alternative would
be for matters to be settled in the street in the
normal Indian way, meaning riots. Note that I'm
not commenting one way or another on whether
"wardrobe malfunctions" should be punished, but on
the author's attitude that the issues are trivial
and the answers are well known to all
right-thinking people. India has to evolve its own
balance in dealing with such issues, not a
time-lag copy of other countries' attitudes. Also,
it's good to keep politicians focused on such
issues, and away from economic issues, such as
poverty, where the best they can do is shuffle
existing resources, and the worst they can do is
disturb the current momentum that's actually
creating wealth, and will hopefully reduce or
eliminate such distressing poverty altogether.
Jonnavithula "Jon"
Sreekanth
Acton,
Massachusetts (Apr 17, '06)
Jim Lobe's article Bush: Method in
the madness? [Apr 12] postulates that recent
stories coming out saying the White House is
wanting to use nuclear weapons against Iranian
sites is just a ploy - a ploy based on
observations by sane and coherent persons that [US
President George W] Bush is irrational, and that
the White House is playing upon this to scare Iran
into stopping its legitimate nuclear-enrichment
program. I agree that Bush and his neo-con pals
[who] have infested the White House and Pentagon
are irrational. Some might even go so far as to
say they are mad. To think that this is only a
strategic move in a game of nuclear chess is
grossly underestimating the arrogance and
unbridled power of the Bush White House. Back in
2004, senior British officers took part in a
Pentagon war game [called] Hotspur 2004. The game
- so innocuous-sounding - was based on a
fictitious Middle East country called Korona. The
country's border corresponded exactly with Iran's
and the characteristics of the enemy were Iranian.
Since this war scenario probably involved using
nuclear weapons, how fitting that the country's
name was a spoof on the word "corona". The heat of
the sun's corona is around 1 million degrees
Centigrade, not unlike the hellish heat of a
nuclear blast. Add in the news story ... that the
US had recently given Israel nuclear submarines
armed with Dolphin nuclear-tipped missiles and the
reports of White House irrationally don't seem
like a bluff, but part of a well-planned strike on
Iran - a strike touted as retaliation against Iran
for some type of attack upon the US or its Middle
East master, Israel. This attack used as an excuse
for the bombing campaign will be a staged and
bogus one by American confederates, similar to the
one [Adolf] Hitler used against Poland, thereby
enabling the start of World War II. And don't even
give credence to any Bush administration
spokesperson discounting the nuclear option. If
there's one thing the White House and its lackeys
are good at [it] is lying, as their record of the
last five years clearly shows. Another White House
characteristic is their collective refusal to
engage in talks with other nations and parties
that they are threatening. Their spin machine
sends out doctored stories about the threats posed
by the regime they're wanting to oust and how,
after numerous diplomatic overtures, the only
option left is military force. Nothing could be
further from the truth. In the summer of 2003,
Bush refused to engage the Sunnis and Ba'athists
in talks that could have prevented the current
Iraqi bloodbath. Now, Iranian officials are trying
to engage the Bushies in talks, and again, the
hardened hotheads at the White House are keeping
silent. Add to this Bush being an evangelical
Christian fundamentalist - those folks who eagerly
look forward to Armageddon - and the recipe is one
for disaster. These days, modern medicine can
offer serious help, if not a cure, for a person
afflicted by insanity, or who hears voices. But if
that person's mind is also ravished by messianic
visions, then there is no cure, since that one
feverishly believes God is talking to him and
giving directions. And if that same person has at
his control over 10,000 nuclear weapons, then not
[only] Iran but the entire world in in danger of
annihilation.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (Apr 17,
'06)
As a
reader who was first directed to ATol because of
Spengler's weekly column, it is distressing to see
such vitriol directed against one of the more
original and entertaining columnists available
online or in print. I am pleased to see that ATol
is not caving in to calls for censorship of
Spengler's views [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11]. Indeed, doing so
would have been a sort of "supersuicide bomb" for
ATol itself, since it would simultaneously remove
a major draw from your publication and diminish
respect for ATol's editorial independence and
vibrancy of opinion. It is instructive that a
firestorm of criticism arose in the Letters
section in response to Spengler's September 22,
2001, article Washington's
racism and the Islamist trap. In this
instance, Spengler's pessimism about American
strategy called forth negative reactions from the
(relatively small) pro-American contingent of ATol
readers - this being in the wake of a major
crisis, the September 11 attacks and the
prospective US response. Those negative reactions
and calls for retraction were foolish; Spengler's
opinion provided an interesting perspective on the
situation, agree or not. I noted no complaint from
the current crop of letter writers when Spengler
was critiquing American policy in a controversial
way. Now, writing about a prospective US strike on
Iran, Spengler has angered the (much larger)
anti-American contingent of ATol readers. Calls
for censure from both sides of the aisle are often
the mark of an independent thinker. Spengler
serves as a robust corrective to the bulk of
opinion pieces published by ATol, which tend to
mirror the larger anti-US contingent's viewpoints
and theories. This adds interest and credibility
to ATol. I do not agree with most of Henry C K
Liu's paleo-Marxist economic theories, but I
respect his intellect and right to spin them. The
choice is mine to read and critique them, or not
to read them and spare myself the trouble. Either
way, the choice is mine, and ATol need not
apologize or justify itself to me. Spengler's
columns are more trenchant (not to mention more
concise) than Mr Liu's, but the same is true. ATol
need not apologize or justify itself to its
readers who disagree. Calls for censorship or
censure should be rejected out of hand - for
reasons both practical and principled - and I
applaud ATol for doing so.
Nathaniel J Reinsma,
Esq
Oak Brook, Illinois
(Apr 17, '06)
Regarding The world's only
supersuicide bomber [Apr 11]: You wrote that
article from a point of view outside the US
looking in as a disinterested observer. Now, [here
is] a point of view in the US looking out at Iran.
(1) A terrorist who held our embassy staff hostage
until [US president Ronald] Reagan was sworn into
office is [now] president of Iran. (2) Iran used
its Republican Guard and is agents Hezbollah to
cause the US and its citizens many terror losses
since the shah fell. Lebanon alone comes to mind.
(3) Iran attacked our navy near the end of the
Iran-Iraq War, leading to operation Earnest Will.
(4) Iran is still harboring al-Qaeda elements
wanted for [the attacks of September 11, 2001] and
other terror attacks against the US people. (5)
Iran has been calling for "death to America"
forever ... We didn't believe Osama [bin Laden]
when he made similar calls and September 11
resulted. Now Iran tends to carry out threats and
is much more powerful in forces, people, money and
terrorists (including Hezbollah) than al-Qaeda
was. So, are we to assume that Iran is only
talking trash and doesn't intend to wreak harm on
the US or its people? If this assumption is wrong
and they [Iranians] are dead serious, what will
the rest of the world do to make it up to the US
for leading them down a primrose path? If the
answer is seen in the UN's behavior today (an
anti-American place if there ever was one), well,
I will just as soon take a pass on that advice. If
you can come up with some advice that provides
safety to the US people I am willing to listen.
Morris
Farley
Chicago,
Illinois (Apr 17, '06)
Apparently at least one
high-ranking Arab diplomat - a Saudi prince yet! -
implicitly disagrees with your contra-Spengler
analysis on the unfolding slow-motion Cuban
missile crisis of our day (The world's only
supersuicide bomber [Apr 11]): See this recent
report of the Saudi Arabian ambassador [to the
United States'] public praise for Israel's 1981
strike on Iraq's French-built Osirak nuclear
reactor. Ten years after the attack on Osirak,
then-defense secretary [Richard] Cheney - now vice
president - reportedly gave Israeli Major-General
David Ivri, then the commander of the Israeli air
force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear
reactor destroyed by US-built Israeli aircraft. On
the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the
outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in
1981." As usual, Spengler is right - logically,
morally and realpolitikly - better several
thousand dead in 2006 (they've been warned!) than
hundreds of thousands, or millions, in 2012 (per
Twelver Ahmadegeddon, or whatever his name is -
we've been warned!). Remember, only one life was
lost in the Osirak attack ...
Richard
Greene
USA (Apr 17,
'06)
In
response to your article The world's only
supersuicide bomber [Apr 11], I would like to
add one more name to your list of propaganda
vehicles: CNN. I would put CNN at the top of the
list. Every time I see CNN it looks as if I am
watching Western propaganda (if not full
American).
Sandeep Khurana
India (Apr 17, '06)
Apropos Spengler's Bush's October
surprise - it's coming [Apr 11], I would like
to draw your attention to the old Persian tale of
Ali Golabi (Pear-shaped Ali), which was quoted by
an analyst recently. Ali Golabi is a small chap
with big ambitions. The bigger chaps in the
neighborhood dismiss him as a midget, bully him
whenever they can, and never offer him a seat at
the table in the teahouse that is their haunt. So
what does Ali Golabi do? He goes around waving a
big knife, making a big noise, breaking a window
here and there, and occasionally even strangling a
street cat to show his strength. His agitations
annoy the big chaps, who want to sip their tea,
puff their hookahs and play a game of backgammon
in peace. Nevertheless, Ali knows when and where
to stop. As soon as the big chaps come out of the
teahouse to confront him, he declares that he has
already done whatever he wanted to do and is now
ready not to do it
again. This helps to ease tension and gets Ali off
the hook - until the next showdown. Who the
modern-day Ali Golabi is is anybody's guess.
Ajith
Kumar
Sharjah, UAE
I would like to comment on the
discussion revolving around Spengler. I have read
a few his articles and I soon realized I did not
care much for his opinions. So I just don't read
Spengler anymore. However, I think it is great
they are published along with articles that hold
opposite views. That is exactly what is missing in
the media landscape, mainstream or alternative
alike. I just have to disagree with those of you
who think that is a bad idea. I think it is a
great idea that allow for a more dynamic view of
world affairs.
JM
Sweden (Apr 17, '06)
Re Indian jet
purchase hangs on nuclear deal [Apr 11]:
Though this article is primarily focused on
India's defense spending, I am surprised to note
that the author is too skeptical about the deal.
Anyone who is closely watching the nuclear deal
between India and the US would have noticed a
striking similarity in this issue. In India,
initially, it was BJP [the Bharatiya Janata Party]
which proposed the deal but later the ruling
Congress party pushed it more vigorously. The BJP,
as an opposition party, which didn't like to see
the Congress party scoring a point, criticized the
deal, saying that India is budging under American
pressure and they will put a cap on the Indian
nuclear arsenal. But when the D-Day came they
realized that they cannot always think as
politicians and on some issues they must [make] a
decision on national interest; hence finally they
backed the deal. In the US too it was Democrats
who advocated a good relationship with India but
it is President [George W] Bush who is making an
all-out effort to woo India. And it is quite
natural that Democrats are criticizing the deal,
citing this or that danger, but I predict a
similar result. I firmly believe that in
democratic countries foreign policy cannot be
changed at the whim and fancy of some individual
leader. Unless there is a broad understanding
between Republican and Democrats in the US,
Congress and BJP in India, Bush and [Prime
Minister] Manmohan Singh wouldn't dare to [break]
this deal.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Apr 17,
'06)
Re Shanghai: Land
of the rising trapezoid [Apr 8]: When I saw
the pictures of the new Shanghai skyscrapers I
asked myself if the Chinese culture is aware of a
gadget called a "bottle
opener".
D Busse
Germany
This letter is with reference
to Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia [Apr 4] by Spengler.
Neither would I doubt Spengler's objective
analysis and intellectual integrity nor would I
oppose the humanitarian replies by [readers]. I
would look into the matter from the perspective of
a Pashtun who is living in a cultural no-man's
land between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Spengler's
account is not all about "an aerial attack". What
Spengler tries to convey is a bitter reality of
our times, that more than one-fifth of the world's
population is paranoid and posing a threat to
global peace. The set of arguments a Muslim
carries in his mind remains the same whether he is
living in the post-modern West or in the primitive
tribal setup near the Durand Line. All of them
share the same paranoia, though like two sides of
the same coin. The question is, why this paranoia?
The answer is thoroughly addressed by Spengler.
What I try to add is that Islam is not a kind of
cultural identity and civilization that all the
Muslims suppose. And I think this is the biggest
paranoia. For a Muslim living in Western cultures
or civilization, this paranoia results in an
identity crisis, while in societies like ours, the
Muslims suffer from the worst kind of alienation.
The resultant hatred is against the Americans who,
according to the Muslims, are wrongly occupying
the place that has actually been assigned to the
Muslims ... So what is the solution? In my humble
opinion: (1) Help societies like ours to regain
our lost cultural identities. (2) Assimilate the
Muslim immigrants without any racial, cultural or
any other kind of prejudice.
Pashtun
Friend
No-man's land
between Pakistan and Afghanistan (Apr 17,
'06)
I
cannot resist giving Spengler a word of advice:
Read Rene Guenon and friends. Oswald Spengler was,
in a word, quite shallow. If you have read
Guenon's critique of the West, which makes even
[Friedrich] Nietzsche look like a schoolboy, and
still write the way you do, than you are - sorry -
simply an idiot, and if you haven't discovered him
by now, then you are still to blame.
Krischer (Apr 17,
'06)
Letter
writer Jakob Cambria may have excelled in his
literature and poetry classes. However, the guy
suffers from some kind of "intellectual
schizophrenia". His daily babblings and rants are
incoherent and he never bothers to answer his
critics or defend his positions when challenged.
Needless to say, such a defense will be quite a
task considering that he is self-contradictory and
deluded.
Roy
USA (Apr 17, '06)
I hope that I can use this
Letters section to answer some questions from
readers [of my letters]. First, I never claimed
that China has a better situation than India. Both
are Third World countries struggling for equality
to the West. What I am laughing about are the
attitudes of those elite Indians. Those elite
Indians who "work in modern offices with a decent
salary and great perks" are nothing but the modern
coolies or servants to the white masters. Indian
IT [information technology] servants cannot
develop anything that may challenge their master's
dominance. White masters only outsourced those
simple, tedious, high-school-level jobs to Indian
elite college graduates. However, those India
elites are proud of themselves simply because they
are closer to their white masters than those real
Indian coolies who live in the slum. Their
disgusting and pathetic attitudes are amusingly
closer to their ancestors'. That may explain why
India was repeatedly colonized by others in
history. Today, Indians and Chinese are all in the
same boat. Instead of using our less fortunate
siblings in India or in China to gauge a single
individual's temporary success or intimacy to
masters, we should have more sympathies to them.
Otherwise, we will be conquered by a new master
again. There are many Chinese who have the same
attitude as those Indian servants. Fortunately
they are not elites in China ...
Frank
of Seattle
Washington,
USA (Apr 17, '06)
I have not read the Asia Times
[Online] magazine in several years. I just
stumbled across your online site. It is still full
of the same old anti-non-Asian material. In your
minds China can do no wrong. Why [are] there no
critical reports on China for its human-rights
abuses (massive executions, jailing writers, so on
and so on)? Oh, I know why, because the communists
run the show in Hong [Kong] now and you folks do
not have free speech. I challenge you just even
once to write a critical article about the
government of China. Long live freedom and
democracy, both of which originated in the West
over 3,000 years ago in Greece.
Eric
Hsu (Apr 17, '06)
China's human-rights record is
more than adequately covered by other media,
including the Hong Kong mainstream press. We cover
it when it needs to be covered - ie, if it appears
that other media are missing an angle or are being
overwhelmed by anti-China spin from the West or
the Hong Kong pro-democracy lobby. See China to 'kill
fewer, kill carefully' (Mar 31). - ATol
Last [week] on the television
news they were announcing that five American
servicemen had been killed in Iraq that day. The
following story was about how the woman who had
been voted as Miss Iraq had given up her title
because of threats against her life and statements
that she was "Queen of the Infidels" because she
was a Christian woman. My question is, how do we
as Christian Americans justify our servicemen and
women dying in Iraq so that they can have a
democracy while at the same time the Iraqi people
despise Christians? Is Christian blood only good
to be spilled? I truly believe it's time to bring
home our military from Iraq and let them [Iraqis]
settle their own petty disputes between the
warring groups and let the chips fall where they
may.
Gilbert Snodgrass
Sylacauga, Alabama (Apr 17,
'06)
To the
ATol team: May this new year be a source of
health, wisdom and happiness. Thank you for what
you are doing.
Dr Bittar Jivasattha (Apr 17,
'06)
C Mott
Woolley is sanguine in assessing Francis
Fukuyama's about-face [Apr 12]. A closer
reading of Professor Fukuyama's writing might
question lawyer Woolley's assessment. As far as
one can judge, Dr Fukuyama has not abandoned his
conservative principles but challenges the
prevailing wisdom of today's shoot-from-the-hip
neo-conservatives like William Kristol ... He is a
fiscal conservative who sees an expanding federal
budget by pork-barrel Republicans in Congress and
a spendthrift Bush administration as failing their
professed conservative credentials. Dr Fukuyama is
not a camp follower; he is a thoughtful man for
whom ideas and their consequences have meaning. He
does not trivialize them, nor does he peddle them
like a snake-oil salesman. Woolley would do him
more credit if he did indeed pay attention to the
consistent thread of logic in Dr Fukuyama's
thought.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 12, '06)
In case you haven't noticed,
our mysterious quasi-philosopher friend Spengler
[Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11] uses the space
given to him here to proselytize; I honestly don't
know how else can you describe his constant
bashing of Islamic beliefs and practices (which
are usually "supported" by either factual
inaccuracies or gross misinterpretations, and
sometimes even obviously deliberate omissions of
important facts), while simultaneously doing
everything in his power to "prove" the
"superiority" of Christianity over Islam, and
every other "heathen" belief. Do you have/what is
your policy on this?
Mustafa
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Apr 12,
'06)
Pros-e-ly-tize: 1. To
induce someone to convert to one's own religious
faith. 2. To induce someone to join one's own
political party or to espouse one's doctrine.
Fifty percent of our writers proselytize, though
mostly in the sense of definition 2 above, and 25%
of those are Muslims. Regarding definition 1, our
policy is to respect all religious beliefs. Where
religion and politics are conflated, as they are
in much of the Muslim world and in the US under
President George W Bush, political comment is
permitted. - ATol
Spengler's Bush's October
surprise - it's coming (Apr 11) is using the
workable model in American politics in that if an
American president has a domestic problem, the
answer is a war or bombing of another country to
rally the American people behind him. This
imperialist model has been very effective and
operational, whether in American politics or in
other imperialist countries under condition of
imperfect information. Spengler is correct in
invoking this imperialist model, because this
model is also very compatible with patriotic
people, and Americans are very patriotic and
defend their country at any given time. But once
they realize that they were fooled by the
incumbent president's actions and policies, they
will let him know in the public polls and at the
ballots. I am sure President George W Bush knows
that very well. In other words, there will be a
bubble for the president's performance if he does
decide to attack Iran, but this bubble will be
transitory and American people will not support it
in the short and the long run if hostilities
intensify. My concern about the idea of using
tactical nuclear bombs is that terrorists and
rogue wealthy states may purchase these bombs and
use them against us. I disagree with Spengler's
description of American people, because they
really work hard and are busy with their lives.
They are different from other people, because they
usually specialize and operate with models that
are assumed to be on the average correct and
workable. In some cases, however, these models
cannot explain reality; hence it will take
Americans some time to realize the ineffectiveness
of these models. Once they realize their mistakes,
they will fix them and will not be fooled again,
particularly in the information age: information
does weaken imperialism. This is not intentional
ignorance but a scientific trap that will be
avoided as information technology progresses.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Apr 12, '06)
Spengler is wrong [Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11]. There are too
many Americans now understanding that the
so-called war on terror was nothing more than a
reason for this neo-con administration to invade
and occupy and build bases in Iraq. They will not
stand for another Illegal assault on another
country. While [President George W] Bush berates
Iran for considering building nuclear weapons, he
is busy looking into building and creating more
destructive forces himself. A total abuse of power
has turned this administration into [a group of]
crazed psychotics. This time, the people will take
to the streets, with whatever they grab on the way
out the door. We are not going to take it anymore.
No more war in our name!
Pam
Connecticut, USA (Apr 12,
'06)
That
the diminishing ranks of the neo-cons are using
Spengler's blather to support their militarist
arguments sounds a metaphorical death knell for
their intellectually and morally bankrupt movement
[Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11]. In fact, the
neo-cons and [US President George W] Bush himself
(particularly after the mess in Iraq and the
[Hurricane] Katrina fiasco) are as politically
defunct as so many doornails. Still, even a
bloodthirsty character like our Reverend (or is it
Rabbi?) Spengler is entitled to his desperate
hopes for political resurrections. Good luck with
that!
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Apr 12,
'06)
Spengler in Bush's October
surprise - it's coming [Apr 11] gives a
political analysis for the bombing of Iran. [New
Yorker columnist] Seymour Hersh is offering a
military viewpoint that you cannot take out Iran's
capabilities except with nuclear weapons and the
[US] military is not certain where all the sites
are. Spengler completely ignores the question of
nuclear weapons in his presentation: Why? One lesson from Iraq
is that this commander-in-chief [US President
George W] Bush is incompetent at strategic
planning after the military wins the war. Can the
military rely on Team Bush to understand the
magnitude of problems of attacking Iran with
nuclear weapons? This is the question, not "will
the Republicans and Bush hold on to power in DC?"
as Spengler suggests as the important issue facing
us right now.
Mary Hough (Apr 12,
'06)
I am
very glad to read the Editor's Note [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11]. It is a timely
piece to remind us how the US armed and funded the
terrorists located in Afghanistan in the '80s that
ultimately brought fatal destruction to their
homeland. "Who knows who will be the United
States' friends and foes 30 years hence?" would be
a tough question that I strongly believe no
neo-conservatives can answer properly.
Charles
Yen
Hong Kong (Apr 12,
'06)
I am
glad to see you distancing yourselves openly from
the views of Spengler in your piece The world's only
supersuicide bomber [Apr 11]. You asked me the
following question: "Why should the opinions of
the ATol editors be so important to you?" It is
important to me, and to many other readers of
ATol, because Spengler's articles on Iran are not
mere opinions as you portrayed them. They are
calls for murder, for war crimes. According to the
Nuremberg Tribunal: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it
is the supreme international crime differing only
from other war crimes in that it contains within
itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Up to
this day, Iran has not been found in breach of
international law; there is no legal justification
for war against it. Why should the editors of ATol
accept their otherwise excellent website, full of
compassionate articles, [being] used as a vehicle
by someone advocating "the supreme international
crime"? Can't you see that you are complicit? In
your arguments against an attack on Iran, you
cited all kinds of likely consequences - for the United States -
and you failed to mention the most important of
all: the consequences for ordinary Iranian
citizens. Do you think, like Spengler does, that
Iranian lives don't matter? War is not an
abstraction! It kills; it maims; it destroys.
Talking about war (or potential war) without
mentioning its victims (or likely victims) is
obscene, to put it mildly.
Daniel
Mazir
Perth, Australia
(Apr 12, '06)
Thank you for your valuable,
personal clarification [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11] re the
pseudo-Spengler's writings, which many of your
readers find aggressive, to put it mildly. I found
it in the spirit of the Enlightenment Century,
something which is becoming quite rare in this
ideologically lined-up world. I will continue to
read ATol because it is one of those rare places
(and free, mind you) where one can get unusual
opinions and information, at least something
different from the rather moronic and patronizing
writings that are found in most "Western" media,
particularly the Anglo-Saxon ones. As for the
pseudo-Spengler - well, I'm weary of him, all the
more so that he can be quite seducing in his manic
way. But it is your editor's choice to publish
him, and I have no qualms with this after reading
your reasons. Nevertheless, I do have a suggestion
to make: when someone makes extraordinary claims,
or propositions - and waging war on a country
should be considered as such - then this person
should have particularly strong evidence and
reasoning. I cannot see this basic requirement
being satisfied with this contributor. To make
some parallelisms with past history is not
sufficient. The emotional strength of the
comparison is not enough either: if for the
pseudo-Spengler Iran is some sort of new Nazi
Germany that needs to be crushed (a notion which I
find ludicrous whatever the prejudice, Germany was
a mighty power, Iran is not), then he and his like
should realize that this feeling is largely
reciprocated by even more people on this planet in
regards to the USA. On this matter, I have noticed
that some of your readers from the USA dare
complain of an "anti-American" bias in ATol. I'm
very sorry, but this exasperates me a tad. When I
happen to get across the US corporate press, I
find it anti-anything (except Israel) - the
contempt, the hatred of anything non-American is
unbelievable. So please, US readers of ATol don't
whine too loudly. The USA, which prints the world
currency at will, dominates ideologically and
militarily the planet; it gets very cheap the
labor and natural resources of a whole planet, and
crushes without any qualms whoever and whatever
stands in its way. Considering this, there is
nothing extraordinary in the fact that most people
on this planet, and most ATol analysts, including
some American ones, perceive "Americaaa" as greedy
and ruthless. So, please again, stop this whining
- it's indecent. When one belongs to a country
which has might and power, and uses it this way,
one should not ask in
addition for things American to be loved.
Frankly, it's a bit too much. Unless you enjoy
being on the coattails of the gods, you should
hide in shame your US passport, and just be happy
to be considered by others as a human being
sharing the same planet, and respected as such.
Dr
Bittar Jivasattha (Apr 12, '06)
You people are too good to be
true. Too good, and that is why you overestimate
the majority of your readers. Your editorial
defending Spengler [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11] is beautiful, but
you are wrong to trust that the average reader -
even of your newspaper - can make a balanced
choice on [his or her] own. The proof is, of
course, in the pudding, the pudding here being all
the letters demanding the editor's opinion and
cursing anyone who disagrees as crazy. Your
newspaper is elitist in the best sense of the
word: you are really only catering to the truly
intelligent. But maybe this last statement
displays my own arrogance in more ways then one,
for not only do I consider myself part of the
"truly intelligent", but maybe I should not assume
that you are not aware of the inability of the
overwhelming majority to even know what an idea
is.
Krischer (Apr 12,
'06)
Your
recent two-cents commentary [The world's only
supersuicide bomber, Apr 11] on Spengler's Tom and Jerry article [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4] has proved one
thing to me: Asia Times Online indubitably is not
a crypto-organ of the CIA.
George
Aaron
Tarzana,
California (Apr 12, '06)
You are right, you [Asia Times
Online] have become a constant disappointment, not
the least of which is your tawdry response to my
letter [Apr 11] voicing concern about your site's
recent publication of writings urging the
unprovoked attack of a country that poses no
threat and the mass killing of its people. You
yourself have admitted that some of your published
writings have courted controversy and provoked
great concern among your readers whose opinions I
presumed (wrongly in my case) that you gave two
cents for. Please do not insult me by falsifying
my position and suggesting that I advocate
censorship of Spengler because "I don't like his
idea". Shame on you for your cheap distortion of a
clearly articulated stance. I have already said I
do not have a problem with Spengler per se, but
with certain untenable positions he advocates,
even if they come eruditely embellished with
quotes from German philosophers. There are lines
that sane citizens of the world do not cross. I
will not endorse the principle of unprovoked,
illegal invasion and (nuclear) attacks on other
nations, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent
citizens of countries that have done absolutely
nothing to merit their destruction. This is
illegal under our current system of international
law, and simply immoral, even if it serves, in
cold blood, the strategic interests of great
powers who are angling for hegemony over scarce
resources. Along with many of your readers, I was
dismayed, and feel compelled to criticize the
reckless editorial decisions (for heaven's sake,
do you and Spengler pay more than lip-service to
international law and the UN, or are they quaint
habits of the paleo-reality-based community like
some of your readers?). Your reply is in essence,
"If you don't like what we print, please go
somewhere else." I wonder what brought on the
hubris and disdain for your old readers? The
attention of new, more worthy, powerful and
better-connected audience like the editor of The
Weekly Standard? Even media stalwarts like the New
York Times do not accuse their readers of imposing
"censorship" on them or tell them "to go somewhere
else" when they receive criticisms. The great ones
welcome feedback in order to calibrate, connect
with or take a stand against the prevailing public
opinion and sentiment. This is a disgrace, but
well, you have undoubtedly earned esteem and the
highest regard from other quarters you may be
eager to court. Fine, I will accept your
"invitation" and cease my presence here, and stop
forwarding your site to others. After all, there
are many other sane, intelligent alternatives. At
least have the decency to print this letter of
leave in response to your derisive
misrepresentation of my stance.
L
Kirchhoff (Apr 12, '06)
A majority of Americans
(arguably) voted for George W Bush, twice, and not
because of anything they read in Asia Times
Online. What Bush does is done in the name of the
American people. We think it is important that
Americans understand what is being done in their
name (no disrespect intended toward Americans,
only toward their mainstream media, which serve
them poorly). Spengler's call for the bombing of
Iran (Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4) exposes the idea for
what it is. You demand that such articles be
suppressed. If such an idea as bombing Iran
becomes fact, it will not be because of anything
anyone read in ATol, but because the American
people allow it to be done in their name. Perhaps
if more of them did
read ATol, they would not allow it to happen. This
correspondence is now closed. Sorry to lose you. -
ATol
I refer to your comments on
"innocent lamb" of my letter of April 11 ... With
regard to the stomach-churning atrocities of
[September 11, 2001], Bali, Madrid, Beslan and
London bombings, I have always condemned violence
and consider these acts as a disgrace to humanity
and a harsh reminder that terrorism in its
indiscriminate pursuit destroys the best and the
brightest in man. I find the accusation by many
that Islam is best suited to terrorism is a
terrorist way of thinking. These terrorists are
always motivated by the rage of injustice;
suffering of their people and cruelty inflicted
upon them, loss of dignity, and being deprived of
their nationhood and land which rightly belonged
to them. They see daily, their entire families
bombed and killed; their houses and cities bombed
to rubble and this ignominy of humiliation
inflicted by their oppressors makes them ...
violent. In simple terms, their rage is against
their oppressors and [their] cronies ... Every
good Muslim should always strive for peace even in
the face of provocation and aggression because
terrorism and violence breed hatred and trigger
more violence and animosity among peoples.
Violence and terrorism cannot solve or sort out
problems, and if these suicide bombers or
terrorists suffer from the misconception that by
using violent means they could intimidate
societies, then it is their biggest folly. If they
seek justice then it could only be achieved when
there is peace. Peace cannot be achieved when
there is violence, and justice can only prevail
when there is harmony and peace around us. In
Islam, "jihad" means "struggle" or "strive", but
the struggle must be inward-seeking, peaceful, and
never violent but only in self-defense. I will
tell my Muslim brothers and sisters that they can
win hearts and minds of everybody in the world by
spreading the Islamic message of peace (al-salaam), love, harmony,
hope and mercy by reflecting piety and
righteousness in their deeds.
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Apr 12, '06)
[Letter writer] Frankie boy
never ceases to amuse us with his sheer hypocrisy
and deliberately cultivated ignorance about India.
Almost everything he has said [in] his recent
anti-India rants in fact applies to China, to
which he strangely owes a seemingly fanatic
allegiance from his cushy home in Seattle. He
babbles about the West outsourcing "dirty jobs" to
India - well, what is more "dirty", the
twentysomething Indians [who] work hard in modern
offices with a decent salary and great perks or a
Chinese worker [who] toils 12 hours at a sweatshop
with no protection of any kind and with a paltry
salary? Chinese communists make their poor toil
for American CEOs making the poor masses
grovelingly dependent on Wal-Marts and the like.
No wonder there is not much private enterprise in
China.
Rakesh (Apr 12,
'06)
Spengler's [Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11] is, I'm
afraid, very much a real reflection of the
thinking of many Americans. "God will take care of
the drunks ...", he says. It's also clear that
many Americans by now are clearly drunk with
power, given that the US is now the lone
superpower. This is reflected by the fact [that]
while a majority of Americans no longer support
the Iraq war, most of them reached such a position
not because the war was wrong to start with, but
because it became a "quagmire". War is no longer a
last resort, but a first resort to dealing with
hard problems, and finding excuses to start war is
the process. As such, it's no wonder that many
Americans, as Spengler suggested, would support a
bombing campaign on Iran - "just bomb, not occupy"
will be the new modus operandi. In my opinion,
it's clear that [most] Americans have lost their
souls. They are like criminals [who] only hesitate
[to commit] crimes because of the fear of being
caught, not because they view the crimes as
immoral. And so it's no surprise that the Bush
administration will bomb Iran. It's like the fact
that a serial rapist, unless caught, will rape
again. It's instructive that his invasion of Iraq
rewarded him [US President George W Bush] with a
second term, and if criminals are rewarded, you'll
get more crime.
A Minority American
California, USA (Apr 11,
'06)
[Re Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11] I can now
authoritatively report to your readers why the
Bush White House neo-cons cannot help but conflate
the sons of Allah with the denizens of Western
civilization when it comes to "democratizing"
Iraq, the Palestinians, Iran, et al. You see, I
have this close friend who works in upper
management at Disneyland, located in the heart of
conservative, pro-Republican Orange County [in
California]. He told me the following little tale.
About a year ago, about a dozen neo-con members of
the bush Administration - led by [Vice President]
Dick Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Don Rumsfeld -
went on a VIP trip at the Magic Kingdom in
Anaheim, California. During their visit, they went
on most of the rides in the park, without waiting
in lines. Apparently, they were deeply affected by
one ride in particular, an iconic attraction
called "It's a Small World After All". This ride
features a meandering-tunnel boat ride between
cutesy miniature dolls, in native dress, of the
children of the world singing the below-noted
ditty (if only Franz Rosenzweig could see it!).
Here are the lyrics (the tune loops in your brain
for a minimum two weeks after you go on this ride,
it's that catchy):
It's a
world of laughter, a world or tears,
It's a world of hopes, it's a
world of fear.
There's so
much that we share
That
it's time we're aware
It's
a small world after all.
Chorus:
It's a
small world after all,
It's
a small world after all,
It's a small world after
all,
It's a small, small
world.
There is just one moon and one
golden sun
And a smile
means friendship to everyone.
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small, small
world.
(Chorus) ...
In any event, after their
memorable visit to the theme park, their hosts
discovered to their chagrin that they forgot to
tell their guests an all-important tidbit - that
the ride in question was in Fantasyland!
Apparently, to this day, none of the theme-park
execs can work up the courage to burst their
bubble. PS: I heard an unconfirmed rumor that
Francis Fukuyama quit the neo-con cause just after
his 11-year-old niece told him in a chance
conversation about the connection between
Fantasyland and the Small World ride.
George
Aaron
Los Angeles,
California (Apr 11, '06)
For a somewhat less anecdotal
look at the Fukuyama saga, see the new article
Francis
Fukuyama's about-face. -
ATol
Dear
Spengler: You can barely imagine my surprise to
find you, quoting me, quoting you in [Bush's October
surprise - it's coming, Apr 11]. In any case,
I've admired your writing from afar for a long
while and would love to sit down and make your
acquaintance some day.
Jonathan Last
Online Editor
The Weekly Standard (Apr 11,
'06)
I am
amazed at the naivity of your editorial's "two
cents" [Editor's Note:
The world's only supersuicide bomber, Apr 11]
in which you assume that columns by Spengler
advocating unprovoked, "preemptive", first-strike
(nuclear) attacks against another country which
poses no threat can float freely, innocently in an
Internet vacuum, and that they serve a contrarian
function in "explaining" the thought processes of
a trigger-happy megalomaniacal idiot. It is no
surprise that Spengler's writings are now picked
up by the mother-ship vehicle of the neo-cons, The
Weekly Standard, and pinged through the right-wing
echo chamber, thanking him for eloquently, if
erroneously, buttressing their lunatic rants of
the need to confront "evil" with seemingly
academic analyses (the scientific-sounding
inevitable, inexorable push of Iranian
demographics towards imperialism and hegemony). By
publishing such tripe in a respectable, rational
news medium, you provide a platform and lend
credence to some very dubious positions and
outrageous claims. While you are at it, why don't
you also invite Judith Miller, David Horowitz, Pat
Robertson and Richard Perle in order that we might
all benefit from their thought processes? I don't
have a problem with Spengler, but I do have a
problem with any articulation of a preemptive
pro-war position and other such lunacy at Asia
Times [Online]. I visit your site faithfully
because I identify with your fundamental politics.
To access those precious contrarian thought
processes, I might as well hop over to The Weekly
Standard to hear it straight from the horse's
mouth. Please do not turn off your readers, or
make assumptions of how we might benefit from some
misguided notion of "balance", the way many
"liberal" media accused of bias by the right-wing
loudspeakers attempt to "prove" they aren't (eg,
by picking on [Democratic presidential candidate]
Al Gore and giving [Republican George W] Bush a
pass circa 2000). As for balance, we are
intelligent enough to find it within ourselves,
which is why we come to your site, and not the
online Fox News.
L Kirchhoff (Apr 11,
'06)
Oh, but
we have published the writings of neo-con
fellow-travelers - Daniel Pipes being the most
notorious. The trouble with them is that they
propagandize over much, and in Pipes' case, resort
to outright libel to further their causes. And
they are boring. Spengler has a mind of his own -
an incisive one - and is never boring. You
yourself read him - and you won't find him in The
Weekly Standard or anywhere else you might
web-surf in search of contrarian thought
processes. That's why we publish him. "Balance" is
your word, and we make no claim to it. We are a
vehicle for ideas - other people's, not our own.
That is the fundamental politics of ATol, and you
are mistaken if you think otherwise. You appear to
be suggesting we should censor Spengler because
you don't like his ideas. Maybe you should find an
alternative publication, one that runs only stuff
you agree with, because I'm afraid ATol is going
to be a constant disappointment to you. - ATol
We
hope you (ATol) continue just the way you are, and
keep the same philosophy your editor described to
the gentleman from Perth [Editor's Note:
The world's only supersuicide bomber, Apr 11]
regarding Spengler's article on nuking Iran [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4].
A M
Farzad (Apr 11, '06)
"He has a lot of history in
him but he often wraps it up in one crazy
ecclesiastical ball and tosses it out and yes, it
falls with a thud. But you may learn something if
only to recognize another's point of view, however
unacceptable." No, I'm not talking about Spengler
but words from my long dead father back in my
"formative years" and his advice after listening
to old Uncle Fred pontificating, politicking his
own unique view of the universe. But old Spengler
too, at times, does come to mind. Thanks for
reaffirming that "silence" is not always golden
when censorship of another's view is the intent
[Editor's Note:
The world's only supersuicide bomber, Apr 11].
We may come with rucksacks overburdened with
preconceptions, certitudes/certainties. And while
"listening" to others' ideas and their varying
degrees of diversity, one may lighten the load,
drop a few; or possibly entertain a few new ideas
in the process. I think it's called critical
thinking. What is hard to fathom, understand, is
the mindset of those who follow an immovable path
behind the Bush administration where the lie has
become policy hallmark - yet those
patriot-wanna-bes just keep on following behind
even as [US journalist] Seymour Hersh suggests,
nuclear war instigated by [US President George W]
Bush may be this administration's final solution.
Howard Zinn has a couple of valid answers for this
uncritical crowd of patriots shuffling behind Bush
administration policy wherever it leads them. Zinn
addresses the sad state of some of the people, not
all of the people, in his article "America's
blinders" [in] The Progressive: "One is the
dimension of time, that is, the absence of
historical perspective. The other is in the
dimension of space, that is, an inability to think
outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are
penned in by the arrogant idea that this country
[US] is the center of the universe, exceptionally
virtuous, admirable, superior." [The editor of ]
Asia Times Online speaks to the heart of the
issue, and this site is a most rare and valid news
source: "I am grateful to Spengler for revealing
the thought processes that could turn the world's
only superpower into the world's supersuicide
bomber, and I will not silence him." And yes,
"impeachment" is growing as an acceptable word in
the vocabulary and in the minds of many in this
nation.
Beryl
Minnesota, USA (Apr 11,
'06)
Finally an article on
renewable energy in India (India sailing on
wind power [Apr 11]). India can even expand
its wind power into the ocean, thereby saving
precious land. This is a very heartening article,
and I look forward to the time when India starts
aggressively pursuing its untapped yet vast solar
energy as well.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (Apr 11,
'06)
Buried
in Korea's debate
on foreign capital rages on [Apr 11] is the
mention of Labuan, an island off the coast of
Sabah in West Malaysia. [Andrew] Salmon briefly
says that it has a dual taxation treaty with South
Korea. And then he moves on to the ending
paragraphs of his article. Newbridge Capital had
structured it dealing with South Korea in Labuan.
As such, its sale of Korea First Bank netted that
American boutique investment banking house a cool,
tax-free 1.15 trillion won (US$1.1 billion).
Therefore it should come as no surprise as to the
violent reaction that sale aroused in Seoul. And
little wonder foreign investment is looked at with
a jaundiced eye, especially when it comes in the
person of a Carl Icahn, who looks for a quick
profit. South Korea is a developed capitalist
economy. It knows the value of a won. It
encourages profits but it also expects
corporations to pay a fair share of taxes. The
question begging to be answered: Why and how did
such a tax haven as Labuan come about? No matter
how mercenary Newbridge Capital is, it took
advantage of financial loopholes that the South
Koreans themselves conceived and offered on a
golden platter.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 11, '06)
M K Bhadrakumar's 'Searching for
attackers lurking in the night' (Apr 8)
is really a very sophisticated analysis of
Secretaries Condoleezza Rice's and Jack Straw's
visit to Baghdad. I am interested to add two
elements to the analysis. First, the picture of
Secretary Rice posted at ATol was very nasty and
was inconsistent with the Arabic interpretation of
her [first] name. In Arabic her name is a
composite of two words. One is associated with
Condole, which means "lamp" or "light" and its
beauty of enlightenment. And this light is usually
in a glass such as the universe. The second word
is Ezza, which is similar to ezzat, which means
"esteem" or "tower". Thus both words generate the
secretary [of state]'s name: the esteem (or tower)
of the light. Unfortunately, however, her posted
picture has correctly made her look like a
messenger of darkness or death, not light or life.
Second, [Foreign] Secretary Straw himself is a
reminder of two elements. First, the British
soldiers have been mistreating the Iraqi people
for a century. Recently, what their soldiers have
done to the Iraqi children did not amaze me. [In]
their past, the British army occupied what is now
Iraq in 1917. They killed many men, women, and
children (Arabs and Kurds). They looted precious
items from Iraq; they looted oil; they created
poverty when they distributed the Iraqi land to
their helpers; and they created reactionary social
groups that contributed to the destruction of the
country even after they were defeated by the Iraqi
people on July 14, 1958. Now they are back to the
same country; all that they have in mind is
revenge against Arabs, Kurds, and other ethnic
groups. They contributed significantly to the
massacre of the Iraqi people after 1991. They
dropped a variety of bombs against innocent
people. Thousands of Iraqi people died due to
their animosity and hatred to Arabs. The world
community has not been told about this true
history of the killing and looting of Iraq by the
British soldiers. Now the British and the American
forces are in Iraq "to teach the Iraqi people
democracy". But they have forgotten that the Iraqi
people had taken the same course of democracy from
the British over 1917-58 and earned nothing. One
can conclude that the British teachers were very
lousy. In short, the visit of the two secretaries
represents a historical mistake because it
reflects the death of millions of innocent people
(Americans, Arabs, and Kurds), and ATol and
Ambassador Bhadrakumar have provided magnificent
service to the world community when they have
produced the article and the picture about the
shameful visit.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Apr 11,
'06)
It is
easy to understand why South Koreans
find the good life in China [Apr 8] without
complicated explanations. First, China is much
closer to travel to and from than, say, Vietnam,
India, Pakistan, and South America. The Koreans
look like northern Chinese and feel more readily
assimilated. Historically there has been much
linkage in culture and traditions, even in the
practice of herbal medicine. Yet another important
factor has come into play in recent years. That is
the convergence of political and economic
interests between the two countries. I am tempted
to make a "far-fetched" prediction: [that] China
would play a role in the eventual unification of
Korea.
S P Li (Apr 11,
'06)
Kim
Hyejin in South Koreans
find the good life in China (Apr 8) did not
paint a "rosy picture" of South Koreans who tend
to stay in China. The article is more descriptive
than suggestive. After many economic descriptions,
the author's depiction of the social dimension
came toward the end. It says: "While South Korean
migrants tended to stay in China on a short-term
basis in the 1990s, now they prefer to stay more
permanently. Rather than going back to South Korea
after finishing school, young people become
interested in working or starting their own
businesses in China. Whereas married businessmen
previously went alone back and forth to China, now
they have a tendency to take their families with
them. In Korea towns, these families can be
satisfied with their relatively luxurious lives
and with schooling opportunities for their
children. The increase in long-term settlers has
led to the expansion of Korea towns." As usual,
the prospect of assimilation is in the children of
the Korean parents who "have a tendency to take
their families with them". Adult newcomers' role
in assimilation is usually limited to the decision
on movement of persons, as newcomers are usually
fervent about cultural preservation, later
repudiated by their offspring. The existence of
"Korean villages" at a moment in time does not
necessarily forebode long-term failure to
assimilate. Again, one should visualize and
anticipate the choice of courtship and marriage of
the children, and theirs, generations to come.
Jakob Cambria's allusion [letter, Apr 10] to the
Yanbian Korean autonomous prefecture in Jilin or
among the Korean diaspora in Heilongjiang does not
refute the tendency toward assimilation if time,
generations, is permitted to take its course. One
should also consider China's backward tertiary
economic sector development until just recently
and the proximity to a large Korean cultural
center in some places, both tend to retard
assimilation. Last but not least, the degree of
assimilation in China cannot be gauged as easily
as that in the USA. In the USA, the presence of
obviously racially mixed persons is the obvious
indication of assimilation. In China, there are
only attire, personal preferences, and ethnically
indicative names to represent ethnicity; as these
are changeable at will, assimilation in China
cannot be gauged as easily as in the USA. The
assimilated may be silent and hidden. After all,
the Han represent the assimilation from an
eclectic collection of East Asian peoples over
millennia.
Jeff Church
USA (Apr 11, '06)
Jakob Cambria babbles daily on
various issues concerning East Asia and I must
say, most of them don't make much sense at all.
His comment [letter, Apr 10] on those South
Koreans living in the PRC [People's Republic of
China] is a perfect example. Once again Cambria
displayed his amazing ability to turn something
completely innocent and irrelevant into some sort
of China-bashing material by indicating the
Chinese resent the South Koreans and see them as
"an avatar of the Japanese that they knew in the
1920s, 1930s and 1940s" because of the latter's
alleged "no-nonsense business attitude". Mr
Cambria, you can't always make up stuff as you go
along and get away with it. I sincerely hope you
would provide us with proof and evidence showing
the Chinese do resent the South Koreans. Here in
Beijing, there is a vibrant South Korean
community, more than 100,000-strong and growing.
The influx of the South Koreans started in the
late '90s; Korea towns were established in areas
like Wudaokou and Wangjing with Korean
restaurants, supermarkets, bookstores,
kindergartens and schools popping up all over the
place. If the Chinese had resented the South
Koreans for any reason whatsoever, wouldn't they
be gone by now? The South Koreans are smart
people, they don't need something like the Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882 to kick them out if there is
any animosity towards them in the PRC. Finally,
Cambria's suggestion that the South Koreans living
in the PRC today are "behaving as ancestors of
theirs: they bow low in reverence as the vassals
that the Koreans were to imperial China" is
utterly ridiculous. I only wish there was an
antidote for your "China the big red devil"
syndrome, Cambria.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Apr 11,
'06)
I
refer to the letter of Jamal Akbar (Apr 10) and
commend him [for having] the courage to speak his
mind about the pain of millions of Muslims who
have suffered at the hands of barbarian armies of
America, Europe and Israel, killing Muslims or
having them killed all over the world
systematically, deliberately, ruthlessly, often
with a mendacity to sully Islam as well as
denounce Muslims with the heinous label of "fight
against terrorism", when in reality these forces
of evil with only commercial greed and hegemony in
mind are the most barbaric looters, robbers,
pirates and thieves history has ever known of
other nations' wealth, resources and lands, but
funnily enough claim their innocence as of an
innocent lamb. This reminds me of a story of a
wolf standing at a height, who saw a lamb drinking
water and shouted at the lamb, "Why are you
sending dirty water up to me?" The lamb replied
that he could not have done that as he was
drinking down the hill, which annoyed the wolf so
much and, finding no intelligent answer, he
accused the lamb [of having] abused him six months
ago. The lamb said it could not be true because he
was born only three months ago. That annoyed the
wolf to melting point with anger and he said, "If
it [was] not you then it must have been your
father who abused me; therefore I must kill and
eat you," and all the wolves around joined in.
This is really the sad story of the Muslims these
days: our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and
children the world over are terrorized and killed
in thousands by the greedy, capricious, mendacious
Western pursuit of lust for commercial as well as
political dominance, re-colonization of their lost
lands by instigating and creating anarchy as we
are witnessing in Iraq. Instead they all gang
together and have the ignominy of accusing the
Muslims [of] terrorizing the world: a wolf
shouting innocence that a lamb is terrorizing him
to kill and his mates joining in his clamor ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Apr 11,
'06)
Your
"innocent lamb" analogy is touching but it breaks
down just a bit when we recall the rioting and
arson rampage after the Danish cartoon incident,
the London bombings of last July 7, the Madrid
train bombings, the two Bali bombings, and the
attacks in the US of September 11, 2001, to name a
few. - ATol
Response to Brian Mora
(letter, Apr 10): Shawn W Crispin hails from
Springfield, Ohio, USA, and speaks often by
telephone with his right-wing, small-town
father.
Shawn
Southeast Asia Editor
Asia Times Online (Apr 11,
'06)
Over
the last five years press freedom in Thailand went
from one of the most free in Southeast Asia to
among the most severely repressed, as reflected by
our world press freedom ranking that fell from
59th place in 2004 to 107th place in 2005. This is
based on hard evidence and not on subjective
interpretation. This government and its minions
were not the only source of harassment or violence
against the press. The abuses by armed militia,
recruited pressure groups and their conspirators
(namely the corrupt local politicians and armed
groups) are also partly to blame for this
deterioration of our press freedom. A majority of
rural Thais gain access to their news and
information from the available free TV ... and
seldom buy newspapers or subscribe to cable TV and
the Internet because of their limited financial
resources. On the other hand, Thai people living
in Bangkok and other large cities have much higher
disposable income, and thus greater access to
quality news and information from every available
source of media without press censorship. City
people get plenty of news on the irregularities
and allegations of corruption of Prime Minister
Thaksin [Shinawatra] on the selling of Shin Corp
shares while rural people know absolutely nothing
of this transaction through their daily viewing of
free TV. This is why people in Bangkok and other
big cities around the country in the tens of
thousands are rallying in the street and calling
for the resignation of the prime minister while
our rural brethren are voting for his continue
leadership. This situation is very dangerous to
our national security and the future of Thailand
because we can already see its polarizing effect
on the Thai people, and it can lead to violence
and bloodshed if we do not liberate our press and
other news sources now.
It is our duty to give equal chance to the
majority of the Thai people living in the rural
areas [to have] access to fair and uncensored
information.
Dr Supong Limtanakool
National Broadcasting
Commission designate
Bangkok, Thailand (Apr 11,
'06)
I
enjoy reading your commentaries and articles from
different people. I read them daily. Please
continue the good work.
E Sirany (Apr 11,
'06)
We
intend to, and to that end, businesses who wish to
target an intelligent, upmarket, international
readership are encouraged to have a look at
our media kit.
By advertising with us, you
can help us while helping yourselves. We may be
high-quality, but we're cheap. - ATol
Robert Dreyfuss's Cutting and
running in Baghdad (Apr 7) is a very
illuminating and stimulating analysis for further
logical consequences such as a forceful
recommendation about the eventuality of the US
imperialist occupation of Iraq. Some ignorant
analysts ought to understand that the proposition
that people of the Middle East understand only the
language of force is really overlooking many
elements, particularly education, history, and
culture. Middle Eastern people are very well
educated about the goals of imperialism no matter
how it is covered. Basically, imperialism aims at
the looting of economic resources. President
George W Bush himself indicated that the
occupation of Iraq was aimed at protecting
oilfields from terrorists. Historically,
imperialist powers occupied some of the Middle
Eastern countries for the same economic reason,
and were defeated by persistent popular resistance
in a very humiliating way such that when they
retreated their tails were right between their
legs ...
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Apr 10,
'06)
Re 'Searching for
attackers lurking in the night' [Apr 8]:
Well-informed article. It seems Russia is doing
what is the "need of the hour". But what Russia is
doing in the Muslim world today is more of akin to
groundwork for a fully operational policy which
will not become operational until Russia gets rid
off its Chechen problem. Three decades ago in the
Soviet era, Russia's overtures towards any Muslim
country hostile towards the West or Israel would
have provided sufficient grounds for such Muslim
countries to respond positively to such overtures.
But now things have changed because all or most of
the Muslim countries that Russia can think of
engaging with are riddled with forces sympathetic
towards the Chechen cause, and these forces will
not allow their countries into any meaningful,
wholehearted engagement with Russia unless it
resolves its Chechen problem.
Rashid
Hassan (Apr 10, '06)
Kim Hyejin paints a rosy
picture of South Koreans who tend to stay in China
[South Koreans
find the good life in China, Apr 8]. It would
be of interest to this reader, as well as others I
am sure, were he to say exactly where these
expatriates put down roots. Are they living in the
Yanbian Korean autonomous prefecture in Jilin? or
among the Korean diaspora in Heilongjiang? or in
Liaoning? Seoul's economic expansion into China
has benefited from the presence of a Korean
minority in China. South Koreans not only have
invested in capital and equipment, they have
brought the discipline of the workplace and a
spirit of free enterprise with them. Yet the
no-nonsense business attitude has aroused
resentment among Chinese who see them as but an
avatar of the Japanese that they knew in the
1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Nonetheless, communism had
sown the dragon teeth of bad work habits, and so
criticism of this kind is misplaced. Still, life
is China brings economic and social benefits which
they [Koreans] certainly won't have at home. There
[in China] the South Koreans won't feel not at
home, especially among the Chinese-Korean
minority.. On the other hand, others may seek
fortune in Shanghai or other centers of financial
activity. Is it possible that Koreans from the
South have contact with separated brethren from
North Korea? A wag might hazard that South Koreans
in China are behaving as ancestors of theirs: they
bow low in reverence as the vassals that the
Koreans were to imperial China.
Jakob
Cambria
USA (Apr 10,
'06)
I'm
glad to see that South Koreans can make a go of it
in China [South Koreans
find the good life in China, Apr 8]. The pity
is that the North Koreans, who are much worse off,
cannot.
Ned Wynn
Northern California, USA (Apr 10,
'06)
I am a
regular reader of your site and have enjoyed
reading Sreeram Chaulia's book reviews, especially
the one on subsystems in the Middle East [A systems
solution to the Middle East, Apr 8]. The
reviewer manages to pack in plenty of information
into his pieces, but sometimes displays an
anti-American bias. Does your editorial board
share such biases? There is hardly any pro-US
foreign-policy article or review in your site. As
an American who accepts many charges against my
country, I'd still like to see Chaulia and your
other writers being a little fairer to the US.
It's too easy to criticize, but harder to handle
the world if any of the trenchant critics were
made the US president.
Steve Krasner
Eau Claire, Wisconsin (Apr 10,
'06)
Asia
Times Online is based in Asia, where many people
do not want to be "handled" by the US. If their
attitude tends to come through in the articles on
this site, c'est la vie. Possibly the tendency will
change once Americans begin to favor a less
interventionist, and less violent, foreign policy,
but in any case, ATol's editors have no ax to
grind on that or any other issue. See Editor's
Note: The world's only supersuicide bomber,
and see Spengler's
writings for a different point of
view. - ATol
I am writing to correct the
ignorant falsehoods put forth by your Southeast
Asia editor Shawn W Crispin in his anti-American
rant that falsely compares Thai Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra to President George W Bush [What the US
could learn from Thailand, Apr 8]. Crispin
claims that "[while] the US leader muscled his way
to the top through a Supreme Court intervention,
the Thai premier won a landslide victory two weeks
after being convicted of concealing his assets by
an anti-corruption agency", thus claiming "dubious
circumstances". Crispin is 180 degrees wrong. We
the people [of the US] got fed up with the
controlled (liberal) media selecting presidents by
talking down the vote and belittling anyone who
dared show support for anyone but their candidate
(ie Bill Clinton, Al Gore) and in 2000, for the
first time in 12 years, we the people elected our
own president of our own choosing, and it happened
to be President Bush. We the people decided to
rise up against the Democrat Party manipulating
ballots in south Florida, Boston, New York, St
Louis, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, and
elect our own president. You read it right: George
Walker Bush is the first popularly elected
president since 1988, when we the people elected
his father. Crispin is wrong and ignorant to
compare the popular election of a president to the
conviction of a political candidate. Apple, meet
orange. Furthermore we have to fight the war on
terror because terrorists flew airplanes into the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon and even tried
to hit the White House. As a result we lost some
3,000 lives on that morning. Shawn W Crispin can
alleviate some more of his ignorance and stop
lying about the war on terror by speaking with the
families of the victims of September 11 [2001],
and it might even make a good assignment for Mr
Crispin to undertake for the fifth anniversary of
the attacks coming this year. Furthermore we treat
the detainees at Guantanamo with the greatest of
respect, even giving them a very libertarian halal diet that most folks
would envy. Did I also mention that terrorists do
not follow the Geneva Convention? Evidently
Crispin remains ignorant to the fact that most
American news sources have extreme leftist fringe
lunatics like himself in the editorial desks ...
We do not "passively" watch debates about our
justification of necessary methods of dealing with
terrorists - we participate in them on talk-radio
programs daily. The fringe minority neo-liberal
terrorist-appeasing communist traitors who were
arrested for protesting outside the president's
ranch violated ordinances against trespassing and
camping on county roads. Cindy Sheehan, the
terrorist-appeasing communist traitor malcontent
who deserves to be deported to Cuba, got removed,
and rightfully so, for stirring the pot at the
State of The Union address as a guest of a
neo-communist anti-American congresswoman, and has
committed a number of criminal offenses in her own
treasonous, seditious, anti-American behaviors.
The next time Shawn Crispin feels like commenting
about America, he needs to actually go to America and speak to
real Americans first. And Americans in Los
Angeles, San Francisco, New York, or Chicago won't
cut it either: he needs to go talk to real
Americans in the small towns in states like Idaho
and Kansas and Wisconsin and Kentucky and Alabama
and Pennsylvania. Shawn Crispin might then
alleviate himself of his grave ignorance about
America.
Brian Mora (Apr 10,
'06)
As
events transpired, Thaksin [Shinawatra]
demonstrated that he is a master of disguise and
deception. He did not say one word about his
resignation and God knows how long he can remain
as the caretaker prime minister [see In Thailand,
Thaksin falls from grace, Apr 6]. To all the
foreign press in Thailand: This is an announcement
to you that it is Thaksin's tactical retreat only
and not his resignation from politics. He can
strike back at any time he wishes with only one
opposition leader from Twilight Zone. There are
over 39 constituencies where Thai Rak Thai
[Thaksin's party] does not have the
[constitutionally] necessary 20% vote and nobody
knows how long the re-election process will take
until this void is filled. How they will solve the
one missing party list of TRT, nobody knows. Last
but not least, how long will Thaksin stay in power
as a caretaker prime minister? Nobody knows [that]
either. The thing that we do know is we already
spent 2.2 billion baht [more than US$57.8 million,
the approximate cost of Thailand's April 2
election] for nothing and got 498 Thai Rak Thai
MPs [members of parliament], one opposition leader
from God knows what political party, and still the
biggest question remains unanswered about the
moral ethics of Thaksin, which need to be
scrutinized and probed. The only way out is the
unconditional resignation of Thaksin until the
constitution is amended. The person in charge
should be appointed from a pool of "acceptable and
honest" people and not from the Thai Rak Thai pool
of political rejects.
Dr Supong Limtanakool
National Broadcasting
Committee designate
Bangkok, Thailand
The essence of Craig Meer's Strait talk:
Washington increasingly opts out (Apr 7) can
be summarized by, "Rather than withdrawing from
the Taiwan Strait, the US is being quietly
ousted." Appearances can be deceiving sometimes,
but in this case they are probably not. Those who
center their thoughts in terms of US geopolitical
interests and US containment of mainland China are
likely missing the key feature: Taiwan's geography
that would, in a couple of decades, make it very
vulnerable to mere threat of the even limited
attrition. The USA simply would one day have no
way to aid Taiwan that would be acceptable to the
people in Taiwan. The idea of geopolitical
significance of the island is or will soon be
passe to most in the American foreign-policy
elite. In the years to come, mainland China's
gradual and determined reaction to any residual US
geological interest would outweigh any such
interest. Taiwan simply has too much historical
baggage, manifested as mainland reaction and
Taiwan irresoluteness, and mainland China would be
too influential, to make any US geopolitical
interest in the island worthwhile. Any containment
policy presupposes that the object needs to expand
to achieve its objectives. Over [US]$200 billion
in trade deficit is not a sign of US containment.
Jeff Church
USA (Apr 10, '06)
I've refrained from reading
Herr Spengler for a few months now, if only
because when I do read him I feel compelled to
write and point out at least one of his (always
rather obvious) bits of weird reasoning. Here,
from his [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4]: "To [Iranian
President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad and his
contemporaries, the entire world appears as a vast
conspiracy to prevent them from having what
rightfully is theirs: dominance of the Middle East
from the Mediterranean to the Caspian, and
eventually, much more. They know with absolutely
certainty that they cannot fail, that the United
States will withdraw from the region in confusion,
and that they shall triumph." Does it occur to
Spengler that dominance of the Middle East is also
what the US Empire wants? Delusions abound, even
outside Tehran.
John Steppling
Lodz, Poland (Apr 10,
'06)
Who is
the more paranoid, Tom or Jerry? I have read your
essays for many years and wondered when the real
"Spengler" would raise [his] antennae [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4]. Simply said, I
lost some, no, much respect for the man. The words
of the great American hero Scarface come to mind.
"Who do you think you are? You cockroach!" I'm
sure you're not advocating the invasion of Iran,
just that you want less blood to be shed, so we
gotta nuke 'em first. Right? That's what made
America so safe and great in the first place, that
is the pragmatism of the politicians, the
realpolitik, the neo-colonialism. Stop the
dominoes before they start falling (Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) ... It's become
a cycle of Keynesian voodoonomics for the West.
It's a drug, a panacea for an elitist cabal too
high in every sense of the word to pull the rig
out of its veins. It's cynical and destructive.
Borrow money, overthrow governments near and far,
start wars, absorb the refugees and immigrants for
cheap labor, then begin the pogrom of paranoia and
deportation, and in the process make shambles of
all that was good about republics and judicial
systems. Is that the best people lacking pigment
can do, rehash their tribalism into paranoid
colonialism? Whitey on self-destruct, again! Two
world wars were not enough, forgotten so soon. So
you gotta take a few million of us down with you
to satisfy the delusions of crusaders and Zionists
looking for their final stand, to be martyred at
the prophesied Armageddon, or perhaps carried away
in the rapturous light of the millennial
spaceship. Do you know the percentage of Americans
[who] believe creatures from other planets are
watching us? Have you noticed how many US
television programs have conspiracy and paranoia
as themes? "Wave upon wave of demented avengers
march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.
Better watch out.There may be dogs about." That's
okay. We understand. We know what it's like to
bleed (we are all really Shi'ite at heart), but
it's been a while for you, so you need to be
reminded, you cockroach, what your god felt like
2,000 years ago. He felt like the Afghan and the
Iraqi child after the blitzkrieg, shock and awe,
[US]$5 million laser-guided missile created
collateral damage out of her grandfather's house.
Like a cockroach, just a little scared ...
Jamal
Akbar
USA (Apr 10,
'06)
Anyone
who understands that most Women never
forgive anything [Ask Spengler, Apr 27, 2005]
is an under-appreciated genius of our times. In
our times, day is night, black is white, and 2+2 =
5.
Ayn (Apr 10, '06)
Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your
recent article about Waziristan [Revolution in
the Pakistani mountains, Mar 23] was
interesting to read. For an outsider, it is
amazing that tribals are killing and murdering
each other as one would see in the English movies
produced in '60s and '70s.While movies are only
make-believe (Indian cinema leading the list), one
is amazed at the similarities that still exist ...
Why are people killing and murdering each other
for no rhyme or reason? Why do the tribals in that
region still think that the legacy they have
inherited as being martial races for more than a
thousand years should be perpetuated forever,
while the entire world consisting of
underdeveloped and developing nations (who can
also claim to be inheritors of martial qualities
in their own region) are now focused towards
[uplifting] of [their] people in areas of
literacy, health, water and sanitation and
economic development? Why cannot these tribals
surrender their arms and concentrate on economic
activities for self-[uplifting]? How long can this
mindless bloodshed go on? Cannot these three main
tribes co-exist and focus their energy towards
economic development? Even in Bosnia, where is a
multi-religious setup exists, peace and
co-existence appear to be possible. Why is this
not possible in Waziristan, where the population
is 100% Muslim? It [is] amazing how they find the
money needed to buy arms and ammunition. For
nearly two years a ceasefire [has existed] across
the LOC [Line of Control] between India and
Pakistan, thanks mainly due to [Pakistani
President General Pervez] Musharraf. The amount of
money saved by both countries due to this
ceasefire is so huge, mind-boggling and enormous
that leaders in both countries somehow want a
permanent and lasting solution in Kashmir.
Musharraf is adamant, and rightly so. Even the
people of the subcontinent have now realized that
it's now or never. If people do not join the
mainstream for economic, political and cultural
development that is now the mantra everywhere, is
there any salvation for the wretched lots of
Waziristan and Afghanistan?
Narayanswamy
Chennai, India (Apr 10,
'06)
There
are clear ideological reasons behind Waziristan
insurgency, as an upcoming Asia Times Online
article will show. - Syed
Saleem Shahzad
I have
to agree with Saqib Khan ([letter] Apr 7) that
India is itching for a showdown with Pakistan.
Pakistan is un-India, it is meaningless without
India. Its various incompetent governments are
chiefly notable for periodically servicing
America's needs and butchering its [Pakistan's]
own Muslims every few years. Pakistanis rightfully
fear the Indo-American entente cordiale as
exemplified in the nuclear deal; they recognize it
to be a prelude to the dissolution of the
transient political entity of Pakistan.
Aql
Sharma (Apr 10, '06)
To Shirzad Azad of Tokyo
[letter, Apr 7]: Compared [with] China or Russia,
Japan is a [group of] small, densely populated
islands. A few drops of WMD [weapons of mass
destruction] on that nation will completely take
it off the planet. As for the "little NATO" led by
the US against China that you brag about, may I
remind you that China has the support from all its
15 neighbors except maybe India. And India risks
being driven into the Indian Ocean and losing all
of Kashmir should it step on China's toes on
America's behalf. You threats are baseless and
psychotic.
Roy
USA (Apr 10, '06)
Having followed ATol for over
two years, I have come to the following
conclusion: [Letter writer] Frank the
Chinese-American is an invention of ATol - reasons
unknown. Chinese do not have the [same] childish
kindergarten attitude as Frank. Frank is actually
a Pakistani intellectual hiding in one of the
American institutes. This is my conclusion, since
some of these so-called Pakistanis have
successfully ensured that B Raman is no longer
contributing to ATol.
RAH
Copenhagen, Denmark (Apr 10,
'06)
Considering the article A new world with
Chinese characteristics [Apr 7], I'd like to
tell David Gosset that either you are not aware of
China's weaknesses or you are doubtful about the
world's maximalist octopus, the United States of
America. I am pretty sure that the US will stop
China as it stopped its younger brother, Japan,
two decades ago. The new deal with India and the
arrangement of a "little NATO" [are] the early
steps of the US determination to bring China to
its knees before [it will] be able to stand up
before the world's dominant ruling civilization,
Western materialistic capitalist culture, led by
America.
Shirzad Azad
Tokyo, Japan (Apr 7,
'06)
A new world with
Chinese characteristics by David Gosset (Apr
6) can be regarded as insightful to those
unfamiliar with the general history of China, and
perhaps to those Chinese whose perspective on
their civilization is too subjective. I concur
with the author's moderate notion of the China
factor (as opposed to the extremes of China fever
and China threat), but I want to point out two
peculiarities ... On the Great Wall, Gosset
states: "A defensive construction built and
consolidated through the centuries to protect the
empire from the invasions of the nomads, the Great
Wall could also be seen as the symbol of an
immured Chinese mind." Gosset does not elaborate
on this "immured Chinese mind". How did the
limited success of the Great Wall and the militant
nomads' greater success in breaching it give rise
to the "immured Chinese mind"? Does the author
imply the often alleged Chinese self-imposed
isolation mentality? I tend to think that it was
neither self-imposed nor isolation mentality, but
practical personal safety. [Gosset says] the
Chinese diaspora ... "estimated at 40 million
people, are not just about Chinese restaurants
(although food and cooking are key elements of
culture) or Chinatowns (perfect examples of
Chinese culture resilience far away from the
Yellow River or the Yangzi); the notion of Chinese
diaspora indicates that China is not only a
political entity related to a territory but, above
all, a cultural expression already having global
reach". I suggest that any persistence of the
Chinese diaspora in American society, for example,
should not be romanticized, as above all fanciful
notions it indicates racial discrimination. The
absence of any "German diaspora" (German quarters)
in the USA indicates much lesser racial
discrimination against the German newcomers, where
they were more fortunate to enjoy the genuine
social inclusion that had led their offspring into
the white melting pot. Assimilation frequently
indicates social progress and personal happiness
at the inconsequential expense of a traditional
culture.
Jeff Church
USA (Apr 7, '06)
Appearances are deceiving.
Taiwan is a sharp elbow for the United States to
poke Beijing in the side with [when] dealing with
China. Although [the US seemingly wishes] to
distance itself from the China-Taiwan imbroglio,
geopolitics dictate against any American
disengagement. Already President [George W] Bush's
diplomacy has fallen back to an island-defense
strategy in East Asia. He is firming up ties with
Japan and has even gotten Tokyo to commit itself
to the defense of Taiwan. This strategy has an
Achesonian odor to it. Mr Bush may not want to
embroil himself with the endless bickering between
Taipei and Beijing, so he wisely stays out of the
verbal melee. Saying this in no way implies that
Washington is out of the game or unwilling to come
to the aid of a long-standing ally. After all,
Craig Meer [Strait talk:
Washington increasingly opts out, Apr 7]
should keep in mind the old chestnut: "Never judge
a book by its cover."
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 7, '06)
Joergen Oerstroem Moeller's New
globalization battle threatens Asia (Apr 7)
provides an unconvincing argument about the fear
of globalization and of cross-boarder mergers and
acquisitions. The reasons provided are usually
used to justify protectionism. Europeans do have
an archaic trait of patriotism which tends to
create animosity against foreign production and
investments. The majority of people in the United
States of America have no such animosity.
Accordingly, Americans do not tend be
protectionists. The jobs lost in Europe [because
of] globalization are inefficient jobs anyway,
because if they had not been so, they would not
have been lost. Elimination of these regular and
professional jobs is beneficial for the European
economies, because the process of weeding out
inefficiency normally enhances productivity and
economic growth, which in turn generates more
income and employment. Education and training will
become indispensable ways for those displaced
workers to regain necessary skills for new
employment: adaptability of the workforce.
Similarly, the domestic loss of brain power is in
fact a gain to other countries that need them
[skilled workers] most: an international
reallocation of brain power. Developing countries
have suffered for many years from the brain-drain
problem, where high-skilled individuals moved to
developed capitalist countries. So if brain power
is not needed in their own countries, it would be
beneficial for the world economy to use them
[skilled workers] for greater productivity. In
this case every participant and economy will be
better off ... My simple point is that the
Europeans and the Americans favor monopoly
capitalism, where there are interests in
protectionism rather than competition,
protectionism in terms of tariffs, patents,
merger, government regulations, and the like.
Stated differently, these old capitalist nations
cannot compete against some Asian countries and
India; consequently, they try to find any possible
reason to impose new regulations. Finally, fear of
globalization, which the author overlooks, has
basically been generated by the imperialist
occupation of Iraq and other wars. Imperialist
nations perform actions that allow financiers to
become wealthier at the expense of the world
community as a whole.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Apr 7,
'06)
Frank
(letter, Apr 6), handicapped by his
attention-deficiency disorder, rushes with his
inane comments. The article that he talks about
(Satellite
insurers stake out Asia, Apr 6) mentions ISRO
[the Indian Space Research Organization] (a
government body) as outsourcing its production
operations to private companies within India, and
not "India outsourcing
the production of commercial satellites" as
alleged by Frank. No one, particularly India, is
denying the innovative capacities of the "white
man". After all, most of the groundbreaking
inventions in modern times have come from the
whites. Even as we debate this issue now, Indians
are striving to get access to the US's latest
nuclear technology under their new agreement. This
does not mean that a Frank ("white man"?) can
trash the efforts of the non-whites seeking to
progress. By the way, whatever happened to ATol's
pledge to send Frank's comments to the forum,
where we can debate him properly instead of
wasting space on your Letters column?
Partha
Australia (Apr 7, '06)
Frank of Seattle (who claims
to be a Chinese-American, not a "white man") is as
free as anyone else to use the Letters page to
react to ATol articles. Long, boring slanging
matches between Frank and his Indian foils are
encouraged to move to The Edge forum. - ATol
I usually do not respond to
letters in ATimes, but Frank of Seattle's
incoherent babble at anything India has forced me
to write a letter. His [Apr 6] outburst about
India not being able to build satellites was the
straw. Did he bother to do the slightest bit if
research before proclaiming "India has to buy
other people's satellites because it cannot build
them"? I would suggest he go here and read all about
them.
Gaurav Savant
Starkville, Mississippi (Apr 7,
'06)
So we
see another Pakistan/Muslim hater in our midst
[Smrita, letter, Apr 6]. He/she conveniently
forgot to mention the Western/non-Muslim readers
who did not agree with Spengler on this. I can
easily make assumptions about Indians/Hindus
(assuming he/she is one, good chance though) but
then again I'm not a PhD, and that's proof enough
to show that you don't have to have a PhD to be
sensible. And to the university which agreed to
admit this delusional human being in [its] PhD
program: Please be more selective in future. And
to Smrita: Crawl back into the hole you crept out
of ...
A Shabbir
Australia (Apr 7, '06)
Re the letter of Smrita (Apr
6), I am really amazed and disgusted beyond words
that an educated person like him would have such
an evil propensity to advocate nuclear violence
knowing very well its immediate and long-term
horrendous consequences on the victims and to many
generation to come. It is sickening and so
repulsive to contemplate and to act deliberately
on this sick logic to annihilate a large Iranian
population only because they would not stoop to
... demands of the Americans and Europeans who
operate perfidious double standards where it
concerns nuclear technology use and their
commercial interests. I would not be surprised
that Smrita and Spengler dance to the same tunes,
sing the same blues and have the same mendacious
mentality advocating dropping nuclear bombs on
Iran to get what the America wants ... With regard
to the meeting between Indira Gandhi and ... Moshe
Dayan, I can tell him the reason the Indian prime
minister backed out from the conspiracy of
attacking Pakistan's nuclear installation was that
the nuclear fallout would have killed more Indians
than Pakistanis, as India is the second most
densely populated country in the world ...
However, even now many Indian fanatic generals and
fundamentalist politicians are always itching to
launch an attack on Pakistan. It is my firm belief
that since both sides now possess nuclear weapons,
a war must be avoided at all costs; yet
terrifyingly, neither population seems to
understand what nuclear war really means. Arrogant
Indian generals are under the impression that it
is a sort of Indian kabaddi match, which they must
win. The masses have no proper education about the
meaning of mushroom clouds, blasts, and radiation
sickness and bomb shelters but they would be
willing to go along with the wishes of their
politicians and generals to erase Pakistan from
the world map. It was a measure of this ignorance
at the top of the Indian establishment that when
the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] was in power [in
India], it let off what it called its "Hindu bomb"
in 1998...
Saqib Khan
London, England (Apr 7,
'06)
Re Free Publicity
Department [Apr 6]: Your sense of humor shows
refinement and grace. I've never seen any other
online producer of original content protect its
rights by applying such deftness of touch in
outing the Web's axis of evil.
Harald
Hardrada
Chapel Hill,
North Carolina (Apr 6, '06)
The article by [Pepe] Escobar
on Khuzestan is of special importance [Real men go to
Khuzestan, Apr 6]. For one, [the article says]
it [Khuzestan] will be the new front in the "war
on terror", and second, Iranian Arabs are
"separatist". Ironically, both quoted parts are
just propaganda gimmicks. I started reading the
article somewhat suspiciously; the article then
mentions some great points about Iranian history,
but I managed to capture the main objective of the
article. Perhaps it wasn't by purpose on the
author's part, but in the Western propaganda
machines this is the key point they want to
portray: "a nationwide and potentially bloody
backlash against Arab Iranians, who will then be
inevitably regarded as traitors in collusion with
the Anglo-Americans". The phenomenon that Iranian
Arabs would be regarded as "traitors" was never
established when Saddam Hussein invaded. Iranian
Arabs where at the front lines liberating occupied
lands. While it is true the economic grievances
exist, they exist all over Iran. Ethnic rivalry or
tension are non-existent in Iran. The only time
such a thing would be happening is by creation of
foreign adversaries. A key point Mr Escobar forgot
about Iranian nationalism [is] that Iranian
nationalism includes our [Iran's] Arab population.
The fact of the matter is, Iranians would never go
against their Arabs, because history and culture
is on our side.
JP
Canada (Apr 6, '06)
Re Real men go to
Khuzestan [Apr 6]: Iran is clearly in a
difficult situation and unfortunately not totally
blameless for it. Part of the problem is that in
the immature early days of revolution, the Iranian
leadership openly talked of exporting revolution
and in a very short space of time managed to
alienate every Sunni regime and Islamist movement
in its neighborhood, raising alarm bells and
suspicions everywhere. Pakistan, Iraq, Syria,
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, all were badly
affected. When [ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini swept
into power Jamaat e Islami from the subcontinent
(who saw the revolution as a manifestation of Dr
Ali Shariati's work) [it] was the first [and] most
powerful Islamist movement in the region that
welcomed the revolution. Jamaat e Islami's entire
leadership went (in a chartered plane) to greet
and congratulate Khomeini. The euphoria was soon
over when the Iranian leadership openly encouraged
the Shi'ite turbulence in Pakistan ... Iraq, where
Shi'ites form more than 50% of the population (and
a lot of them are Persian Iraqis), was faced with
an imminent threat of Shi'ite rebellion and
importation of revolution. Saddam [Hussein] moved
into Iran and the Iran-Iraq War started that
lasted a good eight years. Other neighboring
countries faced similar problems. The Iranian
leadership have only themselves to blame. But
looking at present-day realities, the Americans
and British are friends of nobody. They are not
there to liberate anyone, they are there for their
own ends and to enslave everybody. The technique
they are using is the same old time-tested one.
Scots (British) formed the East India Company to
do business with the Mughal (Muslim) empire in
India. Then the East India Company under Queen
Victoria of Britain employed and used Egyptians to
conquer India and employed and used Indians to
conquer Egypt. Indians and Egyptians still hate
each other from the very bottoms of their hearts.
The present-day Iranian and Arab leadership is
expected to show a bit more maturity.
Rashid
Hassan (Apr 6, '06)
Nothing beats success like
success. So there is no surprise that
blood-conscious Korea is now proud of the
half-black half-Korean Pittsburgh Steeler Hines
Ward ['Mixed blood'
Korean heroes, Apr 6]. Would the Thais ...
consider Tiger Woods as one of their own had he
not been a genius with a golf iron? Mixed-blooded
children are not welcome in East Asia. The
Vietnamese consider them lower than dust. The
Japanese are hardly less tolerant. The Filipinos
respect racial differences and are open-minded.
They are proud of their mixed heritage, be it
Spanish or Chinese or American. Pearl S Buck, who
grew up in China and spoke and read and wrote
Chinese, and was a Nobel Prize winner in
literature, established a foundation for
mixed-blooded offspring of American GIs who were
either abandoned or deemed unadoptable. She well
understood the deep racial feelings of Asians and
their distaste for diluted blood. She rightly
thought that Americans should take responsibility
for their own and that the United States after all
is the proper country for children of mixed
parentage.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 6, '06)
Racism takes different forms
in different parts of Asia. Many Asians are more
hateful toward other Asians than against
Caucasians, and some - notably in Thailand -
practically worship mixed-blood Thais for their
physical beauty; many Thai movie and television
stars and beauty queens are luk kreung - "half children". And of
course the skin-lightening cosmetics trade is
booming throughout Asia. See The color of
Indian call girls (Apr
20, '04). - ATol
"India is outsourcing the
production of commercial satellites" (Satellite
insurers stake out Asia [Apr 6]). That is a
funny statement. India has to buy other people's
satellites because it cannot build them. India
cannot even produce a respectable airplane (Anyone want an
obsolete Indian fighter? [Apr 5]). Many
Indians regard servitude as the spirit of
globalization. White men outsourced their
high-school-level data-entry-type jobs to Indian
college graduates, just like in colonial days
English masters outsourced their low-level dirty
jobs to Indian coolies. India did not and does not
dare to produce expensive high-tech products. It
has to buy those from white men. From many
responses at ATol, we know that Indian elites
enjoy this type of globalization. After all,
Indians outsourced their country more than anybody
else in the history. There has to be a reason for
that.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (Apr 6,
'06)
Jim
Lobe's Clipped wings
and a triumph for realism (Apr 5) contains a
very entertaining and informative analysis of
various forces converging to weaken the
neo-conservative movement in the United States of
America. Some major points, however, require
further explanation. The neo-cons have not
promoted [a neo-imperialist] trajectory in US
foreign policy as the author claims; rather, this
group has made the US a colonial nation destroying
defenseless people in Iraq. In other words, the
Iraq war is not a neo-imperialist event, but an
outmoded [act of] colonialism seeking revenge and
submission. The whole story which has been
reflected in the pictures we have seen on TV about
Iraq have made Gaza and the West Bank look like a
paradise. In fact, even Hulago, the Mongolian
conqueror who invaded and destroyed Baghdad,
killing thousands of people in 1258, did not do as
much harm as what the most democratic country on
the planet, the US, has done in Baghdad. In
addition, historical facts demonstrate that many
massacres were committed against the Arabs, the
Armenians, the Sorbs, the Bosnians, and the Kurds,
[yet] these massacres may have been less painful
and destructive than the continued long-run
massacre of the Iraqi people over the last 15
years. Mr Lobe continued informing ATol's readers
about the shift of US foreign policy from power
toward diplomacy, but this shift does not
demonstrate a decline in neo-cons' power. Rather,
it shows the sleazy nature of this imperialist
movement. The neo-cons have secured the Iraqi oil
and are currently interested in promoting
diplomacy and alliance with other nations. They
are in fact searching for people from other
countries to fight for them or for their oil
corporations. The neo-cons are trying to minimize
their costs and to outsource their problems to
other countries. By realism, the neo-cons mean "we
need the world to help us out in Iraq, but the
Iraqi oil is for us". In short, the neo-cons will
not be weakened but now is the time to have a low
profile in order for others to finish the work for
them: parasitic imperialist behavior.
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Apr 6, '06)
Re An Arrow to the
heart of policy [Apr 5]: If I am not mistaken
it was Francis Fukuyama, the political guru and
philosopher, who long before 2003 supported
invasion of Iraq but now has the courage to admit
that he was wrong and has repudiated his support,
and eaten his crow and humble pie. Even before and
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he was
boldly arguing that [the US] model of democracy
would become a kind of raw model to follow
globally; and how preposterous, after seeing the
plight of thousands of poverty-stricken blacks
abandoned to fierce elements of nature during the
[Hurricane] Katrina disaster for [want of] food,
water and other basic necessities that shamed the
world: [some] model of democracy, when the richest
and most powerful democracy has such disgusting
inequity in its society. Fukuyama also said that
dictators who clung to authoritarian rule were a
hindrance to historical progress, yet the USA has
supported and still supports many such rulers with
impeccable impunity. The helping hand that he
envisaged America could offer to failed nations to
build their states has proved more than often a
nightmare for the world ...
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Apr 6, '06)
Daniel McCarthy's letter of
April 5 responding to Alex Berkofsky's EU-Taiwan: It's
all business [Apr 5] is based on a figment of
the imagination. In an attempt to refute the
author, Mr McCarthy states: "The US does not
acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China." On the
contrary, the fact that the USA does acknowledge
that Taiwan is a part of China is very easy to
confirm. One needs only to search for the text of
the second and third Shanghai Communiques in any
search engine. Article 1 of the Second Communiques
reads, "The Government of the United States of
America acknowledges the Chinese position that
there is but one China and Taiwan is part of
China." That of the Third Communique reads, "The
United States of America recognized the Government
of the People's Republic of China as the sole
legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the
Chinese position that there is but one China and
Taiwan is part of China." I don't understand why
Mr McCarthy would vow on a matter so easily
refuted. Ideology notwithstanding, one should
establish the diplomatic reality.
Jeff
Church
USA (Apr 6,
'06)
Most
of the letters regarding Spengler's piece Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia [Apr 4] were addressed
specifically to the editors of ATol, not to the
author. Again, would the editors of ATol please
tell its readers where they stand regarding
Spengler's repeated calls to the bombing of a
country (Iran) under the pretext of paranoid
speculations. The reason many of us are asking you
the question is very simple: we highly value your
site - my favorite source of information regarding
Asia and the Middle East - and we don't want to
see it publishing the writings of racists and
psychotics alongside great analyses by highly
compassionate and rational people such as Henry C K
Liu, Tom Engelhardt, Jim Lobe, etc. That you
deemed worth posting Spengler's reply in which he
advocated, yet again, a war of aggression -
whatever name he gives it - against a sovereign
country that didn't violate any international law
is very disturbing.
Daniel Mazir
Perth, Australia (Apr 6,
'06)
Editorially, Asia Times Online
tries to keep an arm's length from the opinions of
our writers, which is why you will find, for
example, many economics-related articles that take
a completely different approach from Henry C K
Liu's. But generally we try to run material that
is outside the mainstream, and this frequently
includes controversial views such as Spengler's. -
ATol
Spengler states that
[Johannes] Kepler discovered the laws of planetary
motion by presuming that God would choose the
simplest and most beautiful solution, and thus
encountered the elliptical orbit of Mars [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4]. This barely
makes sense. Kepler used Tycho Brahe's meticulous
observations to deduce the orbit of Mars.
Significantly, Aryabhatta, working in India a
millennium earlier, had already deduced the
elliptical nature of planetary orbits, without the
benefit of the telescope. This of course has major
implications for cherished theories of Western
science and loving, purposeful gods. Such sloppy
writing may still be amusing for the general
readership but does not impress those with more
than a dilettante's familiarity or insight.
Aql
Sharma (Apr 6, '06)
I admire Spengler's writings
and his thought-provoking analysis backed by
references and statistics. ATol is fortunate to
have a writer of the caliber of Spengler. Spengler
has the courage to speak his mind and back it up
with lucid analysis. It is not a crime to speak
one's mind. It may be a crime in the minds of
Islamists, as free speech is unknown in the
Islamic world. Spengler is right to have his
opinion that a preemptive strike against Iran is
the best option [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4], and I have felt
the same way after considering several options. It
is a free world and ATol practices free speech
unlike the Muslim countries, and Spengler should
have the right to publish his opinions. If the
Islamists disagree with his opinions, then let
them write their arguments and substantiate them,
rather than calling for not publishing his
writings. Moin Ansari and Saqib Khan [letters, Apr
5] have been the loudest in denouncing him with no
substantive arguments. Ansari claims that the
Dubai port deal shows the power of an
Indian-Pakistani-Arab-whatever axis. Why does he
drag the Indians in without any substantive
evidence? Indians don't want anything to do with
Pakistan. The average Indian has no time for
terrorist Pakistan, and as for the Arabs, the
Indians, like everyone else, want their oil. Saqib
Khan waxes eloquent about the great discoveries
made by Muslim scientists in human anatomy,
physics, chemistry, space. I hold a PhD in science
and I am yet to see any references anywhere
substantiating that. Every culture has contributed
to mankind, but my beef is that Khan makes tall
claims in his treatises on Islam with absolutely
no evidence whatsoever. That in a nutshell seems
to be the problem in general with the Islamist's
arguments. Many years ago General Moshe Dayan met
with [Indira] Gandhi covertly and they planned to
take out the nuclear reactor in Pakistan. Mrs
Gandhi was worried about the fallout and the plan
was scuttled. But if they had [made] their
preemptive strike then, the world could have been
made safer and nuclear proliferation by Pakistan
would have been nipped in the bud. Kudos to
Spengler for speaking his mind. More of Spengler
and less of treatises on religion from the likes
of Khan and Ansari should be ATol's credo.
Smrita
USA (Apr 6, '06)
I was very disappointed to
read the April 4 essay posted by Asia Times Online
written by Spengler [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4]. There are many
alternatives to military action against Iran for
its refusal to obey US hegemony, but Spengler is
only able to acknowledge the desires of master
torturers like the US spymaster John Negroponte,
and call for war. What I think the US should do is
offer Iran some of its own nuclear weapons, as a
gesture of goodwill and non-aggression, and invite
Iran into Iraq to help mitigate the civil war's
terror and assist with the transition to limited
democracy. That these two ideas are antithetical
to Western thoughts about Iran belies any notion
of Christianity this culture claims to endorse.
Replogos
USA (Apr 6, '06)
Whether or not Spengler taps
out his screeds with his toe in Morse code because
his arms are [in] a straitjacket, his prejudices
should be warnings to all ATol readers [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4]. Many in the West
share his views. Moreover, once tired of
slaughtering Muslims the way the Spengleroids of
the past once slaughtered Jews, probably they will
turn on me and my friends in China. Know your
enemies! Forewarned is forearmed.
Lester
Ness
Changchun, China
(Apr 6, '06)
I have some points to [make]
to your readers and to Mark Perry and Alastair
Crooke after reading their article titled How to
Lose the 'War on Terror' [Part 1: Talking
with the 'terrorists'] published on your
esteemed Asia Times [Online] on March 31. Perry
and Crooke have done well to analyze the situation
in the Middle East. However, as a Lebanese
citizen, I find it necessary to [make] the
following points, which I feel your readers and of
course the authors of the article need to take
into consideration. In more than one situation,
Perry and Crooke mistakenly referred to Michel
Aoun, the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, as
the Maronite leader. This is a misconception that
those unaware of the total Lebanese situation fall
into. Michel Aoun is not a Maronite leader. Yes,
the majority of Maronites in Lebanon have voted
for him, but he has also been voted for by many
non-Maronites (Christian Orthodox, Shi'ites,
Sunni, etc). The parliamentary bloc led by Michel
Aoun consists of legislators from [the] Muslim and
Christian faiths. Moreover, Michel Aoun, although
Maronite by birth, leads a secular national
movement (Free Patriotic Movement) that calls for
the separation of religion from politics and the
[abolition] of sectarianism in Lebanon. His
movement includes many Muslims among its ranks,
and just recently the movement has been officially
recognized by the Lebanese government. Three of
the eight founding members are non-Christians ...
The other issue I would like to tackle is how
Perry and Crooke pictured Aoun's shifting from the
US's best friend to an ally of the terrorists.
While Hezbollah are labeled as terrorists by the
US government, this party is legally recognized by
the Lebanese government and by the majority of the
Lebanese people as a national resistance in
response to Israeli occupation of Lebanese land.
Hezbollah has gained around 21 seats in the
Lebanese parliament out of 128 and has [proved]
that it represents the majority of the Shi'ite
community, and that is more than 1 million
Lebanese citizens. While Aoun's strategy aims to
restrict the bearing [of arms] to the Lebanese
state, due to the rising tension in the past few
months in Lebanon, Aoun saw that dialogue was the
only way to approach the issue of Hezbollah's
arms, and that is why Aoun made an agreement ...
in which Hezbollah commits to deliver its arms
after the struggle between Lebanon and Israel ends
... Aoun has not allied with Hezbollah, and this
has been stressed in more than one occasion, many
of which have been with the US ambassador in
Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman ...
Mehyar
Yahfoufi
Lebanon (Apr 6,
'06)
On
April 3, the only person to be put on trial by the
Bush administration for the September 11, 2001,
terror attacks was found by a jury eligible for
the death penalty in the United States. Zacarias
Moussaoui, who did not take part in the attacks on
the morning of September 11, has now been linked
to [them] using a judiciary technicality. The
prosecution's case stated [that] Moussaoui could
have prevented the crime if he had not lied to
federal agents. This is unprecedented and is a
landmark decision in the United States. The Bush
administration is on the brink of killing another
witness in connection with the September 11
attacks. Or is this just another publicly
displayed lost opportunity by the United States of
America and its citizens to know the truth? What
really happened on September 11, 2001, and who is
truly responsible for the ... crime which took
place on that day which indiscriminately killed
thousands? ... The impression is this: it is
simply another show trial for the already
misinformed [US] public to feed into, feeling as
if they are getting their day in court and they
are getting some kind of justice in connection
with the attack ... Who was Moussaoui directly
taking his orders from? Publicly name Moussaoui's
co-conspirators and exactly what facts they all
were alleged to have known. Who authorized
Moussaoui's mission(s) and who authorized his
actions which are alleged to be the cause of so
much destruction and death? What special training,
tools or equipment and physical evidence [have]
been presented ... regarding Moussaoui's
conviction and his ties to the September 11
attacks? Exactly which other individuals and other
entities provided funding, supplies, intelligence
information, logistical support, and cover for
this attack? We still do not have this
information, and these [are just] a few of the
mandatory questions and the [demands for] physical
evidence which must be answered for the public to
be safe. Not one of these questions has yet been
answered, confirming we are still under threat. We
still have a criminal conspiracy to attack the
United States of America and undermine it from
within afoot ...
David J Polk
Hillside, Illinois (Apr 6,
'06)
Spengler replies to ATol
readers
A number
of readers have responded to my April 4 essay Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia by accusing me, as it
were, of belonging to a conspiracy to make them
paranoid. Dr Bittar Jivasattha reproaches me for
violating the "ethical requirements of ATol" by
advocating "bloodshed". Daniel Mazir claims I have
called for the bombing of Iran and the
"slaughtering of thousands of innocent people".
Not so. I long have advocated "premature war" as
an alternative to total war. If France and England
had attacked Adolf Hitler in 1936 over the
Rhineland, World War II might have been averted
(see In praise of
premature war, Oct 19, '04). If Kaiser Wilhelm
II had attacked France during the First Morocco
Crisis of 1905, World War I never would have
occurred. A limited strike against Iranian nuclear
installations is the least violent alternative.
Spengler (Apr 5,
'06)
This
is with reference to Spengler's Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia [Apr 4]. In short
Spengler is at it again. We have a saying in India
and Pakistan, "Chore choori
say jai, haira pahairee seh na jaiyeh."
Loosely translated it says someone can [stop
being a thief] but will not abandon being a
scoundrel. Spengler is at his Islamphobic worst
again. Spengler calls Muslims paranoid and informs
us of many Google hits on "conspiracy theories
against Islam". A mirror search of "conspiracies
against Jews" gave me 8 million hits. Muslims are
not powerlessness. Sixty years ago there were
almost no independent Muslim countries. Today
there are more than 50. One is a nuclear power,
and Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the
world and in [the United States of] America.
Muslims have proved that it is not easy to occupy
[their countries]. Dubai informs the world of the
wonderful Indian-Pakistani-Arab-European symbiosis
that has created an economic juggernaut [that]
will be spreading throughout Asia and the Middle
East. Malaysia is an Asian tiger and Indonesia is
not far behind. Egypt and Nigeria are sleeping
giants that are waking up. Pakistan has the
second-highest [economic] growth rate in Asia.
Israel as a vibrant democracy [and] has a
wonderful spectrum of news and views, from the
left-wing Haaretz to the right-wing Jerusalem
Post. Anyone who quotes MEMRI [the Middle East
Media Research Institute] as a "news" source loses
all credibility with all fair-minded people.
According to The Guardian, MEMRI was founded by
rejects from the Israeli intelligence service and
run by right-wing extreme settlers. No Israeli
newspaper worth its salt gives any credence to
this type of nonsense. MEMRI only publishes
anti-Islam and anti-Muslim articles. It publishes
excerpts of leaders, does not allow rebuttals, and
does not publish the articles or interviews in
[their] entirety. Spengler is misquoting both imam
[Abu Hamid al-]Ghazali and the definition of God
in Islam ... If Asia Times [Online] is not a
religious journal, then why does it allow Spengler
and his ilk to defame Islam and Islamic icons? It
is sad that a prestigious journal like Asia
[Times] Online gives space to pure, unadulterated
garbage ...
Moin Ansari (Apr 5,
'06)
Spengler's article Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia [Apr 4] shows the
author's Islamophobia has reached a hazardous
level. For an individual who is neither from the
region nor the target nation for his disgraceful
comments, analysis such as that article is
definitely insulting. How can he ever call for
killings of Iranians or anyone? His disregard for
human life shows why Spengler is yet another
frightened Westerner, another victim of neo-con
(medieval-like) propaganda. It seems to me that
whatever the "Islamists" in Iran say, the
"experts" in the West interpret it as though it is
equivalent to Armageddon. It is such phobia that
has corrupted the "free" and "democratic world". I
as an Iranian, and a fan of ATol, want to express
my outrage against Spengler's disgusting article.
How can ATol ever publish something that calls for
bloodshed? Has Spengler ever lived in Iran? ... He
calls [for] attacking Iran because of the regime,
yet he is silent about the fact that "democratic"
America supports the brutal, fanatic Wahhabi
regime of Saudi Arabia ... As the great medieval
Iranian poet [Nezami] Ganjavi said, "The world is
the body and Iran is the heart." Remember those
words, Spengler, when next time you call for
attack on an ancient and beautiful nation such as
Iran.
JP
Canada (Apr 5, '06)
Re Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia [Apr 4]: Spengler should
stop lecturing Muslims ... He should instead try
looking into his devil's mirror and the Western
values he so dearly loves and learn how to remedy
the ills of his society and eradicate the terminal
cancer of rapes of newly born babies, abduction of
little girls to rape and later throwing their dead
bodies in dustbins [etc, ad nauseam] ... The
trouble with the Americans is that they want to
dump and throw all their filth and muck onto
someone else's garden, often the Muslims. Muslims
have strong aversion against Western frivolous
vulgarities as we wish to adhere to Islamic
physical as well as spiritual piety, purity and
nobility of mind. The Americans have become
selfish, arrogant, ignorant, promiscuous with
power, belligerent, disrespectful, less
understanding of other people's needs and
cultures, too lusty in pursuit of greed and world
dominance. Because you Americans desire to conquer
the world, it does not necessarily follow that the
Muslim world desires to be conquered by you. The
West wants that the Muslim world adopts its values
and prevails, but why should we follow Western
culture and their way of life that is decadent,
immoral, vulgar, materialistic, selfish, and
racist and declining fast? The Americans and the
West have become the judges, jury and executors of
justice as it suits them and are the cause of the
most of the evils that inflict our world today.
But I do agree that Muslims must also detach
themselves from this stereotype notion and a kind
of entropy [sic] of mind that all is good in my
garden and everything bad in my neighbor's garden,
and that is only possible if the West leave us
alone to live in peace and stop inflicting us with
their imperialistic designs, policies and desire
to regain ugly imperialism. So my advice to
Spengler would be to clean his back yard full of
junk and muck; start loving your neighbors, as
America is not the only country in the world as
viewed by G W Bush and many of the belligerent
followers [of his] cowboy mentality.
Saqib
Khan
London, England
(Apr 5, '06)
Hey Spengler [Cat and mouse
with Muslim paranoia, Apr 4]: What if I told
you that Tom and Jerry
was [Yasser] Arafat's favorite TV program?
This is no conspiracy. It's true! Arafat loved it
because the mouse was always the winner.
D Busse
Germany (Apr 5,
'06)
The
letter writer sent along this link to an Egypt Today article to
back up this startling revelation about Arafat's
taste in cartoons. An excerpt: "The Palestinian
leader may have identified with Jerry, the tiny
mouse in Tom and Jerry, his favorite cartoon, but he
had Tom the cat's nine lives, having survived war,
air strikes, assassination attempts and a plane
crash." - ATol
Jim Lobe [Clipped wings
and a triumph for realism, Apr 5] is too quick
to count his chickens before they hatch. It is too
early to write off the so called Bush doctrine.
The substance has not changed, but the form has.
That was noticeable by the appointment of
Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Too much
has been made of top former generals' criticism of
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They may
retain the privileges that go with retired
high-ranking officers, [but] they have no power to
influence policy. Of late much has been made of
Francis Fukuyama's disenchantment with the war in
Iraq and with the neo-cons. To put it not so
finely, he was never enthusiastic about that war,
and he is on record [on that point] before his Democracy in America [was
published]. One has to point out [that] his major
difference with the neo-cons and the Bush White
House is the explosion in federal spending, which
runs against the grain of less government
interference in our lives and an ebb tide against
taxes. There is grumbling against [how] the war is
going in Iraq, but to date, there is no
groundswell to change course or [strong
opposition] by the Democrats or more liberal
Republicans. One must not lose sight of the
growing military power that Iran is only too
willing to display and the growing unease in
Washington and European and Middle Eastern
capitals over Tehran's bravura. All this will tend
to strengthen Washington's resolve to persevere in
its ill-conceived war in Iraq and its hunkering
down for years to come in the region, no matter
who occupies the presidency after George W
Bush.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Apr 5, '06)
I am writing in regards to the
pair of articles about the neo-cons in the April 5
issue. I am pleased that [Jim] Lobe has decided to
educate himself about the neo-cons. This is a fine
improvement over his complete lack of knowledge
about the neo-cons only three short years ago. I
fear, though, that Mr Lobe is still living in the
fantasy land where everything is as it appears on
the surface. In his article of April 5 [Clipped wings
and a triumph for realism], Mr Lobe details
the "setbacks" of the neo-cons. Mr Lobe feels that
[Douglas] Feith, [Paul] Wolfowitz and [John]
Bolton moving out of the administration, and the
indictment of [Lewis] Libby and [Tom] DeLay, has
"weakened" the neo-cons. I think that Mr Lobe has
fallen for another pack of lies and/or
misdirection [by] the neo-cons. Just like many
people accepted the lies about WMD [weapons of
mass destruction] in Iraq. People never do learn
from the past. Bolton did not leave the
administration and lose influence. Bolton was sent
to the UN to further advance the neo-con cause.
The neo-cons own Washington. What is the point for
their operatives to remain in Washington? Ari
Fleischer left Washington as soon as his job as
spokesman for the Iraq war was over. Similarly,
Wolfowitz did not leave the administration and
lose power. He was sent to the World Bank so that
he could use its power to further the goals of the
neo-cons. How is it that Mr Lobe cannot see these
obvious promotions of Bolton and Wolfowitz for
what they are - the next step on the path to world
domination for the Israeli-loyal neo-cons? I
believe Mr Lobe, along with most everyone else, is
thinking exactly what the neo-cons want them to
think: that their structure is broken and they
have been scattered to the winds. Misdirection is
a staple of the East. I think that one of the
editors or employees of ATol should educate Mr
Lobe on the art of misdirection so he does not
make any further embarrassing "analysis". [Ehsan]
Ahrari's article [An arrow to the
heart of policy] focused on how the neo-cons
are bewildered because things have not worked out
the way they wanted. How can an obviously educated
man like Mr Ahrari say such a thing? Mr Ahrari
details the chaos in Iraq and tries to convince us
that it is all a disaster that the neo-cons did
not anticipate. I understand that Mr Ahrari's job
is to influence people to think a certain way. He
should be careful, because if he treats us like we
are uneducated, then we will stop listening to
him. I have a news article from back before the
Iraq war started. The news article plainly states
that one of the goals of the neo-cons was to
invade Iraq, start a civil war, and partition the
country into Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni areas.
This was the plan before the war even started, yet
Mr Ahrari is writing now that the chaos in Iraq is
something that popped up out of nowhere and caught
the neo-cons unawares ... The neo-cons attained
every goal they set out to attain when the took
over control of the United States of America and
ordered the invasion of Iraq. Israel, through its
control of the USA, owns the Iraqi oil ... Please
try not to insult our intelligence with any more
of these fanciful articles that appear to be the
result of sloppy thinking. You may think you are
pulling the wool over our eyes. In reality, you
are only diminishing the stature of your fine
newspaper.
Joe Blow (Apr 5,
'06)
Ehsan
Ahrari's An arrow to the
heart of policy (Apr 5) provides ATol's
readers with refreshing information about the
neo-conservative movement in the United States of
America. I have three issues with Ahrari's
analysis. First, this movement correctly believes
in oilism, militarism, powerism, lootism, [and]
changeism of "oily" regimes such as the Iraqi
regime without social engineerism, and borrows an
essential idea from the Iranian mullahs, which
emphasizes the export of the Iranian Islamic
revolution to Iraq after 1978. The Iranian mullahs
could not make it, but the neo-cons could. The
neo-cons have exported the uncreative destruction
to Iraq, and they were not fooled by the "Iraqi by
birth". In fact, the information the Bush
administration had before the invasion was
accurate, suggesting that Iraq had neither WMD
[weapons of mass destruction] nor nuclear
materials. Essentially, the neo-cons who represent
the core of militoilism (militarism for oil)
thought Iraq was the weakest link, and its regime
must be changed, because Saddam [Hussein] was
sitting on oil wealth; hence oil was basically the
driving force, not Saddam. Eventually,
miscalculation occurred and the immediate effect
was the collapse of Saddam's regime, but the
short- and long-run effect has been the
ineffectiveness of such a decision (or policy)
according to which Americans and Iraqis are paying
very high costs. Second, jihad was not a byproduct
of modernization, globalization, and the current
problems of Muslims. Jihad is an essential
component of Islam, where Muslims have to defend
themselves, their private ownership, communities,
and nation from foreign enemies. In fact, jihad in
Islam is the resistance and the defense of Muslims
against any occupying power. Jihad is similar to
the way when Americans defeated the British Empire
in 1776. No one can imagine [the United States of]
America without an Independence Day, nor can one
think of Islam without jihad. That is to say,
jihad in Islam is a fundamental institution that
does not die; hence the dynamics of the Middle
East would not "begin to change" in favor of
imperialism. Third, what I do not comprehend is
the argument suggesting that the solutions to
Muslim problems cannot be found by going back to
the 7th century. For a pragmatic person, is it not
true that Islam and Muslims were on the rise
during that period? Then how can Dr Ahrari
[persuade] Muslims to find solutions for their
problems in the 21st century, when Muslim
countries are on the decline?
Adil
Mouhammed
Illinois,
USA (Apr 5, '06)
Ehsan Ahrari's An arrow to the
heart of policy [Apr 5] is a very interesting
book review and discussion of the follies of the
neo-cons. But it is weakened by ignoring the role
of US Protestant fundamentalism in the invasion of
Iraq. [US Vice President Richard] Cheney and
[former deputy defense secretary Paul] Wolfowitz
may not be interested in "imminentizing the
eschaton" (speeding up the Second Coming of
Jesus), but [President George W] Bush probably is,
and [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice as well.
This is a routine part of the fundamentalists'
mental furniture.
Lester Ness
Changchun, China (Apr 5,
'06)
Re US anti-militia
strategy another wrong Iraq move [Apr 5]: The
events unfolding in Iraq are the logical ultimate
course this bloody conflict was bound to take and
will take. The forces that joined ranks to get rid
of Saddam [Hussein] will eventually come together
(and are coming together) to get rid off [the]
liberators. Iraq has a bloody history and it
repeats itself time and time again. This time
around it is going to be much bloodier and I don't
know where it is going to end. I am not sure if
the coalition partners will have sufficient time
and notice to pull out of the region before it is
too late. Prophet Mohammed's grandson had come all
the way to liberate genuinely faithful Iraqis of
the era from the "Saddam" of that time and the
only survivor who escaped was his seriously ill
son. Everyone else was killed by the Iraqis who
had invited them to [the country].
Rashid
Hassan (Apr 5, '06)
I am afraid that your author
Alex Berkofsky got his facts wrong when he wrote,
"Like the US, the EU officially espouses a
'one-China principle', acknowledging that there is
only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"
in the article EU-Taiwan: It's
all business [Apr 5]. The US does not
acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China. US
policy is rather clear that the US acknowledges
that each side of the Taiwan Strait claims there is only one
China and that Taiwan is part of it. The US does
not take a stand on whether such claims are
factually or legally accurate, and thus
fundamentally the US stance is based on fiction.
Further, the US ignores that the Taiwan side of
the Taiwan Strait does not [at present] claim
Taiwan is part of China, so US policy is also
based on factual error. Nonetheless, Mr
Berkofsky's restatement of US policy is inaccurate
...
Daniel McCarthy (Apr 5,
'06)
Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian hinted
at his rejection of the two pandas from China even
before his agriculture committee began
deliberations of the matter [Pandas too hot
for Taiwan to handle, Apr 4]. He knows the
majority of the population [would] love to visit
the pandas in the zoo. In fact two zoos have been
properly equipped and are competing to take in the
pandas, which suddenly [have] become a "Trojan
horse" to the Chen regime. This explains the
intense fear of a man whose popularity rating has
dropped to 18%, whose party lost miserably in
three local elections in a row recently, and whose
party members are quitting and starting to rebel.
Chen still has two more years in office to fool
around, but his party members do not want to end
their own political life simultaneously with him.
Investigation of several corruption cases
involving hundreds of billions of dollars are
being stopped as the judiciary officials are his
appointees. China's gift of pandas wins the heart
of Taiwanese regardless. Chen's rejection exposes
his paranoia and an utter lack of confidence in
his regime.
S P Li (Apr 5,
'06)
Most
of your texts [are] intelligent and informative,
much more than what can be found in the Western
media, and I thank you for this. But I am having
more and more problems with the pseudo-Spengler
|
