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.

Note: On May 27, Asia Times Online ran an article by Loro Horta titled As East Timor burns ... that was critical of Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri. Alkatiri's son, Lukeno Ribeiro Alkatiri, has sent a letter to the editor in response. As it is quite long, we are running it on a separate file; please click here to read it. - ATol


Thank you for Spengler's insightful essay on The Da Vinci Code, both the book and the movie [The Da Vinci Code's secret of success, May 31]. The rabbis of the Talmud taught their pupils about four levels of commentary: (1) Pashat, the simple meaning of the text; (2) Remes, what the text alludes to; (3) DeRash, how the text may be applied to contemporary situations; and (4) Sod, what the text may mean at a deeper or spiritual level. When it comes to religio-socio-politico commentary, Spengler seldom disappoints, giving his readers a multi-dimensional gloss on his chosen topic, buttressed by an encyclopedic knowledge of history, religion and the geopolitical trends du jour. He stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of his contemporary pundits.
Richard Greene
USA (May 31, '06)


I usually don't disagree too much with Spengler when he rants about Islamism and its dangers, yet I see him falling into the same hole from where the Islamists sprang [The Da Vinci Code's secret of success, May 31]. Spengler's raving against the book and its author would be considered logical only by those who are blinded by their belief. Spengler says pretty much what the Islamists say when after any terrorist bombing they claim that "this isn't Islam". After every murder or maiming in the name of Allah they claim "this isn't real Islam". Spengler attempts to put the blame for all of Europe's ills on paganism. Yet one must consider where were these pagans during the genocide in the new world of the Americas and during the Imperial Age. When the British engineered famines in India, or smuggled drugs into China, or when the Spanish just shot everyone in Mexico or when the Americans deliberately spread disease in the Great Plains; where were the pagans? Be it traditional European Christians or evangelical Americans, all of this was done in the name of Glory, Gold and GOD! To turn around and say that this is the fault of the pagans is rubbish, since it was mainly the pagans and non-Christians who were on the receiving end of the murders. The fact is that we despise the Islamists because they see fit to commit murder in the name of spreading their religion or destroying someone else's, thus we must also hate the sort of Christianity that was practiced years ago that tried to do the same precise thing. A resurgent evangelical sort of Christianity won't help the world, it will only further damage it. Those against the book forget that the basic message of Christ (peace, brotherhood and goodwill to all humankind) is never challenged by the author. The message of Christ stands as pure as ever; the curse of organized centralized religion blurs it in the name of glory for God. A little bit of loose, decentralized paganism that doesn't seek to swallow everyone, impose its will on the planet, but simply live and let live (like Christ intended) is the answer to the world's problems, not the reason behind [them]. Beware Spengler, in your fight against the Islamist, you might just become its mirror image.
Aryan Singh Rathore
Somewhere in Arabia (May 31, '06)


Thanks, Spengler, your article [The Da Vinci Code's secret of success, May 31] is so supremely shallow and weak-minded that I have passed the stage of feeling disgusted with you; I simply cannot take you seriously, and scold myself for taking you seriously even for the two months that I've been looking in on Asia Times Online. I feel that you yourself are snickering as you write any garbled idea that enters your mind. To ATol I would only ask, "Why?" I recall the editor giving a wonderful defense of why he permitted Spengler to voice himself [The world's only supersuicide bomber, Apr 11], but at that time I only read the editor's defense and not Spengler. Please do not misunderstand; I do not consider Spengler a racist, or anti-Muslim or anti-anything. He might or might not be; but this is not the reason he should be cut. It is simply that the man is not a thinker in any sense of the word. How dare he play with real ideas! If ATol wants to keep a writer on [whom] readers "love to hate", can you not find a man of a little higher caliber?
Krischer (May 31, '06)


Re Germany's anthem anathema [May 31]: As a regular reader of this magazine and a German citizen, I was somewhat disappointed by this article. Obviously the author hardly knows anything about the debate in Germany. [Hans-Christian] Stroebele's suggestion was not serious in that he really wanted to get the anthem translated. That was not his point. In fact the German anthem is highly unpopular in Germany especially among the youth, among liberals and among progressives. This is mainly [because it was used] during fascism as well, with the only difference that the emphasis had been put on another verse ("Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles", "Germany, Germany above everything else"). Thus the debate was in no way about the translation of the text of the third verse but about acceptance of immigration. In Germany until recently all leading politicians have outright denied the fact that Germany is an immigration country. Still today most conservatives and some social democrats would not agree to the most obvious, that millions of people have come to stay. In these contexts Stroebele wanted to make a point, to mark the obvious: that Germany is (not will become) a multilingual (not bilingual, as the author wrote) nation, which is as most readers of this international magazine will agree the global norm. Indeed, there are some linguistic minorities which already have official recognition - the Danes, the Frisians and the Sintis (as the German Roma call themselves) and the Sorbs (Slavonic-speaking). Besides that there are many other languages spoken, and not just Turkish. Among others, a lot of the people considered Turkish rather call themselves Kurdish, which Ankara probably does not like very much. However, it is in no way true that the immigrants, neither the Turkish nor the others, just keep to their language. They use both German and their original language, and their kids are usually not very good in their mother tongues as they don't get the proper education in it. In a nutshell: To write about German immigration policies through the glasses of Turkish newspapers gives a somewhat distorted picture, one which is hardly to recognizable for an insider.
Wolfgang Pomrehn
Berlin, Germany (May 31, '06)


Regarding Fazile Zahir's article on Germany's anthem anathema [May 31], I'd like to point out that the more precise translation of Einwanderungtrio into English would be "Immigration Trio" - "patriotic" is something completely different. Any chance of Germany being given an entirely different anthem? Great paper, though.
Andreas Ardus
Tallinn, Estonia (May 31, '06)


In her [May 31] article Germany's anthem anathema, Fazile Zahir reports on and praises a suggestion by a German politician, one Hans-Christian Stroebele of the Green Party, to formally produce a Turkish version of the German national anthem, to be sung by the Turkish immigrant population in Germany. I find this suggestion to be utterly and absolutely outrageous. Ms Zahir makes a superficial comparison to the recent Spanish-language version, Nuestro Himno, of the US national anthem, but these two situations are completely different. In large parts of the United States - including California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida - Hispanics are the founding population of the towns and cities, having been resident in what is now US territory for many centuries before those lands became part of the USA. Most of those resource-rich territories were transferred from Mexico to the United States as a result of the incredibly bloody and painful Mexican War from 1846-48, a conflict that caused and still causes substantial bitterness. Therefore, in an effort to reconcile the Latino population to US rule and to forestall further fighting in the Mexican War and other conflicts, a number of important treaties were negotiated by the United States for the southwestern states (as well as for Florida and of course Puerto Rico), which guarantee Spanish-language as well as legal and property rights for Latinos therein. In fact, a Spanish-language version of The Star-Spangled Banner was commissioned by the US government itself in the early 20th century as a part of this effort. Therefore, while the Spanish-language anthem in the US is still controversial, there is at least a strong legal and historical precedent for the use and respect of Spanish for official purposes throughout much of the US, since Spanish (like English and the native American languages) is one of the founding languages of the territory which now comprises the United States. The situation for Turks in Germany is completely different. Germany never fought a war against Turkey which resulted in the seizure and transfer of significant territory from Turkey to the modern German nation, and there was never a history or a prior legal framework of treaties therefore guaranteeing Turkish language rights on the land that constitutes Germany. Germany and Turkey have always been very separate nations with very distinct histories, and the Turks who have come to Germany since the 1950s are guests, not original residents of what today constitutes German territory. Thus the Turks in Germany are akin to my Irish Gaelic-speaking ancestors from southern Ireland who came to Illinois and Indiana in the 19th century - they came as guests to work in a foreign nation, without any prior territorial affiliation with their new country. They therefore learned English and sang the national anthem in it. The Turks in Germany, similarly, have come as guests to work in their new home which has generously allowed them in, and in return, it is their responsibility to learn German and sing the national anthem in it. This notion of a Turkish version of the German anthem is even more outrageous since other immigrant groups (such as the Polish, Indian, Chinese and Russian immigrants), often with an even greater presence in Germany, have by and large integrated into German society with much greater ease and are much more willing to adopt the German culture, identify as German citizens and sing the anthem in their adopted language. I hate to be blunt, but I have to honesty report what I have repeatedly seen, as I have worked many stints in Germany over the past five years and witnessed this first-hand: Many Turks complain loudly about how Germany has failed to integrate them, but this is largely because many of them have failed to make an effort to integrate themselves. Integration is an active process by the immigrants, not a passive one handed to them by the government ...
Jeff Campbell
Indianapolis, Indiana (May 31, '06)


Gareth Porter in [Khamenei in control and ready to 'haggle', May 31], states that the real power nexus in Iran is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not Iranian President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad. He further states that Khamenei is a "realist" and is now pressing for negotiations with the USA from a perceived vantage point of power: nascent nuclear capabilities, proxies or allies in the Palestinian government, Afghanistan and Iraq. Is Mr Porter accurate in his assessment? Is there now a unified power structure in Iran that is seeking "detente" with the USA? Have Ayatollah Khamenei's apparently obstreperous paladins (President Ahmadinejad, specifically) been sowing disinformation to further confuse and intimidate the USA by use of the "good cop (Khamenei), bad cop (Ahmadinejad)" routine? Was the (yet to be published) April 2003 offer to the US government sincere or simple disinformation? None of these questions, at least based on independently verifiable data from reputable sources, can be confidently answered, yet Mr Porter insinuates, based on unpublished and (so far as I know) unverified reports, that pacific or, at the very least, thoroughly pragmatic concerns now drive the Iranian government toward a negotiated detente with their American counterparts. My understanding is that a far less cohesive Iranian governmental structure exists, one with numerous countervailing tendencies and power struggles, more than a little tinge of paranoia and an element of well-founded suspicion about the US and its intentions in the region. While the realpolitik strain of Iranian diplomacy cannot and should not be discarded, there [are few] data to suggest, as does Mr Porter, that it is now ascendent. If so, a so-called "Night of the Long Knives" may be required to eliminate the advocates of theocratic "continuous revolution" as embodied in President Ahmadinejad's "faction", both domestically in "the street" and elsewhere, such as in the Palestinian Authority and in Hezbollah. Why? Because, in all probability, a nuanced understanding of the subtle political motives of the Iranian government has probably not been closely reasoned to its logical conclusions by the average Islamist, to whom it has been directed. These ideologues will be more difficult soldiers to discipline. In short, before fully espousing Grand Ayatollah Khamenei as the [Henry] Kissinger of Iran, Mr Porter should recall the observations made by the late US General Samuel B Griffith II in his insightful comments on another great practitioner of realpolitik, Mao Zedong, to wit, "Revolutions rarely compromise: compromises are made only to further the strategic design. Negotiation, then, is undertaken for the dual purpose of gaining time to buttress a position (military, political, social, economic) and to wear down, frustrate and harass the opponent."
Keith Comess (May 31, '06)


In his [May 31] article Singapore makes an honest bet, Gary LaMoshi quotes Merrill Lynch Singapore vice president Sean Monaghan saying: "The Singapore government continues to make decisions in the best long-term interests of the majority of citizens rather than for the benefit of a few." Sadly, the rest of the article chooses to ignore the significance of this simple statement of fact, and to indulge in the usual lazy condescension with which foreigners like to treat Singapore. To LaMoshi, it seems, the involvement of Temasek in any deal is prima facie evidence of conspiracy to defraud the population in favor of the Lee family; there is apparently no scenario in which Temasek itself may, in fact, be part of that long-term plan to benefit Singapore citizens. Maybe this is a result of how politics and economics are taught in the West. Who knows? But may I suggest that, instead of rehashing lazy [observations], perhaps his next article might apply the same principles to other countries. For example, he might dig into the relationship between President [George W] Bush, [Vice President] Dick Cheney and dozens of other White House grandees with corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR. Then he might consider, can he truthfully conclude that the military-industrial complex in the US is also being managed with a view to the best interests of the majority? (Hint: compare the disparity of wealth between the few and the many in both nations.)
Billy Zand
Singapore (May 31, '06)

Gary LaMoshi is a longtime observer of the relationships between politics and business in Singapore; you offer nothing to counter his conclusions except to suggest he go away and observe another country instead. - ATol


In the article Carrots, sticks and the isolation of Iran [May 27, Kaveh L] Afrasiabi focuses on the economic issue between Germany and Iran. He also states in a veiled manner the use (or misuse) of America's sole superpower status to influence other nations. Let's gets some facts straight. Yes, the US is currently the sole superpower in the world and as the old saying goes, "Use it or lose it." The fact that the US is "using" its power to its advantage is a fact that any nation that has the power [of] the US will most likely do the same. In regards to the rising nuclear status of Iran posing a genuine danger not only to the region but to the world at large, [this] can be backed up by the fact that Iran has used weapons of mass destruction before, when it used chemical warfare in its war with Iraq. This is a nation that has proved that it will use weapons of mass destruction, not [just] on the "infidel" nations such as Israel or any other non-Muslim nation that opposes it but also on other Muslim nations such as Iraq. The urgency to stop Iran from becoming a full-fledged nuclear power cuts across bilateral economic relationships with Iran. The palpable danger of a nuclear-armed non-Arab Iran is sufficient for its Arab Muslim nations to take notice and ultimately "request" the involvement of the Security Council, even if some of the members may lose economically when the sanctions are applied on Iran.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 31, '06)


"Shylock" is the name of a Jewish moneylender in [William] Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. He [lends] Antonio money, but requires that Antonio give him a pound of flesh if the money is not paid back on time. In the modern world "Shylock" is a slur that plays on the stereotype of the cheap and ruthless Jew. I enjoy Asia Times [Online] because I feel you often have some the world's most intelligent commentary on Asia. Andre Gunder Frank's use of the term "Shylock" bespeaks an ignorance that is unbecoming [Why the emperor has no clothes, Jan 6, '05].
Michael Armstrong
Beijing, China (May 31, '06)

It is true that some anti-Semites dwell on the side-issue that Shakespeare's Shylock was Jewish and use the name as a slur, but for most modern English speakers the word is merely slang for "unscrupulous loan shark". That is the context in which the late Andre Gunder Frank - who, incidentally, as a youngster fled Nazi Germany with his Jewish father - used it. For more on Frank, see the obituary we ran on April 27, 2005. - ATol


US citizens (in general) have very short political memories. This US characteristic is the reasoning behind the wanton and careless imprisonment of so many of our perceived "terrorists", 99% of [whom] are innocent. The US government thinks that people will "get over it" with the passage of time. Add to this the inhumane treatment and the long-term incarceration without trial, and you have the recipe for long-term latent terrorism. In the years to come, for reasons which will be inexplicable at the time, old men will commit terrorist acts against their former captors because they have not forgotten or forgiven. Neither will their sons, daughters and grandchildren. Any reasonable and thinking person should be able to understand this - which excludes the leaders of the current US administration.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 31, '06)


Re The Chinese are coming ... to Russia [May 27]: The way things stand right now, there is a far higher chance of the American southwest, Texas and California reverting back to Mexico than of Russia losing [its] Far East to Chinese shuttle traders. Bertil Lintner prefaced his opinion (and that's all it is) by pointing out that tabloids are overstating the case of Chinese "colonization", then proceeded to overstate it in his own piece. Unfortunately, most of [the article] turned out to be a simple mix of rumors, allegations and wishful thinking, somewhat tempered by the author's deliberate pace. If it wasn't [published in] ATol, I'd suspect some ideological agenda behind it. The facts on the ground are less alarming. Sure, Chinese dominate makeshift markets that have sprouted all over [across] the border, but it doesn't amount to wholesale domination of all trade and commerce. As a matter of fact, Russo-Chinese interaction in the Far East is still rather far away from saturation point, and will only increase to the benefit of both countries. Building walls is a losing proposition, as Chinese know all too well, and Americans will figure out on their own soon enough. As Mr Lintner observed, [the] Chinese aren't terribly visible [in the Russian Far East]. But contrary to his assertions, it's not so because hordes of them are cowering in some dormitories afraid of Russian hooligans. It's because they aren't there, at least not in numbers sufficient to tip the demographic balance. And they aren't there because most of potential migrants in China's northeast dream more about Dalian and Shanghai than about Vladivostok and Khabarovsk. There are no Chinatowns in Russian cities. Plenty of those "Chinese" [who] are on the streets are actually Koreans. The rest are mostly commuters with their base in China. If there were no commercial opportunities on the Russian side of the border, they'd never go north at all. The brave souls [who] have decided to settle in Russia will be "russified" within two generations - Russia's "melting pot" record is no worse than that of US. Given the fact that the Chinese birth rate itself is already below replacement level, a massive influx of Chinese is not in order. Only a full-blown collapse of the Chinese economy could change the equation. As for the projected "reorientation toward Beijing", the very presence of China - and attendant fears of being overwhelmed by it - serves to actually cement the region's allegiance to Moscow, not to undermine it.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (May 30, '06)


Re Carrots, sticks and the isolation of Iran [May 27]: It is a [rare] pleasure to read an article on Iran written by someone like Dr [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi, who knows the economics and politics of the region about which he writes. Would that articles like his were the rule, and not the exception.
M Henri Day
Stockholm, Sweden (May 30, '06)


I can't fully agree with Farid Bakht (Textile workers' rage rocks Bangladesh, May 26). I have been watching the news very closely and talking to people on both sides of the story and find there is something much deeper than what is on the surface. Hasan Mir [letter, May 26] states very rightly that some of the model factories became the targets, and what surprised me most [was that] some of the factories located in Banani-kakoli, where the conditions are quite pitiful, have survived. Yes there are exploitations of the workers by the factory owners, and many default in paying salaries on a regular basis, which are all very unfortunate. But the people who went on a rampage [against] the factories didn't seem to be the garment workers. I hardly saw any women in the mob whereas a majority of the workers are women, and don't tell me they are not capable of breaking the factories if they want to. This raises a question of who [did this] and why this happened. This needs an independent investigation.
Akku Chowdhury
Dhaka, Bangladesh (May 30, '06)


Gareth Porter [reports] that explicit overtures were made to the US by authorized representatives of the Iranian government in a document from circa 2003 [Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel', May 26]. This communication allegedly contains multiple concessions to the US, Israel and the EU, which I can only characterize as stunning in their scope. These include recognition of the State of Israel and other such, which appear to contravene fundamental precepts of the present and previous regimes since the demise of the shah's government. Interestingly and perplexingly, this earth-shaking overture has not been reported, at least by my review of the literature, in sources other than Mr Porter's article(s). I can only speculate on the exclusivity of this journalistic coup and further wonder through what sort of ideological prism the US government (to whom this epistle was allegedly directed) viewed the offer: based on Mr Porter's representations, it appears to essentially concede every point of contention to the "West", asking (humbly) only for what the late comedian Rodney Dangerfield called "a little respect". A recent article (Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Foreign Service, May 24) also made clear that multiple solicitations have been made by Iran to the US via intermediaries, but again no mention of the dramatic 2003 letter with its sweeping concessions was made. Vick and Linzer also quote Paul Pillar: "There is no question in my mind that there has been for some time a desire on the part of the senior Iranian leadership to engage in a dialogue with the United States," said Paul Pillar, who was the senior Middle East intelligence analyst with the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] until last fall. Thus there does seem to be a broad consensus on the matter of an Iranian approach, but it should best be recalled that there are many factions in the Iranian government, some of which present the appearance of working at cross-purposes. Mr Porter reports, "On March 10, President George W Bush said, 'The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national-security concern.'" However, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad was not in office at the time of the 2003 initiative and this comment is not relevant, therefore, to the main point of Mr Porter's article. It is, however, quite relevant to the current regime, which, inconveniently, now has the populist and publicly irredentist character of Mr Ahmadinejad to deal with. Furthermore, Mr Ahmadinejad's credibility with radical Islamist groups, both domestic and foreign, would be seriously compromised by an accommodation with "The Great Satan". Pragmatism may win out, as is often the case with post-revolutionary regimes now desiring international stability, but it's not entirely clear that the current regime espouses the offers purportedly made in 2003. In fact, plenty of representations made by his government suggest the contrary. It's also not clear how radical elements would be purged or contained in an effort to accomplish the "hoped for" reconciliation by Iranian peacemakers. There are precedents for such abrupt turns in government policy (eg, the Stalin-Hitler pact), but Iran's control of its proxies is less firm than might be expected. In summary, while it is clear that some elements within the Iranian theocracy have expressed an interest, even perhaps a fervid one, in opening negotiations with the USA, and it is equally clear that the US government, for one reason or another, has (at least to my knowledge) failed to pursue these overtures, the letter [Porter] reports on requires publication so the full text can be analyzed. To offer these tantalizing concessions while representing that they were rejected out of hand by the [Bush] administration suggests that either the present US government is dangerously blinkered (evidently and maybe accurately [implied] by Gareth Porter) or, perhaps, there are other unknown variables that might put the dismissal into clearer perspective.
Keith Comess (May 30, '06)

A point that is often overlooked when considering the complexities of Iranian politics and international relations is the influence of the country's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. See the new Gareth Porter article Khamenei in control and ready to 'haggle'.  - ATol


Regarding the article The battle spreads in Afghanistan [May 26], no matter how this battle concludes Pakistan will be the biggest loser. Before [September 11, 2001] Pakistan fully backed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan but after September 11 and a stern talk from Washington, DC, to [President General Pervez] Musharraf, Pakistan did a 180-degree turn regarding its position with the Taliban and joined ranks with the US coalition. The end result was the fall of the Taliban regime and an elected government in Afghanistan. This suited India and the US fine but not Pakistan. As the article points out, terror groups are springing [up] across Afghanistan to take on the ANA (Afghan National Army) and the US-led coalition. In addition to these various Afghan resistance fighters [there are] "unknown groups" who turn out to be led by "former Pakistani army general and director general of the Inter-Service Intelligence Hamid Gul". Because of Mr Musharraf's half-hearted attempts to catch key al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders within Pakistan's borders and the game of political poker that Mr Musharraf played with the US, Pakistan has already lost quite a lot. It has lost the steadfast trust of the US and it has lost full control of its western province of Balochistan to the al-Qaeda/Taliban nexus. If all goes well for the newly empowered Taliban forces and they are able to defeat the ANA and if the US coalition is forced to pull out, Afghanistan will fall back to Taliban rule, except this time the hand of al-Qaeda will help them be in power. This situation will place Pakistan in the most awkward situation. Instead of pre-September 11 Pakistani influence over the Taliban government, the newly emerged Taliban will not forget Pakistan's betrayal, [and] Pakistan may have to face the specter of a "Talibanization" of its own country. It was obvious that the leadership of Pakistan loathed the thought of a democratic Afghanistan that is reaching [out] to India and is supported by the US. Now Pakistan may face a not-too-friendly al-Qaeda-backed Taliban regime that just might turn the tables on Mr Musharraf and his government. The conundrum that Pakistan may face is worse than just being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 30, '06)


Re [Philippines' mining down in the dumps] by David Llorito, dated May 26: Has anyone verified all the figures being used by both sides, as to their sources? They sound so precise and authoritative, but I doubt them. All I know is that there were many people hurt by the spills; unfortunately, the people who are siding/fronting for the company(s) are not the people hurt by the spills. Who are these people: those with vested interests and those who have accepted bribes. (This is not a challenge to the writer, who has limited time and resources.)
Fluffysummit (May 30, '06)


Well, I think it's safe to say that Herr Spengler has finally jumped the tracks. His [May 23] review of arch-reactionary Melanie Phillips' book Londonistan [This time the crocodile won't wait] serves as a platform for all of Spengler's anti-Muslim rhetoric and, well, racism. In his efforts to be even-handed (ha) the good Spengled-one insists England has had a glorious past - well, if you mean [William] Shakespeare and [John] Milton and [Isaac] Newton, and maybe the Spice Girls and Wayne Rooney, then okay. But failing to mention colonialism is typical of this apologist for imperialism. A quick Google of Kenya/British rule will allow Spengler to get up to speed on the real glories of [Britain]'s history. And to conflate radical Islamic fanatics with all Muslims is simply mendacious. Ask [George] Galloway and his Respect Party if all Muslims feel revulsion for British leftists. This kind of half-baked bulls**t is typical Spengler. A faux intellect, he should probably be allowed a nice clean cell in a Somerset asylum, where he won't be allowed to contaminate the pages of an otherwise quite fine online paper.
John Steppling
Lodz, Poland (May 30, '06)


If D Bhardwaj [letter, May 26] pays attention to the news, he should hear that China has started the local-election process. A progressive home-grown democratic system is and will be a lot better than a democratic system forced upon the entire population. A forced democracy worked in some countries where basic human needs were not problems, like in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. In many other cases, forced democracy is not working, like in India and many African and Latin America countries. In India in particular, the democracy only works for the rich and powerful. Most [of the] Indian population does not have enough information to make a good judgment about whom they should vote for. Imagine those starved Indians living in sheds hot like hell watching a political debate between two candidates on a large-screen plasma TV. Sound like English humor? While the English-educated Indian elites brag about their elections, they never care about their own poor brothers and sisters. The English trained Indians to behave that way so they could colonize India with ease. I was stunned that Indian elites are proud of that. Do common Indians worry about their lives more or political parties more? No matter where they live, in Seattle, China or India, most normal human beings need clean water, food, and shelter to survive. They cannot live on empty votes. I know I cannot. Can you, D Bhardwaj?
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (May 30, '06)


Re Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel' [May 26]: And the Iranians did not on their own establish this "peace" on their own? Hmmm.
Herb Walker (May 26, '06)


Is GUAM [alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova] reborn? It would seem so, at least reading a couple of Russian newspapers and Pepe Escobar's article [The Gazprom nation, May 26]. Will the new GUAM, minus a key Central Asian state [Uzbekistan], that is, have the same bleak political and economic performance as the previous GUUAM? Ukraine is experiencing economic stagnation and possibly heading towards a political deadlock under the [Viktor] Yushchenko regime. Mr Escobar considers Ukraine an "alternative integration center" - and who is integrating with Ukraine? What state will rush to provide Ukraine with energy security when the country can hardly pay half of the market price for gas? Turkmenistan has many times sought to receive its pay from Ukraine. Nevertheless, all sorts of projects have been discussed: Iran-Turkey-Ukraine gas pipeline, LNG [liquefied natural gas] shipments of Turkmen and Azerbaijani gas via Georgia to Ukraine - assuming of course, once again, that expensive LNG plants will be geared towards Ukraine rather than towards the lucrative European, Asian, and North American markets and that the US will let Turkey and Ukraine help Iran sell its gas. Following the dichotomy set up in the Western press, Pepe Escobar believes that Russia uses economic and energy leverage to punish "pro-EU" states in the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States]. This is a skewed take on the issue: what state today is willing to subsidize - for that is what Russia has been doing for the last 14 years via cheap energy and its open markets - other countries that actively oppose its interests or take their cues from the leading NATO members - usually idealized as "EU"? I guess not only the GUAM states, but even Mr Escobar, have taken for granted what in today's context has been a large-scale humanitarian assistance project: prices for Russian gas have been at one-quarter to one-third of the European market prices for years. Along with virtually free access to Russian domestic markets, and yearly [US]$250 [million] to $1 billion - depending on the country - of remittances from nationals working in Russia, mostly illegally, this boils down to $10 billion of aid - and this aid doesn't go towards expense accounts and hotels for the swarms of graduates and experts seeking to feed hungry minds with political ideas. Russia's policy actually helps large sectors of the population in these regions. That was the norm. As a US consumer, an apartment resident, and a car owner, I have become used to a different norm: paying over $3 per gallon [79 cents a liter] of gasoline and having a large chunk of my paycheck taken out by expensive gas and electricity prices. So please pardon Russia when it decides to no longer do for other states what American companies will not do even for American citizens: subsidize their energy consumption. NATO/EU members pretend as if the Russia-Ukraine gas conflict, and the subsequent energy shortfall in countries receiving gas via Ukraine, was not the direct consequence of their strong interference in Ukraine's elections in late 2004. By financially and politically aiding Yushchenko, they did away with a regime that had been, and was planned to be, relatively cooperative with Russia and, hence, was to continue to receive cheap gas. Perhaps the perception, or assumption, was that "Russia will take it" and will subsidize while NATO decides policy? This pretense is also seen in Poland, which has protested the Russian-German gas project and yet for years stalled and blocked the proposed Yamal-Europe II, a pipeline that could send up to 60 billion cubic meters from Russia via Belarus-Poland to Slovakia and the rest of Europe; how can one stubbornly oppose increased Russian gas transportation and yet demand it? ... Finally, Mr Escobar mention's "the new Saudi Arabia", which makes one wonder, when did Saudi Arabia get an advanced space program and strategic weapons, aircraft and nuclear industry, a developed scientific base and community, and a geopolitical reach well beyond its borders? As a minor point, Russia's forex reserves are not "$170 billion", but as of mid-May 2006, $238 billion ...
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (May 26, '06)


The picture Farid Bakht portrayed in his article [Textile workers' rage rocks Bangladesh, May 26] is anything but right ... It sounds like he is very much willing to bet his credibility to save the name of [the] "neighboring country". Bangladesh is one of the largest exporters of garments to Europe and Asia. The industry flourished in the last decade or so. It employs millions of workers, mostly women. I like any Bangladeshi have seen reports and proofs of how some garment-manufacturer owners mistreat and exploit their workers. But ... the abuse is not widespread. No industry can flourish abusing its workers. What happened in Bangladesh in the last couple of days is anything but [accidental] or "labor unrest" as some would like you to believe. Every single factory that was destroyed was a model factory where workers were paid regularly and much more than average factory workers in the rest of the country. On top of that, most of the workers from those factories have distanced themselves from the whole affair. Intelligence officials had warned government before this week's incident that a vested quarter is trying to incite violence and create havoc in Bangladesh's main foreign-currency earner. The "neighboring country" which Mr Bakht tried to save so much has been using propaganda mostly to get orders away from Bangladesh to India. This is a well-known fact ...
Hasan Mir (May 26, '06)


Another timely article by Kaushik Kapisthalam: India, US fight to save nuclear deal [May 25]. The fight is legitimate. There are many positive aspects to this deal apart from bringing hundreds of billions of dollars to US businesses and other members of the NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group]. The most important reason for me is that it would be a great benefit to the environment of our planet. Despite all the fears expressed about dangers of nuclear reactors, the Chernobyl or Long Island incidents had minuscule adverse affects [compared with] the environmental damage and global warming caused by burning hydrocarbons. Use of nuclear energy for power production would not only lessen further environmental damage but also help conserve and thus reduce the price of this precious commodity. The deal is a win-win not only for India and the US but for the whole planet. Kaushik's mention of comparison with China is also legitimate, which again shows how biased and lopsided the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] is, which has been and can be modified. [Siddharth] Shrivastava's India shelves ambitious missile program [May 25] points to realism accepted by Indian leaders. Missiles and nuclear weapons are not as pressing an issue as the economic upliftment of the masses. I cannot, however, resist sharing my predicament with my Sinic friend Frank [letter, May 24]. He wonders in response to Sudha Ramachandra's article India's rite of summer: Death from the heat [May 24] why poor, hungry and scantily clad Indians care to vote. I would have no problem if Frank wrote that from some Chinese hinterland but, alas, he sits and writes all this from Washington state. I wonder why a billion-plus wealthy, well-fed and well-dressed Chinese don't care to vote and elect their own government?
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (May 26, '06)


I wish to comment on the article India's rite of summer: Death from the heat [May 24]. It is such an inglorious shame that at the stroke of every hour the Indians are frog-marching to economic glory and claiming astonishing growth but one has only to look at the outskirts of their big cities to find abject poverty of the majority of [India's] people living in no better conditions than the rats in the sewage. I agree fully with Frank [letter, May 24] that democracy does give a poor man a right to vote and elect, but what would he know about the wretched and incorrigibly corrupt democracy of India so proudly acclaimed as unique by its bourgeoisies, "Democracy of the rich, for the rich and by the rich" ... This reminds me about a story of a poor Indian farmer who could only afford to buy one loaf of bread every week to feed his family. On the other hand his master could afford to buy many loaves plus meat, vegetables, rice and cake. Things [got] worse; the farmer was mad at his master for sleeping with his daughter and refused to plant the wheat crop to punish his master, causing the price of bread to double, [then] treble. The poor man could not afford a loaf and his children died of hunger. The master [was] still rich, complained about the inflationary price but bought a loaf of bread every day. The farmer's wife got mad at her husband for not making any money from selling the crop, so she went to see his master and asked for a loan. He agreed but on the condition that she would have to go to bed with him. So the wife bought two loaves of bread, vegetables and rice and a cake with the money. At the dinner table, the farmer told his wife that his decision not to grow wheat was wise, after all. The wife smiled and told him to enjoy his dinner because often decisions have unintended consequences.
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 26, '06)


[Re note under Sreekanth's letter of May 25] Of course, no nation will spend blood and treasure to correct all possible injustices in the world: witness the collective yawn over Darfur. There are two separate points I'm making: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, and no one need mourn his passing. Separately, the reason for rearranging the pieces in the Middle East is not just that these are individual nasty regimes, but the fount of a dangerous ideology that threatens nations such as Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, China, India, Russia, various European nations and the US. The hope is to control this problem by having representative governments in the region, especially which do not subsidize and export terrorism. The fact that you use the term "rogue superpower" indicates your preconceived notions, just as this letter indicates mine, I guess. Would it become less of a rogue action if the five permanent Security Council members, two nominally US allies, one a dictatorship, and one fast becoming that way, were to act in concert, and wouldn't you then just call it "rogue superpowers" in the plural? Ultimately, my contention is that in spite of the obvious motives of self-interest, the US actions in the Middle East will profit everyone.
Jonnavithula "Jon" Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (May 26, '06)

Okay, last word to you. We'd just add that we appreciate reasoned, rant-free arguments such as yours attempting to explain a point of view evidently not favored by most of our writers (or, most likely, our readers) on America's imperial ambitions and its perceptions of moral imperative. Your comments are a refreshing change from the "you guys at ATol are a bunch of commies" crowd - as well as their counterparts in the "Bush is an asshole" camp. - ATol


Interviewee Andrew Bacevich (The delusions of global hegemony, Part 1 , May 25) states that the most influential people in the US administration "really believed" in "bizarre delusions". Delusion unfortunately seems to have had too important a role throughout US history. It is only because of the gigantic scope and scale of tools and methods, at the disposal of rulers so out of touch with direct dealing with the basic day-to-day existence of most of humanity that the delusion has become bizarre. Weaponry, finance, means of communication and transportation have become scaled so large as to be nearly beyond democratic reach. Yet the rulers' sincerity of belief, however delusional, that the best interests of the ruled are being pursued should attenuate the vehemence of criticism of such a regime, in which we've almost all had at least an acquiescent part. As most all of us partake of the destructive and dehumanized network of livelihood support that the US claims to promote and protect, deposing the current regime without overhaul of our livelihood dependencies would itself be only slightly less bizarre. It is symbolically appropriate if people from the [US] Army and marines, bearing the brunt of denigration, are best placed to speak up in opposition to a regime that has gone too far. For has the US military itself not been maybe the world's worst devastater of earth and polluter of water, even with no direct intent? Is it not bizarrely delusional to protect while underestimating harm to the protected? The earth and the water of all of our livelihoods seems unable to yield or forgive any longer, "and we're paying the consequences now". All eyes should be on the people of the US, from retired generals to any small person with a voice, as we hope they dispel our pessimism that the US can assume the non-delusional role so many of us wish for their and all of our benefit.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 25, '06)

In an early upload of this article, we incorrectly said that Part 2 of the interview would run in today's edition. We hope to have Part 2 online in time for the weekend. - ATol


[Re Iran deploys its war machine , May 24] The Iranians may be fooling themselves if they think an asymmetrical defense can save them. Even our [US military] Gilbert & Sullivan Joint Chiefs can see that a conventional attack on Iran would be disastrous and beyond the reasonable domestic political limits of our country. The only feasible means to take out Iran for the foreseeable future as a "threat" (as defined by the Defense Department and West Wing [White House] civilian draft-dodgers, and military G&S stand-ins, who have shaky knees and gelatinous spines to begin with) is by a Hiroshima-style holocaust. Such an attack, say 10 [million] or 12 million casualties, or more if necessary, would leave them [Iranians] so demoralized that it is unlikely they could scare even [George W] Bush or [Richard] Cheney for a decade or two. If properly done it might leave the southeastern oil facilities and the Strait of Hormuz available. But with The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight, who can tell? This [Bush] administration has shown itself impervious to such considerations as respect for the decent opinions of mankind. Bush's kill rate has already reached and, depending on what reasonably authoritative estimate you accept, may have exceeded Saddam [Hussein]'s (over 20-plus years). He has with perfect equanimity put Saddam's prisons to good use, but with our slightly less egregious forms of torture. It is but a short step to Hiroshima squared. And if they were afraid of Saddam, they must be really terrified of Iran. It is to the benefit of both the Bushies and Israel ... to isolate us so that the former can continue to terrify a demoralized population, made over into their own image, to their advantage; and the latter can finally maneuver us into a position where it is our only ally ... As a cultural libertarian I would not presume to counsel the Iranians as to their best course (a largely forgotten, but treasured by some, expression in the United States is "Better death than dishonor"), but they should be aware that the America they are dealing with today has little in common with the America so long admired by so many.
Anthony J Van Patten
Glendale, California (May 25, '06)


In Yellow journalism and chicken hawks (May 24), Jim Lobe identifies me as a member of Benador Associates; I am not. Had Mr Lobe fact-checked his article with reference to the Benador Associates website, he could have ascertained this. This error requires a correction.
Michael Rubin (May 25, '06)

We stand corrected and Michael Rubin's name has been removed. - ATol


I just want to say that our "Frank of Seattle" has learned a lot from ATol. [For the] first time in three years or so I saw that he has made serious comments [letter, May 24] over Sudha Ramachandran's article of May 24 [India's rite of summer: Death from the heat ], though it really surprised to me not to see to see his usual rhetoric - "white master", "licking master's shoes".
Shekhar Mehta
Chicago, Illinois (May 25, '06)


Re Bob Hoye's The 'peak oil' deja vu [May 23]: This article is an argument by analogy and totally ignores the empirical evidence that we are approaching peak oil - a concept Hoye does not even define. Nor does he mention - let alone refute - M King Hubbert's work on the linearization model that accurately predicted peak oil in the US lower 48 states, nor does Hoye deal with the empirical facts of Burgan [oilfield] in Kuwait and Cantarell in Mexico going into decline, nor the Saudis' futile efforts to raise production. The list of declining [oil] fields grows as nothing approaching them in size is discovered. This is one of the poorest articles you've ever published. Typically you have excellent stories, but this is sheer ignorance.
Dan Bednarz (May 25, '06)


ATol editor: Your point is well taken that Saddam Hussein's tyranny and atrocities were of the secular kind [note under Sreekanth's letter of May 24]. That being said, the Iraqi people and the rest of the world are far better off without him. In terms of reasons, though I agree with President [George W] Bush's actions, it is indeed a matter for regret that he did not initially describe his strategic reasoning to the American public, and instead relied on WMD [weapons of mass destruction] innuendo. The clearest big-picture reasoning on the subject was his little-noticed address in October 2005.
Jonnavithula "Jon" Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (May 25, '06)

The world is full of horrible dictators and other political leaders whom we all, and especially the people they directly tyrannize or keep in misery through their negligence, incompetence or greed, would be better off without. That is not and never has been the point as far as many non-Americans are concerned. The point is, should the US be the only nation permitted to overthrow any state it happens not to approve of? Is not such a rogue superpower far more disruptive to global order than a tinpot dictator like Saddam Hussein? - ATol


Thank you for Sudha Ramachandran's [May 24] article India's rite of summer: Death from the heat. We in the West, especially the NRIs (non-resident Indians), need to be constantly reminded that much of what we hear about India's economic progress, et al, is propaganda meant to feed the already engorged Indian ego, both at home and abroad. While India has certainly taken gigantic economic strides, these don't amount a "fart in the wind" (to use a phrase borrowed from the satanic prison warden, Norton, in The Shawshank Redemption) when our most vulnerable (who number in the hundreds of millions) are not just ignored, but abused and treated as acceptable "collateral damage" in the insatiable march towards corporate profits that line the pockets of a privileged few. Unfortunately, given India's enormous populace coupled with the callousness of its elected officials and the minuscule value its society places on the lives of the downtrodden, things are likely to remain the same (if not worsen).
Fareed Zahid
USA (May 24, '06)


I am glad that Sudha Ramachandran understands that "it is not the heat wave per se that is killing people, but an unresponsive government machinery" [India's rite of summer: Death from the heat, May 24]. However, Sudha should dig a little deeper into the issue. Why does a democratic government fail to respond to its people year after year? Were there any congressional hearings? Probably not. There would be a lot of empty hearings. At least nobody is found responsible for ignoring the cry of help from India's own citizens. India's half-baked democratic system is apparently not working. Democracy is not just about voting. It is about the voices of citizens. Those poor Indian citizens need the India government to provide them with clean drinking water, food, shelter and decent clothes, not just voting rights. When the Indian government fails to listen to its citizens' basic survival needs, empty votes do not mean much. When millions of Indians can barely be alive, whom do they care to vote for?
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (May 24, '06)


Thanks for exposing people like Amir Taheri [Yellow journalism and chicken hawks, May 24]. It helps ordinary people like me to understand more care is needed in reading the news. In Canada, the National Post is often regarded by many to distort international news for its own purposes.
Dave Chiu (May 24, '06)


The article Iran deploys its war machine [May 24] concludes by stating: "It is dealing with a country that is significantly more powerful than Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam and every other country bar Germany that it has fought." The paragraph forgot the Japanese Empire that the US also defeated. In the '30s both Germany and Japan built their military where it was second to none. Both nations had advanced air forces and naval forces that included aircraft carriers, something that Iran at this moment does not have even one, yet the US and its allies were able to defeat both powers. If a war were to break now, Iran would be facing formidable and highly advanced armies of the US and its coalition and Israel that do have aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and advanced military satellite systems. This group of nations really doesn't need to deploy vast numbers of troops on Iranian soil. Quite a lot of damage could be done by nuclear submarines equipped with nuclear weapons from these nations. They can easily secure the Strait of Hormuz and cut Iran's military oil supply without deploying soldiers to do the job. In addition, all of Iran's foreign assets will be frozen, an act that Iran cannot do to its enemies. It can freeze its oil exports to these nations but that would amount to cutting one's nose to spite one's face. One of Iran's biggest flaws is its confidence in its military and the assurance that it will win no matter what the odds are.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 24, '06)


Regarding Sreeram Chaulia's Why all is quiet on the American home front [May 24], it's hard to know where to start commenting on it, because he seems to have started with the assumption that deposing Saddam Hussein and jump-starting democracy in Iraq was wrong and evil, and wonders why right-thinking people don't protest. Maybe I should pick on the alleged coupling between minorities and opposition to war, and in particular that immigrants should be "stirred" by the effort to restrict illegal immigration, and therefore also oppose the war in Iraq. [I] don't quite see the connection there. In fact, it is patronizing to say that minorities and immigrants should be opposed to the Iraq war (or the Vietnam War, for that matter) because it presumes that they are not able to reason at the strategic level that the one was a proxy war against communism and the other is a proxy war against Islamist extremism. It is also historically inaccurate to say that US citizens had no fear of losing life and limb from the Soviets: during the Cuban missile crisis, there was actually a very real possibility of nuclear war on American soil. Similarly now, in spite of Cindy Sheehan and other "grassroots" protests, the majority of Americans have seen first-hand after [September 11, 2001] that our way of life and our personal security [are] under very real threat, and are responding accordingly.
Jonnavithula "Jon" Sreekanth
Acton, Massachusetts (May 24, '06)

But there was little or no overt Islamist extremism in Iraq before the US-led invasion. The available evidence is that Saddam Hussein despised Osama bin Laden and had nothing to do with September 11 or any other terrorist act directed at Americans. Surely it's time for Americans to put that red herring to rest and do some serious analysis of the real reasons for taking over Iraq. - ATol


In his ignorance and provincialism, Spengler cannot see any conflict in terms others than 1930s Germany [This time the crocodile won't wait, May 23].
Lester Ness
Changchun, China (May 24, '06)


I should be obliged if you would publish my comments on the article The Israel lobby: How powerful is it really? [May 23]. The misfortune that plagues the Muslims has the West as its origin and Israel, whose successful wicked manipulation of America and Europe through its Zionist lobby is most irritating and nauseating and cause of so many political and economic ills affecting our world today ... The Arab-Israel conflict is in fact an Arab, not only a Palestinian, conflict with the West and in particular with American colonialism. It is this colonialism, not the occupied lands of Iraq and Palestine, which is giving birth to more and more extremist groups [such] as al-Qaeda. Israel is an extension of American colonialism in the Middle East ... it conspires to create rifts between the Islamic states, creates feuds and internal disorder; instigates tribal, regional and sectarian hostilities with the only intent to weaken and disintegrate those countries. The American and the Western governments must change their partial attitude towards Israel and must realize the fact that it has become a liability and scourge for the rest of the world and is responsible for many economic and political ills that confront the world today. Peace must prevail in the Middle East and the Jews must try living in peace with their neighbors. That is the only way forward and best for Israel's survival ... Arabs and Jews are extremely intelligent people, and if the Jews decide to live in peace and harmony with their Arab neighbors and not as an extension of American colonial ambition and the imperialistic intentions of Emperor G W Bush, the potential for the whole of the Middle East to develop is colossal.
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 24, '06)


Spengler's review of Melanie Phillips' Londonistan reads like a eulogy to sanity [This time the crocodile won't wait, May 23]. Even by outrageous exaggeration can it not be [proved] that a majority of Muslims in the West or East or the globe put together desire a religious war with Western civilization. The world of Islam is in intellectual tatters since at least the late 19th century, with the overwhelming majority of Muslims mightily struggling just to feed themselves and performing salat [prayer] and fasting [during] Ramadan, in that order. Not one nation controlled by Muslims can truly be considered outside the Third World, with poverty, disease, corruption so enmeshed in Muslim societies that cynicism is the only consistent norm. So what is this sheer nonsense of comparing the world of Islam (if we can even be permitted to imagine such a concrete entity) to [Adolf] Hitler's enormously wealthy, resourceful, powerful, united, and viciously imperialistic Germany? Spengler and his ilk relentlessly beat the drums of war by painting themselves human and those with non-European civility barbaric. It is an old trick used a thousand times to rape the Earth a thousandfold. These people use a hapless Christianity to justify their follies in ways that would not be decent to put into words. Muslims are disgusted, it must be made clear, not just by the liberals' homosexualism but also by the conservatives' utter mistrust of God. Why doesn't Spengler advise British Christians to follow the African Anglican Church, which by his own admission has a better sense of religion? Because Spengler is of white European origin and would never submit to a black culture, even if a booming voice from [the] heavens were to direct him to do so. This is the ugly underbelly of Eurocentric thought, which mainstream Islam even today does not begrudge praise for its better parts. However, the West has lost its way and the suggestion from normal, sane Islam is for the West to try to objectively view itself and see that it needs outside help. For this, Muslims are compared to Hitler and his devils. What an outrage!
Zaheer Akmal
USA (May 24, '06)


I am tired of comparisons between the appeasement in the 1930s and the "appeasement" vis-a-vis the "Muslim threat" and, more specifically, the Iranian nuclear ambitions, of the sort Spengler uses in his review of the book Londonistan (This time the crocodile won't wait, May 23). Just as with his earlier exploitation of the World War I theme, the author juxtaposes situations which are only roughly similar, and the historical events could just as well be interpreted to support a radically different message. [British prime minister] Neville Chamberlain and (most of all) [French prime minister] Edouard Daladier withdrew their commitments towards a friendly state that was willing to negotiate and make concessions and arranged it so that [Adolf] Hitler's breaches of international law were legally sanctioned. This happened after a prolonged period of UK-sponsored "Czechoslovakia-bashing" (Lord Runciman's mission). I am afraid one could as well (or rather, as badly) draw analogies between Czechoslovakia, the only democracy in the Central Europe of late 1930s, and Iran, the only almost-democracy in the Middle East of today, or between the happy meeting in Munich to write off Czechoslovakia in 1938 and the complicity of the EU powers in drafting a UN resolution legalizing the use of force against Iran. Perhaps such analogies are not much wilder than likening the Muslim minority in the UK to the nazified, [Konrad] Henlein-led and Hitler-manipulated Sudeten-Germans, many of whom never accepted the mere existence of Czechoslovakia in the first place.
J Hudecek
Prague, Czech Republic (May 24, '06)


Bob Hoye (The 'peak oil' deja vu, May 23) writes, "As with any such concerns both then and now, the intellectual speculation seems mainly driven by soaring prices." This is childishly naive. The concern among science is genuine and based on physical data. The predictions for peak oil production at the turn of this century are over 50 years old. The economist-minded like Bob Hoye and Daniel Yergin never mention the data - they only use the same tired cliche of "the boy who cried wolf" in their very feeble attempts to discredit the reality that threatens their delusion.
Nathan S Ihrcke (May 24, '06)

Asia Times Online has run several articles related to the data behind the peak-oil theory. See An oil supply tsunami alert, (May 4, '05), by Swedish physics professor Kjell Aleklett. - ATol


This has reference to the solidly written article Nepal wakes up with a headache by Dhruba Hari Adhikary that appeared on May 23. The write-up is so elaborate and comprehensive that there is not much to comment on or point out any lapse as such. Mr Adhikary should be congratulated for bringing out such a piece of exquisite writing. However, while going through the entire article, one feels that Adhikary's coverage on the Maoist atrocities appears to be somewhat inadequate. In the name of the so-called "People's War", the rebels have carried out such heinous crimes that have no matching examples in any civil wars embarked upon by rebel forces in the civilized world. Secondly, he has also missed pointing out how these Nepali Bolsheviks are blowing hot and cold simultaneously. They speak a political language that is as cryptic as the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt and gives an offensive smell of possible dystopia, if they ever rule the country. They are most unlikely to join the mainstream politics of competitive democracy along with other parliamentary parties. The Maoists are simply looking for an opportunity to impose their own political option, a totalitarian yoke, on the Nepali people, in a manner reminiscent to that of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It appears that Adhikary could not do enough justice to this aspect of Nepal's political gridlock rendered more complex by the Seven Party Alliance's understanding with the rebels.
Ratna Bahadur Rai
Kathmandu, Nepal (May 24, '06)


Thank you for this website. The articles here are not available elsewhere.
John
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (May 24, '06)


Thank you for republishing Stephen Zunes' article on the Walt/Mearsheimer paper, The Israel lobby: How powerful is it really? [May 22]. While Mr Zunes basically echoes the position taken by authors like, for example, Noam Chomsky, his article details the argument that the US policy towards Israel, Palestine and the Middle East in general is fundamentally based on the interests of dominant sectors of the US economical and political elites with great depth and clarity. It is also a major achievement of this article to point out the background informing Professors [Steve] Walt's and [John] Mearsheimer's paper. Zunes describes the authors as belonging to a "realist school of international relations" who have "a vested interest in absolving from responsibility the foreign-policy establishment that they have served so loyally all these years". However, absolving from responsibility seems not to be the main thrust of Walt/Mearsheimer's argument. Instead the authors urge the US foreign-policy makers to adopt strategical changes in their policy towards Israel and the Middle East. The question then is why those "realists" loyally serving US interests would want to change a policy which Mr Zunes himself describes as being totally in compliance with US interests. Mr Zunes' article seeks to resolve this contradiction by distinguishing between long-term and short-term interests. This, however, is not entirely convincing, since those short-term interests have prevailed for several decades now - making them rather long-lived short-term interests.
U Klammt
Hamburg, Germany (May 23, '06)


I noticed Stephen Zunes' article The Israel lobby: How powerful is it really? [May 22]. After reading the first few paragraphs, it was obvious the article was a whitewash, an attempt to put out misinformation and spin that will make people confused about the excellent report authored by [John] Mearsheimer and [Steve] Walt. I am guessing the report has revealed reality in a way that is interfering with Israeli control of the USA ... Mr Zunes will fool people who do not have time to do anything but skim the news. There are still gullible and ignorant people who believe that Saddam Hussein was behind [the attacks of September 11, 2001]. It only takes about three paragraphs of Mr Zunes' story to realize that he is twisting reality in order to protect Israel. I have to wonder if he is another agent of Israel along with the US congresspeople, the White House staff, and the US media. I know that Mr Zunes is full of baloney because he lives in California. Tom Lantos and Diane Feinstein, two of the more well-known Zionist supporters in the USA, are both from the state of California. If Mr Zunes is a professor, he must know that the congresspeople from his own state of residence are well-known Zionist supporters. Tom Lantos produced a fraudulent Kuwaiti girl before the first Gulf War who lied that "Iraqis were throwing babies on the floor and destroying baby incubators". This is a proven fact of record. But Mr Zunes asks us to believe his article about how poor, mistreated Israel does not control the USA. When a Zionist-supporting US congressmen puts forth an impostor to lie to the US Congress, the White House and the American people, and then that Zionist-supporting congressman walks away from the lies scot-free, no investigation, no prosecution, no jail time - if that is not proof that Israel controls the USA, I do not know what is.
Woodrow Gillian
USA (May 23, '06)

The bogus baby-incubator story may have been pushed by Congressman Tom Lantos, but it was gleefully taken up by many other Americans - including at least one famous non-Californian, president George H W Bush - in the march to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. The use of propaganda to stir up pro-war sentiments, and the uncritical acceptance of it by the public, is an old story that is not confined to any particular group, political party, or lobby. See the new article Yellow journalism and chicken hawks , - ATol


In the review of Melanie Phillips' Londonistan (This time the crocodile won't wait, May 22), dubious comparisons or connections are made between the imposition of papal authority and conquest in the "name of Islam", appeasement in 1938-39 and 2006, leftists and subway bombers; all in an effort to stress the "strategic debacle of intolerable proportions in the form of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons" ... The otherwise most talented reviewer consistently refuses to dig much below epiphenomena, digging that would expose something of the actual field from which Britain and others are "reaping what [has been] sown". Such sowers' art of piggybacking just causes often unfortunately involves Israel, whether in background or foreground. Far better treatment of matters associated with this is the timely and important article The Israel lobby: How powerful is it really? (also May 22) by Stephen Zunes, who understands better how to dig. That much American support for Israel is dear and genuine is uncontestable. But pleaders for perennially embattled Israel, in accepting [the] American embrace for feeling otherwise friendless, fall into too close association with those of more exploitative embrace. Failure or inability to more deeply assess the latters' motives results in having to face those supportive of Mearsheimer and Walt. It is to be hoped that addressing these issues as competently as Stephen Zunes results in minimizing an otherwise possibly severe toll taken on just Jewish [causes] from unfortunate association. Riding the back of one crocodile might equal appeasement of another.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 23, '06)


Re [This time the crocodile won't wait, May 22]: Spengler mentions/claims that 13% of British Muslims support terrorism - how does that compare with the general population in its support for the terrorism/aggression of the Iraq invasion, which was intended to given training to the likes of al-Qaeda? What applies to one should apply to the other.
Thomas Meyer (May 23, '06)


Chrysantha Wijeyasingha [letter, May 22] is wrong when he affirms that no one in the '50s predicted the fall of the Soviet empire. He should try to read The New Class by Milovan Djilas, published in 1955. Djilas explained why the USSR was condemned to change or to fall. They [Soviets] didn't change, they fell. And in relation with the book review by Spengler [This time the crocodile won't wait, May 22], well, there're probably more serious and pressing issues to comment [on], but has Spengler ever visited the UK? If the Brits are sexually liberated and promiscuous, then I'm a dinosaur. Please, the problem with many European countries is not that they're too sexually liberated, but the fact that they're conservative and repressed. They don't know how to interact with one another. And it's very convenient to defend "values" and "morality" being a man, especially when those "values" put you in an advantaged position over women. The truth is a huge number of men would be incapable of living with truly sexually liberated women, with full control over their sexuality and bodies and their lives. They're simply too afraid of women. Or so they seem. Well, I'll try to talk about politics the next time.
Fabricio
Cuba (May 23, '06)


The article India's US nuclear deal hangs by a thread [May 16] points to the mounting pressure in the US Congress to scuttle this deal. If it looks like this deal will not pass, India should take the high ground and turn down this thorny agreement instead of waiting at the door for approval or disapproval from the US Congress. The Indo-US strategic alliance is far larger than just the civilian nuclear deal, and there are many other fields [over which] the US Congress does not have any bone to pick with India. It would be wiser to move on the other fronts. The harder President [George W] Bush tries to shove this deal down Congress's throat, the greater the chance Congress will be reticent on any other deals with India. The fruit of this deal is beginning to rot on the tree. It is time to let it fall and close the book on this civilian nuclear deal before it poisons the entire Indo-US strategic alliance.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 23, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your articles are not only realistic but also based on good and thorough on-the-field study. Irrespective of other reasons [to read them], the best reason for me is that in a situation of hopelessness and helplessness/despair, your articles are full of hope. They are from a good optimist's view, hoping for a future, a better future, for the ummah ...
Sheikh Aslam
Limbe, Malawi (May 23, '06)


Re Basra, Britain's Mesopotamian mess revisited [May 20]: With regards to British policy in southern Iraq (which includes Basra) it would inevitably be based on the fundamental British principle of divide and rule. In British philosophy the end justifies the means used to achieve that end. "The means" can literally be anything: it could be Colonel [T E] Lawrence of Arabia, a Michelle or Karen implanted in an Arab household, or a truckload of explosives. One inevitable outcome of British policy in southern Iraq has been empowerment and consolidation of Shi'ite forces there. Putting this together in the picture with the other two divergent forces, the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Sunnis (insurgents) in central Iraq, at least in theory the stage for a divided Iraq seems set. For the remotely based masters, a divided Iraq (as an internally cracked piece or openly carved up into several pieces) would be much easier to control than a united one. As for Iranians, they have a "split vision" problem, a problem they have continued to suffer from for the past many hundred years. Iranians want supremacy of Shi'a Islam but can't stand the idea of [a shift] from its present center in Qom, Iran, to its natural center in Najaf, Iraq, and it is for that reason that they do not trust Muqtada [al-Sadr], an Arab Iraqi nationalist. But at the same time Iranians like Muqtada because he is against Americans and closer to Hezbollah of Lebanon. From the Iranian nationalistic point of view, Iranian Iraqis like Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (and SCIRI [Supreme Council of the Iraqi Revolution]) and Ayatollah [Ali al-]Sistani and their followers are more suitable, but Iranians do not trust them either because they are closer to [the] Americans. It is this split-vision syndrome of Iranians that is a big contributor to the turbulence and uncertainty in the region and one of the significant hampering factors in the regional Islamist forces' ability to make any decisive move.
Rashid Hassan (May 22, '06)


The information Sami Moubayed provides about what is happening in the Basra region corresponds to that given by other, usually well-informed sources, and his comparison to the British Empire's difficulties in the same region nearly 90 years ago seems apt [Basra, Britain's Mesopotamian mess revisited, May 20]. But I find his reference to Muqtada al-Sadr as the "rebel-cleric", while commonplace in Western reporting, less than helpful; according to my understanding, a rebel is one who rebels against duly constituted authority. Neither the US nor the British forces, which illegally invaded Iraq, nor the so-called "governments" of that country, instituted at the behest of the conquerors and dependent upon them for their very existence, come anywhere close to meeting this criterion.
Henri Day
Stockholm, Sweden (May 22, '06)

A rebel can rebel against any authority, whether it's "duly constituted" or not. Usually that's the whole point: the rebel feels that the authority is illegitimate. - ATol


The book review of Mike Davis' Planet of slums (The accumulation of the wretched [May 20]) is sensational to say the least. It is very easy to extrapolate the future based on current statistics. This was done in the late '50s, which portrayed many prophecies of what the world would be in the year 2000. On one hand economists predicted a world with a much larger population than the current 6.5 billion people we have now and the wretchedness that accompanies it. On the other hand we were fed movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey [on] a world far advanced than the ground realities of 2006. None of them predicted the rapid rise of China or India as becoming major economic and military powers in this century. Nobody in the '50s or even the early '60s predicted the fall of the Soviet empire. I am certainly not disregarding the prophecy of Mike Davis as pure rubbish. There is always a germ of truth in these predictions. [George] Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four never materialized in that year or the years to come, and no writer of that era ever predicted the rise of global radical Islamic terrorism in the 21st century. The list goes on. Yet here we are in a world that all the philosophers, writers, economists could not fathom back in the '50s. Mike Davis would be wise to remember the old saying, "Nothing changes except change itself." The future is not just a straight line drawn from its past. It is full of crossroads, obstacles [and] opportunities that make any prediction of the future an exercise of futility.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 22, '06)


Thank you for bringing Mike Davis' new book to our attention (Planet of Slums, reviewed in The Accumulation of the wretched, May 20); we hope to have our copy soon. My mother had to leave her beloved native Rio de Janeiro (mentioned in the review) decades ago, and is very distressed at what has become of it. My grandfather had to make a living dealing in the favellas, the character of which has very much changed indeed, in "the criminalization of the slum". Reviewer Pepe Escobar quotes author Davis: "This great dragon-like sprawl of cities will constitute the physical and demographic culmination of millennia of urban evolution." Indeed, for most of the world appears intent at suffering "the new Babylon" of dislocation and exile not dissimilar to that felt by Jewish people, initiated some 2,500 years ago (but by the Assyrians). The latter's descendants' creative coping, even with great suffering and loss all these long years, can perhaps provide some succor and even hope to today's exilic initiates. But better certainly would be great cooperation at reversal of the worst of those trends set in motion so long ago, recovering cut-off basic enjoyments and livelihoods.Thanks to the review, we look forward to reading more of Davis' "[non-]apocalyptic [realism]". ATol is encouraged to run many more book reviews.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 22, '06)

And readers are encouraged to browse through our extensive collection of book reviews. Many of these books would enhance the library of dedicated ATol readers, and of course the reviews themselves are usually a "good read" and, we hope, a welcome break from the "heavier" day-to-day ATol fare. - ATol


Re Taliban's new commander ready for a fight [May 20]: Afghans kicked British asses, Russian, and they will do identically to the Yankee ones.
Paul (May 22, '06)


Regarding the article The mother of all US bombs [May 19], it is obvious that Daniel Smith did not carefully research the coming experimental explosion at Test Site 145. He should have read the huge environmental-impact statement the military was required to file. (Anybody can download it.) It makes the scale and test much more understandable. In the past they have had much bigger conventional tests. The core of this test is a scale factor due to reusing existing tunnels left over from the nuclear-testing period. They are trying to model a particular potential target tunnel complex. This complex is made of [concrete]-lined tunnels within a quite similar sandstone stratum. The scale factor comes in as the tunnels at Test Site 145 are much deeper than at the potential target, so they need a much bigger blast for a similar effect. The primary purpose achieved by a test would be the verification of their computer simulations. If the effects are not as expected, then the computer program will need work. It's nothing more than that. [There is] no intention of making 700-ton bombs, too big to deliver by any plane. [It is] just verification of a computer simulation of possible future targets in some imaginary war scenario.
Jim Miro
USA (May 22, '06)


The label "terrorist", an obviously pejorative term, is represented by Emma Bjornehed in her recent Asia Times Online article [Don't judge somebody by the (terror) label, May 20] as an impediment to problem-solving, in that an acting government, "legitimate" or not, cannot cede its credibility by engaging in discussions with a group so labeled. By simply removing this adjective, the stigma of bloodthirsty fanaticism evaporates and negotiation leading to conflict resolution can proceed, or so she suggests. Implicit in this argument is that the term "terrorist" cannot be defined: "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist", as the apophthegm goes. This, naturally, is a statement of moral equivalence, and cultural/moral relativism has been used to disarm many an argument: if we cannot agree on the definitions, how can we have a debate? An analogy can be found in the formula, "I know pornography when I see it." Similarly, even absent a consensus definition, most people "know terrorism when they see it". The Nepalese experience may not be the best illustration of the problem she dissects. Take, for example, these events from "ancient" history to put the matter into tighter perspective: on December 29, 1997, 412 men, women and children were hacked to death in three Algerian villages in the Elizane region (the act was perpetrated by Islamists fighting the Algerian government). The inhabitants of the French villages of Oradour and Tulle-sur-Glane were shot and burned by the 2nd SS Division on June, 1944 (for obscure reasons). The Czech village of Lidice was liquidated June 10, 1942, on direct orders from Adolf Hitler (all 172 men and boys over age 16 in the village were shot, while the women were deported to Ravensbrueck concentration camp, where most died; 90 young children were sent to the concentration camp at Gneisenau). I sincerely doubt that these actions would be regarded by all but the most morally obtuse observers as anything but terrorist acts, regardless of motives and regardless of whether they were perpetrated by "guerrillas" (Algeria), a "renegade" military unit (Oradour) or a "legitimate" government (Lidice). Would attaching a "terrorist" label make negotiations with the perpetrators of these actions more or less palatable? I doubt it. [Denis] Diderot noted in the 18th century that the transition from fanaticism to barbarism is but one step: the terrorist has taken this step, meeting my definition of terrorism. If Ms Bjorrnehed feels that the social conventions (called by some, "politically correct" behavior) adhered to within the confines of Western universities somehow constrain negotiations between conflicting parties, she is wrong: the barbarities are conducted to force recognition, and withdrawing the "terrorist" label is de facto recognition of this achievement. Calling perpetrators by another name does nothing to obscure the horrors of their actions.
Keith Comess (May 22, '06)


Re Iran: China, Russia drift toward US [May 19] by Kaveh L Afrasiabi: Most observers agree that the outcome of this US-Iran confrontation would profoundly affect the geopolitics of the West Asia region and the fortune of "multipolarism" in a future world order. In other words, from the perspectives of the Russians and the Chinese, the inclusion of Iran in [the] US sphere of influence, if not its outright subjugation, is the long-term strategy and national policy of any government in the US. What is taxing the brains of the think-tanks and leaders in both China and Russia is finding the answers to these questions. Will the uncompromising hardline stance of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad over the nuclear issue hasten or delay the further implementation of this US strategy? Will the stepping up of direct US involvement in Iran weaken or strengthen the US position in the region? Will the cost to the US be greater or lesser when such a confrontation reaches its head now rather than later? What is the best way to make the US look unreasonable and an implacable hegemon in the eyes of the world community if and when the US does go ahead with further browbeating or severe punishment of this Iranian regime, with or without its "coalition of the willing"? In this light the apparent drifting of Russia and China toward the US position may camouflage a far more complicated strategy.
Harry Lee
UK (May 22, '06)


Kaveh L Afrasiabi's Iran: Russia, China drift toward US (May 19) gives the impression that the Iranian mullahs are depending heavily on China and Russia for achieving their dream of being the most powerful nation in the Middle East. This dependency idea is problematic and absurd. The mullahs know very well that China and Russia did not exert any pressure to prevent US military forces from occupying and destroying Iraq. As such there are no rational or relevant reasons that the Iranian mullahs expect China and Russia to be advocates of their cause against the United States of America and ... European countries. In fact, China and Russia have their own self-interests pointing toward not only making Iran a weak nation in the region but also aiming at the weakening of the US influence in the Middle East. That is to say, their optimal strategy is to play on both sides, a move that is understood by many observers. It follows, after taking out the role of China and Russia, the Iranian mullahs must have a clear independent strategy whose timing for implementation must be now, because the US is heavily busy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, Iraq has become a quagmire for US military forces, and the insurgents will continue fighting for years to come; so is the case in Afghanistan. This situation, along with the rising political power of the Iraqi mullahs, has in turn benefited the Iranian mullahs and strengthened their influence in the region. What the Iranian mullahs have in mind, I think, is to continue feeding the Iraqi insurgents secretly, and if US forces attack the Iranian nuclear installations, that will give the mullahs the license to support the Iraqi and the Afghan insurgencies openly. This means a line of formidable resistance and insurgency from Afghanistan to Iraq will be created against US military forces. Honestly, no military power will be able to defeat that long line. It is indeed a permanent high-cost war for all parties. But I am wondering whether the Iranian mullahs are praying to Allah for a US attack on their nuclear installations, because this attack will allow them to implement their strategy. The mullahs know very well that there is no way that a foreign power will be able to control the geography of the Middle East, that the US planned to conquer for achieving imperialist democracy. This goal requires more social and economic resources than the available ones, and the majority of the American people will not support it, because Americans have been receiving the worst deal out of this new imperialist ambition established by the American oil corporations and the military complex for huge profits, propagated by the neo-cons, and executed by the Bush administration. The best expected outcomes will have to be the departure of US military forces from Iraq and the ability of Iran to produce its nuclear bombs, outcomes that the Bush administration never had in mind.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 22, '06)


It is estimated that millions were killed during the Cultural Revolution, some have said 2 million and Western experts have said 7 million. This is probably the reason Raymond Cui (letter, May 19) finds his "good old days" when "streets were clean and unjammed".
Fong Tak Ho
Managing Editor, Chinese Edition
Asia Times Online
Hong Kong (May 22, '06)


I wish to compliment ATol on its response to letters on the topic of xenophobia [under Cha-am Jamal's letter of May 19 et al]. Your responses appear to be honest, fair and balanced. This is refreshing in a world of words where the vast majority is completely, and often unjustifiably, one-sided. As for my own opinion on the subject of xenophobia: it's as natural as the sun rising and setting. The problem is when it becomes a rallying cry for planned wholesale slaughter. Again, my compliments to ATol for reasoned answers.
Jack Meehan
New Hampshire, USA (May 22, '06)


The 1966-76 Cultural Revolution of China was indeed forgotten by most Chinese, with or without the CCP's intentional manipulation [Cultural Revolution? What revolution? May 19]. After all, around 40% of China's 1.3 billion people were born after the end of the Cultural Revolution. To those who had personal experience of the turbulent years, memory of the revolution is now intertwined with that of the early years of Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms and open-door policy, which brought both tangible benefits and dreams of prosperity to ordinary Chinese people, and that of the last 10 years [with] a widening difference between poor and rich, deteriorating social [stability], rampant official corruption and decaying personal and social credibility. Real-life adversities are now compared with the "good old days" when streets were clean and unjammed, the state took care of people from womb to tomb, government employees got executed for embezzling 2,000 yuan and "lifestyle" problems (extramarital affairs) would doom political lives of officials. To the CCP [Chinese Communist Party], revisiting the Cultural Revolution would be opening a Pandora's box and the consequences could be uncontrollable. To ordinary Chinese people, they would be facing a difficult question of (a) now or (b) past, and they will never have a satisfying answer. Therefore both the government and people choose the only solution: looking forward, each with its own understanding of the term ("forward" in Chinese can be translated into "ahead" [or] "money").
Raymond Cui
Beijing, China (May 19, '06)


Kaveh L Afrasiabi's article Iran: Russia, China drift toward US [May 19] is a pragmatic move by these major powers. As Iran's recalcitrant attitude towards the world regarding its nuclear program increases, the specter of war seem inevitable. Luckily for the world, Iran does not contain all the oil in the world, but trade with the US and the EU is primary for the economies of China, Russia and other non-Western nations. For Mr Afrasiabi to make comparisons of Brazil's nuclear program versus Iran's is absurd. Brazil's leader is not spewing out speeches of annihilating Israel [or] any other nation. Brazil has not threatened the world that it would proliferate its nuclear program. This makes Brazil more trustworthy. The problem with [President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad is that his speeches belie the fact that he believes Iran is indisposable to the world because of its oil its her newfound nuclear technology. Mr Ahmadinejad obviously believes he can make atrocious speeches of genocide and nuclear proliferation without consequences from the world body. Such rash behavior and speeches may be one of the reasons that Russia and China are realizing they may be dealing with an extremist in power in Iran who may not have any hesitations in carrying out his threats.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 19, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: You mention in your article Osama back in the US crosshairs [May 17] a group you called "Afghan Salafis"; what exactly do you mean by this? Who are these people, what's their ideology? If they are Salafis, why then was there "bad blood" between them and the Taliban (shouldn't they be following the same ideological line)?
Mustafa Suvalija (May 19, '06)

Taliban are hardline Hanafis, the people who believe in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Taliban believe in Sufi traditions etc while Salafis are purists - they do not follow any school of jurisprudence, but rather take guidance directly from the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet rigidly and at the same time do not believe in any Sufi schools. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Reference: "Thailand has blatantly racist laws and practices"  [comment under Mike Bolan letter, May 18]: I know of no blatantly racist laws and practices in Thailand but in my travels to Japan and China I have learned that racism is not the exclusive regime of the Anglo-Saxon races. That, I suppose, is the point.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (May 19, '06)

The remark was not meant to single out Thailand for special censure - on the contrary. The point was that even Thailand, where Asia Times Online's main bureau is located, is not immune to the scourge of intolerance; witness the problems in the Malay Muslim-majority south. - ATol


Authoritarianism vs authoritarianism (A rash move by Beijing and Checkmate over Taiwan,  [both] May 18), Vatican vs Beijing. From [the perspective of some of us], it's hard to pick which side to back. While I believe a Chinese cultural-naturalizing influence can be only salutary on the otherwise too other-worldly focus of Christianity, it is hard to admit that this is best effected via Catholicism. And yet Beijing is justly fearful of this widening wedge inserted into its own overly controlled polity. Who would not want to have the Church serve as conduit or bridge for all kinds of good not readily accessible in China? But as long as the Church retains any significant measure of needing its own wider wedge of change, how good a conduit or bridge can it be? These issues ultimately surpass in importance things like official recognition or bishop appointments, both seemingly readily resolvable in any event.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario May 18, '06)


I am a regular reader of Asia Times Online. And please let me extend my thanks for providing us with such an exceptional platform for discussion, analysis of current affairs. Recently, Sudha Ramachandran wrote an article titled Myanmar on laughing gas [May 18]. Some parts of the article caught my attention, especially the part involving Bangladesh. For example, Sudha mentioned: "But even as the modalities of the deal are being worked out, their [India and Myanmar] common neighbor Bangladesh is upset over having been dropped from a pipeline proposal to bring the gas to energy-hungry Indian markets." Nothing [could be] further from the truth. When India first started discussing the tri-nation (Myanmar, India, Bangladesh) gas pipeline, Bangladesh let India know that a transit fee [was] not good enough. India [would] have to take practical steps like letting Bangladesh use India's territory to trade with Nepal and Bhutan, taking steps to bring down the trade barriers (both tariff and non-tariff) which are responsible for [a US]$2 billion trade deficit and so on. India so far decided not to accept Bangladeshi conditions and thus the talks stalled. Bangladesh repeatedly told India it has no problem whatsoever with a pipeline that does not go through Bangladesh and wished the plan good luck. In another part Sudha wrote: "But a miffed Bangladesh is now raising objections to a direct Myanmar-India pipeline. It has also accused the two countries of encroaching into Bangladeshi territorial waters - the maritime boundary is not demarcated yet - to explore hydrocarbon deposits." It is actually leading Bangladeshi newspapers [that] exposed this encroachment, not the Bangladeshi government. For example, The Daily Star's article "India's exploration bid overlaps Block 21 in bay ([see] map of overlapping areas). New Age wrote [another article on the subject]. At least two days after [these] articles were published, the Bangladeshi government reacted in the following manner: "Dhaka firm on protecting its maritime boundary" ...
Hasan Mir (May 18, '06)


[Re] Osama back in the US crosshairs [May 17]: I must say that Osama bin Laden must be a very clever man with his disguises as well as with his hiding skills. He would not dare wear a burqa because his height could easily attract a large crowd and [be] a giveaway to the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency], but he could disguise [himself] as a fakir, but again would be too tall for distraction. So I believe that the only safe place left for him to hide, since he has been [hunted] in every cave, every hole, every corner of the globe, and even the mountains of Hindu Kush have been flattened, would be the White House under President George W Bush's bed or inside his [closet] or on his ranch behind a bush or in his attic. After all, Bush and bin Laden have been friends for long.
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 18, '06)


Re India's US nuclear deal hangs by a thread [May 16]: Kaushik Kapisthalam is right in his assessment. The deal does hang by a thin thread and it is no wonder that it is so. Despite all that has been said about India being in the opposite side (in fact the better statement would be that it was not by the side) of United States during the Cold War years, the truth is that the US never let India be its ally. The US wanted India to be its lackey, which the US looks [for] in an ally, and [the] Indian leadership could not accept that position. Despite all the rhetoric of championing and now even spreading democracy on the tips of cruise missiles and smart bombs, the US failed to befriend and support a nascent and enormous democracy in the wilderness of Asia. It could befriend dictators and even communist China and fire up their economies but could not do much for India. [Meanwhile] China was readily accepted as a permanent member of the UN [and] into the nuclear club. The US cannot shake off its headiness when it comes to India. Would it not help the cause of promoting democracy if India was helped to jump-start its economy and lift its populace mired in poverty? How do you fend off a statement from the communists of China that it has the best human-rights record as it lifted 400 million people out of poverty? Would that have been possible without help from the US, the same US that holds off India under sanctions? I, for one, will not be surprised if this "special nuclear deal" [with] India will be scuttled by the [US] Congress. [President George] W Bush will not be new in his frustration; his predecessor [John] F Kennedy had to experience the same from his Congress when he tried to change relations with the world's largest democracy.
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (May 18, '06)


Peng Dehuai [letter, May 17] has got it right. This [Confucius Institute program] is a sign of worse developments to come. It is also significant that the Chinese have chosen to call it "Confucius Institute" and not Lao Tze or Tao Institute or other names. What next? A Chinese "Peace Corps"? If it happens, be warned that China is following the same path as the US and will end up behaving in the same manner.
Girish Kharel
Kathmandu, Nepal (May 18, '06)


Has anyone explored the apparent reality that the white Anglo-Saxon countries are acting (and possibly have always acted) in racist ways? We suspect everyone who isn't of our race like American Indians, Australian Aborigines, Canadian Eskimos [sic] and so on, and ultimately we kill them or use them as slave labor. Middle East ... who can trust them? They're not like us - kill. Asians - not like us - suspect - and on it goes. If this theory has legs, it'd be interesting to pursue it further.
Mike Bolan
Australia (May 18, '06)

Anyone who has spent any time living in Asia will know that racism is in no way unique to English-speaking nations; on the contrary, even relatively liberal countries such as Thailand have blatantly racist laws and practices. It may be, however, that European peoples (not just Anglo-Saxons; note the genocide and other brutality committed by Nazi Germany, colonialist France, the Netherlands, Belgium etc) have in recent history had the means to inflict more damage with their xenophobia. - ATol


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Thank you for [giving] a more realistic synopsis of what it's like being on the ground in the Chatril Valley and sharing who the locals actually support [Osama back in the US crosshairs, May 17]. I wish there was a sense of peace there, but it seems that everyone there lives a hardened life and they only know the life they've lived. It's so interesting how the allegiance can quickly shift to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, especially when those people rule by violence, death and intimidation. As stupid as it sounds, I wish wholeheartedly that they could experience taking their kids to beautiful parks, visit museums, experience living in a safe environment where you don't fear for your life at all times, where their wives could dress up and go out with their husbands to beautiful restaurants, live in nice homes, travel and just simply be free. I appreciate your writings and just wanted to express that to you. I've had so many great moments in life, and I wish it could be so for the people of these war-torn regions.
Glenn Swan
New York, New York (May 17, '06)


Re Osama back in the US crosshairs [May 17]: Just a quick question. Has anyone pursued the chance of him hiding in the "autonomous region" [probably Xinjiang is meant - ATol] in China? It seems that [given] the demographics of the population, along with recent unrest, this would be a perfect hiding place.
Travis Morris (May 17, '06)


Peter Kiernan's Iraq's oil: A neo-con dream gone bust (May 17) has some internal illogical components and can deceive and mislead ATol's readers. First, it is absolutely false to argue that oil was not mentioned before the imperialist invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that had not killed a single American before the occupation. As Mr Kiernan indicates, Vice President [Richard] Cheney did bring up the issue of Iraqi oil when he argued that Saddam Hussein was sitting on 10% of the world oil reserve. In fact, oil corporations' representatives conducted several meetings with some American government officials, trying to convince them that the Iraqi oil was actually owned by oil corporations and the Iraqi government nationalized it; hence oil ownership should be reversed or privatized, an action that [could] be only implemented by military forces. [Karl] Marx and [Thorstein] Veblen correctly call such actions looting of economic resources. Second, it is also false to state that Iraq has [115 billion barrels] of oil reserves. In fact, Iraq has more than 220 billion [barrels] of oil reserves, and this number has been discounted by the [US] elite in order to minimize the role of oil in the naked imperialist occupation of Iraq. Third, Mr Kiernan has informed ATol's readers about the amount of oil Iraq has exported since the US occupation but he has not explained who has received the Iraqi oil revenues. Fourth, if the Bush administration and the neo-cons aimed at the disintegration of OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries], then the easy direction would point to Saudi Arabia, because the latter produced the largest share of oil in OPEC at that time. Consequently, Saudi Arabia, as a friend of the United States of America, could play a more influential role in the disintegration of OPEC than the occupation of Iraq, a plan that would have been cheaper and easier to implement, given the UN sanction on Iraq. Fifth, the Bush administration has been using American military might to go after oil [producing] countries and to create instability in the oil market in order to increase oil prices, which generates huge profits for oil corporations and the military complex. This is indeed an excellent plan, not a mistake, for making more money, because no oil corporation is interested in producing more oil, as such an action will reduce oil prices and will cut oil revenues drastically. Sixth, when oil was controlled by dictators, the oil price per barrel was about [US]$11 in 1997, but when oil corporations have been controlling oil production with the support of US militarism, the price of oil reached $75 per barrel, generating billions of dollars of profits for these corporations. This trend will continue as long as the US occupies Iraq and intervenes militarily in Middle Eastern affairs ...
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 17, '06)


In response to Beijing's 'soft power' offensive [May 17], it is not in the end what the intentions are, but what the actual results are that determine the usefulness of the effect. Contrary though to what Purnendra Jain and Gerry Groot say, China certainly can compete with the US on a global scale. A war between the two countries would actually be more likely to result in China's victory - and China already has a plug on the power of the US economy as well, same as the Saudis did in the early 2000s. The new Confucius Institute, though, is a waste of time - it's a simple show business that is supposed to attract more tourism and respect, while the really important problems are more than education right now, instead actually keeping people alive long enough to even begin an education. Spending millions [on] these new institutes may appear generous at first, but then one must look where it is not being spent - to feed the 30,000 children dying each day in the Third World, according to various organizations. The problems of culture are the least of the worries now of the world. With the spreading of "Chineseness" is also the spreading of nationalism. Nationalism is a cloud that blinds people back to a simply enlarged feudal relation based on family and bloodline, instead of deed, worth, and being human. Nationalism often appears like a driving ice-ax through all that is built to unite the world - the petty egotistical feelings are the true feelings blocking progress and the advance of a better future, which is why peoples exploit and enslave each other, why people die hungry in the streets while other men have tea - this is nationalism and thus racism that erupts from it like lava from a volcano. These Confucius Institutes are a waste of time - and a sign of worse developments to come.
Peng Dehuai
USA (May 17, '06)


The nature of the Chinese language makes it difficult to imagine success in the stated mission of Hanban to "raise Mandarin toward the status currently enjoyed by English" (Beijing's 'soft power' offensive, May 16). But this "soft power" projection is nonetheless most welcome. Any eventual foreign-policy advantage [for Beijing] over Taiwan and even "access to Chinese markets or useful political connections" matter less than increased worldwide opportunity to unlock treasures of wisdom and practical instruction buried in inscrutable language. That English in our day took hold as a lingua franca, and in their day languages like Greek and Aramaic, would owe much to linguistic characteristics absent from Chinese (or French for that matter). Much can be forced through various forms of conquest, and far from my mind is any linguistic determinism, but can anyone really imagine Chinese or, say, German or Japanese as a readily successful lingua franca? Hebrew or Korean seem more likely candidates on linguistic grounds. Although it were better to have a less pointed "foot in the door", very good things can and do come from beginnings otherwise motivated. But with closer international integration of Chinese, will we no longer have access to the occasional hilarity, for example, of self-translated Chinese-to-English instruction manuals; or will Chinese lose their sense of amusement at even the best Chinese uttered from Westerners' faces?
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 17, '06)

The success of English as a lingua franca arguably owes more to the scope and policies of the former British Empire and, later, the global influence of the United States of America than to any particular characteristic of the language itself. Spoken Mandarin and the ideographic Chinese writing system are difficult for speakers of any European language to master, but to a great degree the reverse is also true - Asians have great trouble mastering European languages, and the Latin alphabet is only marginally adaptable to Asian phonetic systems. Meanwhile demographic trends may well indicate that Asians, not Europeans (or their American descendants), will determine future language trends. - ATol


[Re US feels sting of South Korean protest, May 17] Ten years ago it was common knowledge at Yongsan Army Garrison that the United States military did not need to be in South Korea. That such was the case was discussed amongst my military students on that base, where I taught college courses. The South Korean military itself was a half-million strong. The North Korean military, at approximately a million strong, had seriously deteriorated. Further, peaceful developments were beginning to occur leading the North away from the fanatical ideological postures of previously. A few years later [then South Korean president] Kim Dae-jung developed his "Sunshine Policy", which led to a new wave of optimism in both the South and the North. Tourism started in at Mount Kumgang. New economic zones were developed, which included Western amenities such as gambling casinos. A prominent South Korean farmer delivered a large herd of cattle to the North. The South Korean people, long suffering and tolerant with the American troop presence, began to feel that the deep crust of ice in relations between the South and the North over the past 50 years was beginning to thaw. Additionally, a new spirit of independence and democracy spread through the South. The old dictators were kicked out and put in jail, where they reclined for some time in pinstriped suits. Elections brought Kim Young-sam along to usher in a new era of openness, leading on to Kim Dae-jung and the current president Roh [Moo-hyun]. A new liberal and hopeful spirit swept through the country. Typically, in the railroad stations, Korean people gather around the television sets, watching the news intently. In elections they turn out massively. They are politically involved. It is no wonder that the US plan to take away the acreage of the Pyongtaek farmers has led to exactly what is happening there today. Their position, and that of most Korean people, is this: they do not need the US military in their country any longer. As with the Philippines more than 10 years ago, it is time for the US to get out of their country. It is also clear that most Americans are clueless in viewing North Korea. The tendency is to see the North as a rogue state bent on attacking the South. This illusion of the reason for the US to be present in South Korea persists. Instead, the North is interested in developing relationships, badly needed for economic development. But it is important to realize the Korean people as a breed are inclined to be strong-minded and principled. Further, they are virtually fearless. What they have endured over centuries of invasion and occupation has toughened them. The American position as "defensive" in South Korea is bogus. The intent instead is pre-positioning for attacks on other countries in the region, certain to be as ruinous as the war in Iraq. It is time for the US to get out of Korea.
Peter Bollington (May 17, '06)


Spengler [Yankee noodle, May 16] demonstrates once again what a sick mind he has; according to ATol's own [Joseph] Geobbels (I am not implying that ATol itself has any fascist inclinations, just that Spengler is acting like a propagandist-in-chief for an obviously fascist cause), the [Americans], and I suppose "Judeo-Christian civilization" as a whole, have nothing to lose because their religion and all secular intellectual movements that arose as a reaction to that religion's devastating impact on its followers have already taken away everything worth fighting for, so, heck, why should anyone else be even given a chance to accomplish something? Let's nuke 'em before they get a chance to something good and valuable without following our own ideological line, and thus, heavens forbid, prove that we were wrong all the time. Truly disgusting.
Mustafa
Bosnia and Herzegovina (May 17, '06)


As ill-informed as he is on most things, the only thing I can imagine asking Spengler is, "Don't let the door hit you as you leave."
Lester Ness
Changchun, China (May 17, '06)


I don't agree with most of Spengler's hard-hat and empiricist's approach to world peace (like bombing Iran) but some of the academic cappelletti (little stuffed hats) ... who responded by saying Asia Times Online doesn't need Spengler? They need to loosen up. Realize, hey, that's why wise men and true do read here - not to be fortified in the righteousness of one's own beliefs but the possibility of recognizing, understanding maybe and yet not necessarily agreeing with the views of others. When anyone suggests censorship, silence for divergent viewpoints, that's scary ... and that's why wars happen and violence thrives, and it's not the academic but the human approach that may change those conditions, hopefully. So Spengler was not al dente here. And pasta may now sit like a bird's nest on his red wig, and I admit I read the article [Yankee noodle, May 16] three times hoping to draw some universal truth matching up Romano's pasta and "our man in Washington" who only thrives on SpaghettiOs (a canned brand) - although actually the frivolity of a [George W] Bush profiled in "our man" was well done; profiling the man so unacceptable in the face of the god-awful attitudes so promoted by "our man in Washington". And as to Marco Polo discovering pasta in China; or rediscovering same - who's to say whose pasta arrived first on whose plate? Some may say "Little Marco" was stuffed with vermicelli by Mama Polo so often that he ran away from home - roamed his way to China, where [he] as a young man was served "a delightful specialty!" called rice noodles borrowed from Japan sealed in a plastic bag and sold by Wal-Mart as ramen - a scholarly pursuit indeed often consumed as cheap sustenance for academics in [the] process. There is a moral here someplace too, oh yes - straight from Mama Polo herself to her roaming Marco, Romano, et tu Spengler: "Never judge a noodle by its packaging. It's all in the sauce."
Beryl
Minnesota, USA (May 17, '06)


Re From jailbird to jihadi [May 16]: [Michael] Scheuer, once a bird is out of the cage it can go anywhere as a free bird. I submit [that] the release of Islamist prisoners by puppet regimes happened with express American acquiescence. Do you remember, [US President George W] Bush had expressly anticipated to use the Iraq conflict as flypaper to attract all jihadis from around the globe and finish them all? Even if the Islamist prisoners weren't released it wouldn't make a lot of difference to the tempo of jihad. Because it is a fundamental Islamic principle that in peacetime the word "jihad" can have different meaning for different people, but when Muslim lands are invaded or Islam is under threat, then as a matter of rule the same word carries only one meaning regardless whether or not there are madrassas: jihad becomes binding on every believer unless there are exceptional individual circumstances. As for madrassas, it is difficult for Westerners (who are educated in grand universities and institutions) to understand that due to the simplicity and humility attached to Islam, a madrassa can operate in the dusty courtyard of every mud-brick Muslim household, and therefore it is simply not possible to close this route for the production of jihadis. To learn the Koran no one needs to go to a formal building specifically designated for teaching. It is every Muslim's duty to learn the Koran, which can happen at a home madrassa.
Rashid Hassan (May 17, '06)


Reference to the article From jailbird to jihadi by Michael Scheuer of May 16: [US President George W] Bush has [made a principle of] declaring war on terror wherever you can find [it]. "Terrorism" is the word to beat the Muslims over the head with ... The Soviet Union called the Afghan mujahideen guerrillas [and] "terrorists"; the West then called them "freedom fighters". If the word had been around in the 18th century the British government would have used it to describe the American "patriots" as bastards, terrorists, insurgents or another ... loaded word. The Americans and the Europeans use the word "jihadi", "terrorist" or "insurgent" according to the vocabulary that fits into their equation: during the Cold War, to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the 1980s, US president Ronald Reagan and his vice president, George Bush Sr, called all Muslims for jihad by supporting different warlords and jihadi organizations with arms and money; they were warmly welcomed, recruited with great enthusiasm and encouraged to report for duty immediately. I recall watching news on TV and seeing vice president Bush standing in an Afghan refugee camp near Peshawar, Pakistan, telling them it was great to go for jihad and fight communist Soviets: the infidels. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, mujahideen and jihadis, when they were fighting against the Soviet Union during the West's Cold War, they were the best of chums and buddies, but soon after the collapse of the Soviet empire, they were given another label, "terrorists, fundamentalists, fanatics", and targeted for elimination. It is Westerners' hypocrisy, duplicity and perfidy that they still have this insanity to believe that they could once again recolonize other nations far away for their lust of greed and to fill their empty baskets with looted gold and diamonds. The new missionaries of war in the White House and Whitehall want their world order at the cost of others' justice; discipline at the cost of others' dignity; and imperialism at any price and at the cost of hundred of thousands of innocent human lives. There is no option for the weak and meek nations; this new order envisaged by G W Bush has to be accepted by others or rejected at their peril ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 17, '06)


Regarding the article India rides out a storm [May 12]: The problem of dealing with Pakistan is that Pakistan has launched two wars against India. The first is the conventional troop deployment to the LOC [Line of Control between Pakistani- and Indian-administered Kashmir] for example. The second is well-funded madrassas that teach, train and equip these newly found would-be Islamic terrorists. This is Pakistan's covert war on India, and on this issue Pakistan will not budge, while at the same time asking India to withdraw its troops. Pakistan has served a bitter dish to its neighbor that eventually will come back to it. Already hundreds of Islamic terrorists who wanted to go to Kashmir to fight the Indian forces are turning against the Pakistani establishment by joining with the rapidly growing unrest among the Balochis, Taliban and [al-Qaeda] members who are jointly fighting the Pakistani army in Waziristan. Being a Christian, let me quote the Bible by stating, "What you sow you shall reap."
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 17, '06)


Dear Spengler: Your comments are right on [Yankee noodle, May 16]. You certainly know how to make truth sound funny. Keep up the good work.
Ray Jorgensen
Anacortes, Washington (May 16, '06)


It is just "too funny", as the Chinese say (tai hao xiao), that Spengler has written in the "Ann Landers" type of format [Yankee noodle, May 16]. Without doubt, he thinks he is mocking the average man. Yet as we always implicate ourselves by what we hate and cannot tolerate, I believe Spengler has really found his true level in this format. The fact that I hate plebeian/Shudra intellectuals like Spengler and all his North American-ness implicates me as well, but at least I am aware of it and fight my own repulsion. I do believe that ATol lowers itself with Spengler; his thinking is full of such shallow half-truths, and that is why they are so appealing to the common man. The problem is that half-truths are much more dangerous than complete untruths. As for all the other articles written on ATol, although I am basically not in agreement with the general politics of the left-right-middle-moderate conservative etc etc ad nauseam, the articles are written as political articles should be written and are generally more balanced than government-controlled media. It is for this reason that I see no point in commenting on any of the other articles. After all, all political writers, including ATol writers, seem to forget that politics has no meaning if one does not have a clear understanding of what man is. But you see from that point onward, ATol would no longer be a political newspaper; it would become a metaphysical/religious newspaper.
Krischer (May 16, '06)


Spengler's latest (Ask Spengler [Yankee noodle, May 16]) is definite proof that ATol must be well paid for publishing Spengler's imbecilities on a regular basis. Either that or ATol's editor also relishes being paid for being the venue for Asians to experience the irrelevancies of a branch of so-called Western thinking.
Armand De Laurell (May 16, '06)


Michael Scheuer's From jailbird to jihadi (May 16) is a misleading analysis of the mujahideen-insurgent dichotomy. Western scholars and journalists have been trying to make a living by using scientific analysis to understand the mechanism that explains the issues surrounding insurgents: where they come from, how they become insurgents, and what is the driving force behind it. Scientifically, these are relevant questions, because once they are understood, a theory explaining the issue of insurgency can be developed; consequently, occupying foreign forces can formulate policies, based on that theory, to defeat insurgents. For example, according to Mr Scheuer, if the insurgents are Muslim who came out of jails from Arab countries, then a policy can be established according to which governments can apprehend every Muslim who came out of jails in order to control insurgency. By doing so, the source of insurgents will be eliminated, and insurgency will be easily defeated. This analysis, while it seems logical, is actually misleading, and Mr Scheuer is wasting his time, because it [adds] no value for understanding the issue of insurgency, nor is it consistent with reality. His analysis of the source of madrassas and the jihad tickets is also unproductive. Simply, my point is that even if the madrassas, borders, and travel tickets were taken out, the Middle East would still experience and generate insurgency. [In essence], scientific analysis does not work in explaining the phenomenon of insurgency, because science is based on logic and rationality, whereas jihadists are motivated by emotionalism. Consequently, Western science of insurgency becomes a tool that explains nothing. Stated differently, causes and effects of insurgency cannot be isolated and analyzed properly in order to derive meaningful conclusions. All that can be stated about insurgency is the following: imperialist occupation of small and defenseless nations has been an important source behind insurgency and jihad. Once foreign occupiers invade a country for any reason, insurgency rises. When the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, insurgency rose; when the US invaded Iraq, insurgency developed and will propagate. Imperialist occupation in the Middle East means a loss of integrity and honor, and the Middle Eastern people refuse to be occupied by foreign forces. In fact, insurgents come from all walks of life. They are unknown fighters but with known destructive consequences. In other words, the types of insurgents are many, but they share one simple emotional idea, that they have to liberate their nations in order to save their national honor and dignity. Accordingly, those people have no problem finding tickets to travel to the battlefields, because many individuals and organizations will provide them with these tickets. The implication is very simple and clear in that insurgents can line up as ducks (as the great [Joseph] Schumpeter once put it) for fighting foreign occupiers and domestic dictators for the sake of Allah, a behavior that usually gives hardship to imperialist occupiers in terms of finding an optimal way to destroy them. Unfortunately, imperialists' intellectuals always try to develop models helping their monopoly capitalists to occupy helpless countries, but these models aiming at the elimination of insurgents have not been successful. Therefore, imperialist defeat is the expected and the habitual outcome. What is fascinating about imperialists is the fact that when they are defeated by poor people, they do not feel humiliated; instead, they consider their defeat as an innovative victory for freedom and democracy, which will be realized by people in the long run, or to use [John Maynard] Lord Keynes' famous statement, when we are all dead.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 16, '06)


Re The people's forex liberation army [May 16]: Let a hundred interpretations contend! The Chinese Communist Party will do what it thinks will draw profit. It has but one guiding principle: what is good for the party is good for China.
Jakob Cambria
USA (May 16, '06)


Re Jephraim P Gundzik's article How Iran will win a sanctions war [May 11]: He is correct that major economies around the world may collapse. They will only collapse if the economies cannot absorb the soaring economic inflation, and if they collapse, [to whom] will China sell [the products] on which its entire economy rides on? There is a good chance China will face severe recession, which would lead to closures of companies and mass loss of jobs. If the sanctions fail and it leads to a full-fledged war between the US coalition and Iran, and if China has already invested billions on that cherished Iran/China gas line, China will be well reassured that the pipeline will be blown up, thereby cutting the desperate cash Iran will need for its defenses. If a coin [were] tossed as to whose economy will fare worse between China's [US$]1 trillion economy and the US's $11 trillion economy, I would place my bets on the US.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 16, '06)


Re Dan Fritz's letter of May 15: David Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, told a Zionist conference in 1937 that any proposed Jewish state would have to "transfer Arab populations out of the area, if possible of their own free will, if not by coercion". In 1948-49, over 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted, their lands confiscated, and Ben Gurion looked to the Islamic countries for Jews who could fill the resultant cheap labor market. The truth cannot be denied: the principle on which Israel was created, as an extension of colonialism ruled in proxy by the colonial powers, was illegal and illegitimate. The criminals' Zionist leaders knew from the beginning that in order to establish a Jewish state they had to expel the Palestinians to the neighboring Islamic states and import Jews. Zionist Israeli terrorists and spies were smuggled into the neighboring countries to convince Jews to leave either by trickery or fear. In the case of Iraq, both methods were used: uneducated Jews were told of a messianic Israel in which the blind see, the lame walk, [and] onions and garlic grow as big as melons. Theodor Herzl, the architect of Zionism, wrote in June 1885 that Zionist settlers would have to [herd] the penniless Palestinians across the borders by denying any employment in [their] country ... Israel defies international laws and cares a dime for the world opinion and is doing a lot of things against the Palestinians that [Adolf] Hitler did to them. Israelis are so ignorant of learning any lesson from history. Israel refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and bars international weapons inspections. It has seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force, which it continues to occupy in defiance of UN resolutions. It has defied 69 UN resolutions and has been protected in more than 20 of these cases by a US veto on the Security Council ...
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 16, '06)


It is customary these days to refer to India and China as emerging global economic giants. The reference may well represent current economic reality, but it always reminds me that in my youth I used to read in the media that Africa was the sleeping giant. I wonder what came of that. What comes after sleep? Coma?
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (May 16, '06)


In response to Iran and Turkey fire salvo over Iraq [May 13]: The Kurdish Workers Party [PKK] is another one of the many national-liberation movements in the world, and its aims in the end are correct: better living conditions for its people. What sensible organization or system can deny proper living standards and rights to its own people? Other than, of course, capitalism. Capitalists will use any means necessary to destroy revolutionaries at work, which is why as many as much as 250,000 troops are being devoted to purging these Kurdish revolutionaries. The goals of the Kurdish Workers Party are correct - why shouldn't an actual people be given freedom and a territory of their own? Twelve million Kurds [amount to] more than the population of Israel, and nearly as [many] as all Jewish people total in the world. Luxembourg is its own nation, and so many other nations retain autonomy around the world, by why don't the Kurds? It's not as if the Kurds are living a pleasant life in Turkey, for they are oppressed daily and their rights to their own culture are denied. The Kurds of Turkey actually support the party - they regularly poll at least 50% in nationalist Kurd areas, and a consistent 33% of all Kurdish people, which in total amounts to around 10% of Turkey in support for them, with the real support likely being higher, as one can't be sure what one is saying across the phone is secure or not from the [prying] eyes of the government. While Abdullah Ocalan may have denounced his own party, the reasons behind this denunciation cannot be ignored - in [Josef] Stalin's time as well various citizens zealously denounced themselves as mass murderers, counter-revolutionaries and fascists, but under what conditions were these confessions extracted? Same case here. Turkey's message of "they (PKK) are the infiltrators and we are protecting our border" is a foolish statement. There is no other area between those three nations unless one intrudes upon one of them, and either way it is blamed on the PKK. They have nowhere to go and are blame for every move they make - and all the time being repressed mercilessly by the government. The world, though, turns a blind eye to the desperate struggle of these people for national determination. The PKK is the last remaining party that has any ability to survive and free its people, but instead capitalist nations have labeled it a terrorist organization, no better than al-Qaeda.
Peng Dehuai
USA (May 15, '06)


Sami Moubayed's Iran and Turkey fire salvo over Iraq (May 13) is a very useful and predictable explanation about the situation of the Kurdish people. These people really are a tragedy which many political pundits wonder about their future. Kurds have made significant contributions to many cultures over the history of civilization, including the liberation of Jerusalem from the Byzantines and the establishment of the Ayyubid Dynasty under the great general Salah Al Din. Their calamity, however, lies in the area where they live, predominantly mountainous and lacking real natural resources, and in their affiliation with selfish states and warlords. Although they have claimed Mosul and Kirkuk because of their oil, historically these two oil-rich provinces have not been Kurdish. It follows that nothing is really left for them in Iraq to establish a useful state that can survive in the long run. If I were the only decision maker in Iraq, I would give the Kurds the northern part of the country and would recognize it as a fully independent state. But this state will not even survive hours, because the Turks and the Iranian mullahs will destroy that state and share it, as had happened in the early 1940s when the Kurds under Qadi Mouhammed were able to establish the Mouhabad Republic in Iran, but [it] was destroyed by the shah of Iran with the help of the United States of America. I do know that the United States of America has been supporting the Iraqi Kurds, but the US forces would do nothing if Turkey and Iran decided to annex the northern part of Iraq: Kurdistan. I am sure even the US [would] support that annexation later on, because if the Kurds establish their state in the northern area of Iraq, assuming Turkey and Iran allow them to do so, then that state will have negative real value added to US interests in the region, because in the long run an Islamic government will be elected in Kurdistan and will work to enhance the Islamic culture rather than the American culture. I agree with Mr Moubayed that the PKK [Kurdish Workers' Party] is a terrorist organization; so are the other political parties, including some segments of [Masoud] al-Barzani's and [Jalal] Talabani's political groups. The association of the US with those Kurdish terrorist organizations has been a disastrous linkage that has really damaged the US image in Iraq and the Middle East. Many, including myself, have been wondering about US goals to eradicate terrorism and yet we have seen the ultimate connection between these Kurdish terrorist organizations and the US administrations over the last 20 years. It has been very hard for the US to play it both ways and yet maintain credibility in the Middle East. As President George W Bush once said, you are either with us or with the terrorists. The Bush administration, however, has been with both: with the terrorists and against the terrorists, a condition that has puzzled the Middle Eastern people.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 15, '06)


This is in response to the article by Gareth Porter titled Iranian nukes not the real issue dated May 13. The author raises some valid points in regards to the aims of neo-conservatives in the current US administration towards Iran. But I disagree with the author's view that Iran (under President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad) is a "status quo power". It seems Ahmadinejad wants to rattle the status quo in the domestic political landscape of Iran. The clerics of Iran who control much of the power structure in Iran [are] satisfied with the status quo. The progressives led by former president Mohammad Khatami want to change the status quo, but in another direction. Ahmadinejad wants to undercut both the clerics and progressives with his rhetoric and moves aimed at creating a crisis. It looks like he would be happy to lead Iran to a limited scale war with US. His rhetoric like "Israel should be wiped out from the map" cannot be taken quite lightly. But it is another matter that if US embarks on a war on Iran, limited or full-scale, it will be a big blunder that America will be making. If the war is a limited one, like an American bombing of Iranian nuclear installations, Ahmadinejad will be a winner in domestic politics. If the war is a full-scale one, like a ground invasion and occupation thereafter, both America and Ahmadinejad will lose.
Haridas Ramakrishnan
Monterey, California (May 15, '06)


Gareth Porter contends that the current US administration is acting against Iran's nascent nuclear program primarily due to ideological considerations to further US hegemony over the region [Iranian nukes not the real issue, May 13]. He derives this contention from an alleged overture made by Iran to the US in April 2003, the source for and text of which he does not cite. The nature of the "concrete, substantive concessions on these issues" was not defined, nor were the "issues" which the Iranians were prepared to make concessions on specified. Instead, he relies for his premise upon a document prepared by an independent, conservative "think-tank" (American Enterprise Institute), alleging that this constitutes a "position paper ... written for" [US Vice President Richard] Cheney and [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. The inference here is that this was a solicited policy statement and was viewed and acted upon accordingly. If so, no data to support that inference [were] provided by Mr Porter. There is nothing advanced in Mr Porter's article to indicate that the author of that paper, [Tom] Donnelly, spoke for anyone other than the "neo-conservative priesthood". Mr Porter insinuates that this ideologically driven group has infiltrated the corridors of power in the present administration. The conspiratorial overtones and hints of an imperialistic cabal implicit in Mr Porter's article do little to advance his argument, assuming its inherent validity. To make his point, Mr Porter ignores the strident representations of the present Iranian government, which, taken at face value, suggest the opposite of a "stabilizing effect" and, regardless of intent, have aggravated an already incendiary situation. Further, Mr Porter paints with broad brushstrokes. The situation vis-a-vis Iran is far more nuanced than he indicates. He ignores concerns about the Iranian program expressed by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the European Union, and even Russia and China. He has selected sources. For example, another Brookings intellectual, Kenneth Michael Pollack, director of the Sabin Institute, former NSC [US National Security Council] analyst for Iran, etc, etc, wrote at length on the vast complexities of this relationship in his quite recent book The Persian Puzzle. To my recollection, he did not mention the April 2003 "concessions" letter. He divided guilt between both parties and commented pointedly on a "paranoid" tendency in Iranian politics. In order to convince the unconvinced (such as me), Mr Porter will need to provide much more in the way of fact and far less in the way of intrigue and ideology. Perhaps he can share the information upon which his contentions are based with the readership of Asia Times [Online] and the "mainstream media"; doubtless, an expose of this nature would demolish the basis for possible UN Security Council action: they seem to be misinformed on the pacific intentions of Iran and ought to be promptly disabused of the treasured recollections of the USA as a representative republican form of government and become acquainted with the fact that it is now in the hands of "neo-conservative" ideologues.
Keith Comess (May 15, '06)

Surely the influence neo-conservatives have had on Bush administration foreign policy is well known by now. For a critique of The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M Pollack (also author of The Gathering Storm: The Case for Invasion of Iraq), see The Persian puzzle, or the CIA's? (Dec 3, '04). - ATol


Ting-I Tsai's President Chen's long trip to nowhere (May 13) has lightly touched on Chen [Shui-bian]'s troubles at home. Implicated in a number of financial scandals are his wife, his closest associates, and high officials of his own party. But these cases have so far failed to "progress" due to unexplained delay and blocking in the investigative and prosecutorial processes. His recent dramatic journey was meant to divert some media attention away from home. As Tsai explained Chen's anger at Washington, let me quote, for readers' amusement, an expression used by Chen in refusing to stop over in Alaska for refueling. He said he would not be America's "turtle son". This raises an interesting challenge to translators around the world, particularly in the US State Department. It is slang and a vulgar expression not suitable for use in a public forum by a dignitary. In the Chinese language a turtle can be regarded as a sacred but also a lowly animal, depending on connotation. It can retract and therefore hide its head under the shell. So a "turtle son" in this case means more than a [cowardly], shameful kid. One is reminded of Taiwan's former foreign minister Mark Chen, who referred to the "size" and "insignificance" of the state of Singapore as a piece of [snot]. These two Mr Chens have now cast a certain characteristic of Taiwanese politicians. Witness on our TV screens worldwide the shouting matches and fist fights in their legislature, which happen too many times for counting.
S P Li (May 15, '06)


Re President Chen's long trip to nowhere [May 13]: It is too soon to write off Taiwan's president Chen Shui-bian. The title of Tsai Ting-I's article is misleading. Mr Chen went to Costa Rica, and Costa Rica is in Central America and not nowhere. President [George W] Bush made Mr Chen's trip a long one. The United States refused him the right to transit on his way to San Jose. This show of petulance and momentary disfavor by Washington had him go there through Abu Dhabi. Mr Chen as the elected head of Taiwan has the sworn duty to defend and further the interests of his country in spite of the People's Republic of China's never-ending campaign to isolate what they consider a runaway province, which is something Mr Chen's detractors fail to grasp. On his way back to Taipei, Mr Chen marked a point: he refused Washington's condescending offer to refuel his airplane in Alaska. He returned via Amsterdam. Mr Bush's State Department may have had second thoughts about the cavalier treatment of Mr Chen. America wanted to teach him a lesson, and in the end he did not turn the other cheek by accepting its grand gesture and gave as good as he got. As Tsai says, relations between Taipei and Washington are at a low point, [but] it is equally important that they are testy between Beijing and Washington. Mr Bush missed again an opportunity to send a signal to Beijing of his displeasure on a multitude of issues. Mr Chen's Taiwan is not a satrapy, as those who try at one turn or another to diminish the value of an independent Taiwan. It is a vibrant democracy and a First World economy.
Jakob Cambria
USA (May 15, '06)


At least [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian is trying to defend his country's dignity by taking a longer trip (President Chen's long trip to nowhere [May 13]). [Former Indian defense minister] George Fernandes did not even dare to try ([see] India 'stripped' of its dignity, literally [Jul 14, '04]). Although Mr Chen failed, at least he tried. For that, I salute him.
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (May 15, '06)


In Cheney puts Moscow to the hardness test (May 9) by M K Bhadrakumar and South Korea enters the Great Game (May 13) by David Nguyen (and in many other articles), the "Great Game" of the crucial energy factor was addressed for mainland China and South Korea (and for Japan). I wonder if any scholar would address the energy factor for Taiwan. Apparently, as an island without energy sources just 100 miles off the Chinese mainland, Taiwan's energy factor is the greatest game. It appears that the energy factor for Taiwan would likely be critically decisive; it would eventually make Taiwanese independence nearly impossible and reunification across the Taiwan Strait quite likely, as mainland China would not need to initiate major bloodshed to profoundly affect Taiwan, to successfully pressure it to negotiate for autonomy within China. The USA would have no constructive reasons to start a war, and would have no procedure to ascertain that the people in Taiwan indeed prefer to sacrifice for a mere chance of meaningful independence, rather than to negotiate for autonomy. Moreover, the USA would have compelling reasons to preserve a necessary niche of autonomy for Taiwan within China. Nuclear power and massive petroleum reserves, quite possible for mainland China, are difficult for Taiwan for the NIMBY [not in my back yard] factor upon military considerations. Unlike mainland China, Taiwan would have no [alternative] energy route. For Taiwan, alternative energy sources do not translate to an alternative route; the same route will always be extremely vulnerable.
Jeff Church
USA (May 15, '06)


A Zionist sympathizer at the US Army War College (Professor Stephen Blank, [letter] May 10)? I think I finally get it! Israel is a low-maintenance outpost on the frontier of [the] Anglo-American empire. They [Israelis] are expected to conscript their people for life to the various intelligence, economic, and military operations necessary to maintain that empire and act as a lightning rod for dissatisfaction with the murderous and predatory impositions of empire upon Israel's neighbors. Zionism was obsolete the moment czarist Russia was overthrown. Zionism means the State of Israel and has little to do with the nation of Israel, ie, the Jewish people worldwide, and has nothing to do with Judaism - the faith of a people whose sages invented the idea of a righteous life. Isn't that what the Ten Commandments are? There is nothing in Judaism that teaches the daily sadistic street violence by IDF [Israeli Defense Force] and IOF [Israeli Occupation Force] members. Any rabbi will tell you that the Eternal does not dwell in these propaganda palaces called Holocaust museums. Was there a Holocaust? Look at the panorama of wreckage and mutilated humanity across the last century, with 200 million dead, including the disaster called World War II when a dying British Empire dragged a vain, vindictive, and [fatuous] Franklin Roosevelt and his country into calamity. Some nations have laws to preclude discussion of this issue to conceal their complicity. Isaiah says Israel is to be "a light unto the nations". Does that sound like any part of the Zionist program? The neo-conservatives are not promoters of Israel, they are oppressors. They expect Israel to indoctrinate its youth to the myth of persecution, through show trials like that of [John] Demjanjuk, in order to justify their sacrifice and promote propaganda worldwide through fronts like AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] to sustain the myth of guilt to maintain the piddling [US]$5 billion or $10 billion or $20 billion annual contributions to maintain the fiction of a struggling country while the Israelis are expected to pick up the rest of the tab for their garrison state. But note what happens when a nationalist like Yitzhak Rabin lifts his eyes and moves his hand to make an independent future. Make no mistake, when Middle Eastern oil is gone in another two or three generations, Israel will be abandoned. The Holy Land should be internationalized and the Israelis who want to emigrate should be subsidized to relocate and re-establish themselves - now. I want them in America, but they may not want to hold their noses and emigrate here.
Dan Fritz
Akron, Ohio (May 15, '06)


Richard Ewing [The need to fix rural health care in China, May 12] seems to be unaware that private health care and receding public health facilities in India's rural areas [are] one reason for the farmer suicides. He should read [P] Sainath's articles on this matter. There have been a few. If China wishes to have more rural protests, this would be good advice to take, it seems.
May Sage
USA (May 12, '06)


Mohammed A Salih's Iraqi Kurds finally get unified government (May 12) brings happiness to many individuals supporting the rights of the Iraqi Kurds in establishing their united government. But the Kurds need to remember where they established their first republic (Iran) and who destroyed it during the early 1940s: the US and the shah of Iran, contending that the Kurds had no homeland. They have to revisit how the British forces went after mullah Mustafa Al Barazani and his supporters, [preventing] them from living in Kurdistan, and how Abdul-Karim Qasim requested the mullah to come back from exile after the Revolution of Independence in July 14, 1958, as a high-rank citizen and a significant leader. Unsurprisingly, the Kurds still do use the Iraqi flag of that period. The Kurds should not overlook the fact that the Reagan administration endorsed the Iraqi government in 1988-89 by contending that the latter did not use chemical weapons against them. Accordingly, political conditions are evolutionary and uncertain in that a new change may occur, particularly if the Kurds become a very powerful social entity. At that point in time, they will become another victim of the Iraqi occupation, where they will be squeezed from several sides as had happened during 1973-74 when Henry Kissinger made a deal with Saddam Hussein and the shah of Iran according to which the Kurdish fighters (peshmerga) dropped their weapons and surrendered to the Iraqi government in hours. Mr Salih should have indicated that Kirkuk is not part of Kurdistan by any standard, because it consists of various social ethnic groups, where the Kurds have never constituted a majority. In short, the Kurds must keep in mind that their turn will come if they do not follow the law and order of the Iraqi mullahs, because these mullahs, who have family ties with the Iranian mullahs, will not forget the thousands of their men who were killed by the Kurdish terrorists during the "Northern War".
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 12, '06)


I wish to comment on the article Ahmadinejad's letter: An opening quickly sealed [May 11]. I am glad that President [George W] Bush opened the letter instead of throwing it into a dustbin. If he understood the contents or ignored them remains to be seen. However, I cannot wait to read Mr Bush's reply written in his own hands and finding difficulty to comprehend his language. I should imagine that the best Mr Bush could do in his reply would be to warn [Iranian President Mahmud] Ahmadinejad that he (Bush) will hunt him down, corner him in his hole, and send his pack of hungry wolves to take him (Ahmadinejad) out dead or alive. But this time President Bush would run like a fox with its tail fixed between his legs facing ferocious mullahs and millions of Iranian ghazis [warriors] will not hesitate to claim martyrdom to save their ancient pride. And I hope that Bush is never allowed to win this war, as it would inflict a horrible blow to the entire Islamic world, and that is exactly on the agenda of the Bush administration, Europeans and the manipulating, wicked Zionist Israelis. I would hope that all Islamic nations unite this time and warn the Americans and the Zionist admirers that any evil intent to attack Iran will be considered a war on Islam and [that] they would use oil as a weapon to crumble Western economies, as was so successfully executed by King Faisal [of Saudi Arabia, died 1975]. I always admired the United States of America, but since [September 11, 2001] have changed my opinion. I sincerely believe that under G W Bush's leadership, America has become a notoriously aggressive, belligerent and a rogue state and is intimidating the world when its interests are challenged. It has lost the respect and benign goodness that [were] once an essential part of its foreign policy after the Second World War ...
Saqib Khan
UK (May 12, '06)


In Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush [May 11] there are "..." like in this [phrase]: "on the slight chance of the ... of a ... criminals in a village". what do they mean?
Olivier Meunier (May 12, '06)

That is how the translation appeared as presented to us. We made no alterations to the text other than correcting a few typographical errors and inserting some explanatory words, which are set off in brackets. - ATol


The only "unexpected" aspect of President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad's sending a letter to US President [George W] Bush is the fact that a letter was actually sent. Everything else - the content, the US response, worldwide comments, etc - [is] within the expectation, at least by more than half the world's population who happen to reside in one of the non-Christian, non-democratic or non-free countries as defined by the standards of the Western-Christian-democratic-free world. For hundreds of years the world's entire value and order systems have been so dominantly determined by the WCDF standards that any nation or person with doubts about its universal applicability or absolute righteousness would even themselves ask the question: Am I sane to have this doubt? [All others are automatically labeled] outcast, evil, uncivilized, barbarian, inhumane ... and force is freely used to correct the situation. Nobody has ever questioned why individuals should be called terrorists when they blow themselves up and die with civilians of an enemy country who authorize, finance and arm, through a democratic process, [their] government to invade or occupy a country, kill its people and take its land. Nuclear blackmail by the world's sole superpower is never condemned because it is WCDF, while a far weaker non-WCDF country with its own nuclear dream is hauled before the UN for punishment. Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, gun killing, homosexuality, environment-destroying lifestyles etc are freedom of choice because they are part of the WCDF way of living. Birth control, social development at the sacrifice of certain individual freedoms, wealth redistribution to help the poor, restriction on socially destabilizing behavior, etc are violations of human rights. It took the president of a country that dominates headlines of the world's media day in and day out to ask these questions, and the world responded with a collective brush-off. The sad thing is not that George W Bush or Condoleezza Rice snubbed the Iranian president's letter, it is the fact that the entire world is expecting such a response and busy calculating the points scored by the two presidents.
Raymond Cui
Beijing, China (May 12, '06)


Does ATol have a policy of editorially hammering down to uncapitalized the first letter of the English word most commonly used to refer to the One many of us worship? While being so edited is something less than a travesty, dishonor nonetheless applies, and notified of such policy we should henceforth in ATol correspondence take care to exclude use of such terms as could require honorific orthography. If no such policy exists, please restore that seventh letter of the alphabet to a capital in my letter published May 11.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 12, '06)

Our style on English usage is based on accepted grammatical and journalistic standards, not religion. ATol readers run the gamut of faiths, and we try - not always successfully - to treat them all equally. In capitalizations, we cater to the sensibilities of religious people in some ways; for example, we capitalize "Prophet" when referring to Mohammed, and "Christ" when referring to Jesus, which accords with standard practice. We may also capitalize certain normally lower-case words to preserve the emphasis or tone intended by the writer (eg "the One" in your letter). But as a rule we capitalize "God" only when that word is used as a proper noun (eg as a synonym for Allah, Elohim or YHWH), and not in phrases such as "the Hindu gods" or "the god of the Abrahamic faiths". - ATol


[Kaveh L] Afrasiabi tends to emphasize the "content of the letter" [from Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to US President George W Bush] rather than the intended perception [Ahmadinejad's letter: An opening quickly sealed,  May 11]. The letter's primary target audiences, I believe, are the Iranian people and the Muslim world of the Middle East and beyond. Washington's reaction [is] for all intents and purposes expected. What the president of Iran has succeeded in accomplishing is drawing the Muslim world into Iran's orbit, and the expected reactions so far have favored Iran (at least in the Middle East) and provide added dimensions to the charge that US policies in the region are Israeli-dictated. It also possibly needs to acknowledged that the flippant responses of [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice are primarily intended for the US domestic audience. And so the dance continues.
Armand De Laurell (May 11, '06)


Kaveh L Afrasiabi's Ahmadinejad's letter: An opening quickly sealed [May 11] has overlooked some important facts that need to be explained. [Condoleezza] Rice, the [US secretary of state], I think, was very honest when she dismissed the letter by contending that it did not engage the vital issues. If all the important points raised in the letter were dropped, the remaining issues would be very simple to discern. The Iranian mullahs have to surrender the Iranian oil to the American oil corporations and to deposit their cash with the American financial institutions. It would be extremely useful for the Iranian mullahs to depreciate their weapons and military hardware immediately and to replace them with American-made military equipment. These three issues will provide huge profits to the oil corporations, the military complex, and to the American financiers. When the Iranian mullahs achieve these short-run targets, they will have to go for a regime change, where they have to give up their Islamic political system to a puppet [like] the shah of Iran, who will have to take over the country as the supreme leader of the New Iran. Moreover, the Iranian mullahs have to privatize all public firms by selling them to American monopoly capitalists in order to establish economic liberalization that ends human suffering and that provides people with more employment and income, as "the Iraqi model has achieved [for] the Iraqi people". In addition, the Iranian mullahs will have to surrender themselves either to a war tribunal headed by some American generals or to an Iranian court headed by some Persian reactionary individuals who have been out of Iran for the last 27 years. As we all know, this is not an option for the Iranian mullahs, because these conditions, which have been implemented in Iraq unsuccessfully, mean a total surrender and submission of the Iranian people to foreign power, [which], to the best of my knowledge, Persian people have not done in their history. Stated somewhat differently, American monopoly capitalism aims at securing easy profits and complete hegemony to humiliate people rather than at religious goals which are inconsistent with the political and economic objectives of imperialism. Religion is just an institution which has been used to stimulate patriotism which is in turn employed to defend imperialist adventures. It follows that the conflict between the Iranian mullahs and the US elite of monopoly capitalism is so deep that a cooperative solution cannot be found, a solution that is actually the best for this fundamental conflict. This would leave the competitive solution as the only alternative available, which means that either the US or Iran will be the sole player in the region. Consequently, the winner will be the dominant force in the Middle East. There is no way Iran can win the game, but the US will be in a [grievous] situation for conducting the war permanently, because the US-Iran conflict, assuming it takes a military form, will be a calamity on the region, whose consequences will not be supported by the American people in the long run. I have to state that the US elite chose the wrong direction when it decided to invade Iraq. If it has been so difficult for the US to control Iraq, how would the situation be if the US attacked Iran militarily? That means we will be in uncontrollable war situations that will require a plenty of economic and human resources that no wealthy country will be able to afford. Once again, the imperialist mission will be unaccomplished.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 11, '06)


It has been my opinion that on account of the outpouring of sympathy and support from the Iranian people immediately after [September 11, 2001, that] the United States had a golden opportunity to make some sort of grand diplomatic gesture towards Iran. It appears that President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad has beaten President [George W] Bush to the punch [Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush, May 11]. Although the content of the letter can be debated (I don't believe liberalism is dead, for one), is there any more civilized gesture between two feuding parties than for one to calmly attempt to explain their position to the other? Now, it is up to President Bush to respond in an equally civilized manner (could this be "FedEx diplomacy", where the leaders negotiate through private correspondence?). It is tempting to jump on the bandwagon and assume that Bush will respond to the letter with a flippant remark, squander an opportunity and charge forward into the next disaster, whatever that might be. I can't help but hope, however, that a second-term president with record low approval ratings, and an eye towards his legacy (which at this point consists of war, deficits, corruption, incompetence and record low approval ratings), might awaken from his slumber and suddenly realize he has nothing to lose by trying something different. I can only hope.
Ken Arok
Vermont, USA (May 11, '06)


I've read Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's letter to President [George W] Bush and must say I find the letter to be thoughtful, intelligent and written from the heart [Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush, May 11]. Which means the contents of the letter will be too dense for Bush to understand. Perhaps if the letter had been written in comic-book form, Bush might have been able to read and comprehend a letter from another country's leader that is apparently trying to avoid more death and destruction.
Greg Bacon
Ava, Missouri (May 11, '06)


So we see that it is not only for a generation raised on TV and fast food, as in the US, to have such a minimalist attention span as that demonstrated in the Iranian president's renowned letter to the US president (Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush, May 11), at least regarding the UN and Israel. A great many of us are aghast at the prospect of punishment meted out by the US, even if due, the very people in no small part responsible for the unfortunate developments in Iran, the latter subject to tripping up and worse by the nation of the addressee at formative stages in Iran's fledgling attempts at the difficult national adaptation to means and livelihoods of these violent past decades. It is also a frightening prospect for ardent and heartfelt supporters of Israel through its confrontations at least as dire all these decades as for Iran, suffering as both have for indecent interventions by those with no real concern for the care of human beings [who] might be affected by dangerous and wayward foreign policy, that Israel have its near-term fate so depend on intrinsic American ineptitude, however much earnest good intent goes along with the danger and waywardness. For the US, for its impossibly sized polity built upon fundamental disparagement both of intellectuality and of policy rumination if it seems indecisive, can almost do no good except for wrong reasons, and only do badly when reasons seem right. Iran has assumed a posture of ominous stiffness in adjoining ever-embattled Israel as hostage to its grievance, the letter's narrative evincing no admission of terribly self-defeating behavior in international terms of Israel's antagonists, setting the stage for Israel's own damagingly wasteful necessity in maintaining an armed stiffness of its own. The god of Muslims and Jews knows what better Iran and Israel could to do together as they bracket a region in so many ways impoverished, if only Iran's leadership would take another tack, at least toward Israel, even as they [Iranians] request the same of the US. Is it impossible for Iran's highest representatives to demonstrate some mnemonic responsibility toward Israel's story of suffering even as they publicly rehearse [memories] of their own? It should not take long for Israel to respond with warmth and creativity to great eventual practical benefit, all desperately required in the close regional cooperation that should trump nearly all else in efforts at far less violent means and livelihoods.
D Vernon
Toronto, Ontario (May 11, '06)


[Ronan] Thomas, perhaps inadvertently, casts Egypt's [Gamal Abdel] Nasser as a fervid and single-minded reformist/nationalist, particularly in his "anti-colonial" seizure of the Suez Canal [Suez ripples half century after crisis, May 11]. Mr Nasser, while certainly casting nationalist overtones, was more of a populist and adventurer. Consider the following: (1) Nasser initiated the formation of the "United Arab Republic", comprising Egypt and Syria, with Nasser acting as the de facto head of government. (2) Nasser sent troops to Yemen, expecting a brief campaign and victory. These troops utilized poison gas and, after many unsuccessful efforts, withdrew. In the event, domestic dissatisfaction with the government was growing and, conveniently, the Canal issue emerged as a nationalist cause. (3) Mr Thomas omits the provocation that served as the Israeli animus, viz, the closure of the Canal to Israeli ships and goods, a violation of existing law. (4) Incidentally, the British and French did not invade simultaneously with the Israelis; a point of concern to them at the time. (5) Nasser was clearly implicated in the French-Algerian conflict, hence the French motive for invading. At the time, Algeria was an integral part of France, so this was unwarranted interference [in the French view]. Finally, I am not sure, based on Mr Thomas's presentation of events, that the Suez Canal issue of 1956 was the seminal event bearing on today's conflicts that he represents it to be. Nor, for that matter, was the loss of Suez the catastrophe [to empire that] he suggests. Certainly, Dunkirk and possibly Gallipoli had greater impact: at least at that time Great Britain had more than a vestige of an empire to defend.
Keith Comess (May 11, '06)


Spengler's latest piece [Put a stake through Freud's heart, May 9] reminded me of an experience I had some years ago. When I was in Nigeria at that time I visited a friend of mine who lived in Port Harcourt. His housekeeper had become ill ("always in a very bad mood") and nobody knew why, so he insisted on visiting a witch doctor with her. As a civilized European, I was completely upset about this idea, especially when I learned that the real profession of the wizard [in question] was to be a taxi driver. But my friend said that everything was okay and that this witchcraft-therapy would surely help his housekeeper. Said my friend to me: "What do you want? That witch doctor is completely overqualified. He has had no car accident in five years. Show me a European psychologist who can keep up with that. But the most important thing is that everybody is told that we are there with her." So we went to see the witch doctor. And ... my friend was absolutely right. His housekeeper is in the best condition since then ... a few weeks after this memorable wizardry, her mother-in-law moved out of their shared flat. So please don't put a stake through [Sigmund] Freud's heart. As long as we believe in psychology it will surely work. Oh, and do not forget, we [would have] had no Woody Allen movies if their were no psychologists.
D Busse
Bremen, Germany (May 11, '06)


Predictable things happen when someone like F William Engdahl (The US's geopolitical nightmare [May 9]) dares to cite the likes of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose paper ("The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy") dares to criticize US policies toward Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer say that anyone who takes such a dare predictably will be labeled an anti-Semite. On cue, Professor Stephen Blank (letter [May 10]) proves them right. Professor Benny Morris (The New Republic, May 8) joined the fray and called Walt and Mearsheimer "mendacious". So now we get the picture: a couple of dastardly, lying anti-Semites. That explains everything. Until you actually read Walt and Mearsheimer, and realize that nothing they wrote is remotely anti-Semitic. In fact, it is the opposite: they attack "the scourge of anti-Semitism" and state that "there is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's existence". The gist of Walt's and Mearsheimer's argument is that an extremely effective "Israel Lobby" has skewed US policies toward the Middle East to the point where they no longer represent the interests of the US, or Israel, for that matter. Neither Blank nor Morris addresses this central point. And that's a shame, because it's a point that needs to be openly debated by our best and brightest. Americans tend to admire and support Israel for many good reasons, in spite of the many crimes committed in the name of Israel. Dennis Ross's account of Yasser Arafat's final rejection of Israel's settlement offer at Camp David in July 2000 presents overwhelming evidence that Yasser Arafat never had any intention of reaching a long-term agreement with Israel. Arafat then fomented a horribly destructive and violent intifada against Israel. No objective observer could fail to have sympathy for Israel and the Palestinian people, and disgust for the Palestinian leadership, for what has transpired over the past six years. The question is not whether to support Israel, but to what extent. I may disagree with much of what Walt and Mearsheimer say, but at least they dare to make a bold argument where others cower in fear of the "anti-Semite" smear. Their weakest assumption is that our [US] out-sized support for Israel harms us because it gives Muslim terrorists one more excuse to attack us. Nothing America could do, short of allowing the Muslim world to exterminate Israel, could satisfy hardcore Islamists. Our decades-long efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace counts for nothing in their minds. In the Muslim world, the abject ignorance of the genuine American efforts to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace needs to be exposed. And here in America, the taboo (and financial conflicts of interest) against Congress openly debating our exorbitant aid to Israel must be defied.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (May 11, '06)


Professor Stephen Blank's view of the paper by Professors [Stephen] Walt and [John] Mearsheimer represents a particular ideological perspective [letter, May 10]. There are many in and out of academia who reject his conclusions. I did not find the paper anti-Semitic. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer were not advocating a particularly anti-Israel stance. They intended to open up a necessary debate of US foreign policy concerning Israel and the Middle East. It is not rational to smear criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, particularly if we keep in mind that Arabs are Semites too. The professors do not question Israel's right to exist. They suggest that Israel's policies in occupied lands extending beyond its pre-1967 borders and its treatment of Palestinians be open to debate. Such debate has been commonplace all across Europe, Australasia and Asia, including Israel itself, for more than a decade. To engage in that debate in the USA when Israel receives as much US military and diplomatic support as it does is hardly anti-Semitism. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer openly acknowledge that the Israel lobby is neither clandestine nor covert but legal and incorporates AIPAC [American Israeli Public Affairs Committee]. They further acknowledge that the membership of the Israel lobby includes Jews and Gentiles. What they do question are, [first], the equivalence of Judaism and Zionism and, second, is US strategic interest best served by US identification with Zionism? There are many Jews in Israel and outside Israel who do not accept that their Jewish identity is explicitly linked to a commitment to Zionism. The US is in deep trouble over its Middle East policies and has an undeniably negative image among broad sections of its peoples. The professors do not state that all of this is on account of the US's close identification with Israeli Likud and [Ariel] Sharon/Kadima policies but that it is a contributing factor. Professor Blank accuses Professors Walt and Mearsheimer of misrepresentations but does not cite any specific instance. He also accuses them of racism. Sorry, I am not alone in finding that charge unproved. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer have published a letter  in the London Review of Books to answer many of the criticisms leveled against them as are being echoed by Professor Black. Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan, and S Clemons, senior fellow and director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation, and director of the Japan Policy Research Institute also defend Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, as do many others whose scholastic abilities are beyond reproof.
Sona
Guysborough, Nova Scotia (May 11, '06)


[C Mott] Woolley's article [The tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer, May 10] was quite good but I disagree with his assertion that Oppenheimer passed no secrets to the enemy. Mr Woolley states this as a fact when it's only an opinion. The fact is that the Soviets had numerous operatives in this country [US] (including traitors) who were never identified. Therefore it is quite possible that Oppenheimer was one of them. This is not to say that he was, only to say that the issue is in doubt. Accordingly, Mr Woolley is way out on a limb when he asserts a fact which is only an assumption. Oppenheimer was clearly an idealist, but so were communist sympathizers. Was Oppenheimer one of the latter? Without proof, who can say? I also believe Woolley is wrong when he says Oppenheimer's ultimate revenge was in having his final resting place outside the US. Last time I looked St John was US territory, although not [in the] continental US. So unless his ashes were scattered at sea beyond US territorial limits, he didn't quite get his wish.
Jack Meehan
New Hampshire, USA (May 10, '06)


[The tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer, May 10] has had a grave effect on me, since J Robert Oppenheimer has been an interest to me. It struck me emotionally because we Americans (or at least the ones who can still feel some repentance and remorse [for] what is being done in our name) somehow are faced with a reality - and [Alexandr] Solzhenitsyn comes to mind ... that one does not know the state unless serving in prison. This was a very poignant article, [raising the question of] why such cruelty is imposed upon creative people, and the grave effects on their family ...
Catine E Perkins (May 10, '06)


Ramzy Baroud [Time to redefine the Middle East, May 10] puts forth two arguments: (1) Western perceptions of the Middle East are simplistic and (2) if Israel disappeared tomorrow, all the problems of the Middle East would disappear. Regarding perceptions, I suggest that Western ideas about the Middle East are far more nuanced than Middle Eastern ideas of the West. His tiresome arguments that colonialism explains the corruption, lack of literacy, maltreatment of women and minorities, despotism, suicide bombings, the age-old conflict between Sunnis and Shi'a, and other "merits" of Middle Eastern life are just wrong. As for Israel, a tiny democracy in a sea of tribal backwardness - it is the only glimmer of hope for the Middle East.
Seymour
USA (May 10, '06)


I wish to comment on the article by Spengler, Put a stake through Freud’s heart, May 9. Western woman has become a commercial commodity for exploitation, a lusty object for male attraction or for his sexual gratification, and to achieve this end she is willing to starve herself to a skeleton, disfigure herself by cutting parts of her body or indulge in all forms of excessive or abusive forms of sexual satisfaction, even seeking unnatural sexual pleasure ... There is hardly any distinction left between the animal display of rutting instincts and the way Western men and women behave in the open. But, leaving aside the perverse immorality amongst the Western, Afro-Caribbean and liberal societies, a woman is also an object of immense delight to have around as a companion or a partner for life. Attractive women are more than a pretty face ... It is a widely admitted concept that the first gaze between the hopeful opposite sexes is good enough to decide, yes or no, and send the rejected packing. For many years the scientists have been telling us that when two lovers gaze at each other, they are merely using facial clues - big eyes, small nose, full lips, curves all around, so [as] to check that the prospective mate has high-quality fitness and possesses quality genes to pass on to the next generation so that they have the best possible chance to survive and exceed; of course more than often, the calculations based upon facial determinants and body go drastically wrong. But when it comes true, hey presto! What a lovely bunch of kids we have. I believe that it should not only be the anatomy or the biology of the prospective mate that should be of utmost importance but also mind/soul-searching compatibility is also as important [as] the release of sex hormones alone. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and being a subjective phenomenon is true to a large extent but what makes it more interesting is a recent study published by the Royal Society of Biological Sciences that a woman looks more attractive depending upon the quantity of estrogen hormones in her biology. Scientists now believe that estrogen is a mediator of beauty, which advertises health and her fecundity, and the more she has them, the more attractive she looks to men. Should we believe the scientist or our hearts? Only experience could tell. But one thing is certain, that men universally prefer women with feminine faces and enriched with fecundity. So, thinners are warned.
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 10, '06)


Your comment on my letter [May 9] in response to Spengler's article [Put a stake through Freud's heart, May 9] misses the point. I was not accusing Spengler of anti-Semitism, as the reference to his lectures on [Franz] Rosenzweig and the distinction I drew between the (now unfashionable) discourse on race and the discourse on "the West" indicate. The discourse on the West obviously does not (at present) target Jews; in fact, pointing to the neo-conservative character of the discourse is often labeled as anti-Semitic. It is a culturalist, not a racialist, discourse, and the groups it targets are members of non-"Judeo-Christian" civilizations (primarily Muslims). However, the form of the discourse - its metaphors, its demonology, its militarism and its constructions of sexuality - are eerily similar to [Joseph] Goebbels' ideology. Simply replace "Jew" with "leftist" (which for Goebbels were also largely interchangeable) or "Islamist", and it all falls into place. Goebbels explicitly set out to, in his view, restore traditional Christian values as the bedrock of the German family, and to stem the tide of what he regarded as over-sexualized and over-politicized (left-wing, Jewish) culture. Spengler also insists that the sexualization of culture lies at the center of the left-right divide today, and claims that the leftist, Freudian sexualization of culture demeans women (specifically women, not men). Like Goebbels, Spengler is concerned that this sort of sexualization of culture is leading to the demographic demise of the West, and like Goebbels, the solution he proposes to this problem is world war. It is for this reason, and not because, as you seem to think, I see it as anti-Semitic, that Spengler's Westernist discourse will likely meet the same fate as the National Socialist discourse on race - an ironic fate, because many of the progenitors of this discourse in the immediate postwar period sought precisely to overcome the Manichaean ideologies which were destroying the European spirit. But, as Karl Marx, who, along with [Sigmund] Freud, was one of the demons for National Socialism (and remains such for Western conservatives today, despite numerous exhumations and stakings), said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Boris Stremlin
USA (May 10, '06)


I'm writing in reply to F William Engdahl's article [The US's geopolitical nightmare] of May 9. He and your readers should be aware that the paper by Professors [Stephen] Walt and [John] Mearsheimer has no connection with any consulting that they may have done for the [US] State Department. And in fact if Engdahl had carefully read the paper, he would have noticed that it represents the worst kind of scholarship, replete with elementary mistakes of fact [and] citation, and deliberate misrepresentations of their sources and of recent history. Indeed, the authors they cite, eg Benny Morris, have torn the essay apart as a travesty of scholarship. Any graduate student writing such a paper would have been immediately flunked at these gentlemen's universities. Given their eminence in the field, this sloppiness and refusal to make the case by genuine scholarship vitiates any claim that the paper is not anti-Semitic. Unfortunately it is anti-Semitic, and viciously so. Perhaps one of the saddest aspects of this affair is that one need not have to rely on the "socialism of fools" to criticize US policy. The Bush administration has given anyone who is so interested more than enough ammunition to do so credibly. Such papers and their dissemination by people who should know better do no service to their cause or enhance their credibility as analysts of US policy.
Professor Stephen Blank
US Army War College (May 10, '06)


Thanks to Asia Times [Online] for being. It's one of the news sources [we] rely on. The mainstream US media [are] rarely useful. God bless ya all! Thanks for standing by Spengler [The world's only supersuicide bomber, Apr 11], too - we don't always agree with him, but so what?
Steve and Bonnie Chase
Cazadero, California (May 10, '06)


[Letter writer Saqib] Khan consistently is in self-denial of the cruelties of his Islamic world. He moans and whines about George Bush while in self-denial about cruelties that his fellow Muslims inflict on other Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere (not to mention the cruelties that they inflict on non-Muslims). Here is a link that may change his mind. Nobody can be [unaffected] by this link.
DirtyDog
San Francisco, California (May 10, '06)

The link will take readers to "Part of me died when I saw this cruel killing", an article in the London Sunday Times of May 7 about the murder in Iraq of television journalist Atwar Bahjat in February. Asia Times Online ran a piece earlier by Ramzy Baroud titled Remembering Atwar Bahjat (Mar 16). - ATol


I would like to thank Asia Times Online for covering recent news in Nepal and keeping the readers informed. I love reading Dhruba Adhikary's [articles]. They are well presented. Referring to the recent situation in Nepal, I still do not think that the country is stable. A similar revolution for democracy was carried out in 1950, then again in 1990 and now. A person aged 65 or above has seen this three times. So if we browse back from that person's perspective, we have seen neither peace nor development in the country. So how can we be guaranteed that this time Nepal will find democracy? The king, the seven-party alliance and the Maoists, none of them have a clean political and social history. Nepal needs a change. Senior journalists like Mr Adhikary should work towards bringing a change that will bring peace in the country, once and for all. The United Nations needs to realize why it [was] established and work towards it. It needs to get involved in the human-rights issues in Nepal. Foreign countries' (except India, [which] most likely works for its self-interest) involvement is necessary to bring stability in the country. [The] monarchy needs to come to an end this time. Above all the negative doings of each member of the royal regime that everyone knows about, we all need to realize that we cannot afford [this] royal regime. If we look at the pay slips of each member, we will figure out that the regime is unnecessary and that we could use that money to develop the country. Nepal needs a good leadership for a better future. And this time we need to make sure that the country does not repeat history again. We have had enough. I request all involved to work towards bringing peace and developing Nepal.
Chanda Upadhaya
Canada (May 10, '06)


It is a little surprising that in recent days in the Hong Kong-based English version of Asia Times Online, one does not see news articles or commentaries, or any discussions from the usual prolific letter writers, on the long, merry flights enjoyed by Taiwan's president Chen Shui-bian, in his attempt to evade domestic problems by exercising "diplomacy". Many Taiwanese must be moved to tears partly because their president had to beg for permission at various airports to refuel, and partly because he had done so much to annoy even his big daddy abroad, whose help is considered costing "Taiwan's dignity".
S P Li (May 10, '06)


In response to The US's geopolitical nightmare [May 9, by] F William Engdahl, all I can say is he nailed it down - the coffin that we have built for ourselves or allowed to be built by the apathy of the people of this nation [US] who have allowed doublespeak, lies [and] corruption to become the hallmark of a nation that calls itself a "democracy". We have no power beyond duct tape and plastic to protect ourselves from the terrorism [the George W Bush] administration has activated. Example: I go in to buy a beef roast on a Saturday morning and the usually silent butcher behind the counter, after selecting a choice bread-and-butter roast, in a passionate fashion starts to tell us what he thinks of the "idiot Bush" - this coming from what has been formerly "the silent majority"; a man who sells the product and slaps on a paper wrapper, then adds up the damages. No other conversation [is] ordinarily pursued. But this morning it's a different story. I leave and the next customer [whom] I profile now as a pretty conservative, law-abiding, ordinarily unquestioning citizen who pays his taxes and dutifully tithes at his local church, he too is raising his voice above a whisper for a change. Should I hug my bread-and-bitter roast with some sense of belated hope? The silent majority are speaking up now ... not because [of] the price of [gasoline] at the pump but because of the ongoing bloodshed, ours and theirs, and with no end in sight. But is it too late? We are a nation recognizing and more and more admitting (hard row to sow for many of the moderates among us) [finally that] we are no longer in control of our own destiny. How can this administration claim to "support and establish democracy" around the world when it keeps downsizing it here in the US? We do no longer control our own destiny, we wait for its demise. Every legal means within the power of an average citizen to change and turn around the catastrophe this administration is perpetrating on the people of this nation has failed. Dissent by whatever peaceful means of protest has failed by the ritualistic ceremony of it all. Nothing changes. May I send Engdahl's article to my friendly congressman, if only he has the capacity to read and absorb its contents and act on the same? Any response will not be forthcoming, but one more try ...
Beryl
Minnesota, USA (May 9, '06)


As much as [F William] Engdahl would love to bash George W Bush for his "failure" which resulted in the so-called US's geopolitical nightmare [May 9], he should at least pay some attention to the accuracy of key information he cited in the article. There was no Taiwanese "journalist" [who] ranted in the tirade against [Chinese President] Hu Jintao when Hu visited the White House. Wang [Wenji] is a Falungong member born and raised in China and a journalist working for the Epoch Times of the USA. Just a reminder to Mr Engdahl, though, not everyone [who] shouts against China should be necessarily and casually labeled as either pro-Taiwan or from Taiwan. At best, the US economy as well as China's can be described as mutually dependent. The fact that the PRC [People's Republic of China] holds US Treasury paper worth an estimated US$825 billion does not translate into a deadly weapon for China to declare monetary warfare against the US. Rather, if China dares to gamble, one can easily predict the possible catastrophic and disastrous consequences in China. The social unrest alone, more severe than the current estimated 87,000 riots a year, caused by the massive unemployment when the US market can no longer absorb the consumer goods labor-intensively manufactured in China, would certainly crumble the regime of the Chinese Communist Party in no time. [Economic] warfare between the US and China ... would cause a lot of pains for Americans all right, but it would mean the end of [the] regime in China for sure. I don't think Mr Engdahl would seriously recommend it to Mr Hu and I believe Mr Hu Jintao is much more sophisticated and pragmatic than that.
James Chou
Vancouver, British Columbia (May 9, '06)


[The US's geopolitical nightmare (May 9) is] an articulate, highly informed and informative overview that puts to shame the irrelevancies that your Mr Spengler has had the good fortune of having ATol publish for quite some time. It may be time to replace the almost neo-connish views of Spengler with the more erudite and worldly understandings of [F William] Engdahl's realistic views of what foreign policies benefit primarily and principally the USA. ATol is to be commended for publishing "The US's geopolitical nightmare" and is hereby requested to publish more of Mr Engdahl's writings.
Armand De Laurell (May 9, '06)


Kudos to ATimes for F William Engdahl's piece The US's geopolitical nightmare [May 9]. I have been a regular reader of ATimes for several years now, and honestly I think your publication only gets better and better.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (May 9, '06)


The US's geopolitical nightmare by [F William] Engdahl and Cheney puts Moscow to the hardness test by M K Bhadrakumar [both May 9] are both great informational as well as analytical pieces. The common theme between them is easy to spot. The former one implies and the latter one states directly that US diplomacy is being outmaneuvered in Central Asia and the Caspian basin. That's true. It simply can't be any other way, since American foreign policy today is so rigidly inept, it has no chance of succeeding anywhere, except for Eastern Europe where the US still enjoys some "novelty credit". Elsewhere, however, Washington is being outmaneuvered by pretty much anybody who cares to outmaneuver it. According to [conservative US writer and TV commentator] Patrick Buchanan, India outmaneuvered the US in the "nuclear deal" by giving little while [being] likely to receive a lot. Russia outmaneuvered it by doubling [natural] gas prices to new American clients (Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova) and increasing its financial strength as a result. Iran outmaneuvered its nemesis without much maneuvering at all, by virtue of becoming the main beneficiary of [US President George W] Bush's quagmire in Iraq. China outmaneuvers the US worldwide by just showing up. [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez outmaneuvers "Mr Danger" left and right, so much so that the United States all but gave up on most of Latin America. The final demise of American power is bound to commence with the first salvo in its upcoming war with Iran. By painting itself into the optionless corner, the US has managed to outmaneuver only its otherwise customary common sense.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (May 9, '06)


Spengler takes a break from peddling war with Iran, pontificating on the pontiff and Franz Rosenzweig, and bemoaning the demographic collapse of The West to send out a call to Put a stake through Freud's heart [May 9] in order to defend Western womanhood. Now, where have we heard this before? "The sexualization of reality is an expression of the Jewish spirit. The Jew Freud traces all mental processes back to sexual stimulation." "Against soul-fraying overestimation of the instinctual life, for the aristocracy of the human soul! I hand over the writings of Sigmund Freud to the fire." Ah yes, it was Joseph Goebbels. And Goebbels, like Spengler, also liked to invoke vampires: the Jews like Freud, he said, "suck the blood from our veins. [They are] scoundrels, traitors ... vampires." In the wake of Goebbels' efforts, talk about the German Nation and the Aryan Race has become unfashionable. Spengler and others are doing their best to ensure that this fate will soon befall Western civilization.
Boris Stremlin (May 9, '06)

If Goebbels and Spengler happened both to argue against Sigmund Freud's theories, that is no reason to imply that Spengler's analysis is influenced by the fact that Freud was a Jew, any more than one can logically condemn the Volkswagen or the autobahn simply because both were products of Nazi policy. - ATol


Sami Moubayed's Iraq at the mercy of 'kingmaker' Muqtada and William Fisher's The fall and fall of Afghanistan (both on May 6) are two important pieces of information, [and] I, as a loyal reader, would like to commend ATol on publishing them and the authors on writing these two honest and informative articles that have provided many facts substantiating the mechanism of sabotage characterizing monopoly capitalism. Readers of ATol have to combine the two articles to understand the destructive nature of American monopoly capitalism. Mr Moubayed provides an excellent description of the collapsing framework and process of the Iraqi political system installed by US imperialism. This political system is grounded in sectarian and ethnical divisions that have created killing and massacres which have made the Iraqi people insecure and totally uncertain about their daily lives and future. This chaotic and uncertain engineered condition will exist as long as the occupation of Iraq continues. While the government and other members were supposedly elected by the Iraqi people, the resulting political system and mechanisms have fascist tendencies aiming at wholesale massacres of people in order to settle previous scores and to impose one-sided domination on the country. These massacres and mechanisms will be supported in one way or another by the presence of the US military forces that have not yet found a harsh and a cruel dictator such as Al Hajjaj Ibn Yousif Al Thaqafi (661-714) to manage and rule the country by beheading. This pessimistic political picture is well connected to the economic tendency that Mr Fisher has provided in his piece about Afghanistan. Economically, American monopoly capitalism aims at making more profits at the expense of the underlying population by building a low-quality infrastructure, whose components such as schools, dams, roads, bridges and hospitals, are collapsing daily. Due to this poor infrastructure, industrial firms cannot be established and operated successfully, because materials are not processed, nor are products transported to various markets and locations for final consumption and more processing. Consequently, producers, whether capitalists or not, cannot make profits and hire workers to earn income. Hence employment and income could not be augmented. Many people will remain without jobs and millions of children will have no schools to attend. The entire generation will lack education and will be unproductive. This dismal economic condition will be the normal affair in Afghanistan and Iraq. In short, for both countries, opium, the Afghan oil pipeline and the oil industry have become the best opportunities that require less employed workers and a minimal external infrastructure, and that will generate huge profits for American monopoly capitalism: the oil corporations and the US military complex. That is to say, both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, will be politically and economically dysfunctional, and this objective fact cannot be corrected by planned campaigns of public relations or intentional deception. Instead, it requires the end of the US imperialist occupation of both nations, which has significantly damaged the principles of what American people stand [for] and fought for [over] many centuries. In addition, the occupation of these two countries will create a condition according to which the Iraqi and the Iranian mullahs will be united to [found] a new dynasty that will eliminate all US interests in the region: from controlling oil to selling arms, an outcome that the Bush administration did not have in mind when it invaded Iraq.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 8, '06)


Re US, Seoul parting ways over North Korea [May 6]: Memory is short, and our memory is even shorter when it comes to a divided Korea. War in Korea lies five decades and a half behind us. The unfinished business of that war, [in] which an armistice agreement quieted the guns, has become more immediate to the world's attention because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea has begun developing and testing advanced rocketry and ramping up its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal. Donald Kirk brings us up to date on the growing dissonance between the approach the Republic of Korea (ROK) or South Korea and the United States towards dealing with North Korea. This disagreement between Seoul and Washington logically grows out of former president Kim Dae-jung's "Sunshine Policy", his initiative to open lines of communication with president Kim [Jong-il] in Pyongyang. Lest we forget, this policy had the caution of the Clinton administration. President [Bill] Clinton's secretary of state Madeleine Albright met with Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang, but Mr Clinton was dissuaded by the sages in and out of government [from] going to the DPRK himself. Had he done so, it would have been seen as of almost the same magnitude as president [Richard] Nixon's visit to China in 1972. President [George W] Bush has taken a different and distinct tack in dealing with Seoul and Pyongyang. He has snubbed Seoul and menaced the North with strong words, which have had the effect of a saber hitting the water. He has muddied the waters of controversy by having China do Washington's business with Pyongyang, and then promoting a six-power conference which had more knots than a cat's cradle. Mr Bush is a living demonstration of the wrong things to do in political life. And, thus, as [Donald] Kirk shows, there is a growing disenchantment in Seoul with Washington, and with our ambassador to the ROC Jay Lefkowitz, who has assumed the posture of a Jacob wrestling with the "angel of evil" who is North Korea. His position is more wishful thinking for his ideological world, and flummery and self-delusion to the country he is serving. Washington has a Swiss-cheese policy towards resolving the pressing problems of a divided Korea and a state of war which is begging for closure by a treaty. Mr Bush has less than a thousand days left in office. It seems he is spinning his wheels on Korea, and letting it lie where it lies for the next president to deal with.
Jakob Cambria
USA (May 8, '06)


Re Beyond the bluster: Iran at a crossroads [May 6]: I cannot believe we are still hearing these arrogant voices which are nothing more than the smoke and mirrors of might equaling right. History is full of "giant losers" ... Our [Americans'] 200 years has come and gone, and much like the old decrepit [Caucasians who have] come to represent the tarnished image of America struggle to lengthen their empty lives, the same vain goals are present in our national conscientious. We know it's over - the middle class is being wiped out. We see our death on the horizon and, by most accounts, we try to accelerate its arrival - mostly by denying its impending and complete collapse. Do we really think that "we" are the international community? Iran has been beating us regularly and at every turn. It seems to me we ought to wipe them out or leave them alone. The overthrow of the shah, winning the Iran-Iraq War, the political process in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Palestine - they have flipped our efforts completely 180 degrees from our intentions and let us finance the whole deal. It seems like a strange deal for Europe to engage in, especially at this moment when [US Vice President Richard] Cheney is over there starting Cold War II. If Iran and Russia turn off the spigots in Europe, who is going to turn on the lights in Europe to answer the phone when we come calling? This seems like the situation those "Indian bastards" - to quote [Henry] Kissinger - find themselves in. Every signal in the US there is to see says, Hey US - danger, danger - unsustainable - this is almost across the board in all sectors of our way of life ... Capitalism for capitalism's sake is a slippery road, and fortunately we are close to the bottom of the hill - forget the cheerleading media - there will be an adjusting of some of the high and mighty. History is also full of good and right winning against unfathomable odds against bad and evil. Do you as an American feel righteous about your government's position regarding Iran? Or is it more of a juvenile urge to get your way regardless of the consequences? Someone mentioned not too long ago [that] the US has a choice to make, lead or bully. Our muscular foreign policy should let you know which one we chose. So, how to deal with our end-of-life crisis? Deflect it on to Iran? Start a fight we may lose just to see if we still "got it"? At some point, the US will have to reconcile its policies with a moral barometer, and until that happens, might will equal right. And I am sure that David that is Iran is roaming the countryside picking up what it feels are loose, smooth stones only needing a master thrower's touch.
Korcel Price (May 8, '06)


This is with reference to It's showdown time in Pakistan by Syed Saleem Shahzad [May 5]. Surely Shahzad has a flair for sensationalizing the expected spring offensive by the Taliban in Afghanistan. [President Hamid] Karzai is a puppet and has no power. If history is any lesson, the expected route of the non-representative, non-Pashtun minority government in Kabul comes as no surprise. Neither laser-guided bombs nor daisy-cutters can prevent the fall of Kabul. In three decades the Northern Alliance could not control more than 10% of Afghan territory. This is their destiny. The headache for NATO comes not from President [General Pervez] Musharraf, but from an impotent Mr Karzai (the "mayor of Kabul"), more beholden to his opium warlords than to his American bodyguards. The defeat of Kabul is no reflection on Pakistan or its leaders. The problem does not lie in Pakistan; rather the problem lies in Kabul, west of the Durand Line on the Oxus [River], and will continue to grow larger in the Central Asian republics. The repercussions from a resurgent Taliban within Kabul and without creates migraine headaches for NATO and American forces embroiled in Iraq. The rising criticism of Pakistan, its leaders and its people is simply a reflection of the rising frustration percolating from defeat of the Northern Alliance. Diversionary tactics in Balochistan and Waziristan mean nothing more than a firecracker. The tribals and Balochis are patriotic Pakistanis and form the backbone of Pakistan and its army. President [George W] Bush's "visit" to Pakistan painted the picture quite clearly to Pakistanis. Pakistanis want "friends, not masters", and most now think that "all-weather friendships" may lie north of the Karakorums [mountain range].
Moin Ansari (May 8, '06)


I have appreciated the coverage of issues in your online publication for some time, particularly its exploration of perspectives usually not found elsewhere. While I have had reservations concerning views expressed in some of the articles, I have respected the editorial privilege to encompass a wide range of views and have retained my sincere appreciation of the balance and integrity reflected in your current editorial policies. My readings of your publication extends to the Letters to the Editor as many contributors sometimes reflect my personal misgivings concerning certain articles and sometimes add frequently insightful observations but always pose a window to the many interpretations possible. I do, however, take exception to one particular contributor, Frank of Seattle. He invariably pursues a racist approach to certain contributors in the magazine and in its Letters page. I find this somewhat undignified for an otherwise excellent magazine. To quote directly from a recent letter from him: "Sudha Ramachandran is no different [from] those Indians who are classified or boasted as literate [but] can barely read or write ... Chinese are good at using their hands. Indians are good at using their mouths ..." Frank of Seattle may have reservations concerning the article by Sudha Ramachandran that he refers to [Doubts over India's 'teeming millions' advantage, May 5]. He may indeed be a staunch believer of [Thomas] Malthus. He does not, however, suggest why there may be flaws in Ramachandran's optimistic analysis. The second sentence I quoted above from his letter is totally irrational and unforgivably racist. I personally think that India's youthful population can indeed be an asset as Ramachandran suggested if, and this is a big if, public policy could utilize this as an asset. Currently, the birth rate remains high among the sector of population least able to participate in economic prosperity while it is falling to below the replacement rate among the demographic sector best equipped to benefit from economic growth. Further, India's economic growth is over-reliant on overseas finance capital investment. This may create problems further down the road in an increasingly unstable world. Ramachandran, however, is right in assessing the greater potential of a youthful population than an aging one. As for India's other assets, a stable democratic political governance structure is one. Another is the country's ability, shown over the last 60 years, to recover from the ravages of colonial exploitation. There are many other assets without which economic growth would not have been possible. This letter is not about a high-school list. This is to protest about the ignobility that racism confers on its perpetrators. I can understand Frank of Seattle's pride in his ethnic ancestral heritage. That pride is mere conceit when it is founded on racist depredation of other ethnic realities, particularly when they comprise a very large proportion of our world's human beings. Frank of Seattle's conduct degrades the cultures of both the US and China. More important, it is no credit to Asia Times Online ...
Sona
Guysborough, Nova Scotia (May 8, '06)


In reference to Frank's response [letter, May 5] to Sudha Ramachandran's article [Doubts over India's 'teeming millions' advantage, May 5], I wonder whether Frank realizes how ridiculous and embarrassing his rants appear. Disagreement with the contents within the article is no reason to bash the writer and Indians as a whole. I hope he observes that while I disagree with his response, I do not attribute his rants to the failings of his parents or his native land's education system. This would be a gross over-generalization. I would, however, attribute them to intellectual laziness and narrow-minded bigotry.
Liu Ku-Shung
Las Vegas, Nevada (May 8, '06)


I feel utterly disgusted and annoyed by Frank of Seattle's racist statement on May 5 making fun of India's population and their per unit production [letter below]. Looking at things in a broader perspective, India is well known for [its] technology innovations and software engineering and research. It also has some of the finest labor and education, as several of the world's top technology institution and research centers are located there. India definitely has achieved a proud and satisfying accomplishment, and, as more foreign investment draws in, India's fast-growing economy will soon become [a] dominating force [in] Asia. Perhaps before Frank wants to make fun of another nation, he better think twice about his own country (China, if I'm not mistaken) and learn to appreciate others.
Yung Yu Heng
Taipei, Taiwan (May 8, '06)


Peddling democracy the US way [May 4] by Chalmers Johnson is an excellent article describing why these faulty US democratic ventures are not what the US prizes them to be. The nations of the world each must choose their own path; it is seen within every country in every situation that no country will let itself be subjected under full dominance by another country - at least without resistance in the end. The US then goes into a angry frenzy when its slave-nations rebel against it, such as the Latin American nations that were once the bed of American exports and imports of fruits and other tropical items, yet once the nations industrialized and gained their own footing, much to the anger of the US system, they shoved the US and its economics out of the door as leaders quickly took power. The US, when it institutes "democracy", does not institute even true bourgeois democracy. It institutes US-favoring democracy - democracy only as long as it supports the US interests. This too is why the idea of "socialism in one country", [when] it spreads through imperialism, is as evil as imperialism itself, and why the world revolution is necessary - so the people of the world feel like they have chosen their own path, not [one that has] been imposed by a foreign aggressor, a very important distinction. Yet the US does not give up its stranglehold of the world's economy so easily - that is why there were so many assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, why the Bay of Pigs occurred, why popular and socialist leaders of Latin America were kidnapped, killed, or toppled by the US or its supported party of lackeys and cronies. The US is not unique in that factor, [but] in modern history it has been the most powerful dominator - Japan would have done the same if it had been the great superpower, so would Germany, and Russia, and England, Iran, everywhere, and in the case of those colonial and imperialist superpowers, many did. The ambitions are a common trait to humans everywhere. That is why, even though right often, single-minded hatred against the US itself is narrow-minded, overlooking the real worldwide human problem of the situation, not one nation presenting itself as an imperialist machine.
Peng Dehuai
USA (May 8, '06)


Though there are several interesting points in [M K] Bhadrakumar's article Germany, Russia redraw Europe's frontiers [May 3], and even more enlightening facts, I'd like just to add to his poignant arguments that the "numbers" also point in the direction of increased Russian leverage and independence regarding oil and gas supplies to Europe. The Far Eastern Pipeline, hooked up to the West Siberian fields, will send 1.6 million barrels of oil to China, South Korea and Japan, but it is not at all clear whether Russia will raise its oil production by at least 2.5 million barrels per day total for the Far East, the Baltic Pipeline System, and the Barents Sea (shipments there are to rise to at least 0.4 million b/d in one to two years); this will create a situation where spare export capacity will appear regarding the oil pipelines going through Ukraine, Belarus, and [elsewhere in] Eastern Europe - within three years Russia might not need these routes and the latter states might lose much-needed revenue, while Russia will be able to export at least 5 million b/d of crude oil via its ports in the Barents, Baltic and Black seas and the Far East pipeline. In the gas sphere the same situation is developing as the North European Gas Pipeline under the Baltic Sea will deliver 55 billion cubic meters (the Yamal-Germany [pipeline] via Belarus and Poland, avoiding Ukraine, is now pumping 32 billion cubic meters), the deliveries to Turkey via Blue Stream are expected to reach their maximum of 16 billion cubic meters by 2011, LNG [liquefied natural gas] shipments from the Barents Sea and the Baltic Sea are projected to reach 10 billion to 15 billion cubic meters a year by 2010-11, and the pipeline to western China - also hooked up to the West Siberian and Yamal/Taimyr fields - will be able to send 40 billion cubic meters a year. Yet Russian gas exports are not projected to rise as fast as the new export capacity, especially with the slow but steady rise in domestic consumption, therefore by 2010-12 Russia will be able to reroute 70 billion to 80 billion cubic meters away from Ukraine - which in a parasitic relationship feeds off Russian gas exports, in addition to transportation costs - while still delivering the same gas quantities to Europe; it will also be able to reroute 40 billion cubic meters of West Siberian gas, possibly that traveling, again, via Ukraine, and send it to China.
Leon Rozmarin
Hopedale, Massachusetts (May 8, '06)


Excellent articles on Iran and Washington by Spengler [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2]. Very helpful in understanding Iran's motivations.
Carol (May 8, '06)


"Okay, Spengler ... Why target Iran ... when we have ... Kim Jong-il of North Korea, ... [or] Pakistan ...? The difference between Iran and North Korea is - you guessed it - oil" (David [letter, May 4]). The reason is that Iran is in the Bible, particularly the apocalyptic Book of Daniel. North Korea and Pakistan are not in the Bible. David, please realize that [US President George W] Bush is not motivated by the rational pursuit of oil, but the irrational pursuit of the Millennium, when Jesus will rule the world with a rod of iron.
Lester Ness
Changchun, China (May 8, '06)


Since [September 11, 2001], when the US demanded [that President General Pervez] Musharraf stop supporting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and become an ally to fight terrorism, Mr Musharraf has been playing a game of political poker with the US. As the article [It's showdown time in Pakistan, May 5] states, in 2003 the Taliban [were] crushed and their main objective was survival. Mr Musharraf could have done several things to keep his power and his friendship with the US intact. Instead, he made several blunders. First he took the US for granted as a steadfast ally regardless of what Mr Musharraf offered the US. Instead of handing over key figures of the al-Qaeda network, his regime handed the US token and many times innocent people that the US either had little use [for] or had to release [because of] their innocence. Second, Mr Musharraf played hardball with the US when attacks from the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda forces attacked US installations and soldiers in Afghanistan and sought refuge in Pakistan. When the US demanded entry on to Pakistani soil to pursue these terrorists, Mr Musharraf considered that an act against Pakistan's sovereignty and refused entry. On the local front, Mr Musharraf's government was cheating the Balochis of their rightful monetary gains from the gas fields in Balochistan, thereby [fomenting] the same resentment as the Bangladeshis felt so many decades ago. Finally, Mr Musharraf's biggest mistake was to take the US as an all-weather ally for granted. Mr Musharraf underestimated the US. America did not become the sole superpower because [that status] was given to it, it earned it the hard way, both economically and, most important, militarily, and Mr Musharraf's double talk has not washed well with the US. Now the US is demanding from Mr Musharraf an act that would certainly bring his regime to an end. Any kind of Tora Bora-type bombing in Balochistan will only bolster the Balochi [struggle] for autonomy and massive retaliation, as suggested in the article. To say that Mr Musharraf is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea is an understatement.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 5, '06)


The following quote was in [the index-page summary for] Syed Saleem Shahad's It's showdown time in Pakistan [May 5]: "But the Taliban have their own blueprint: it starts with Afghanistan, and ends with a global call to jihadis to eliminate the 'Crusader and Zionist-backed Musharraf'." Thank you for [being] bluntly honest instead of talking politely around the issue so no one gets upset. I am an American living thousands of miles away from Pakistan. Reading news reports of [Pakistani President General Pervez] Musharraf killing his own people on the orders of George Bush was mind-boggling. Reading that Musharraf had adopted the Zionist/American line that the murder of innocent Pakistani citizens was "collateral damage" destroyed any possible doubt that Musharraf is a Zionist agent. Reading that Musharraf was demoting his own military officers who were loyal to Islam and replacing them with people willing to be Zionist/American agents made my jaw drop. In America, Britain, Germany, France or any other Western country, it is expected that the leaders are Zionist agents or sympathizers. It is expected that the decadent states of Bahrain etc in the Middle East are Zionist/American collaborators. But to see the leader of Pakistan, a country with a nuclear weapon with which it can defend itself, a country with the Zionist/American army on its Afghan border and the Zionist/American-allied India on another border, voluntarily murder, arrest, and torture Pakistani citizens - well, frankly it sickens me. Do the military men in Pakistan pay attention to the news? The Zionist/Americans will order Musharraf to destroy as much of the internal security apparatus of his country as possible. They will have Musharraf turn the Pakistani citizens against the Pakistani authorities by ordering the military and police to kill Pakistani citizens. Musharraf has already allowed the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] free access to most of Pakistan's military men and bases, just like Saddam Hussein allowed the UN inspectors access to his bases. Just like the UN inspectors, the FBI and CIA in Pakistan are bribing traitors and setting out laser markers at military installations for the coming Zionist/American attack. When the chaos ordered by the Zionist/Americans and implemented by Musharraf peaks, the Zionist/Americans will "discover" that Pakistan is a terrorist country and bomb [it] the way they did Iraq. They will make up some story like they are making up about Iran. Just like Iraq, Iran, and Palestine, the world will stand by doing nothing as the Zionist/American military bombs Pakistan back to a pre-industrial society. I hear that Baghdad gets four or five hours a day of electricity, three years after the invasion. And thanks to the compliant Musharraf, the Pakistani military will be weak and demoralized, and the Pakistani citizens will be looking for anyone, even white people from America, to help save them from the Pakistani army which is killing them. I do not understand how the military men charged with protecting the entire country of Pakistan can stand by and watch one man give - not sell, but give for free - the Muslim country of Pakistan to the Zionist/Americans.
Woodrow Gillian
USA (May 5, '06)


Alex Au's article A foregone conclusion in Singapore [May 5] sums up well the pre-election fever in the city-republic. Although no one seriously doubts that the PAP (People's Action Party) will continue keeping the reins of power, it is significant to note that Mentor Minister Lee Kwan Yew, the grand old man of Singapore's politics, had to descend into the political arena to blunt the thrust of disaffected younger voters. This he has not done since his nemesis, now-bankrupt J B Jeyarathnam, took a seat in the well of parliament a quarter-century ago. To the elder Lee's surprise he was interrupted and challenged publicly, which in itself is a bellwether. PAP's grand old man dismissed his detractors as the "English-educated" lot. That, too, is interesting, the more especially if one reads Volume 1 of Mr Lee's memoirs: he was brought up exclusively in a wholly English-language stream of learning. In the May 4 Financial Times, there is a photo of the Workers' Party rally, which drew a large crowd, which brings to mind the mass gatherings of the 1960s. This is indeed remarkable, since from the lips of pundits drops the sobriquet of Singapore as a "nanny state" where everyone is coddled from cradle to grave. There, however, is much discontent and champing at the bit among the Singapore electorate. The fortysomething voters are the ones who are hurting badly from downturns in the markets. They have been made redundant [laid off], and have an ax to grind. The young generations are edged out of the labor market by a liberal immigration policy. Everyone waxes angry when it comes to the privileges which Singapore allows to foreign companies and to the expatriate community. The PAP [is] not unaware of hard feelings among its citizens. It has tried to buy them off by money grants. Everyone took the money, which was recognized for what it was - a bribe of sorts. The younger Lee [Hsien Loong], the current prime minister, may very well poll barely 60%, and of course, the PAP will remain in control of parliament and the government. Still, [it] will have to face the questions of a larger opposition, and a more vocal youth who, though conservative on the whole, want things changed. Will the snap elections on Saturday be a wake-up call for the PAP?
Jakob Cambria
USA (May 5, '06)


Sudha Ramachandran is no different [from] those Indians who are classified or boasted as literate [but] can barely read or write [Doubts over India's 'teeming millions' advantage, May 5]. Just by blowing some hot air, [she] turned India's exploding population problem into an asset. India's labor forces already make a lot less than China's. However, India's products still cost a lot more than China's. Why? Chinese are good at using their hands. Indians are good at using their mouths. Now India has to figure out how to feed 40% more of those mouths in the next 15 years. If a population explosion of this scale is an asset, what are the India's other assets?
Frank of Seattle
Washington, USA (May 5, '06)


In reply to [Iran stands in the way of US designs, May 4] by Stephen Zunes: As I recall, six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council met in Abu Dhabi earlier this year and agreed to a "joint response to Iran's problematic approach to a number of issues". What were some of these? They were environmental and should be a source of general concern because their implications are broad in reach. Iran is building nuclear power facilities in geologically unstable areas (Bushehr Peninsula, Dar-Khuwayn in Khuzestan, and plans one on the Jask Peninsula on the Gulf of Oman). These and the remainder of their 25 hoped-for stations are near major population centers of GCC members, but remote from those of Iran. The Siemens-designed (and Russian development-aided) station at Bushehr cannot withstand a Richter-7 quake, and a quake of that magnitude is quite likely in that region. Earthquake-prone Iran has already had several devastating events in the last two years alone. Nuclear fallout in the Persian Gulf (very shallow: less than 90 meters maximum) would ruin fishing and destroy oil flow - for centuries. If the effects of the Chernobyl disaster are an indicator, the human disaster could be even greater. According to the Federation of American Scientists, Iran has long-range ballistic missiles in development. The Shahab-6 is expected to have a range of 5,470-5,500 and 5,632-6,200 kilometers with a 1,000-750-500-kilogram warhead. Depending on configuration and booster stages, this missile could hit the eastern seaboard of the USA.
Keith Comess (May 4, '06)


Chalmers Johnson's Peddling democracy the US way (May 4) is an excellent analysis of the historical evidence of US foreign policy culminating in one way or another by the installation of dictatorial regimes that have no respect for rules of law, democracy and freedom. A crucial point stated was the mechanism of what can be called sabotage and how US imperialism tries to use it in many countries to promote unpopular regimes. However, there were several annoying elements in the article. First, Islam has never been against capitalism, because Islam does defend private ownership, money incentive, profit and markets, which are the central elements for any style of capitalism. In fact, Islam encourages more efficient capitalism than the American-style capitalism, because the latter is in fact monopoly capitalism that prevents competition and supports monopolies and government intervention to promote racism and exclusion and to defend corporate power that generates exploitation and economic inefficiencies. In addition, it is true that Muslim nations are nationalist, and Americans (and American monopoly capitalism) are patriotic as well. It follows that Islam and Muslim nations are not against capitalism, nor are they against patriotism, but they are against the intrusion of imperialism in their domestic affairs: they are not interested in being occupied by foreign forces. Imperialism tends to penetrate foreign nations to destroy their cultural fabric, and Muslim people, as others, love their culture and are willing and able to defend it. Hence the cultural conflict, which is triggered by US imperialism, sets in. It follows that if US imperialism changes direction by penetrating into its own domestic areas to generate a higher rate of economic growth, then the cultural conflict (between Islam and US imperialism) will cease to exist. But as we all know US imperialism cannot change direction, because it aims at foreign intervention and domination in order to create huge benefits and profits [for] the US military complex and oil corporations, the dominant institutions in North America. The second point, as Mr Johnson correctly states, is that US imperialism has seldom installed a democratic regime. In other words, the US intends to export, by the use of military force, other forms of political regimes, particularly regimes that are called democratic but are essentially undemocratic. It becomes necessary here to understand [Karl] Marx's dialectic to distinguish between what is called the essence and appearance of a phenomenon. In appearance these US-installed regimes may look democratic through the use of fake institutions such as elections, government, courts and the like, as has happened in Iraq, but essentially they are fascist and bloodthirsty regimes such as the ones mentioned in the article. Accordingly, many countries in the world are not interested in importing what the US tries to export; hence another conflict is created. For example, when the US invaded Iraq under the pretext of freedom and liberation, many people were amazed by how the US divided the country into ethnic and sectarian groups such that no political compromise can be achieved. But in the [US] system, political groups are not divided into Catholics, Protestants, Jewish people, Muslims, and the like. All people behave as Americans and mostly vote as Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Moreover, the US economic system assists needy American people by giving them free items, whether in cash or in-kind, in order to survive, but its exported style of capitalism shows no tendency to subsidize and help needy people. In addition, the [US] economic system provides subsidies, patents and protection for many firms, but its exported version of capitalism does not provide such assistance to other nations. In other words, the US does not export its own economic and political system to other countries; instead, it exports a form of capitalism that creates dictatorship, massacres and monopolies, and sabotages economic and political progress of the importing nations.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 4, '06)


Re A new weapon in the 'war of ideas' [May 4]: It would have been better for Ehsan Ahrari to say that through the medium of the English language a global war of ideas is about to begin now that the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera is going to introduce "a global television channel that will telecast news in English". Mr Ahrari knows full well that the Muslim world and the West have been engaged in a war of words and base deeds on a global scale for some time now. Al-Jazeera in English may push CNN to brighten up its lumpy, complacent format, and it may liven up the news in English by offering a different take on the news. Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the management of the English-language news is in the hands of British and American journalists. The news more likely than not will have a BBC tone to it, and the coverage will lack the sturm und drang of Arabic hyperbole.
Jakob Cambria
USA (May 4, '06)


Okay, Spengler [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2] and other proponents [of] military action, [re] all this hysteria about not allowing "another nation with an unstable leadership arise to spark a global conflagration" such as Iran: Why target Iran, whose nuclear-bomb-making ability is probably years away, when we have the woefully ignored totalitarian dictator Kim Jong-il of North Korea, who already possesses nuclear weapons, or the fundamentalist failed state of Pakistan, where the only thing between radical Islamists and nuclear weapons is a (likely) overthrow of President [General Pervez] Musharraf? But if the US and big media tell us that Iran - a country [that] hasn't attacked another state for the last three centuries and [which] is well aware that any act of aggression against another state is tantamount to suicide - is the biggest threat in the world today, then it must be. The difference between Iran and North Korea is - you guessed it - oil.
David
Melbourne, Australia (May 4, '06)


It is such a pity that a distinguished writer like Spengler is more than often used [as] a punching bag by disgruntled ATol readers [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2]. Personally, I enjoy reading him, always keeping my blinkers handy in case he turns laborious with his adverbial clauses and complex sentences, as well as traveling back [far in time]. Probably it is his over-optimism that deludes him into hoping he could captivate readers with his repeated missives. This reminds me of a story of an old chap who married a young girl of 20 and could not believe his good luck; [he] felt as if he could fly without wings, always feeling over-vigorous and zealous. So one night before going to bed, he shaved himself and, jumping on to the bed, said to his young wife, "Don't you think, sweetheart, I am looking 20 years younger tonight?" She replied, looking at him, "Then you should shave twice every night before coming to bed." I consider reading Spengler an intellectual exercise, but he needs revamping like the old chap. Finally, I would like to give a piece of advice to Madzimbamuto ([letter] May 2): never, ever contemplate taking out an Iranian mullah for martinis unless he is a very good sprinter.
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 4, '06)


Spengler's assertion that a war with Iran is some type of geopolitical necessity is anything but convincing [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2]. In using the "1914" analogy he falls short. Spengler fails to point out how Britain's [entry] into the "Great War" turned a regional conflict into a European one - and how the American [entry] took that a step further into a full-blown world event. Norman Davies covers this tragedy very well in Europe. If World War I has anything to teach us about the future of Iran, it would be stay out.
Erik Vilius
Chicago, Illinois (May 3, '06)


The all-too-correct assumption by Spengler in his [May 2] article [Why war comes when no one wants it], that it would not take long for the Iranian mullahs to use nuclear weapons against their avowed enemies - let alone their fellow Muslims - once they acquired such weapons, seems to be ignored by all who condemn the idea of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear program by the US. One thing Jews have learned real good in the last 2,000 years is that when people start threatening you with death verbally, it is only a matter of time before they take action on it. The most humane thing the French could have done to prevent World War II was to confront [Adolf] Hitler in 1936 when the Nazi army militarized the Rhineland. The hundreds of dead Germans and French would likely have caused the downfall of Hitler. Not a day goes by without explicit threats by AhMadJihad against the US (The Big Satan) and Israel (The Little Satan). Spengler is right that removing the looming nuclear threat of Iran in the near future will purchase a safer world for all, and likely will at least discredit the bloodlusting and warmongering mullahs, to boot. A number of military experts have stated this can be done without nuclear weapons, notwithstanding [US journalist] Seymour Hersh's speculations to the contrary. From Spengler's pen to Bush's ear ...
Richard Greene
USA (May 3, '06)

Much of the "evidence" for the altruistic value of preemptive war is of the "if only" variety, such as your suggestion of how World War II might have been prevented "if only" the 1930s French had had our gift of hindsight. There are few real examples of "preemptive" military action demonstrably paying off, certainly not for the US: see The loose supercannon, May 3. - ATol


While I do not dispute Spengler's (Why war comes when no one wants it [May 2]) basic argument that a nuclear Iran will be serious menace to global security, I do think that his "World War I" scenario for the Middle East is somewhat exaggerated (as long as Iran does not become nuclear, that is). By no stretch of imagination can any of the concerned states in West Asia be compared [to] the rival powers of Europe before the start of [World War I]. None of the powers, be it Iran (with its ragtag army), Syria or Saudi Arabia or even Turkey for that matter, have the capacity to take on the West and Israel. Frankly speaking, only two Islamic powers can really be counted as strong military powers: Pakistan and Turkey, and both are US allies, at least for now. And it also needs to be remembered that there is no love lost among the members of the OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference]. And besides, who is going to support Iran against the US a la Serbia during the First World War? Unless, of course, countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Russia or China "go out of their mind altogether" (if I may paraphrase the czar) and jump into the fray.
Gautam (May 3, '06)


Re [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2]: I have to agree with many of your readers that the situation in Europe in 1914 was not a very close analogy to the situation that exists today between Iran and the "Western" powers. A closer analogy might be made between today and Europe in 1937. But that would be another story. I believe that [Spengler] is correct in his premise that World War I was a war that no one wanted. In fact, no war is welcomed by the common people of any country. Wars disrupt commerce, they increase prices and steal the lives of friends and family. Peace is much preferred by the vast majority of people. But he is also correct that war will come, in today's crisis as it did in 1914. Why? Simply because you have two parties (Iran versus the US and Western Europe) on a collision course. Simply put, Tehran wishes to have a self-produced nuclear-weapons capability and it will not be dissuaded from attempting to achieve this. The West, arguably, looks toward the history of the 20th century and the Second World War. [It is] determined not to allow another nation with an unstable leadership arise to spark a global conflagration, especially one armed with nuclear weapons. Given the public remarks of the current leadership of Iran, the West will not take a chance that the Iranian leadership is blustering and bluffing. It will reduce the threat of the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, by whatever means necessary. It will not want to, but it will happen. This entire situation is exacerbated by the activities of Russia and China. They have their own agendas in this matter, and Russia, at least, is encouraging Iran's confidence to stymie the Western powers through arms sales to that country. We can hope that some sanity will prevail, but I fear that the chances of that are slight.
M Tobias
USA (May 3, '06)


Spengler contends in his [May 2] article Why war comes when no one wants it that the Bush administration doesn't want war, yet Gareth Porter's adjacent article Iranians cry in the wilderness [May 2] says that Iran has been trying in vain for months to organize bilateral talks. It seems that their [Iranians'] only conditions for talks are that they should remain private and that they should deal with all outstanding issues between the two countries. No reasonable country that was sincerely trying to avoid war would snub such a proposal. The only logical conclusion is that the Bush administration actually does want a war. This is also consistent with the way they have been hyping the danger of a nuclear Iran instead of trying to calm things down. I think there will be a war, not because it's tragically inevitable, as Spengler contends, but rather because [US President George W] Bush wants a war for domestic [political] reasons, and will anyway be unable to back down from his aggressive posture without losing face.
Mark Snegg
Johannesburg, South Africa (May 3, '06)


Re The case against sanctions on Iran [May 2]: [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi would have made a stronger case against sanctions against Iran had he pointed out that Tehran sells most of its oil and gas to three East Asian countries, namely Japan, [South] Korea and China. For sanctions to have full effect, they would need Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing to back them up. Which is not necessarily a sure thing.
Jakob Cambria
USA (May 3, '06)


I wish to comment on the article Iran hedges down to the wire [Apr 29] by Praful Bidwai. President [Mahmud] Ahmadinejad has boasted that the hidden 12th Imam during his tete-a-tete with him has bestowed upon him the presidency of Iran for a single task; provoking a "[clash] of civilizations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in the slow but prolonged contest of attrition. In his analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantage over the infidel: Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its aging populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslims, ghazis, are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving lewd life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidels. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting under G W Bush, is more hated by most [of the rest of the] world. Ahmadinejad's plan is simple: play a naughty hide-and-seek game with IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] and the Europeans for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame duck" and an aberration, unable to take military action against the mullahs, and all the time continue with its [Iran's] nuclear program behind airtight closed doors. Iran's leadership is determined to acquire nuclear technology not just to generate electricity but also to have the option to build a nuclear bomb. They already have the Shahab-3 ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and beyond, and that probably makes President Ahmadinejad as bold as ever to quote the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's saying that he wanted to see Israel "off the map". What the West should not underestimate, and in particular President George W Bush, is that for the mullahs it has become an issue of moral, legal and legitimate right to acquire nuclear technology, and they would willingly assert martyrdom to get it. Death from martyrdom runs deep into the psyche of all Iranians, and that is the most worrying prospect that should be seriously considered by the parties involved and that could mean horrendous destruction on all sides. I would rather see Iran join the nuclear club and shut up than see unnecessary destruction and killing of the thousands of innocent humans as we are witnessing in Iraq because of G W Bush's botched adventures.
Saqib Khan
London, England (May 3, '06)


Re Colombo, Tigers slide toward open war [Apr 27]: This civil war has been raging for decades, and the Tamil Tigers' ace card is the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, where they have terrorist cells supported by the powerful in Tamil Nadu. New Delhi's apathy towards Sri Lanka's war has already caused India the death of one prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, and yet New Delhi refuses to aggressively crack down on these terrorist cells located in Tamil Nadu and even in some of the other southern states. As long as New Delhi acts paralyzed in flushing out these Tamil Tiger cells in its southern states and refuses to arrest those [who] support them, the Tamil Tigers can wage an unending war with the Sri Lankan government. It is time that the Sri Lankan government take covert actions against these cells in India whether it pleases New Delhi or not. At this stage Sri Lanka has little to lose. Sri Lanka is not getting the much-needed support from India and the situation in Sri Lanka is worsening. If the Tamils decide to flee to India, then the Sri Lankan government should prevent them from returning to the island. The Sinhalese population has only one place that they can call home, and that is Sri Lanka, while the Tamils have the luxury of both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka to call home to the extent that they want to divide the island to create their state of Eelam. Colombo needs to make it clear to New Delhi that there is a limit of tolerance towards the Tamil population and that limit is coming to an end.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
New Orleans, Louisiana (May 3, '06)


Spengler's article [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2] depicts the inevitable consequences when all participants in the political games have the same cast of mind [as] Spengler.
Joseph Bodenhofer
Austria (May 2, '06)


Spengler in his Why war comes when no one wants it (May 2) has not at all substantiated that the conditions today in the US-Iran relationship are parallel to the situation in Europe/world prior to the First World War. He lists a lot of irrelevant quotations ... His conclusion that "aerial attacks on Iran ... [are] the most humane situation" is faulty and reflects the facile approach of American neo-cons who so far have only caused much destruction rather than reconstruction in neighboring Iraq. Furthermore, the USA seems more and more to turn into a "democracy of warriors", proud to be the only nation that has ever dropped nuclear bombs on others in this world.
G Sonne
Canada (May 2, '06)


Spengler sometimes draws interesting and inspired connections in his commentary on world politics, but reading Why war comes when no one wants it [May 2] I find his method unthorough and rife with illogicality, his style that of a self-important undergraduate, and the conclusions he draws horrifically dangerous at the worst and foolish at the best. Truth and good sense he sacrifices to his glittered and dazzling display of "intellectual" breadth, and his ramblings have about the depth of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. (If Spengler is not American or American-educated I'll take the grand ayatollah out for martinis.) Spengler's theme in [the] article requires history to repeat. But history does not repeat. Now is not the period leading up to World War I. War is no more inevitable now than it was then (which is not a repetition of history, only a continuing truth about history: that nothing is inevitable before it happens). Washington is in the first place not an autonomous actor; not a person, but a collection of entities; and in the second place has no unified will: there is the president, the vice president, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress and its diverse constituents, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], NSA [National Security Agency], FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], the industrialists, the endless lobby groups, etc. "Neither Washington nor Tehran wants military confrontation," writes Spengler. Who is Washington that it wants anything at all, and who is Tehran? "War will come, even though President George W Bush wants it as little as did Emperor Franz Josef." So is Washington Bush? "Luttwak's article ... lays out the Bush administration's thinking." So is Washington the Bush administration? This may be a bit more accurate at least, but what about the infinite other factors at play deciding whether there will be a war? It is all far too complex for us to know what will happen, and I don't even think Spengler thinks he knows. He just likes to talk. His article reads like an over-ambitious essay written by a star student for his political-science professor. The "facts" are laid out on the table for us and then everything is tied together far too neatly for the sake of satisfying a thesis paragraph, itself fleshed out at 3am the night before the essay was due. Something isn't backed up by fact? No matter - it is backed up by definitive opinion, some article he wrote on another date. And yet he is read across the world and maybe some people even pay him serious attention. So it becomes dangerous. "Iran must aim for empire"? This is a better point to raise, but only because it has to do with the situation today and not the situation in the world a hundred years ago, and not because it is necessarily (in all its grand simplicity) enough of a consideration on which to base a specific policy decision. But even so I will not be convinced of Iran's imperial needs or ambitions today by the reasons Spengler gave in September of last year (which themselves may be just as ill-supported as his arguments today). There are plenty of pretty parallels to be drawn throughout the historical record, but none of them come near to being decisive of our action today. Spengler's logic: nobody in the key national administrations foresaw war in 1914 and yet devastating war followed; nobody in the key national administrations foresees war today, therefore devastating war is coming shortly; therefore with this bit of clever prescience the US should avoid war and preempt with a surgical strike. If (a big if) Spengler happens to be right (for weakly argued, incomplete or simply wrong reasons) and we are all sitting on a great powder keg, perhaps he should be more careful than to make such military prescriptions as he has [in this article] unless he's aspiring to have the effect on the world of a modern-day Gavrilo Princip [the Serbian nationalist who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914].
Madzimbamuto (May 2, '06)


I am happy to see that despite calls from readers for censorship, Spengler hasn't been squelched by the editor. His [May 2] article [Why war comes when no one wants it], which could perhaps be better titled "Why (US) war with Iran will come when so many people, including Spengler, want it", suffices to show that he (I may be forgiven for presuming that there is a "he" behind the pseudonym) is still hanging in there. He reminds me of "Shroff", also a (I presume) man with a great respect for his own opinions, who to me is most memorable for his calling for Shanghai to be handed over to the Japanese, who would know how to make something of it (this would have been, if memory doesn't fail, sometime during the early '80s).
M Henri Day
Stockholm, Sweden (May 2, '06)


The latest from Spengler the humanist ("in the end bombing is the most humane thing to do") reminds one of a TV ad in the US of a few years back where a woman in a flaming-red dress and Cockney accent pouts, "Don't hate me because [I] am beautiful." ATol's editor-in-chief, one must conclude after reading Spengler's latest [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2], is definitely Machiavillian. Either Spengler's ramblings are paid for prior to their being published or [they] are published as prima facie positions of what the so-called Western beliefs of how to treat (threaten) all those who happen to be east of Eden and sit atop large oil reserves. Wars occur because someone wants them. And in the case of Iran the ones who want war are the neo-cons et al, and they are not in Iran. Given that the Iraq expedition is approaching the [US]$2 trillion mark in costs, one can only hazard a guess as to what the "war no one wants" will end up costing. Some believe that the US is on the verge of a collapse paralleling the 1929 [stock market] crash. And that is an event "that no sane American wants to experience".
Armand De Laurell (May 2, '06)


I think Spengler lies when he claims Iran seeks empire "stretching from the Caspian Sea ... to the Shi'ite oil-rich provinces of Saudi Arabia ... to a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon" [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2]. Although Iranians do have enormous historical and present-day influence within the Middle East, there is very little evidence of their using military force to gain territory or influence. Mostly, Iran is a foil to Israel and US military hegemony and territorial acquisition. Iran has not started any war since the [1978] revolution. Spengler also makes a mistake relying on diplomats' correspondence to make his point [that] World War I was not desired by the principal policymakers. Spengler's omission of industrialists', bankers' and political strategists' correspondence during the march to war indicates either his ignorance or [his] purpose. The people of the US and Iran do not want war; neither did the people of Europe. Those who want war, however, will use whatever persuasive means available to achieve their goal. Anathema upon them.
Replogos
USA (May 2, '06)


Spengler's Why war comes when no one wants it [May 2] should have been titled "Why 'yellow journalism' comes when no one wants it". What we have here is hysteria and brimstone in search of the latest "Armageddon". No one wants this dreadful war but you Iranians are forcing us into it so we'll have to shoot nuclear missiles at you from the safety of our worldwide web of bases. Of course the "freest" but also the stupidest press/media will cover our asses with their high-anxiety articles about the "Muslim bomb" and the body counts will be minimized for public approval.
Roger L
Youngstown, Ohio (May 2, '06)


Another great article by Spengler (Why war comes when no one wants it [May 2]). I sincerely hope the Bush administration does a surgical strike on Iran and removes the world of the Damocles sword.
Dirtydog
San Francisco, California (May 2, '06)


The article Why war comes when no one wants it [May 2] ends with the conclusion that attacking Iran with a brief air raid on its nuclear facilities is the most humane way to deal with this dangerous threat, and the author points to European history from the earliest years of the 20th century to the beginning of World War I to [back] his conclusion. In regard to attacking Iran, Spengler quotes [Edward] Luttwak: "The fact is that the targets would not be buildings as such but rather processes, and, given the aiming information now available, they could indeed be interrupted in lasting ways by a single night of bombing." Spengler could have also considered Pearl Harbor as a historical comparison, [in that] it is probable the Japanese leadership saw their "single morning of terror" the solution to their problem of how to help the Japanese people by achieving lasting empire and domination in the Pacific. And yet it didn't quite turn out to be the one battle of that war, only the beginning of the slaughter of millions in addition to the millions already being cruelly slaughtered in Europe; all for the sincere, noble, proud aspirations of their well-meaning leaders, culminating in the nuclear incineration of an unthinkable number of innocent human beings. Politics, if anything, is the misuse and abuse of language. As the article points out, the entanglement of interests could not keep Europe out of [World War I], with the best of intentions of its leaders. But I see this not so much as an unmanageable complex of interests as a failure of imagination, self-interest masking as commitment to freedom, democracy and other moral values that people should be serious about but are not. I would think that bombing Iran will likely produce not a smaller disaster but a much greater one, as World War I, the war to end all wars, didn't stop World War II as many said it was supposed to do. If war is the most "humane" solution to the interconnected interests of sovereign nations, it is humane in the way that a virus that doesn't quite kill its host but makes it very sick is "humane". War enriches the few who simply must be, at heart, indifferent to the suffering of innocents, it is collectively psychopathological in its denial of the power of non-violent conflict-resolution mechanisms. We use the [term] "war crimes", but I think nowadays war itself is the crime. Thinking war is the most humane solution to a dangerous, Islamic/fascist misogynistic regime that eventually will get nuclear weapons is the very reason nations are pressured into developing these horrendous devices in the first place. Fear. Fear rules nationalism and has for centuries. The right way, the sane way, which usually isn't the most logical, is to begin serious worldwide elimination of WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. Iran having one or 50 nuclear weapons in 10 years is highly undesirable, but since the US has somewhere around 7,000 or 8,000 of them, Russia has more, Israel has 200, and so on, I think the world is about as dangerous as it's been in quite some time, and it is no less desirable to me that the leaders of the US, Pakistan, Russia or Israel have their fingers on the the nuclear trigger as well. The Bush government is the greatest problem at present, because the US has great military and economic power and is more than willing to corrupt and abuse it in countless ways. A war on Iran will be the beginning of the long war that Spengler believes it may actually prevent. I hope we are both wrong, and the attack doesn't happen. But if the attack happens, I hope Spengler is right. Looking at history from a somewhat different perspective, I don't believe he is.
Jerry Gerber
San Francisco, California (May 2, '06)


Why does Spengler [Why war comes when no one wants it, May 2] have mild-mannered mathematician Henri Poincare as the leader of bellicose France in 1914? Also, how the devil do you register for the forums?
Brother Kornhoer (May 2, '06)

The article should have referred to Raymond Poincare, who was president of France 1913-20, not his cousin Jules Henri Poincare, a mathematician and physicist who in fact died two years before the start of World War I. The article has been corrected. To apply for membership to The Edge forum, please fill in the Technology Issues form in the Media Kit. Please include your full name; desired user name; location; and e-mail address (all this information, of course, is strictly confidential). Your submission will be reviewed within 48 hours. - ATol


Kaveh L Afrasiabi's The case against sanctions on Iran (May 2) helps the readers of ATol to understand the surrounding issues of what has been called the Iranian nuclear bomb; however, some of the useful elements of the issue were missing. In my opinion the UN is a legal international means for globalized monopoly capitalism, used to justify imperialist adventures of what monopoly capitalist countries intend to do against helpless nations. A simple historical fact of the Iraqi situation has substantiated the genocidal behavior of the UN towards the peace-loving Iraqi people, as it approved the massacre and genocide of the Iraqi people over the last 15 years: the first genocide of the 21st century and the last of the 20th century. In other words, the UN is not a dignified institution to care about what the Muslim and marginalized people of the world think. If it was a dignified and a respected world institution, it would use the same standard against all countries producing nuclear and chemical weapons. So what does the world community expect from a corrupted institution? All ugly outcomes such as sanctions, massacres, genocides, and authorizations of using military force against poor and defenseless nations should be expected. What is fascinating about the UN is that it calls these destructive actions institutional changes towards freedom and democracy, such as the case of Iraq. The author has also ignored the fact that the world is currently interested in freedom and democracy. It should follow that the production of nuclear bombs must be allowed as a sign of freedom of choice. If all countries in the world produce nuclear bombs, no country will be able to drop bombs on other nations, and the profit rate in the military industry will decline significantly, pushing capitalists to mobilize their investments to industries where the rates of profit are higher. Stated somewhat differently, the world will be at equilibrium or at balance of power, a cooperative solution that is better than a monopolistic solution where one [country] or a group of selected countries are monopolizing the production of nuclear bombs at the expense of other nations. In fact, the cooperative solution will establish a real world peace, because countries will eventually cut military expenditures and will redirect them to other social and useful alternatives such as health care, education, environmental protection, and social security. All these social areas will maximize welfare and happiness of the world population. The author has neglected the fact that the issue of the Iranian nuclear bomb is actually grounded in oil. Recently, some of the elites in the USA have supported oil corporations by arguing that it will take three years to solve the oil crisis. Those elites explain the oil crisis as a result of increased world demand for oil. While this is a correct one-sided analysis assuming oil supply is fixed, it is also true that oil supply was sabotaged or intentionally reduced below potential productive capacity by the occupation of Iraq and the threat of imposing sanctions on or bombing Iran. These two crucial elements, associated with terrorism, which have generated unfavorable expectations about the future of oil supply, have significantly reduced the supply of oil; hence the drastically rising prices of oil and of profits of oil corporations. Simply [put], if the occupation of Iraq and the Iranian issue are ended now, the oil price per barrel will be at most [US]$14. In short, all these political threats are benefiting oil corporations, as their profits have increased tremendously over the last two quarters, and the US military complex at the expense of other industrial capitalists and the underlying world population.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (May 2, '06)


The article The case against sanctions on Iran [May 2], though well written by Kaveh Afrasiabi, has too many potholes in it. On one hand the article claims "there is insufficient and/or non-existing evidence ... to support Western allegations of an Iranian weapons buildup" and goes on to say, "Iran should not be subjected to punitive sanctions for exercising the same rights enjoyed by the Permanent Five members of the Security Council," but the article contradicts the former statement by the following quote: "Iran's enrichment knowledge is a fait accompli and Iranian centrifuges are spinning irrespective of the United States wish to 'stop even one centrifuge from rotating'." So is Iran just a scapegoat as