WRITE for ATolADVERTISEMEDIA KITGET ATol BY EMAILABOUT ATolCONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese




    Letters
    

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.


September 2006

I am very glad to read that [Mahatma] Gandhi's words and deeds are still being recognized as a source of inspiration in modern India [The Mahatma goes hip, Sep 29]. They have been for me, and still are. I was wondering why no mass media [were] mentioning that, more than anything else, September 11, 2006, was the anniversary (and the centennial one!) of the Mahatma's Satyagraha (steadfastness in truth). Thanks to [Sudha] Ramachandran's article, I feel relieved on that matter ... My great thanks to ATol for allowing people to have access to a diversity of interesting (sometimes to the point of challenging) and informative articles.
Dr Bittar Gabriel Jivasattha
Australia (Sep 29, '06)


The leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is nothing comparable in "shock and awe" that The Pentagon Papers were a generation ago. Its conclusions are hardly brass-farthing new; they have long been known in the public sphere. They may be "credible", as Ehsan Ahrari says, yet they have the aura of something secret about them which lends a vicarious thrill of discovery to them, despite the disdainful eye-catching headline Dumbed-down intelligence [Sep 29]. Jim Lobe writes of a new strategy for America, as a corrective to a failing Bush foreign and domestic policy [An alternative way forward for the US, Sep 29]. It too has an odor of old hat to it, even though it is the product of a two-year consultative process among the United States' 400 foreign-policy elite. Reading between the lines, it becomes obvious that President [George W] Bush's iron grasp is slipping, and those who feared the consequences of his vindictive staff and the brand of "anti-American" suddenly, but tentatively, have more lead in the backbone. It also goes to show how slow coming to a consensus is, and how cautious the foreign-policy elite is, in criticizing Mr Bush & Co, the more especially since the "establishment" is never forgiving of those who break ranks.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Sep 29, '06)


Re An alternative way forward for the US (Sep 29) by Jim Lobe: I have a few [alternative] suggestions for "the way forward for the US". (1) Get out of the United Nations - and, hopefully, the institution will move to another, more mature part of the world. Then, reapply for membership, when you have grown up. (2) Stop trying to be the Horrible Hunk of the schoolyard. (3) Get out of all the countries where the people do not want you. (4) Render all assistance to needy people through the United Nations. (5) Cease all assistance to the authoritarian governments of the world. (6) As the people of the world slip back into their own versions of "peace and security", assist them in any way you can to lead better lives. And finally, (7) buy the natural resources from the people who own them, rather than trying to steal them at gunpoint. However, I guess we all know that before any of this can happen, the United States of America will need a thoroughgoing revolution.
KEL (Sep 29, '06)


Michael T Klare's Cashing in on the fear factor (Sep 28) provides an excellent analysis to the oil market and furnishes a very important cause for rising oil prices. Some people may know what has been termed the political business cycle. Incumbents from a specific political party who are in control of democratic governments can use various policies and provide many signals that create reasonable economic conditions which are used to help their political party stay in control of the democratic process, as voters will vote for those incumbents. This explanation is consistent with what has happened to the price of oil. Professor Klare was correct when he argued that the Bush administration has tuned down its belligerent attitude in order to cool off the oil market. Coolness will reduce fear, and consequently the price of oil will decline. But the negative effect of this coolness is that it may cause some Republicans to lose the election, because they have been winning due to the diffusion of fear. Some conservative pundits think that this explanation is problematic, reflecting sickness and paranoia with those analysts who are advocating such explanation. It is true, though, that no one can show exactly that the Bush administration is connected to the oil corporations, a connection that has led to the recent price decline. But oil corporations know very well that the Bush administration has helped them make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, assuming we ignore the looting of the Iraqi oil and the construction of the oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Therefore, oil corporations can cut prices independently from the administration for some weeks as a payback; hence voters will forget the high prices of oil, which continued over the last three years, and will vote Republican. We should also keep in mind that during this period there have been [fewer] of accidents (or none) associated with the bombing of oil pipelines in some oil-producing countries such as Iraq, an action that reduces fear as well. Since the market incorporates all available information, the price of oil will have to decline when fear is not diffused. A similar argument can be provided for the political situation in Nigeria that was used by the oil corporations as another reason for increasing oil prices. In any event, the Bush administration, which is the firepower for monopoly capitalism, will not cool off the market after the mid-term election. This administration will come back fueling the world with its war behavior and hatred of humanity and peace in order to create reasonable conditions for the market to set higher prices for oil, conditions that also help generate huge profits for the military complex, as the two types of corporations have become the twin babies that must grow and prosper at the expense of the world community.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Sep 29, '06)


Re Cashing in on the fear factor (Sep 28): there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that gasoline prices have been manipulated. Energy companies practically wrote America's energy policy, a fact closely guarded by Bush forces. [President George W] Bush's tax cuts, Congress's subsidies to oil, its refusal to raise mileage [fuel economy] requirements for American cars - all are vital for the huge profits, the continued over-compensation of CEOs, and prospects for unfettered exploration. Oil companies do not want Democrats to control Congress. That could mark the end of their era of favor. Manipulation of war fears against Iran is not necessary to control [gasoline] prices and is only a phase to convince the world that Bush forces are willing to negotiate. These are the facts:
  • Republicans hugely favor oil companies in their energy policies, tax policy, granting of subsidies, and deregulating policy.
  • The oil industry is composed of very few companies who control supply, refinery capacity, and therefore, prices.
  • Oil companies want friendly representatives in Congress.
  • Voters are fickle, not paying attention to long-term slights by their representatives.
    This is the sequence of events:
  • [Gasoline] prices go down at the pump weeks before mid-term elections.
  • Voters, subject to the moment, vote for Republicans.
  • After the election, gasoline prices go up again.
    Jim of Southern California (Sep 28, '06)

    Americans tend to forget that there is a whole world outside their borders with markets that are subject to diverse forces, some different from and some the same as (such as supply and demand) those in the US. Motor-fuel prices here in Thailand, where there has not been an effective government for months, have followed a very similar pattern to those in the US. FYI, for anyone considering a motoring holiday here, regular (91-octane) gasoline is now about 25 baht (66 US cents) per liter, down from a high of about 30 baht last month. In Hong Kong, a recent Shell bulletin indicated that it was dropping the price of regular gasoline to HK$7.42 a liter, exclusive of HK$6.06 excise duty. That totals the equivalent of US$6.50 per gallon at the pump. - ATol


    Hisane Masaki [Abe's multiple policy dilemmas, Sep 28] may be spot on in saying that the newly chosen Prime Minister Abe Shinzo's high popularity does not translate into popular support for "his nationalistic and hawkish propensities". He bases this [conclusion] on opinion polls. Nonetheless, polls are not always a true measure of Japanese feelings, the more especially if they feel humiliated by Beijing or by Pyongyang's launching missiles over Japan, or Seoul's claims to Takeshima in the Eastern or Japan Sea. The mood in Japan has changed. Surges of patriotism have come to fore in the light of recent events, which provided grist for the mills of pride in Japan, and something which Japan's neighbors have fostered and which the right wing in Japan had hoped for but never achieved.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 28, '06)


    Re Jots & Tittles: Q's views: A "crown of thorns" magnified to show men figurines engaged in fencing superimposed on a photograph of a Byzantine painting of a male's head, the whole superimposed on a much-quoted statement by El Papa on the evil Mohammed on ATol's [current] front page under a headline of Jots & Tittles reflecting Q's views: c'est trop, as the French are wont of saying to no one in particular. A dubious personal view of what more likely took place in Castel Gondolfo a month or so ago. El Papa needed an excuse to invite Muslim clerics and diplomats without being accused of anti-Semitism. He was also advised to be non-judgmental in his feelings about whether Saddam Hussein could have obliterated London in 45 minutes as Tony Blair claimed. That is the real reason behind his address in Bavaria. He ingratiated himself to the neo-cons in DC, London and Tel Aviv and created a window of opportunity to invite leading Muslim scholars and diplomats just before the advent of Ramadan. Now the real reason behind this e-mail. Is the expression Jots & Tittles a cockney thing? And does Q as well as you realize that the thorn fencers are in the all-together? And will Q's views be a regular item in ATol?
    Armand DeLaurell (Sep 28, '06)

    The short answers are: no; you just can't see their clothes; and yes, Q hopes so. "Jots & Tittles" is a play on the quotation attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:18, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." The word "jot" in that passage referred to the letter yodh (cf Greek iota, as in "not one iota"), the smallest in the Aramaic alphabet, and "tittle" to the smallest part of that letter. Jots & Tittles, similarly dotting the i's and crossing the t's of world events, will be updated each Friday. Here are the fencers with clothes - and hats. - ATol


    If Hindu democratic India is so great, what is Jayant Patel [letter, Sep 27] doing in America? America is the offspring of Western Christian civilization, which according to Jayant is despotic. The mistreatment of dalits for ages and the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat are testimony to the so-called tolerance of Hinduism.
    Vic Fernandes (Sep 28, '06)


    "... Neo-con-infested White House rule." - Greg Bacon, Ava, Missouri [letter, Sep 27]. Don't forget the fundamentalists, eager to speed up the End of the World, the Return of Jesus.
    Lester Ness
    Kunming, China (Sep 28, '06)


    I just finished reading the fourth part [A matter of policy, Sep 27] of John Feffer's series on the food crisis in North Korea. It is written in the leftist pseudo-intellectual historical psychobabble style [that] passes as scholarship in American universities today. Part 2 [Human rights violations, Sep 23] is 19 pages long and when I finished it, I had no idea what Mr Feffer was trying to say. Finally at the end of Part 4, Mr Feffer lays his cards on the table: Foreign nations must give aid to North Korea with no linkage to North Korean behavior, and North Korea['s government] will relax its grip on its people when it feels more secure. Bullcrap. North Korea is a totalitarian state [whose government] seeks to remain in power by any means necessary. North Korea is not a benevolent socialist paradise with misguided policies. It is a murderous regime run for the benefit of the Kim family and a few others. The way the regime maintains power is by keeping the North Korean people terrified, starving and ignorant. Any foreign aid that undermines any of those three pillars of the Kim family cannot be allowed. I recently read an account of a young North Korean girl who fled to China and was caught on her return to North Korea. She tells how the young woman she was with was chained up and slowly beaten to death. Too bad Mr Feffer wasn't there to explain the importance of North Korean "sovereignty" to her.
    Dennis O'Connell
    USA (Sep 27, '06)


    Jim Lobe's article The diminishing Iraq war dividend [Sep 27] astutely points out what many already know: the US Army has been broken by the never-ending war and continuing illegal occupation of Iraq. Many, that is, except the ones who are in ultimate charge of this growing debacle: President [George W] Bush, Vice President [Richard] Cheney, Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and Secretary of State [Condoleezza] Rice. Only this [week] one of the usual-suspects talking heads that Fox News parade before an opiated American public blithely proclaimed that the US Army is in good shape. Perhaps the well-paid mouthpiece should check out other news sites - ATol, for one, and also the Lou Dobbs CNN webpage, which has this appeal:
    OPERATION HELMET provides helmet-upgrade kits free of charge to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to those ordered to deploy in the near future. These helmet upgrades do three primary things:
  • Protection - Shock-absorbing pads keep the helmet from slapping the skull when hit with blast forces, fragments, or being tumbled along the ground or inside a vehicle. This decreases the chance of brain injury from bombs, RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], vehicle accidents, falls, etc.
  • Comfort - If it is more comfortable, it will stay on troop's head longer and more often.
  • Stability - Keeps the helmet firmly on the head and out of the eyes.
    The life you save might save another!
    • In what amounts to an army bake sale, the American public is being asked to contribute even more money to the Iraqi morass - which, by numerous accounts, is soon to grow to include Iran. The US is entering a very crucial and dangerous phase that will quite probably determine whether or not the democratic republic and, quite possibly, the world will survive the next two years of the neo-con-infested White House rule. The US needs to stop using its clenched fists and Pentagon might to beat democracy into countries. Instead, we should open our ears and eyes to a rational dialogue to those countries we are itching to bring our "Shock and Awe Democracy Road Show Tour" to and start using common sense. With the US version of the "Gang of Four" currently calling the shots - literally - don't expect a rational foreign policy any time soon.
    Greg Bacon
    Ava, Missouri (Sep 27, '06)


    With three out of five articles posted on ATol so far, [W Joseph] Stroupe has given us a trenchant depiction of the geopolitical battles for control and flows of global energy resources. While in no way wishing to redirect the topic of his poignant analysis, I feel one ought to emphasize that while Russia is currently ascending to a possible "energy superpower" status, it is by far not the only index of its power. While there are several large exporters of oil and natural gas, and soon there might be even more with the development of new reserves and LNG (liquefied natural gas) shipments - hardly any one of them is likely to accrue major geopolitical influence. While energy resources and exports have allowed Russia to compete and conflict with the other major powers in Eurasia, its "pre-energy" or "non-energy" power attributes allow it to compete in this very contest and use its resources to its advantage: at this very moment, as ATol publishes articles on Russian oil and gas policies, over 50 Russian strategic and medium-range bombers are conducting cruise-missile launches above the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific oceans as well as the Black and Caspian seas to follow on the recent strategic missile launch from a Delta IV submarine, refurbishing of the GLONASS (Global Navigational Satellite System), fighter and air-defense sales to Venezuela, Algeria and Iran, as well as nuclear-power construction for China, India and Iran. What other major energy exporters bring these, among others, to the geopolitical contest?
    Leon Rozmarin
    Hopedale, Massachusetts

    The fourth installment of W Joseph Stroupe's series "The hungry bear", The West's thorny crown, is now online. - ATol


    This is in reference to Demo-crazy by Chan Akya (Sep 23). Mr Akya again reinforces my point that it is because of our faith that India is a shining democracy. While other poor countries are falling left and right into despotism, India continues on its democratic path. But why be surprised? Hinduism teaches me that there is more than one way to reach God (there can be multiple parties with different points of view). All faiths must be respected (respect all opinions); God is a woman, the only major religion to say so, I might add (an Indian woman can dream of becoming the leader of the country, whereas here in the US, it's a pipe dream for American women). On the other side we have despotic religions like Islam and Christianity, that shout that theirs is the only way, you better convert or else "God" will cast you into eternal torture. The despots that rule the world shout the same words. I never heard of "fear of God" until I came to America; why would I? The thought of Lord Rama brings a smile to my face, I don't associate God with beatings and torture. Akya, unfortunately, finds some societal problems and blames them on democracy. Democracy is not a cure-all, even in such a rich country as the US: blacks are on the outside looking in. In India, more and more Muslim young men are dropping out of school, some attending madrassas where they learn [the] Koran by rote, others whiling away their time. What can democracy do if people don't take advantage of the opportunities? If they get left behind, that's their problem, not democracy's. To get to be a rich country, one must produce goods that others want to buy. When the world was ruled by brawn power, Indians were at a disadvantage - you try working in 120 (Fahrenheit [49 Celsius]) degree heat. It is no wonder that it is brain power that is leading India out of poverty.
    Jayant Patel (Sep 27, '06)


    I wish to comment on Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal's letter of September 26. The fact of the matter is that the Indians have never been interested in making or living in peace with Pakistan but, on the other hand, they live to see its destruction. India is actively involved in supporting terrorism in Pakistan by proxy and often through its own insurgency to destabilize and fragmentize it into many parts as we are witnessing in Iraq. One can find the analogy with the Zionist State of Israel that does not want to sign a peace treaty with any Palestinian government for the simple and obvious reason that it would then have to stop its barbaric naked aggression, daily invasions, death and destruction and intimidation of Palestine and keeping a foot on the jugular vein of the poverty-stricken Palestinian people. Israel would never like to live next door to the people it has so ruthlessly, mercilessly and barbarically tried to destroy for the last 50 years. If the Indian politicians and Hindu population wised [up] and advocated peaceful existence with its next-door neighbor, it would then have to relinquish all its claim on the occupied territory of Kashmir [and] stop mass killings of innocent Kashmiris as well as taking its Muslim population for hostage, blackmail and ransom. The attitude of Hindu fundamentalist politicians, fascist radicals and Hindu fanatics in saffron clothes is to relish any opportunity to start bashing and butchering Muslims in India as they did in Gujarat few years ago. The shameless and gutless savagery and brutality that killed over 2,500 innocent Muslims in Gujarat will always be a disgusting blow to Indian's glossy claim to be a democracy, a secular state and a tolerant society with an inherently distasteful iniquitous caste system that would disgust any human being with little intelligence. Yet these evil politicians of hate prosper in their murderous political intentions. Indian fundamentalist political thugs and their hundreds of millions of supporters seriously believe that if you are not a Hindu in India, you are not an Indian. Hindus love their Indian cows more than they like their fellow Muslim citizens.
    Saqib Khan
    UK (Sep 27, '06)


    Muslim letter writers who complain about the pope's bigotry end up revealing their own bigotry when they accuse non-Muslim societies of debauchery. The source of the conflict appears to be the exclusionary and confrontational nature of monotheism. It's hard to be godly without calling the other guy godless.
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 27, '06)

    We don't encourage this of course, but we can imagine the modern "reality-based" reader of the daily news reports of war, hatred, ignorance and poverty, much of this mayhem directly caused, abetted, encouraged or simply ignored by the "faithful", deciding that all ancient religions and superstitions have long outlived their usefulness, rolling his or her eyes in resignation at the above three letters, and seeking comic relief. - ATol


    There are two points of contention with Spengler's article about farmers ([What do you do with all the farmers?] Sep 26). The first is that the price of food is too low due to the subsidies provided to American and European farmers; this increases the poverty of the farming classes in Asia and Latin America. Mexico's corn farmers would not be so poor if the United States did not provide so many subsidies to its own farmers. Secondly, the question about Palestine refugees - surely Spengler is being disingenuous here. The reason for the number of refugees to grow and become third-generation stateless people is that no Arab state has created productive enterprises that may use Palestinian labor skills. This has been pointed out by Spengler himself in the past.
    Salt Shaker (Sep 26, '06)


    I want to thank ATimes and Inter Press Service for your article Who needs the IMF and World Bank? [Sep 26]. I only wish you had made it a Front Page article. Why? It's because such articles hardly make it to the Western press (AP, CNN, or Washington Post). On the other hand, your Front Page article (Hu purge nets Shanghai's biggest fish [Sep 26]) will somehow be reported by the Western media. The article concludes that "absurdly ... these developing countries are using their reserves to repay debts, to lend to US and Western European treasuries, or to contract new debts with private foreign banks or financial markets - instead of using them to invest in education, health care, and agrarian reform". I would add that developing countries need to create regional hard currencies of their own. For example, Mercosur could evolve into a common-currency union that rejects payments in euros or US dollars.
    Roy
    US (Sep 26, '06)

    Both of the cited articles were on the Front Page of the September 26 edition. - ATol


    I hold Shawn Crispin, Rodney Tasker, and all of those fearless FEER [Far Eastern Economic Review] people in very high regard and I would like to personally apologize to both Shawn and Rodney for the way they were treated by Thai authorities in the past. Yet I find Mr Crispin's analysis of the coup d'etat in Thailand, as a conspiracy by the His Majesty the King to seize power ... to be way off base and even clueless [Thailand's junta shows its (heavy) hand, Sep 26]. There were dozens of lese majeste charges and they went every which way. There is no way to draw a logical conclusion from them. The King of Thailand is mostly ceremonial and a father figure for the country. His endorsement of the CDRM [Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy, the Thai junta] does not imply a conspiracy any more than his endorsement of Thaksin [Shinawatra]'s regime does. It is just part of his ceremonial role. The regiments of yellow shirts in Thailand - of which I am a part - is not part of a conspiracy but a spontaneous outpouring of love for their King by the people of Thailand.
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 26, '06)

    The intent of the article was to keep the spotlight on how the coupmakers' administration has unfolded to date. The now-defunct Far Eastern Economic Review ran afoul of the administration of recently deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2002 when it reported tensions between Thaksin and His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. In an example of that administration's penchant for wielding Thailand's lese majeste laws to crush dissent and criticism of itself, FEER's Thailand bureau chief, Shawn Crispin - now ATol's Southeast Asia Editor - and correspondent Rodney Tasker were threatened with expulsion from the country. The Committee to Protect Journalists documents the incidents here. - ATol


    Commenting on Sami Moubayed's Learning from a girl named Nazira [Sep 23], I wish to say that religion is at the heart of every culture and both are socio-biological structures. They cannot and need not be justified or proved rationally, but this does not mean that religion is a subhuman phenomenon or just an emotional structure that evinces blindfolded loyalty, especially Islam. In fact, religion in all corners of the world has always attempted to condition the human animal into an ideal type such as would be amenable to the continuous cerebral preponderance over strong emotional drives. Religion has so far been the only way to make irretrievably divided human beings, continuously torn between the material and spiritual, into a single moral human being. Religion uses emotions as well as reason in order to condition the individual human being through culturally adaptive practices. From [the] Islamic point of view religion is, therefore, in the nature of man and is not something added to it by accident. It is not luxury but the very raison d'etre from human existence. And it is religion alone which bestows upon human life its dignity, which allows man to live the fullness of the reality, or nature, which Allah has bestowed upon him and which alone provides ultimate meaning to human life, and we Muslims believe it [to be] necessary ... for human existence. The pope must look deep into his own mirror of Western civilization of lewd morality, abundant in violence, crime, drug abuse, rapes, free condoms, illegitimate and teenage pregnancies, pedophiles and open sex going on in every nearest corner instead of making silly and ignorant remarks about Islam: get your own house steam-cleaned and then criticize Islam which you know nothing of the sort. Islam envisages religion as not just a part of life but as the whole of it. In fact, al-Islam or al-din sees itself as life itself and it incorporates what we do, what we make, what we think, what we feel as well as address the question of where we come from and where we are going. In the traditional Islamic perspective there is nothing secular, nothing outside the realm that is governed by religion ordained by Allah. There is inter-relation between all things that Allah has created and there is unity that runs through the whole of Allah's created order and through human society if that society is to be Islamic. There must be unity in human life; there must be unity in the relationship between man and the world of nature; there must be unity in human thought; there must be unity what man makes, in the art, the architecture and cities which he creates. All of these forms of unity reflect the wisdom and will of Allah in our world, the will which is embodied most concretely in the divine law. Islamic doctrine is based on revealing of the total nature of divinity of Allah, who is the one without a partner; never begotten and does not beget. That is the heart of the Islamic message and Islam came to the world so that man could know the unity of Allah.
    Saqib Khan
    London, England (Sep 26, '06)


    I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article Learning from a girl named Nazira by Sami Moubayed [Sep 23]. It was refreshingly analytical and balanced in its interpretation. These days it is hard to recognize the Islam that we see presented in the media because it is so different from the Islam we grew up with. For one thing, Islam as a religion always celebrated science and technology. For this reason, traditional Muslim civilizations were far ahead of others in terms of development. Even in recent history, there was so much toleration. Being a Muslim woman, I remember looking forward to Christmas so we could celebrate with our Christian friends. The greatest tragedy is that the acts of some barbaric fanatics are being represented as the majority opinion. To make things worse, international foreign policies are merely empowering the fanatics. What the world needs is a healer. For the sake of all our kids, I hope we can find one.
    S Mirza (Sep 26, '06)


    I wish to put the pope's comments and silly exchanges behind me (Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life [Sep 19] and Et tu, pontiff? [Sep 20]). Many historic facts have been cited, but all without the benefit of proper historical perspective or dialectical social context. These letters are like listing all the casualties of one side only, without addressing why there was a battle in the first place, the roots of the struggle or who benefited. To wit, Jonathan X writes [letter, Sep 25]: "Jews and Muslims on the receiving end of the Inquisition could reasonably blame Roman Catholicism for their ills, because the Inquisition was sanctioned by Rome, regardless of the actual teaching of Jesus and St Peter." He glaringly leaves out fellow Christians. Fact is, the vast majority of Inquisition victims were fellow Christians; in particular, reformist groups that raised visions of sharing and common ownership quickly became the dark stalking horses of all Christian rulers. Both Catholic and Protestant rulers were only too happy to slaughter their own subjects, or relieve them of dangerous new ideas by delivering them to the Catholic Inquisition. Reciting laundry lists of suffering serves no one. Pardon the rudeness of the quote, but all this reminds me of a banner I recently saw: "Same shit, different asshole." It sums up faith-based bantering that, unless it injects a qualitative transformation of the dialogue, looks to me like rowing with one oar.
    Alexander Treutler
    Sleepy Hollow, New York (Sep 26, '06)


    Re Why Pyongyang is going nuclear [Aug 31] by Kim Myong-chol: I was curious as to what Kim thinks the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] might use to blaze key US metropolitan targets with high-precision nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)" since currently the DPRK has nothing but failures to show for [its] so-called ICBM capabilities. And while I'm asking questions, what makes you think that the DPRK and el supremo Kim Jong-il are all ready to meet their makers?
    Bob Crossman
    Encinitas, California (Sep 26, '06)


    Ever since its independence in 1947, India has systematically used anti-Pakistan policies and rhetoric in detrimental to Indian Muslim interests and snubbed Pakistan on all possible international forums, on the one hand, and anti-Muslim actions domestically in order to reduce their political importance. The big-brother attitude maintained by New Delhi toward Islamabad definitely hampered any fruitful negotiations between the two on number of occasions. Pakistan is being used as a powerful weapon by India to belittle and torture Muslims and deny what [are] their legitimate rights in job and higher educational sectors. India consistently resists by creating fictions real friendship with Pakistan chiefly because any good relations would bring some relief to Indian Muslims. The US-led terrorist wars gave further boost to the process of victimization of Indian Muslims. This explains the state-sponsored terrorism [unleashed] against the Muslims to keep them under constant fear and threat, like the one that killed many Muslims recently in Maharashtra (Malegaon) ... In this context, the positive approach and considerable optimism displayed by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf with regard to Indo-Pakistan relations that, according to him, would henceforth stabilize and flourish, despite the fact that he is well aware of the anti-Pakistan sentiments expressed by Indian leaders, military intelligentsia [and] the bureaucrats in the Foreign Ministry and that the Indian media are bent on discrediting Pakistan and sabotage ties with that neighbor. To date it has been a common strategy for many Hindus to insult the Muslims by asking them to "go to Pakistan". Dr Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, could perhaps be nurturing good feelings toward Islamabad, but he doesn't decide everything that promotes Indo-Pakistan relations. Nor [does] the president of India, Dr Abdul Kalam, have any significant role in shaping the Indo-Pak relations. [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee, the former prime minister and the architect [of] new neighborly ties, could not do much and the successive Congress government is keen to reverse the momentum gained in furthering good neighborly ties. Not even Sonia Gandhi, the chief of the ruling dispensation, or the minister for state for external affairs, a Muslim League leader, actually shape the foreign-policy matters of India, but New Delhi's foreign policy [is] guided by anti-Pakistan rhetoric. As it stands it is a closed window as far as India is concerned and it would let new ideas let in, unless it sheds its big-brother attitude. Indian electorates are let know what is supplied by the government media resources spreading false propaganda and hatred toward the neighbors, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Indian foreign offices have some how succeeded in claiming that the Indians are the victims of terrorism, etc. Going by the past track record of failed efforts by both of them to boost the ties makes one pessimistic about any possible real relations emerging between New Delhi and Islamabad. Maybe Musharraf has some better ideas now to be experimented with and reshape the ties and help new relationships dawn in South Asia and beyond. Let us wait and see if Muslims are free from colossal victimization and tortures. Speculation is indeed exciting.
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    Jawaharlal Nehru University
    New Delhi, India (Sep 26, '06)


    Re Sami Moubayed's Learning from a girl named Nazira [Sep 23]: This is an excellent article. And any "Christian" who might accuse Muslims of religious intolerance and spreading their religion "by the sword" had better have a good read of [Edward] Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon states that far from allowing religious choice to the pagans of the time, the neo-Christians gave them the alternatives of the cross or death - often in a horrible manner; and that very similar intolerance was demonstrated between various Christian sects for centuries after the last "idolater" was dust. At one point Gibbon states, flatly, that the Christians were much more cruel to and intolerant of one another than they had been with the pagans. Of course, as with all "organized" religion, this involved interpretation of the "written word". Everything I have read of the history of Islam indicates that during its early progress, potential converts were given the choice of (1) Islam (2) tribute (carry on but pay a tithe) or (3) "the sword". I also understand that No 3 was seldom administered, except in the heat of battle.
    Keith Leal
    Canada (Sep 25, '06)


    Re Learning from a girl named Nazira (Sep 23): A world in which one comment can set off a tinder-box of rancor and protest didn't come about through happenstance. It was nurtured by a few men with a minority ideology to promote, whose legitimacy was cemented through the appointment to power in 2000 of a somewhat charismatic figurehead named George W Bush. Though radical Islamic leaders began this ride of terror, they couldn't ask for a more foolhardy response from the US. The policies of the Bush administration play perfectly to the radical Islamic game plan. Its war in Islam's back yard was made to order. George Bush's bellicose persona is perfect for boosting recruits to jihad. His divide-and-conquer attitude helps tremendously in a fragmented and disunited effort against global terrorism. And the complete absence of diplomacy accompanied by warlike threats on the international scene is great. The neo-conservative answer to every foreign challenge is war and dominance. Negotiation at any level is a sign of weakness. Being the dominant power in the world and having a self-assured belief of moral superiority justifies any action, including a unilateral decision for the disastrous war in Iraq and supporting a proxy war in Lebanon. At home, autocratic rule is possible through media control, lies and intense propaganda ploys. Americans who pay attention have cause to mourn that day in the year 2000, knowing then and even more so now that the world would be a better place without the neo-conservative plague besetting the world's most dominant power. When this plague is gone, perhaps we will have a chance to tackle world problems. It certainly won't happen for another two and one half years. Until then even casual comments will help to incite fear and rioting in the East and the West, and we will continue down the path of global polarization.
    Jim of Southern California
    USA (Sep 25, '06)


    "After all, we have not contributed anything to human progress in the past 500 years." - Sami Moubayed, Learning from a girl named Nazira [Sep 23]. A good article, overall, but Mr Moubayed has forgotten coffee! Tea and regular bathing were not known in the West 500 years ago, either.
    Lester Ness
    historian, enjoying coffee, Pu'er tea, and showering daily, in
    Kunming, China (Sep 25, '06)


    As usual it was interesting and enlightening to read M K Bhadrakumar's Russia sets the pace in energy race [Sep 23]. While aptly drawing the overlapping interests of the major geopolitical and energy players in the region, it doesn't mention that while competition and clash of interests might exist between Iran's and Russia's energy strategies, Russian purchase of Turkmen gas, and the recently stated Russian willingness for financial and technical participation in the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, help Iran break through the US containment. The weakening of chances for the US-backed TAP (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline, as a result of the Russian-Turkmen deal, gives the additional stimulus, or at least leaves as the only option, the Iranian project to deliver gas to Pakistan and India. Of course in the near and medium terms this perpetuates Russia's role as the provider of the EU's energy security - a role it has been aptly fulfilling since the late 1960s - and redirects Iranian gas to the east. The Turkmen-Chinese gas-export deal, when and if it materializes, will make the TAP and the Trans-Caspian gas projects even less likely - something that Russia will be glad to see. The fact that the Central Asia-Russia gas network already exists while the TAP, Trans-Caspian-Turkey-Europe, and the Turkmen-Chinese pipelines are only "metaphysical" puts the "non-Russian" projects in a near-zero-sum game with each other: whatever project is implemented, it makes all the other ones less likely given the presence of the pipelines to Russia pumping approximately 60 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Also, considering the 10 years it took to implement the modestly sized Kazakh-Chinese oil pipeline, it might be a while until the Turkmen gas reaches China, traveling via at least two other Central Asian states. The prospect of cooperation between the USA, the EU, China and India regarding energy supplies is ambitious. If the goal of some of these competitors is to lessen the current and future Russian influence on the Eurasian energy market, they will have a very hard time achieving that: the ability of Russia in the very near future to direct and redirect large quantities of its Siberian oil and gas to markets in Europe, China, Japan, South Korea, broader East Asia and North America preempts any possible effective cooperation and coordination between the aforementioned importers. Are we to believe that one of these states will forgo even short-to-medium-term advantages of energy cooperation with Russia in order to fall in with the "collective"? In the EU, the desire of Germany and Western European states to receive stable and full supplies of Russian gas has been stronger than the urgings of the USA, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to confine major Russian gas transportation to Ukraine. Are we to expect more or less coordination outside of the EU and NATO? The answer seems to be "less" ...
    Leon Rozmarin
    Hopedale, Massachusetts (Sep 25, '06)


    Re China sings an old refrain for Paulson [Sep 23]: Secretary of the Treasury Henry "Hank" Paulson has come home [to the US] empty-handed after a four-day visit to China. He was unable to [convince] the Chinese authorities that they have to accelerate the re-evaluation of the renminbi yuan, thereby putting a break on the ever-ballooning [trade surplus] with the United States. Mr Paulson prides himself as an expert of sorts on China, the more especially since he has [visited] that country more than 70 times by his own count as the head of the investment banking house Goldman Sachs. He, thus, thinks that he knows the Chinese well. He may on a surface level, but the Chinese have his measure and know him better than he may think. The September 20 business pages of the New York Times say it all: when the Chinese see Mr Paulson, they see Goldman Sachs, and not a high-level Bush administration official. China has handsomely profited from its relationship with Goldman Sachs for the last 15 years. And so has Goldman Sachs, for the China nexus has brought it influence and handsome profits and investments. In the end, Mr Paulson as treasury secretary will not be any more successful in his dealings with China than his predecessors. His previous successes with the Chinese were built on mutual interests and a common desire for profit and networking and influence. Now, as the United States secretary of the treasury, he is out of step with Chinese thinking. If Mr Paulson had learned anything from his almost four-score visits to Beijing or Shanghai, he would know by now that China's leaders are guided by a firm principle: does it benefit China? Obviously his approach does not. With all due respect to Tan Ching Lian in Hong Kong [letter, Sep 22], even if [US President George W] Bush had not that "hot potato" which is Iran to handle, he would remain as firm and inflexible towards Pyongyang, and angry and condescending to Seoul. President Bush is intent on regime change in North Korea, and his display of spleen towards President Roh [Moo-hyun] makes one think that he would be equally happy with one in South Korea.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 25, '06)


    A comment on the article The new global populism [Sep 23]: I can't comment on the situation in Iran as I have no first-hand knowledge. My daughter is a well-educated Venezuelan and keeps me informed of events in Caracas, Merida and Maracaibo. Hugo Chavez is a hero in Venezuela. He is also a magnet for US-instigated activism on behalf of the landed gentry, the newly rich capitalists and the old colonial families. So far he has overshadowed these adversaries with programs of genuine benefit to the masses of Venezuela. It will be a race to see if he can educate and lift the poor above the propaganda level of the capitalists before they use money to buy back their version of "democracy". So far he is well ahead and his programs have one very important detail. They are administered without a great deal of bureaucracy and are less subject to bribery and pilfering. The army is usually involved and he is keeping very tight control. The programs are working and in some cases such as adult education are a great success. The medical clinics and health-care initiatives are all doing things Venezuelans had no hope of ever having only a few years ago. Poor children are having the chance to go to university for the first time in their history. The land reform is going slow as there are problems with the owners of dormant land and finding the people in Venezuela who want to risk participating before there is a history of success in this endeavor. It will happen, but it needs a little time and experience. The article points out that the less fortunate countries of this group of new populists will need to be carried along so as to form a cohesive bloc. This is one area where Mr Chavez has outfoxed the US. The US has a vast foreign-aid program which affects most countries in the world. The main characteristic of US aid is that not one dollar is ever given or [lent] without strings which will return the US at least two dollars in resources, trade, or favors of some kind. Mr Chavez is herding his group of countries with a fairer exchange, and it shows in his popularity. I wish him and the people of Venezuela every success.
    Ken Moreau
    New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 25, '06)

    Several parallels can be found between the efforts of Hugo Chavez and other populist Latin American leaders and those of Thaksin Shinawatra, and we know what happened to him. As in Thailand, the elite in Venezuela remains a powerful force. Thaksin's undoing, in the end, lay largely in his arrogance and his suppression of all opposition, including the media and certain "charismatic" critics. Will Chavez et al learn from Thaksin's mistakes? - ATol


    I would like to thank Shawn Crispin for the article Thailand: All the king's men [Sep 21]. This is the most insightful and accurate perspective on the Thaksin-versus-military conflict appearing in any popular media. It shows a true understanding of the complicated relationship of Thai politics with the monarchy and surpasses any popular media's analysis of the coup.
    China Williams (Sep 25, '06)

    Shawn Crispin's latest analysis of the Thai political crisis, Thailand's junta shows its (heavy) hand, is now online. - ATol


    No matter how evil Thailand's ousted premier may have been, he would not have been able to undermine the system of checks and balances prescribed by the 1997 constitution had it not been flawed. One obvious flaw is that the Senate lies at the nexus of this structure. A government endowed with a wealthy individual could buy off a sufficient number of senators and control the membership of all the so-called independent bodies that are charged by the constitution to discipline the government. It is the constitution, not [ousted prime minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra], that caused the political crisis in Thailand. A constitution that depends on the moral integrity of politicians is a failed document. I agree with the NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that the 1997 constitution must not be tossed aside lightly. "It must be heaved with great force."
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 25, '06)


    Now it has to be expected certain NGOs [non-governmental organizations] come crawling out of the back brush to comment on how to run the yet to be fully established new government here in Thailand. Any time some NGO pops up one should ask [oneself], where does this NGO obtain [its] financing? What foreign government is it really working for and what is its true agenda? … There are those out there who the minute they hear "coup d'etat" they come to the conclusion "the end of democracy". Not necessarily so! One should never [fail to see] the difference between a democracy and a plutocracy. Plutocracy is the political control of the state by the wealthy. The fusion of money and government is inseparable. Votes can be bought wholesale through media misinformation and geographical manipulation of the voting constituents. [Ousted prime minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra] was a fine example of plutocracy, so please - let us not confuse democracy with plutocracy and cry over plutocracy being thrown out of Thailand. When there is no democracy, then one must respect and appreciate the brave fellows who would risk all to rid their country of such a fraud [as] plutocracy that masquerades as democracy ...
    Dr Craig Crowley
    Bangkok, Thailand (Sep 25, '06)


    Reply to Ehsan Ahrari's reply of September 21 [letter below]: Perhaps I did not emphasis the following point strongly enough. The Catholic Church had, under its previous pontiff, already made numerous apologies regarding the atrocities that it had sanctioned in the past. Pope Benedict XVI has not repudiated any of those apologies. Religion, as Spengler aptly put it, is life [see Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19]. It is not only the underlying doctrines and holy texts recognized as supreme authority, but the whole gamut of thought and action undertaken by believers vis-a-vis that supreme authority throughout history. As such, any religion's historical record is inevitably ambiguous to some degree. The Vatican is correct to have acknowledged its own sins vis-a-vis unbelievers in their faith. The problem is that many if not most of his [Benedict's] Islamic interlocutors refuse to undertake a similar policy. Catholics may apologize for the depredations of the Crusades, but many Muslims, it seems, see no reason to apologize for their own bloody invasions (which until the 18th century were far more successful than those of the Europeans). A double standard is thus applied by Islamic chauvinists and confused, sophistic Westerners alike. The Catholic Church is deemed to be responsible for all the actions, good and bad (especially bad), of its adherents. But many Muslims when confronted with this charge adopt the intellectually dishonest approach of insisting that no, their supreme authority is pure, and so whatever evils [are] committed by their believers cannot be attributed to Islam. Perhaps certain writers and readers of ATol would be more content if the Vatican also adopted this policy, arguing that whatever evil done in its past was merely that of rapacious officials who happened to be associated with the Church, and Catholic youth organizations burned mosques and shot imams every time some Muslim has the temerity to suggest that Catholicism historically spread to many lands by force.
    Jonathan X (Sep 25, '06)


    Asia Times [Online] is one of my favorite sites. Your articles are so insightful, I wish there was a way for your correspondents to reach a wider audience, particularly in the USA. We have such a distorted view of the world, primarily because the majority of the news outlets operate with such limited perspectives.
    Richard Loveluck (Sep 25, '06)


    The articles that have been recently published are too wordy. The authors seem to be more interested in their intellectual acumen, rather than coming to the point in a clear and concise fashion. A term that I have used for many years is to KISS it. That is Keep It Simple, Stupid. We really do need solutions to many problems around the world. Verbosity does not help in solving the problems.
    Joe Martinkovic (Sep 25, '06)

    While we're discussing the website itself, it seems a good time to acknowledge a number of complaints we have had about an ad that has appeared occasionally that is accompanied by an annoying insect-buzzing sound. Our technical department has been working to block that noise, and we think the mosquito has been successfully swatted. Readers should remember, however, that the quality of this website does not come cheap, and we need advertising to keep us going. Advertisers, unfortunately, do not always reflect our standards of quality and don't mind bugging the readers. - ATol


    Re The Pakistani muscle behind Colombo [Sep 22]: You list bombing of an "orphanage" as a confirmed fact. The "orphans" were 17-19 years old, and due to the [Tamil] Tigers' well-known practice of forcible recruitment of under-age soldiers, the circumstances involving this incidence are very suspicious. Your assertion of this as fact damages the trustworthiness of your news agency. Also the writer's version of the story is highly sanitized in favor of the Tigers (she seems to be well versed in the Western media style of such reporting). I [would] like to remind you and the writer that even at the beginning of the current Sri Lankan administration of President [Mahinda] Rajapakse, they were extremely tolerant of Tiger atrocities and provocations which culminated in killing 60 bus passengers (Tigers' age-old strategy of ethnic cleansing by strategic killing of civilians so that others flee) and blocking of life-giving water to tens of thousands of farmers and civilians. Like India, Sri Lanka never bombed civilian or even military targets. But faced with the Tigers' fascist policies, does Sri Lanka have any other alternative?
    Sepa (Sep 22, '06)


    The news item on September 22 by your reporter Sudha Ramachandran titled The Pakistani muscle behind Colombo erroneously states, "On August 14, SLAF [Sri Lankan Air Force] planes hit an orphanage, killing 61 girls, in the [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]-controlled Mullaithivu district in Northern Province." One of the surviving "orphans" has given a first-hand account of the Tiger terrorist training that all these girls were undergoing at this so-called "orphanage". True, it is very sad that so many young lives were lost, but just imagine how many lives might have been saved by the elimination of so many potential suicide terrorists. Indian readers, please recall how your prime minister Rajiv Gandhi was killed by such a well-trained young Tiger terrorist from Sri Lanka. India and Tamil Nadu are responsible for creating the Tiger terrorists and now Sri Lanka needs help from Pakistan to eliminate them - simply because India is stumped and has the Tiger by the tail - if India helps Sri Lanka to eliminate Tigers, the idiots in Tamil Nadu will create hell; but if India does nothing and the creation of a separate state in Sri Lanka occurs, then Tamil Nadu separation will be just a few years away. Always, we reap what we sow.
    S Joshua
    Los Angeles, California (Sep 22, '06)

    Better bomb some more orphanages then, just in case; maybe some kindergartens, too. Can't be too careful - kids are so impressionable these days. - ATol


    Gareth Porter's US troops in Iraq are Tehran's 'hostages' (Sep 22) is the first analysis that has come closer to some of the views that have been already expressed in ATol, which is the best outlet in the world in the field of international affairs. I would like, however, to make some additional comments. Under the leadership of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Mehdi Army may have more than 4 million Iraqi fighters [who] are able and willing to die. Their current problem is that they are not yet as strong as Hezbollah fighters. Neither US forces nor any force in the history of humanity will be able to engage directly with these fighters in street-type battles. It has become indeed Muqtada al-Sadr who was inaugurated the moment that [Grand Ayatollah Ali] al-Sistani decided to exit the political theater, because US forces have not de-occupied the country yet. Thus it is true that it is up to Sadr to continue the battle. He is a patient leader because he is under the influence of other Iraqi mullahs who are indebted to the Americans as the latter destroyed Saddam Hussein's regime for them. But this patience has specific duration. All Iraqi mullahs will be out of patience if the US occupation continues. In my opinion the goal will become very soon not to ask the US occupiers to leave Iraq but to defeat these forces … such that Americans will not go back to the region again. This goal is very consistent with Hezbollah's goal of defeating the Israeli forces in Lebanon and beyond, a goal that is also compatible with the permanent objectives of Syria and Iran. The Bush administration intends to fight [Osama] bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Iraq but the course of action will change towards fighting Sadr, who has no connection to bin Laden. This will be an additional fight for the Bush administration. Fundamentally, the Bush administration does not understand the mullah's culture, a culture of patience and of a fight not in New York and London but in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Afghanistan, and in Persia. These locations will help the mullahs sending millions of fighters to die for the sake of Allah. (Please keep in mind that I am overlooking the al-Anbar and other Iraqi fighters that US forces have to face.) It is extremely fruitful for the Bush administration to pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan; otherwise, those mullahs will fight the imperialist occupiers for centuries. In either case, whether or not to continue the same course of action, the Bush administration has made the historical error in invading and occupying Iraq for the sake of oil, because it has invested the economic, political, and moral wealth of the United States of America in losing (oil and pipeline) projects that most Americans do not need for their own protection and security.
    Adil Mouhammed
    Illinois, USA (Sep 22, '06)


    Re Thailand: All the king's men [Sep 21] by Shawn W Crispin: Thank you for this very well-informed and unbiased article. It was a breath of fresh air for me here in Thailand and I sent it to as many people as I could. The article also appeared very quickly and resolved a lot of confusion for me. Thailand's English-language press is unfortunately unable to provide us with the same lucid analysis. Public opinion in Thailand has been very cleverly and subtly shifted over the last two years to produce this outcome, quite apart from some of Thaksin [Shinawatra]'s actions, which have done nothing to save him.
    Senta
    Bangkok, Thailand (Sep 22, '06)


    Tuesday night while most of Thailand slept, some very brave soldiers, General Sonthi Boonyaratklin, Admiral Sathiraphan Keyanon, Air Force Commander Chalit Pukphasuk, and General Ruangroj Mahasalanon, concerned about the [fate] of their countrymen, risked their lives and careers to ensure the Thai people's freedom [see Thailand: All the king's men, Sep 21]. Without firing a shot, their pro-democracy military coup disposed of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra while he was enjoying the best that New York has to offer. It had become very obvious to many that there was no limitation to Mr Thaksin's greed ... General Sonthi Boonyaratklin would know better than most the harmony lost that once was normal for the different religious and ethic groups of Thailand pre-Thaksin. Thailand once had an open-door policy to any who wanted to come just so long as they respected Thailand's people and laws. Thailand, the land of freedom, was fast becoming closed-door to all but the very rich. Mr Thaksin was the destroyer of democratic institutions [and was] hell-bent on turning Thailand into a police state of his own fascist vision. Why else would he have spent those years in the studies of law enforcement? He knew very well the tactic of divide and rule and was using it to his planned advantage. It is not a new concept to isolate and deprive certain geographic areas of education, opportunity and the basics of human dignity to control votes and have a ready supply of needed volunteers for political leader's objectives. Mr Thaksin wasted no time putting voting support of the unknowing rural peoples to his own use. General Sonthi Boonyaratklin and the Council for Democratic Reform have a difficult time ahead even without Thaksin to deal with. The head of the serpent may be gone, but there is still the rest of that hydra to deal with. Thaksin can verify the taste of power is sweet - his supporters, friends and family … won't go willingly. Insincere so-called democratic governments can interpret Thailand's democracy to their own usefulness to express their dissatisfaction of a protege's sudden departure from the Global Plutocracy Club. Naturally, Thaksin's friend [US President George W] Bush condemns the coup ... What is saddening was Mr Thaksin's cleverness in understanding the rural country folks' needs for health care (30-baht scheme), loans, debt forgiveness and property grants and being able to address them to perfection for votes. Just think, if he had no selfish motives, what he could have achieved for his people, but instead he let selfishness, stubbornness and greed get in the way of that genius ...
    Dr Craig Crowley
    Thailand (Sep 22, '06)


    I would like to urge foreign dignitaries who have expressed their concern over what they call the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Thailand to check their notes more carefully. After the dissolution of parliament and the annulment of the April elections, Thailand did not really have a government, let alone a democratically elected one. Thaksin [Shinawatra] and company had simply continued to govern under the guise of a caretaker government but without a clear mandate. There was no democracy in Thailand to overthrow on Tuesday, September 19, 2006. The coup d'etat in Thailand is more like a counter-coup. Re the Pope's comments on Islam: When the Crusaders entered Jerusalem in 1099, they killed every Muslim and Jew in the city. The streets were "piled high with bodies and body parts", and Solomon's Temple, where 10,000 Jews and Muslims had taken refuge, was "knee-deep in blood" by the time the invaders were through. Not just Islam, but all the three monotheistic religions founded on the ancient cult of Aton contain a violent god bent on torturing and destroying those who do not worship him and him alone. It is comical and even pathetic to hear one of them point the holier-than-thou finger at another with regard to the issue of violence in religion and to see the accused react with just the kind of violence of which they stand accused.
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 22, '06)


    I must congratulate Ehsan Ahrari for his excellent reply ([letter] Sep 21) to critics of his [Sep 20] article [Et tu, pontiff?]. Apart from the fact that it's unbecoming for a person of his stature to display such stark ignorance of Islam, it behooves the pope to examine the dismal history of the institution he heads before shooting off at the mouth vis-a-vis another religion. Perhaps his time would be better spent repenting the Church's own horrific record of slaughter and persecution, for which we merely have to look at the 20th century (no need, that is, to wander as far back as the Crusades, the Inquisition or the conquest of America). The Church's involvement with fascism and its complicity in the murder of thousands in the Balkans alone are enough to keep this pope and his successors busy atoning for Vatican's evil past. He's got some big, holy cojones preaching tolerance while standing knee-deep in the blood of others.
    FZ
    USA (Sep 22, '06)


    It seems that I was, after all, correct in thinking that Spengler's misunderstanding of Islam stems from his uncritical acceptance of sources and authors which too have displayed profound misunderstanding of Islamic theology [see Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19, and Mustafa's letter of Sep 20]. I am referring here to his rants about Islam and rationality, or rather, irrationality. In an interesting turn of events, after [Pope] Benedict's attempt to lecture Muslims about rationality and Spengler's endorsement of the pontiff's views as a confirmation of his own observations, an article appeared at NationalInterest.org by Paul L Heck, a professor of Islamic Studies in Georgetown University's theology department. The article deals with the wider issue of Catholic-Muslim relations, but has an interesting part in which he in a very effective and concise manner shows that positions expressed by Benedict, positions which Spengler has been promoting here for some time now, are outdated and no longer considered tenable by academics (in the words of the author himself, such views today are considered "grossly obsolete") ... I hope that this will serve as a warning to readers that Spengler's exposition of Islamic theology is based on "grossly obsolete" viewpoints; it is outdated and not based on correct interpretations nor objective observations, and as such should not be taken at face value even though it may sound scholarly and well informed.
    Mustafa
    Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sep 22, '06)


    "Perhaps the world may be more peaceful if religions do not exist to be exploited. But what should replace them?" - S P Li, [letter] September 21. Politics, Mr Li. Politics replaced religion as the chief Western excuse about two centuries ago.
    Lester Ness
    Kunming, China (Sep 22, '06)


    In his response to Donald Kirk's article Beyond the rhetoric of US-South Korea unity (Sep 21), Jakob Cambria [letter, Sep 21] speculated whether the Bush administration is serious about reopening the six-party talks or finding a solution to the issue concerned. May I suggest that apart from the obvious stumbling block of the differences between the White House and the Blue House, an even greater concern to President [George W] Bush is that President Bush cannot be seen at this point in time to be open to the possibility of making concession in any negotiation, even if the Bush administration knows that there can be no solution to the North Korean issue without the American side moderating somewhat its own hardline stance. This is because at this point in time at the top of the list of priorities for the US is the Iranian-nuclear-ambition "hot potato" in its lap. It is reasonable to speculate that Washington is willing to move closer to the position of Seoul, but only when the time is right. At this juncture though, the Bush administration needs to keep up its own image of a militaristic "teeth-baring mad dog" stance to stall the six-party talks, and more importantly to intimidate Iran. The Americans think that starting the negotiating process over the North Korean issue now might influence Iran to think that the US might soften its stance over Iran.
    Tan Ching Lian
    Hong Kong (Sep 22, '06)


    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal (letter, Sep 20) has commended the positive approach of Pakistani President General [Pervez] Musharraf towards Indo-Pakistani relations "despite [the fact] that he is well aware of the anti-Pakistan sentiments expressed by Indian leaders ... and that the Indian media are bent on discrediting Pakistan and sabotage ties with that neighbor". Actually, the reason why Indians are wary towards any peace initiative proposed by the Pakistani military can be summed [up] in three words: conflict of interest. The military is in the business of war, and the Pakistani military eats up the lion's share of that country's budget in the name of national security. Why would it want to end its own lucrative business by agreeing to peace? India has been burned several times before by fake peace talks, so there is a perfectly understandable reason why we should treat anything proposed by the Pakistani military with healthy skepticism. By the way, a greater conflict of interest prevails at the worldwide level: the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (ie, the military megapowers that have appointed themselves in charge of maintaining world security/peace) are also the top five weapons exporters on the planet. Their economies are heavily driven by the engine of the military-industrial complex, which both generates revenue through sales to warring parties and keeps domestic unemployment low. Considering this, anyone who thinks that the world will move in the direction of less war is either a hopeless romantic, living in a state of denial, or a cynical liar.
    Amit Sharma
    Roorkee, India (Sep 22, '06)


    Now that the photo-ops and diplomatic niceties are over and done with, as Donald Kirk explains in Beyond the rhetoric of US-South Korea unity [Sep 21], it is easily understood that the White House and the Blue House have divergent policies for bringing North Korea back to the six-power talks in Beijing. Washington is pursuing a no-nonsense approach towards Pyongyang, with sanctions and inflammatory rhetoric; Seoul opposes sanctions and has a more accommodating posture which includes financial incentives and frequent discussions, in order to ease tensions and with a view to getting on with the business of getting to a political solution to the nuclear question in an unstable Northeast Asia. The Bush administration has shown nothing but condescending contempt toward President Roh [Moo-hyun]'s cautious steps towards North Korea. Its disdain brooks no differences, no nuances, no coloring other than its own bleak plan to force Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. So we find an ally's president snubbed at the White House, and an object of vilification on United States financed websites. It is easy for a solitary observer to get the impression that Washington finds Seoul as much a thorn in its diplomatic flesh as Pyongyang. Yet with a tart twist of irony, the very measures that [US President George W] Bush & Co are employing are driving a wedge among the five other nations at the talks in Beijing. China, South Korea, and very possibly Russia are not in favor of draconian sanctions, while the United States and Japan are. So we are faced with a paradox that the very policies that Washington is implementing are causing confusion and dissension among the ranks of its own allies. The bitter incongruity of purpose strips the veil from the White House's strategy: by its relentless insistence on non-starters that it knows will arouse anger in the Kim Jong-il entourage, and cause them to respond unwittingly or recklessly. Saying this, it is obvious that Mr Bush & Co have learned nothing about dealing with North Korea. So, in brief, one has to wonder whether President Bush is serious in looking for a solution to the nuclear question with Pyongyang. A word on Aidan Foster-Carter's Two Koreas: A beehive and a desert [Sep 21]: the readers of ATol may want to read Alice Amsden's 1989 study Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization and Jacques Hersh's and Ellen Brun's 1976 Socialist Korea: A Case Study in the Strategy of Economic Development. It might come as a surprise to one and all [that] Hersh and Brun make a strong case [that] Pyongyang's economic policy, motivated by juche, rivaled the free-market economy in Seoul. Of course, in late 1980s, North Korea's economy began declining. Yet it nonetheless is interesting to note that Pyongyang was not always the shrimp Foster-Carter describes.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 21, '06)

    The first article of a four-part report on "North Korea and the politics of famine", Failure in the fields, is now online. - ATol


    Regarding Ian Williams' Bush evades the issues story of September 21: It is amazing to me that one such as Mr Williams is allowed to spew such drivel. I would ask that he, given that he has no apparent fears of Iranian nuclear weapons, move to Israel. He would be completely safe I should suppose from any Iranian weaponry. It is fair to disagree with any politician, but to do so at the expense of the truth and to take a narrow view in the same manner by which he accuses [US President George W] Bush is not a profile in journalistic courage; it is indeed a profile to the contrary.
    Jeff (Sep 21, '06)

    If Ian Williams has stated anything untruthful about President Bush, you are welcome to point it out. As for "journalistic courage", that was much easier to find on websites such as ours than in the mainstream media in the early months and years of the US-led fiasco in the Middle East, and Williams and our other writers typically strike out on their own while other journalists are cringing at such mantras as "you hate America" or "support our troops". Now, belatedly, observations such as Williams' are not so rare, even in the sluggish, corporate US media. - ATol


    Ehsan Ahrari responds to readers
    Your readers who spend their precious time in writing endless diatribes about Islam need to find a different hobby. Any person who claims to know about Islam and the Muslim mind (minds of 1.4 billion Muslims) only needs to reconsider the absurdity of that statement. He is beyond help. One of main points of my essay (Et tu, pontiff? Sep 20) was that Catholicism has no leg to stand on when it comes to having a violent past. Thus Pope Benedict's supercilious attitude on the issue will not find much sympathy even among informed and fair-minded Catholics. If someone has a problem with that statement, I wish to hear sober counter-argument. Another point that I might not have made strongly in my essay is that if Benedict is serious about having a dialogue with Muslims, he needs to study Islam by shedding all mental reservations that he has developed about that religion. Some of the respondents to my essay, out of sheer ignorance, know nothing about Benedict's well-known position on Islam that may be very charitably described as anti-Islamic.
    Ehsan Ahrari (Sep 21, '06)


    As a faithful reader I am overwhelmed by the recent volumes of well-written, scholarly discourse on the pope's pronouncement and the subsequent violent reactions around the world. The pope will serve well as a lecturer in a theological seminary, but the "infallible" chief certainly did not exercise good judgment, during a sensitive period of hostilities involving Islams in the Middle East and elsewhere. Do people think that the issues are purely religious? Many religious conflicts were and are still political in origin, because religious zealots have been easily swayed by politicians or "statesmen" for political/economic gains of another group. One can pick apart some words or short passages in religious texts to attack a particular religion. Perhaps the world may be more peaceful if religions do not exist to be exploited. But what should replace them? Let's not open another floodgate of discourse.
    S P Li (Sep 21, '06)


    It seems like the Letters page of ATol is becoming a forum for religious rants among the the followers of religions of Abraham as well as others. Isn't it past time for the citizens of the world to stop warring with each other over the fantasy of eternal life and start living the life we do have with tolerance and in peace?
    Ken Moreau
    New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 21, '06)

    We do have a policy against using this page as a pulpit to pit one religion against another, but while religious critiques, such as the recent comments by Ehsan Ahrari and Spengler, are on our news pages, we cannot prevent readers from responding. Even so, we try to edit out most of the sermonizing. - ATol


    Would the person who writes under Spengler be so kind to tell us his real name and nationality? There should be no reason not to do so.
    Johan Dieckmann
    New York, USA (Sep 21, '06)

    He told us his real name once, but we can never remember how to spell it. - ATol


    According to Ehsan Ahrari's article Et tu, pontiff? [Sep 20], Pope Benedict XVI is simply ignorant and biased against Islam. Otherwise he would not have suggested that Byzantine Emperor Manuel II had something of a point when he complained about Prophet Mohammed's command to spread Islam by the sword. Unfortunately, I fear it is Mr Ahrari whose bias is most evident. The argument that while Islamic dynasties spread by force, Islam typically did not is, to use his words, "powerful, but only partially correct". Are we truly to believe that the political, social and economic factors that drove the Islamic conquests can be fully disentangled from the religious climate of the period? That Islamic religious authorities offered no religious justification for the wars against Visigoths, Sassanid Persians, Byzantine Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Rajputs, Sikhs and countless other nations, all waged by their rulers in the name of God? Would Mr Ahrari extend the same courtesy to 19th-century European colonialism? Mr Ahrari also brought up the predictable argument about the relative enlightenment of the dhimmi laws compared to their counterparts in Christian lands. That is generally true, but important only in a relative sense. Would Mr Ahrari be happy to live in a Western country the way tolerated religious minorities have historically, and still do, live in many Muslim countries? Why have the Christian populations of the Middle East continuously diminished since the Islamic conquest (while Muslims populations grow in Europe and North America in the age of Western hegemony)? Why did Buddhism perish in Central Asia following the Islamic conquest when it thrived in East Asian countries where it still had to compete against other religions? And if Christians need to look to the Islamic example to chide themselves for their religious intolerance, perhaps Muslims should look to the shamanist Mongols for similar lessons. The empire of Genghis Khan, for all its brutality, was not known for religious fanaticism. Jews and Muslims on the receiving end of the Inquisition could reasonably blame Roman Catholicism for their ills, because the Inquisition was sanctioned by Rome, regardless of the actual teaching of Jesus and St Peter. Byzantine Greeks on the receiving end of relentless aggression by Turkish Ghazis cannot be faulted for attributing their ills to Islam, because such wars were and still are celebrated by many if not most Muslims, regardless of what is the correct understanding of the Koran. Why raise this issue now, Mr Ahrari asks? Perhaps because while the Catholic Church, however imperfectly, has done the world a great service by admitting that great evils were sanctioned by its authority in the past, much of the Islamic world prefers to keep visiting its own Yasukuni Shrine. Mr Ahrari concludes his article by stating that Muslim-Catholic dialogue cannot occur under the present pope. If he means a dialogue between the Ottoman sultan and the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, he is probably right. But patsies aside, I doubt any in the non-Muslim world are interested in such "dialogue".
    Jonathan X (Sep 20, '06)


    Contrary to Ehsan Ahrari's arrogant insistence that "no one would consider him [Pope Benedict XVI] even a lightweight authority on Islam", this pope has studied Islam in great depth [Et tu, pontiff? Sep 20]. Ahrari's "blame everybody except himself" opinions are typical of the vast majority of Muslims. Apparently, it is impossible for any non-Muslim to understand Islam. Ahrari believes only themselves (the anointed ones) have access to the secret. Is that so? ... I'll let you into a secret: in common with increasing numbers of non-Muslims, I have absolutely no difficulty understanding Islam and the Muslim mind. It has become increasingly clear ever since [September 11, 2001]. Pope Benedict's erudition about Islam is apparently beyond the comprehension of the Ehsan Ahraris of this world. Admittedly, the pope's recent address would test the intellect of many natural English speakers, but to insist this pope has "rather simplistic, if not outright incorrect, perspectives about other religions" only serves to suggest what Muslims fear is intelligent scrutiny. Benedict refuses to put Islam on the same moral footing as Catholicism, precisely because he understands Islam and knows full well its cruel and bloody history. Catholicism's bloody episodes were relatively short, they occurred several centuries ago, and they were not universal. Furthermore, the Crusades were a reaction to over three centuries of Islamic invasions into European territory. Muslims were the original aggressors. Christianity went to the Holy Land to wrest back Jerusalem. Ahrari needs to rewrite history in order to whitewash the truth. Quoting the Inquisition in the hope of equating Catholicism to Islam won't work either. We can see through your disassembling tactics. In only the past few days, several bombs have been placed in public spaces in the south of Thailand by followers of this so-called "religion" of "peace", causing the deaths of many innocents, including a tourist ... Islam has been almost constantly at war since its very inception ... I put it to Mr Ahrari that if Islam does not get off its high horse soon, and repent, and apologize to all the many victims of its mad schemes for violent, worldwide dominance, then it will experience its own apocalypse ...
    Richard the Lionheart
    England (Sep 20, '06)


    Ehsan Ahrari's Et tu, pontiff? [Sep 20] is as biased as the quote Pope Benedict made. Pope Benedict quoted Emperor Manuel II and, historically speaking, Emperor Manuel was right. From the 11th century onwards Islam was aggressively spreading both east and west. In the East, India got the full brunt of it. The Muslim invasions into northern India had clear goals: take what is valuable, destroy what is not Islamic, and convert the local population. Those [who] resisted were put to the sword ... [Today in] all of northern India, in every Hindu holy city, one cannot find a single temple that dates older than the 16th century ... The Muslim invaders into India were so brutal that Buddhism, which flourished in India for 1,500 years, was wiped out. This type of action did not stop around the 14th century. The Muslim emperor Aurangzeb, who lived in the 17th century, was notorious for his zealous iconoclastic destruction of Hindu holy sites and the forceful conversion of non Muslims. Coming back to the pope, he was only quoting history, and under the basics of free speech to quote history is not a crime, while the imams of Islam openly voice their bile against other faiths with no repercussions. They go as far as to proclaim the annihilation of other faiths with the entire world being Muslim, so where is the anger and protestations against these imams? A classic example of Islamic extremism is the total destruction of the world-heritage monuments of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan simply because they were not Islamic.
    Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
    Clinton, Louisiana (Sep 20, '06)


    Ashraf Fahim's Iraq: Trying to spin the unspinnable (Sep 20) tries to inform readers how Iraq will affect the coming [US] election. Mr Fahim has overlooked the most fundamental and disastrous consequence of the imperialist occupation of Iraq, which is the issue of [the United States of] America as seen by Americans and the world community: the people. The imperialist occupation of Iraq has indeed become the disaster of the American civilization. America had the opportunity to dominate the world without dropping even a single bomb, but the Bush administration has missed that historical opportunity ... The people will remember the application of the US theory of democracy in Iraq. This calamity is manifested at Abu Ghraib prison, where no civilized country could do what had been done: abuse and torture. The situation [was] aggravated further when young girls were raped and killed, an issue that all Americans reject and despise. No single American tolerates a situation where her young girl is raped and killed in a house which is burned to cover the crime. No single person will go and kill innocent individuals in order to help their country establishing freedom. Or kill an injured person in order to help him die. I have never understood why a mighty military power kills babies and old women and men in Haditha and in other Iraqi towns. Some may argue that this is a deviation of the norm, but I argue otherwise. The US theory of democracy has been hijacked by monopoly capitalism. Imperialists have been building their wealth by killing and destroying other people. Historical facts do show the hostile and the exploitative approach of monopoly capitalism, an approach that has become the norm in dealing with foreign-policy issues ... These are some of the problems that the occupation of Iraq has generated, problems that will live with the people for many centuries to come. These problems will affect America not only in this coming election but in the future elections as well, because the nation has lost its political, economic, and moral ingredients under the elected leadership of the Bush administration.
    Adil Mouhammed
    Illinois, USA (Sep 20, '06)


    Spengler responds to readers
    It seems that I am an equal-opportunity offender, appalling Chrysantha Wijeyasingha (letter, Sep 19) by comparing jihad to Holy Communion, and outraging Timothy Stinson (letter, Sep 19) by identifying jihad with forced conversions rather than a Blakean sort of mental strife. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and animists share the same human needs, and the impulse to sacrifice this mortal life for an eternal one is a universal human response. That is hardly an original thought; it can be found in any study of comparative religion. I am well aware of Christianity's bloody history. Charlemagne founded the Holy Roman Empire by converting the Saxons at sword-point, and butchering thousands of their nobility who disdained the Cross. There is an old saw about meat dishes in the US south: "More important than what it is, is what it was." In this case, more important than what it was, is what it does. All religion responds to a fundamental human impulse: but what precisely does it do for the faithful? Readers who refer to the standard, mainstream sources for Islam, Christianity and Judaism will find that my representation of their respective theologies is quite conventional. It is a strange and marvelous world in which a restatement of the obvious attracts so much opprobrium.
    Spengler (Sep 20, '06)


    Spengler's Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life [Sep 19] is his opinion, nothing more. The pope gave his speech at a university of educated individuals. He was explaining a very complex issue to a group capable of handling complex ideas. It was not intended for public discourse or he probably would have framed it in a very different manner. Someone took a statement that they knew would inflame the Muslim world and spread it to our neo-con media that hate Catholics. And even Spengler exploits this issue by writing in Asia Times [Online]. The bigger issue today is not the pope's using a historical statement in a speech - it was not his intention to stroke the flames of world hate but to call people together. No, our neo-con media are doing everything they can to divide the masses and create clashes of different religious denominations. Spengler can be added to this list.
    Mary Hough (Sep 20, '06)


    I wish to comment on Spengler's article Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life [Sep 19], and wish to tell him that we Muslims have a kind of non-historical perspective upon the reality of religion. The religion does not depend upon a historical event such as, for example, the life of Christ. It does not depend upon a particular fact, be it be historical or otherwise, [such as the] Exodus of the Jews or miracles displayed by the prophets. We Muslims believe that it depends upon a reality which [is] inscribed upon the heart (qalb) of a man as ... a creature created to reflect Allah's qualities and affirm his absolute power and obey his commands and bow to him always in humility ... People are sometimes surprised that the Koran talks about war, but this simply reflects the fact that Islam is a comprehensive and realistic way of life that covers all eventualities and does not leave us to speculate about any area of life. Finally, I would say to Spengler that loading a donkey with books does not make him a scholar, and my sincere advice to him would be [to go] into permanent hibernation on top of [the Himalayas].
    Saqib Khan
    UK (Sep 20, '06)


    Re Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life [Sep 19]: As a Christian I certainly don't equate jihad with the Lord's Supper. Crusade would be a better synonym. The violent Muslim reaction to the pope only supports what he said.
    Ted Rice
    USA (Sep 20, '06)


    Spengler [Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19] is funny and building up his resume to be a prime target of jihadists. As for Adil Mouhammed of Illinois [letter, Sep 19], long before the British imperialists saw their first Hindu victim, Arabs and their non-Arab Muslim brethren saw to it that countless millions of Hindus and Buddhists perished under the [jihadis'] sword and other countless millions endured perpetual slavery in the name of Allah. Yep, you can say that the Arab invasion of India in ancient times was in the defense of Islam. Wondering how is it that aggression committed thousands of miles away from their barren desert hinterland is an act of self-defense? Or is it an adventure in plunder?
    Ray
    New York, New York (Sep 20, '06)


    I do not know from which sources Spengler [Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19] gets his information about Islam, but I know that the religion he is describing is not the one I am practicing. I was never taught to believe, nor did I ever believe, that Islam is "monastic paganism"; rather, I was taught that my life has a purpose, that God has a plan and that nothing happens without a reason; the Koran and Hadiths have enough information about this, but it seems that in Spengler's world [Franz] Rosenzweig knows better than Allah and his Prophet (pbuh) about the religion of Allah; I was never told that God had no restraints; how can one say that Allah is without restraints when one of the Hadiths explains that he forbade injustice to himself; or when Ali, the fourth caliph, says that Allah is Justice; or when you find out that Allah has 99 names/attributes (one of them being "The Loving"), each of which is, basically, a restraint; I could go on like this forever; the point is that you advise Spengler to learn about Islam from scholars who practice it and understand it (just as he does in the case of Christianity), or apply another method of clearing his misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islam, since they do a great damage to the credibility of your site.
    Mustafa
    Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sep 20, '06)


    One is eager to appreciate the positive approach and optimism displayed by Pakistani President [General Pervez] Musharraf with regard to Indo-Pakistan relations that, according to him, would henceforth stabilize and flourish, despite [the fact] that he is well aware of the anti-Pakistan sentiments expressed by Indian leaders, military intelligentsia, [and] the bureaucrats of Foreign Ministry and that the Indian media are bent on discrediting Pakistan and sabotage ties with that neighbor. True, Dr Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, could perhaps be nurturing good feelings toward Islamabad, but he doesn't decide everything that promotes Indo-Pakistani relations. Going by the track record of failed efforts by both of them to boost ties makes one pessimistic about any possible real relations emerging between New Delhi and Islamabad. Maybe Musharraf has some better ideas to be experimented with. Let us wait and see. Speculation is indeed thrilling.
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    New Delhi, India (Sep 20, '06)


    While reading Spengler blather on about the Christian God of Love [Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19], I thought of the infamous Spanish Requirement, called the "requirement" because royal law required it to be read before hostilities could be undertaken against a native people. In Latin and/or Spanish, witnessed by a notary, the Conquistadors would stand before a people they were about to attack, and read the following: "We ask ... that you acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole world ... But if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it ... we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses. We shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him. And we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us." If you want to read the full version, check Wikipedia for "Requerimiento". Spengler, you're hilarious! Those entwined in metaphysical doctrines create only suffering, because they forget, while lodged in their high vaulted heads how to actually open their eyes and hearts. Then, caught in ignorance (avidya), they mouth mumbo-jumbo about the nature of God, who, curiously enough, resembles themselves.
    Sandalwood
    London, Ontario (Sep 19, '06)


    [Re] Spengler's article Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life [Sep 19]: Wonderful article (awesome really) - I would humbly submit to Spengler a suggestion for his consideration with regard to the purpose of the Sabbath: I believe it is more than just a "sacrifice of rest". I think it is also a temporary cessation (rest) of the pursuit of money. The love of money is the root of all evil. One who loves it cannot cease from pursuing it. As an afterthought, I also believe that the development of the two-day weekend is a recognition of the both the Jewish and Christian Sabbath (or rest) days whereby we cease from the pursuit of money.
    R B Williams (Sep 19, '06)


    Spengler's Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life (Sep 19) is very informative, but I really feel sorry about Spengler, because he has missed the crucial point of our time. In Germany where the pope comes from there were two economists, Werner Sombart and Max Weber. Their contributions were designed to bring and link religion, as an institution, to the economic theory of the superstructure of [Karl] Marx's mode of production: Historical Materialism. They thought religion was ignored by many Marxists. Sombart considered Judaism as the deriving [sic] force for the evolution of capitalism and Weber thought Protestantism was the basic institution for the existence of capitalism. For both, Catholicism was not important. The pope may be trying to complement their analyses by interjecting the Catholic Church into these theoretical discussions. Unfortunately, His Holiness has overlooked the fundamental point too. In my opinion religion is not the issue or the base of struggle of our time; it is in fact monopoly capitalism. Monopoly capitalists try to make the world believe that religion, particularly Islam, is the problem of the ideological struggle; hence they try to pull all the world support for their own profitability cause by using their important institutions. The Bush administration and the pope have been trying to convince the world that Islam is the problem of this civilization. They have brought jihad to demonstrate that Islam is a religion of violence, not peace. They are implying that monopoly capitalism is a system of peace and integrity. It is true that jihad is the central part of Islam and all humanity. Monopoly capitalists have their own jihad, which is to make profits at the expense of the world population. The Bush administration has its own jihad which is to make sure that oil corporations and the military complex are making huge profits. It also aims at defending the American people from [Osama] bin Laden and al-Qaeda, who have not been destroyed by US military power yet. In fact, the Bush administration has followed a path for obtaining more oil and corporate profits, forgetting the path that can lead to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Muslims have their own jihad too, which is to defend the Muslim community if [it] is under an attack. What is fascinating about US imperialist jihad is that it has been general, because it has not been designed against a specific religion. In fact, it can go after any religion if that religion impedes or resists its hegemonic behavior. Historical facts have demonstrated that the US killed millions of Vietnamese, who were mostly not Muslim. Similarly, US imperialism has killed more than a million Muslims because of oil and new markets. The British imperialists exploited and killed Hindus, who are not Muslim. The British and the French imperialists massacred thousands of Chinese and looted their wealth, people whose religion was mostly not Islam. US imperialism killed Cubans, who are mostly Christian. Imperial Germany killed millions of Jews, because the latter were wealthy and efficient entrepreneurs. The French and other imperialists looted and killed millions of Africans whose religions were different from Islam. This violence and killing have become important elements of freedom, democracy, and liberation. (I do know really know why the pope has not seen this non-Islamic violence yet.) It follows that monopoly capitalism, the missing point of the author, has indeed been a propagator of jihad and violence for oil control, markets, and world hegemony. It is really ridiculous to concentrate on Islamic jihad and ignore the jihad of US imperialism. In fact, monopoly capitalists are all jihadists for different and similar reasons which are grounded in profits and exploitation, and religion is a pretext for that tendency.
    Adil Mouhammed
    Illinois, USA (Sep 19, '06)


    Regarding the article Jihad, the Lord's supper, and eternal life [Sep 19] ... The article points to the self-sacrifice similar between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], but no other innocent person had to die during holy communion, but they do for a jihadi's idea of "self-sacrifice". I as a Catholic find Spengler's comparison lurid and misinformed. Get this clear: the jihadis may excuse their actions by cloaking [them] with religious mumbo-jumbo, but ultimately a jihadi always ends up killing the innocent for his or her acts, and that is evil.
    Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
    Clinton, Louisiana (Sep 19, '06)


    [Re Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19] Spengler's contributions are like graduate seminars in history and comparative theology, that is to say, impossible to read through and truly comprehend in the first read by readers like myself who lack the specialized jargon. In my opinion, the three monotheistic religions are not only showing hardening of the arteries, they are also rotten to the core. Witness the warmongering Ian Paisleys, the [Pat] Robertsons, the [Jerry] Falwells, the imams, the fundamentalist president of the United States and his repugnant neo-cons, the sexual scandals involving clergy, and now the astounding pronouncements of Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Maledict I. I can see the furious and vengeful Jewish, Christian and Muslim god(s) being shoved aside and joining the whole pantheon of their historical colleagues, Zeus and his cohorts on Mount Olympus, and Odin, Wotan, Thor and Freya in Valhalla. The sooner the better. May respect for every human being on this planet and a fair distribution of wealth someday, someday replace the current greed-and-religion-driven outrages around the world. Amen.
    AL
    Canada (Sep 19, '06)


    Once again, Spengler's ignorance of (and hostility [toward]) Arabs and Muslims is on open display in his latest episode of anti-Muslim vitriol (Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19). He rants, raves, assumes and asserts in his latest piece about "jihad" being a centerpiece of Islam, and yet he doesn't seem to know that the literal meaning of the word jihad is "struggle". This struggle can be one against an addiction to drugs, profane language or, as in Spengler's case, bigotry. In addition he also doesn't seem to know that the concept of holy war is a Christian concept which came about during the original Crusades and continues today through the twisted policies of [US President] George Bush. Can a member of your editorial staff please provide Mr Spengler with an Arabic-to-English dictionary, a couple [of] history books on the Crusades, and several dozen tongue blades so that he does not choke on his shoestrings when he puts his foot in his mouth during one of these ill-informed rants?
    Timothy Stinson
    Miami Lakes, Florida (Sep 19, '06)

    While we're handing out dictionaries, perhaps it's time someone started teaching the "true" meaning of jihad to those folks who like to fly airliners into skyscrapers, blow up trains and buses, set fire to Danish consulates, and murder vacationers in Bali and schoolteachers in Hat Yai. - ATol


    A telephone call from an acquaintance interrupted my reading of Spengler's latest epistle [Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life, Sep 19]. Call it karma or a fortunate occurrence, since I had already made some mental notes to relay to ATol's editor in reference of said epistle. It was the reading of the postscript that changed everything. Similar to the events of [September 11, 2001]. A watershed in the worldwide war of civilizations. Where now not only the democratic and Judeo-Christians could incinerate other human beings but also some of them could respond in similar fashion. In any case, Spengler's postscript about a Muscovite not being responsible for what his parrot said - while sounding facetious, was it intended to subtly hint that Spengler was the parrot for his idol [Franz] Rosenzweig and/or the pope's views? I called up a friend, a known Kabbalist sage, and asked him if he had read [the Sep 19] commentary by Spengler. He confirmed that he had read it and that some fellow members had already requested that Spengler be considered as a potential candidate for a curse but that some opposed such measures since they believed Spengler was too religious for such superstitious acts. And further that such acts are never invoked if the word "parrot" is used by the proposed candidate. Thus by me mentioning the word "parrot" twice, I am guaranteed exemptions from Kabbalah curses that some claim have afflicted Ariel Sharon, Pat Robertson and the city of New Orleans.
    Armand De Laurell (Sep 19, '06)

    Ah, but what if it is in fact, a la Monty Python, "an ex-parrot"? - ATol


    To hear the pope talk of Muslims and jihad as a religion of war and hatred is Ironic at best, and simply speaks to the Western ideas that whites are superior, and all else uncivilized. In regards to wars/genocide and mass murder, Christianity now in coalition with Zionism is the clear winner, at least in the last 300 years of human history. The historical fact remains, no matter how distorted it has become, that Judeo-Christians have been at war with one another countless times, until they began to spread their "Christian-Jewish" virtues on peoples of other colors/lands. That resulted in slavery for all non-whites, mass extermination of all native people in the Americas, and a rape/pillaging of all other people's lands for a handful of white people [who] used their respective bibles as law/justice/excuse for carrying out gross injustices upon all other humans. Today we are witnessing the West's desperate attempts at re-establishing the status quo they have enjoyed for the last few centuries, on the backs of all other races, a racist imperialistic colonialism, now armed with a coalition of Zionists [who] control America and as such, many parts of the West. Arabs/Muslims are fighting for basic rights of self-governance and sovereignty, much like China and Vietnam did. They, the Muslims/Arabs, are bound to win, because just like Asia, [which] fought against evil (without religion), the war is against evil occupation, enslavement, greed and racism. The fact that Israel/pope/Bush/Blair makes it a new crusade will forever embolden Muslims, all Muslims/Arabs, to seek refuge in their own faith, for after all, the alternative is to accept the renewed Zion-imperialistic doctrine of "we know what is best for you". That will never be accepted by Muslims, much in the same way that Asia and now South America [are] rejecting it.
    Karl Luck (Sep 19, '06)


    I wish to make a couple of comments on Antoaneta Bezlova's article Tibet: China's little treasure (Sep 19). The word "Tibet" in Chinese, pronounced xizang, requires clarification. Xi means "west", and zang is the designation of the local people, like Han, or Mongols, or Manchus. So xizang literally means "the land of the ... people in the west". The word zang may be pronounced as qang to mean "hide" or "deposit" as a verb, or "a depository" as a noun. Such a word, with double pronunciation/meaning, may be compared to an English word, "conduct", as in the conduct of a person or to conduct an orchestra. It is not correct to interpret xizang as "western depository" except as a pun. It is difficult to assess damage in Tibetan environment and culture, a fashionable way of blaming China for whatever is done there. Perhaps the "international activists" and some [of the] Dalai Lama's followers think that Tibet will be well served or preserved if the following conditions are perpetuated: the backward and harsh way of life, the destitute environment and isolation from the outside, the unproductive frozen landscape, and absolute obedience to the Dalai Lama in matters religious and political. So visitors will see what they perceive to be Tibet, as described in the fiction Lost Horizon. Fortunately, economic development is taking place there, and life is getting better. That requires capital, talent, and people. The Han are doing that. Did not [the United States of] America, Australia and Canada need an influx of people to develop the land? By the way, the Han set up shop and live among the locals, [and are] not herding them away somewhere else.
    S P Li (Sep 19, '06)


    Re Aligned for the cause [Sep 19]: [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi's comment on the non-aligned nations simply restates that old saying: Everything old is new again. The organization [Non-Aligned Movement, NAM] has died a thousand deaths since its creation in 1961, but it maintained a middle ground during the Cold War. The demise of the Soviet Union brought the so-called end of history and the triumph of the United States as a superpower. The policies of the Bush administration have infused new life in the non-aligned nations' organization; [they have] brought together a heteroclite [sic] of nations of varying economic strengths and political organization, to form a countervailing force to President [George W] Bush's univalue world. And in that, as long as Mr Bush has drawn the short end of the straw in waging war in Iraq, and talking out of both ends of his mouth about democracy on one hand and, on the other, flouting standards of civilized behavior as enshrined in international treaties, the voice of the NAM will grow in volume and draw more allies to its cause. And in this lies the NAM's strength. Yet to stay the organization [is] loath to engage in humanitarian endeavors stretches the truth. Had not Dr Afrasiabi listened to the speech of the Sudanese delegate who, in defense of Khartoum's war of genocide in Darfur, cloaks his government's policies in the hoary images of anti-colonialism? In sum, as long as Washington pursues current policies in the guise of bringing democracy manu militari to the four corners of the non-aligned world, the NAM [members] will willy-nilly oppose a unipolar world.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 19, '06)


    As the Non-Aligned [Movement's] summit endorsed the general view of the developing countries on Iran's sovereignty and its right to have a nuclear facility at par with all other nuclear regimes and gave rise to the emergence of a joint approach by the trio Cuba, Iran and Venezuela to face the unilateral aggressive actions by the Pentagon, US President George W Bush, heading to New York on Monday for the UN General Assembly, stated that his administration would focus on shoring up democracies in the Middle East, where sectarian violence in Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions have created international concern. The root cause of all violence in these countries is the USA only. Democracy by itself is a good concept if it is properly understood and implemented impartially across the globe and not just in the Middle East alone. President George Bush should realize that [invasions] of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon and the resolve by the Pentagon to invade Iran mainly for economic reasons don't qualify for any democratic points in the first place. He would do yeomen service to the world if his administration streamlined the electoral democracy in the USA, where the so-called democratic poll begins with "fundraising" by the presidential candidates that gives scope for rampant corruption after elections, and also envisaging scope for multiple opinions for the US electorate by allowing a multi-party system with more than two parties contesting the elections in order to cater to the aspirations of the vast majority of voters who have hitherto been offered just two candidates to choose from. Such innovative electoral politics would enhance the Bush administration's drive to shore up democracies in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The UN must consider the relevant issues concerning uniform democracy and stop the Pentagon from invading Iran as well as replacement of the much-misused and maligned UNSC [United Nations Security Council] by a new UN Peace Council to be evolved by the General Assembly of the UN with no veto power offered to any country, however big one may be. Only a truly democratic regime and a democratic UN forum could influence other regimes, and without waging wars.
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    Jawaharlal Nehru University
    New Delhi, India (Sep 19, '06)


    An ongoing reply to Jakob Cambria (letter, Sep 18): First, the point on [US president Richard] Nixon was not missed, but irrelevant to the discussion as well as factually incorrect. The 7th ID [Infantry Division] and elements of the I Corps were withdrawn from Korea in late 1971 at a time when the US was winding down operations in Vietnam and Asia overall, not ramping them up (paraphrased from a comment at my blog on this topic). Second, to refer to me as a "bamboo warrior" and then accuse me of falling "back on invective" is more than a bit hypocritical, but not unexpected. Third, it is true that I hold both former ROK [Republic of Korea] president Kim Dae-jung and current President Roh Moo-hyun in contempt. The former purchased the June 2000 summit with a half-billion or more US dollars (for which he won a Nobel Peace Prize), while the latter has continued the miserably failed Sunshine Policy that has helped prop up the criminally abusive Kim [Jong-il] regime, and guided his administration into becoming a wedge between the US and South Korea. Fourth, while I disagree with Cambria's description of what I might bring to the "conference table", the question is moot; the US offer to meet still stands, but Pyongyang continues to refuse. The fact is North Korea does not want to deal. Finally, I will caution Jakob Cambria to resist the temptation to make straw-man arguments and not attempt to redefine my position; if I wanted an armed conflict on the [Korean] Peninsula, I would not be deeply concerned about the effects of the arms race that a US Forces Korea (USFK) likely would bring.
    Corey Richardson
    USA (Sep 19, '06)


    This is the first time I have been able to access your website. I like reading your webpages as I feel the articles, news, editorials, etc are objective. Most interesting of all, I feel many articles speak out my mind. Good job and thank you!
    CN
    Taiwan (Sep 19, '06)


    It is indeed extremely deplorable that Pope Benedict made himself a controversial figure not [only] in the Roman Catholic Church but all over the world. Those who voted [for] his papacy would be utterly dismayed as his office has to rise above from his personal opinions and respect the postulates of international politics. He has failed and betrayed [the trust of his great predecessor, the] late pope John Paul II. I think he should resign to save the world from [the] ugliest Bush-Blair syndrome of hate and illegal wars.
    A S Jamal
    Pakistan (Sep 18, '06)


    Pope Benedict XVI's comments quoting a defeated and dejected Byzantine emperor fighting losing battles against the Ottoman Empire were nothing but perfidious, duplicitous and an attempt to sully Islam. Of all the people in the world, it had to be the pope with a Nazi history to rally his fast-dwindling followers back to their faith by instigating a clash with Islamic civilization. If he did not intend to hurt the Muslim, why the hell did he quote that unknown emperor? The pope is adopting President [George W] Bush's strategy, "Cry wolf all the time; call your friends for help until one day no one hears you when the wolf comes." We the Muslims always say, "If an evil-doer brings you a piece of news, inquire first into its truth, lest you should wrong others unwittingly and repent of what you have done" ...
    Saqib Khan
    UK (Sep 18, '06)


    Pope Benedict XVI, the head of a religious community, made from a public platform a bold statement that President [George W] Bush, the head of a country and vouchsafed enemy of terror, did not even dare to whisper. The common people like me have nothing to lose when we speak about our opinion on certain matters aloud. But when a person like the pope or the US president does the same thing he has to take into account the negative publicity that he will get, as has happened now in the case of Pope Benedict XVI. No risk, no gain is the undeniable truth, and the one - be he a religious head or a political leader - who has the courage of conviction will ultimately bell the cat.
    Omar Luther King
    Delhi, India (Sep 18, '06)

    For Spengler's take on the pope's controversial remarks, see the new article Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life . - ATol


    The editors of the ATol must be complimented for their excellent choice of news articles and commentary. The recent set of articles by Syed Saleem Shahzad on Pakistan's restive provinces and the Taliban's tactics [see In search of the Taliban's missing link, Sep 16] represent ground-breaking journalism of the highest quality. May I suggest that ATol publish a book by [Saleem], which may just be a collection of his articles, for example? I rather think that the clueless mandarins in Downing Street and [the British] parliament could do with a few copies, as with officials in all NATO countries across Europe. The more obvious answer, of guiding the people directing troop movements in Afghanistan and Iraq to read ATol, doesn't quite make the cut because we would first have to teach them to use a computer. Keep up the good work, sirs.
    Salt Shaker (Sep 18, '06)


    I have a few comments on Henry C K Liu's series "China and the US". First: In his last article [Kim Il-sung and China, Sep 16], Mr Liu writes, "The 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice arising from a military stalemate in an undeclared 'limited' war." The war between the ROK [Republic of Korea] and DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] was most certainly "declared". This statement needs to be corrected. As the statement stands, anyone reading this would be led to believe the ROK and DPRK were never officially at war. Then, using this false assertion as a basis, Mr Liu claims, "Fifty years later, that uneasy truce is still all that is technically preventing the DPRK and the US from full-scale resumption of hostilities, as no peace treaty has ever been signed." This statement implies it is the US and the DPRK who are still officially at war, and makes no mention of the role of the ROK. On the contrary, it is the ROK and DPRK that are still officially at war and the recent border skirmishes have been between ROK and DPRK military forces, such as the naval skirmish in 2002 (see N Korea's military edge over S Korea [Sep 10, '04]). While it is not exactly "inaccurate" to say the ceasefire prevents open conflict between the US and the DPRK, it is misleading, perhaps deliberately so. The circumstances surrounding historical events are either excluded or maligned so often in this series, to the end of demonizing the US and deifying Kim Il-sung, that I am forced to conclude Mr Liu is very biased on this issue. Second: In this series, Mr Liu keeps repeating the following: "Imperialism is an advanced stage of capitalism and the only path to resist imperialism is through communism." I'm sure Mr Liu knows that "62,400 repetitions make one truth". Perhaps if Mr Liu keeps writing this falsehood over and over again, he can even make himself believe it. The fact is that communist nations have engaged in Imperialism, thus disproving this assertion. Third and final: Mr Liu has written three articles now in which there is very little that has anything to do with the current Korean crisis nor its affect on Sino-US relations. I cannot understand why Mr Liu avoids the fact that China has demonstrated no desire in seeing a nuclear-armed DPRK, as this simple fact seems more germane to the "China and the US" series than a lengthy and questionable history of the DPRK.
    Terence Redux
    USA (Sep 18, '06)


    Henry Liu is at it again in his virulently anti-American article Kim Il-sung and China [Sep 16]. He writes [that September 11, 2001] "is to avenged with a kill ratio of more than a thousand to one", [and that] the US is "indiscriminately victimizing as collateral damage millions of civilians". I won't even bother to ask Mr Liu for some examples to back up [these] insane statements. I would like to know if he saw the stories and photo of the US predator drone [that] had 190 Taliban soldiers lined up in its sights and the military command would not give permission to fire. A far cry from his concept of a bloodthirsty America. His article is again riddled with numerous inaccuracies and wrong conclusions. He writes, "the Korean and Vietnam Wars set the US fiscal budget on a recurring deficit and the US economy on the path to persistent inflation", and also "protracted inflation" forced the US off the gold standard. Wrong on both counts. The United States left the gold standard in 1933; what was ended in 1971 was the ability of foreign national banks to turn in US dollars for gold, with gold valued at $35 to the ounce. Inflation than was less than 6%. The worst of inflation in the US was from 1973-83, peaking at 13% in 1980. I think this had much more to do with the quadrupling of the price of oil starting in 1973 than it did with the Korean War (1950-53). But than again I don't have a doctorate in economics, but I guess one does not need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Also Mr Liu states [that] the US uses dollar hegemony to exploit the rest of the world financially. The strength of the dollar is a benefit to the US economy but it not enforced at the point of a bayonet but because millions of people trust the dollar more than their own pesos or rubles or whatever their local currency is. He also claims the US "drains resources from the world poor". I believe the world economy is working out much better for the more advanced economies than for the developing world. But this has more to do with the corruption of Third World leaders than First World bankers. Also how does he feel about China's support for North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe, hardly models of decent government? Mr Liu also decries the post-World War II policies of the US government and blames the US for all the evil in the world. How does he explain how the countries that came under US influence such Western Europe, Japan and South Korea are much better off and freer than the countries that came under the control of communists? Mr Liu again decries the US stopping the communist takeover of South Korea and Taiwan and like all good communist he believes in unification at the point of a bayonet. What rights does he envision the people in Taiwan have in deciding their future? Probably none. Mr Liu strikes me as an old man who stands on the edge of a modern superhighway and longs for the past paradise of dirt roads and square wheels.
    Dennis O'Connell
    USA (Sep 18, '06)


    Song-Yoon Lee's (Korea-US: Swan song for an alliance, Sep 16) claim that the presence of the US troops in South Korea is to protect it is as fraudulent as the claim that the stationing of the Soviet troops in Eastern Europe was to protect it. One must be sinister or Orwellian to say with a straight face that the US is out to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It is the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons and other WMD like napalm and cluster bombs, white phosphorus and depleted uranium. It has a military stockpile that is larger that those of the rest of the world combined, and is pursuing research in the militarization of space. The citizens of South Korea are proud of their remarkable economic and political developments and have enough self-respect to determine their own lives. There is no reason to believe that they, along with much of the rest of the world outside the US, would change their minds that the US is a grave threat to world peace. The horrid record of killing and maiming millions by the successive US governments since World War II is just too vivid to ignore.
    Paul Law
    Berlin, Germany (Sep 18, '06)


    "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children." The previous statement is a recent quotation from US President George W Bush. To stand before the world press and make this outrageous statement is beyond belief! The US government has killed more innocent women and children in my lifetime than all of the Islamic extremists in history and a good many other extremists as well. In fact the US would rank right up there with the Khans of Mongolia for outright slaughter of innocents. And the most disturbing part of this is that the world press let him get away with it!
    Ken Moreau
    New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 18, '06)


    In his review of [Amartya] Sen's latest book, Chan Akya commented, "The United States is fated to relinquish its position as an economic superpower sooner rather than later" [In-Sen! Sep 16]. This is wishful thinking for [the] foreseeable future. The USA will continue to remain [an] economic superpower because of its ability to reinvent itself continuously and also [to be] a magnet for talented young immigrants from all countries in the globe. While China will become older before it becomes rich, India [has] a long way to go before it is able to overcome its basic problems. Europe is still clinging to its old socialist ideals and its prejudice against immigration.
    Kris Chari
    Yorktown Heights, New York (Sep 18, '06)


    The article Why a rising China can't dominate Asia [Sep 15], though well written, fails to mention the "Indian factor". Until the '90s India's economy was not worth attention and was always hyphenated with Pakistan. A lot has changed, including the fact that India's economic growth is only second to China and so is its population. In the 21st century any discussions of China cannot preclude the growing power of her giant neighbor India. With India signing the strategic alliance with the US, India will make enough room for the US in the Asian region, especially if its security is threatened. The second issue regarding China's power depends on US consumerism. If the latter were to shift its consumerism to other Asian nations due to political, economic or military problems with China, its [China's] economy could fold and its newfound power [be] greatly diminished.
    Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
    Clinton, Louisiana (Sep 18, '06)


    Why a rising China can't dominate Asia by Robert Sutter (Sep 15) is illustrative and relevant to most people, except those in Taiwan would still bear the illusion of independence, de jure or indefinite de facto. The reason is that the PRC [People's Republic of China] would not need to dominate Asia to control Taiwan remotely. While his assumption that US power and influence in East Asia won't diminish cannot be entirely correct (as decrease in US percentage of global GNP [gross national product] is certain and will have definite and finite impact), the US seems destined to maintain quite significant power and influence in the region in the decades to come. Global economic integration, or the apron strings (letter from Jakob Cambria of Sep 15), really a pair of light-duty handcuffs that ties both together, will likely not impede the PRC's objective of recovering Taiwan. This is because, after two or three decades, the PRC would not need to resort to brute force to control Taiwan remotely. Taiwan's energy vulnerability will allow the PRC scalable and reversible harassments on Taiwan that will gradually erode business confidence on the island. The region is at peace; every country, including the USA, will continue to dread starting any conflict, with possible destruction of Taiwan (and placing a mark of complete failure on US foreign policy with China). In time, military options will be invalid for all, but the PRC will not need any military operations, or very little of it, to remotely control Taiwan.
    Jeff Church
    USA (Sep 18, '06)


    I found it interesting that you published Indrajit Basu's 'Native English' is losing its power almost simultaneously with Robert Sutter's Why a rising China can't dominate Asia [both Sep 15] - all the more so because the headline for the latter warned about "knee-jerk" thinking. The rise of Mandarin, in educational and media circles, seems to date from the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. Not coincidentally, that was the same year the British Council published David Graddol's "Future of English?" report. A little reflection reveals that the rise of Mandarin was accompanied by the decline of Cantonese more than the decline of English. For the past nine years, various journalists have been repeating Graddol's theme mantramically. A well-read person hearing all the echoes might be convinced that Mandarin is the world's largest language. However, in May 2005, the People's Republic of China's Xinhua news agency reported a survey by [its] National Language Commission which found that only 53% of the population can speak Mandarin, and many of them "are not frequent Mandarin users, preferring their local dialect" (Taipei Times, May 23). Assuming this estimate is correct, the total number of Mandarin speakers is about 700 million, and many of them are not native speakers. Inquiring minds ought to ask: Why does Graddol compare the number of native speakers of English (so-called L1 in linguistic terminology) with the combined total of first- and second-language speakers of Mandarin (L1 + L2)? More to the point, in terms of knee-jerk media coverage: Why don't journalists analyze such skewed statistical comparisons before quoting them? As I pointed out in my review of Braj Kachru's Asian Englishes published on this website January 28 (Whose English is it?), estimates of the number of English speakers in China are fraught with assumptions. In Chapter 11, Kachru claimed 200 million "users" of English as of 1995 based on a study (not a survey) that tallied the number of students who had passed an English exam in order to graduate junior high. There is no doubt that the English language is changing in response to its globalization. However, this is a very complex issue that deserves more than parroting in articles that are designed primarily to grab attention. One aspect to consider is the number of people in a country who actually speak English with each other (in contrast to using it primarily in formal written communications or sprinkling it in e-mails). As explained by Salikoko Mufwene in the chapter he contributed to Edwin Thumboo's Three Circles of English, a new variety of a language is developed by people who use it in spoken interactions with each other. A deeper aspect involves considerations of quality rather than quantity. In a chapter he contributed to Kachru's The Other Tongue, Larry Smith outlined three degrees of mutual understanding: intelligibility (recognizing the words that were uttered), comprehensibility (understanding the meaning of the sentence), and interpretability (realizing what the speaker intended). This careful analysis of communication explains why customer-service calls handled by perfectly fluent speakers of English in India generate frustration among American customers - intelligibility and comprehensibility are indeed achieved at a low cost by the company that outsources, but interpretability is often lacking.
    Martin Schell
    American Services In Asia
    Klaten, Central Java, Indonesia (Sep 18, '06)


    Re Fundaresentalism [Sep 12] ... I must protest the Christian bigotry in this article. If such words and inaccuracies were published about gays or Muslims, the outrage would make front-page news. Many well-known, respected, and educated people in the world and throughout history are Christian Bible literalists.
    Randy Davenport (Sep 18, '06)


    Kaveh Afrasiabi has repeated a fallacy in his letter published on September 15. The nuclear armaments of the former USSR and China were defenses against the USA. As Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were under the nuclear umbrella of the US, the Americans did not allow them to be so armed. The acquisition by North Korea of such nuclear devices will not change this. The same logic suggests that since Iran's nuclear armament will be a defense against the US and Israel, such a change in the balance of armaments in the Middle East will not prompt the US to allow nuclear bombs for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey. The threats to the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will only come from Iran's Islamic ideology.
    H Wilson
    Hong Kong (Sep 18, '06)


    An often-repeated and unconvincing argument has been repeated by Kaveh Afrasiabi (letter, Sep 15) in his reply to a September 13 letter by Jose R Pardinas. He [Afrasiabi] argued that the acquisition of nuclear-arms capability by Iran will breach the nuclear-weapon "ban" leading to similar nuclearization by [such] US allies [as] Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This is an unlikely consequence as those three countries are under the protection of the USA in the same way as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are. Assuming that both Iran and North Korea want the bomb, it is for protection against military threats and blackmail by the USA. It is also clear to most people that a nuclear-armed Iran will make the elimination of Iran and its Islamic revolutionary influences by the Americans through military means impossible. As things stand, it is painfully obvious to the neo-cons that the ascendance of Iran and its influence in the Middle East is just a matter of time. Let us be clear about what we are talking about. It is the fear and global interests of the USA in the Middle East and East Asia that are being debated here.
    Ismail Samad
    UK (Sep 18, '06)


    Kaveh L Afrasiabi's reply [Sep 15] to my letter of September 13 begs the question. His argument against a nuclear Iran rests on the assumption that if Iran goes nuclear so would Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This is a demonstrable fallacy. There has been a nuclear country in the Middle East for quite some time now (Israel) and none of these countries have felt it necessary to follow suit with their own nuclear programs. It seems to me that in pursuit of his agenda Mr Afrasiabi would like to have his cake and eat it too.
    Jose R Pardinas, PhD
    San Diego, California (Sep 18, '06)


    Let me return the compliment to Corey Richardson for answering my letter to the ATol editor, a second time [letter, Sep 15]. Mr Richardson is a man of strong ideas. He misses the point that I raised about president [Richard] Nixon's decision to shift USFK [United States Forces in Korea] troops from South Korea to Vietnam. The former president set a precedent for further reduction of USFK's strength. And that is not fluff but a fact. Mr Richardson engages in a numbers game, to support his position. The selection is so arranged that it leads to a predictable payout for his standpoint ... Mr Richardson is a "bamboo warrior". His position is set in stone, and thus is not open to discussion ... When all else fails he falls easily back on invective. It is obvious that he has nothing but stone-cold contempt for [former South Korean president] Kim Dae-jung and President Roh [Moo-hyun], and is full of revulsion for [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il, which is not in dispute. Make no mistake: his moral indignation brings nothing to the conference table, nor does it provide an opening [for] a political denouement of current tensions facing the United States and South Korea, and the United States and North Korea. Nothing short of armed brinksmanship would satisfy Mr Richardson's high dudgeon when it comes to the question of Korea, South or North.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 18, '06)


    Craig Meer, in Comic relief: Taiwan's latest UN bid (Sep 15), states that it "would be a joke if it weren't a serious reminder to the world that there is a real problem that is not going to go away". Allusion to Taiwan's dream as a joke would be insensitive, but there really is no real problem that [won't] go away in due course across the Taiwan Strait. In a few decades Taiwan [will] be far too feeble for any real problem to persist, as the island's abject energy vulnerability is exploited adroitly, in timing and extent, by Beijing. "So it seems we're due for more theater. Just how long it will continue to be comedy rather than tragedy is probably up to Beijing." Indeed, it's up to Beijing to attempt to continue its successful policy toward peaceful coercion, first by a few decades of comprehensive national development, followed by exploitation of Taiwan's energy vulnerability, to erode business confidence on the island by heightening the uncertainty of the island's energy supply. Countries such as South Korea, Japan, China, the USA, and Russia have energy-source policies and objectives; Taiwan doesn't seem to have any. Mere consideration of its abject energy vulnerability seems too depressing, and invites denial of reality. [Will] Beijing achieve comprehensive national development in all fields in the decades to come? This is the real question that Taiwan can only await passively.
    Jeff Church
    USA (Sep 15, '06)


    Professor Robert Sutter (Why a rising China can't dominate Asia [Sep 15]) puts his finger on a chink in the armor of his assumptions. In brief, he assumes that the United States' power will remain undiminished in Asia. Which is probably true. Nonetheless, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson is preaching to the Chinese to reform fiscal and economic policy, for the simple and plain reason that China has a ballooning favorable balance of trade with the United States, and it is very much in its favor. Thus the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs is running doubly on the treadmill to tie Beijing more firmly to Washington's apron strings. This endeavor is problematic, the more especially since the Chinese think first and foremost of China's own interests ... China's Asian neighbors with whom Sutter has tested the waters in conversations are, as he puts it, playing a game of wait and see. It is plain that they would far prefer Washington to giant neighbor Beijing, but they also know that the United States is stuck knee-deep in two wars in Central and West Asia, and a weakened dollar and a staggering balance-of-payments account will surely weaken a valued ally. Time is on China's side and its star is on the ascendant but, alas, not on America's if policies of the current administration are not corrected. Thus, as in a game of diplomatic roulette, China's Asian neighbors will put unequal amounts on the red and the black; for wherever the white ball stops, they will have money in the bank one way or the other.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 15, '06)


    In response to the letter by Jose R Pardinas [Sep 13]: I wonder which article he has been reading. Certainly there is nothing in mine [Iran steps back from the brink, Sep 13] that would even mildly suggest that Iran should give up its nuclear rights, nor have the Iranians, who have reportedly consented to a short-term suspension. While I admire, and am encouraged by, the writer's keen defense of Iran's legitimate rights, I am afraid his view of world politics and the long-term threats and negative ramifications, for Iran's own security, of regional proliferation is rather simplistic and even skewed, given the action-reaction logic of proliferation in history, which would prompt Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to emulate Iran should it possess nuclear bombs.
    Kaveh Afrasiabi (Sep 15, '06)


    This is a second reply to Jakob Cambria in regard to his responses [letter, Sep 14] to my September 9 Speaking Freely submission, South Korea must choose sides. First, South Korea's current military leadership cannot publicly disagree with the Roh administration's assessments without risking their careers, while all of the former defense ministers from 1963 to 2003 oppose President Roh Moo-hyun's plans. Also note that 160 diplomats who served as either ambassadors or in other senior posts have joined the former senior military leadership in protesting Roh's policies; I see great significance in that. Second, whether or not opposing viewpoints are found in other Korean newspapers is moot; my point was that I share the viewpoint of many South Koreans, as expressed in the three major Korean papers, on the issue to troop withdraw as well as Roh's policies and abysmal performance, which is true. Third, the issue of the move of United States Forces in Korea (USFK) from Yongsan Post to Pyeongtaek is not the problem at this point; the delay from current and past administrations is. USFK is ready to go as soon as the new facilities are ready. Fourth, the move from Yongsan to Pyeongtaek is a separate issue from the Maehyang-ni bomber range being shut down by the Roh administration. Yes, that was the only range in South Korea suitable for the training, which is forcing US air crews to go off-peninsula to maintain readiness until a replacement is acquired. Fifth, I did not and do not find Jakob Cambria's comments about Richard Nixon or Koreagate relevant to this topic in the context or detail presented, except as esoteric fluff. Sixth, it is common knowledge that South Korea, under president Park Chung-hee, initiated a nuclear-weapons program in response to US president Jimmy Carter's plan to withdraw USFK unilaterally, but that the program died with Park in 1979. That in no way implied that South Korea continued such a program or has one at present. Seventh, as for the Sunshine Policy, at this point it is perhaps more accurately the "Moonshine Policy". It can be judged by its results so far: no improvement in security and a prolonging of suffering for the North Korean people by helping prop up the regime. The latter in particular "rankles" me, it is true. Finally, blaming US President George W Bush for the behavior or North Korea is perhaps deceptively attractive for some. North Korea has broken every nuclear-proliferation-related agreement is has signed, and it is North Korea that is refusing to return to the six-party talks after multiple offers. At some point a sensible person must finally admit that North Korea simply does not want to deal.
    Corey Richardson
    USA (Sep 15, '06)


    In Burma [Myanmar] there is a mystic sometimes referred to as ET. She has a speech impediment. When asked questions about the future, she babbles incoherently. Her sister stands ready to interpret these sounds. Many important people from all over Asia travel to Yangon to shape their business and political futures according to her prophecies. Some of these individuals occupy the highest political offices in Thailand. If Thailand's politics appear somewhat unusual, now you know why. It is quite possible that the United States is also run by lunatics. Many righteous Asians are quick to make that claim particularly here in ATol. American politics do not have a monopoly on lunacy, however. In fact, Asians may be well ahead of the Americans in this respect.
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 15, '06)


    [Re Osama's on the move again, Sep 14] Looks like al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden want to help the Republicans and [US President George W] Bush win the November congressional races with their terrorism push.
    C A Morrison
    Williamsburg, Virginia (Sep 14, '06)


    In reference to the article Heed the call of Vietnam's Bloc 8406 [Sep 14]: Vietnam is looking over its shoulder at China as the role model for successfully dealing with multinational conglomerates. War, trauma, and corruption for generations have made life miserable for Vietnamese, and now that some independent stability and prosperity [have] been achieved by a communist/socialist government, to think that they are ready to risk that for another internal struggle is far-fetched. Support for Bloc 8406 by publication of articles such as this one is tantamount to meddling in the internal affairs of another country. Let Vietnam sort out [its] own destiny.
    Ken Moreau
    New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 14, '06)


    Is Gary LaMoshi nuts making comments about Australia being hypocritical [None dare call it hypocrisy, Sep 13]? Does he think a minor crime is worthy of harsher punishment than murder or conspiracy to commit murder? A bombing which kills many people is certainly a more serious crime than drug trafficking even if the convicted were guilty. I think there is a very good chance [Schapelle] Corby is not even guilty.
    Dale Marshall (Sep 14, '06)

    The article noted examples of questionable Indonesian sentencing, in particular, that "alleged Jamaah Islamiya spiritual leader Abu Bakar Ba'asyir got a mere 30 months for conspiracy in the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 88 Australians among its 202 fatalities", while Corby got 20 years for a few kilos of marijuana. - ATol


    Re Iran steps back from the brink [Sep 13]: This is the stuff that reminds one of the domestic misinformation Japan fed its home audience right up until they lost two cities and then surrendered in World War II. Kaveh [L Afrasiabi], in my opinion, will be outed in due time as in the employ of the Bush administration - a truly disgusting trend in America and now seemingly Asia. Iran has finally blinked - this is how he starts his piece - and he goes on to mold his information warfare to obfuscate truth in the most Bush-ite (probably more like Cheney-ite or Rove-esque) fashion, which has become trademark for the current [US] administration. I prefer Spengler's unapologetic approach, which reminds me of Colin Powell's "negotiate from a position of strength", albeit with the cynicism of a man whose icon is a skull with a rose in its mandibles ... The truth is nobody is blinking and all eyes in the conflict are acutely focused - America is very much aware of the possibility of effecting a self-fulfilling Goliath prophecy. Iran is frantically searching for the right stone and it really doesn't like its chances as a David - no pun intended. But Kaveh's unverified, third-person, hearsay account of Iranian intentions sounds more like the reporting of Jayson Blair. After all, "I think the media [have] some serious credibility problems," said Blair. Without question, Iran has been the beneficiary of every failed policy we [US] have in the Middle East - Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria ... There are reasons to suspect Iran and act accordingly, but this piece by Kaveh is … propaganda.
    Korcel Price (Sep 14, '06)


    Corey Richardson's Speaking Freely [South Korea must choose sides Sep 9], as he says in his reply [Sep 12] to my letter to the editor, is his opinion, which he goes on to stress is "shared by many in South Korea", and "virtually 100% of [that] nation's former military leadership". Yet he neglects to tell us the opinion of the military leadership in command today. It is an old story: old soldiers often do not see eye-to-eye with those who replaced them. Instead, he falls back on a plea to read articles in the major Seoul dailies to support his standpoint. Well, I am willing to wager [that] for any article that he is willing to cite, there is another one which will say the contrary ... The shifting of the United States Forces in Korea (USFK) to Pyeongtaek is a matter of long-standing discussion between the Blue House and the White House, and the real-estate value of Yongsan is and has been a bone of contention between Seoul and the American military, years before Roh [Moo-hyun] assumed his functions as president of the Republic of Korea. Since the matter remains in dispute, and the USFK are in Yongsan, how does that deny these very troops "critical bombing practice"? It is hard to believe that the USFK have only [one] place to carry out such maneuvers. Mr Richardson neglects to address the point I raised about [the late US president Richard] Nixon's removal of USFK troops during the Vietnam War, nor does he [cite] the Koreagate scandal which it provoked. It might do him well to read the thousands of pages of testimony before [US] congressional subcommittees. This strained Korean-American relations, and may have indirectly had a bearing on president [Jimmy] Carter's plan to pull the USFK out of Korea ... Mr Richardson raises the issue of Park Chung-hi's program of developing nuclear weapons. Is he [implying] that South Korea has such weapons? Does he know something we do not know? If so, then why all the flapdoodle about North Korea's nuclear-weapons program? As for Mr Richardson's "objective" view of South Korea's Sunshine Policy, it is his objective view. He will find others who do not share his assessment of Kim Dae-jung's initiative which Mr Roh is continuing, and still others who say that the jury is still out on the matter. What seems to rankle Mr Richardson is that the dynamics on the divided Korean Peninsula, with a rapprochement of sorts between Seoul and Pyongyang, has wider political, economic, social and, yes, strategic ramifications which render his analysis to a position of lesser consequence. As for Pyongyang's steadfast refusal to come back to the six-power talks in Beijing, the blame falls on the shoulders of President [George W] Bush for his equally hard-nosed diplomacy towards North Korea. Hardly five months ago, the Bush White House floated the idea of reconvening the 1954 Geneva Conference on the Korean War, which would and could deal with issues stemming from the Korean War and today's concerns of nuclear and missile technology, and on a six-power, four-power, and two-power level. Washington has never pursued the matter, and in fact has hardened its position towards Pyongyang, and to a very telling degree towards Seoul for pursuing its opening to the North ...
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 14, '06)


    I refer to Girish's letter of September 13 and found majority of his snide comments reflecting his senile verbosity as well as delinquent mendacity. The problem with the Hindu writers is that they suffer from a chronic itch and jump in the air at the slightest disturbance and do not have the guts to stomach digesting healthy criticism and start farting from mouth. However, I do agree with him that corruption in the subcontinent has almost become a hereditary disease, but in India it is 100% more rampant than in Pakistan. With regard to his insidious remarks about Islam, I have nothing to add but to say it reflected his totally ignorant and prejudiced state of mind ...
    Saqib Khan
    UK (Sep 14, '06)


    Mutual mistrust characterizes the relations between countries that cultivate ill feelings towards one another. Strained relationships based on fragile negotiations signify the ties between Israel and Palestine or India and Pakistan. Manipulative tactics and winning more media coverage for their respective policy patterns are accorded more importance in talks and further actions rather than sincere concerns to improve the ties between the nations and bond the peoples across the divide. Many years of intensive and extensive negotiations between the officials of the foreign ministries and ministers [that] often are disrupted for making counter-charges only gave rise to wars - and not real relations - between India [and] Pakistan, for example, and raise the question, will the people of Pakistan ever be friendly neighbors for a stronger Pakistan, regardless of confidence-building measures on both sides? The Kashmir issue has been misused to the maximum possible extent to sabotage the relations between New Delhi and Islamabad. One even wonders, if the Kashmir issue and all the other outstanding hitches are resolved, can the subcontinent really expect a semblance of peace and will the Arabian Sea become calm? The military establishment for the sake of maintaining war ammunition and acquiring more advanced weapon technology abroad tries to keep the tension escalating, and peace projects fail. Similar sabotages are commonplace in the relations between Israel and Palestine and Lebanon. Like India, Israel is keen to remain a weapon power in order to keep its neighbors under constant threat. The military intelligence indulge in domestic political matters, only harming the true ties between neighbors by sabotaging the peace initiatives with the help of the media that seem to promote anti-peace sentiments. Therefore, politicians, the bureaucracy, military intelligence and media ought to be held responsible for the faulty process of peace talks and further actions ... Mutual mistrust cannot resolve any of the serious issues between countries having seemingly unresolvable, long-pending problems.
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    School of International Studies
    Jawaharlal Nehru University
    New Delhi, India (Sep 14, '06)


    I am very impressed with Sudha Ramachandran's lack of bias in Different degrees of terror in India [Sep 13]. No doubt Muslims who explode bombs and kill innocent people are always "terrorists", while Hindus who do the same are only "extremists". I wonder what type of bombs the Hindus have which qualify them to be less terrorist than Muslims.
    Riz
    Wisconsin, USA (Sep 13, '06)


    [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi's latest article [Iran steps back from the brink, Sep 13] is by far his weakest. In fact, it is a remarkable tissue of illogic, misrepresentation and rank fallacy. Is the writer by any chance moonlighting for Shin Bet or the [US] State Department? First, the international community overwhelmingly supports Iran's right to its nuclear program. This has been clearly articulated at the summit of over 118 non-aligned nations that is taking place in Cuba. Second, suspension of its enrichment program, even temporarily, would imply that it is Iran's right to enrich, for any purpose whatsoever, that is in question. Third, it is extremely disingenuous to say that the Bush administration might show any moderation toward Iran. The Bush administration is a one-trick pony; all it knows is naked aggression and loudmouth Texas-style militarism. The world can breathe easy, however, and Iran in particular, for the "cakewalk" in Iraq has turned into a very major quagmire. Similarly, Hezbollah has retired the blowhard Israeli military machine to the large dung heap of history's supposedly invincible armies. This is precisely the time for Iran to press on with its enrichment program. For as the Americans and the Israelis know all too well, there are no security guarantees like a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Particularly when the yokelry here in the USA remains in the mood to keep sending characters like [President George W] Bush and [Vice President Richard] Cheney to the White House.
    Jose R Pardinas, PhD
    San Diego, California (Sep 13, '06)


    [Re Hope for Hong Kong's Mickey Mouse operation, Sep 13] I frankly do not get Hong Kong Disneyland's management philosophy. First they invest a mere US$320 million for a park that cost a total of $3.5 billion to build, with the majority of the cost paid by Hong Kong tax dollars. They then deliver to the people of Hong Kong the smallest Disney park by a long shot anywhere in the world, and then start telling us that "it's the experience, not the size, that matters". We then learn that negotiations are under way for a Shanghai park that will be 10 times larger than Hong Kong's - or let's just say a regular-sized Magic Kingdom. I venture to suggest that Hong Kong Disneyland was built as a "showroom" for the company's expansion in China and other parts of Asia, and as a training center for its US executives, many of whom are working overseas and in Asia for their first time. All this under the guise of "bringing the Disney magic to the people of Hong Kong". That would explain the arrogant and self-aggrandizing style of its executives and its intent to constantly hide behind a veil of secrecy when it comes to what the majority of the Hong Kong people believe to be information the public is entitled to relating to its performance. Disney's corporate image has in my view suffered severe damage amongst consumers like myself.
    Marvin Tan
    Hong Kong (Sep 13, '06)


    Let us find another excuse, or argument, or justification to help out Jakob Cambria in his [Sep 12 letter on] Japan pushes the boundaries of self-defense (Sep 12). Otherwise the banner of "double standard" should allow Japan to develop nuclear weapons and free other countries to do likewise.
    S P Li (Sep 13, '06)


    I refer to the article Stumbling on the Path to 9/11 [Sep 12] by Skip Kaltenheuser and wish to comment. Osama [bin Laden] is not an accident of time; he carries to its ultimate consequences the torch of [Wahhabism] in which he was educated and later used by the Americans so blatantly to disintegrate the Soviet Union and finally dumped as a rejected item when the use was no longer needed. Osama turned into a monster for the Americans when he realized too late that in Afghanistan he was used an instrument that facilitated a long conspiracy of the American imperial design and to recolonize the Middle East and the region for greed of oil and its natural resources, its pipelines lying under the soil of Arabian deserts and Central Asian Islamic nations. Bin Laden will benefit and exploit it to his advantage, a climate and an environment that exist now in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, to breed and give birth to a new group of followers who believe that they can change the course of history in their favor by taking violent action against their oppressors the USA, Israel and [their] cronies that [have] cost millions of innocent Muslims their lives, grief and horrendous and barbaric destruction of their countries. I believe that [US President George W] Bush and [bin] Laden are like cheese and cake; both need each other for their respective agendas of avenging violence with greater violence without any end [and] with no winner at the end. President Bush will never be able to kill every single al-Qaeda fighter because when one of them is killed, five more terrorists are born. President G W Bush, commander-in-chief of the most powerful army of the world, will have to kill half of the world to eliminate al-Qaeda, and that speaks for his incompetence and botched-up adventure in Iraq. He has spent over 500 billion American taxpayers' dollars in bin Laden's pursuit; invaded Afghanistan and Iraq; and still has not a clue of his whereabouts. The crucial point is this: bin Laden and his followers do not hate America because it supports Israel. They hate Israel because they see it as the evil branch of America in the Middle East and fanatically believe that President G W Bush is the most notorious terrorist walking free on this Earth, hell-bent to destroy Islamic civilization and any Islamic state that challenges its political and economic interests. Israel remains a USA proxy and an extension of aggression in the Middle East with the freedom to invade, destroy, kill and chose whatever it wished. The Arab-Israel conflict is in matter of fact an Arab and not only a Palestinian or Hezbollah conflict with the West and in particular with American colonialism. It is this "colonialism", not the occupied lands of Iraq and Palestine, which truly is giving birth to more and more extremists of al-Qaeda and other hitherto unheard groups.
    Saqib Khan
    UK (Sep 13, '06)


    In response to Saqib Khan's letter dated September 12 regarding the worldwide survey conducted by United Nations and his opinion on Indians. I would like to add that … his opinion on India [is] valid for Pakistan as well. The Pakistani people [did] not know what "democracy or freedom" meant, nor the Islamists in the country know what "other religions" meant, nor did their ruling head know what "talks or negotiations" meant, and last but not least, nor did their suicide bombers know what "life" meant.
    Girish
    Austin, Texas (Sep 13, '06)


    Stumbling on the Path to 9/11 (Sep 12) [is] on the five-year anniversary of a tragic event, an event which we should be commemorating with world unity and a renewed purpose, [but which] instead has been and continues to be mercilessly exploited by the Bush administration. Even a major television network is a tool of propaganda for the neo-conservative interests who now control the American media. Today, [US President George W] Bush's presence at the site of the [September 11, 2001] tragedy is yet another opportunity for Bush to use the anniversary to advance his agenda - an agenda that has brought fear [and] economic hardship for the poor, global disunity, and a hopeless war. Gresham's Law says that the bad drives out the good: the idea that legal-tender laws give all currency the same value, so that currency with lesser value will drive the good out of circulation. In the same manner, Bush is president (legal tender) and his debased message has driven out the good message - that of peace, well-being and unity. With twisted logic, this administration justifies its wars in America's name (war in Iraq, proxy war in Lebanon) by claiming democratic endeavors or war on terror. Ironically, democracy can save [the United States of] America if voters can ignore all propaganda messages, including the September 11 miniseries and all September 11 exploitations, and select the good to drive out the bad.
    Jim of Southern California
    USA (Sep 12, '06)


    Skip Kaltenheuser wrote in his article Stumbling on the Path to 9/11 (Sep 12), "[US President George W] Bush still cobbles connections between the motive to invade Iraq and terrorism." Tyranny is [the] common enemy of all human races who love democracy and freedom, who respect human rights. Under Saddam [Hussein]'s regime, how many people [were] killed on a daily basis? We are citizens of the world. Therefore, we can't ignore our brothers and sisters who are still suffering from dictatorship all over the world while we are enjoying good life - a life with dignity. When we talk about terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction], in fact, every dictatorship regime has already been both to their people and the peace of the world, to say the least. History is a mirror. Kuwait was overrun by Saddam within a few hours in early '90s. Without America's intervention, it should have disappeared [from] the map; without American troops staying there since, would Kuwaiti people feel safe anyway? Should Saddam Hussein be trusted? Before World War II, British prime minister [Neville] Chamberlain had been trying very hard to establish peaceful talk with [German leader Adolf] Hitler; he was even so excited to tell British people that war had been "avoided" while he waved his "agreement". What was the result then? [As] Winston Churchill said, "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly." It is [the US that helped resolve] the civil war and stop genocide in former Yugoslavia without a United Nations resolution either. Besides, how many member countries in the UN are still under dictatorship? How much respect should the UN deserve while a lot of its members are abusing human rights? Skip mentioned [that] "terrorism is the only issue on which Bush gets a positive rating". However, without a reasonable position of security, "peace" is an empty word. And if peace fails, there will no be safety at all. After Saddam Hussein was removed by war, Iraqi people [could] come out to vote - a real one - look at those long lineups (they did not give any party or person a "100% endorsement" like before). Iraqi people can even openly ask America to leave. Though there are still struggles, Iraqi people are no longer slaves. As citizens living in a free world, is there reason for us to be against any actions for removing totalitarianism?
    Hong-Lok Li (Sep 12, '06)

    Here's one reason, if the worsening debacle in Iraq doesn't give you pause: the sheer size of the task. You are proposing that the US start even more wars in, at the very least, Angola, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Libya, Maldives, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all of the Persian Gulf emirates, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. And that list of dictatorships does not even include some on the current US hate list, eg Iran and Venezuela (and possibly Russia and France - remember "freedom fries"?), which have democratically elected regimes. Invoking Chamberlain to discredit international diplomacy is an old trick, but we've seen the neo-conservative "regime change" alternative and some of us hope there's a better way than the bloodbath you suggest. - ATol


    Re Japan pushes the boundaries of self-defense [Sep 12]: Japan fudged on the postwar peace constitution. The American military occupation government wrote the constitution which Japan accepted. [The United States of] America wanted never again to relive December 7, 1941, the day [president Franklin] Roosevelt proclaimed would live forever. It wanted a docile Japan stripped of its imperial pretensions and dreams of searching Lebensraum in Asia. Nonetheless, Japan found a way to wiggle out of that rigid constitution by the creation of the SDF [Self-Defense Forces], which is an embryonic officer corps without common soldiers. Sixty-one years after [World War II], Japan finds a need to raise a standing army, and as Hisane Masaki points out, with North Korean missiles flying over Japan and the rise of a heavy-handed China [that] will stop at nothing to bully an economic rival, and Japan without means to defend itself, the new right-wing premier, whom all expect to be Shinzo Abe, will push for constitutional revision, thereby allowing Japan to once again raise an army for its own territorial defense. It is true, on Japanese soil are stationed United States troops, but Japan has a right to defend itself against foreign aggression. It seems odd that Japan's neighbors - South and North Korea and China - [each of which] has strong standing armed forces, want now to condemn any move to revise the peace constitution, which has outlived it purposes. We need not forget that a peace constitution has tamed a once-aggressive Japan. Now, however, times have changed, and Japan deserves the right of every country to raise a national army. For those who say no, let them know that they are falling back on campy sentimentalism, and are applying a double standard; they have strong armies but they want to deny Japan the same right as they have.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 12, '06)


    As a Catholic since birth I do agree with Spengler [when] he alludes to the fact that Americans are Christian by birth but not by practice [Fundaresentalism, Sep 12]. Since the inception of this nation [the United States of] America has had slavery. To make matters even worse they [Americans] converted the Africans to Christianity. Now we have a conundrum that is not seen in Christianity, Christians enslaving other Christians. Obviously the Americans ignored the teachings of Christ and race became the norm. Though the slaves were Christian, they were Africans in origin and race played a greater role than the teachings of Christ. I [am] a Christian whose mother is Tamil and father is Sinhalese, and the only reason such disparate societies could come together is because both my parents were Christian. I learned quickly that race in the US plays a greater role than the words of Christ. I do disagree with Spengler regarding the role of American evangelists. First, they have a vast following and if they preach anti-Muslim rhetoric to the ultimate civilian of the Christian nation, what difference is it to the madrassas? From what little history I know, the wish of the Islamic terrorists [is] to convert all of humankind to Islam or face retaliation. I wonder how they would tackle communist China or radical Hinduism?
    Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
    New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 12, '06)


    Thanks, Pepe Escobar, for reminding those who need it of The other September 11 (1973, of course, not 1970 as a hapless editor - not Pepe Escobar - would have it). From my vantage point here in the formerly frozen, now melting north, it would seem that a new US administration, run by people no less given to profanity and violence than those who ran that of Richard Milhouse Nixon, is preparing to use the "Allende scenario" on another elected Latin American president, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. But it may just be the case that the methods of 1973 won't cut the mustard in 2006.
    M Henri Day, PhD, MD
    Stockholm, Sweden (Sep 12, '06)

    The confused dates occurred in the summary on Front Page and Pepe's Page. The year 1970 was when Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile; the US-backed coup by General Augusto Pinochet occurred on September 11, 1973. The error in the summary has been corrected. - ATol


    [Re The perils of plastic playmates, Sep 12] [Fazile] Zahir writes well and gives us the whole story without the snickering or calculated outrage that an American columnist, male or female, would bring to the facts, but she's too kind to foreigners in implying that Turkish men's feelings about plastic and about women are somehow unique.
    Harald Hardrada
    Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Sep 12, '06)


    Thank you for publishing China taps into foreign water solutions by Antoaneta Bezlova. I was not aware that China had a water-shortage problem, used as we are in the West to periodically seeing big news items about flooding in China, big dam projects, etc. There is an (as it happens Canadian) invention which is low-tech and very cheap to manufacture locally that can remove both bacteria and chemical contaminants, such as arsenic, from water. It is called the biosand filter, and it's really making a difference for people's drinking water all over the world. Just Google "biosand filter" and you should find many links.
    Francis
    Quebec, Canada (Sep 12, '06)


    In reply to Jakob Cambria, who wrote a response (letter, Sep 11) to my Speaking Freely article, South Korea must choose sides (Sep 9): First, what I wrote about the sorry handling of diplomatic-security affairs by the administration of President Roh Moo-hyun is not my opinion alone, but is shared by a good number of South Koreans, including virtually 100% of the nation's former senior military leadership. This is clear to anyone with even a passing familiarity of the editorial pages of the leading South Korean newspapers (Chosun Ilbo, Joongang Ilbo, and Dong-a Ilbo). Second, rather than merely implying I am a meddling foreigner, it would be better to suggest flaws in the logic of the arguments provided, something absent from your response to the article. Third, while the Roh administration is not asking for a withdrawal of US Forces Korea (USFK), it is creating the atmosphere in which they will leave, including constant delays with the move from Yongsan to Pyeongtaek, removal of a critical practice bombing range, but most of all the administration's support of North Korea. Fourth, US president Jimmy Carter's plan for a complete withdrawal in the 1970s triggered Park Chung-hee to embark on a nuclear-weapons program. The consequence of a nuclear South Korea (or Japan) would in all likelihood be the arms race and loss of stability I outlined, of which no good could come. Fifth, in real terms there has not been much of a "thaw" between Seoul and Pyongyang; rather, North Korea is allowing South Korea to give it unmonitored aid. The Sunshine Policy is by any realistic account an abject failure; July's missile tests are only one example. Sixth, the questions I ask - and in part answer - have largely been left out of the debate in the US, and completely ignored by the Roh administration. Again, I see only ad hominem remarks and no arguments to counter the ones I posed. The fact remains that a withdrawal of USFK can do nothing to enhance American interests in regional stability and security. Seventh, the US offer for North Korea to return to the six-party talks has been on the table for a full year now; North Korea has chosen not to return. Assistant secretary of state Christopher Hill has been to the region on multiple occasions to give North Korea the opportunity to meet. Finally, the mechanics of a potential (and likely, if USFK leaves) East Asian arms race is not a mystery or based on intelligence related to North Korea. It is in fact largely independent of any military plan North Korea may or may not have. Rather it depends on eventual reunification and draws on a historical understanding of the mutual perceptions and insecurities of the main actors, as well as their abilities and motivations. As perceptions count as much as or more than reality, by any informed account a USFK departure or significant drawdown would adversely affect East Asian security.
    Corey Richardson
    USA (Sep 12, '06)


    Some time ago a worldwide survey was conducted by the United Nations and the only question asked was: Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in rest of the world? The survey was a big failure because in Africa they didn't know what "food" meant. In Eastern Europe they didn't now what "honest" meant. In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant. In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant. In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant. In South America they didn't know what "please" meant. And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant. I could add my personal opinion that in India a poor man would not know what dignity meant and the rich would not know what corruption meant.
    Saqib Kahn
    UK (Sep 12, '06)


    The USA is hell-bent on either invading Iran for its energy resources or slap sanctions on it, but the attacks and sanctions will cripple the Iranian economy and life further [and] inflict immeasurable hardships on the people who fought for 10 long years a bloody war with Iraq with US weapons. Under the current tense global circumstances, any serious establishment of world peace depends on creating regional stability, but regional stability cannot be achieved until [the] awful arms race is put to an end. [The] arms race cannot be done away with unless total and complete disarmament is ensured by the world nuclear powers with the help of all nations. Arms-control mechanisms envisaged by world bodies like the UN have not yielded any fruits, because no power is keen to destroy its weapons arsenals, let alone the nuclear assets.When arms controls have miserably failed to work, the question of ensuring disarmament for the sake of world peace is ruled out, because a few powers want to maintain their monopoly over nuclear arsenals while forcing other nations to dismantle them or not to go for them. It is therefore only realistic to live with the nuclear reality and let all nations capable of obtaining nuclear facility to do so, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must stipulate that no country should exceed the level of the existing weapons arsenals of the USA or Israel so that these countries are not unnecessarily concerned about threat perceptions. The terrorist attacks in the USA in 2001 ... used for invading Afghanistan ... now should not be used either by the USA or UNSC [United Nations Security Council] as a tool to stop Iran or North Korea advancing their legitimate nuclear ambitions, because these countries are under constant threats from countries like the USA. Moreover, the USA has all the modern equipment to track and repel any attack from outside and need not worry too much about its safely. Elections come and go, but the world requires some peace at least now.
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    School of International Studies
    Jawaharlal Nehru University
    New Delhi, India (Sep 12, '06)


    How hi-tech Hezbollah called the shots [Sep 9] [is] an interesting article that leads to interesting observations. In the Western and especially US media there is a sense of affront and outrage that (a) the Hezbollah fought far better than expected despite extraordinary odds against them [and] (b) they must have had foreign backing (Iran, Syria) to explain it. No mention that Israel has foreign backing (US) without which it cannot exist, as its economy is non-viable without the river of money regularly pouring into it from the US Treasury. It is considered perfectly normal, same as having the US rush planeloads of bombs etc to Israel, with which to bomb children in Beirut. In the grand old days of the British Empire, one jingoistic rhyme ended "we have the Maxim (machine-gun) and they don't". Meaning "we" had high-tech weapons with which to build the Empire. "They", the "niggers", Arabs, Chinese, Indians etc, had to do with spears, and bloody well should stay there, what? Same with the American [native] Indians getting guns - no worse crime in the old west. The sense of affront and outrage from the would-be successors of the British Empire (US and Israel) is that today's "niggers" (including Arabs) have guns, the very best guns, and know how to use them. They're shooting back, and it's not fair! They couldn't have possibly figured it out by themselves either ("niggers" are not allowed brains), so some meddling foreigners put them up to it - Iran and Syria are not foreign enough, so it must have been the Russians or Chinese. That "niggers" do have brains, or that "we" might be the foreigners, shooting and bombing other people in their own country (Iraq, Lebanon etc) did not enter our dreams. Which have become nightmares.
    Kali Kadzaraki (Sep 11, '06)


    Re How hi-tech Hezbollah called the shots [Sep 9]: After reading Iason Athanasiadis' well-informed and instructive article, I couldn't help wondering if we shall soon be reading about US, British, and Israeli soldiers - to name the most likely candidates - having their personal mobile telephones taken away by their commanders.
    M Henri Day, PhD, MD
    Stockholm, Sweden (Sep 11, '06)


    Re Karmic relief [Sep 9] by Chan Akya: A definite Edge(y) journey into what can be rightly called the "mother of all Pandora's boxes". Mr Akya admits to superstition and economics being in essence non-scientific practices. Many examples abound of "individuals indulging in promoting superstitious" as a money-making activity. A Kabbalah Center in Beverly Hills, California, attests to the "money-making powers" of a mysterious institution that makes its followers wear bracelets of red string on their wrist to ward off "the evil eye". Membership at one time was limited to Jewish men over 40. Its origin is an ancient Aramaic text and alludes to some 72 names of God. Madonna is reported to have used the 72 names of God in her shows. And Elizabeth Taylor has endorsed teachings she received as an adherent of the Kabbalahs, "as a light that [led] me from the darkness". Obviously Western participation in superstitious endeavors is a very formalized economic activity and puts to shame the li and feng shui as well as the standing up on just one leg by an Indian housewife for the duration of a cricket match. It has been reported that several elders in the Kabbalah (called Ravs) have put curses on certain prominent individuals in Israel and in the US. Given the global popularity of diverse superstitious beliefs, I believe that Mr Akya has begun a journey with no end in sight but with many a follower.
    Armand De Laurell (Sep 11, '06)


    The article Turkey's high-stakes march into Lebanon [Sep 9] is inaccurate in its depiction of Turkish policy in Lebanon apart from containing factual inaccuracies. First, the Turks have also appointed a local coordinator on PKK [Kurdish Workers' Party] terrorism. Second, the Turkish parliament by a decisive majority passed the resolution for deployment of troops in Lebanon. [Turkish Prime Minister Racep Tayyip] Erdogan is not an independent actor masquerading as a modern-day sultan as the author has stated but has simply sought to correct the earlier error of non-involvement in northern Iraq on a more activist scale. Therefore this article betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Turkish political system. The dispatch of troops to Lebanon represents a reassertion of Turkey's pro-Western credentials rather than a negation of it.
    Siddhartha (Sep 11, '06)


    Thanks for [Michael] Vlahos' excellent article The Long War: A self-defeating prophecy [Sep 9]. I only wish he (or someone) would analyze the role of Protestant millennialism ("Dispensationalism") in making the American people willing to fight in the Middle East.
    Lester Ness
    Kunming, China (Sep 11, '06)


    It's well known the restrictions Beijing inflicts on Chinese people about free expression. For example, the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is an example of how people [who] dare to think a bit different from the Communist Party are punished in China. But it's incomprehensible how [Henry C K] Liu, a New York-based company chairman, a free man who has opportunity to improve China's relationship with other nations, does not free himself from a Beijing-guided mindset. In Proliferation, imperialism - and the 'China threat' [Sep 9], the chairman may write more softly, show some figures, but [at] the bottom, Mr Liu just echoes Beijing's odd mantras that feed the anti-Japanese paranoia. Japan has been very committed to a peaceful development of the world and for many years helped its neighbors China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Korea, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, almost all African countries and many other nations around the world. Today, if Japan is forced to develop an anti-ballistic-missile system, [it] is due to a real threat fired from North Korea. China could be useful to the stability of the region [by] helping [its] Korean communist brother to find a way of peace and prosperity, not of angry and poverty. Mr Liu even tries to compare [China's] to Japan's military expenditures. It's mysterious why China wastes so much money on arms ([US]$63 per person, or $81.5 billion), yet the people have many problems to solve like poverty, pollution, health, education and unemployment. It's useful to remember that Japan helps China to solve many of these real problems too. Beijing could show to its neighbor that China is a trusty nation committed to peace dealing the Taiwan sovereignty [issue] through diplomacy, instead of [threatening] the small island and spending more and more [on its] military, which increases tension in Asia. Also, keeping united more than 1 billion people from several regions, each one with its own culture, under something named "People's Republic of China" is really a big challenge for Beijing ... Beijing should stop trying to define Chinese through anti-Japanese feelings. Given that Tokyo has kept an opened conversation channel to China, the only known reason to stall Sino-Japanese conversations is the lack of willingness from Chinese diplomacy. It's time for Chinese leaders to change not only their strategy but their mindset, to act more open and wisely. It would [be better for China to have] Japan as friend than trying to keep as an opponent. No one in Asia will get anything with this current mindset. Until now, Beijing has lost many opportunities offered by Prime Minister [Junichiro] Koizumi, but we hope Chinese leaders don't waste them again with next prime minister.
    M Murata (Sep 11, '06)


    Speaking freely, Corey Richardson does speak his mind about South Korea [South Korea must choose sides, Sep 9]. In fact he freely speaks as though he were a South Korean who knows what is best for his country. It is not uncommon for foreigners to think that they see more clearly than the rulers of a country. Such a road of good intentions is lined with any number of wrecks in foreign-policy decisions. South Koreans are no dupes. They are not asking for removal of the 38,000 or so American troops ... from the Republic of Korea. More to the point, the initiatives for withdrawal have come from Washington. Let us not forget that it was president Richard Nixon who first withdrew troops to bolster America's military strength in Vietnam. And this brought about what is known as "Koreagate", by which president Park Chung-hee, through bribery, tried to subvert the United States constitution. During president Jimmy Carter's early watch, he proposed American troop reduction. This caused much gnashing of teeth and hair-pulling in the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom [US State Department], and general malaise in Congress, that it had become stillborn before it had a chance to see the light of day. Today, with President [George W] Bush's failing war in Iraq and America's troop strength stretched to the point of breaking, rumors of troop reduction abound once more, to shore up America's presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Quite frankly, even with strained relations at times between the Blue House and the White House, Seoul does not want American military withdrawal to a level which would threaten its own security, a strong South Korean army notwithstanding. This [is so] even though there is an ongoing thaw between it and Pyongyang which we know of as the "Sunshine Policy", as long as North Korea maintains a mighty force of millions at the 38th Parallel. Corey Richardson [paints] a dire picture of "what if". It is not anything but reductive, and hardly brings anything new to the table. The likelihood of a North Korean invasion remains a matter of speculation. Mr Bush & Co have done everything they can not to deal squarely with the political issues which would [forestall] such an outbreak of war. On the contrary, they are doing everything to provoke Pyongyang, and Pyongyang has fallen back on a defensive posture, to protect the territory it has, and not grow adventuresome on the ground. The recent testing of medium-to-long-range missiles is more a signal that it is willing to talk with Washington, but Washington has turned a blind eye to any opening [except] on its own terms. Again, Washington chooses to misread North Korea. If Corey Richardson does know his Far East, the two Koreas fear more a rising, and perhaps rearmed, Japan, and so either would be loath to see America's military presence reduced in any substantial way. Finally, though Mr Richardson is a fellow at the Pentagon and a North Korea watcher, he has not managed to pierce the armor of information about what is really going on in that country. And as a former United States ambassador to Seoul has said to the press and at public gatherings, "North Korea has been an intelligence failure," and one may add [that] military intelligence has equally been deficient.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 11, '06)


    [Syed Saleem Shahzad]'s article [Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America, Sep 8] is mostly Pakistan-bashing but it has a few relevant points. Having recently visited a few European and Asian countries it is not difficult to notice that China is a de facto superpower and [the United States of] America is not relevant except for the fact that it is a vast market that needs a lot of expensive goods and is run by a bunch of lunatics who are not only robbing their country and but are causing irreparable harm to it all over the world by this lunacy. Chinese are smart and perhaps the Pakistani army brass has started to better understand that the US is a power in name only and will be irrelevant in not too distant future. The army brass has perhaps realized that they simply can't leave their country at the mercy of the very same people who got beaten by a bunch of farmers in Lebanon and by a few US-educated engineers in Iraq and who love nothing better then a dismemberment of one Muslim country one after another. The list has always included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and now it has been made public. Even though Pak army generals love to send their kids to Washington [to] shop there, now they know they can buy the same or better Chinese junk in Peshawar and Karachi much cheaper, and going to America is not as cool as it used to be. It is no coincidence that despite the Pakistani public's serious misgivings about [President General Pervez] Musharraf and the army's over-reliance on the US as a great protector that will solve all their problems, the army brass's continued reliance on this policy has been a disaster for Pakistan. The Pak army really thought that the US would be an honest broker in the region and help them solve the Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan and usher in a new friendly regime in Afghanistan. Despite their serious efforts to genuinely help the US and attempt at serious dialogue with India, their efforts were treated with contempt and insults. Musharraf was treated no [differently from] Yasser Arafat. India and the US tried to put Pakistan in shackles in every way possible. Pakistan had to lose a lot of soldiers while the US continued to assist the Balochis through India/Afghanistan to create an independent Balochistan. Afghanistan's [President Hamid] Karzai, another ungrateful person for whom Pakistan did everything to get him elected with the Pashtun votes, started thumbing his nose at Pakistan. Without Pakistan's help he couldn't survive two months. While Pakistan was losing soldiers in Waziristan, the US was rewarding India with nuclear deals and investing billions in its economy, and American investment in Pakistan is zero despite [Pakistan's] having an American banker as a prime minister. Perhaps even the erratic Pak army has realized that protecting one's own borders is not something that can be left to outsiders, especially the current lot in the Washington. I hope what Saleem says is true and I hope it is not the governor and chief minister of NWFP [Northwest Frontier Province] who have to be credited with this pragmatic approach because Musharraf is usually more combative. So don't blame Pakistan if it is doing what it must to survive. It is hoping to cast its lot with a real power that is also investing in its economy.
    R Ahmed
    Chicago, Illinois (Sep 11, '06)


    Re Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America [Sep 8]: The Nepalese have shown the world the fallacy of the pig-headed policy of refusing to negotiate with a significant adversary simply because they have been labeled as terrorists. It is akin to not wanting to admit that the adversary exists. No peaceful solution is possible in this arrangement, and therefore the protagonist seeks only to obliterate the antagonist at great human, economic and environmental cost. A negotiated peace between the Nepalese government and the Maoists has opened the door to alternatives. We are now likely to see more people beginning to negotiate and seek a diplomatic peace with adversaries that they had previously spurned. General Sonthi [Boonyaratglin] has broken the ice in Thailand with his shocking declaration that he would negotiate with Bersatu, an umbrella organization thought to be a major sponsor of terrorism in southern Thailand. I see Pakistan's readiness to negotiate with the Taliban and with groups labeled as terrorists in this light and not in the extreme way your correspondent in Pakistan has interpreted these events. Negotiation is not necessarily an endorsement of the counter-party's policies, only an acknowledgement of the reality of their existence.
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 11, '06)


    Spengler's thesis in Ayatollah al-Sistani and the end of Islam (Sep 8), that the Iranian revolution and the sectarian violence in Iraq are symptomatic outbursts of the existential angst within Islam in its confrontation with modernism, fails to hold at some very critical points. For a start, Christianity in the US is just as much a part of what could be called a traditional pre-modern society as is Islam in the Muslim world. America's founding fathers saw themselves as the founders of the new Israel, for just as Moses had led God's people in the days of the Exodus, they too were crossing the Red Sea and entering the Promised Land. They were responsible for founding "one nation under God", and this god is none other than the god and father of Jesus Christ. With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and its miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War, American evangelicals turned their attention to the divine blessings promised to those who bless Israel. This includes the blessed and hoped-for second coming of Jesus Christ to the Holy Land, when all believers are expected to be raptured up into heaven. Never should we underestimate the power of these beliefs in the collective psyche of the American people. They provide the most powerful nation on Earth with a sacred story that stretches from its original birth through the waters of the Atlantic to its eternal destiny in the indestructible Kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus in the Gospels. Moreover, Europe was well and truly left behind in this American story of pilgrimage to the promised land of freedom. For just as in Egypt of old, Europe was a place of slavery from which God's people were divinely emancipated. And never should we underestimate the power of Islam as revealed to the world through the Prophet Mohammed. This is why civil war in Iraq does not "spell the end of traditional society in Mesopotamia", or, more significantly, the end of Islam, but the painful evolution of a religion that stands diametrically opposed to the faith claims of Christendom. It would therefore not be too far-fetched to compare Spengler with the now-chastened Professor Francis Fukuyama, who had prematurely declared after [September 11, 2001] "the end of history".
    Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
    Canberra, Australia (Sep 11, '06)


    It is not easy for "foreigners" to fully understand the sentimental knot tying a good fraction of Chinese to the memory of Chairman Mao [Zedong]. It is also not fair to suggest placing his name alongside [that of Adolf] Hitler, as observed in Martin Adams' Chairman Mao's long shadow (Sep 8). Mao's failed policies led to deaths and poverty but he did not deliberately kill like Hitler. As tragic as it was, such results were "collateral" damage, to borrow the term. He was and is still revered simply for his revolutionary fervor in risking life and enduring hardship. He was the first effective figure to lift the heads of Chinese in defiance of foreign bullies. His lack of formal education makes his beautiful poetry and essays the more commendable. He made mistakes later on in life that led to internal turmoil, but his diplomatic skills proved him to be an astute statesman recognized worldwide. Writer Martin Adams seemed to condone the incident at New Zealand's Massey University as pure "harmless student fun". Harmless to whom? Those few students are just a bunch of spoiled kids who get fun out of ridiculing people outside their own country. There are dozens of fun-creating stories that can be used regarding some world figures, which I would feel ashamed to mention. The fact that Mao is still revered is plain. There is no need for any Harvard professor to explain.
    S P Li (Sep 11, '06)


    It is a welcome move that US President George Bush at long last "gracefully" acknowledged that the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] has many secret prison camps in European states (like Poland, Romania, Portugal and Spain) for torturing the so-called "suspected terrorists", but it has opened a [Pandora's box] of related issues. One wonders where else such prison camps are operating and how many murders take place every day on an average, why only in select countries in Europe, how come the host countries are not aware of the existence of such prison camps on their own lands when the US warplanes pass through their airports and airspace, or if they knew why they have not yet protested against such camps and human torture on the [anti-]terrorism pretext by evading international law and ICJ [International Court of Justice] in The Hague. In fact the US forces have taken all laws into their own hands, because now there is none on Earth who could question the Pentagon's moves, except themselves - as has happened now by the admission by George Bush of the existence of camps. One is reminded of the similar labor camps and "midnight knocks" in the erstwhile Soviet Union that were strongly condemned by the West for human-rights violations ... Now that the US cat is out - after denying the same for a long time - with vital information about secret prison cells known to the world long ago, the world has every right to know the full details of activities of the CIA and other such secret prison camps without any further delay. The real suspicion is that the Pentagon is attempting to cover up the September 11 [2001] facts by creating fake stories and shield the real culprits and at the same time torturing the innocent ones caught by the US "[intelligence] forces" ...
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    Jawaharlal Nehru University
    New Delhi, India (Sep 11, '06)


    Syed Saleem Shahzad: Thanks for this very interesting article [Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America, Sep 8]. In fact, there's no real border between the tribal zone in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In your opinion, what are the operational implications for NATO forces in their campaign against the Taliban? Will they fight [one] day in northern Pakistan?
    Stephane Buffard
    Master's Candidate in Politics
    Universite du Quebec
    Montreal, Quebec (Sep 8, '06)

    Very soon the battlefield is likely to stretch up to the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


    Syed Saleem Shahzad: I have read your pieces on al-Qaeda and the Taliban with interest - and your piece on Pakistan essentially giving carte blanche to them all is troubling [Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America, Sep 8]. I wondered if beyond the perceived compromised position of the US and the West, with Iran's repudiation of the UN resolution, etc - which would be enough - if Pakistan is also feeling chagrined over the US's nuclear deal with India. Besides the obvious inability or lack of desire of the military to bear down, one has to wonder if there are larger forces at work here - and India [will] be a big one if it gets into the West's orb. Would love to see a piece from you with your great insights on this.
    C A Morrison
    Williamsburg, Virginia (Sep 8, '06)


    Thank you for the article Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America [Sep 8]. This tells me that the US and its NATO allies have been designated as the losers in Afghanistan. You would never glean this information from the US media. Now is a very dangerous time, when the US is losing in both of its wars, an election is looming, and the country is being guided by a bunch of lying lunatics with tactical nuclear weapons. All of you Republican supporters in the US may think that you are patriotic and nationalistic, but I think that you are gullible and more of a menace than the terrorists you use to rationalize your aggressions. You have enabled the US government to kill and destroy more in five years than all of the terrorists throughout history. With the government as your proxy you are the most dangerous people on the planet.
    Ken Moreau
    New Orleans, Louisiana (Sep 8, '06)


    Syed Saleem Shahzad: [Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America, Sep 8] was a very interesting and informative article. To expand upon it, you may want to consider Pakistan's push to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which has become more of a counterbalance to NATO than any other organization.
    Omar (Sep 8, '06)

    A new turn in Pak-China friendship is another topic to discuss. That relationship will bloom in the coming two months. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


    Syed Saleem Shahzad: Congratulations for a great contribution in Asia Times [Online] [Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America, Sep 8]. Always enjoyed your writings.
    Ishaq Bhatti, PhD, MSc
    La Trobe University, Australia (Sep 8, '06)


    Syed Saleem Shahzad: I just read two of your articles regarding Pakistan and al-Qaeda [Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America, Sep 8; The knife at Pakistan's throat, Sep 2] and wish to thank you for putting a few pieces together for me that have troubled me for some time. I would tend to agree that some of the Middle East borders do need to be redrawn on less arbitrary lines and could be of benefit to the US and the whole of Asia. Do you feel that this could ever be accomplished, though, without even more bloodshed? And if the US were to support such an idea, would it add even more to the hatred that many extremists feel toward us [Americans]? For example, in my view a unified Iraq may not be possible and [is] not even a natural outcome of the removal of Saddam Hussein. But if the country were broken up into more logical borders, would that bring peace to the area or just create two or more warring states, opening up the region to even more exploitation by other states and extremism? I do believe the only path to real peace regardless of borders is secular governments granting religious freedom to all [their] citizens. Is this model achievable? ... I'd like to believe that there is a way to live peacefully but it seems as although the US makes mistakes, the extremists in the Muslim world must attack us, much like the old Soviet Union had to expand, in order to remain a viable political/religious force ...
    Matt Schuler (Sep 8, '06)

    The Balfour Declaration was the mother of all problems in the Middle East, and still any foreign power's roadmap would only be a problem rather than a solution. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


    It is funny to read Martin Adams' "impartial" analysis of Chairman Mao's long shadow [Sep 8]. Many Americans, it seems to me, cannot understand why other people may have different ideals, illusions, misconceptions and prejudices from their own. Labeling Mao [Zedong] a mass murderer, and only that, is justified to the same degree as calling President [George W] Bush one. It is also very unhistorical, as if someone called president [Abraham] Lincoln a mass murderer of his own people in the [American] Civil War. Mao has not come out of nothing. And as far as I know, the Western powers had also some contributions to the sufferings of the Chinese people for about 200 years or so. The Chinese people are ready to sell everything for money? It was an American, according to Adams, who auctioned the picture of Mao. They have no sense of humor? An average American would file a million-dollar lawsuit about a paparazzi photo that made him/her look ridiculous. They consider Mao a saint? There are hundreds of American movies about failed assassination attempts against the [US] president, who fights back bare-handed against the bad guys like a real hero. But it took only one film in which he is supposedly murdered to call the artist's conception all kinds of bad names. Why is it so difficult to understand that someone may be unhappy, even angry, if disrespect is shown towards his ideals, his religion or his political beliefs? Oh, I love both the Americans and the Chinese! Such a fine brand of self-contemptuous, funny people! But I'm a little bit disappointed with Asia Times [Online] for publishing transparent political propaganda and wishful thinking instead if insightful analysis. "As long as the political system he [Mao] created survives"? Martin Adams may be Beijing-based, but he seems to be out of touch with Chinese reality.
    Wonderer
    Hungary (Sep 8, '06)


    Re Chairman Mao's long shadow [Sep 8]: Chairman Mao [Zedong] has never gone out of fashion. Andy Warhol made him a pop-art icon. The American psychiatrist Robert J Lifton parsed his motives for launching the Great Revolutionary Cultural Revolution as Mao's last hurrah for immortality in the revolutionary mausoleum alongside [Karl] Marx, Lenin and [Josef] Stalin. The sinologist Jonathan Spence wrote a brief biography on the Great Helmsman, as the "old man who removed mountains". Saying this skirts how Chinese see Mao Zedong. Martin Adams is narrowly spot on when he says that Mao's long shadow falls mightily on the temper of the times; on the blatant corruption and the yawning and ever growing social disparity among the Chinese masses; and on what Mao's embalmed remains in Beijing might whisper from the grave that the capitalist road that Deng Xiaoping set China on has revived and breathed new life into capitalism in the land of the Han. Nonetheless, the figure of Mao stands high among the swell of Chinese nationalism, as seen in the anti-Japanese campaigns the Communist Party of China purposely set in motion in 2005. Mao above all [encapsulated] the strength of a China determined to wage war against expansionist Imperial Japan, expel the foreigners who fed with grand appetite on the bloated corpse of the [Qing] Dynasty and profited from the years of warlord rule in a divided China. It is this Mao who from Tiananmen Square in 1949 loudly and proudly proclaimed that "China had stood up". It is this figure that today's China remembers and cherishes, and less of his grandiose failures in the Great Leap Forward or the disastrous Cultural Revolution. He is after all the father of a modern, united China, and the only man of stature the young Chinese population of today remember. Finally, the Chinese have a [way] of assessing Mao's legacy: 70% good, 30% bad.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 8, '06)


    While I am no fan of "Big Oil", I disagree with [Bruce A] Gorcyca's analysis that the high price of gasoline is a result of the lack of refineries [How oil consumers are duped, Sep 7]. US gasoline supplies are at normal five-year levels: we do not suffer from any shortage of gasoline. Only a magician could make 13-cents-per-liter gasoline from [US]$70-per-barrel oil. In Venezuela, Nigeria and Kuwait, which are oil exporters, gasoline is subsidized; in [the] wealthy exporting countries Canada, Great Britain [and] Norway, it is not, and it is in fact taxed more than in the US, and is more expensive. Gasoline and crude oil trade separately in free markets and in many countries. The price of gasoline is set in the free market. Yes, more refineries would cut operating margins for refiners and lower the price of gasoline by pennies, but is that really a good thing, when we should be practicing conservation? Peak oil is very real. What it means is that the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Extracting oil from sand and tar is expensive; drilling to a depth of 4 miles [6.4 kilometers] in 7,000 feet [2,133 meters] of water is expensive. The age of cheap oil is over.
    Robert Erickson
    USA (Sep 8, '06)


    Re Stand up to Uncle Bully [Sep 7]: It will be interesting to see whether King George's US will manage to get away with treating Southeast Asian countries in the same way that the US has treated [its] Latin American counterparts for over a century. My guess is that it will not.
    M Henri Day, PhD, MD
    Stockholm, Sweden (Sep 7, '06)


    Donald Kirk's analysis holds water [Tilting at windmills: Hill makes the rounds, Sep 7]. Nonetheless his eye may have passed over some moves in Northeast Asia which offer a more nuanced assessment of the purpose of the mission of the United States' emissary Christopher Hill. Diplomat Hill is turning up in China at a time when in the September 6 issue of the Wall Street Journal (page 1) a short item [says] that the US met North Korean delegates in Beijing "amid reports that Kim Jong-il's train was spotted in China". And splashed across the Financial Times of London of August 31 is a picture of the "Dear Leader" with commentary suggesting that according to South Korean sources, Mr Kim's train had already crossed the border into China. So, in the fog that beclouds news sources surrounding North Korea, it is reasonable to suspect that the United States is beginning to show a modicum of flexibility in trying to jump-start the stalled six-power talks which Pyongyang has steadfastly been boycotting since late 2005. In the light of such speculations, it is light-hearted and perhaps premature of Donald Kirk to compare Christopher Hill to Don Quixote. It is also not extreme to imply that there is movement afoot in dealing with North Korea by the United States. Such a slight change in the Bush White House's rhetoric is noticeable in the past weeks. The American president has begun making small gestures which betray a ready willingness to reach out in other directions. These baby steps may not mean much, but they do show that [US President George W] Bush is looking to trim some sails in his failed diplomatic and military adventures abroad. In consequence, if this is an awakening of sorts, Mr Hill's visit to Beijing may set in motion a slight thaw in frozen North Korean-American negotiations.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 7, '06)


    When Sami Moubayed, in Iraq loses its voice of reason [Sep 6], wrote the phrase "honorable cooperation, to a Gandhian leader like [Ali al-]Sistani", I believe he did Mahatma Gandhi a great injustice. From everything I have read about Gandhi, [he] was an honorable non-cooperator (read [non-]collaborator), the opposite of an honorable cooperator (read collaborator).
    Francis
    Quebec, Canada (Sep 7, '06)


    In Missiles and madness [Aug 18] [Richard M] Bennett writes: "North Korea is believed to have some 120 nuclear weapons." Where did he see this figure? It would be nice to have his references listed.
    Sydney (Sep 7, '06)


    The first line of Sami Moubayed's September 6 article Iraq loses its voice of reason practically jumped off of the page at me: "Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, whose 'honorable cooperation' with the Americans has arguably been Iraqi's only hope of a peaceful transition." What? I couldn't believe my eyes! That is a positive way of viewing the actions of Ayatollah al-Sistani. After watching Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani run away from Iraq in a British helicopter so that the Americans could attack [Muqtada] al-Sadr in the holy city of Najaf, I would think Mr Moubayed's comment would be more along the lines of "Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the American/Israeli stooge, has been kicked to the curb by the Iraqi people who once revered him."
    Woodrow Gillian
    USA (Sep 6, '06)


    Sami Moubayed's Iraq loses its voice of reason (Sep 6) is an interesting analysis of the Iraqi condition as manifested by the Sistani-Sadr duality. The analysis in my opinion has some untruthful propositions and missed the most essential point, which is the reason behind the withdrawal of [Grand Ayatollah Ali] al-Sistani's power of reason from the Iraqi politics. As the author has correctly indicated, Sistani and [Muqtada] al-Sadr have a deeper relationship than what the world can see. They are complementary to each other, forming a cohesive totality that includes peaceful and revolutionary resistance in pushing US and all foreign forces out of Iraq. Currently, Sadr's revolutionary trend of resistance, which is grounded and inspired by the revolutionary nature of Imam Hussein, the son of Imam Ali, who [was] the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Mohammed, has gained momentum and strength and become well connected to the Lebanese and the Iranian mullahs. In other words, Hezbollah's model has been imitated and materialized in Iraq under Sadr's revolutionary leadership. Whether or not Sadr faces a severe military problem against US forces in the future, Sistani will issue a fatwa against the imperialist occupiers. Simultaneously, the Bush administration has lost the majority of world and American support for its oil war in Iraq, and the oil-pipeline war in Afghanistan has been facing a deadly resistance from the Taliban, which has also become stronger than before. Therefore, given all these internal and external variables, the Sistani transition period, the period of powerful peaceful reason, has been accomplished, and it is time for Sistani to pull himself out of the chaotic situation, a withdrawal that clearly signals the establishment and the triggering point for the Iraqi revolt against all occupying foreign forces: the period of the actual [revolt] has began. This revolt will continue under Sadr's leadership, a revolt that will help the Iranian mullahs against their foreign enemies, including the United States of America. And this help is not unintended; rather, it is part of the regional struggle against the United States of America and Israel. In [Karl] Marx's terminology the knell has sounded for the new revolt against monopoly capitalism, and the expropriators (or the occupiers) will be expropriated soon. It is therefore up to President George W Bush, "the liberator of Muslim oil countries", to order the withdrawal of US forces in Iraq or to increase the size of the forces for a permanent war that will be extremely difficult to win. I would recommend the first choice, which he has termed the defeatist choice, because its benefits are greater than its costs. That is to say, the power of economic reason is more beneficial for the United States of America than the power of emotion and sentiment.
    Adil Mouhammed
    Illinois, USA (Sep 6, '06)


    Re Seoul cleans up in Africa [Sep 6]: It is always instructive reading Aidan Foster-Carter, be he on ATol or in the Financial Times or on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. He takes a view of South Korea which the ordinary reader of daily newspapers is often unaware of. He makes points of small importance, such as he has done in noting that the heirs to Sekou Toure's Guinea have finally recognized the Republic of Korea 46 years after they [Guineans] established diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is a small statistic but it has an imposing meaning. Seoul has won the hearts and minds of all the states in Africa because of its vital economy, efficiency, and generous aid. The Republic of Guinea, as Foster-Carter aptly characterizes, is a failure as a socialist state a l'africaine. Nonetheless, although Seoul has cleaned up Africa, it has yet to receive recognition by Fidel Castro's Cuba. Yet Mr Castro, like the now-defunct people's republics of Eastern Europe, denying as they did the imprimatur of state-to-state relationships with South Korea, did allow its money and its skills and its factory and its commerce to infiltrate the Iron Curtain in order to beef up sickly economies. And as Foster-Carter says, Castro's Cuba has done that too, with the presence of a Hyundai plant which Mr Castro visited hours before he fell ill. Foster-Carter jokingly suggested that contact with capitalist South Korea struck communist Fidel Castro ill, a sour if sophomore [sic] joke to say the least, for as even Foster-Carter did note, the visit to Hyundai impressed Mr Castro for its efficiency and modern equipment. Mr Foster-Carter might not know his Lenin, but Mr Castro does: V I Lenin in State and Revolution encouraged revolutionists to be both red and expert, and by expert he meant the efficiency that the Ford Motor plant signified, and this is the kind of [mastery] of labor which Mr Castro praised.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 6, '06)


    Re Garfield with guns (Sep 2) and Bush's Hezbollah hangover (Sep 6): I'm not sure who is responsible for assembling the team that concocted the foreign policy and propaganda campaign that is the Bush administration. It is clear to me that the approval for the Israeli attack on Hezbollah and the Iraq war have the imprint of Dick Cheney and neo-con friends. It is well known that Cheney favors regime change in Syria and Iran and probably strategized the proxy war with Hezbollah. The "Islamic Nazi" verbiage has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, for Karl excels in enlisting emotion-packed words and images to promote agendas, involving fear, support, or loathing, whichever is appropriate for the occasion. What I don't understand is who are the few people responsible for assembling this neo-conservative cabal that has so handily accomplished what amounts to a coup in the US: a drastic redistribution of income, a jingoistic foreign policy, alienation of allies, polarization of Americans, environmental rape, etc.
    Jim of Southern California
    USA (Sep 6, '06)

    We have had numerous articles on the origin and makeup of the US neo-conservative movement; use our search feature and enter the keywords "Jim Lobe" and "neo-conservative". A good place to start is What is a neo-conservative anyway? (Aug 13, '03). - ATol


    In Garfield with guns [Sep 2] Chan Akya writes of the USA's latest Dr [Joseph] Goebbels-type Big Lie, that of so-called Islamist fascism, and gives a very good answer to the neo-cons. Of course Italian fascism and German National Socialism were European peculiarities cobbled together to save capitalism in both countries by suppressing class conflict. This ideology also arose during the historical circumstances of the rise of communism that led to the birth of the Soviet Union. The "fascism" label therefore cannot be applied to the Islamic world, where the major struggle is to throw off the Western idea of capitalism, which is an anarchistic and rampaging imperialism that is causing unnecessary death and destruction to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. And though you cannot revive European fascism in its its grave, you can use certain lessons learned from it. There is, for example, the World War II German-type helmet now worn by the US military. You can talk of shock-and-awe attacks upon Iraqi and Lebanese towns and cities when what you are really doing is using the good old German Blitzkrieg of World War II. You can, like Israel, put into effect the Nazi notion of Lebensraum - living space - by occupying great sections of the West Bank and building accommodation for 250,000 European, American and Australian settlers. Like the Nazis you can go in for the collective punishment of a whole people like the Palestinians. Another Nazi lesson is how to wipe out, in its entirety, a village called Lidice in Czechoslovakia during World War II. So now you wipe out the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin, in its entirety, as happened in 1948, in order to terrify and cause over a million Palestinians to flee their homes and go into eternal exile. No, you cannot revive Nazism and fascism, but you can use its propaganda methods of the Big Lie against those who resist your civilizing ways.
    Wilson John Haire
    London, England (Sep 6, '06)


    Re Testing the limits in Singapore [Sep 1]: In London, demonstrations within the vicinity of parliament are banned. Even lone protesters wanting to parade around the area with a placard must apply for written police permission. Meanwhile, pensioners voicing dissent are forcibly removed from the Labour Party conference. In the US, Republican Party gatherings and speeches by White House staff are so rigorously policed that even an anti-Bush T-shirt is deemed a potential threat, and its wearer will be ejected. Mothers are being forced to drink their own breast milk before boarding planes in the name anti-terrorism. At potentially "difficult" international conferences in the US, police now establish designated protest zones, usually fenced in, usually miles away from the scene of the conference. The same happened at the World Bank meeting in Hong Kong last year, and at the APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit in South Korea. The Singapore government's measures to police the [International Monetary Fund]/World Bank meetings next week are no more extreme than those taken in every other nation that hosts these events. And while there is no doubt that Singapore's patrician philosophy in general is distasteful to many (particularly to journalists, it seems), it's just a little silly to use any and every opportunity to paint the country as more extreme than everyone else.
    Billy Zand
    Singapore (Sep 6, '06)


    Herr Spengler, the in-house reactionary at ATimes, has turned his myopic gaze on culture now [American Idolatry, Aug 29]. With predictable results. Spengler imagines the poor (working class) as resentful - though he offers little in the way of theory to support this. One suspects it's royalists like Spengler who are actually the resentful ones. American culture has provided us with Hank Williams, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Duke Ellington, and Patsy Cline - not to mention gospel and jazz. Of course slavery and the misery of poverty [are] totally absent from Spengler's critique (he goes so far as to suggest the Great Depression actually was a boom time for farmers). Spengler says resentment is born of envy - well, I see little envy in the work of Muddy Waters or Hank; what I see is an expression of anger and a shared grief at the tragedies and futilities of life in an culture of racism and oppression. There is little I like anymore about the US (I live elsewhere) but I do still feel a wonder at the music of America - a grassroots culture that can produce Jerry Lee Lewis and Doc Watson has little in the way of envy. Geoffrey O'Brien called blues and country the secret literature of America - and so [they are]. Spengler is simply too cognitively constipated to even begin an appreciation of such work. The genius and dignity of a Muddy Waters is beyond his understanding. I advise Spengler to read a bit more of [Thodor] Adorno (who himself was often blind to the virtues of popular culture) to understand the notion of the merely beautiful. One can sit and absorb the genius of [Johann Sebastian] Bach while also appreciating the genius of Ellington. But "beauty" if not wedded to something disruptive is always reactionary. Adorno said even 12-tone compositions must retain an echo of the cafe fiddler. Now, why did he say this? Spengler would do well to ponder this little koan. The corporate pablum of American Idol, and all other corporate music and entertainment, is the product of a culture of control and ever more mind-numbing stupidity, not the culture of resentment. It is the result of corporate ownership of just about everything, and certainly expresses the mass-produced mind-set of bottom-line thinking. That people struggle for change is an alien concept for elitists like Spengler - that people suffer lives of humiliation and pain, lack health services or education, and must survive in a deeply racist society (see Spike Lee's new documentary) is lost on the author cited. For Spengler, who must be indeed be a sad and nervous little man, the world is for the privileged - and for those who share his lack of taste.
    John Steppling
    Lodz, Poland (Sep 6, '06)


    Jim Lobe's Fascists? Look who's talking (Sep 2) is an enjoyable discussion of what we have read and heard recently from the most important leaders of the free world. It is indeed true that the new unifying theme for political cohesion and solidarity is the liquidation of fascism and Nazism, or simply Islamic fascism. These powerful and mean-spirited rhetorical concepts designed to reflect what has been termed ideological struggles will die out very soon, because they are desperate inventions to gain political support and more profitability at the expense of the world population. Every person on Earth knows that Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, fascism, and Nazism were not Islamic phenomena, nor had the Muslim people supported and fought for these movements ... Fascism and Nazism were essential outcomes of monopoly capitalism, which created economic crises and high unemployment rates. Without these capitalist problems, Hitler and Mussolini would not have ascended to power during the 1930s. Donald Rumsfeld, the American secretary of defense, is a historian and wants people to take a lesson from history, and yet he himself does not take the right lesson stating that fascism, Nazism, and imperialist wars are legitimate phenomena of monopoly capitalism. In addition, I have never heard any American trying to appease terrorists, but I do hear and read daily that many Americans are not supporting the Iraqi war because they know it is linked to oil rather than terrorism, and looting of oil does not make them safer, nor have the billions of dollars spent to purchase bombs from the military complex created more security for them ... Finally, the psychological problem of the Bush administration and of some Democrats and Republicans lies in their conscience. These people have made extremely difficult decisions that have led to the killings of thousands of innocent people. Therefore, it is their duty and calling to find an outlet to rationalize these decisions in order to sleep comfortably. An important way is to invent some of the terminologies that we have heard such as fascism and Nazism. When they have found these conceptual outlets, then within their minds they think that a justification for killing of innocent people has been found. Not really. A great economist and sociologist, [Vilfredo] Pareto, calls this process derivative: rationalization of decisions after (not before) they have been implemented. It is exactly the same process used after the occupation of Iraq when no WMD [weapons of mass destruction] were found; hence the goal became the democratization of Iraq or "we cannot afford a new defeat". In short, these inventive terms are for the liberators' own consumption, because they do create more peace of mind. But wherever the liberators of the world sleep, people's death and blood will liquidate their internal spirit and breakdown their personal will.
    Adil Mouhammed
    Illinois, USA (Sep 5, '06)


    [The terms] "fascists", "fascism", "Islamic fascists" [and] "Islamic fascism" have surfaced in newspapers, books, periodicals, [and] scholarly articles, and [have been] bandied about by America's chattering classes since September 11 [2001]. What Donald Rumsfeld did in his inimitable "in your face" style of delivery was to add "new" to these words [Fascists? Look who's talking, Sep 2]. The [US] secretary of defense is yet another [practitioner] of historicism, and he is in a long line of [overuse] and misuse of [the word] "fascism". In this sense, he joins the anti-Vietnam war protesters of 40 years ago. As it is all too clear [that] Mr Rumsfeld's address to the American Legion [was] the opening shot ... of the Bush White House's electoral campaign to rescue the Republican Party from losing control of either house of Congress. [President George W] Bush's war in Iraq is on the ropes. It is gasping for an exit strategy, which so far is not in view. President Bush's electoral strategy is never shy of innuendo, turning facts on [their] head, nor of appealing to the basest instincts of the electorate, to win big. This time, Mr Bush is reeling as though he was a punch-drunk fighter. And so the rhetoric is ramped up to shriller levels. As such, we find Mr Rumsfeld as leader of the president's pit bulls on the attack, and not far behind him is Vice President Dick Cheney, who never shies away from stealing the broom of witch-hunters to silence the opposition. Mr Bush has lost the magic like Thomas Mann's magician, but he has stuck the country in the mire of a war which is ballooning the national debt, and which has enriched only his cronies and accelerated the decline in the living standards of the average American, and this in the name of fighting for freedom and democracy and fighting the "fascists", as the United States did in World War II. Nonetheless, this president's staff knows history poorly. The United States steadfastly shied away from entering the Second World War, and the isolationists had a strong following among his Republican Party. Had [Adolf] Hitler not declared war against [the United States of] America, its entry into the European fray might have been delayed by years. So much for history and for the admirable sense of history Americans have.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA


    I congratulate Chan Akya [for] writing the thought-provoking and humorous article Garfield with guns [Sep 2]. However, there is a huge error in his article when he says "Islamic countries have a poor record of economic growth". This is absolutely not true. Most Muslim countries, specially Asian ones, sport 7% or more economic growth (Malaysia, Indonesia, Dubai, UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan etc). After colonialism destroyed Muslim societies, Muslim living standards have been improving across the global, from Dhaka to Jakarta, from Karachi to Dubai, from Marrakech to Cairo. Today, more Muslims are literate than [ever] in history. Even the "bad boy" Iran has reached almost a 100% literacy rate, with huge benefits for its population. Using Saudi Arabia, which contains a tiny fraction of the total Muslim population, [as an example] is wrong. Even Saudi Arabia's roads, infrastructure, cities, facilities hospitals and cradle-to-grave support for its citizens would be the envy of any American. I think Chan Akya is talking about Arab dictators, and is confusing "Arab" with "Muslim". The largest Muslim states in the world have democratically elected leaders. This is true for Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia and to a large extent Pakistan (which does have a free press, an elected parliament and a robust opposition).
    Moin Ansari (Sep 5, '06)


    Re Chan Akya's Garfield with guns [Sep 2]: A refreshing and stimulating commentary. ATol's editors are to be commended for its inclusion and expectations are voiced in support of additional commentary by Mr Akya, who fortunately does not depend on references to musical ops by the likes of Gilbert and Sullivan. An acquaintance of some years who still practices Cherokee (native North American tribe) rituals and who as a youngster attended a Christian missionary school enjoys retelling how one can tell the difference between a believer and a non-believer. Simple, he states. Just ask this question: "What did Adam's fig leaf that Eve wanted to look under cover?" If the answer is the "rib scar", that person [is a] believer. If the answer was that Eve pointed to an area below the navel, then naturellement, that person is not only a non-believer but possibly of French extraction. Thus in the year 2006 Anno Domini the need to appreciate the forever elusive drama of what did actually take place in the Garden of Eden when a "snake" changed the planet from an Eden into a sea of "Texas tea", aka "black oro", and to what extent the millions of Adams and Eves are still under the influence. In the meantime the eventful beginnings of the 21st.century prove that fascism, Nazism and communism have fused into one unholy enemy of Garfield es amis. [I] trust that ATol will continue to publish additional commentaries by Mr Akya.
    Armand De Laurell (Sep 5, '06)

    Chan Akya's column is now a regular feature of Asia Times Online's weekend edition. - ATol


    Re Chan Akya's letter (Aug 31): "I define terrorism much as the average person defines pornography. In other words, I know it when I see it. From my seat, there is no moral relativism involved that would justify the annihilation of a hospital on supposed anti-terror grounds while being disgusted with the killing of a bunch of middle-class train passengers during the rush hour." If you don't make a difference between state terrorism (wholesale terrorism) and individual terrorism (retail terrorism), then why did you specifically choose to talk about the latter form whose damage is negligible compared to the former? Why didn't you choose instead to write a piece in which you discuss the differences between Christianity and Buddhism and the religious roots of American terrorism that killed millions of people in places like Vietnam, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan [and] Iraq? The number of people killed in Vietnam alone is greater than the number of people killed by retail terrorism throughout the 20th century all over the world ... "Asian cultures like China and India do not have a history of attacking remote targets (or collateral damage, to use a disgusting euphemism). Thus the Boxer Rebellion did not cause Chinese in America to kill local Americans or Japanese citizens. Thus, even though both Muslims and Chinese claim a nationhood that transcends national boundaries, their behavior during stressful periods is vastly different." ... Why on earth are you comparing events that happened around 1900 in the case of the Chinese with those of the last decades in the case of Muslims? Like China and India, Muslim countries have been colonized, brutalized, exploited and enslaved by Western imperialist powers for centuries and for many of them this is still the case. However, their inhabitants have never used what you call "remote targets" until a few jihadists trained, indoctrinated and armed by the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] in the 1980s in Afghanistan came out with the idea of doing just that. So what cultural differences are you talking about?
    Daniel Mazir
    Perth, Australia (Sep 5, '06)


    I had submitted a letter on [the] identity of Chan Akya. I am curious why it has not yet been published. Nor have I received any acknowledgement.
    Shirish Paranjpe
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Sep 5, '06)

    Your previous letter was not published because it said nothing except to point out the very old news (which has been discussed on this page previously) that Chan Akya's nom de plume is derived from Chanakya, an ancient Indian adviser who died around 283 BC and who is credited with authoring the political texts Kautilya and Visnugupta. - ATol


    In reference to Japan firmly on a conservative path by Hisane Masaki (Sep 1), I would like to suggest that it takes two to tango. It is presumptive to state that Japan is the only party that dictates the degree of US-Japan military unity. The technocrats in the US executive branch, in particular, are well aware of Japan's historical baggage. Indeed, I believe the USA has an ideal degree of military closeness with Japan. Diplomatic positioning that advertises future possibilities to China would be the focus of US-Japan alliance for some time, while the US observes China in the decades to come. Certainly, the US is now not 100% sure that conflict with China is inevitable. While most American foreign-policy makers have reason to be concerned about a momentously large and less democratic China rapidly developing, most are far from certain that conflict with China is inevitable. Indeed, the [People's Republic of China's] diplomatic effort in the past decade has served to allay this concern to a significant degree. I believe most in the US foreign-policy elite are keenly aware of Japan's historical baggage, [and] the fact that reliance on Japan to deter hypothetical Chinese expansion would actually induce reactive aggression from China, and would further alienate South Korea. The US is not yet willing to decisively jettison its South Korean alliance, strained relations notwithstanding. I believe the US [will] seek reasonable balance in East Asia while it observes China in the decades to come.
    Jeff Church
    USA (Sep 5, '06)


    Kim [Myong-chol] writes that Kim Il-sung "beat" the Japanese colonialists [Why Pyongyang is going nuclear, Aug 31]. The historical record shows that he was the commander of a small group of guerrillas under the command of the communist Chinese army. Kim Il-sung made a raid into northern Korea and may have killed a few Japanese - fewer than 10. Later, when Japan sent a force into Manchuria to find Kim's unit, Kim and his men retreated to the USSR, where Kim sat out the rest of the war. He returned, not as a triumphant Japan-defeater, but as a passenger on a [Soviet] ship some time in mid-September of 1945. Kim is to be commended for his taking up arms against the Japanese. But his contribution to Japan's defeat, or even of mild discomfort in its occupation of Korea, is pure fantasy, bordering on the ludicrous. You can count up the number of dead British, Australians, Chinese and Americans [who] died fighting the Japanese. This will give you a clue as to who "beat" Japan. By the way, when will DPRK [the Democratic People's Republic of Korea] offer any thanks to the United States for liberating Korea from the Japanese? Ingratitude is most un-Korean.
    Avidyananda (Sep 5, '06)


    Re Behind the plan to bomb Iran [Aug 31]: My compliments to [Ismael] Hossein-zadeh. This is one of the most comprehensive assemblages of information about what actually runs US policies I have seen in a single place. The article is extensive and very inclusive of much of what drives American foreign and domestic policy. Nearly the entire article is on target, with the major exception of a few statements toward the end in which the author asserts, "It is necessary to note at this point that despite its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this unspoken, de facto alliance. Without discounting the extremely important role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of US foreign policy in the Middle East, I would caution against simplifications and exaggerations of its power and influence over the US policy in the region." What Mr Hossein-zadeh apparently does not understand or, as [are] nearly all journalists, is perhaps too cautiously protective of his career to mention is that the "Zionist lobby" is by no means a "junior partner" in forming American foreign policy - or, for that matter, domestic policy. With a disproportionate 11% of the US Senate being Jewish, and the extraordinary power of Zionists on internal business and economic affairs of [the United States of] America, attempting "exaggeration of its power" is difficult to impossible. Zionism is not, as the author presents, a lesser formative power in [the United States'] agenda. It is in fact so overwhelmingly assertive in its influence so as to arguably be not even the major, but virtually the exclusive, one.
    Gabriel Travesser
    New Mexico, USA (Sep 5, '06)


    Bill Guerin: Thank you for shedding some light [on] the dire situation of Indonesian education conditions [Indonesia behind the learning curve, Aug 31]. I have been arguing with everyone since high school in regards of this situation but it fell on deaf ears. We Indonesians have been wasting time for at least 60 years since 1945 arguing and fighting each other and [with incompetent governance]. I and a few other friends were very fortunate to have the means and family to pursue a good education. We have [proved] that Indonesians can compete with anyone given a proper education. I saw the country from far away with deep sadness, for we actually have the potential to become a better country and nation. Please do keep you excellent essays coming.
    Harry Azhar
    New York, New York (Sep 5, '06)

    Bill Guerin's latest is now online; see Indonesia's shafted coal deal. - ATol


    Re American Idolatry [Aug 29]: A discussion of the roots of rock 'n' roll that doesn't mention the blues? Unthinkable. "Listening to the repetition of three chords does not exercise the mind after the fashion of Mozart, to be sure," but as B B King once sang:
    It's just a few changes, that I can't deny,
    But if you think it's easy just give it a try.
    You know the truth, but you're afraid to say it,
    It ain't what I play, it's the way that I play it.
    Greg Colvin (Sep 5, '06)


    Your poorer quality of late and continued push of Spengler [have] forced me to end any further review your site.
    Richard Kincaid (Sep 5, '06)


    Forgive me if I am prolonging the Indian democracy debate. But two things compelled me to respond again. First, in my earlier letter [Sep 1], I think I failed to show a clear picture. What I meant to say is that, in the initial over, the batsmen are always afraid of hitting the ball since sometimes that will result in losing the wicket and putting pressure on them. That means Indian politicians too were afraid of taking hard decisions because that would have angered the largely uneducated people and might have resulted in balkanization of India. Second ... if a person is over the moon, then he must look at the people above him and remind himself that he is still far behind. And when a person is depressed then he must also look at the people below him and console himself that at least he is a few steps ahead [of] others. When I noticed that there was too much criticism about India in this forum, I thought that I must show the better side of India. That doesn't mean that we are content with the present status or we are pleasing (or fooling) ourselves that somehow we are better than Pakistan. As a voter I know Indian democracy still has not delivered. But as an aspiring politician (I am 34) I also realize that, in a progressing democracy, it is difficult for even an honest and efficient leader like Dr Manmohan Singh to implement a good-intentioned policy.
    Shivanantham
    Cuddalore, India (Sep 5, '06)


    Malaysia is celebrating its 49th national day [August 31] with speeches and cultural shows to promote multiculturalism and racial harmony even while the Malaysian government becomes intrusively involved in purely religious matters. It appears to be a confused attempt to be at once a secular state and an Islamic state. Achieving communal harmony in Malaysia will require more than oratory and pageantry. They might begin by disbanding sharia courts and the religious police. A truly democratic and secular government should enforce only non-discriminatory secular laws passed by a democratically elected government. Religion comes from the heart and cannot and should not be enforced by the state. A secular state's role is only to ensure that those who wish to worship can do so in their own tradition as long as their religious practices do not violate the law. In Islam itself, fatwa started out historically as simply scholarly opinion to assist the devotees in pursuing purity of devotion, and not directives that required enforcing. Malaysia is way out on a limb on this issue. It has become entangled in state-sponsored religion while at the same time preaching multiculturalism.
    Cha-am Jamal
    Thailand (Sep 5, '06)


    Before it is too late, the supporters of nuclear regimes should persuade their favorite masters to dismantle the nuclear arsenals they possess and report to the UN and IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] about the accomplishment of this vital action necessary to ensure disarmament and world peace. The foreign offices of the most of the countries are spreading false propaganda about Islam and the Muslims, calling them terrorists and suspected terrorists and help the war terrorists track the Muslims and torture at will. Iran and many other Muslim nations are painted in dirty colors by the global media just to gain a few dollars from the Western capitals. Unless all nuclear weapons are completely destroyed by their owner-regimes, it is quite illogical and unethical to ask Iran or North Korea to abandon their legitimate rights to nuclear facility. Let us consider the fact that every nuclear power is a rogue state and a potential terrorist state.The UNSC-5 [permanent five members of the UN Security Council] is encouraging terrorism on a world scale ... Why so much ado about Iran's uranium enrichment, when several countries keep testing their latest nuclear-enabled missiles? Does it mean whatever the USA says is a law and others must obey the Pentagon and give up their legitimate rights?
    Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
    Jawaharlal Nehru University
    New Delhi, India (Sep 5, '06)


    While writing this letter I am also praying that September 7 might pass off peacefully in spite of some people [in India] being coerced into singing "Vande Mataram" ... Most Indians, irrespective of the religion to which they belong, will have had the satisfaction of performing their patriotic duty towards India by singing "Vande". I disagree with the way our central and state governments, not to speak of the Sangh Parivar [group of Hindu organizations], want the Indians to express their love for the country. As one who left Islam to embrace Christianity, I am sure my willingness to die for the nation is sufficient and that I need not sing or say "Vande Mataram" to prove my love for India.
    Omar Luther King
    Delhi, India (Sep 5, '06)

    September 7 marks the 100th anniversary of India's national song, "Vande Mataram", and governments at various levels, especially those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, have mandated that it be sung in schools on that date and, in some cases, throughout the year following. Many Indian Muslims object to the song on the grounds of its depiction of the Indian nation as "Ma Durga", a Hindu goddess. - ATol


    [Re Japan firmly on a conservative path, Sep 1] Japan's economy like Rip Van Winkle has awoken after a long sleep. It is now showing signs of growth and a juvenile burst of energy. During the decade after the Japanese bubble burst, tectonic changes have transformed a stodgy economy, which, even in depression, was living off the inflows of capital returns from the years of prosperity. Family savings diminished; cradle-to-the-grave employment became an endangered species; the economic years of no growth loosened and in some cases abandoned traditional ways. Japan grew grayer in population, and youth faced a bleak future. Yet, underneath the surface, a new competitive society was [being born] ... Junichiro Koizumi as prime minister became the standard bearer of growth and a forger of newer paths of economic and social transformation. North Korea's testing of long-range missiles over Japan's territory became a clarion call for a beefed-up defense and for scrapping the peace clause of Japan's constitution. This tilt towards a more nationalistic foreign policy [was made] ever more urgent by Beijing's attack against Japan. Suddenly, Tokyo had to face hostile neighbors, especially a China on the fast track of becoming a First World economy. A strengthening economy and a hostile foreign environment only served to strengthen the rightward trend in Japan, and nurtured pride in a new Japanese nationalism, which will find its spokesman in Shinzo Abe, who more likely than not will be Mr Koizumi's successor. Mr Abe will move to abolish the peace clause, found a standing army, and bind Japan closer to the United States. These moves will arouse further ill will among Japan's neighbors who bristle from old wrongs Imperial Japan committed more than a half-century ago. Times have changed but the old hurts remain, and yet these very countries - the two Koreas and China - cannot do without a strong Japan economically or politically. Today's Japan even with a standing army is not the Imperial Japan of yesteryear, as a reunited Germany with a strong standing army is the heir of Nazi Germany.
    Jakob Cambria
    USA (Sep 1, '06)


    Since Spengler [American Idolatry, Aug 29] is a philosopher, I thought that he would be familiar with [Friedrich] Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals , where Christianity is shown to be a religion of resentment, explaining its popularity in the United States. Americans, like the majority of people in all other countries, accept authority. Otherwise, they would not believe what they are told the Bible says, or believe that Saddam [Hussein] did [the attacks of September 11, 2001]. What Spengler fails to realize about Americans is that they do not read the Bible. They leave it to the preachers on TV to tell them what it says, the same way they leave it to Fox News to inform them about the world. They are too busy figuring out ways to screw people who think they are stupid out of their money. Americans are not stupid. They are just intellectually lazy, like anyone [who] takes what the Bible says seriously. Americans don't have time to read [it]; figuring out more efficient ways to exploit the rest of the world is time-consuming. I don't think Spengler has really listened to African-American gospel [music], because it is only three chords, just like country and gospel's offspring R&B [rhythm and blues]. Music is the medium of feeling, and the number of chords has nothing to do with the feeling behind the music, [as] the number or difficulty of words does not make the message behind the writing more profound. [Ernest] Hemingway and [Mark] Twain prove that to be true. Not all, but much of classical music is intellectual masturbation lacking any feeling whatsoever. To Americans, the Bible is as irrelevant as classical music. They don't concern themselves with ghosts from the past, they just puke back what their preachers and teachers told them, because they are too busy trying to make money in the here and now to study fossils. Whether that is more contemptible than ugly, resentful people throwing insults with pseudo-intellectual gloves to make themselves feel better, I am not sure.
    Ram Ramstien
    Etoile, Texas (Sep 1, '06)


    A brief comment on American Idolatry [Aug 29]: I would rather look more at Dolly [Parton] than listen to her singing to relieve my stress and forget all about the law of averages so vividly mentioned by Spengler. With regard to Chan Akya [Islam and the absence of Chinese terrorists, Aug 26], ... if Muslims were as bad as the confused writer tried to portray, then why in their over 1,000-year rule in India did they not impose or force Islam on the majority of the 87% Hindu population? Because it was spread not by force as many ignorant non-Muslim historians so mendaciously accuse us but by the Muslim holy men or Sufis who were revered by the indigenous population and by the Muslims for their true message of Islam: peace, love, harmony, equality and brotherhood of man. No Muslim army went to Malaysia, Indonesia or many parts of Southeast Asia, and it is worth mentioning here that only 18% of 1.75 billion Muslims live in the Middle East and the rest in every corner of the globe. Islam has always been accepted by millions willingly, with open arms, minds and hearts.
    Saqib Khan
    UK (Sep 1, '06)


    Chan Akya wrote [letter, Aug 31]: "The other main point of the article [Islam and the absence of Chinese terrorists, Aug 26] is that Asian cultures like China and India do not have a history of attacking remote targets (or collateral damage, to use a disgusting euphemism)." According to Professor Robert A Pape at the University of Chicago, the world's leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka [Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism; see So you want to stop the suicide bombers? Jul 12, '05]. A sane person would understand that suicide terrorism is a response to foreign occupation, and the taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism. The West has great difficulty in understanding that [it has] no monopoly on nationalism, that the poor and the weak love themselves and their lands, histories and identities as much as the wealthy and the powerful love what they purport to be theirs. Islam has not sanctioned this type of activity.
    BrightStarVision (Sep 1, '06)


    The more the editor tries to answer my posts, the more he strengthens my case. (By the way, I think it's high time the editors used some names that identify their nationality; if your readers are brave enough to do so, why are you guys hiding?) He finds fault with the poor people of India - what are they supposed to do? Rise up and bring [in] a strongman, someone like Saddam Hussain? Pakistan went down that road and now they are stuck in a nightmare. Indians realized that democracy, for all its faults, is the best form of government. Just because you have the best does not mean instant benefits for everyone. You still have to work for it, make good decisions. Unfortunately [Jawaharlal] Nehru, bless his heart, in his zeal to have the best for his countrymen, made some bad decisions. Having a strongman making quick, instant decisions might sound tempting. Indira Gandhi gave us a taste for a while when she imposed the Emergency. I remember people talking glowingly at that time. "Things get done now." "People are scared to ask for a bribe." The very same people kicked her out of power the first chance they got. Why? They were simply being true to their faith, Hinduism, that says that there is more than one single path. Hindus have always been tolerant of other faiths, they simply carried it over to their daily life. As Hindus it is simply not acceptable to say there is only one way, my way, or you go to hell. We will leave it to Christians and Muslims to say such things, not for us. As for poverty, have you ever tried to work in constant 90-100-degree [Fahrenheit; 32-38 Celsius] heat? It is not a coincidence that the best of India shines in brain power. As long as brawn power held sway, Indians were at a disadvantage. Now, the world is moving toward brain power and not surprisingly, women and Indians are coming forward. Today even manufacturing is taking off in India. Why? You guessed it, manufacturing is moving inside, where it is cooler. Now Indians can compete.
    Jayanti Patel (Sep 1, '06)


    You constantly talk about large swaths of people in India not being "served" by a democratic government, which you call "dysfunctional". This may be true to an extent. What, in your opinion, is the alternative for such a dysfunctional democracy, then?
    Partha
    Australia (Sep 1, '06)

    The opposite of dysfunctional is functional, which in the context of democracy means at least attempting to improve the lives of the electorate. If the ballot box is simply a revolving door for a parade of elitists who use their power to prolong the status quo, either to preserve their own positions and wealth or because they are incompetent or simply don't care about the unfortunate, that is a betrayal of the core principles of democracy. India is by no means the only democracy-for-the-privileged-few to stumble into the quagmire of self-congratulation, and even the most successful democracies remain works in progress. But surely Indians wish to have at least something to show for their "superior" form of government after six decades as an independent democracy, beyond pleas of "well at least we are better off than the Pakistanis". Not to face up to your problems is to stagnate. - ATol


    I disagree [with the ATol note under Jayanti Patel's letter of Aug 31]: It [Indian democracy] is something very much to "crow about", poverty or no poverty. If the editor who has been responding until now cares to reread J Patel's earlier letter, he will see that the issue was about democracy vis-a-vis religion (India and Pakistan). This discussion was not about poverty, economics, etc. You have actually not cared to address a single point either in my last letter or in Jayanti's but instead dragged in "poverty" as you had nothing else to say, instead of having the grace to admit that the Hindu/Buddhist ethos has no comparison when it comes to tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs. Poverty and [the] caste system have today become easy sticks to beat India or Hindus with, as generally these critics have nothing else to say. At least we are not a country [that] is propping up criminal states like Pakistan and North Korea with nuclear weapons and other forms of assistance (and who have become a menace to civilization itself) or for that matter giving refuge to such wonderful people [as] Pol Pot. I repeat, you are prejudiced.
    Gautam
    Noida, India (Sep 1, '06)

    Patel's original letter (Aug 29) claimed that India's system is superior to Pakistan's because Hinduism is a better cradle of democracy than Islam. Our original counterpoint was that the comparison was unfair, first because there is only one major predominantly Hindu state (India) while there are many Muslim states besides Pakistan, some of which have evolved democracies; and second that there is (for the same reason, a too-small sample of Hindu states) scant evidence that Hinduism is any more nurturing of democracy than any other faith - in fact, most democracies are Christian. (Patel later made the excellent point that the most successful democracies in Christian and Muslim countries enjoy a predominantly secular system.) We only "dragged in poverty" as the most obvious evidence that Indian democracy has failed the great proportion of the population. - ATol


    This refers to ATol's various comments about India and its democracy. I too noticed that you are nurturing some kind of grudge against India, and here are my views about that. In fact what you are saying is (comparing India with Western democracy) India is half-empty, but what we Indians are saying (comparing India with the Third World countries) is India is half-full. Both are right in a different perspective. If ATol wants to give marks to India's achievements, ATol must know that in sports all players have to follow the same rules and play in the same circumstances. But for the countries the rules and circumstances are entirely different, hence the result also would be different. It will take lot of words to explain the differences between India and the other countries. Had India implemented [a] one-child norm as ruthlessly as China implemented [it] (I surely prefer that), India too would have seen its population reduced to a large extent, and virtually no people would be living below the poverty line. In cricket the batsmen always prefer to save the wicket for the initial over, and once they have settled they will hit for the run. So far India has consolidated its wicket (unity) and I am sure now they will make the runs (prosperity).
    Shivanantham
    Cuddalore, India (Sep 1, '06)

    You get the last word on the subject, as we can't argue with your wicket logic. - ATol


    I think all [who] read the plethora of articles about the Bush administration's connection to the military-industrial complex and their looting of our [Americans'], now, non-existent Treasury don't need any more proof from me. I do think we need to quit calling them neo-cons. A more apt name for them would be the Texas Mafia. It's obvious that the cabal that inhabits the White House is a criminal gang out to fleece the American people and take over control of the world's energy sources by wasting the lives of our youth to realize their goals. I see their endeavor as a treasonous and murderous criminal activity and hope that they are eventually jailed and punished with life terms at hard labor. Beware the Texas Mafia.
    Pro Pippo
    Maui, Hawaii (Sep 1, '06)

    August Letters