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.

November 2006

Re Dog eats dog in fractured Iraq (Nov 30): This useful documenting of the present warring factions in Iraq is good, but isn't the propounding of a practical solution to the main problems in Iraq also good? There is a saying in America: "Good fences make good neighbors." The present violence in Iraq is forcing the separation and partition of the three large Iraqi population groups into defensive areas. Why are many afraid of civil war (which is only an intensification of this same process)? The only positive thing that the US military can do in Iraq is to create two strategic lines (two "fences") and to defend them. Once the peoples have fled to their respective defensive areas (and the bombings and killing have stopped), then Iraqi federal politics can begin.
David Clark
San Diego, California (Nov 30, '06)


Jeffrey Donovan's malevolent, horrid, and nauseating article (Politics and the pontiff in a Muslim land [Nov 30]) is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Titles do not make men great, it is deeds and words. [Joseph Ratzinger] was propelled to the position of pope because of his "conservative" and "evangelical" positions vis-a-vis Protestants, Jews and Muslims etc. If Mr Ratzinger has talked garbage against Muslims, other faiths will face the same ridicule. Many identify Mr Ratzinger with the Islamophobic neo-con philosophy. Mr Ratzinger was not naive when he uttered garbage against the holiest figure in Islam, the Prophet Mohammed. He did it deliberately and with hubris. He was elected to lead Catholics, not reform Islam. Muslims all over the world do not need any lectures from those who ... brought the Crusades and the Inquisition to the world. Vatican complicity with the Nazis is a matter of historical record. John XXIII and Catholic priests routinely sprinkled holy water on marching Nazis. Mr Ratzinger deliberately provoked the Muslims and poured water on Nostrae Aetate (promulgated October 28, 1965) and the wonderful works of [Il] Papa, pope John Paul II, who was so near and dear to Muslim and Jewish hearts. Nostrae Aetate proclaimed: "All the people on Earth make up one single community, since God made all men and gave them the Earth to live in. They also all have the same ultimate goal. That goal is God, whose love and care, whose plan of salvation extends to all men everywhere (cf Wisdom 8:11; Acts 14:17; Romans 2:6-7; 1 Timothy 2:4)." Mr Ratzinger had the unique opportunity in history to build on those bridges of harmony created by pope John Paul II. Papa John Paul said: "In the course of centuries there have been quarrels and hostilities between Christians and Muslims. But now the Council begs them both to forget the past and to work together for mutual understanding. For the sake of the whole human race let Muslim and Christian work together for social justice, for morality and for peace and freedom." Mr Ratzinger, however, [followed] pope Innocent III (1198-1216) of Rome and pope Gregory IX, who established the Inquisition in 1233, which eventually led to the horrors in Spain in 1481/1492. Mr Ratzinger should worry about reforming the malaise [in] his own Church and not worry about Islam. Mr Ratzinger still has to apologize to the Muslims for the Inquisition.
Moin Ansari
New Jersey, USA (Nov 30, '06)

The various inquisitions conducted by the Catholic Church were directed primarily against "heretical" Christians, not Muslims. The Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834) did target former Muslims and Jews who had converted (very possibly under duress) to Christianity and who were suspected of reverting to their former faiths. - ATol


I am surprised that you would allow Mark Danner to write: "perhaps 100,000 or more dead Iraqis" [How a war of fantasies happened, Nov 30]. Considering that the author obviously is not some Fox News-fed ignoramus, his statement is a blatant lie [camouflaged] as qualified opinion. An epidemiological review of the number of "excess" Iraqi deaths since the Anglo-US invasion of March 2003, by The Lancet, a medical journal of the highest reputation, estimates it to be somewhere in between 400,000 and nearly a million by July 2006. People with some understanding of epidemiology and statistics can be convinced of the reality of the facts by accessing directly the article here (registration is free). Considering that a million Iraqis died because of the massive US bombings of 1991 and ensuing US-led embargo of the country, plus another million during the war with Iran in the '80s, one can see that the gruesome fate of Iraqis is one of the most terrifying fruits of the last decades of imperial "Western civilization". Add to these millions of dead Iraqis the millions of those who have been mutilated, in their body and their mind, and the tens of millions being deprived of hope and future: behind the numbers unfolds a horrible tragedy. A whole Arab country has been destroyed to shreds, "brought back to the Stone Age".
Dr Bittar Gabriel Jivasattha
Australia and Switzerland (Nov 30, '06)

The Lancet survey seems to have been professionally done, and in any case the US government has demonstrated that it does not know and/or care how many Iraqi deaths its adventures in that country have been responsible for. However, it is a standard journalistic device, if precise figures are not known, to go with a conservative estimate (100,000 in this case) and qualify it with words such as "perhaps ... or more", as was done in this case. Mark Danner therefore was practicing responsible caution, not telling a "blatant lie". - ATol


What a difference an American election makes. Although Andrei Lankov does so in Why N Korea's neighbors soft-pedal sanctions [Nov 30], it is important to not lose sight of the fact that [US President George W] Bush has suffered a major setback in foreign policy. His allies in Asia are quick to seize on the implications of Mr Bush's loss of prestige at home. South Korea and China did side with the United States by voting sanctions against North Korea in the UN Security Council, [but] for geopolitical reasons of their own, they crumpled Resolution 1718 while the ink was still wet. It is as though they were humoring President Bush. Beijing and Seoul were sending a signal to Pyongyang of their displeasure for North Korea's testing a nuclear device. China and South Korea have taken the measure of the Bush administration's rigid policy towards [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il. It does not speak to the conditions on the ground in Northeast Asia and, sensing a change in Washington after November 7 [date of US mid-term congressional elections], they boldly respected to differ with the United States in dealing with North Korea. A pertinent indication of how far off the pier is Mr Bush's ship of diplomacy can be found in the silliness of a former senior officer in the US State Department who suggested denying Kim Jong-il Apple's iPods. Thus, posits this diplomat of long experience, Mr Kim will be denied the power to rule his people, thereby hastening his downfall. This bald assertion is a bellwether of the la-la-land thinking that has avoided reality and exemplifies Mr Bush's steadfast penchant for not looking in the face anything other than his own desires and wishful thinking.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 30, '06)

The Apple iPod is apparently one item on a long list of goodies the US wants specifically included in a UN-backed ban of luxury goods exported to North Korea. The list is based on Kim Jong-il's supposed preferred diversions and also includes cognac, plasma televisions, water scooters, Harley-Davidsons, and snowmobiles. We're not sure if pizza is on the list. - ATol


Re Bury my heart in the Green Zone [Nov 29] by Pepe Escobar: When I read about and watch on screen stomach-churning atrocities committed by the coalition forces in Iraq and by the death squads financed, trained and armed by the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] and slaughtering innocent Muslims in thousands, my heart not only burns but also weeps in deep sorrow. It brings to my mind the fact that the only safe place left for the Iraqis are the graveyards. Saddam [Hussein] was overthrown by his own old friends and allies in the West and to the enormous delight of Iranian mullahs who could not have wished for a better gift handed to them on a plate by the West costing them not a drop of blood or a cent. The bizarre twist is that the Iranian regime that was the old nemesis of Saddam may now be invited in with Syria to carve up the spoils of his country in the new formula being considered as fresh, realistic responses to the sordid dilemma of postwar Iraq recommended by [US Iraq Study Group co-chairman] James Baker. The horrendous liars G W Bush and Tony Blair, who together labeled Iran and Syria as the axis of evil [sic; the "axis of evil" comprised Iraq, Iran and North Korea - ATol], now shamelessly consider them as part of the solution in Iraq, which defies any credible logic except that it is an act of ignominious desperation ...
Saqib Khan
UK (Nov 30, '06)


While I don't think too [highly] of Siddharth Srivastava's ability to decipher economics [Indian retail space is wide open, Nov 29], Jakob Cambria (letter [Nov 29]) has made the cardinal sin of using half-knowledge to draw incorrect conclusions. To begin with, he seems to have confused Sunil "Bharti" Mittal for L N Mittal (of Mittal Steel fame). If anything, these two gentlemen are as opposite as the two poles of a magnet. L N Mittal left India early to pursue his ambitions of steelmaking because of India's ridiculous laws. Sunil Mittal knew better not to even try [to] manufacture anything in India, but to serve the Indian consumer, you had to operate in India. His Bharti Telcom manages to make money even at the lowest phone tariffs. If he can replicate his success in retailing, Indians can expect much lower prices for consumer goods, for which Indian consumers will be forever grateful.
Rocky (Nov 30, '06)


Re Jakob Cambria's incisive analysis of the global capital markets in general and India's retail sector in particular ([letter] Nov 29): The CEO of Arcelor Mittal is Lakshmi N Mittal, 56, from Rajasthan, India, with a personal net worth of US$23.5 billion (fifth-richest in the world). He has never ventured outside of metals. The chairman of the Bharti Group is Sunil B Mittal, 48, with a net worth of $4.9 billion. No, L N Mittal and S B Mittal were not separated at birth. Sunil Mittal owns a GSM-based telecommunications service provider, Bharti Airtel. Both Vodafone and SingTel own stakes in this telco. Sunil Mittal has also partnered with Axa for insurance and with Rothschild for fruits and vegetable exports. His latest tie-up is with Wal-Mart in retail. As for Cambria's vision of Wal-Mart exploring the "Far East" with this venture, geographically 98% of India is conterminous in South Asia. Racially, 99% of Indians are not Mongoloid (for whom, unlike Indians, hairy crabs, whales, some reptiles and assorted seafood are a staple diet [or delicacies] no super-retailer or grocer can ignore). And New Delhi does not claim the Republic of China on Taiwan, the Kuril Islands or the Spratly Islands for Wal-Mart to explore the open "Far East" with a partner from India.
Srikanth Subramanyam
Greenwich, Connecticut (Nov 30, '06)


Spengler [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] has once again hit a nerve and inspired your readers to pen some wonderful retorts. I tip my hat to John Steppling of Lodz, Poland, for producing perhaps the best (and certainly, funniest) line [letter, Nov 27]: "Spengler seems oblivious to fact despite his almost masturbatory obsession with graphs and statistics." Thank you Mr Steppling! You had me rolling on the floor.
Dana Clark
Fort Collins, Colorado (Nov 30, '06)


It is true that Spengler is ignorant, bigoted, foolish [and] bloodthirsty. Nevertheless, I think Asia Times [Online] should keep his obnoxious columns. The Asian readers of Asia Times [Online] need to know what kind of vicious nonsense passes for "educated opinion" in Western elite circles. Readers in China, India [and] Southeast Asia can rest assured that the Spengleroids are quite as eager to liberate you of your lives, limbs, property [and] ways of life as they are of the Muslims.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Nov 30, '06)


About time we see [Pepe] Escobar [Bury my heart in the Green Zone, Nov 29], he and [Syed Saleem] Shahzad in [Pakistan] are my boys! Love ATimes! Big ups! Keep it up!
Jajdari
Los Angeles, California (Nov 29, '06)

Shahzad has recently been A 'guest' of the Taliban, but we expect more articles from him soon. - ATol


Re Marcel H Van Herpen's NATO maps its future [Nov 29]: I think this article is so transparently one-sided that one can't help but marvel at the author's attempt to disguise his enthusiasm for NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] expansion with some pretense of objectivity. First of all, while stating that Russia's sensitivities must be taken into consideration, Mr Van Herpen proceeds to completely discard them into [the] geopolitical trash bin upon completion of his thesis. Second, the premise for NATO's continued European sprawl rests on a false and inherently unfair notion, which is that all countries on the Russian periphery have a lot to fear from Russia, while Russia has nothing to fear from NATO. Since Russians are acutely aware that their own history doesn't support such fanciful assumptions, and understand that intentions and assurances matter less than capabilities, these arguments won't work in Moscow. And third, neither Georgia nor Ukraine belong in NATO. Ukrainians are overwhelmingly opposed to membership, and Georgia is neither democratic nor European. It's located in Asia, as far as simple map of Europe is concerned.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Nov 29, '06)


Re Indian retail space is wide open [Nov 29]: India has become the flavor of the month for foreign capital. So it should come as no surprise that Wal-Mart's wagon train of goods is coming to India. However, with a difference: it needs an Indian partner to explore the open "Far East". Wal-Mart has found a willing partner in Bharti, a big local food chain, and a cam in the powerful engine of expansion of the Mittal empire. Mittal, lest we forget, has gobbled up Arcelor, a European steelmaker, after a long siege, thereby making it a big player on the global stage. Bharti will become a pipeline for Wal Mart's savvy in retail mass marketing to conquer the wide open spaces in the Indian growing middle class consumerism. [Late Wal-Mart founder] Sam Walton's mighty empire will boost Mittal's already formidable presence on the Indian subcontinent, and firm up its not-so-full coffers after a spree of mergers and acquisitions in the rarefied sphere of billions of dollars. Wal-Mart has a strong partner, perhaps too strong for its liking, but one willing to help it expand in a country with strong economic prospects of development. It will bend to iron rules of a controlled economy in its own pursuit of globalization, rules it would not submit to were they in force in the United States. ATol's readers can expect more stories of the likes of Siddharth Srivastava's. It is as though foreign capital, especially American in origin, has like [Christopher] Columbus discovered the riches of the Indies - and how!
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 29, '06)


Re The Saudis strike back at Iran [Nov 28]: I guess this whole story is one big textbook example of "unintended consequences". While the US and Israel seem to be undisputed champs in the field of a blowback, Saudis can claim some prominence in stupidity awards as well. After all, since Iraq is paying a bill for Saudi sins, why shouldn't Riyadh's arch-nemesis be a beneficiary of the aftermath? Maybe the universe is fair in the end, "end" being the key word.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (Nov 28, '06)


Re The Saudis strike back at Iran [Nov 28]: There is much to be gained by reading former ambassador [M K] Bhadrakumar's tour de horizon of Saudi diplomacy in a much-troubled and turbulent Middle East. It is not for nothing that [US] Vice President Dick Cheney has gone to Saudi Arabia. His presence there is yet but another indication that much is afoot to bring a modicum of stability to the region, and offer the United States the time necessary to ... find a strategy to remain in Iraq. President [George W] Bush has turned Iraq into a Shi'a-dominated country. He has broken the Sunnis' hold on the levers of power. He has broken the Sunni egg and [as with] Humpty Dumpty, he can never put it back together again. The Baker Commission is trying to reimpose a Sunni presence in Iraq as a countervailing force to the new Shi'a Iraq. Already on blogs in the United States, rumor has it that Washington has been in contact with the Sunni guerrilla forces fighting both the Shi'a and the American and the "[coalition] of the willing" troops. An echo of the civil war going on in Iraq has resonated in Lebanon by [way of] the assassination of the Christian Phalangist Pierre Gemayel. Mr Bush, like Pandora, has let loose "evils" inimical to his foreign policy and his desire to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, and by extension to the Middle East. He has obtained the very opposite, and so he is now calling on his friends in Riyadh to come to his rescue. But it is not only his rescue but to cut and paste a strategy by which the Sunnis will not face humiliating defeat. Thus Mr Bush has destabilized the Middle East. He has unleashed forces which he can no longer control. Swallowing his Texas-sized pride, he [will] do much that his father's surrogate James Baker suggests. Which brings us back to the Saudis. They will do much to put a good face on Washington's lost war, so that in the words of Sicilian aristocrat Giuseppe di Lampedusa's hero the Prince of Salina in The Leopard, to give a few crumbs in order that the Sunnis will maintain the lion's share of control in the region.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 28, '06)


M K Bhadrakumar's The Saudis strike back at Iran (Nov 28) is a useful theoretical analysis that partly does not explain what US imperialism has been facing in Iraq. First, after the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Iranian mullahs intended to export the Islamic Revolution to the Arab world, but the Saudis and other countries in the region impeded that revolutionary trend by using Iraqi blood. They [persuaded] Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranian Islamic momentum by invading Iran, because they were concerned about their own survival. Many Arab and foreign countries, including the United States of America, paid part of the cost of the Iraq-Iran war, and Iran was in check during Saddam Hussein's regime. [Now that] the latter has been destroyed by US imperialism, the Iranian mullahs have become the most powerful group in the Middle East, and the Saudis have neither military power nor influence to slow down the Iranian impact in the region. In fact, the Saudi regime has become one of the weakest regimes in the region, as it is vulnerable to instability that can be generated from its eastern region. Second, Syria has been a traditional friend to Iran, and no political power will be able to convert the Syrian position. That is, Iran and Syria will continue with their friendly relationship, a relationship that will not be broken up by the influence of some imperialist Arab cronies, because Iran and Syria know that US will go after their regimes when the Iraqi situation is settled for US benefits. For Iran and Syria, their enemy, the United States of America, is in a permanent fight with the Ba'athists that in my opinion no imperialist power, including the US, will be able to win. The Iranians and the Syrians know this objective fact that they cannot influence for the benefits of the US anyway. Therefore, their best course of action is to ignore any US or Arab diplomatic move, particularly if these new initiatives come from crony Arab reactionary regimes ... The best course of action for the Bush administration is to settle its differences with the Ba'athists and leave Iraq completely as soon as possible without thinking a bit about the Iraqi oil, because the latter is the property of the Iraqi people. The longer US forces stay in Iraq, the worse Iraq will become; hence, the most powerful the Iranian mullahs will be, and the weakest US imperialism and its allies will be.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Nov 28, '06)


In The rise and rise of gold and oil [Nov 28], Jephraim P Gundzik says, "Canada's oil sands, which are being touted as another new source of petroleum reserves, have not been proved commercially viable." I beg to differ, but depending on the deposit being accessed, the oil sands are commercially viable whenever oil sells above [US]$35 (many deposits, some currently being exploited, break even at $25). In aggregate, the oil sands hold several trillion barrels of oil, making them the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world. This is why any analysis of the geopolitics of energy must include an analysis of Canada's role. Speaking environmentally, the oil sands are a disaster for my country, because it takes a lot of water and heat to convert oil sand into oil. The heat comes from burning natural gas, one of the cleanest fossil fuels, and the water is sourced from previously pristine mountain and prairie environments. The output is toxic sludge and, of course, barrels of oil; oil is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels around. Canada produces 10 [times] the amount of greenhouse gases per capita as China, even though China is a manufacturing powerhouse, and Canada is not, and even though Canada produces a great deal of its electricity via hydro. The oil sands are the main culprit.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Nov 28, '06)


Judging from so many letters written protesting and condemning Spengler's most recent article [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21], I came to the conclusion that he is a shameless and gutless entity [who] has no honor or self-respect or decency to refrain from pouring out his often delinquent and perfidious verbosity. Spengler is probably the most detested writer on this platform, and it is about time that his right to free speech is curbed for the sake of peace and tranquillity of this excellent forum. I always find his style of writing tedious, self-inflicting, self-indulging, slithering, deceiving, malingering, often nauseating and insulting to human conscience. ATol should take into consideration many discontented and disenchanted voices who would like Spengler to restrain his mendacious self-indulgent intoxication.
Saqib Khan
UK (Nov 28, '06)


... I don't agree with Richard Stone's childish celebrations [of the] demise of Islam and Muslims as I am sure he and several of his ilk have been hoping and praying for [letter, Nov 27]. He must know the bloodshed in Iraq has always led Islam to unprecedented progress and heights. I would, however, agree with him that Muslims' fascination with the past and tendency to be living in it is a cause of concern and an opportunity for self-analysis which we are not good at. All the things he has said are true about lack of economic progress and any world-class institutions that Muslims can offer to the world. So as a Muslim I must thank him and Thomas Friedman for telling us what our Muslim leaders have not a clue about, ie, Muslims' lack of economic opportunity and education development has done us more harm than the West or any other real or imaginary enemy could do.
R Ahmed
Illinois, USA (Nov 28, '06)


"It is as though Mr Bush has consulted the Book of Daniel and foresaw in Kim Jong-il the coming of a nuclear Armageddon in Northeast Asia." - Jakob Cambria [letter, Nov 27]. Maybe he has.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Nov 28, '06)


I just [watched] a TV show which had heated debate on whether Mohammad Afzal, convicted for attacking the Indian parliament [in December 2001], should be hanged or given life imprisonment. Although ATol has not published any article about this, I am writing in the hope that some people who have authority in Indian polity are reading this portal, so I too can plead for Afzal. In fact, I am a strong supporter of capital punishment. The terrorists and criminals are like infectious disease, and if they are not eliminated they will spread the disease to others. But what has changed my heart is the fact (former Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah's argument) that when an Indian flight [was hijacked] to Afghanistan and the [hijackers held] the passengers (read Hindus) for ransom, the Indian government didn't hesitate to subvert the law and handed over the terrorist [sic] to save the passengers. The same argument can be applied in this case. Hanging Afzal is not going to end any terrorist attacks, but when one [considers that] his hanging is going to burn Kashmir and may claim many lives, then why can his death sentence not be diluted to life imprisonment? And [this is] not to mention [that] high-profile cases like the Bofors bribery case and the Babri Mosque demolition case are still waiting for verdicts. The Babri Mosque case is as diabolical as the parliament attack because the chain [of] events after the demolition claimed thousands of lives [of both Hindus and Muslims]. Why [did] not the court pull up the investigating agency and say that law must prevail on everybody? This may be the first time that President Abdul Kalam [has regretted accepting that] high post. Being a Muslim and elected by the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] is going to be a major factor which will influence his decision. I just want to remind him that Afzal's crime may be dangerous in our perspective but it is a political crime, and somewhere down the line India may be responsible [for] the reprisal. After all, India claims that Kashmiris are Indian citizens, and giving in to your child's (Kashmiris') demand is not a shameful one.
Shivanantham
Cuddalore, India (Nov 28, '06)


Marc Erikson's Iraq: Kissinger's 'decent interval', take two (Nov 23) is an interesting view that needs to be analyzed for the sake of intellectual curiosity and intended actions. [Henry] Kissinger as a tool and an important crony for American monopoly capitalism is a war criminal. The Nobel Peace Prize was given to him to cover up the war crimes committed by US imperialism during the 1970s. Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, who were prosecuted as war criminals, were the causes behind the killing of many innocent individuals, a combined number that was by far less than the millions of individuals killed and massacred by Mr Kissinger's intellectual methods and strategies. It is very surprising that the world community and the guardians of international law and freedom have not initiated a process for prosecuting Mr Kissinger as a war criminal. If the world community starts such a process against those individuals who have misled the world and promoted wars for corporate interests, then a slowdown in war momentum can be expected and many lives will be saved. Mr Kissinger was one of those cronies of the military complex and oil corporations who contributed significantly for establishing the case for invading and occupying Iraq, an act that has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and Americans. He thinks that the will to fight brings a victory in Iraq but has recently told the world that a military victory in Iraq is not possible. Millions of people had predicted that the war in Iraq would not be won and that US forces would be in a quagmire for a long period. If the layman's prediction is more accurate than [that of] the winner of [the] Nobel Prize, then the Nobel Committee must consider seriously the case to strip Mr Kissinger of his Nobel Prize, because he has been intellectually [an] embarrassment and incompetent. For the Iraqi situation, there shall be, first, no peace of honor, nor will [there] be peace in the region if US does not settle its differences with the Ba'athists. If the Bush administration chooses another course of action, US imperialism will have the same fate as the one experienced by the British and the French empires: inevitable defeat. Second, all Arabs and some people of the [non-Arab] world do believe that the occupation of Iraq, no matter what the Bush administration has articulated, is also the necessary means for achieving the Zionist dream for establishing the greater state of Israel which runs from the Nile to the Euphrates at the expense of the Arabs. This popular belief will revolutionize those Arab and Muslim people against US imperialism at a higher intensity than the one experienced by the Soviets in Afghanistan. Last, whatever Mr Kissinger may think, the Iranian mullahs, whether they have nuclear weapons or not, have become the most powerful entity in the Middle East. Those mullahs are in a situation they have never dreamed of in that they have seen US forces destroying their enemy, the Ba'athists, and they are now witnessing the Ba'athists creating a chaotic situation for their enemy, the American forces. For US, the Iraqi war has put American monopoly capitalism in a saw condition that hurts every time the saw moves. This is the saw condition that Mr Kissinger and other cronies of US imperialism have put the American people in.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Nov 27, '06)


Joseph Stroupe's analysis is mistaken [Russia tips the balance, Nov 23], in my opinion. If the US has an economic breakdown because of a currency attack or devaluation, Russia, China, and most of the rest of the world will go down with [it]. [Whom] will the Chinese sell to? The price of oil will go down in a global depression, eating into Russian oil and natural-gas profits. The US client state of Saudi Arabia supplies Asian energy; therefore the US has Asia by the balls. All the US needs is a Pearl Harbor-type event and [it] will have the excuse to attack Iran and have a military draft that has domestic support. Any resistance to the rear by other Middle Eastern countries will be taken care of by their [Americans'] proxy army in Israel. Yes, these attacks will hurt the US economy, but the US can withstand a recession better than anyone else. Afterwards the US will control access to the oil of the Middle East and have manufacturing moved back home from China. Social unrest from the depression, as well as having their oil supply cut off by the US, will break up or render China powerless and Russia will be the same as it was five years ago. Even if oil can't be secured in Iran and Iraq because of insurgencies, the US will still have Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to supply [its] oil. A regional war in the Middle East has the potential to change the world order and make the US even more powerful by controlling the flow of Middle Eastern oil. The standard of living in the world would plummet, including that of the US, but the US would come out of it relatively more powerful than ever. The prospect of this is bad news for the population of the developed world, including that of the US, but "one of the greatest material prizes in history" is intoxicating for the elite of the United States.
Ram Ramstien
Nacogdoches, Texas (Nov 27, '06)


Once again, Donald Kirk records the sad story of [yet another of] the Bush administration's [attempts] to bell the North Korean cat [North Korean nukes: Flurry, then fallback, Nov 23]. President [George W] Bush assigned Pyongyang a maleficent apocalyptic role even before it tested a nuclear device. By branding North Korea an "axis of evil" [member], the Bush White House mingled truth and error to scare South Korea [into closing] ranks by adopting Washington's military-inspired Proliferation Security Initiative. It is as though Mr Bush has consulted the Book of Daniel and foresaw in Kim Jong-il the coming of a nuclear Armageddon in Northeast Asia. Casting hyperbole aside, President Bush has consistently … [spat] in the eye of reality when it comes to dealing with North Korea. As such, South Korea and … China have resisted the siren calls of Washington for confrontation with Pyongyang.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 27, '06)


Chan Akya has aired familiar gripes [about] Asia's left turn in his latest article [When left is right, Nov 23], continuing his usual tirade against Keynesians and Marxists. However, I found the following very telling: "It is not without reason that Sonia Gandhi has been dubbed by the Indian intelligentsia the 'Shroud of Turin', a reference not so much to her Italian ancestry from that city as to the apparent inability of any sound economic thinking to get through her intellectual defenses." Did your commentator call her stupid, or am I imagining it?
Salt (Nov 27, '06)


Re The rise and decline of the neo-cons [(Nov 22) by] Jim Lobe & Michael Flynn: Excellent summary of what future historians will probably see as a watershed for Zionist-evangelical influence in American foreign policy. However, I suggest that "decline" is too timid an interpretation and that "fall" is a more appropriate label. For after all, how likely is it that the US will elect another Christian-Zionist president any time soon? Especially one as intellectually deficient and politically ungifted as [George] Bush Jr turned out to be. Furthermore, Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn overlooked the profound implications of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The latter unequivocally demonstrated the impotence of the Israeli war machine. This amounts to no less than a silver bullet through the heart of the superstitious ethos that sustains the political and financial backing of Israel by American evangelicals. The twin disasters of the American occupation of Iraq and the complete humiliation of the Israeli military by ragtag indigenous resistance movements spell the end of the neo-cons and underscore the futility of military force and empire in the modern world. As a citizen of the Republic, I rejoice in the neo-cons' passing - nay, I would dance on their graves.
Jose R Pardinas, PhD
San Diego, California (Nov 27, '06)


Referring to the article Russia attacks the West's Achilles' heel [Nov 22] by W Joseph Stroupe, I would say that China and Russia are watching the end game in Iraq with mischievous smile and watching the slow but sure drowning of US imperialism, its imperialistic designs under the ignominious tutelage of G W Bush and his warmongering bloodthirsty administration. While the quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan sinks [the US] economy towards recession, China and Russia are fast emerging as the alternative attractive economic powers, shifting not only the economic but also the military balance globally. The USA is more interested in illegally invading and looting rich oil wells of the Muslim world, manipulating oil prices and, foremost, protecting Zionist Israel even at all cost; it has lost the political morality of fairness it once had. Its demise is near and fast. According to latest reading, the USA economy is slowing down in all sectors - housing, manufacturing, retail sales, job growth and opportunities. Business is drying up and industry suffering [from] increasingly paying compensation, supporting the argument of massive layoffs in the pipeline, which points either to US economic dominance in decline or [that] it is heading for the worst recession in its history ... Far too may pundits are blaming China's cheap currency for the [US] trade deficit and looking [for a] way out in self-protectionism but it could easily backfire, with China doing the same and engulfing global protectionism. Today, The United States deficit is approaching 7% of its economy instead of 3% - a litmus test of crisis point for any nation. The Bush administration is heading for not only for a political disaster and humiliation in Iraq as admitted by Tony Blair on Al-Jazeera but also for economic disaster unless it defines enormous problems honestly to the American voters.
Saqib Khan
UK (Nov 27, '06)


I read your article about Jihadis and whores [Nov 21] and found it complete nonsense. As a deeply offensive piece, which seeks to massively exaggerate the extent of prostitution in Iran, you wrote: "The proliferation of Iranian prostitutes in Western Europe as well as the Arab world helps explain the country's population trends. The European Commission's most comprehensive surveys of human trafficking found that Iranian women made up 10-15% of the prostitutes working in Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy." I have now read the European Commission's report twice and have found nothing in that report that even talks about Iranian prostitution in Belgium, Holland and Italy - let alone state that 10-15% of prostitutes are Iranian. There is a brief discussion of Iranian "victims" of smuggling networks in section 4.1.2 of the report and a statistic of 10% is given, but there is no indication whatsoever that this involves prostitution. Your work is a piece that is full of stupid and moronic statements and is a catastrophic and unforgivable error of judgment. These stupid, moronic and infantile statements include: "Islamist radicals (like the penny-a-marriage mullahs of Iran) are the world's most prolific pimps. As an Iranian I am profoundly offended and outraged. This is especially the case when one considers that Iranian emigres are some of the most successful immigrants in the world. Indeed, Iranians top the education and wealth leagues in Western Europe and North America and are known everywhere for their talents, sincerity, courtesy, professionalism, resilience and hard work. No matter where we live, our ancient civilization, deep culture and Islamic faith provide the context for all our actions.
Mohammad Biglo (Nov 27, '06)


[This is] to recommend [that] Spengler study his resources for writing an article more carefully. In Jihadis and whores posted by Spengler on November 21, he argued about the Iranian whores in Belgium based on a report by the European Commission. I studied that report carefully and it says that 90% of Iranians smuggled to Belgium are male, so they can't be whores. It has been written in the article that 10% of people smuggled to Belgium, are Iranian and Spengler thought that all of them are females ... This is not an article in the dignity of ATimes.com based on fake data.
Sobbooh Shahlaei (Nov 27, '06)


Wow. This article [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] by Spengler stands out. It is simply fantastic, as its basis lies wholly in fantasy, exceptional even by the standards of his earlier writings. As for the shallowness, the obvious spite, and the absence of any intellectual rigor, it is vintage Spengler. In fact the reference provided - a 350-page EC [European Commission] report on human trafficking in the EU - is easily exposed as a flimsy attempt at making it appear as if there is some basis for his writings; a search of the document shows that there isn't even a single reference to Iran or Iranians in the part of the report (Section 2) that deals with the sexual exploitation of women. Really, the editors at ATimes owe their readers an explanation. Why is [it] that Spengler's columns have continued to appear for so long? This is not about freedom of expression; it's about maintaining standards.
Akif
India (Nov 27, '06)


Ah, Spengler the [openly] racist war-mongering fool is back, this time attempting a strange theory of prostitution and empire decline [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21]. Note to Spengler: prostitution and pornography constitute the second-largest industry in the world (behind arms). All situations are different - think Thailand (the sex industry being the creation of the Vietnam War, a Western debacle), think Israel (the mafia in Israel is the world's largest trafficker in women), think the former Eastern bloc, think Mexico and on and on. All these stories have different particulars. How does Thailand fit into Spengler's theory? The invasion and occupation of Iraq [have] led to a spike in Iraqi prostitution - this is a typical scenario; war leads to a need for sex workers. In Africa, the same situation when conflicts arise. Prostitution follows. The bombing and then occupation of Kosovo led to trafficking by private security firms. Spengler seems oblivious to fact despite his almost masturbatory obsession with graphs and statistics. His reductive and openly racist world view is becoming almost amusing - except for the fact that such Islamophobia is rising in Europe and the US. So Iran is hardly even in the quarter-finals of world prostitution no matter how you slice the graphs. Not per capita and not overall. Check the United States for evidence of the growth of prostitution something that would, again, interfere with Spengler's prejudices to see that poverty is the real starting point for the selling of one's body. When you have nothing else to sell, you sell yourself. Such has always been the case. This is simply more Islam-bashing from your in-house racist reactionary. One longs for a voice to counter this vomit - your readers deserve it.
John Steppling
Lodz, Poland (Nov 27, '06)


In Jihadis and whores [Nov 21], Spengler must have hit a nerve, judging by the responses. I don't think his apparent insults are entirely unintended. It remains, however, that his sources can be interpreted as he proposes, and his analogies and historical interpretations are not completely ridiculous. Spengler did not say that Iranians are despicable whoremongers or that its women any less honorable than women from any other country. He did cheerfully insult the mullahs, but that is another story altogether. What does seem to be the case is that the West (not just the US, and not just Europe, and not as part of any military effort, but rather the whole ethos of the West) has conceptually, intellectually, and economically defeated Islam and Iran. And this is true even if the US is militarily "defeated" in Iraq. (The US allowed the Iraqis to vote on a government and instead, with the wisdom seemingly possessed only by the Palestinians, they decided to attack each other and create what amounts to gang warfare.) In that regard, the chest-beating of the current leadership in Iran is nothing more than cheerleading, designed to give "dignity" back to the defeated Iranians and to Islam. This defeat of Islam and Iran is, of course, almost entirely self-inflicted, but Islam seems to make almost every country it touches ungovernable. Only Turkey is even approaching democracy, and it ostentatiously rejected Islam as part of the culture some time ago. The rest of the Islamic countries are simply not very well managed or well run, let alone democratic. Part of a well-run country is a view toward the future, with advancing technology, a creative desire, and plans, not just dreams, of a better life. Instead, what we see in Islam and in Iran is a looking back to the past, to recover former glories, and a return to the assumed virtues of the 8th century. Instead of study of the Koran there needs to be training in engineering, physics, and teaching, and jobs to use that training and information. Instead, there is no investment in Iran, and no one wants to start a business there. We can measure the number of patents issued to the Islamic countries, and the number of degrees awarded in technical fields, and the Islamic countries are falling further and further behind. Islam amounts to a billion people trapped by ignorance, and a leadership that does not want them to think for themselves. That is defeat. It does no good to insult Israel in this discussion. Israel is simply a proxy for the West. Iran does have a population problem, and it has a jobs program. Just as the USSR was a Third World country (but a big one) with rockets, Iran is a Third World country with oil. And even if it has both rockets and oil it will still be a Third World country. And a defeated one.
Richard Stone (Nov 27, '06)


I consider Spengler [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] to be a "lost cause". So, what do I do? I just don't read him anymore. Yes, that's correct: I refuse to read him because I know he's just going to pile up dung on whichever Muslims he has in his [sickened] view at the moment. Now I respect Muslims as much as I understand they will respect me. Anything else means war. I do a lot in my own small community for a better understanding between all - and that includes everyone who's honest and working - and all the others are a job for the police and tribunals, just as all the other possible criminals (Christian, or [of] no religion) may be. Spengler is long overdue for an international investigation through the Internet by Interpol and Europol for being, clearly, a possible warmonger. It is a good time to cut his "libels". Every commentary sent asks you for the same. I think this is the time to cut him (Spengler) in his terrible writings. I will read as before your excellent ATol news online, which is one of the best of the world.
Eduard E F Vandoorne
Andalusia, Spain (Nov 27, '06)


The bloodshed in Iraq, Lebanon [and the] Middle East waters the bloody tree of neo-conservatives of the USA, the UK, the West and the world. The more the blood of the weaker [is] shed, the taller their tree, and more of their coffers of wealth filled. They are the of real axis of evil; proud progeny of Satan, whose evil-doings will kill their own civilizations quite soon. Stop them!
Abdullah J Mohammad
Jehlum, Pakistan (Nov 27, '06)


In Russia attacks the West's Achilles' heel [Nov 22], Joseph Stroupe sounds a familiar warning of impending economic stress for the US. I share his foreboding, since few American leaders ([Senator Richard] Lugar is an exception) seem to see it coming. Couple this with the housing bubble, travail among American auto producers, the trade deficit, huge budget deficits, and a still-clueless Bush administration, and I wonder how soon this house of cards will topple. At any rate, I wonder how much [Russian President Vladimir] Putin remembers the influence that [current US Vice President Dick] Cheney and his neo-conservative friends had in the first [George H W] Bush administration in shutting out financial aid for Russia when it was in economic stress. The neo-conservative influence probably caused a lot of pain and suffering for the Russian people.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Nov 22, '06)


W Joseph Stroupe's Russia attacks the West's Achilles' heel (Nov 22) tries to justify imperialist adventures by the US. This hostile analysis implies that dependency on Arab oil and the fear and the negative expected consequences of oil embargo will create energy insecurity for the West, particularly the US. It follows that a plan for a seizure of Middle East oilfields is the correct course of action. The basic problem with such analysis is its implications for the world community. If a country happens to produce a commodity that is needed by the US ... then the same scenario is introduced: the seizure of that country for our national security. This tendency for imperialist adventures will create fierce and bloody resistance from the seized nations ... A simple argument can be introduced to create energy security for the United States of America, a security that cannot come through seizing oilfields but through world cooperation and respect of others. We ... have read many articles published by ATol indicating that the US has plenty of oil and the right technology to explore [for] oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the state of Colorado, and elsewhere. Two conclusions were cited that greed was the factor behind not exploring [for] oil in the United States, because [if] the price of oil will decline to 90 cents, so will profitability. The only solution to greed is the transformation of monopoly capitalism, a solution that is not possible. The second conclusion was the shortage of oil refineries. If the country built two or three more refineries, oil prices [would] decline as well. In addition, if US imperialism had not occupied Iraq, oil prices would not have increased to [US]$70 per barrel. Thus if the US ends the occupation of Iraq, the oil market can easily receive 4 [million] to 5 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil, hence the price of oil will decline. The simple fact is that the oil market is driven by supply and demand, and if supply is being restricted or intentionally cut by the various institutions of imperialism such as the threat of war with Iran, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism, and military occupation of defenseless nations, then oil supply is expected to decline and oil prices will rise, [and] so will profitability of oil corporations. This manipulated decline in oil supply will be enforced by the shortage of domestic refineries in the United States of America. Hence a high oil price is determined by the oil market. This clearly suggests that the oil market is driven by imperialist manipulators, particularly oil corporations and the Bush administration. In short, the foregoing analysis helps us to conclude that US imperialism, not the Arabs, the Persians, or the Russians, has created its own energy insecurity by using its global military action of cultural hegemony in order for the American oil corporations and the military complex to make huge profits.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Nov 22, '06)

Part 2 of W Joseph Stroupe's report, Russia tips the balance, is now online. - ATol


[Brendan] Smith, [Tim] Costello and [Jeremy] Brecher tell a sad tale in US puts squeeze on Vietnamese labor [Nov 22]. It is an old tale. American corporations in Vietnam are there not for their own pleasure but for cheap labor and higher profits. Vietnam has just been admitted to the World Trade Organization and enjoys special trading rights with the United States. So it is willing to pay a price for admission to the club of liberal economics. It is loosening its ideological moorings to its revolutionary past, and if the open arms it extended to President [George W] Bush during the recent APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] meeting in Hanoi is any indication, the Communist Party representing the country's working class is loath to press foreign corporations to adhere to fair labor practices nor fully respect current laws on the books. American companies will act according to the inner logic of capitalist economics. They are not the least recondite in their motives. They have acquired a privileged status, which Vietnam's government is not going to openly challenge, since foreign companies bring in much-needed stronger currencies and stoke the boilers of economic growth. And so it will turn a blind eye to sweatshops and undisguised exploitations of Vietnamese workers, in open violations of the pious genuflections before the altars of revered saints such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 22, '06)


Spengler's [Nov 21] article [Jihadis and whores] is just beyond the pale. Slandering the moral character of Iranian women is just ugly. Jewish prostitutes are rare? All of this to paint Iran as a nation to loathe and fear, and what? Should we destroy a nation like Iran for Zionists? Many of us in America prefer the warmth of the Iranian people over the abusive and manipulative proponents of Zionism. Nasty, nasty Mr Spengler.
Raymond Frey (Nov 22, '06)


Thanks for the well-researched article by Spengler on the subject of "if you lose the war you will sell your women" [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] ... We readers are deeply offended that you have to print such garbage, all this because the Jewish community is getting insecure with the situation in the Middle East, especially with defeats in Iraq and the Lebanon. Israelis out of desperation are resorting to last-weapon insults. Can insults of the Iranian nation create a disintegration in Iran, and if it did, would that put some ease on Israel? This could be a new neo-con idea coming out of Israeli intellectuals like Spengler. It looks like the Israelis' propaganda machine is losing touch. He has no idea that insults on Iran and Iranian ethnics' family [are] an insult on all Iranians - that includes Azeris, Balochs, Lors, Kurds, etc - and if they were to start separation due to insults, that would have happened in the last millennium. Iran is a broader name then "Persian", just like if I insult Israel, does that mean all Jews in the world must be insulted? Unlike Israel, Iran is not a made-up country out of the British Foreign Office, by a Western colonist. I being an Iranian do not appreciate his insults. Spengler knows the game is over ...
Kooshy Afshar
Santa Monica, California (Nov 22, '06)


In reference to the article with the silly title Jihadis and whores [Nov 21] by Spengler, I would like to say that it is once again his endless mendacious endeavor to distort the facts about Islam without looking into his own devil's mirror. He mentioned all kinds of whores but failed to mention the Christian European whores who reside in every corner of the globe and sell their bodies even for a puff of cigarette, a [half-pint of lager] or a bite of Mars chocolate. May I also tell Spengler that over 75% of the whores walking the streets or living in posh flats or in the red-light districts of the world are white Christians who sell their bodies not only for a few cents but also for perverse pleasure. In the Western world, every third child born inside the wedlock of a European couple is suspected of having an outsider as a father and increasingly a DNA test is required to certify the real fatherhood. It reminds me of a story of one Mr Smith, whose fertile wife gave birth every year despite him trying many methods of family planning. So he went to his doctor and finally agreed to have a vasectomy as the last resort, but the wife became pregnant again, which infuriated him. So he went fuming to his doctor's clinic and protested at the failed operation and threatened to sue him for incompetence as a surgeon. After listening to his long abuse, the doctor replied, "I [did a] vasectomy on you and not on your neighbor," and that is a fact of life among the Europeans and their free-for-all pleasure-seeking Christian women ... 
Saqib Khan
UK


One should note that according to American Justice, a documentary series on A&E TV created by Bill Curtis, Israel is de facto prostitution capital of the world ranked No 1. Most prostitutes coming into Israel are Eastern European Jews. This is very contradictory to Spengler's article [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21]. I took the liberty of researching all his articles in Asia Times [Online] which seem to be mostly anti-Islam and anti-Iran. It is a pity that your fine online magazine allows such trash published in it. It denigrates your other fine writers and articles.
Shawn Kristoferu (Nov 22, '06)


Tom Engelhardt, in The danger of a 'dignified' exit from Iraq (Nov 21), launches a scathing yet completely justified attack on the US in its imperialistic need to exit Iraq with "dignity". He provides a thorough-going outline of why the "dignity" that the now-"embedded" Bush administration is desperately seeking is a certain recipe for more horror and blood-letting. Moreover, Engelhardt solemnly concludes that such "imperial offenders as the US should face reality". Clearly, the reality the US now needs to face is this: the only thing that stands in the way of the US making a dignified exit from Iraq is its imperial hubris of pride. There is indeed a world of difference that stands between pride and dignity, and the line that differentiates the two can be diabolically blurred to the point of extinction. This is in fact what has happened to a post-[September 11, 2001] US that has turned on its enemies with a ferocity not seen since the Cold War struggle against "godless communism". Iraq is now at the frontline of a battle against a God-filled Islam, giving a born-again US president all the more reason to deny US diplomatic officials proper access to insurgents. It further bears a striking parallel with Israel's equally like-minded refusal to open up formal diplomatic channels with its sworn enemies - Hamas and Hezbollah. Under such fiercely uncompromising circumstances, pride naturally leaves no room for talking to one's enemy, but dignity does. This is why it is absolutely essential that the US be fully prepared to set aside its pride in order to enter into peace negotiations with Iraq's Sunni insurgents.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Nov 22, '06)


[Re Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] Spengler has [proved] over and over that he knows nothing about history, nothing about the Abrahamic religions. Should we trust him now on the subject of harlotry in Iran?
Lester Ness, alive in the bitter sea
Kunming, China (Nov 21, '06)


Contrary to what Spengler says about Jewish prostitutes being scarce [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21], it so happens that they've merely moved upscale, together with their clients. He might want to listen to Howard Stern's radio show, where many of the guests who work in the porn industry, for instance, are Jewish. Also, many of the guests who are hanging on to the fringes of the legitimate entertainment world by trading on their bodies are Jewish. They need to have a little sophistication because they sometimes appear with their clients in public settings. Also, Hollywood's best-known upscale ex-madam is Jewish, which only confirms that Jews generally move in higher social circles than those examined in the study that Spengler cites. Spengler overlooks male prostitution. In Manhattan, for instance, the police stage occasional raids on brothels housing female workers, but they never go after male prostitutes because the top male authorities don't want the tastes of their still-closeted colleagues to be made public. Which is worse, the whoremonger or the whore? It's supply and demand. Prostitution flourishes in good times and bad. Spengler talks like somebody who's just discovered sex, but that's because he's intent on showing his innocence as contrasted with his villains, the Muslims.
Harald Hardrada
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Nov 21, '06)


[Re Jihadis and whores, Nov 21] When is your otherwise fine magazine going to put an end to Spengler's Islamophobic, bigoted and racist trash that he puts out week in, week out? Spengler is doing great harm to your magazine's otherwise splendid reputation.
Vincent Maadi
Cape Town, South Africa (Nov 21, '06)


Considering the last Iran-bashing article by so-called Spengler [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21], I would [make] some points: (1) Why does Asia Times Online not reveal his name? What is your policy? I think Spengler is nothing more than a pen-name to him. He may be a CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] agent, a sworn enemy of Iran or simply a staff [member] or even the Asia Times Online editor who publishes his Persian-bashing nonsense under the pseudonym of Spengler. Why does his name appear on the Front Page with a different color and on the top of his baloney [unlike] with other authors? Why do you discriminate so harshly? (2) The title does not make sense. It is totally meaningless. Based on any factor there is no relationship between Iran [and] Ukraine and Moldova, neither culturally nor in the size of population. (3) Turkic-speaking people are less than 25% of Iran's population and not 50% as he wrongly claims. Many children of such families even cannot speak Turkic because their parents do speak with them in Persian for their future and especially education. One of those 25% is Iran's current [supreme] leader, Ali Khamenei. While being a native Turk, he speaks Persian much better than me ... (4) Not only can more than 90% of Iranians talk to you in Persian, more than 50% of Iranians can speak another language [besides] Persian, including Turkic, Kurdish, Arabic etc. One of them is me. I can speak Persian, Kurdish, Turkic and some Arabic. I learned Persian and Arabic in school, but thanks to Iran's multi-culture society I also could learn to speak fluent Kurdish and Turkic without taking even one course or buying a book. (5) Prostitution is a bitter reality of our times which nobody and no country would deny. It's totally illegal and banned in Iran. Those people have no option but going abroad if they want to make more easy money. (6) Iranian women in general and Persian women in particular are among the most faithful women in the world. You can simply ask those Western nationals who have got an Iranian wife and learn some facts ...
Shiri
Iranian student
Tokyo, Japan (Nov 21, '06)

The article did not say that 50% of Iranians speak Turkic languages, but that "half of Iranians do not speak Persian, and half of those speak Azeri". The approximately 25% of Iranians whose first language is neither Farsi (the official dialect of Persian, an Indo-European language) nor Azeri (a Turkic language) may speak Arabic (a Semitic language) or some other tongue belonging to one of those families, such as Kurdish, Baloch, Turkmen and many more. - ATol


Re Jihadis and whores [Nov 21] by Spengler: What worm is turning in that brain of his this time? Has he been on a bender or is this deranged essay some twisted dream of the writer, as in he wishes it were so? I have found no evidence in my wanderings that would support such a hypothesis; where are all those Iranian whores he speaks of? None has been reported; at least not in such numbers as he claims is required to exhaust the entire Iranian nation. There is trafficking in women, much of it reported in the news and occasionally a program or two on television. A lot of it is concentrated in Israel; and as Spengler states, Jewish involvement is historical fact. If he would but type "Israeli prostitution" into the Google search engine and then "Iranian prostitution", he would see the comparison. Or perhaps he should study a recent review of the global situation: "The New Global Slave Trade" by Ethan B Kapstein (Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006), wherein the global picture is made clear. An article by Dr Kapstein appears in your own forum in which it [is stated]: "There are now 32 countries on the [US] State Department's 'Tier 2 watch list', a list of those governments that are making efforts to comply with anti-slavery treaties but in whose countries compliance is still weak (see footnote 1), and another 12 on the 'Tier 3' list, a list of those governments that are making little effort to halt the slave trade (see footnote 2) ... Footnote 1: The list comprises Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, the Central African Republic, China, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Macau, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Oman, Peru, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, Togo, and the United Arab Emirates. Footnote 2: The list comprises Belize, Burma, Cuba, Iran, Laos, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe." Yes, Iran is in that list, along with many others - now like all such things, the "consumer nations" are not listed, but they are the willing counterparts without which this trade cannot occur. As with Colombian cocaine, the user is not without stain. In any event, this tirade linking in the title jihadism and prostitution is unworthy. It is just not backed up with the relevant facts, and is trying to justify a certain view of Iran or Islam that is without merit.
Adam M
Canada (Nov 21, '06)


Following from the logic of Spengler's latest article [Jihadis and whores, Nov 21], does he realize that Asia has a long tradition of supplying women into prostitution? Since he calls himself an equal-opportunity offender, perhaps we should assume that his views on Chinese, Indian, Thai and other Asian peoples mirrors his views of Muslims in general and Iranians in particular? Even if all that were true, what does Spengler make of the cesspool that is Hollywood, where I am told most of the new "talent" is from elsewhere in America - isn't it proof extraordinary that the [US] Midwest and south are forever condemned? Thanks for the recent thought-provoking articles by your other commentators such as Henry Liu, Shawn Crispin and Chan Akya, by the way.
Salt (Nov 21, '06)


H C K Liu's Fleeing self-destruction is common sense [Nov 21] is a rational and sweeping indictment of how a nation of some 300 million was bamboozled by a few megalomaniacs into undertaking a parallel stinglike operation that the CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] pulled on the USSR into Afghanistan back in the 1970-80s. At present, as Mr Liu references, the dual-citizenship neo-cons are not only jumping GWB's ship. Several are vacationing in their villas in southern France or other countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. En passant I would request that ATol's editor entertain the notion of separating commentaries of the likes of Mr Liu from commentaries of, say, Spengler, which read more like entertainment newsmagazines much like those on racks near the checkout booths at the Wal-Marts.
Armand De Laurell (Nov 21, '06)


In Cut and Run, Part 1 [Fleeing self-destruction is common sense, Nov 21], Henry Liu, like most observers of the Bush administration, gives credence to the Bush "war on terror" rhetoric. The Bush foray into Iraq was never part of the war on terror. Calling it part of a war on terror was the Bush administration's justification for a war the American public and Congress would not have otherwise supported. Both were duped (and intimidated) into an invasion that we all should know was planned by neo-conservative forces well before [US President George W] Bush entered office. Propagandists have always said that a lie repeated enough becomes reality (attributed to Joseph Goebbels and paraphrased in Mein Kampf). Liu mentions Goebbels regarding the neo-conservative use of propaganda in intelligence operations, but fails to identify the "war on terror" lie used to justify the Iraq war. I'm not sure if Liu is suggesting that the Bush administration believed that lie themselves. Liu is correct that our [US] war on terror has been a "monumental strategic error". All of the showcase organizations and strategies like Homeland Security ... and the frequent alerts were mostly political manipulations to either intimidate, mollify, or placate the opposition or allies. The vigilance of already-existing global intelligence and individual police work has helped save us. Such a description sounds very cynical, but the last six years of American leadership has been quite cynical, if not Machiavellian. The faulty policies that Liu mentions are the most convincing proof that the "end" was always our [US] dominance in the Middle East over control of strategic resources. The "means" was using [the events of September 11, 2001] and terrorism. Little focus was given to the "how" because the arrogance of power and the certainty of righteousness overruled preparation.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Nov 21, '06)


Tom Engelhardt's The danger of a 'dignified' exit from Iraq (Nov 21) is a misguided analysis not only for the so-called Iraq Study Group (ISG) but also for the outcomes of the brutal imperialist occupation of Iraq. The conclusion of the article is vague when stating that all the US wants is a dignified exit strategy "that will only ensure further catastrophe (which, in turn, will but breed more rage, more terrorism that spreads disaster to the Middle East and actually lessens US power around the world)" ... Imperialism, whether American, French [or] British, has never had dignity and morality ... because the goals of imperialists are looting of helpless nations' wealth such as oil and the submission of poor people to the naked exploitation of monopoly capitalism. Think of another example. Many Americans ... pay taxes to governments but the federal government uses the tax revenues to enrich the wealthiest institutions: the military complex, oil corporations, and cronies. In other words, the governments take taxes from the unwealthy people to enrich the wealthy. This is far from being a dignified act. Therefore, it is really incorrect to argue that US imperialism tries to find a dignified strategy. Rather, it has been trying to find an exit strategy that will allow US imperialism to control oil for profits and to strengthen the Iraqi puppets or cronies for securing the country by killing more Iraqis for the continuation of the process of economic looting ... The article needs to specify the catastrophic consequences of the US imperialist presence in the Middle East. One basic consequence has to be the future of Israel and US allies in the region. In my opinion, whatever the US strategy may be, it has become very clear that the US has been situated by the Bush administration in a corner that will lead to no dignified results, whether for US or for its cronies in the Middle East ... The presence of US imperialism in Iraq will not lessen US power in the world as the article claims. In fact, it will eliminate US power. This is because the continuation of killing Iraqis will eventually revolutionize all people except the cronies against US presence in the region. This will be the uprising of the new century, which will [culminate in] the defeat of the imperialist projects, as happened to the Soviet project after the defeat in Afghanistan. Once again, the best solution for US imperialism in Iraq must go through the Ba'athists, the hub, not through the Iranian mullahs or other countries in the region, the spokes.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Nov 21, '06)


This letter is with respect to the article Putrid: Meat scandal hits Turkish import by Fazile Zahir on November 21. This is an interesting article and [I] was a bit surprised to see it published here. As mentioned by the author, the rotten-meat scandal broke out a few months ago here in Germany [but seems to be] under control now. As far as kebab is concerned, it is an interesting fast-food item not only for Indians like me but for most South Asians here, especially because of its spicy add-ons. As I read this article, an interesting incident came to my mind which happened two years ago when I landed in Germany. I was looking for something to eat when I spotted a kebab shop and decided to try it out. The only problem was that my German language was not good enough and I was struggling to understand the names of the different meats available (as I don't eat cow and calf meat). I was pleasantly surprised when the Turkish shopkeeper who had prepared a kebab for me with calf's meat, looking at my confused face, asked me if I were Indian and started singing Bollywood songs. He then told me that he knows that Indians don't eat cow or calf's meat, since he had prepared a calf's-meat kebab for me, he told me to wait a few minutes and gave me a kaaba with chicken meat. That was my first experience with kebab, and I still relish the German national dish and naturally sympathize with my fellow kebab lovers for its unfortunate fall of fame.
Mohan
Hanover, Germany (Nov 21, '06)


Sudha Ramachandran has thrown light on problem for companies that are outsourcing back-office jobs to India These companies have chosen India because of low wages and an educated workforce. They are under the misleading idea that by sending jobs to India they might escape the constraints of laws and union contracts at home. Ramachandran's Organizing India's call center comrades [Nov 21] should give them a lot of cotton to thread, for a powerful leftist trade union has begun looking to recruit members in the information-technology sector in Bangalore. India is a Mecca for this industry. It is awash with university graduates who flock to Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, and Hyderabad to work in foreign-company call centers, accounting firms, and investment banks. Although these workers earn a salary which will sustain a lower-to-middle-class living style, they have to put up with rigid rules and hard-nosed management. They have to deal with customer abuse and grunt work which the foreign parent company piles on them. The initial response to union organizing may be tepid, yet the potential for industrial action and more militant responses remains in the realm of the possible. Companies outsource to India for reduced costs and the workers are often enfeoffed to an agency which skims very healthy profits off the backs of their hires. So the companies bear no social costs, and the agents do at minimal responsibility. Nonetheless, Wal-Mart should serve as an example. In the United States, it fights unions with all the might it can muster, but in China after its employees there threatened industrial action (which had government support), it caved in and recognized its workers' union. Intellectual workers may not organize well in the United States, but they do elsewhere, and India is not exception to this rule. India's intellectual workers play with strong cards in the information-technology sector. Should they band together in a union, the banks and the call centers and the accounting houses have sunk in millions, which may make it unprofitable to pull up stakes and go elsewhere. Of course they could return to the United States and Europe, but they are loath to do that. That would mean lower profits and bonuses for senior management and slimmer coupons to clip for shareholders.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 21, '06)


[Chan] Akya's piece on Australia [Hazards of Oz, Nov 18] is poorly written, superficially researched, and offensive. This person has clearly never spent a significant amount of time in the country and bases his views on local and international media or discussions with like-minded associates. Perhaps that is why the footnotes don't reference any published texts, except those written by Mr Akya himself - what a contemptible debasement of properly referenced writing masquerading as journalism. Presenting the racist views of other people, while not specifically dissociating oneself from them, is cowardly, veiled racism for which Mr Akya rightly criticized [Australian Prime Minister] John Howard. Many Australians are descended from professionals who immigrated here - doctors, lawyers and tradespeople, not criminals. Some are trying to reach out to Asia. Our guest delegations receive the best accommodation, food, and cultural experiences that even many locals cannot afford - at no charge. We're not better than you and we don't need your money, we just want to be friends. Finally, chuckling at our [Australians'] misfortune due to the drought is very poor taste. Not even John Howard would stoop [to] implying that environmental problems are a well-earned come-uppance for social discord. Racism, hypocrisy and poor taste - Mr Akya, my goodness, your egotism is entirely justified on that account.
Jamie Shea
Australia (Nov 21, '06)


Re Some plain truths about Iraq [Nov 17]: I agree with Ehsan Ahrari that the US has lost both the war and its prestige in Iraq and the Middle East. As Mr Ahrari states, whether the US stays or not, the situation in Iraq will not get better. The problem with the Christian/secular West is that they don't fully understand the deep-rooted hatred between the Shi'a and the Sunni communities in the Islamic world ... In addition the sectarian war in Iraq is being fed by outside forces, namely Iran and Syria. The US cannot impose its ideology of democracy on a people who detest its presence and are caught in sectarian warfare and expect "fast food" solutions. Though the US is the sole superpower in terms of its economy and military, it is a Third World power when it comes to understanding cultures that are not Western. The US-led war in Iraq has opened the gates of hell in the Middle East and in turn it will effect the world at large. There is no winner in this growing sectarian war in Iraq. Iraq and the US are now caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. If the US military stays, the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern nations will translate it to wanton imperialism by the US. Pull out and the powers in the Middle East who have their own agendas will move in. The presence of the US is also echoed in the hatred of its presence in Afghanistan and even its fervent ally Pakistan. Only the people of the Middle East can solve this problem, but even here the people don't have the power to [untangle] this Gordian knot that the US coalition has created.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 21, '06)


As a pure Asian, even I must object strongly to Chan Akya's article Hazards of Oz [Nov 18]. Yes, apparently Australia has its share of problems, which in recent years have been worsened by climatic factors. But to demand that the Australians sell their country off and move back to [Europe] is a blatantly racist (yes, Mr Akya, racism works both ways!) viewpoint. First, was Australia ever Asian? If Aussies were to sell their land, shouldn't the Aborigines get first claim? When did Asians ever claim Australia? Who? The Indonesians? Chinese? Or the Indians? Second, would any Asian country do better? For that matter, what is the way forward? Should Australia abandon its role as a primary-products supplier? And do what? Compete with China and Vietnam in making $1 plastic gizmos? Finally, Mr Akya's article is simply wrong because it implies that the white Australians have no place in Australasia just because they are not Asians. This kind of argument has long lost its validity primarily because the world is waking up to the realization that every country, every nation, every village will find that we are all a hodge-podge of cultures and race. Maybe Mr Akya should also ask Japanese to leave Peru, Indians to leave South Africa, Chinese to leave Canada and Algerians to leave France.
Vigilant Reason
Malaysia (Nov 20, '06)


As an Australian, I find the article by Chan Akya [Hazards of Oz, Nov 18] offensive and uninformed. While I agree with some things in the article, I strongly disagree with the reverse-racism tone that clouds the article. What about writing about the achievements of such a new nation, such as the welcome new migrants get and the lack of major conflict in society? ...
Mark (Nov 20, '06)


What a disgusting, bigoted article by Chan Akya [Hazards of Oz, Nov 18]. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Anthony Bates
Australia (Nov 20, '06)


For once, I very much enjoyed reading an article by Chan Akya. What he says about Australia in Hazards of Oz [Nov 18] is an excellent summary of what the country Down Under is. It is based on facts rather metaphysical speculations and cliches as is customary in Chan's writing. Unfortunately, very few Australians will have the chance to read the article. You see, we the citizens of this great country don't like hearing or reading this kind of stuff. We much prefer the pages and the TV screens of our compatriot Rupert Murdoch (we don't care if he turned American for a fistful of dollars), who owns more than 70% of the country's media that [talk] endlessly about such important issues as the laziness, alcohol abuse and criminality of Aboriginal people and the genetic violence of Muslims who are so much unlike the rest of "us". I don't agree with the last sentence [of the article]: it smells of racism or, most probably, ignorance. It should read: "Basically, the best solution for Australians is to give back their land to the Aborigines and move back to Europe," even though the natives of Australia don't consider land as property. Nonetheless, they know very well how to take care of it; they have done so for thousands of years.
Daniel Mazir
Perth, Australia (Nov 20, '06)


Chan Akya's article Hazards of Oz [Nov 18] is surprising in many ways. The main analysis seems to be correct: 20 million English-speaking people on a continent with a total surface of 7.7 million square kilometers should be friendly, to say the least, to their most immediate 200 million neighbors and certainly towards the 1 billion people of China living on a total surface of 9.6 million square kilometers. This [is] without taking into account Korea, and many other countries. Distances in this case are nothing. The population difference tells it all. Why then do Australian politicians think that Australia will do better antagonizing its most immediate neighbors, and those only a little further away in Asia? Australia has no official religion, so once again, why should [its] politicians and some of its people show rejection of anything foreign, and be racist of skin color, religion, etc? The Australians of today are but the new renters of the continent since the year 1788. That's nothing to the eyes of Asians. The last sentence of the article is telling: "Basically, the best solution for Australians is to sell their land to Asians and move back to Europe." It left me dumbfounded at first, but after thinking it over and rereading the article of Chan Akya, it doesn't seem so bad: China right now has [US]$1 trillion to spend, which [it] cannot dump on to the world market or bourses, without the dollar going down-down to hell; however, a total buyout of Australia over several years should be possible. They [Chinese] could start with the farmers and animal raisers who, due to one of the worst droughts in centuries, are close to bankrupt and would be very willing to sell, to whoever comes up with enough money to help them out and until their retirement. And then continue with the others, mines and houses, over the next years. In fact, I think that Chan Akya sees - as many in Asia - that Australia is an anachronism and is no more to Asian eyes than a small "city-state" (see Mr Akya's Oct 7 article [Death of city-states]) in southern Asia. A good buyout is better than a war lost beforehand. It's not Hong Kong and its emphyteutic rental agreement of 99 years, but if they - the Chinese and others - want to buy Australia up, to have the Australians out, it seems like an excellent deal. Money instead of war. And all the (former) Australians happy sipping port in some nice sunny spot (doesn't have to be Europe). This being said, it would be nice to know Mr Akya's nationality and some of his curriculum to be able to understand his thoughts better.
Eduard E F Vandoorne
Andalusia, Spain (Nov 20, '06)


Sometimes it is good to cast a glance sideways at what is happening on the divided Korean Peninsula. Donald Kirk, with 30 years reporting on Korea, knows well his journalist's beat. In Pyongyang watches as friends fall out [Nov 18], he is using, it seems to me, "fall out" in a very restrictive sense. Seoul and Washington have common strategic aims militarily and politically, which are hardly called into question. The rub for President [George W] Bush is, and has been, the pursuance of former [South Korean] president Kim Dae-jung's opening to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [DPRK] or, as it is more commonly known, North Korea. This policy is being continued by President Roh Moo-hyun, to the distaste of the White House and old Korea hawks. Mr Bush is a man of strong likes and dislikes, and from the first day assuming office he has dealt condescendingly and cavalierly with first Mr Kim and then President Roh. The American president has not gotten the message since his party's defeat at the polls on November 7 that the ground has shifted and so have the rules as to dealing with North Korea. With Asiatic finesse and good manners, the APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] countries meeting in Hanoi read, but did not commit to the written word [of], a pledge of enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1718, thereby offering Mr Bush a face-saving out as he propounded his hard line against [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il. China and South Korea have had a finger out to test the change of political fortunes in the Democratic Party's retaking of the two houses of [the US] Congress. And Pyongyang has perhaps relaxed a tense finger on the nuclear button. Representative Tom Lantos, the new majority chairman of the House International Relations Committee, has already announced his intention to deal with the DPRK within the proper rules of traditional diplomacy. Pyongyang knows Mr Lantos, who went to North Korea with a Republican fellow congressman, to look for a way to defuse a time bomb which the Bush administration had set on the nuclear issue. Alas, he was not successful, and President Bush's muscular and rigid diplomacy towards Pyongyang resulted in the DPRK's becoming a member of a restricted nuclear club. Pyongyang has said little. It knows that times are changing and cautiously keeps hope alive that through hard bargaining not only the nuclear issue may be resolved, but equally outstanding issues between it and Washington going back to the Korean War. Mr Bush is like the proverbial Bourbon kings: he forgets nothing and learned nothing. Nonetheless, South Korea will purse its opening to the North for its own geopolitical and historical reasons, and China will indirectly nudge Pyongyang gently to calm the turbulent waters the Bush administration has worked up since it took office in 2001.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 20, '06)


Regarding the article The Pakistani muscle behind Colombo [Sep 22], I would like to state a brief history of why the Sinhalese would never agree to a partition of Sri Lanka. Unlike India, Sri Lanka for 2,300 years remained a united nation and, unlike India, the Buddhist Bikus of Sri Lanka chronicled its history in the voluminous historical texts of the Mahavamsa, the Culavamsa and the Dipavamsa. In these historical texts Sri Lanka was always portrayed as one nation, except for the brief invasion of the Chola Dynasty that destroyed its 1,500-year-old capital Anurajapura and established Polonaruwa around the 11th and 12th century [centuries] AD, which eventually became the seat of Sinhalese culture. In the Sinhalas' mind they see themselves as the guard and shield of Theravada (or Hinayana) Buddhism after King Thevanpiatissa received the tooth of Buddha from the son of Ashoka, Mahindra and the sapling of the original bo [fig] tree [under] which Buddha meditated from Ashoka's daughter and nun Sangamitta around 300 BC. The politics and the Sinhalese people cannot and will not see the island divided into two parts when it has stayed a single nation for two millennia and the first nation outside of India to be converted to Buddhism. this psychology is the main reason why any government in power cannot and will not give in to the Tamil Tigers' dream of a separate state named Eelam. The Tamil Tigers have attacked both the bo tree in Anurajapura and the Dalada Maligava in Kandy which contains the tooth of Buddha, thereby deepening the resentment of the majority Sinhala population against the Tamil Tigers, and even all Tamils, innocent or not. India needs to understand the root psychological part of Sri Lanka in order to solve this problem.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 20, '06)


With regard to certain comments by President [George W] Bush in Hanoi, I would like to note that the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries have neither stick nor carrot to put any kind of pressure on Burma, a country that is rapidly becoming a client state of China. In terms of trade, capital investment, oil and gas exploration, dam building, and a market for [its] timber, natural gas, and hydroelectric power, the junta has all [it needs] in China. It has no use for ASEAN. We can huff and puff and put on a good show, but meaningful pressure, if any, will likely come gently and slowly from the north. ASEAN is in left field. Hu's on first.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Nov 20, '06)


Thanks to ATimes for the excellent article on language and thinking by David Simmons [Freedom's just another word, Nov 17]. It would be worth rereading Simone Weil's essay, "The Power of Words": "The glossy surface of our civilization hides a real intellectual decadence ... Our science is like a store filled with the most subtle intellectual devices for solving the most complex problems, and yet we are almost incapable of applying the most elementary principles of rational thought. In every sphere, we seem to have lost the very elements of intelligence: the ideas of limit, measure, degree, proportion, relation, comparison, contingency, interdependence, interrelation of means and ends ... our political universe is peopled almost exclusively by myths and monsters; all it contains is absolute and abstract entities." Mlle Weil's essay was written in 1937 and can be found in her Selected Essays (1962). Things have only gotten worse [since] she wrote, and in fact the decline of the ability to think is one of the most alarming developments of mass society.
Caryl Johnston
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Nov 17, '06)


David Simmons, in Freedom's just another word [Nov 17], has pinpointed, in a gentle but sure-handed manner, a major problem of the modern world: the increasing fuzziness of words and the crumbling down of language. Or more precisely, the crumbling down of English, which is the language of power and domination in the modern world. "It is in words that we think" ([Georg Wilhelm Friedrich] Hegel). Indeed, there cannot be human thinking or feeling without proper wording of them, and wording cannot be proper when words are fuzzy or highly unstable, simply because that's the way human beings are constituted. This degradation of language, of what makes [us] human, is worldwide despite its close association to a cultural specificity, the Anglo-Saxon one, again because English is the dominant language and what happens to it influences the life of everyone. A cultural specificity indeed, because the fuzzy relationship to English of the peoples from England, the USA, English Canada, New Zealand and Australia, is not necessarily the relationship of other peoples to their own mother language ... For years, I have been a teacher of Buddhist philosophy and meditation, both in Europe and in Australia. People often come with "a problem", and after the necessary calming-down stage, they are encouraged to phrase it in as few words as possible. Eg, it can be, "I want to be happy," or "Why am I not loved?" or "I'm so worried about terrorism" (the last one says a lot about the high toxicity of the incessant mass-media propaganda that someone from the bush should become "so worried" about "terrorism"!). Once this is done, they are encouraged to think and meditate over the key words of their phrasing: every word has to be clarified and thought over, not only the predicates but also this oh-so-obvious "I" pronoun. Nothing exotic there, this is classical maieutics, trying to bring out a person's latent feelings or notions into clear consciousness, and the great majority of Europeans understand the necessity of this process and try to get through it, to their great benefit. On the other hand, most Australians (and most of the English or North Americans I have come across in this context) deeply resent this process, they reckon it's weird, they cannot see the point of it: they want an answer, a solution, the fact that their question or their problem could be perceived as fuzzy by me is simply proof that I have "no feel for it". I have tried to figure out the origins of this general attitude, and noticed that the way language is used inside Australian families and at school does not allow at all any room for a critical approach: in a nutshell, words are supposed to act as social scents, not as tools for psychological and intellectual development. For an anthropologist, this could be considered simply as an interesting characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon mind, but for the political analyst there is much more to worry about: after all, the most powerful mass media are indeed in the English language (yes, Mr Simmons, you are right, it should be a plural there - the fact that there could be any pressure to make it a singular is proof that a totalitarian process is at work, a process deliberate or, perhaps worse, unconscious!).
Dr Bittar Gabriel Jivasattha
Australia and Switzerland (Nov 17, '06)


M K Bhadrakumar's analyses are always a treat for ATol readers' eyes. His long experience in the Indian Foreign Service has served him well. ATol deserves praise for publishing his Bush is no lame duck for Moscow [Nov 17]. He presents the Kremlin's worries in the light of the wave of victories of the Democrats during the recent mid-term elections. [Former] ambassador Bhadrakumar puts a face on a story which would hardly find its way into the back pages of the world's press. Saying this, although Vladimir Putin's Kremlin may see an ally in the White House during President George Bush's last two years in office, it is as though he is applying the Godfather principle of keeping his enemies closest to his chest. For on the whole, Mr Bush has never shied away from extending NATO membership to former Soviet republics, nor from demanding more transparency in economics and more openness in democratic practices. Mr Bhadrakumar raises the ghosts of Christmas past in the persons of Robert Gates and Tom Lantos. Yet the attention of Mr Gates, if confirmed as Donald Rumsfeld' s replacement [as US defense secretary], is to find a way out of President Bush's bungled and failed war in Iraq. As for Representative Lantos, he has more burning affairs to look after than Russia. He is more intent on finding a solution to North Korea's nuclear problem. It is reasonable to say that Russia is not of foremost prominence in the minds either Mr Gates or Mr Lantos. However, Mr Putin, seizing the moment of Mr Bush's weakness, is eager to offer him a hand for his own geopolitical reasons, since the Kremlin is joining the ranks of the WTO countries and thanks to vast reserves of oil and gas. Russia stroking President Bush's ego can but yield good results for Russia's strategic designs.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 17, '06)


Dennis O'Connell [re letter, Nov 16]: I'd like to respond to your criticisms of my recent two-part article, Preparing for a New Cold War (Nov 14-15). First, the terms I used to describe what form of government exists in Russia and China, "managed democracy" and "sovereign democracy", are widely understood to refer to regimes with a decidedly authoritarian bent but which incorporate some measure of capitalist and democratic principles and practices, but which are quite far from constituting American-style liberal democracies. They are a different path than that of the West. In other words, those terms are widely understood to refer to the redefinition of "democracy" that is touted generally in the East. As such, your mischaracterization of my statements to the effect that I regard Russia and China as real democracies by the definition of the West is just that - a mischaracterization. Second, you assert "the vast majority of Russia's wealth is being sent out of the country" - in fact, President Vladimir Putin has reversed the capital flight plaguing Russia in the decade of the 1990s; please provide reliable backup for your assertion. Third, you assert the US isn't at risk of defeat in Iraq, but then proceed to talk about that very eventuality and insist the repercussions of defeat for the US are not major. Even President George W Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and virtually every other US leader, along with the vast bulk of experts and leaders around the globe both on the left and on the right, have warned that the US is getting much nearer the precipice of failure in Iraq and that such failure will have enormously negative repercussions for the US itself - the triumphalism of US rivals and enemies, US humiliation on the global stage, the establishment of an unchecked base of terrorism in Iraq, the spread of radical militant tentacles throughout the crucial oil-rich region further threatening the oil-rich regimes, the unchecked ascendancy of Iran - these are but a few of the terrible eventualities the experts say would happen if the US fails in Iraq. To say that such an outcome would not affect the US in a major way is simply a case of denial on your part, in my view. Webster defines "denial" as "refusal to admit the truth or reality". Fourth, you assert that the US isn't being defeated by a few thousand insurgents but by 70% of Iraq's population. At this advanced point in time that is true - however, you fail to see that starting from a few months after the invasion until now, the US utterly failed to achieve a military victory over only a few thousand insurgents, it failed to achieve a moral victory, it failed to achieve a political victory and it failed to achieve an ideological victory; it failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis - as a result it handed the initiative to those "only a few thousand insurgents" who then turned the tables on the US and have brought Iraq to the entirely un-winnable state that it is now in. Even the Army War College admits the US lost the war for Iraq early on, very soon after the invasion. All this [occurred] in spite of overwhelming US power. Fifth, you assert I have stated that Russia and China control Saudi oil. You manufactured that assertion, evidently from thin air, because it isn't remotely hinted at anywhere in my article. Rather, Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Arab regimes are willingly looking to the East, diversifying their markets away from the US toward the rising East and multiplying their economic and security ties with the East. As such, the US is insidiously losing its former leverage over such important players. The core issue addressed in my article was the inordinately amplified thinking that exists with respect to the supposed virtual invincibility of the US Colossus and the supposed inability of the smaller rising powers in the East to mount a serious challenge, thinking that is based in erroneous assumption, ignorance of the genuine facts and their authentic meaning and based in outright denial. Without any intention at personal insult, I propose that your letter aptly illustrates the extreme of the precise problem with the conventional thinking about US power and the potency of its challengers.
W Joseph Stroupe (Nov 17, '06)


It is the mark of a good article that it serves as an ongoing catalyst for thinking and debate, and that said I would like to return to Joseph Stroupe's two-part essay [Preparing for a New Cold War, Nov 14-15], especially as this author has indicated a follow-up series is in the works [letter, Nov 16]. Stroupe predicts a neo-Cold War resulting from a return to a bipolar world order. But was the world order, even during the past Cold War, truly bipolar? I think it is simpler and equally plausible to see the post-World War II world as consisting of three poles: the US, Russia and China. Even today, while Europe and Latin America are both rising, the situation has not fundamentally changed. Relations between the three poles are governed by a simple rule: any two of the three can combine forces to undermine the third. Thus Russia and China did combine to undermine the US in Korea and in Vietnam; next the US and China combined to undermine Russia in Afghanistan, and to bring about the collapse of the USSR. [At present] Russian and China have recombined to bring down the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea. The world appears bipolar, but that appearance is simply due to the action of two of the three poles, combining against the third. Seen in this way China - not the US nor Russia - has proved the most adroit player, as it has not stood as singleton against the other two in any contest to date. Also evident is the ephemeral nature of the cooperation of any two of the poles against the remaining one. The decline of the West will easily be reversed as soon as it combines with either Russia or China against whichever is the remaining other.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Nov 17, '06)


This is in response to the [letter from C Zhu, Nov 16, on Beijing's growing respect for India, Nov 14]. I wonder if people like Mr Zhu think international relations are like a school punch-up ... Just for the record, Arunachal Pradesh was never part of Tibet and was part of British India and prior to that part of various Indian kingdoms/empires. If anyone has any problem with that, he or she just has to live with it. As for China's military superiority, it doesn't count for much in the era of nuclear deterrence. Further, India's forces are a world apart from what they were in 1962. Perhaps people should spend some time learning the new facts of life before commenting.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan
Indian living in Poland (Nov 17, '06)


Attraction towards the European Union is [so] great for economic, security, and stability reasons that there have been several aspirants, as it is for WTO and United Nations Security Council, to enter the Union, but the EU stalwarts very proudly restrain some of them, one of the strongest applicants being Turkey, which has conducted negotiation with European leaders since 1963. Turkey is bent on joining the "European civilization" and has pursued its legitimate ambitions quite earnestly ... A member of NATO established by the West led by the USA to counterpose the then Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Union, and a close ally of the Western nations, Turkey has been a part of Western actions worldwide, and now neglecting Turkey could upset the future initiatives of the European nations as one single entity. As a European state, Turkey has a legitimate right to be in the EU, an organization to bring European nations together and protect and advance the common interests of the European continent. As a counterpose to the USA's current unilateralism, the EU is envisaged as a unifying force among the European powers, and with a pro-USA Turkey on board, the EU might find the going rough ... The incentive of EU membership has in fact helped transform Turkey almost beyond recognition over the past decade, in ways that directly serve Europe's interest ... The European Union needs to finally establish its borders in order to give itself a concrete geographic definition, a material identity. At a summit in December, the EU leaders will [decide] whether or not to open negotiations on the Turkish bid. Hopefully, Turkey will succeed in its strenuous struggle to be a part of the European community. Is the EU keen, in due course, to carve out with the help of the USA an anti-Islamic bloc by expanding the present EU formation in order to oppose the Islamic world? Again, speculation is indeed exciting.
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
New Delhi, India (Nov 17, '06)


I'd like to congratulate [Hisane] Masaki about his [Nov 16] article Japanese nukes: Voicing the unthinkable . It's indeed time for Beijing to take responsibility for its communist puppet Pyongyang, and make North Korean leaders act in a civilized and democratic way, before they cause more troubles to the Asia region.
M Murata (Nov 16, '06)


Re The yuan, the yen and the US auto giants [Nov 16]: President [George W] Bush met with Detroit's Big Three auto makers. He was cordial and sympathetic but made no promises. How can he? He is leaving the United States with monumental debt, and with little understanding for rescuing failing industrial sectors like America's motor-car industry. Mr Bush, like his father, has set the United States on China's star. His secretary of the treasury, Hank Paulson, is his key man who has publicly announced that he won't push Beijing on devaluing the yuan. Nor will Mr Bush do anything on the Japanese yen for political reasons. On the other hand, much has not changed in Detroit in a way which Emma Rothschild described in her excellent study of America's auto industry Paradise Lost almost a half-century ago [actually 1973, according to our information - ATol]. The Big Three have little respect for motorists wants. They may advertise heavily to purchase SUVs [sport-utility vehicles] and trucks which guzzle gas, but are hardly fuel-efficient and ecologically sound. They turn out less-than-state-of-the-art automobiles which Japanese and Korean competitors can do, while keeping in mind the rising cost of motor gasoline and the tilt towards the environment and newer fuels. The Big Three do and can make money in Europe but not on their home turf, America. Condescend as they might to the American consumer, they are losing market to foreign auto makers with assembly plants in the United States. They suffer from self-satisfied management who have not kept up with the times, and who think that although they once ruled the auto industry, it is a right into perpetuity. As such, we find themselves going cap in hand to Washington and returning with empty promises.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 16, '06)


Re the two articles by W Joseph Stroupe, A war the West can't win [Nov 14] and [Asymmetric challenge to the US colossus, Nov 15]: I am taking a contrarian view of the implications of the Cold War and its termination. The primary beneficiaries of the Cold War were the USSR and the USA. The end of the Cold War meant the collapse of the world order that had benefited the two camps. In other words, when the Cold War ended we actually had two losers and no real victor. While the Russians set about rebuilding a new nation, the self-delusional Americans decided to exploit their non-existent "triumph" by launching campaigns to collect their "peace dividend" in the form of unrestrained expansions. First, the Americans did not realize that for the free world the collapse of the USSR was no more than the final confirmation that that brand of socialism would not work. The vacuum in the free world (Africa, Latin America and Asia) actually comes from the realization by the majority of the peoples there that the US-touted, World Bank- and International Monetary Fund-supported capitalist model also would not work for them. The same vacuum is forming in countries in the former USSR sphere of influence which are now looking for a new model, certainly not anything resembling the "Washington consensus". I am thinking of countries like India, Vietnam, Iran, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. So in conclusion, what actually took place post-Cold War is less an elaborate, cunning and deliberate scheme by Russia, China, etc to challenge US dominance in the USA's traditional "back yards" but rather the coming together of nations trying to find a third way. Of course the USA's self-delusional misadventures open up more avenues for those countries and make their quest all the more logical and less expensive. If the USA decides to go against this trend, the net result [will] not be another Cold War but complete defeat and isolation for the Americans.
Lum Yok Lin
Hong Kong (Nov 16, '06)


I am stunned by the extreme foolishness of W Joseph Stroupe in his articles [Preparing for a New Cold War, Nov 14-15]. He paints a picture of the world that has no resemblance to reality. To let you know where Mr Stroupe is coming from, he refers to China and Russia (the East) as "authoritarian managed democracy" or "sovereign democracy". Perhaps Mr Stroupe doesn't own a dictionary, but I can assure him that neither Russia nor China [is a democracy] of any sort. They are fascistic totalitarian regimes, or they can be seen as ongoing criminal enterprises. He portrays Russian as a booming economy thanks to oil, [but] he leaves out the fact that the vast majority of Russia's wealth is being sent out of the country to Swiss banks and billions are being spent on the London real-estate market. He sees the East as a monolith and leaves out Japan and India, which are much more likely to side with the West than the East - I don't believe India wants to live in a world controlled by China. In a match-up, I would take Japan and India over Russia and China. He also fails to take into account Taiwan, Vietnam, Australia and the Philippines, which I am sure have a higher GDP [gross domestic product] than Russia. He should look at the future demographic projections for Russia - this would be a sobering shot of reality. The same also holds true for China. He also writes about the defeat of the US in Iraq by a "few thousand insurgents" that will have "enormous global repercussions". Wrong on all counts. First, the US will not be defeated in Iraq - we won in Iraq in three weeks when Saddam [Hussein]'s regime fell like a house of cards with a few hundred US casualties. The US will fail to set up a decent Iraqi government, but the chaos in Iraq will affect Iraq and its neighbors far more than the US. The US is not facing a "few thousand insurgents" in Iraq because [it] will have already killed over 20,000 insurgents. The US is opposed in Iraq by over 70% of the population, which is more like 20 million, not a few thousand. The civil war in Iraq will kill from 50,000 to over a million and the insanity that follows will negatively effect Syria and Iran far more than the US. His fantasies about global oil are insane. He writes [that] international oil [companies control] 20% of world reserves "while the rest is already under the control of the rising East". I wonder if Mr Stroupe has informed Saudi Arabia that Russia and China control the Saudis' oil. As for the "unwieldy US weapons", perhaps Mr Stroupe will give a call to Iran after the US has destroyed [its] air force, navy and nuclear-weapons sites and tell [it] about the US military weakness. Or he could tell his tale to Saddam, but he had better hurry before a rope snaps his neck back. This two-part piece struck me like the drunken babbling of a midget trying to get up the courage to confront the giant. If the midget can ever get up the nerve, one should not look for a dead giant, but midget goo on the giant's shoes.
Dennis O'Connell
USA (Nov 16, '06)

In his remark about Russia's GDP, this letter writer may have left out the word "combined"; individually, all four of the Asia-Pacific economies he mentions had GDPs smaller than Russia's in 2005, which ranked No 14 in the world at US$766.18 billion. - ATol


I wish to make a brief response to those who submitted the various letters to the editor regarding my recent two-part series Preparing for a New Cold War (Nov 14-15). ATol Readers have raised two very important issues that must be addressed: (1) What are the precise identity and composition of what I have called in my articles "the rising multifarious East" and on what factual basis rests my assertion that it acts ever more cohesively to seriously challenge US global hegemony? (2) In the aftermath of the recent Democratic electoral win, is the US actually turning from the destructive ideologies and policies of the neo-cons, and is the US able now to meaningfully escape or dodge the grave foreign-policy repercussions of six years of "neo-con rule", or rather, does the Democratic victory in actuality work to accelerate the thrusting of those repercussions upon the US Colossus? If so, how and why? Two new articles addressing these very issues head-on were already in the works as of last week, and if I have found sufficient favor with the ATol editorial staff and if I have not yet used up my allocation of adjectives (re letter to the editor by M Henri Day, PhD, MD, of Stockholm, Sweden, Nov 15), then the two new articles might be appearing here soon, all at the discretion of the editors. In a genuinely warm and respectful note to Dr M Henri Day, I wish to say that his taking note of my rampant use of the vivid adjective, especially in the sections dealing with the widespread (but ill-founded) inordinately amplified thinking regarding the supposed virtual invincibility of the US Colossus, is much appreciated. What disappoints me a little is the fact that he seems to have missed the unintended satire; the unbridled and flamboyant adjective is an appropriate foil against which to mirror the hyperbole of supposed US invincibility, is it not? Thus I posit the suggestion (and the authentic hope) that the redeeming value of the adjectives might exceed their terrible cost to your ability to stand on both legs.
W Joseph Stroupe (Nov 16, '06)

The new articles are to go online shortly. - ATol


Regarding Beijing's growing respect for India (Nov 14) By Pallavi Aiyar: Although India has been taught a lesson in humility in the 1962 war, I am amazed that it has not given up its claims to all of the Tibetan areas that it illegally occupies and returned the splittist Dalai Lama. India has accepted Tibet as part of China, therefore India must return all Tibetan areas. Since India is not capable of offensive warfare and already has so many enemies that it cannot even defeat Pakistan, it lies in its best interests to hand over these territories and allow China the generosity of investing more money in such a poor and weak country like India, where we have already invested [$]30 billion already. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. If India still drags its feet on the issue, then the next war will not be so merciful against the Indians as [it was in] 1962.
C Zhu (Nov 16, '06)


Trita Parsi's Iran the key in US change on Iraq (Nov 11) shows a clear misunderstanding about Iraqi politics, because neither Iran nor Syria will be the keys for US success in Iraq. The success in Iraq has to go through the Ba'athist fighters. I have read some reports that do substantiate that the previous secretary of state James Baker (and other members of the elite class) has the same idea, that Iran and other countries in the region can be used to generate success for US imperialism in Iraq. The fundamental problem with this project is that it ignores who has been creating the pain and the damage to US imperialism in Iraq. It is the Ba'athists, not the Iranians. The Ba'athists have determined to fight and defeat US imperialism even if the fight takes centuries, and the Iranian mullahs will receive huge benefits again as they received tangible gains when the US occupied Iraq and destroyed the Ba'athist regime: a double free lunch. Many Americans and American imperialists who like to loot oil and economic resources from defenseless nations do not understand this fact, because they do not believe that a permanent revolution is not on their side. The Iranian and the Iraqi mullahs have been the winners of the US occupation of Iraq, and they are not the ones who fight the Americans. Nor are the terrorists fighting the Americans, as President [George W] Bush has claimed. They are the Ba'athists and the nationalist volunteers who do not like to be occupied ... Simply, this means that the best alternative for US imperialism and for all Republicans and Democrats, including their cronies, is to return Iraq to the Ba'athists to run it and to leave Iraq by promising the Iraqi leadership to pay the costs of the destruction of the country, namely the costs of the physical materials and the costs of human lives that have been killed, tortured and abused. Additionally, imperialists need to understand that occupation of defenseless countries is the worst chapter in human civilization; hence they have to get rid of this habit. Moreover, it should be understood that the Iranian mullahs have no interest at all in making deals in order for the US to achieve success in Iraq. When those mullahs offered assistance in Afghanistan, they were thinking that the US would take over Iraq and would go after them. That is, they exaggerated US strength, because they underestimated the strength of the Iraqi resistance. Now, they have realized that they were wrong or that the US imperialism will not win the war in Iraq ... Should the US decide to follow other courses of action than the one I have suggested, the permanent Ba'athist revolution will continue and will drain huge American economic resources and blood, a condition that will force US imperialism to deoccupy Iraq anyway, and that will be the nightmare for all US friends in the region.
Adil Mouhammed
Illinois, USA (Nov 16, '06)


In an otherwise penetrating analysis of the pitfalls facing the American ruling elite's publicly declared war for global domination [Striking the US where it hurts, Oct 19] Victor Corpus has uncritically accepted the neo-con party line on the most pivotal issue of all, the question of exactly what happened on September 11, 2001. It is obvious to a large and ever-increasing number of people who have taken the time to investigate the issue that the official storyline doesn't even conform to physical laws, much less plausible claims to mass incompetence. Of course the notion that 19 hijackers armed with box cutters somehow managed to incapacitate American domestic counter-terrorism programs, paralyze NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] and cause the unprecedented collapse of three steel-framed highrise buildings strains credulity. The subsequent promotion of every key official whose passivity facilitated the success of the attack borders on the insane. But no suspension of common sense can provide a refuge against the laws of physics. Steel-framed highrise buildings don't collapse at freefall speed without the precisely timed severing of the vertical supports in their infrastructures. This has been demonstrated quite conclusively by simple calculations involving the conservation of momentum, which any student of physics or engineering can review online ... Thus the official story of September 11 is little more than an appeal to ignorance which relies heavily on a sadly outdated faith in the integrity of American democracy. This faith must be sorely tested by the deliberate falsehoods leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the unilateral abandonment of international treaties, the ongoing deconstruction of constitutional and human-rights guarantees at home and the wholesale looting of America's industrial and economic infrastructure. Given the gravity of the situation, Mr Corpus would do well to go beyond the immediate strategic concerns of superpower warfare and cast his penetrating gaze on the underlying assumptions of the so-called war on terrorism. This war, like all wars of conquest, began with an undeclared war on the domestic population. In the interest of global survival, it would be wise to help facilitate the American people's dawning realization of this fact.
American Patriot Fool (Nov 16, '06)


John Ng's article Hu's purge for both power and purity (Nov 15) tries hard to pretend even-handedness. But the hidden message is crystal-clear: purge and power consolidation. Granted he is right, is he aware that in a "Western democracy" an incoming administration brings its own entire cabinet to perfect consolidation from the start? "Hu's decision to build a harmonious society means society now is not harmonious." This I view as an honest and frank admission, unlike those who boast of having "free and democratic" societies. Mr Ng covers well his sentencing on Jia Qinglin and Huang Ju, two of the nine politburo members. If they are brought down by corruption exposure, Hu completes power consolidation. If they remain in place, Hu is afraid of exposing corruption at such high places, which might lead to a general collapse of the [Communist] Party. So the scenario remains that as more and more corruption cases are exposed and perpetrators punished, most people in China continue to breathe a sigh of relief and yearn for more done, but some people outside continue to suggest evidence of some sinister motive.
S P Li (Nov 15, '06)


Beijing is willingly allowing the mighty Carlyle Group to pump more dollars into China's economy [Carlyle gets its China wish, Nov 15]. Carlyle will bring modern management techniques to Xugong, a construction company, thereby making it better able, say, eventually to tackle Fluor and Halliburton. Carlyle may think that it has pulled a coup in having equal representation on Xugong's board. But as we all know, it does not control it, and the ultimate power lies in the hands of the Chinese. Once again, if yet another example must needs be cited: China is using the "barbarians" to assault the mighty fortress of "barbarian" world giants for its own goals.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 15, '06)


W J Stroupe's Asymmetric challenge to the US colossus [Nov 15] [is] a definite feather in ATol's cap and the most erudite exposition of the early years of the 21st century. For those adherents to the idiom "an eye for an eye" and/or "one reaps what one sows", it's an appropriate (a)symmetry. One would hope that Mr Stroupe's views and advice will become de rigeur readings in Washington and London.
Armand De Laurell (Nov 15, '06)


Commenting on the article A war the West can't win [Nov 14]: President [George W] Bush still believes despite his recent humiliation in the mid-term elections in the perverse logic, "Let us do evil in Iran that good may come out." He commits war crimes as a matter of institutional necessity as his imperial role calls for keeping his Middle Eastern shoe-shining boys in power, subordinating people in their proper places, invading and imposing so-called ... democracy in Iraq and promising a favorable climate to expand capitalism everywhere ... Americans - Republicans as well as Democrats - are ... living in a fool's paradise that they could dominate and intimidate the Muslim world, but the reality is that all along, al-Qaeda and the Taliban wanted not only political humiliation of the Western world but also of their economic demise by engaging them in a long-drawn struggle to free their besieged brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers and their children from the daily slaughter, butchery, death and destruction of their homes and way of life in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon and restore dignity to their lost pride and cause.
Saqib Khan
UK (Nov 15, '06)


Articles like Joseph Stroupe's brilliant two-part piece on the neo-Cold War [Preparing for a New Cold War, Nov 14-15] are the reason I read ATimes. I disagree with the analysis, however, on two points: (1) The "West" and the "East" are not monolithic entities. Perhaps Japan will stay in the US camp, and maybe India will join them there too. Almost certainly Europe, minus the UK, and with France in the vanguard, will chose Eurasia. Africa will go with Eurasia. Latin America will choose to engage both North America and Eurasia. (2) The articles paint an apocalyptic end game, and this need not, and hopefully will not, be so. The real strategy of the East is not another cold war, and certainly not a hot one, but a managed transition to a multipolar world order - a managed decline of US power if you will - to a world where one of the main poles still remains the US. Just as Russia could not be "deconstructed" away, neither could North America. The "East" has shown acumen in it actions, and thus I cannot believe that it has failed to realize this. Of course Canada, along with the UK, will inexorably be drawn ever more tightly into the US orbit. The resources of Canada should not be underestimated. Here I speak mainly, but not entirely, about land, minerals, trees and water: Canadians also hold political views. Heck, we may even be able to tame the savage beast, and bring some civilized thinking to those folks ... even the Texans.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (Nov 15, '06)


I found much of W Joseph Stroupe's argument in his two-part series [Preparing for a New Cold War, Nov 14-15] not unconvincing, despite an unfortunate tendency to treat the "East" as much more of a monolith than it in fact is. But please, the next time Mr Stroupe writes for ATimes (which I hope he does soon), do him the courtesy of providing a modicum of editorial guidance. His "overly muscular" prose and plethora of adjectives, particularly in the first part of his article, nearly brought this reader, though hardly a giant, "crashing helplessly to the ground".
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Nov 15, '06)


Re Preparing for a New Cold War (Nov 14-15): [W Joseph] Stroupe makes convincing arguments but once again bases his thesis on the inane actions of neo-conservative forces in power [in the US] for the last six years. All the areas of vulnerability mentioned by Stroupe are indeed just that. The pendulum must swing back toward sanity, reason, responsibility and science. If it doesn't, we will know soon enough because Stoupe's theme of American decline will happen. An economy born of greed and consumption will consume your future. Foreign policy guided by arrogance, amorality, and jingoism will only turn on you as your enemies grow in numbers. Before the mid-term elections, many Americans did feel defeated by the ruthless wave of neo-conservative strength, a strength born of greed, self-interest, and a plutocratic ideology. The victory of the Democrats literally brought dancing in the streets. It is quite true that Americans are slow to react against corruption and incompetent leadership. But leadership in [the United States of] America has always progressed in ideological surges. This surge was so pronounced because [of] the erasure of government's checks and balances, neo-conservative control of the media, the presence of a charismatic leader who knows no bounds of self-delusion, and the Karl Rove propaganda factor. Aiding all this was an inattentive electorate. Now if the infusion of change is enabled and new ideas are fostered and if the average American can throw off his own self-indulgence, America can again be great.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Nov 15, '06)


Re Reviving the India-Russia partnership [Nov 14] by Zorawar Daulet Singh: The author's view is valid in a close-to-ideal situation. However, China wants to be the top dog in the region and is quite brazen in its demands on territories of other countries, as seen in the Spratlys spat and now in [its] claim that the eastern Indian state of Arunchal Pradesh is part of China. They [Chinese] accommodated Russia's views on their border dispute only to get their hands on Russia's oil and gas and advanced weapons systems. So China is an unreliable partner in just about everything. The US, for example, can be made to feel ashamed of its actions like those in Abu Ghraib, but China is quite brazen in its mistreatment of its ethnic and religious minorities. [It] reduced Tibetans to a minority in their own land by the forced settlement of majority Han Chinese in Tibet. That means India can strengthen [its] ties with Russia while being watchful of China. India can never trust [the Chinese] until they accept our [India's] international borders and stop looking at other people/countries as targets for exploitation in exactly the way the current US administration has done. Further, China retains Most Favored Nation status with the US on trade even while opposing [it] in many issues. So China remains an open wound for India.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan
Indian living in Poland (Nov 15, '06)


In response to Chan Akya's assertion in his [Nov 11] article titled China's four-play, "Persian, Arab and Turkish invaders failed to crack imperial China in any way similar to how they overran India (at least the former two). The memory of defeats has built into the Muslim psyche a grudging respect for China, much as their memories of selective victories against the West (such as in Afghanistan) embolden them", I think Chan is offering a very weak argument to support his point. I wonder when it was that an Arab or Persian force ever invaded or contemplate an invasion on imperial China. There were certainly no major campaigns and therefore no major "defeats" and, much less, memories deep enough to find a place in the "Muslim psyche". Further, the "victory" in Afghanistan for the mujahideen was only against Soviet Russia, and not the "West": the articles in Asia Times [Online] itself have often shown how Russia "is what is not us" for the "West". On the other hand, if Muslims have a selective memory, it is one of continuous defeat and humiliation at the hands of the "West", starting from Spain, where the Islamic invasion was totally beaten back, to the setting up of Israel to the invasion of Iraq. And coming to India itself, the Muslim world still cannot believe that even after a 1,000-year siege, this country could not entirely be Islamicized. In fact apart from Spain, India is the only country to have rolled back the Islamic invasion. Even before the British landed to permanently dismantle what was left of the Mughal Empire, the Maratha confederacy had reduced them to be mere rulers of Delhi. Access to the Chinese heartland is difficult from the key centers of Islamic empires, so the Chinese achievement in preserving their independence is not very special. But given that India lies directly in the "line of fire" of any cannon ever cast in Turkey or Arabia or Persia or Afghanistan, what this country's warriors achieved against the Islamic war machine in fact draws grudging respect from the Muslim psyche. That is why so many Arab countries, including leaders of the Palestinian movement, are friendly to India, and Iran itself was, just some time back. Finally, the representation in The Edge is by no means any fair reflection of the "Muslim psyche". Most Internet forums are filled with Muslims of Pakistani-Punjabi or Mirpuri descent - and they obviously have nothing but hatred for India. Given that Chinese help to the crumbling Pakistani state gives them an artificial sense of security, their "fascination: for China is not surprising.
Prabhu
Hyderabad, India (Nov 15, '06)


I was moments away from posting a series of Spengler articles concerning Iran's supposed imperial plans to Metafilter [weblog], which would have given Asia Times [Online] new readers numbering in the hundreds or thousands, but I backed down when I noticed that there were no sources backing up the crux of his argument: that Iran would run out of oil [for export] in 20 years [Why the West will attack Iran, Jan 24]. The CIA World Factbook and Oil & Gas Journal give a different story, with the most liberal guess being that it would take 60 years to pump Iran dry at current max capacity. I enjoyed the articles and looked forward to sharing them, but I can't recommend them for reading until this issue can be clarified. This issue is making me doubt a lot of the data Spengler puts up in support of his polemics. Were we ever supposed to take him seriously?
Trey Menefee (Nov 15, '06)

While we don't approve of any of our contributors playing fast and loose with verifiable facts, Spengler is an opinion writer, and his very popularity is a result of his controversial (ie, not widely shared) opinions. Any prediction of the longevity of exportable oil resources in Iran or anywhere else, however scientifically based, is still a prediction and therefore to some degree a matter of opinion. - ATol


It is a known fact that the USA misuses its veto to support its global ambitions and to defend its allies by defeating the resolutions put forward by other [permanent members of the United Nations Security Council], while it does not allow other members to defeat the resolutions proposed by the USA in the council for sanctions against Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea or Iran. The USA is determined to use the veto to defend Israel time and again, disregarding the universal condemnations against its unilateral veto actions.On November 11 once again the United States vetoed an Arab-sponsored draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would have condemned a deadly Israeli attack in the northern Gaza Strip this week. The intermittent air strikes being conducted in Palestine and Lebanon on a regular basis by the Israeli forces, ably reinforced by the US-led Western powers, have caused thousands of deaths in Palestine and Lebanon. Since Israeli invasions have become a routine occurrence, the world at large seems to have taken Israel very lightly. The Security Council has cunningly allowed the massacre of Palestinians and Lebanese. The Bush administration does not tolerate any other nation even to condemn Israel or its allies for inhuman air strikes killing many innocent lives in Palestine and Lebanon. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton justifies the genocides by saying that he exercised Washington's veto because the text of the draft was "unbalanced" and "biased". Israel has said that the shelling attack that killed at least 18 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, in the town of Beit Hanun [on November 8] was accidental. For the USA the veto facility is the deadliest weapon to be employed to crush those that protest against the atrocious actions by the US-led forces and allies. As per the records, the USA has used the veto the maximum number of times in the history of Security Council. It is time, therefore, for the world nations and the UN to withdraw the veto regime being enjoyed by the [permanent five Security Council] club members which encourages them to initiate arbitrary actions against any country unwilling to fall in line - not only the so-called "axis of evil", but also now the Arab and other Muslim nations. Similarly, the much-maligned and discredited Security Council also must be abolished for humanity's sake at the earliest.
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
New Delhi, India (Nov 15, '06)


Spengler [Halloween came late in Washington, Nov 14]: Your advice for [the United States of] America to "learn to live with the chaos that it can do nothing to prevent" is a point well taken - though perhaps more helpful, say, five years ago? Boy, wars are way harder to win without John Wayne, Clint Eastwood or Sly Stallone on our side. Note: Nice King Saul reference; were you referring to I Samuel 28? There's no I Kings 28 that I'm aware of.
Robby Brumberg
Georgia, US (Nov 14, '06)

The biblical book describing King Saul's encounter with the witch of Endor, who summons the ghost of the prophet Samuel, is the first of the four Books of Kingdoms, called I Kings by the Latin Vulgate but, as you correctly point out, now commonly called I Samuel in English translations of the Bible (the Vulgate's III Kings is called I Kings in these versions). The article has been amended. - ATol


While Spengler, in Halloween came late in Washington (Nov 14), castigates the realists in Washington for their inability to read the writing on the wall in the Middle East, he then proceeds to offer his own realist interpretation of the end of the Cold War. He states: "The Reagan administration did not win the Cold War by proposing regime change in Moscow, but by humiliating Russian power to the point that its will to power evaporated." This is indeed realism in all its classic glory. It is the belief that politics between nations can be scientifically reduced to a form of Darwinian power-play, where the outcome can be predicted on the basis of the survival of the fittest - or the law of the jungle. There is no room here for former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who single-handedly turned realism on its head. To stress the point, Gorbachev taunted the US by declaring that "our greatest weapon is to deprive you of an enemy". Moreover, there equally appears to be no room in Spengler's mind for a vision of hope for the future. He virtually abandons all hope by admitting: "For the past five years I have counseled the United States to learn to live with the chaos that it can do nothing to prevent." In other words, he too has reached realism's impasse on the limits of power. I would suggest he look to someone who has the same moral and intellectual caliber of a Mikhail Gorbachev, such as the Democrats' most promising front-runner for the 2008 US presidential election: Barack Obama. This is a man who does not see America's strength as residing in brute force alone. In his momentous keynote address "The Audacity of Hope", which he delivered at the 2004 US Democratic National Convention, he declared: "Tonight we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation - not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over 20 years ago." He then [went] on to refer to the American Declaration of Independence as "the true genius of America, a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles". This is in fact an iconic expression of the true genius of human civilization itself, and it is the hope of all who believe, like Barack Obama, that humanity is destined for far greater things.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Nov 14, '06)


I am not usually one to complain, but Asia Times Online must improve increasingly shoddy copy-editing practices. For example, consider this glaring mistake from Spengler's column, Halloween came late in Washington [Nov 14]: "Iran's policy is quite rational, but in a very different way than Gates and Brzezinski imagine: facing prospective ruin, it wants to conquer the entire oil belt of the Middle East, from Azerbaijan to the northwest coast of Saudi Arabia." Surely, I am not the only one to recognize the embarrassing substitution of Iran for the United States in this statement, as the United States has, in fact, been pursuing a policy of conquest as described since the breakup of the Soviet Union. If I recall correctly, there are psychological terms for such behavior - "projection" and "transference" come to mind.
Richard Estes
Sacramento, California (Nov 14, '06)

We presume your tongue is in your cheek, but we copy editors have to defend ourselves here in case other readers don't get it. "Iran" is what the writer intended. - ATol


Spengler persists in confusing Iran with the US [Halloween came late in Washington, Nov 14]. It is the US which is an empire in decline, hence inclined to attack somebody else. As for the claim, "It is silly to allege that Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad makes policy on the premise that the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam will bring about the end of the world as we know it," well, this kind of thinking did not end with John of Leyden. Apocalyptic ideas and movements are very much at home in the US. Think of Jim Jones and David Koresh. On the other hand, I don't doubt that hopes that Jesus would return once "Babylon the Great" had fallen and "rule the world with a rod of iron" (or at least rapture him away) were somewhere in GWB's mind when he decided on war. Lust for oil, lust for autocratic power, desire to be seen as a great conqueror (rather than a life-long failure) were probably part of the mix, too. But to ignore Apocalypticism because it seems not "rational" is to ignore much of human (and US) history. Rationality depends on assumptions which cannot be chosen rationally. Let me refer Spengler and other ATimes readers to Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, and Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, for more on Apocalypticism in history.
Lester Ness, alive in the bitter sea
Kunming, China (Nov 14, '06)


Re Halloween came late in Washington [Nov 14]: It's precisely because the monarchs of the Central Powers thought like Spengler (the inevitability of conflict with their adversaries) that they vanished.
Joseph Bodenhofer
Austria (Nov 14, '06)


What on earth is Spengler [Halloween came late in Washington, Nov 14] saying here: "Few who were not participants know how close the United States came to losing the Cold War. The point-spread for victory in the Cold War strongly favored the Soviet Union in European salons"?
Rowan Berkeley (Nov 14, '06)


Important and insightful theories regarding the state of global politics often suffer from their own version of imperial overstretch, that is to say, good ideas often find themselves coupled with less robust ones. Such is the case with A war the West can't win [Nov 14] by W Joseph Stroupe. Mr Stroupe quite accurately identifies several critical truths about the current geopolitical landscape, most importantly the idea that the current American economic and geopolitical hegemony does not need to be challenged by another single state in order to be eroded. Clearly the combination of America's imperial overstretch coupled with the economic maturation of several key regions and states, including China, India, Russia, and Southeast Asia, means that the unending American hegemony foreseen by Washington's supporters is unlikely to come to pass. Where Mr Stroupe missteps is when he labels the leveling of the global playing field a "new Cold War". Wars require identifiable participants, and Mr Stroupe's assertion that the West is locked into a conflict with a "multifarious yet coherent pole of the East" lacks a meaningful definition of what exactly constitutes the unfortunately named "East". At some points "the East" seems to indicate the Sino-Russian alliance, at others he declares that the "East" also consists of unnamed former US allies in Europe, Latin America and Asia. This naturally brings up the question of what exactly constitutes a member of this shadowy "Eastern" bloc. If the "East" consists of states that seek to replace American hegemony with a multipolar world, then the "East" would have to include "Western" states such as France and Germany that have sought to forge a new Europe as a global counterbalance to the United States. Though Mr Stroupe attempts to portray the erosion of American hegemony as giving way to a new bipolar conflict between the "East" and "West", he fails to provide a meaningful definition of either pole. Naturally, the question arises as to whether renewed bipolar conflict is truly the most useful theory for understanding the emergent global order. It may well be that American hegemony is not replaced with renewed bipolar conflict, but with the re-emergence of true multipolarity.
Michael Schryvers
Toronto, Ontario (Nov 14, '06)


Re A war the West can't win [Nov 14]: [W Joseph] Stroupe is using the dynamics of the leadership of an unimaginative and ideologically dogmatic leadership, that is, the leadership before the mid-terms [the November 7 US congressional elections]. Now, we cannot claim that it will all change overnight, but we can hope that some kind of enlightenment can take place, that congressional leadership will actually listen to those with progressive, clear-headed ideas. The reasoning and policymaking of the Bush-era leaders was stuck not only on Neanderthal but, once implemented, their stone etchings could not be changed. [The United States of] America does have those who recognize how the East is undercutting the West's economic dominance and how we [US] are cutting our own throats economically. With new leadership in Congress, I am hoping that the reactive ideologues are gone with the winds of progressive change and that an administration which has shown a bankruptcy of leadership will be overruled.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Nov 14, '06)


Is China's North Korean diplomacy new, as Jing-dong Yuan suggests [China's new North Korea diplomacy, Nov 14]? Superficially it is. Yet Beijing exercised its will to impose order on its neighbor because it suited China's purposes. China never acts unless action profits its goals. Beijing snapped Pyongyang back to order for testing a nuclear device without consulting it. Thus, in this sense, it and Washington found common ground to brand [North Korea] with international condemnation by voting [for] Resolution 1718 in the United Nations Security Council with stiff penalties. China's siding openly with the United States had the desired effect of bringing back North Korea to the stalled six-power talks at some time in an unspecified future. Yuan is right in saying that Beijing will not pull Washington's chestnuts out of the Iranian fire. James Baker, the Bush family retainer, is mapping out a plan to save President George W Bush from complete failure in Iraq. His approach will be similar to what he used in persuading Russia to sponsor an international council at which Israel sat down with all its Arab neighbors 15 years ago. This time to save the Bush family face, he is willing to engage as "ombudsmen" Syria and Iran in a confab whereby these two countries and Washington will share ownership for President Bush's disastrous war. As such, Beijing is not a welcome partner. The Baker gambit is risky, yet worth the candle. Israel's [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert is in Washington [at present], and it might not be too much to say that Mr Baker's Texas style of arm-wrestling might force Olmert to settle the Golan issue with Damascus, and to see a detente with Tehran, as an exchange for dampening the insurgency in Iraq.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 14, '06)


The article The Pakistani muscle behind Colombo [Sep 22] points [out] that India considers Sri Lanka part of its sphere of influence but for years she it done nothing to use this "sphere of influence" to help solve the civil war in Sri Lanka other than suggest further talks with the Tamil rebels. Talks cannot work if one party (the Tamil rebels) are determined to realize their independent state of Eelam through whatever means possible. India has already lost one of its leaders (Rajiv Gandhi) and has faced a humiliating defeat from the Tamil Tigers. Talks only work if both parties are serious on a peaceful resolution to this problem. Neither the Tamil Tigers nor the Sri Lankan government is ready for more failed talks. The only solution left for the Sri Lankan government is to achieve armaments superior to those of the Tamil Tigers and hope that New Delhi flushes out the Tamil Tiger cells across its southern states, mainly in Tamil Nadu. To date New Delhi has not lifted a finger to do this, leaving Colombo to seek help from other sources. Sri Lanka is indeed under India's sphere of influence, but the influence has not materialized, causing an untold number of innocent deaths on both sides of the conflict and enormous cost to the Sri Lankan government. As long as New Delhi stays out of the picture, other powers will fill the vacuum ... India alone has to bear the brunt of any further escalation of this civil war, for it as the dominant power of South Asia acts [ineptly] to handle the trouble in this strategic island. Demonstrating Pakistan's problems in Balochistan is calling the pot black by the kettle. India is ridden with internal strife - whether it is Kashmir, the Maoists or the Naxalites, India has plenty of problems [and need not] point fingers at Pakistan's own internal problems. After decades of civil war and tens of thousands killed in Sri Lanka, Colombo does not hold India on a pedestal anymore and will seek help from any source to solve its problem, and this does not include further talks that end in failures. If New Delhi does not act decisively to help solve Sri Lanka's civil war, it will find that its "sphere of influence" [has vanished] like a puff of smoke.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 14, '06)


In reference to a letter by Krischer on November 13, I submit the following: Your proofreader and letters editor are evidently asleep at the tiller. I quote from Krischer: "I believe, for example, that at heart, most of the writers at ATol know that there is no fundamental difference between a Democrat and a Republican, and yet they continue to write as if there is a difference." The phrase "there is no fundamental difference between a Democrat and a Republican" is the most horrible, blasphemous, revolting and putrid group of words ever penned in the English language! How could you let this get into your pages? Even my teenage granddaughters read your publication. Shame on you! Everyone knows that political persuasion is genetic - if it were based on intellect and common sense, there would be no Republicans.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 14, '06)


It was a very relevant and fact-based article titled Nepal's experiment with Maoism written by one of Nepal's well-known journalists, Dhruba Adhikary, brought by your leading and popular Asia Times [Online] on November 11. I found the contents of the article very influential and successful in providing the knowledge to all about the recent political development of Nepal. As the article rightly opined, there are adequate grounds for doubts and confusions in the so-called historic agreement which was recently signed by the ruling SPA [Seven Party Alliance] and rebel forces (Maoist) who have been fighting for a people's republic. It is easily predictable [that it will not bring] sustainable peace with a complete, full stop to the bloodbath conflict that has already [cost] more than 13,000 innocent lives because the involving parties are really not seen as dedicated and committed to people and country. Whatever is happening in the name of peace deals, [these] are not in reality related to delivering the people's aspiration to peace by bringing normalcy back into [play]; rather, all ongoing activities are based on the strategy of parties [wanting] to fulfill their ultimate goal to get power to rule the country by whatsoever way they need to do [so], including at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. All the parties are only proved power hungry. [If] the SPA [partners] are real political parties and their agenda is economical and democratic development of Nepal, they got very suitable and favorable time after the reinstatement of democracy in 1990, and the late king Birendra was not seen [as an] obstacle since he had not tried to interfere in state affairs, unlike his brother, current King Gyanendra. But due to their selfishness and personal gaining out of playing foul games with the help of corrupt practices, they have totally failed to give the people what [was committed to]. I think they must thank and give remarkable credit to King Gyanendra, whose direct rule for one and a half years provided a golden opportunity to save face of their past wrongdoings and mistakes. If the rebels are committed to peace, they should not keep their arms locked up, which indicates that these would be used again when the result of [the peace deal] is not as of their wish, as the rebel leaders almost expressed the same views already. So under this circumstance, how could it be really a historic and permanent settlement of ending the way to get power by arms and army? Rebel leaders' [loud] voice for unity and coalition for the next 10 years among current political partners and asking G P Koirala to continue the premiership for a long time are the only strategy of their dirty political game to grab power fully, since their past activities and deeds clearly proved that they were [of a mind] to apply different strategical approaches for their goal. And on the other side opposing the offer [for the] current prime minister to continue [in office] by Madhab K Nepal and Sher B Deuba are the clear symptoms of a negative attitude of coalition partners for the successful implementation of the so-called peace deal. All are power-hungry and none seems to be a real people-oriented party that can truly be a peace provider to the people.
Chintit Pant
St Paul, Minnesota (Nov 13, '06)


"The memory of defeats has built into the Muslim psyche a grudging respect for China ..." [China's four-play, Nov 11]: Chan Akya often writes as if China, India, the Muslim countries, etc, were each one individual, not each collections of a vast number of individuals. There are [about] 1.3 billion "Muslim psyches", not one, and no two of them are likely to agree.
Lester Ness
Kunming, China (Nov 13, '06)


Re The Korean bomb still ticking [Nov 11]: It would have benefited the ATol reader had Donald Kirk not forgotten to point out that, thanks to the [US] Democratic Party's sweep in last Tuesday's mid-term election, the new chairman of the House of Representatives, Tom Lantos, had gone with a Republican colleague, Jim Leach of Iowa, in 2005 to Pyongyang to encourage North Korea to go back to the six-party talks. And what is more important, the authorities in Pyongyang have a frame of reference as to what a Democratic majority may portend after years of standoff between Pyongyang and the Bush Republicans. As Kirk notes, Representative Lantos will take a "respectful tack" in dealing with [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il's government. Into the trash bin has gone "axis of evil". Suddenly President [George W] Bush's tinhorn-marshal approach seems out of place, as the traditional language of diplomacy takes precedence. Suddenly, too, America's ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has become a destabilizing element in world affairs, for lest we forget he almost single-handedly, through much vulgar name-calling and bluster, derailed talks between Washington and Pyongyang during Mr Bush's first term in office. So as a fresh wind sweeps over the legislative branch in Washington, as Kirk rightly remarks, Mr Bush's saber-rattling has as much effect as that moment in L Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz when the dog Toto reveals to one and all that the much-feared wizard is nothing but an old man using smoke and blue mirrors to frighten everyone. What Kirk does not say, but may have implied, [is that] Pyongyang can breathe a little easier with the change of leadership in the houses of Congress. It is as though a Clintonesque approach may return to Foggy Bottom [the US State Department] through Congress' pressure. Though not said, the much-maligned Sunshine Policy [of engagement between the Koreas] will survive the repeated attacks by Mr Bush & Co. Cautiously there may be hope that ... the nuclear issue with Pyongyang may find a solution, and that a tradeoff will occur whereby after some 30 years, first promised by the Russians, then by the Americans, North Korea will have [light] water nuclear reactors, which will go a long way to improving its infrastructure and help improve its economy and the life of its people.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 13, '06)


I am a longtime reader of ATimes, with a special interest in the wise and prophetic articles of Henry C K Liu. I am particularly moved by the last paragraph of his Regime change blowback (Nov 11), which reads: "The US has the capacity to be a world leader of peace, but to fulfill that noble mission it must adopt a foreign policy of tolerance, respect and fairness toward other nations. Win the love of the world with justice and the inferno of terrorism will be extinguished." However, I doubt that (the people of) the USA will ever see this happen, until they eliminate, totally and permanently, the power-from-without that has taken control of their country. I also feel that his last sentence should read, "Win the love of the world with justice and the resistance of its people to exploitation and oppression will have no reason."
Keith Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta (Nov 13, '06)


The article by Ian Williams The US's new Democratic way [Nov 11] deals with those who have been elected and touches on the US's future possible foreign policies, but he did not address how the US electorate voted on many domestic referendums. In many states, far-left issues were voted out - issues such as the legalization of gay marriage, third-term abortion, the legalization of marijuana etc. This translates to a population that by and large is either conservative or moderate in [its] values and is reflected in the type of congressman or senator who was voted in. Of course, many far-left Democrats were voted in too, including the [prospective] Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The different points of values now reflected in the Democratic Party may result in schisms on future bills. This will give President [George W] Bush some wiggle room [and], coupled with [his] veto power, President Bush will still be a power to reckon with.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 13, '06)


Re Rumsfeld takes a hit for Bush (Nov 10): [Jim] Lobe's contention that [Donald] Rumsfeld's replacement [as defense secretary] signals a major change in US foreign policy doesn't wash. Bush administration history proves that it does everything on a political measuring scale. Policy is set in concrete and even loyal members of the Bush clique must go when the public clamor is overwhelming - let me emphasize, overwhelming. Foreign policy is first strongly influenced by the Cheney factor. Once implemented, Bush stubbornness - a trait you could probably trace to an easy life of public subsidies and entitlements - sanctimony and self-delusion govern. So no, I don't see Rumsfeld's departure as a drastic change in foreign policy or, more specifically, Iraq policy. It was a political necessity for a politically based leader.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Nov 13, '06)


Jakob Cambria writes [letter, Nov 8]: "There is a wistful air of wishful thinking in Ian Williams' article [A Congress with a softer touch, Nov 8] ... [Whether] the new Democratic-controlled [House of Representatives] dampens President [George W] Bush's White House's muscular diplomacy remains to be seen." Yes. It remains to be seen. Therefore, your ensuing prediction on the point is premature ... The "wistful air and wishful thinking" is in your hope that Bush continues his trashing of the constitution and international law, without opposition. Instead, in the short term, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is dead. There will also be oversight and investigations which quickly, and continuously, begin to nail the Bushit gang members as the criminals they are. That isn't only up to Congress: the majority supports impeachment, even if it must be demanded of Congress by majority ultimatum. "Wistful wishful thinking" and the politesse of protecting lies by repeating them is so, oh, "yesterday". Hung-Lok Li writes [letter, Nov 8]: "In US ready to face the world anew (Nov 8), the author mentioned that 'the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by [James] Baker and Lee H Hamilton, will conclude that the US needs to make deals with Syria, Iran and the rest of a timid world to assure that the US can escape Iraq without a total loss of its long-term interest'. If that is the case, I am really concerned that this study group may equate Iraq as another Vietnam and suggest that the US should withdraw. What kind of values does the US share with Syria or Iran?" ... As for Syria, the Bush gang - which is not to be mistaken for "the US" as a whole, or for the overwhelmingly anti-Bush US citizenry - shares the "value" of "extreme rendition" to Syria for the purpose of being subjected to the war crime of torture. As for Iran, the Bush gang shares the "value" of "state terrorism", Bush's foremost example being his "liberation" of unadjudicated Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, by means of the war crime of torture, from Saddam Hussein's imposition on unadjudicated Iraqis of the war crime of torture.
Joseph J Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (Nov 13, '06)


Concerning Dance of the lion and the dragon [Nov 8], while the Uighurs may pray in Koranic Arabic, they still use the old Zoroastrian Iranian names for the five daily Muslim prayers, namely bamdad, pishin, degar, sham, [and] khotan (deformed from khoftan, ie "sleep"). Such is the case also in Central Asia, while in Iran proper, this charming use of old terminology has given way to the Arabic terms. Concerning Spengler's as-usual-overconfident assertions in Lessons from classical warfare [Nov 7], I am surprised that someone with his false pretensions of erudition still uses the by now at least partially discredited Greco-Roman classics. Alexander began with 15,000 troops, admittedly [fewer] than the number of Greek mercenaries in Darius' army, but the 230,000 mentioned is so ridiculous as to not be worth a comment other than that he should read Professor Pierre Briant's masterly Darius a l'ombre d'Alexander to educate himself before proffering his next piece of Eurocentric wisdom.
Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian
London and Geneva (Nov 13, '06)


The following is in reference to the half a dozen articles posted [last] week [on] Asia Times [Online] about the big changes taking place in the USA at mid-term elections. The deepest truths always seem contradictory at first glance: the well-known French saying "the more things change the more things stay the same" should never be forgotten. Does it mean that there is no hope for change? Of course not, because change is inevitable, and yet nothing is really going to change. Or consider this: what if (in the USA) the 1980s was the Clinton decade and the 1990s was the Reagan decade? On the one hand it is a silly question, and then on the other hand, it can be asked in order to make a point. How different a [Ronald] Reagan is from a [Bill] Clinton, and yet (again) how similar! That which is changing and the way in which things are changing cannot be changed. This is as certain as death. I believe, for example, that at heart, most of the writers at ATol know that there is no fundamental difference between a Democrat and a Republican, and yet they continue to write as if there is a difference. The traditionally religious attitude - that is to say, the attitude of all peoples everywhere until a few hundred years ago - was something which we might call "active resignation". Again, at first glance, it seems to be a contradiction in terms, but in fact, there can be no other attitude towards the world "here below", a world which is predetermined and yet (again) free - free within the limits that Life (or, if you wish, God) has set for us. And so why am I writing this letter since I believe I can change nothing? But if you have asked yourself that question, then you have completely missed my point. My point, or rather my request, is that we place the Truth over optimism. As the Hindus (and again all traditional societies) knew, we are not progressing, but rather reaching the end of a cycle of humanity - though this too can be seen not as an end but as a beginning. Maybe one will get tired quickly of my circular argument, but then that is exactly what happens in politics. How is anything that is happening today any different than 25 years ago? Of course it is different and yet ... again ...
Krischer (Nov 13, '06)


The victory of Democrats [in US congressional elections] is a Thanksgiving moment; Mother Nature has humbled the arrogance of Republican war-hawking pharaohs. It is, though, a moment ... for Democrats to pause and remember the saddest, but most unjustified, deaths of 3,000 young American soldiers and [hundreds of] thousands of innocent Iraqis civilians killed by [the] unjustified Iraq war on the pretext of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] vindicated by a mid-term referendum on Iraq. The Democrats should not forget the blatant waste of trillions US dollars of American taxpayers' money, corruption, ruining Iraq to ashes: most sinisterly, engineering the deadliest Shi'a-Sunni sectarian divide leading Iraq to civil war renders [US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair] accountable to the damages and impeachment. The unsportsmanlike policies pursued by Bush, [US Vice President] Dick Cheney, [outgoing defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice and others not [only] failed them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran [and] North Korea but also isolated and tarnished the image of [the] great American nation. This certainly suggests that Democrats should not repeat the blunders of Bush and his team's egocentric ambitions of dictating [to] the sovereign world, small or big, as grand emperor in all arrogance and disrespect. It is expected of Democrats that they will not lose sight of next elections to close their ranks within and select a joint [presidential] candidate at the earliest possible [time] to least expose their [internal] differences as in the 2004 elections and govern for not less than 20 years. The world hopes from them that they will restore dignity, respect, harmony and order to the most afflicting and grievously suffering humanity all over the world. They will not support tyrants who abuse them in self-serving explicit obedience to perpetuate their illegal rules. They will sit down with the leaderships of world of all shades and opinion to bring greater harmony, peace and prosperity on this most afflicted world by 90%, to amicably resolve issues [that] beset and conflict the world. The Democrats should [envisage creating] a history not [only] in their country as great leaders but also [in] the world.
Samar J Khan
Pakistan (Nov 13, '06)


I wish to express my delight in seeing the backside of monstrous Donald Rumsfeld kicked out from the seat he so dearly and notoriously occupied, or, as a few say, gave up to save his equally notorious warmongering disciple G W Bush's skin which is hanging by his teeth ... Though Rumsfeld offered to resign after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal broke in 2004, [he] wanted to leave on a high note and positive time for development in Iraq, but that never arrived and would never arrive [and he] eventually became the unpopular and detested face of American failure in Iraq. As a fall guy of last week's anti-Republican [election] landslide, Mr Rumsfeld was brutally stabbed in the back and sacrificed for not delivering anything constructive and for the abject failure of President Bush's non-existent policy in Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld is now facing the threat of a lawsuit in the German courts accusing him of involvement in the prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay detention camp and in Iraq. A writ brought by a US-based human-rights group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, says that it [will] file charges this week in Germany to allow for the prosecution of "war crimes" committed anywhere in the world and will lodge charges not only against Mr Rumsfeld but also against Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet and many other senior figures in President Bush's warmongering, terrorist-like administration.
Saqib Khan
UK (Nov 13, '06)


Your November 10 story Bechtel's billions down the drain falsely claims that Bechtel "is leaving [Iraq] without completing most of the tasks it set out to do". If the authors had contacted Bechtel before writing their story, they would have learned that we completed 97 of the 99 job orders assigned to us by the US Agency for International Development. We left Iraq when our contract expired. Our accomplishments included: dredging Iraq's only deepwater port at Umm Qasr, so grain and other relief supplies could enter the country; repairing transportation infrastructure, including Baghdad and Basrah airports and three major bridges critical to traffic flow throughout Iraq; increasing power-generation capacity by more than 1,200 megawatts; restoring or building new water- and sewage-treatment plants capable of serving millions of people; renovating more than 1,200 schools and 52 primary health clinics; and restoring essential telecommunications facilities between Iraq's major cities and within Baghdad. In addition, Bechtel provided more than 600,000 hours of training in operations, maintenance, information technology, and other fields to support the sustainable operation of these facilities in the future. Millions of Iraqis today are drinking cleaner water, attending school, or earning a living because of jobs that Bechtel performed for USAID [the United States Agency for International Development], with the help of more than 40,000 Iraqi workers.
Jonathan Marshall
Media Relations Manager
Bechtel Corporation
San Francisco, California (Nov 10, '06)


Jim Lobe has put his finger on President [George W] Bush's nervous pulse [Rumsfeld takes a hit for Bush, Nov 10]. Although Donald Rumsfeld has fallen on the sword for Mr Bush's ill-conceived, disastrous, expeditionary war in Iraq, the American people pulled the rug [from] under Mr Bush on election day, November 9, 2006. They flatly knocked the pins [from] under the Bush Jr's hold on the Republican Party's long run on the levers of power in the White House and Capitol Hill. Before the impending squaring [of] accounts at the polls, it became obvious that the old stalwarts of the Grand Old Party or Republican Party [and] George H W Bush, the president's father, had sent in the troops to limit the great damage that the party was going to suffer at the polls. Suddenly James Baker III was off to Iraq to assess the situation and save the day for Bush fils. His report is expected by year's end, which will limn a strategy of an honorable retreat from Iraq. In this, he is aided and abetted by Lee Hamilton, a Democrat but a loyal member of Bush pere's coterie. Then there's Brent [Scowcroft], who has in public disagreed with President Bush's Mideast Policy. And now Robert Gates, a fair-haired boy of Bush pere, is replacing Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Mr Gates has a murky past, which is rooted in the Iran-Contra affair, but Bush pere has proved his rabbi, eventually chaperoning his way to the heights of the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] organization. Former president Bush's men are assuming commanding posts in the Republican Party and in the background of President Bush's White House. They are there to keep the president on the straight and narrow, and to keep the party from imploding from the rout it suffered at the polls. In the months to come, [Vice President Dick] Cheney will exercise less an influence on Mr Bush, and [White House deputy chief of staff] Karl Rove will return to some prestigious position in the private sector. The 43rd president has become a lame duck in more than one sense.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 10, '06)


Democrats are basking in glory at the moment. I am more than pleased that the US voting public has at least put a check on the arrogance of the Bush administration. But my interpretation of results of this election is quit different from that of most articles in the last two days. In my opinion, the Democrats did not "win" the election. George Bush and his cabal of international criminals were the cause of the landslide of voters to any other available party. Personally, and I say this in absolute seriousness, I would have voted for a cat rather than any of the Republican candidates if that was the only available alternative.
Ken Moreau
New Orleans, Louisiana (Nov 10, '06)


The resignation of disgraced US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld signals that the most incompetent and dangerous administration in American political history has been delivered its first death blow in what will hopefully become a defining moment for the future of US foreign policy. Mr Rumsfeld began his career as a military strategist while serving in the Reagan administration, where he was the chief architect of a nuclear first-strike policy directed against the former Soviet Union. This bold new policy, which allowed for a US death toll of over 80 million lives, marked a major strategic shift towards the untried concept of unilateralism and its present-day equivalent: the Bush Doctrine of preemption. In 1999, Mr Rumsfeld chaired the so-called Rumsfeld Space Commission, which was established by the Republican Congress to challenge the perceived weakness of the Clinton administration on national-defense issues. The commission concluded: "It is possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Having this capability would give the US a much stronger deterrent and, in conflict, an extraordinary military advantage." This policy is now the virtual blueprint of the National Space Policy released last month by the Bush administration, which reasserts that domination of space is just as important to US national interests as air or sea power. The challenge ahead for the Democrats is whether they can steer America towards what the Iraq Study Group has called a "new equilibrium of interests". This would include not only opening up a dialogue in the Middle East with countries such as Syria and Iran, but it would necessarily include the beginning of a new world order where the US no longer leads by the power of force but by the power of moral example.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Nov 10, '06)


Re An embarrassment of riches (Nov 10): This is really an interesting question to China and to the world. Is there any real benefit for China to hold on to the surplus? As we all know, China is only holding on to the US paper money in the US-dollar-backed currency market, which has no value unless China uses this money to buy assets in US dollars. But with the current US policy of forbidding China to purchase and to invest in any technology or resources-related products and assets, there is little China [can] do besides let the surplus accumulate. Personally I am surprised that China is able to accumulate such a huge surplus considering how inexpensive the Chinese goods are ... in the US, and in the rest of the world. As one of the Chinese leaders said, China needs to sell millions of shirts in order to trade for a plane in Europe. The surplus is really the accumulation of blood and sweat of millions and millions of Chinese cheap laborers. Now those surpluses are sitting in US Treasury bills, collecting little interest and depreciating along with the weakling US dollar day by day. So instead of blaming China for the surplus, why do US policymakers [not] change their own policies toward China and get rid of these nonsense embargoes? In every way, the US has treated China like its No 1 enemy. In reality, China has never invaded the US or any other countries [except] for the reason of self-defense. Current US policy towards China is like knitting a net trying to catch an imaginable monster which does not exist in the real world.
Yen
An expat in Shanghai, China (Nov 10, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your article Afghanistan strikes back at Pakistan [Nov 9] is unconvincing. Most of your reporting is credible when your ears are to the ground and you narrate what the common people tell you. But this time you strayed away from your own rule, and hence this concoction. The recent attacks, including the suicide attack on the Pakistani army, are retaliation by the al-Qaeda/Taliban nexus to avenge the strikes at Bajour and Damadola. This fact has been stated by other writers elsewhere and sounds more credible than the handouts given to you by the likes of the ludicrous Hameed Gul. It is the many state-sponsored non-state actors within Pakistan that are perpetrating these attacks.
D Bhardwaj
Chicago, Illinois (Nov 10, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: I read your reports and they are based on the truth. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. If you kill an Afghan soldier, your soldier will also be killed (which may be a Talib or regular Pakistani soldier). Thanks that anyone in Pakistan knows what the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] and militants in this country [presumably Afghanistan; address not supplied - ATol] [have] done to us. It will be good that they should understand that the goals they want to achieve in Afghanistan are impossible for them and stability in Afghanistan is in the favor of Pakistan and the region, or else Pakistan's government will burn in the fire that was started by it. And if anyone in Pakistan thinks that it's people in the Northern Alliance that are against them in Afghanistan, it's totally wrong.We the Pashtuns are also against the Pakistani government's policy in the region and hope a day will come that people from both countries may live a peaceful life.
Mohd Mussadiq Jalalzai (Nov 10, '06)


Hollow victory: The hanging of Saddam [Nov 7] by Ehsan Ahrari accurately summarizes the kangaroo court set up be the American occupiers in Iraq. Given the mess the Americans created in Iraq, the doubtful legitimacy of the puppet government and its the court and given that there is much genuine agreement that Saddam [Hussein] was indeed the only despot who could have kept Iraq whole, the right thing to do for the present is for the world to campaign for Saddam's sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment. The chances are that within five years all parties may agree that Saddam will be the only person [who] can reunify Iraq as a country again. At least keep this option open. A hanging of Saddam will only unleash more violent forces that will engulf both Iraqis and the US occupation forces. The commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment will put the lives of the puppet government at risk. But they are at risk anyway once the US occupation force leaves.
Kelvin Mok (Nov 10, '06)


India's veneer of religious integration [Nov 9] is a very revealing article on India's double standards on inter-religious harmony. But looking at India's 20th century history, it was the Muslims under the leadership of [Muhammad] Ali Jinnah [who] did not want to assimilate with the majority Hindus and demanded and got a separate homeland. This background of Muslims refusing to assimilate with the majority is reflected worldwide. Currently Europe is learning this painful lesson. Even in the area of law, minority Muslim communities want separate Islamic courts using sharia law. I am not excusing the Indian government for its discriminatory actions against the Muslims, but even if the Indian government takes the necessary actions to integrate the Muslims into the main culture, will the Muslims really want that level of assimilation when they have demonstrated across the world that they refuse to assimilate with non-Muslim majorities?
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 9, '06)


Shirzad Azad, in his article Dance of the lion and the dragon [Nov 8], asserts that the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang (East Turkestan) pray in Persian and use the Persian alphabet. But that is not true. The Uighur Muslims pray in Arabic and Uighur, and use an Arabic script based on the English alphabet. Although the Uighurs used a romanized script for two decades, it was changed to Arabic script in the mid-1980s. Also, it is really unfortunate that Mr Azad never mentioned the persecution of nearly 10 million Uighur Muslims at the hands of the atheistic Chinese government. Communist China occupied East Turkestan (aka Xinjiang in Chinese) in 1949. Since then, it never stopped persecuting the Uighurs. After [September 11, 2001], China took advantage of the global war on terror and widely cracked down on the Uighurs, calling them "terrorists" because of their Islamic faith. The Muslims in Iran should know this sad reality instead of looking up to China as a shining example of progress. By the way, the Uighurs do not consider themselves Chinese. The Uighur Muslims are not Chinese Muslims. So the word "Chinese Muslims" does not include the Uighurs. Chinese Muslims are Hui people who are ethnic Chinese people who believe in Islam.
Alim Seytoff
General Secretary
Uyghur American Association
Washington, DC (Nov 9, '06)

We're not sure what "an Arabic script based on the English alphabet" is, but numerous non-Semitic writing systems, including Persian and the one currently favored by Uighurs, are based on the Arabic system spread throughout Asia by Muslims and their Koran. According to Wikipedia, Uighur, a Turkic language, "traditionally used the Arabic script since the 10th century. The Chinese government introduced a Roman script closely resembling the Soviet Uniform Turkic Alphabet in 1969, but the Arabic script was reintroduced in 1983, but with extra diacritics to distinguish all vowels of Uighur. Cyrillic script has been used and is ... still being used to write Uighur in areas previously dominated by Russians, and another Roman script, based on Turkish orthography, is used in Turkey and on the Internet." - ATol


In his letter published [on Nov 8], Tamu twisted facts and made some outrageous claims and accusations about Xinjiang. He claimed Xinjiang was "unilaterally annexed by force" by the PRC [People's Republic of China] 60 years ago. How funny. For the convenience of those readers who are not familiar with Chinese history, I [will] not mention the Han or Tang Dynasty, not even the Qing Dynasty or Zuo Zongtang, I will confine my discussion about Xinjiang to the 1940s, roughly 60 years ago, the time when the PRC allegedly annexed Xinjiang, according to Tamu. Has he ever heard of the name Sheng Shicai, the warlord [who] ruled Xinjiang in the '30s and '40s? As a matter of fact, chairman Mao [Zedong]'s brother Mao Zemin was killed by Sheng Shicai in Xinjiang, as a member of the Chinese Communist Party. If Xinjiang wasn't officially part of the Republic of China, which the People's Republic of China toppled in 1949, what was Sheng Shicai, an ethnic Han Chinese, doing in Xinjiang? And what were Mao Zemin and other Chinese communists doing in Xinjiang if it was foreign territory? Some of Tamu's absurd claims include "killing Muslim men, attempting to eradicate the Uighur language and culture, persecuting practicing Muslims for their faith", by which I am dumbfounded. Has Tamu been to Xinjiang? Especially Kashgar? Go to Kashgar and tell me how Muslim men are killed and how Uighur language and culture are being eradicated. Best of all, show me a Uighur who does not practice Islam. Then I will be convinced.
Juchechosunmanse
Beijing, China (Nov 9, '06)


Spengler, in his Mideast: Lessons in classical warfare (Nov 7), is being far too gratuitous in his appraisal of US President George W Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other "well-meaning" American Christians who "operate on the presumption that Muslims can be persuaded to act like them, with tragic consequences". He bases their well-intentioned naivety on his own presumption that "by and large American Christians do not understand what it is that makes them Christians.". By and large, American Christians do indeed know what it is that makes them Christians. They are the New Israel, and their manifest destiny is intimately tied to the return of Jesus Christ to the Old Israel when his eternal rule will be ultimately established on Earth in strict accordance with the prophetic word of God. This is the hope of every Bible-believing American Christian as taught week by week by the over 200,000 evangelical pastors scattered throughout the entire United States. Former US attorney general John Ashcroft, who is himself a lay pastor and son of an Assembly of God minister, cast on February 20, 2002, the US government's "war on terror" in religious terms and argued that the campaign against terror is "rooted in faith in God". It does not take much to extrapolate from these comments that since terrorists are for the most part Muslims, ipso facto, Muslims are not "people of God". On the other hand, this is exactly what al-Qaeda and the Islamicists are after: to provoke this kind of reaction in Christian America. They are aiming at their own version of Armageddon, where they think they will be the ones to prevail in a world war against Christianity. It will culminate in Jesus Christ returning to Earth, declaring himself a Muslim and destroying both Christianity and Judaism. This is therefore not to be superficially construed as a contest based on the presupposition that "the US has offered a world in which traditional society has no place". It is fundamentally and essentially construed as a contest between two tribal deities. And this has surely not escaped the fervent attention of Bush, Rice and other "well-meaning" American Christians in their unmitigated focus on what truly lies at stake in the "war on terror."
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Nov 9, '06)


The American Chamber of Commerce in China laments that there is a shortage of skilled workers in China [From steel mills to diploma mills, Nov 4]. Well, now it is time for America's corporate suits to pay the piper for the good profits [they] made from low-skilled, low-paid workers, to feed the gargantuan appetite of America's consumers. As China's industry climbs the rungs of a value-added, skilled world, manpower is woefully lacking, which means American corporations will have to pour more time and training and money [into bringing] Chinese up to speed. Segue to the role of private universities on the mainland, as uncharted territory to exploit and turn into finishing universities in China. These "schools of higher learning" have for the most [part] turned out to be fly-by-night [establishments that] have taken the money and run, leaving students without much learning and no diplomas. Now America's corporate eyes are suddenly focused on China's private universities on the mainland as uncharted territory to exploit and to transform into finishing schools for the United States' corporate needs in China. This, they posit, will bring Chinese up to speed to the rigors of liberal economics. Nonetheless they are fishing in turbulent seas, the more especially [as] they are going to have to deal with the central government, run by the Communist Party, which looks with a jaundiced eye on freedom of thought and expression and n foreign interference into matters the party considers its own preserve. Contrast this with India, which has a growing stock of highly trained, highly skilled workers and white-collar workers, and [is] a country endowed with thousands of private universities.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 9, '06)


In US ready to face the world anew (Nov 8), the author mentioned that "the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by [James] Baker and Lee H Hamilton, will conclude that the US needs to make deals with Syria, Iran and the rest of a timid world to assure that the US can escape Iraq without a total loss of its long-term interest". If that is the case, I am really concerned that this study group may equate Iraq as another Vietnam and suggest that the US should withdraw. What kind of values does the US share with Syria or Iran? No doubt, certain things in Iraq have got worse, but have also got much [clearer]. Iraq is in the presence of an attempt to establish its democratic constitution while it is struggling with those who do not want to see that happening and therefore prohibit the expression of all opinions but their own and discipline their own followers into the strictest and most rigid obedience. The idea that dictators can be appeased by kind words or concessions is doomed to fail. In the past, what the US did in Somalia and Lebanon after [being] attacked by terrorists [was] not honorable. After all, the way that America handled Vietnam was the most ignominious kind of defeat. This is a difficult time for Iraq especially when most of the surrounding countries do not have democracy. While the capability of the current Iraqi military is very questionable, whether the democratic system in Iraq will succeed or be gradually whittled away truly depends on both the willingness of [the] Iraqi people [and] Americans' help to make sure that Iraq is safe and strong in the first instance. Anyhow, to make [deals] with dictators may be an "easy" way out sometimes but it is certainly the ugliest way because one has to betray his own standard and values.
Hong-Lok Li (Nov 8, '06)


There is a wistful air of wishful thinking in Ian Williams' article [A Congress with a softer touch, Nov 8] ... [Whether] the new Democratic-controlled [House of Representatives] dampens President [George W] Bush's White House's muscular diplomacy remains to be seen. Mr Bush's six years in office have strengthened a presidency with imperial pretensions. Mr Bush never backs down, and any student of [the US] knows that as head of the executive branch of government, he can use the power of the veto which is his. It is unlikely a Democratic Congress can muster enough votes to override a veto. Lame duck as he is after the mid-term elections, Mr Bush will continue carrying out his war against terrorism and a reactionary social agenda in the United States. The American people will have to wait until 2009 for a change of course ...
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 8, '06)


Dance of the lion and the dragon [Nov 8] by Shirzad Azad documents the growing cooperation between China and Iran, which is an important geopolitical development. However, I'm curious as to why a country like Iran whose leaders, to say the least, emphatically believe in the existence of Allah would choose to align itself with a country like China, whose leaders emphatically deny the existence of a Supreme Being. I'm also curious as to why Iran would whip up its proxy agents abroad into a frenzy over minuscule pieces of land such as the Gaza Strip (363 square kilometers), West Bank (5,900 square kilometers), and even the entire nation of Israel (22,1451 square kilometers) and yet seems not to care that about 60 years ago the PRC [People's Republic of China] unilaterally annexed by force what today is called Xinjiang (1,660,000 square kilometers), a huge area of land that for centuries was inhabited by Muslims. The PRC then proceeded to loot the natural resources, kill Muslim men, test atomic weapons, attempt to eradicate the Uighur language and culture, persecute practicing Muslims for their faith, and settle the land with Han Chinese (1949 - 6% Han; present - 40% Han) to whom the best jobs and biggest bank loans are given. This isn't something that we read about in a history textbook; the persecution of Muslims continues today in Xinjiang. Where is the international Muslim outrage about the situation in Xinjiang? Iran's leadership furiously denounces the West for alleged mistreatment of Muslims, yet turns a blind eye to actual mistreatment of Muslims in Xinjiang. Whoops, I forgot that the Xinjiang Muslims are Sunni, not Shi'a. That's why Iran doesn't care.
Tamu
China (Nov 8, '06)


In Spengler's article of November 7, Mideast: Lessons from classical warfare, he says, "I sympathize with Bush, and reject as nonsensical all the conspiracy theories concerning the supposed motives for US intervention in Iraq." As Spengler goes on to write about Christianity, does he forget the basic Christian tenet, "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you"? It doesn't mean "do unto Americans", or "do unto rich, white men" but do unto others. [US Vice President Dick] Cheney, [President George W] Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice are pseudo-Christians; I will go further and say they are highly immoral human beings who follow not the Golden Rule, but the PPP rule: power, profit and prestige. They are responsible for the great suffering and misery they've unleashed on a nation that was no threat to the US. They have caused an untold number of deaths and injuries. It is good to see the best in people, but to view [as good] people who are clearly guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity is neither fair nor just. The best lesson that can come from this horrible tragedy is that the American leadership responsible for these crimes are stripped of their power, tried and convicted in the International Criminal Court for their crimes, and sent to prison for life to think about the untold suffering they've caused innocent people. Spengler's dismissal of these crimes is both a travesty and itself irresponsible; it shows the age-old willingness to excuse executive power and not hold accountable those who abuse it. To be blind to those who have demonstrated the most dangerous and antisocial qualities in human nature is only going to continue with more pain and sorrow and send the message to other world leaders that choosing war over negotiation, dialogue and compromise carries no penalty or cost.
Jerry Gerber
San Francisco, California (Nov 8, '06)


Spengler's latest attempt at an epigram: "An endearing quality of the Americans is that they find the truth too horrible to contemplate" [Mideast: Lessons from classical warfare, Nov 7]. This, like most of his remarks, is an idiocy wrapped in a pretentious prose style. I well recall that you said you were keeping him on in order to know how the other half thinks, but frankly this isn't thought at all, it is the mewling and puking of the ideological second childhood of the adulators of the West and all its works.
Rowan Berkeley (Nov 8, '06)


Spengler [Mideast: Lessons from classical warfare, Nov 7] writes a lot about the Islamic world view and, taking advantage of a massively ignorant audience, pens ideas with the bold stroke of an expert who might have mastery over his subject matter. The misinformation and outright lies Spengler infuses into his presentations show us, however, that he is no master (or maybe he is and just suffers from an obscene love of dishonesty). Quite problematically, Spengler casts Christianity as the absolute enemy and Islam as the absolute arbiter of tradition, which is wrong both ways because Christians, even American ones, have plenty of religious traditions (eg, opposition to homosexual marriage) they stubbornly revere, and there are among mainstream Muslims some pretty strident enemies of traditional culture where it stands in violation of the Islamic way - not to mention modernist Muslims, also known as Salafis, who despise nearly all tradition, valid or otherwise ... Islam stands not in need of annihilating tradition and being reborn phoenix-like every time history poses impossible theological challenges ... Traditions of all prophets are precious (insofar as they are retrievable) because they remind us and point to the raison d'etre of our kind. Remembrance, or dhikr, forms the backbone of Islamic spirituality. Remembrance of the sublime reality, that is, that we are all created - each individual of each nation, each tribe, each language, each age of history - with a godly purpose and not in vain; that the deepest core of the human being is not sinful but pure and innocent and pleasing to God. Tradition is certainly not the enemy since it is the outward manifestation of that most vital remembrance, but neither is it ever an object of worship, as Spengler goes about asserting regarding Islam. The rage Muslims feel when seemingly intelligent Westerners accuse their religion of holding absurd pagan ideas is the pain of disbelief rather than anger. There is anger, indeed, but that comes when the initial pain of disbelief is further misclassified as anguish over loss of tradition. It's like being stuck in a madhouse with the loonies in charge.
Zaheer Akmal
USA (Nov 8, '06)


On November 3, ATol published a short, lucid and necessary editorial titled Iraq: Bush has a plan, and it's working. Reproducing a typical, all-stunt slide from the US Central Command and commenting [on] it, this editorial reminded rational readers that rather than buying this silly notion that US policy in Iraq is well-meaning ("but you know with these Arabs, nothing can work, they are such bickering savages"), the plain reality is that US policy is a total success: another [Arab] or Muslim country has been destroyed, as planned. Quite a few of your contributors and readers … are well aware that the world masters are not in any way benevolent, but rather vicious and not exactly stupid. On the other hand, I am surprised that many other individuals, who seem intelligent and knowledgeable, do believe that those at the command of the US hyperpower are in a sense benevolent - meaning well but, alas, absolute idiots - the "American innocence", supposedly. Truly, many of these world masters may look, talk and behave like idiots, but with the huge resources at their disposal, their intelligence is quite sufficient to reign … as masters. A chess-playing machine wouldn't qualify [as] being intelligent, but one should not underestimate its chess-playing capacity. Or, if one comes across … a big toothy shark, which is not necessarily the most intelligent sea predator, neither should the oh-so-much-more-intelligent swimmer underestimate the ability of this powerful predator to efficiently tear [him or her] to pieces. In the same way, if one looks objectively at the unfolding geopolitics of the last quarter of a century, it is obvious that the US strategy for world domination, despite the babbling of many US "leaders", has worked quite well (with the English and Israeli remoras cleverly piggybacking, so to say); and it's a strategy that has been compounded by both US Democrats and Republicans. This being said, of course, no empire is eternal, and these things come and go under the sun. ATol published on October 25 a brilliant essay by [F William] Engdahl [Moscow plays its cards strategically] demonstrating that there has been for the last century a successful Anglo-US geostrategy of world domination, but the game is not finished - as long as there are human beings, there is no such thing as the end of history.
Dr Bittar Gabriel Jivasattha
Australia and Switzerland (Nov 8, '06)


After the Watergate scandal, most Americans saw Richard Nixon as a crook and his replacement by a man as honest as Jimmy Carter was hailed as a blessing. So relieved were the Americans that it took them a while to see that the simple and sincere peanut farmer from Georgia lacked the management and leadership skills to run the country. The Carter legacy is that honesty in government is necessary but not sufficient. The new government in Thailand would do well to pay heed and to focus on important political issues during a crucial transition for the country. A preoccupation with alcohol laws in this context seems strangely out of place.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Nov 8, '06)


Ehsan Ahrari in his article Hollow victory: The hanging of Saddam (Nov 7) connects this verdict up with [US President] George Bush and domestic politics, and rightly so. Bush pulls the strings of his puppets in Iraq and they deliver. He approves of his own people in the USA receiving the death penalty and in many cases innocents are going to their deaths. The EU doesn't approve of the death penalty except, of course, when they are plundering and destroying Third World nations. With the sentencing of Saddam [Hussein] to death, a precedent has been set: if you don't approve of the way a government runs its own country, you invade, arrest its government, destroy its army and security laws, put its head of state, along with the executive members of that government, on trial, put down civil unrest with heavy aerial bombing and shelling as if on the battlefield, install a puppet government that becomes the native face of foreign aggressors, and begin the show trials. This is called the justice of the victors. Some time in the future, this precedent could apply to the United States of America, Britain and the EU. History tells us that empires crumble with time but that the tormented human memory lives on for millennia. Countries must be allowed to sort out [their] own problems within its own borders. Ehsan Ahrari mentions Slobodan Milosevic as a brutal dictator. What we call democracies can be equally brutal. The dictatorship of Nazism lasted 12 years and took many millions of lives. But the European democracies have been taking millions upon millions of lives for 150 years. It was one of these democracies who dropped the atomic bomb on a prostrate people. Today the democracies continue to take many lives. That magic number, signaling that it is time to go, 1 million dead, has been reached and passed in Iraq through economic sanctions, around-the-clock bombing and occupation.
Wilson John Haire
London, England (Nov 7, '06)


In response to my letter (Nov 6) labeling the death sentence handed to Saddam Hussein a "hypocrisy", ATol editors wrote: "Abhorrence of the death penalty is in essence a European phenomenon, one that is shared by very few Asian peoples, so it is a bit difficult to see how the Iraqis can be accused of hypocrisy in this verdict." I would refer ATol to Ehsan Ahrari's Hollow victory: the hanging of Saddam (Nov 7), in which he states uncategorically: "Everyone took for granted that the United States wanted to hang Saddam by orchestrating a public trial under its hand-picked judges inside Iraq." This makes perfectly clear that the finger of hypocrisy is pointed neither at the Iraqi people, nor even at Iraq's Shi'ite majority, but it is pointed fairly and squarely at the Bush administration. They have deliberately kept the International Criminal Court, which opposes the death penalty, at arm's length on the alleged basis it poses a direct threat to US sovereignty by undermining the rights of its citizens. It would therefore be somewhat misleading to claim abhorrence of the death penalty is largely a European phenomenon while the US stands to gain such huge dividends on the international stage in its ardent support of Saddam's impending execution.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Nov 7, '06)

Thanks for the clarification, but it is also questionable that the US will gain "huge dividends" from this verdict or, if it is carried out, Saddam's execution. Among developed nations, the US has long been an increasingly lonely practitioner of the death penalty, and even its staunch allies Britain and Australia have had to couch their words of congratulation with the caveat that they officially oppose capital punishment. And of course, as you have pointed out, cynicism abounds about the fairness of the trial itself; see the new Speaking Freely piece Victor's justice: The trial of Saddam by Paul Wolf, a lawyer who worked on Saddam's defense. - ATol


In Mark Valencia's November 7 Speaking Freely piece Resolution on Korea: Now comes the hard part, he states that South Korea "apparently discouraged even a visit by PSI [Proliferation Security Initiative] architect and US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton". This is incorrect. The change in Ambassador Bolton's travel plans to Asia was due to scheduling problems - he had planned to meet South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, but the foreign minister was traveling at the time. The visit to South Korea was an opportunity to discuss the UN with the next secretary general. Given that he will be in New York soon to prepare for his new office, they will be able to have that discussion here instead of in Seoul.
Benjamin Chang
Deputy Spokesman
US Mission to the UN
New York, New York (Nov 7, '06)


Spengler's Lessons from classical warfare [Nov 7] ... reads like a capricious addendum to a series of interviews published in a major New York monthly by a group of (in)famous neo-cons with the names of Perle, Cohen, Frum, Gaffney, Ledeen, Adelman, Rubin heading the list of those who aspired to free and democratize Iraqis and Afghans by attempts to turn GWB into a "golem" in pursuit of what many have called the Zionists' fantasy. The most that can be said on a personal note to Spengler et amis: A la prochaine, bonne chance.
Armand De Laurell (Nov 7, '06)


Regarding the article India's lunar mission [Nov 7], India must ... enter space. To dismiss this due to India's various social problems reminds me [of] when India exploded its first atomic bomb in 1974. I was bombarded by friends who used the same excuse stated above. My answer was always that major nations like India have to move on several fronts in order to meet the needs of [their] people. India cannot compromise on military security or the peaceful and military use of nuclear energy considering its neighbor China and the ever growing population of India that will need vast, cheap energy. This explanation is [multiplied] when it comes to the development of its space program. The article alone pointed [out] several reasons for this. Whether India is competing for prestige on the international front is secondary. Space is the last major frontier and the benefits outweigh the negatives both for its population and [for] the world. Finally, I believe it is unfair to point out India's poor while China has advanced both on the nuclear and space fronts while having vast numbers of poor too but is seldom criticized by the world.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 7, '06)


In a mass-media world where words tend to become meaningless because of their misuse, deliberate or not, and where big lies are repeated ad nauseam by those who generate them and those who get permeated by them, [Ismael] Hossein-zadeh is to be commended for his contribution ['Islamo-fascism' is Islamo-bull ..., Nov 1]. In the first half of his article, he has done a good job in defining what fascism was (and, alas, still is) from a historical and political-sciences point of view. He rightfully emphasizes that fascism is an emergency tool used by plutocrats in times of economic crises, where the cake to be shared, even if unevenly, gets too small for comfort. There's another, typical component of fascism which is worth pondering, one that is more ideological, so to say: the fascination for the big and the hatred for the small, taken to violent levels. In a sharp, intelligent article [The real threat of fascism] published by ATol on December 15, 2005, [Paul] Bigioni has described how this lazy yet imperious bias logically brings up cartelization and a government of oligarchs. In the second part of his article, Hossein-zadeh estimates that the galaxy of Islamist movements cannot be considered as some sort of fascism; I basically agreed with what he wrote, but his contribution is a bit too short for my comfort. After all, within a good measure I felt convinced that Islamo-fascism does not exist simply because any catch-word originating from the neo-cons' Big Lies factory can only be - well, another Big Lie. But sometimes, even liars tell the truth. Perhaps another, more developed argumentation on the matter could be useful? As for the seeds of fascism in the USA, which Hossein-zadeh addresses in the third part of his contribution: Bigioni does not share the author's optimism regarding the future of what has all the characteristics of a proto-fascist state; and neither do I, simply because in the US sham democracy the Democratic and Republican parties, which together control the State Apparat, are the two faces, good cop, bad cop, of the same $3 coin; and because the US mass media are pretty much under control by the US plutocracy. But we'll see - the next few years shall be interesting from this point of view (one should not expect too much from the ongoing elections, if the Republican Party is in the hands of fascists, God-with-us Mickey Mouse-style, the Democratic Party is pretty much in the hands of would-be fascists - but these hands are shaking).
Dr Bittar Gabriel Jivasattha
Switzerland and Australia (Nov 7, '06)


Nepal's king should be perceptive about the popular demand regarding monarchy. Rather than waiting for the decision about his fate by a constitutional assembly to be set up through a poll (Nepal still in a state of flux, Oct 24, by Dhruba Adhikary), the king should take appropriate actions to maintain his pride. Nepalis will most likely be in favor of keeping the ceremonial monarchy if it does not derive any benefits from country's resources. Otherwise the result of the poll certainly will not be and should not be in favor of the king and definitely not for his descendants.
T White
Canada (Nov 7, '06)


Daniel McCarthy's letter (Nov 6) is lacking in logic. Shouldn't it be a piece of cake to "secure the most modest concessions" from a "bankrupt and starving" totally dependent Noth Korea? The answer is not "diplomatically incompetent" but diplomatically unwilling. On the other hand, South Korea is not bankrupt, nor starving. Here, diplomatic competence is required.
S P Li (Nov 7, '06)


So biased a viewpoint as represented by almost every article relegates your online rag to the sewers of the left-wing [establishment]. Good grief, find some balance to give yourself some kind of credibility. For real!
James Woods (Nov 7, '06)

No, no, you've missed the point completely. Read the next letter. - ATol


It's all coming together - Asia Times [Online] is a Red Chinese intelligence operation, which is enjoying significant success by getting quoted everywhere. Spengler has been planted as a neo-con surrogate just to bring disrepute to the US establishment. And his rantings on religion indicate how the Reds intend to gain by goading the US further into a meaningless "clash of civilizations". The small posse of merchant-caste Indian contributors reflects the business opportunity that profiteering party cadres seek to eventually grab from across the Himalayas. And [Syed Saleem] Shahzad dispenses strategic wisdom that is readily available at any corner betel-leaf purveyor's shack in Karachi. Too bad, the mainstream US media are too corporatized to similarly entertain their readership. This is the real wake-up call, folks! And let's meditate daily to free Tibet!
Usman Qazi
Palo Alto, California (Nov 7, '06)


Re Russia plays a double game over Iran [Nov 4, by] Kaveh L.Afrasiabi: This superiority complex is actually just a fear of losing their [Russians'] Asian territories especially due to their loss in the naval battle with Japan in 1904-05. Russia has always been afflicted with the white people's superiority complex. The supporters of the Romanovs were the "Whites". So it is not surprising that on the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russians turned to the rich Western countries. The attacks on people of color in Russia today show us what they think of "colored" people. Unfortunately they, particularly the US, wanted and still want a servile and/or broken-up Russia. That is the reason for Russia turning to China for political support and to Iran [to sell] arms. Russia will turn against Asian countries as soon as the US and the EU welcome them. After all, the czars looked down on their Asian subjects and even the Soviets sent their political prisoners to gulags in Central Asia and Siberia. That tells us something about their opinion of "Asians". [Asians have] always been their stopgap allies. I as an Indian appreciate the Soviet help particularly the sale of their latest arms to us during the Cold War that strengthened India's ability to defend itself and thereby stay as one nation, but that does not change the facts of Russia's interaction with the world.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan (Nov 6, '06)

The designation "white" in reference to the Russian monarchy and its loyalists probably had little or nothing to do with race or skin color. There were also greens, blacks and, of course, reds in the spectrum of Russian politics of the era. - ATol


As regards US attempts to have UN Security Council sanctions imposed against Iran over its nuclear program, one thing I think is missing from your recent discussion in articles and letters is how Russia and others use these debates as opportunities to extract things from the Bush administration. When US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently traveled to Moscow to talk about sanctions against North Korea, the Russian daily Kommerant ran a story showing the US administration - which keeps one eye on domestic political polls and the other on the promised land - as a beggar opening up a bag of gifts. According to Kommerant's October 23 online edition, Russia is leveraging these situations to promote its WTO membership, and [it] added, "One of the concessions that Moscow is counting most on is an immediate repeal of sanctions imposed by the American side against the chiefs of the Russian companies Rosoboronexport and Sukhogo, which have been accused of being in cahoots with Iran."
Franklin W Conway
Moriarty, New Mexico (Nov 6, '06)


In the item A not-so-welcome homecoming [Nov 4] by Aruni Mukherjee, the author accuses the United Kingdom Independence Party of using xenophobia as a staple of political propaganda. This is wrong. I stood as the UKIP candidate in the Witney constituency at the last general election and the immigration issue was not dealt with in such a manner. UKIP policy is based on a one-in/one-out policy that will prevent further overcrowding of one of the most densely populated countries in the world. With a half-Vietnamese niece, a half-German niece and a half-German partner, I am most certainly not racist and nor is UKIP policy. I feel Mr Mukherjee has been listening to too much anti-UKIP propaganda. I would certainly think the racist comments that Mr Mukherjee found disturbing would have been penned by National Front or BNP [British Nationalist Party] supporters. UKIP supporters, being largely older and keen on law and order, would not indulge in acts of petty vandalism.
Paul Wesson (Nov 6, '06)


"Do you want us to win in Iraq (A question of patriotism by Bill Berkowitz, Nov 3)?" The next logical question would be: "Do you think the present administration is winning? How many more innocent Iraqis and American servicemen/women have to die so America can 'win'?"
Counterspin Doctor
Singapore (Nov 6, '06)


Re Iraq: Bush has a plan, and it's working [Nov 3]: Whether or not the present plan, which the ATimes [editorial] describes in some detail, is Plan A or Plan B, the fact of the matter is that those who determine US policy profit from it immensely, not only economically, as [was] pointed out, but also politically, as the war - and in particular the "failure" in the war - "justifies" ever more extensive limitations on the liberties of not only foreigners (who as "enemy combatants" have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect"), but also to citizens of the United States itself. The right of habeas corpus is no longer a given, and the vast domestic prison industry - a growth industry whose staying power makes IT [information technology] development look like a bubble and which incarcerates nearly 1% of the US population - is shadowed by a secret chain of foreign detention centers, in which, presumably (we are not allowed to know), private enterprise plays, as it does at home, an ever more important role. Admittedly, the Bush regime has not succeeded in bring democracy to Iraq, but it must be recognized that [it] has done a brilliant job of exporting it from the United States. All this not to mention the benefit to the imperial power (aka the "unitary executive") of a classic divide et impera strategy which, in dividing not Gallia but Mesopotamia in partes tres, removes a hindrance to the rule of the chosen regional satrap, Israel, and makes possible a move against the one remaining obstacle to total dominance, Iran.
M Henri Day, PhD, MD
Stockholm, Sweden (Nov 6, '06)


As usual Republicans and their mouthpiece Fox News are stretching too far personal issues ([Democratic Senator John] Kerry's apology) to distract Americans' attention [from US President George W] Bush's failed, flawed policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea [and] Palestine and other global and domestic issues. The Democrats have to learn from their past blunders not to waste time in mud-slinging [among] the party candidates ... to give a divided image [and] waste time, money [and] energy. They must [unite to] bring forward a candidate against the Republicans ...
Zahir Khan
Karachi, Pakistan (Nov 6, '06)


Scott Zhou's article All teeth and lips - for now [Oct 21] leaves it glaringly obvious to the reader that despite China's increasing economic influence throughout Asia, the communist government remains diplomatically incompetent and cannot even secure the most modest concessions from a bankrupt and starving country that depends on China for nearly its entire supply of food and fuel. With China completely powerless over North Korea, anyone expecting China to have substantive sway over the actions or policies of other nations in the Pacific will be sorely disappointed.
Daniel McCarthy (Nov 6, '06)


I have rarely read such a biased article as the one written by Chan Akya, Indian reform: All bark and no bite [Aug 16]. It is good to be critical, but critique should be balanced. This is just a piece of shoddy journalism.
Alfred Tuinman
Netherlands (Nov 6, '06)

Critique should also be specific. - ATol


It is the epitome of sheer and blatant hypocrisy that the death sentence handed down to Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity should itself constitute a grievous crime by humanity against one of its own. Under Article 77 of the statute for a permanent International Criminal Court, which was adopted by government delegates on July 17, 1998, at a United Nations diplomatic conference held in Rome, it was decreed that the maximum penalty that the court can impose is life imprisonment. Moreover, in the same year, the 15-member European Union adopted a similar far-reaching policy to promote the abolition of the death penalty in non-member states. The policy sets out the EU's objectives as "to work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty as a strongly held policy view held by all EU member states". These human-rights provisions have been enshrined in law to protect the sanctity of life by charging that no one, no matter how evil, should be subject to the removal of their basic and fundamental right to live. Saddam Hussein's impending execution will only reinforce the fact that human civilization cannot move beyond the seemingly inescapable dictum that barbarity must be equally and reciprocally met with barbarity. This may satisfy the likes of countries such as Australia, Britain and the US that have led the way in unleashing an unending bloodbath of revenge attacks under the banner of regime change. But to now expect that the murder of this one man will somehow bring justice to a country bedeviled by some of the world's most flagrant violations of human rights is itself a most diabolical affront to all that dignifies the human condition.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin
Canberra, Australia (Nov 6, '06)

Abhorrence of the death penalty is in essence a European phenomenon, one that is shared by very few Asian peoples, so it is a bit difficult to see how the Iraqis can be accused of hypocrisy in this verdict. See the new article Hollow victory: The hanging of Saddam Hussein. - ATol


"Do you want us to win in Iraq (A question of patriotism [by] Bill Berkowitz, Nov 3)?" The obvious answer, it seems to me is: American voters, you have already won in Iraq! Vote Democrat! (1) You have taken out Sadddam Hussein. (2) You have destroyed the weapons of mass destruction that threatened you. Yes or no? (3) Osama bin Laden is in hiding in Pakistan. If they were honest, the likes of Lynne Cheney and Bill O'Reilly should ask the American voter: "Do you want to continue sending our young men and women to their death in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for America and secure 'the realm' for the neo-cons? Vote Republican."
AL
Canada (Nov 3, '06)


John Feffer [The US-Pyongyang paradox, Nov 3] has the right to remain skeptical even though he generously deems Pyongyang's decision to return to the six-power talks in Beijing, as a "win-win situation". Which may be an overstatement. Nonetheless, Korea hands are proclaiming it a breakthrough. What Feffer leaves out is how much crow is Washington willing to eat. On one hand, China has used its "leverage" [to get] North Korea to reconsider Kim Jong-il's refusal to go back to the talks, which is a condition the White House has been pushing for. On the other hand, as a way to save the United States' president [George W] Bush's face, Washington is leaving it up to Beijing to unfreeze Pyongyang's bank accounts in the Macau branch of the Bank of China. So the big winner in this "thaw" of sorts is China. Washington thereby acknowledges Beijing's primacy over its former imperial vassal states, as does Pyongyang, which like a younger brother bows to the will of an elder sibling. It is useless to speculate about the moves in this shadow play a trois as to the date of the reconvened six-party talks. Nor should one ponder too long on other face-saving moves Washington will have to make to satisfy Pyongyang. China has moved to center stage, and like it or not has become the arbiter of establishing a balance of power on its borders and in Northeast Asia. This is no Metternichian solution which is dear to former [US] secretary of state Henry Kissinger's heart, but it offers a thin veneer of compromise to serious strategic political, economic, and military matters.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 3, '06)


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created as a counter-force against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact. With its enemy and its reason for existence removed, it now finds itself looking for a purpose. In so doing it appears to have become sucked into the same kind of military adventurism in the very same place that had been the undoing of its nemesis. The refusal of NATO countries to commit more troops to Afghanistan could be the early signs of the demise of a redundant organization.
Cha-am Jamal
Thailand (Nov 3, '06)


I just heard about for the first time the new HSA [Homeland Security Act] giving them complete and total authority to keep anyone who is a legal citizen of the United States, born here much less an immigrant or naturalized citizen, from leaving the country for any reason whatsoever if they don't like you, and the same goes for you if you want to come back into the country even though you hold a legal passport and were born on US soil with a birth certificate to prove it even. What has gone wrong with our country? George Bush and the Republican Party, that's what has gone wrong. They are so power-mad crazy that they are turning the country of freedom and liberty right into Nazi America or the new Soviet America of Union States. [Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff and his goons have got to go right now, without discussion and without waiting, immediately. They have no concept of American values about freedoms or liberties that [are] what make the United States what it is and has been throughout its history and that so many fought and died for in World War II to prevent from happening to the free world, exactly what is happening right now with the Homeland Security [Department]. The [department] needs to be eliminated right away, stripped of all powers, [its] offices raided by federal troops and confiscated for war-crimes trials upon the United States just like we did to the Nazis of World War II in Nuremburg. George Bush needs to be impeached for treason for creating the [department] and taking so much power unto him and the government, [Vice President Dick] Cheney too and anyone else who advised him to set up that misbegotten [department], because they are guilty of war crimes upon the American people in this "war on terror" when they are really waging a secret war on America and its cherished political freedoms and the public's personal and private liberties. This law giving them absolute secret power to keep everyone inside the country and keep everyone from getting back in the country goes beyond reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It goes beyond even political nonsense, it is utter paranoia gone power-mad and needs to be stopped right now while we still can stop it, or else we will wake up some morning and none of us will be able to do anything to regain any freedoms or liberties that are the foundation and bedrock of American ideals and our constitution and country. I really don't want to sound like some reactionary right-wing conservative but this time the [Homeland Security Department] has gone way too far in grabbing for ever more power over all our lives and it must be stopped. One of the main essences of American society is a tenet of doing just enough to get the job done and nothing more. We always used to back away from stepping over some line or another. Well, the Homeland Security people have kept pushing that line ahead of them as they went after stepping over the last line, like in some Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs keeps on redrawing the line which Yosemite Sam keeps on stepping over until he steps off the cliff. Folks, the Homeland Security people have stepped off of the cliff. We had better do something drastic right away to ensure they don't take the whole country down with them and the rest of the world to boot.
Robert McSwain (Nov 3, '06)


... I would submit to the pope [that he should] postpone his proposed visit [to Turkey until a more] opportune time to make excellent use of it [rather] than again spark global bad taste between two holy cousins, Muslims and Christians. He should never lose sight of the fact that his predecessor devoted himself with a missionary zeal to promote harmony amongst Muslims, Christians and Jews, and he should not lose sight of his footprints.
Abdullah J Mohammad
Jehlum, Pakistan (Nov 3, '06)


Syed Saleem Shahzad: Your article NATO takes the fight to Pakistan [Nov 2] seems to be rampant with speculation and baseless fact from "sources" that typify sensationalist "journalism" of our present times. Why not provide the facts of the story and let your readers make their own judgment calls? For starters, your claim that "foreign forces were also involved" seems fairly far-fetched, considering such attacks are carried out from thousands of feet in the air and would make identification of US, NATO, or Pakistani aircraft impossible. I will be impressed when your publication, along with many others, provides viable sources for the plethora of speculation that misinforms people from all over the world, and creates biases in those [who] don't know any better.
Matthew Williams (Nov 2, '06)

Witness accounts speak of where the aircraft came and how they used precision high-tech missiles that are only available to the US. I believe what people on the ground say and the information from unofficial channels rather than government handouts. - Syed Saleem Shahzad


Syed Saleem Shahzad [NATO takes the fight to Pakistan, Nov 2]: Having lived and worked for 39 months in the Middle East (two years in Iran, ending January 31, 1978); and since our (Canadian) troops are involved there, I have taken a keen interest in the whole despicable mess in that [region]. So, since the first "Gulf War", I have spent hundreds of hours following events in the Middle East/Central Asian region. One of the first things I learned was that, aside from Washington's hegemaniacal lust for world domination, the "West's" interest in Afghanistan stems from Big Oil's lust for pipeline corridors out of that region. To make it short, it has become obvious to me that our Canadian soldiers are killing Afghans, dying and being maimed in Afghanistan as a result of our country's age-old subservience to Washington. They are simply assisting Ottawa's masters in clearing a right-of-way for a newer version of that long-delayed Bridas-Unocal pipeline corridor out of Turkmenistan to a shipping terminal on the Pakistani coast. "Human rights", "women's lib" and "reconstruction" are a farce. I have mass-mailed over 400 Canadian papers with this argument and from the responses I have gotten, I think it has done some good toward getting our boys the hell out of there. But I am at a loss to understand why ATol hasn't leaned heavily on what is really behind this Afghan debacle.
Keith Leal
Pincher Creek, Alberta (Nov 2, '06)

Big Oil wouldn't make any money if people didn't buy its product, and Canadians generally consume even more energy per capita than their American cousins. Asia Times Online has for years documented the oil/pipeline politics centering on Afghanistan; Pepe Escobar, for one, writes of it frequently. It has seemed clear all along, though, that the US is not alone in what Pepe might call the Pipelineistan Project; the strong international interest in that region, it appears, has more selfish motivations than mere "subservience to Washington". - ATol


Re Chain-gang economics (Nov 2): Walden Bello describes an artificial imbalance that is not likely to go away until it reaches critical mass. Neither the Chinese nor US leadership is likely to change its current course. For the US, even if the mid-term elections turn out the feckless Republican majority [in Congress], it's not likely that international trade policy will change much. The US is awash with short-term economic and political strategies. Economic policies are fed by CEOs [chief executive officers] with ever-fattening compensation packages and investors who measure gains in day-to-day stock quotes. Politicians measure success by the size of their campaign purses and their lobbyist connections. For business or politics there is no room for assessing long-term prospects. There are no signs that philosophical myopia will diminish. China seems to be wedded to policies that have taken it on the meteoric ride to economic success it is now enjoying. As long as they [Chinese] play the surplus-labor game without citizen revolt, they seem bent on continuing it. Without a currency-revaluing process, it is certain that critical, maybe cataclysmic, forces will eventually correct the current imbalance.
Jim of Southern California
USA (Nov 2, '06)


Re Foreign misadventures hit home [Nov 2]: Anyone looking at [assistant] secretary of state Christopher Hill's press conference in Beijing after seven grueling hours of negotiations with his North Korean counterpart Kim Kye-gwan would know that the ground had shifted on the weight of Washington's influence in Northeast Asia. One, Pax Americana has ceded grown to Pax Sinica. China in the days after Pyongyang's nuclear test had forcefully twisted the arm of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il to not resume more tests and to return to the six-power talks which he has boycotted for the past year. Two, although little word has come out publicly, the United States has had to give something in return for North Korea's return to the green carpet. Mr Hill's haggard face at his news conference spoke volumes on the hard bargaining at which North Koreans are past masters. It remains to be seen what price President [George W] Bush is willing to pay to for his misguided policy towards North Korea. It is also significant that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has called for a sea change in American foreign policy, and with a focus on North Korea [Hillary goes against the tide, Nov 2]. She more likely than not is taking a leaf from her husband Bill Clinton's book. It is noteworthy to recall that his administration dealt firmly and effectively and with a degree of finesse and skill with [late North Korean leader] Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, and obtained a breakthrough on many levels. All his hard word went for naught the moment Mr Bush entered the White House. Should the Democrats retake the White House in 2009, a revitalized and revised tack towards Pyongyang would obtain, and with the bitter knowledge that Mr Bush's bungling had turned North Korea into a nuclear power.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 2, '06)

Henry C K Liu's latest article, Clinton's belated path to peace (Nov 1), takes a detailed look at the Bill Clinton administration's dealings with North Korea. - ATol


China's reverse population bomb [Nov 1] is a well-written article that leaves out a crucial point. When the Chinese government enacted the one-child policy, many parents being limited to one child preferred a boy over a girl. Using technology such as ultrasound made this possible, with drastic consequences. If one is to factor this into the statistics provided by the article, even if Beijing changes its policy there will be a large number of bachelors who cannot find a wife, thus compounding the existing problem.
Chrysantha Wijeyasingha
Clinton, Louisiana (Nov 2, '06)


Dhruba Adhikary's article Nepal still in a state of flux [Oct 24] gives a thorough idea about how India is obsessed not only with Pakistan but also with other neighboring countries. The history of the treaties is an extraordinary example of fixation towards Nepal. Nepalis need to realize India's interest and not let India interfere in internal matters. Regarding the issue of monarchy, Nepal should be farsighted. While taking a decision about monarchy, Nepalis should take its costs and its benefits into considered. Can (should) Nepal afford even the ceremonial monarchy? [That] is the question.
S Sharma
Sydney, Australia (Nov 2, '06)


Regarding this movie star [Angelina Jolie; see Brangelina have India agog, Oct 12] coming to India, a few years ago I watched one of her movies on video. She plays a daredevil woman, she drops into an old temple (I heard that they shot this over in Cambodia - Angkor Wat), she runs around the temple killing and destroying "beings". I watched in horror as I realized that these "beings" were my gods, images that I hold in utmost respect. This woman may be a nice lady, but I am sure that if the images were Christian or Buddhist, she would have refused to do the scenes. Indians should welcome all visitors but make it clear that her actions were not appropriate and it is wrong to abuse anyone. I refuse to spend one paisa on her movies from then onwards.
Jayant Patel (Nov 2, '06)


It seems the Bush administration is keen, if not desperate, to find an honorable way to get out of the tricky situation both in Afghanistan and Iraq, notwithstanding the supposed decisions of the Pentagon to increase the force level in Iraq and a statement of the army chief of staff ... at the Pentagon about the intention of the forces to stay on in Iraq up to 2010, if not beyond that. Although President [George W] Bush still talks in a threatening tone about the nuke programs of both North Korea and Iran, the fact remains that the troops deployed in these countries [Iraq and Afghanistan] are seen doing nothing but killing the people ... in some unknown vengeance to finish them off ... The declared objective of the US-led forces of establishing in Afghanistan and Iraq societies of democracy, rule of law and stability having been derailed, [and the] situation in these countries warrants a swift change in policy. Life in these troubled countries is unstable and unsafe. Democracy could now also be defined as a strategy to invade, control their resources and plunder other countries on any flimsy grounds and kill people and stay on as long as they desire, if that enhances domestic electoral victories ... The occupational forces led by the USA and UK have succeeded in making Iraq a dangerous country over years of their overstay there and as such only harm is done to the Iraqi people, while fully controlling their resources. It looks that the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq would most probably be taken by the Bush administration after the congressional elections scheduled for November 7, irrespective of the outcome of the poll. The dwindling popularity rate of President Bush in the USA is considerably exerting pressure on the strategists in the Pentagon and the Bush administration to opt for an early exit as early as possible. The criticism by former US presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton of the tortuous path the Bush administration has led the USA along, cannot be ignored by President Bush.
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, India (Nov 2, '06)


The very erudite article on the concept of fascism and its purported lack of applicability to the Islamist movement narrowly focuses on the corporatist aspects of the phenomenon ['Islamo-fascism' is Islamo-bull ..., Nov 1]. In so doing, the author, Ismael Hossein-zadeh, loses track of the protean nature of fascism and the difficulty many intelligent, sophisticated thinkers experience in defining the term. However, to categorically dismiss the conjunction of Islamism and fascism as "not only inaccurate and oxymoronic" is incorrect. Admittedly, fascism when attached to one's opponents is a current term of opprobrium and is too freely used, but it seems applicable to political Islam. Emeritus professor of social sciences Robert Paxton of Columbia University (USA) is a dedicated student of 20th-century European fascist movements and an internationally recognized authority on the topic. His book The Anatomy of Fascism makes the following points relative to this argument: (1) With respect to fascism and religion, "At the level of broad analogy, it (the concept of 'political religion') points usefully to the way fascism, like religion, mobilized believers around sacred rites and words, excited them to self-denying fervor and preached a revealed truth that admitted no dissonance". (2) As for a definition of fascism, Paxton states it is "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation [and] victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed ... militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues redemptive violence and, without ethical or legal restraints, [adopts] goals of internal cleansing and external expansion". If nothing in Paxton's exposition of fascism seems applicable to Islamism by Ismael Hossein-zadeh's definition, I submit that his definition is too narrow. To make his argument, he ignores the emergence of authentic fascist movements as, for example, practiced in Spain and in various other European countries in the early/mid-20th century which were not products of "big business". In many of these countries, the prime motive forces behind the fascist parties were an incendiary combination of the Catholic Church (Spain, Romania, Hungary), frustrated nationalisms (all of them, inclusive of Germany and Italy), revanchist monarchist elements (Spain and others) and the current political vogue.
Keith Comess (Nov 1, '06)


Re China's reverse population bomb [Nov 1]: Scott Zhou's arguments are hardly new. China's booming population in the hinterland holds fast to millennia-old thinking among the peasantry. Men want sons to take care of them in old age. Zhou's argument make sense for an expanding urban middle class. It embraces smaller families and consumerism and an escalating ride on the social ladder. Should one [look] at what was said of India a generation ago, the same arguments obtain. And yet India, despite vital economic growth, remains an agrarian society, and what's more, its population, in spite of forced sterilizations, abortions [and] wide distribution of condoms, has skyrocketed beyond 1 billion. Zhou tends to forget that no matter how double-digit is China's [economic] growth, it is as Mao Zedong once said of the Soviet Union at the time of [Josef] Stalin's death - it is a country with two feet on the ground: one foot in the present, the other stuck in the past.
Jakob Cambria
USA (Nov 1, '06)


The argument that impartiality and neutrality are just gimmicks or utopian concepts does not justify the unruly scenes being created in Bangladesh following the appointment of a caretaker government to ensure free and fair elections to parliament [see Bangladesh: A lull before the storm, Nov 1]. It is most unfortunate that the present government failed to ensure the acceptability by the opposition of the choice of the person to head the government before announcing the name. Now with the rejection of the post by [former] justice [K M] Hasan himself ... the resultant turmoil looks ridiculous. The only country in South Asia, perhaps, relatively free from chaotic politics for some time, Bangladesh has also fallen disgracefully.
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
Jawaharlal Nehru University
India (Nov 1, '06)


I want to thank you for the article on the US Embassy in Baghdad [A peek behind the walls of 'Fortress US', Oct 27] ... I am American but I live in Southeast Asia. I think everyone should know about this.
John Owen (Nov 1, '06)


Typical tough-talking words from various politicians: "Foreign Office rules out talks with 'terrorist group'" (refers to Hamas). "We do not deal with terrorists" (a standard litany from the [US] State Department). "We will not talk to those who have blood on their hands" (another litany from Israel, the US, the UK, basically anyone). So let's look at some former terrorists who were wanted, imprisoned, exiled by the British in their colonial days and later became heads of state: Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya (Mau Mau terrorist); Nelson Mandela, South Africa ([current] US Vice President [Richard] Cheney personally called him a terrorist in the mid-1980s); Archbishop Makarios [III], Cyprus; Menachem Begin and his sidekick Yitzhak Shamir, prime ministers of Israel; an entire generation of Indian leaders including Mahatma Gandhi. All the above [were] received eventually with honors as visiting dignitaries. Others may come to mind. Mandela's case is the most amusing: as newly minted president, he announced an official visit to Syria. He was instantly scolded by Israel for visiting "terrorists". His answer (I paraphrase): "If I am free today, it is no thanks to you." Israel was of course the apartheid republic's best friend for its entire existence right to the last minute. The US has made a big show of hunting down Nazis. Yet we cast a veil of modesty over SS Major [Wernher] von Braun, with the Totenkopf (death's head, emblem of the SS [Nazi Schutzstaffel] on his collar - he was directly in charge of the V1 and V2 rockets that killed about 10,000 civilians, and caused another 10,000 or so deaths in the underground slave tunnels where the rockets were produced. He is celebrated as an icon of America's conquest of space. I don't recall Israel objecting to him either. But I do recall an official visit in early 1976 [of] John Vorster, prime minister of South Africa at the height of apartheid, to Israel, where Golda Meir received him. His Nazi sympathies that got him jailed during World War II were brushed under the red carpet, and presumably he had washed his hands. Maybe at the same fountain as Begin/Shamir, after the King David Hotel bombing (1946) which killed about 100 people - British, Arabs (Muslim and Christian) and Jews. And so on. Who says truth and honesty are the best policy?
Kali Kadzaraki (Nov 1, '06)


October Letters