Write to us at letters@atimes.com

Please provide your name or a pen name, and your country of residence. Lengthy letters run the risk of being cut.

May 2004

Ritt Goldstein responds to readers
Responding to the debate that my article Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts (May 22) has sparked, perhaps the most vital point to note is the very fact of the debate itself. The article was done to provide reportage upon an event that rightfully captured world attention, expanding the knowledge of the event's circumstances in so doing. The fact that a passionate discussion of the event was precipitated is gratifying, though reporting of fact was my only intent. Nevertheless, I personally believe that democracy and understanding can only flourish when debate occurs, and perhaps many of the problems we face today are, in essence, due to an informed debate's absence. Too often it has seemed that legitimate questions have been equated with illegitimacy and disloyalty, highlighting what I perceive as a trend emphasizing unquestioning support for those in authority, a trend serving to negate the meaningful deliberation of the ideas that authority has disseminated, the information and goals it has laid out. While mobs are said to act from blind emotion, is not an informed citizenry required to move only after a due consideration of facts, with a failure to do so meaningfully comprising a true act of disloyalty, to one's state, community, and oneself? My report presented information, but the way in which that information is interpreted is up to each of you, the readers. As a reporter, I can only deal in facts, and in the present context two facts that I perceive are these: human knowledge has only been expanded by examining and questioning what one sees versus blindly accepting it, and a leading US forensics expert believes the Berg video "raises more questions than it answers".
Ritt Goldstein (May 28, '04)


[Re How Palestine is dying in Iraq, May 27.] While the assertion that the American invasion and temporary occupation of Iraq, however long that might last, draws much attention away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is accurate, the author's contention that this is allowing Israel to pursue a planned policy of driving Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank in order to achieve a demographic transformation is absurd. Only in the deluded fantasies of the most fanatical in the settler movement is there a real belief these days that settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are going to create a demographic shift that will lead to those territories being incorporated into Israel proper as primarily Jewish occupied areas. Rather, [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's embrace of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, to the consternation of most in Likud and the relief of most other Israelis, is recognition that such a demographic shift, once envisioned by Sharon, Menachem Begin, and other proponents of the settler movement, is not going to occur, and that rather if Israel continues to hold on to Gaza and the West Bank it will only harm its own long-term security interests by continuing to administer a growing, seething Palestinian population that has good reason to hate the Israelis. Rather, what Sharon has finally realized is that for its own survival Israel has to disengage from Gaza and from most of the West Bank. He is addressing the Gaza situation first, but even as it is taking the limelight, he is making moves on the West Bank as well. Israel is beginning to shore up and even fortify the biggest settlements in the West Bank, the ones outside of Jerusalem and Hebron, while at the same time soldiers are concentrating on securing and establishing strategic outposts on the high ground to defend those areas. The smaller settlements that are deep in the West Bank dwarfed by the local Arab population are receiving less and less attention. The reason is simple: Sharon knows that Israel must relinquish Gaza and must relinquish most of the West Bank, so he is trying to use his military and his wall to take those large settlements and those settlements in close proximity to the Israeli border and keep separate them from the rest, which Israel is going to lose. In doing so, Sharon is not seeking to change the demographics of the territories and remove the Palestinians, although he may well wish he had the power to do so; rather, he is seeking to separate Gaza from Israel and carve from the West Bank those areas that favor Jewish Israelis demographically so that they can be annexed outright to Israel. Whether or not he succeeds in these endeavors, in all likelihood any successor government to him ... will probably come to similar conclusions and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and most of the West Bank is likely to occur in the next decade. This is anything but the attempt to use the Iraq situation as an excuse for driving out or deporting Palestinians so as to annex the territories that the author fears.
Andrew W Boss
Washington, DC (May 28, '04)


Both John Kerry and George Bush have now played their hands insofar as Iraq, the Middle East, and terrorism are concerned. Bush wants to "stay the course" against terrorism in Iraq, while Kerry says we must not "stay the wrong course" while persevering against terrorism. Neither Bush nor Kerry, as they rant about "radical Islam", willingly touches upon the true cause of terrorism: the issue of a free and independent Palestinian state. Either candidate may build Iraq to look like the House of Commons in England but, until the issue of Palestine is resolved, terrorism will remain. The concern for WMD [weapons of mass destruction] is just, but it is unjust to use this concern as cause to ignore the true cause of terrorism as currently repressed. Literally millions more Arabs have been murdered in the last 50 years by freely exported, or divisively sold American armament than have there been victims of those we conveniently choose to label as "terrorists". Since the '70s the United States has devoted one-third of its foreign aid to Israel in military aid. Yet Israel poses a far greater nuclear threat nurtured by us than does the fantasized Arab nuclear capability. But even without WMD the terrorism will persist as its true causes are ignored. As long as the issue of a free Palestinian state is tiptoed about by vote-seeking, military-industrial-complex-coddling candidates, terrorism will remain, homes be bulldozed, weddings bombed, and peasants tortured by those instructed to do so from American CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] manuals which have existed since the 1960s when they were first perfected. The choice is clear.
Eamon George Nelson
Lancaster, Pennsylvania (May 28, '04) 


[Re Hong Kong free speech signs off the air, May 26.] Like so many others I would not mind hearing or reading sincere, constructive criticism of the Hong Kong or Beijing government. However, the incessant, fierce attacks by [Albert] Cheng and [Raymond] Wong, the "famous mouths" as they are known, are a little too much to bear. Is there nothing, absolutely nothing that the local or central government does that might earn a word of recognition or encouragement? Supporters of one side are singled out to be behind the threats against the two gentlemen. Likewise it can be alleged that those two "famous mouths" have been encouraged or even bribed by forces of the opposite side to launch their attacks. The governor of Hong Kong used to be appointed by London, without even a whisper from the loud, street-taking "democrats". It reminds one of some people's "running dog" mentality, much like some Taiwanese longing for Japanese rule.
Seung Li (May 28, '04)


I stumbled on to your website from Yahoo. I was most impressed; however, I noticed a conspicuous absence of female writers on your "About Us". Is it true you have no full-time female reporters? What proportion of your editorial staff is female?
Ajit (May 28, '04)

Nearly all of our correspondents are freelancers, and not employed full-time by Asia Times Online. The About Us page is only a sampling of some of our regular writers, and is not meant to be comprehensive. A few of our female writers who have contributed articles recently are Jayanthi Iyengar, Sudha Ramachandran, Carrie Chan, Jill Jolliffe and Chee Yoke Heong. Currently about half of the editing staff for our English-language site are women. - ATol


[A message of thanks from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in heaven to George W Bush.] Thanks, George, for spending US$200 billion of US taxpayers' money helping us extend the Islamic revolution to the [Persian] Gulf. We had a huge problem: Iraq is a Shi'ite country, so should have joined our revolution, but Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator and oppressed the Iraqi holy people. We were delighted to see you elected, especially when we realized that you were intent on taking revenge for your father. We instructed our good friend [Ahmad] Chalabi to help you build a case for (y)our good cause and built quite a number of fake [pieces of] information to help you strengthen the case for removing Saddam (we called him Small Satan, hence we believed only Grand Satan could get us rid of Small Satan. You did not betray us, and I'll book 40 superb virgins especially for [you] when you join us). We were quite grateful that you fully trusted all the good information we provided without any checks. I am also grateful for the good job you did in Iraqi prisons as well as in Fallujah, and all the good photo/video evidence you provided us with to confirm to our people your Grand Satanic nature, I believe we hardly need to add a word, although we were a bit surprised you did not quite match the horrors Small Satan achieved (and also thanks for helping us in spreading information about his feats). George, I know it's not for failing to try (you even sent your successful Guantanamo general) but I'm sure you can do better. We won't need to convince ordinary people that our Islamic Republic is better than your corrupt and pornographic democracy. George, before you consider leaving Iraq, I would suggest you could also consider removing the tyrant (issued from a minority) in Syria, that would help us expand the Islamic revolution further. In order to help you, I suggest I contact our friend [Osama] bin Laden for him to organize a terrorist action in the US in the summer so that you get re-elected and get on with the job. (Just an idea, you could say that Small Satan sent his WMD [weapons of mass destruction] to Syria. I'll provide information.) Also, keep [up] the good work in Afghanistan with the heroin culture, which ensures the continued decadence of your people (our Taliban friends were totally wrong in trying to eradicate it - you rightly put an end to this nonsense). One last word: my Pakistani friend has met some difficulties developing the H-bomb which we intend to buy from him. Can the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] help him out? Thanks again! Great leadership! Together, we'll redraw the Middle East map!
Khokho (May 28, '04)


ATol says [under Frank's letter of May 25]: "That's unfortunate for those who don't like Chen, but democrats would argue that Taiwan's system is superior to one in which a tiny handful of people dictate to 1.3 billion of their fellow citizens, who have little or no say in the manner of their own governance." You have finally dropped your mask of being pro-DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] and pro-Taiwan separatism. Your argument is flawed, because millions of Chinese are members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), certainly not a few. The CCP is a legal and [continually] developing party with an increasingly solid base, because of growing members of the middle and upper classes that join the party who influence the country's direction, while in the past the CCP was mainly supported by peasants in rural areas. Those who want to influence the direction of the country join the party. Those who don't care about politics simply do not care. Compared to China's long history, the PRC [People's Republic of China] has never been more democratic. The mainland's system is different compared to that of Taiwan; however, one must remember Taiwan's wealth was built when its system resembled the mainland's. Also I would like to respond to Daniel McCarthy [letter, May 26]. He says: "Since a unification law is tantamount to a declaration of war in advance, all bets will be off." A reunification law is a preemptive measure to prevent Taiwan breaking all its ties with the concept of "one China". Many Chinese want to restore China and rejuvenate the ancient nation, so we can undo the shame and humiliation which was inflicted on us. Obviously McCarthy should not confuse anti-separatist rhetoric from the mainland with being anti-Taiwan, although Taiwan is increasing its anti-China/Chinese rhetoric, which should rather be halted. Asking the mainland to stop believing in "one China" is like asking the pope to stop believing in God, which is very unlikely.
J Zhang (May 28, '04)

We said "democrats would argue", not "Asia Times Online argues". Still, we make no apology for the fact that, being in a business that depends on freedom of speech, we naturally tend to favor democratic regimes over dictatorships. But that is no reason to leap to the erroneous conclusion that ATol is "pro-DPP and pro-Taiwan separatism". - ATol


In response to Michael Stubson's letter on May 17 where he fears "12 people controlling one-fifth of the world's population", I would just like to relay my own fears of having a single nepotistically ordained halfwit controlling 25 percent of the world's GDP [gross domestic product] and half its nuclear arsenal based on "hunches" and "feelings".
Jialun Lu
Investment Banker
Hong Kong (May 28, '04)


Spengler responds to readers
Johannes D Mirthful and Joe Nichols (letters, May 25) object to "a labored construct of highfalutin Euro philosophy" in an essay (Socrates the destroyer, May 25) directed to "devotees of the Reader's Digest" or "students in Ohio taking the obligatory Philosophy 101". Fair enough; if they prefer an American frame of reference, I direct them to an earlier and (I think) better version of my Socrates essay, which appeared in Asia Times Online on Jan 27 under the title Red harvest in Iraq. Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op was my sort of Knight of Faith. Niccolo Machiavelli wished for an armed prophet, but we live in an age in which prophecy is too much to expect. Luckily we still have some armed ironists. As for Mr Nichols' suggestion that "real existential fear" involves raising a crop or finding a job, I beg to differ. Among the world's most miserable peoples are the prosperous and secure Europeans, who are too depressed or depraved to reproduce themselves. It is easy to make people prosperous, as the 2 billion people of Greater China prove daily. It is hard to stop people possessed by existential despair from destroying themselves.
Spengler (May 27, '04)


While the article Free speech in Hong Kong signs off the air [May 27] clearly insinuates that Beijing is the culprit behind these alleged threats on democracy advocates, there is absolutely no evidence to support this position besides the self-proving circular logic: They did it because we say so. Journalism should be non-partisan, and this is clearly not.
Glenn Luk
Investment banker
Hong Kong (May 27, '04)


[Re The US and the lessons of Chechnya, May 27.] Some flares of stale propaganda aside, Christopher Lord seems to be trying to stick to the pretense of rational analysis. Still, his parallels between Iraq and Chechnya are artificial and void of any roots in reality. In real life, the differences between Chechnya and Iraq are so stark that these cases should be deemed incomparable. Chechnya is internationally recognized as part of the Russian Federation, while Iraq not only never belonged to the US, it doesn't even touch one bit of American territory. Chechen terrorists were and still are active participants in the global jihadi movement, and their actions are well known and well documented, while their outfits can be regarded as outlaw in strict legal sense. Iraq is exactly the opposite - Saddam [Hussein]'s was a legally legitimate, secular regime that was anathema to jihadis, and was never implicated in acts of international terror, beyond some loose and biased conjecture. But the biggest difference of why Russians support the Chechen campaign, while Americans dither in Iraq, is grounded in history. Russians defeated Chechens once, and regard this latest insurgency as an unfortunate outgrowth of the Soviet "ethnicities and nationalities" policy, which if unchecked can threaten the rest of the multi-ethnic fabric of Russia. Americans, on the other hand, see no mighty rationale as to why they should run a risk of sinking their teeth in world's most intractable region, particularly as that rationale keeps on shifting with each passing day.
Oleg Beliakovich
Seattle, Washington (May 27, '04)


[On May 27] Pepe Escobar (Georgia on his mind [May 27]) asked if it can get worse for our [US] president. His worst scenario might be having to ask [for the] mercy of Muslims, among many others, in order to save the United States. Then again, asking for forgiveness is supposed to be a Christian virtue. Sure seems like we could be doing that for a long time.
Daxe
US (May 27, '04)


This letter is not about any particular article but about your online paper and [Pepe] Escobar. I have found your online paper to be one of the most informative and wide-ranging publications available to readers on the Internet. The articles are well written and highly informative. The information is presented in the tradition of journalism that I grew up with here in the United States and that unfortunately no longer exists. As to Pepe, I find him to be one (just one) of your most interesting writers. I can say with complete honesty that I don’t always agree with his analysis or his perspective. I can also say, with the utmost respect, that his articles always make me review my own thoughts and preconceived ideas of the world. I am enjoying his tour of the United States and his take on life here very much. I know that this may be impossible but pass on my e-mail address to Pepe and an invitation to dinner and a bottle of home-made wine to this gentleman. I would be honored and proud to entertain Mr Escobar in my home.
David Lynch (May 27, '04)

We have forwarded your invitation to Pepe. To read the latest in his Roving USA series, please click here. - ATol

Li Jing's article China-Taiwan: Talking the talk, walking the walk (May 26) would be more complete if it delved further into the topic. For example:
1. Will [Taiwanese] President Chen Shui-bian ever accept the so-called "one China" principle? It seems that everyone, including [Chinese President] Hu Jintao, knows that he will not.
2. Then what are China's options with regard to Taiwan short of a unification law or military attack? There really seem to be none, except more belligerent rhetoric that has proved counterproductive in the past.
3. Will a unification law work? Since a unification law is tantamount to a declaration of war in advance, all bets will be off. Taiwan will drop any pretenses with regard to China, the US will rapidly abandon its one-China policy, and a formal US troop presence in Taiwan is assured. The US would curtain economic relations with China in advance of the expected attack, leading to a crisis in China's coastal economy, and mass layoffs. That in turn would lead to social unrest, forcing the Chinese Communist Party to either commence the planned war early or to be forced from power.
4. Does China have any other options? The only one making Taiwan into a crisis is the Chinese Communist Party, and Jiang Zemin in particular. If Mr Jiang would retire, then Hu Jintao could halt the anti-Taiwan propaganda machine and quiet the whole situation down. From a rational standpoint, China would have more of a claim to Mongolia than to Taiwan, since Mongolia was part of China for nearly 1,000 years, but no one in China seems concerned about that, since there is no propaganda about Mongolia in the Chinese media. By halting the anti-Taiwan propaganda machine, President Hu could cause the Taiwan issue to fade into the background and defuse this crisis, which threatens the destruction of China (and some of its neighbors, including Taiwan).
Most important, Li Jing's article fails to explain Beijing's misunderstanding of Taiwan. Of course we all know that the rhetoric "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China" is a mere fiction, but that is not the misunderstanding to which I refer. Beijing mistakenly thinks that if President Chen Shui-bian were to accept the one-China principle, then it would be somehow binding on Taiwan. But since Taiwan is a democracy with a system based on the rule of law, President Chen's acceptance of the one-China principle, or any other principle, would have no legal effect. Absent either a treaty between Taiwan and China on the subject or a rewrite of Taiwan's constitution to provide that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, Taiwan's status as a separate sovereign entity from the People's Republic of China will not change. Therefore China is asking for something from Chen that he cannot possibly deliver. Either the autocrats in Beijing are astoundingly ignorant of the workings of the rule of law and a democratic system, or the entire one-China uproar is mere bluster meant solely to gain negotiating advantage.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 26, '04)


I find the ATol editor's biased logic [note under Frank's letter of May 25] funny. You said: "Democracy strives to protect minority rights" and "a very small minority wants to secede from Taiwan". You just provided the evidence you demanded from me. Chen [Shui-bian was] declared the president [of Taiwan] based on 30,000 votes. At the same time, there are 300,000 Taiwan Chinese solders who do not like Chen are not allowed to vote. Actually, the 30,000 majority is also debatable. In my understanding, the real democracy allows all people to vote for their leader. If the ATol editor is trying to be fair to all sides, ATol should publish some news regarding the protest in Taiwan against that self-declared president. If you believe democracy is about to protect minority rights, why don't you protect the Chinese rights in Taiwan? If you want China to become a fair and democratic country, you need to treat Chinese people equally.
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 26, '04)

Even if all members of the Taiwan military wanted to secede, which is very unlikely and for which you offer no evidence (a vote against Chen does not necessarily imply any desire to secede or even to unify with the mainland), they would still constitute only a small minority of the island's 16 million eligible voters. Ask your friends in Beijing to permit democracy, even the imperfect kind practiced in Taiwan, including legalization of anti-communist political parties and full press freedom, and only then will we see Chinese people being treated equally on the mainland and on the island. - ATol


Re Socrates the destroyer [May 25]. I am an admirer of Spengler's project to bring ideas to bear on the contemporary situation. While his discussion may serve to educate Straussians and followers of an evangelical realpolitik, I would like to assert the role of another strain of Western thought, albeit an ill-defined and often defensive one. The existentialist response to [Soren] Kierkegaard's challenge was to boldly contemplate the (potential) meaninglessness of the rationalist universe. Instead of taking a trembling leap of faith back to the Bible, existentialists, along with secular humanists, make the claim that it is within the power of consciousness to create meaning from nothingness. This creative power is inherent in human nature, and requires no organized system of belief, whether spoon-fed or carefully researched. Albert Camus, Bertrand Russell, and contemporary philosophers including Daniel Dennett deny that moral relativism must necessarily result from a rationalist metaphysical stance. Instead, ethics (which share many characteristics of religious systems) can be deduced using logic and history, and can serve as the basis for communication and accommodation across so-called civilizational divides. This point of view is no more provable than any given religious point of view, but it arguably leads to better results. I believe that a large segment of the public shares such views, across many parts of the world. They have witnessed the atrocities of our recent past and present, and are well aware that global population and resources will reach a new equilibrium within a few generations. Throwbacks to frontier eras who believe that warfare must allocate scarcity place us all at risk; scarcity is bound to increase, while the technology of conflict threatens to move well beyond any previously tested standards of horror. Hence cooperation assumes a pragmatic and evolutionary supremacy over intolerant and dehumanizing belief systems. The underlying question is how long, and at what cost, such belief systems will be allowed to persist.
J Opy
Minnesota, USA (May 26, '04)


Lisa [letter, May 24] reveals her agenda by childish name-calling: extremist right wing. She labels [Ritt] Goldstein "left liberal anti-American", though that is irrelevant to whether his views [Berg beheading: No way, say experts, May 22] are correct, and does nothing to address or refute them. As well, she reveals that she does not respect democracy, if she even understands it, by characterizing views with which she disagrees as being "anti-American". By contrast, US democracy respects the individual right to believe whatever he chooses, therefore it is wholly American to do so, even when Ms Lisa doesn't approve of the belief. Thus Ms Lisa is condemned by her own terms as being anti-American by her effort to suppress views of which she disapproves by calling the person who expressed those views that which she incorrectly views as being a pair of dirty names. Then, in keeping with her unquestioning belief in [US President George W] Bush's assertions about the [Nick] Berg murder video, misses an odd but obvious contradiction between that view and the easily observed facts in the video itself. On one hand, she repeats the Bush allegation that the "lead" killer in the video identified himself as [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi. We are thereby meant to infer that the "lead" killer identified himself as al-Zarqawi because he wanted everyone to know who he was. But on the other, the terrorist in the video who we are to believe claimed to be al-Zarqawi is wearing a ski mask - and does so, obviously, so no one will know who he is. As to the "title" of the video as "proof" that the "lead" killer was al-Zarqawi: Ms Lisa would assure us that terrorists cannot be trusted, and yet insist we are to believe they wouldn't lie - at least about such detail as being the identity of a person wearing a ski mask. One need not indulge in conspiracy theories or speculations about who "really" killed Berg to properly ask: if the "lead" killer wanted us to know who he was, all he had to do was not wear, or take off, the mask. Or to remember that the US military itself reported that al-Zarqawi was killed in March - the month before a person appearing to be Berg was apparently beheaded on a video allegedly by a person who was himself dead.
Joseph Nagarya
Boston, Massachusetts (May 26, '04)


Re Socrates the destroyer [May 25]. "Merry good humor pervades Kierkegaard's writing on the subject." Damn, that's good, "Spengler" (what an ironic name). Of course over the head of most of us Americans, having never had the benefit of [Soren] Kierkegaard and the "merry good humor" that pervades his work. Very interesting and entertaining article. However, ironically, it's a labored construct of highfalutin Euro philosophy to support your preconceived conclusion. Kind of a modest kirche embossed with ornamental, incongruent parlor philosophy. For people with really tasteful parlors. Like you. Or perhaps, to use a "continental" term, shit in a silk stocking? It might be even more interesting to explore the fact that if there are Kierkegaardian "knights of faith" alive today, many are in Iraq. Many wearing coalition military uniforms. And perhaps not with the attitude they can impose democracy on "whatever nation they please", but maybe, with the grace of God, improve the lot of the Iraqi people. And some other knights, with radically different views. The former loathed, the latter feared by "right-thinking" folks like you. But apparently both providing insight into your peculiar sickness. Ironically, these knights of faith are entirely missing from the dismal Dane of Christendom's (and your) ancestral home. Which gives your observations such a detached, ironic (and entertaining) viewpoint. I'd call it a knod of Schadenfreude, if I could spell it.
Johannes D Mirthful
Tuscaloosa, Mississippi (May 25, '04)


One has to wonder whom Spengler is now writing to (Socrates the destroyer, May 25). Perhaps he writes to the business traveler who reads Cliff notes on the Great Books series, hoping to appear knowledgeable by repeating phrases out of context; or to devotees of the Reader's Digest, vocabulary builders, and possibly even students in Ohio taking the obligatory Philosophy 101. Mingled with meaningful statements about [Soren] Kierkegaard's leap of faith and Socrates' irony, one must put up with allusions to "Hebrew love" regarding a people whose core attributes are independence, staying apart, subversion, ambition and pride, a composite that makes love very much like condescension. Love and condescension are the same to this fellow, and he thus captures much of what broad-minded people object to in the Judeo-Christian approach. Further, according to Spengler, the alternative meaning to the American/neo-Western campaign is the generous extension of "rationalism among the less fortunate", many of whose misfortunes are the direct consequence of the Western project, rationalized according to need. The real irony might be that only some measure of reason can now salvage the situation, but of a kind that Spengler shows no talent in practicing. But what of the philosophers? Spengler makes one of the most idiotic remarks possible from a person who seems to care about the history of thinking: "Friedrich Nietzsche despised both faith and reason, and chose Socrates as the whipping-boy for reason." Nietzsche's derision of faith must explain why he called the Old Testament the greatest book and Jesus the noblest man, remarks that I offer with great caution to people unfamiliar with his works. In terms of nobility, next in line to Jesus he would have placed Socrates himself, "champion" of reason and caught in the predicament of his own moment of creative destruction. As Nietzsche interpreted it, only because Athenian noble culture was already in decline was Socrates' rationalism capable to confound its instincts. Socrates was an exemplar and predator of Athenian decadence, and he understood himself as such. His nobility resides in the fact that he understood and accepted his condition and his fate. Now Spengler draws us into his own predicament, at the very precipice that both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard brought philosophy; what to do when reason is exhausted and we face death? This is a minority problem, confined to intellectuals (I experience it too). Spengler transfers his angst to humanity as a whole - miscalculation and offensive vanity on his part. For 95 percent of people, real existential fear has to do with a good crop, a job, health care, the manageability of local norms and basic security, not with philosophy or religion. If Western powers or the ambitious elite in any nation cannot put aside their vanities, Socrates might become an example for us all - minus the nobility.
Joe Nichols
USA (May 25, '04)


Let me open with some overt flattery, then proceed to the meat. As an utterly ironic American (I just read Spengler's latest [Socrates the destroyer, May 25]) I find that only the foreign press is even worth reading, and of the lot, your [website] is, by a decided margin, the best. Objective, comprehensive and downright literate. If the entire city of Washington had the combined knowledge and philosophical depth of just Henry Liu and Spengler, well, things would better for everybody everywhere. Having dispensed with the perhaps understated praise, let me add to it by commending you folks for raising the lid off the fake-beheading incident [Berg beheading: No way, say experts, May 22]. Pure false flag ... the terrorists did it. Now, let us move on to an even more famous operation of the same sort. It is called, lovingly, 9/11. While no one has all the answers, there's at least one very repeatable experience that proves [the attacks of September 11, 2001, were] an inside job, with help from Mossad, ISI [Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence], MI5 [British intelligence], and no doubt other luminaries of that sort. It is in the form of obtaining the best possible copies of the view of the plane approaching the south tower [of New York's World Trade Center], and slowing it to a frame-by-frame speed. To save time, go to http:/www.letsroll911.org, where it is posted in all its sordid glory. Now there [is] a lid that needs blowing off. Keep up the great work.
Phil Toler (May 25, '04)


Many, if not all, of the points mentioned by Ritt Goldstein in the piece [Berg beheading: No way, say experts] posted May 22 have already been carried earlier, and discussed at length, on several websites - so these are nothing new or startling. But there is one important item which has not yet been listed. Contained within the video, in a corner, is evidence of a US military cap and the sentence spoken in English: "How will it be done?" which was discovered after a frame-by-frame analysis by the staff of the Aztlan Website ; thus on the totality of these facts the story, so far, put out by the coalition forces is highly suspect. Further and vigorous research may eventually lead to the implication of all covert parties employed by the US for the accomplishment of this foul deed.
KA
UK (May 25, '04)


Your report on Australia's attempts to loot East Timorese oil (East Timor struggles for oil with Australia [May 22]) was a sad case of deja vu. Australia and other Western nations had aided the violent Timorese secessionist movement against Indonesia with money and weapons, and finally direct intervention. They had done so on the basis of "human rights" and Christian solidarity. Now watch how they treat their poor, politically isolated, Christian-convert Asian brothers. Timor alone is obviously much easier to swindle than is a united Indonesia. The extensive and sustained use of religious evangelism and human rights to interfere and create problems in other countries is a matter that needs to be exposed more and more. This is particularly relevant in the light of the massive current evangelist investment in India, and also in China. Using the lure of a greater kinship with a prosperous West (among other methods of deception), these hypocrites have been preying on weak minds. But the converted subjects are mere pawns to buttress the proselytizer's geopolitical position. This has historically been the trend with the world's two imperialistic "religions", viz Christianity and Islam. Political actors from these two communities have consistently abused the legacy of the spiritual founders to further their political ends. An Indo-Pakistani Muslim will never quite be equal to an Arab, or even a Turk. Pakistanis educated in Arab-funded madrassas emotionally take to the streets for political causes in far-away Arab lands, but I haven't seen Arabs screaming emotionally for causes that Pakistanis hold dear. The West's use of religion is even more hypocritical. In their own countries, obscenity and anti-religious sentiment is widespread. The Netherlands has been in the forefront of evangelist activity in sync with the US (especially in East Asia and India), yet church attendance in that country is abysmal. But used in tandem with their "monopoly" on "human rights" preaching and the international media, Western religious politicking is a new force that deserves greater attention from Asian news analysts, both for the sake of good political analysis [and] in the interest of true religion and human sanity itself.
Carl Clemens (May 25, '04)


My hunch is the [Ahmed] Chalabi raid and his fall from grace is a head fake [Chalabi: From White House to dog house, May 22]. Just one more con from a high-stakes con man and his neo-con pals.
Francis
Quebec, Canada (May 25, '04)


Re the review of [Sumantra] Bose's book by [Chanakya] Sen [The Kashmir conundrum, May 22]. It was readable. The question is, if it is not the institutional failure that caused the 1989 uprising, what were the factors that caused it? What about the economic and sociological factors of the uprising? Mr Sen does not say anything about the alternative explanations. How to establish the direct causal relations between, say, economic factors and the uprising's outbreak? [Was] religion a cause in itself? Or was it an instrumental/mobilizational factor? Can one put the explanation solely in the ethnicity basket? If it is not the cultural differences, then what caused the uprising? How to get an objectively reliable explanation that could be [set] against the alternative explanations? What about the Pakistani connection? Why [do] most Indian scholars say that it is hard to come by the Pakistani involvement as a direct party? Some Westerners ask: Did Pakistan cause it or support it? The two are different things. The crucial question is why the uprising occurred in 1989 and not earlier or after. Is the uprising a result of failure of ideas: socialism, secularism and democracy? How can one avoid ... the nationalistic trappings? I write this note with a great hope that some of the issues raised would be addressed by Mr Sen. And I am sure your readers will be greatly benefited.
Abu Ahmed, PhD
Research Scholar, Center for Arab and Islamic Studies
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia (May 25, '04)


For the most part religions are separated from the rest of the world of ideas by rigorous belief conditions, which repulse the educated majority who deal with the world with mostly rational paradigms. So let us set aside the passion plays presently dominating the news and consider the historical roots of democracy, which is after all the key to a viable future. It is widely accepted that English political philosopher John Locke laid the foundation for modern democracy. According to Locke, sovereign rights reside with the people and are based on a contract with the people. But two millennia before Locke, the ancient Chinese philosophy of Minben Zhengchi, or "people-based politics", taught that "the will of the people is the will of heaven" and that one should "respect the people as heaven" itself. In ancient India, monarchical thinking was constantly battling with another vision, of self-rule by members of a guild, a village, or an extended kin-group, in other words, any group of equals with a common set of interests. This vision of cooperative self-government often produced republicanism and even democracy comparable to classical Greek democracy. The establishment of democracy in Asia can be well handled by Asians. The United States' general population needs education about these matters. Asia Times is a great source of such education. Regarding religion, though, as a prime basis for confronting the world's problems, I think this is a serious error. Following this route we will all end up as in Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach":
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
John King (May 25, '04)


I think you should change the title "Best of Before" to "Stories Most Read" or "Stories with Maximum Clicks". That is because the stories put under the existing sub-heading are only sometimes "the best of before": they get the most clicks simply because you put them first in the sequence the previous day(s). As such, these stories do not represent the best in qualitative terms, only the most clicked, courtesy your intervention and hierarchization. In fact, on many occasions I have noticed that the best stories are not prioritized by you, and they thus receive far fewer clicks - and are promptly taken off by your editorial team. What you do prioritize is sensational stuff, even though you do receive enough high-quality reports (which typically get the bottom places). For a much more democratic layout, you may want to view the Wall Street Journal's website; the following Indian website (http://www.outlookindia.com) is also very democratic - and gives much more apparent choice of menu to the reader (unlike your site, which is very imposing). In any case, just notice how many times the "Best of Before" stories tend to be those that you chose to put at the top the previous day. Of course your judgment can't be completely meritless, but if it is about what you choose to call "best" - then you should say so: such as in the form of such a subtitle: Our Picks, or Our Selections. "Best of Before" incorrectly gives the impression that the readers chose those stories; the truth is that you coerce or manipulate the reader into reading particular stories more than others simply because of your linear and hierarchical web design. Of course your other windows such as War and Terror" or "South Asia" remain on the sidelines; most readers simply look at the Front Page and follow the hierarchy you impose on them. As such, you are not being fair, perhaps, to your authors either; by sequencing their stories and then claiming to declare the "best" out of them - based on a hierarchy of your choosing, rather than the reader's genuine choice. Outlook magazine, for example, has much more lateral presentation - while it also leaves the one window up top for the daily report. I guess if you visit their site, you will know what I mean.
Choa Noa (May 25, '04)

Statistics tell us that our readers are more discerning than you suggest, and we are frequently surprised by which stories get the most hits. However, you raise some valid points, and we are working on a redesign of the website that may deal with some of your concerns. - ATol


I hope ATol can share a little attention to the Chinese people who live in Taiwan. There are a large portion of Taiwanese people are regard themselves as Chinese. They do not like the new Taiwan president. The same day Chen [Shui-bian] came to power in Taiwan, there was a large protest. If the new Taiwanese race is allowed to declare independence, the same arguments can be used for the Chinese people [who] live in Taiwan. They should be allowed to declare independence from Taiwan too. Why are Taiwan Chinese people's rights ignored? Is that fair? Is that democracy?
Frank
Seattle, Washington (May 25, '04)

Well, yes it is. Democracy strives to protect minority rights (and you present no evidence that Chinese wanting to secede from Taiwan comprise any more than a very small minority), but of course it cannot please everyone. All other things being equal, a democratic system must favor the majority, and a majority (albeit a small one) re-elected President Chen. That's unfortunate for those who don't like Chen, but democrats would argue that Taiwan's system is superior to one in which a tiny handful of people dictate to 1.3 billion of their fellow citizens, who have little or no say in the manner of their own governance. - ATol


Spengler responds to readers
Dear Mr Imada (letter below):
Thank you for your kind words, but thank you all the more for your perspective on the future of Islam. Westerners tend to assume that with technological progress comes secularism, and that impassioned religious belief stems from primitive living conditions. As you point out so forcefully, it well may be the case that the Islamism of the future will find support not from traditional society but from the swelling mass of young people now coming of age in the Muslim world. And it is quite possible that the same young people who embrace advanced technology will embrace Islam all the more forcefully. The leaders of today's Islamist movements, as I have observed often in the past, generally are graduates of science and engineering schools in the West, speak Western languages, and know Western culture. The West may be in for quite a surprise.

Dear Arshad (letter below):
Well put indeed. Never did I doubt that Muslims pray because their mode of prayer has great meaning for them; my point, on the contrary, is that the meaning of Muslim prayer is quite different from (for example) Christian or Jewish prayer. One has to be a Muslim to appreciate it, because to be a Muslim presumes a specific response to the existential question, of which prayer is an expression. The flabby secularism of the West considers all prayer an aberration and equally daft. American provincialism projects the image of the melting pot on to the rest of the world and assumes that Muslims are another kind of Methodist. Please keep writing and help set them straight.
Spengler (May 24, '04)

A crushingly beautiful article [Does Islam have a prayer?, May 18].  Well done, Master Spengler, you have [inspired] me again. Creative destruction is practiced through generations. Each generation has its own favors and its own directions which it intends to go [in]. With this new generation of Muslims, things are definitely changing. They have seen the previous generations of King Fahd, Saddam Hussein, [Gamal Abdal] Nasser of Egypt. Arab nationalism is dead. In fact, I would say nationalism in the Islamic world is dead. The creative destruction you so eloquently pronounce is coming to the Islamic world, and it will be back with a vengeance. What we have to remember here is the ratio of young to old. This is currently around 3:1 in the Islamic world, the average birth rate per woman being roughly measured around 5.28. This is a lot of change. The key is change in minds and hearts as you [wrote] earlier. It is electrifying the sweeping changes going on. The mistakes being made by this generation will not be repeated by the next. They will dynamically adopt and adapt as to their requirements in future. Creative destruction will start from the disobeying of legal, military, and police orders within their own country, and an open declaration for the love of Islam. This is how it happened in history, as I have been reading in the past. Yes, the Middle East will definitely break into a war. The war will be in their own countries, in their own villages and, most importantly, between the devil's words and God's commands in their own head. How much can they be influenced? Not by much, I think; they will tend to make their judgments based on the news and the declarations of their religion. The creative destruction will come in the form of acceptance of technology, movement of national thought to religious thought, and finally acceptance of their lot with death itself, Once they realize that they are Muslims because they were born to die and get ready for their day of judgment, I don't think they will care anymore for what they have been provided in luxury. As the Arab said about his oil: My great-grandfather rode a camel, my grandfather drove a car, my father flies a jet, and I will again ride a camel. I think they are long-term in thinking, and I think that they have long-term aspirations in their culture. They preserve their culture and their religion, but the only thing is, they did not uptake technology and education. But this will change and is very easy to change. Question is, how do you remove the "I am a rich Arab" mentality from their doorstep? How do you remove the concept of rich Arab? Then, change has arrived and arrived in droves. Trust me, Spengler, I think I know where you're going on this subject. Nice to see you writing again. Your articles are shockingly accurate, and you make [Franz] Rosenzweig look undereducated.
Jeff Imada (May 24, '04)

Re Does Islam have a prayer? [May 18]. To understand the beauty, simplicity and power of a salat, one needs to be a Muslim. Accept Islam with all sincerity and then offer two rakas of salat, you will get your answer. Intellectual discussions and theoretical debates have no answer to this question.
Arshad (May 24, '04)


Ritt Goldstein is either incompetent or, more likely, intentionally misleading his readers [Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts, May 22]. He conveniently but astoundingly fails to mention the fact that it was the terrorists themselves who said that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi was the knife-wielding murderer that severed Nick Berg's head from his body. In fact, the video itself is titled "al-Zarqawi slaughters an American". Goldstein predictably, writing from a leftist liberal anti-American slant, makes no mention of this fundamental element of the story, instead preferring to try and spark some ridiculous conspiracy theory (the chairs and prison uniform - from Abu Ghraib). And that the US government is using al-Zarqawi as the "fall guy". What utter contemptible garbage.
Lisa
USA (May 24, '04)


I just read your article Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts by Ritt Goldstein. It was well thought out and well written. However, in the 15th paragraph, the author [noted] the similarities between the white chair [Nick] Berg was sitting on and the white chairs shown in the Abu Ghraib prison photos. Mr Goldstein alleged that the matching white chairs might somehow prove that the two parties were connected. Well, I'm saying that they probably aren't. I participated in the invasion of Iraq last year with the US Army. In every town we rolled through during the first month, the locals were always looting their nearby military compounds. There wasn't usually much worth looting, but we would always see people carrying out giant stacks of white chairs. Throughout the country, we'd always see vehicles hauling around tens or hundreds of those looted white chairs. Eventually, the white chairs could be seen in front of every house and apartment building in Iraq. They almost represented some sort of impoverished status symbol, like, the man with the most white chairs wins. What I'm trying to say is, the white chair that Mr Berg sat on was probably looted from some Iraqi army base, and the white chairs shown in the Abu Ghraib photos probably came with the place "free of charge". The presence of white chairs in both situations doesn't imply anything other than neither parties had managed to find anything more comfortable to sit on.
Joshua Droz
Huntington Beach, California (May 24, '04)


[Re Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts, May 22, by Ritt Goldstein.] You, sir, are a fool. It is irrelevant whether [Nick] Berg was alive or dead when he was decapitated. Or whether the soundtrack was real or inserted later. What is relevant is that Mr Berg was kidnapped by a group of jihadis, killed in some manner when the United States refused to deal with terrorists, and then beheaded. Alive, drugged or dead when he was beheaded is irrelevant. When will the world realize that Islam is the greatest danger faced by the world? Islamic doctrine requires that non-Islamic peoples be conquered and then converted to Islam or killed. And whether or not a particular Muslim at a particular time decides to become a jihadi is only relevant to that particular Muslim at that particular time and place. The jihadi groups insist that any land that at any time was a part of the Islamic empire is still Islamic and must be reconquered for Allah ...
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, United States Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (May 24, '04)


Thank you for publishing [Ritt] Goldstein's story [Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts, May 22]. It takes courage to speak up in these times. Additional information that strengthens my conviction that the Berg video is indeed a fraud: Terrorist mastermind [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi has announced his name but hidden his face. The CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] has said it is indeed Zarqawi, but he appears to be reading his own speech from a paper. The person holding the knife - allegedly Zarqawi - has a black hood at the video's beginning, but there is an edit (the camera time signatures change) and the knife holder is then wearing a white hood (and no bulletproof vest). You'll also find [other] oddities in the heavily edited video ... Zarqawi has also been reported to have an artificial leg; this is definitely not apparent in the video. Nor is his Jordanian accent, according to experts. Also note the gold ring on the "sinister" (toilet-using) hand - a definite no-no for Muslims ...
Eric A Smith
Tokyo, Japan (May 24, '04)


Re Chalabi: From White House to dog house [May 22]. The apparent souring of Chalabi-American relations may be an effort to create sympathizers for him in Iraq, so that when he becomes the head of the Iraqi puppet regime, the Iraqis might find him acceptable. The enemy of the enemy is a friend, but a snake shall always be a snake.
Saf Kakar
Canada (May 24, '04)


Re Chalabi: From White House to dog house [May 22]. This is a clear message that President George W Bush has, in the recent past, listened to the wrong people and therefore, formulated his foreign policies towards the wrong directions, especially the one leading to the occupation of Iraq, which has now proved to be a quagmire for US troops. As for Bush, he might be punished for his sin by possibly losing the next election.
Vivat Chu (May 24, '04)


Siddharth Srivastava (Uncle Sam reaches out to Indian students [May 22]) is presenting only a piece of the complex plan of the US administration to bring back some of the 30 percent of foreign students that the US has lost in the past three years. But he should warn the Indian student community that they should watch out for the realities of the universities [in the US] and not get confused by marketing campaigns. The truth is that several universities are now imposing additional fees to international students and that university administrators are more concerned about the opinion of the families of the US students (the average family thinks that international students represent a huge cost to the US economy and in addition are dangerous individuals) than about giving a good treatment to the students themselves. You can investigate what happened or what is going on at U Wisconsin Madison, U of Massachusetts Amherst, U Florida-Gainesville, to name a few. You may check out what happened at Duke University regarding secret subpoenas or U Texas Austin, where army officials aggressively interrogated students for attending a presentation about sex and Islam. With that, you may give a give them a better picture of the real "welcome" foreign students would receive.
Mary
Canada (May 24, '04)


[Re Thailand wants to play political football, May 22.] Costa Rica, a small country of only 7 million people, made it to the last [soccer] World Cup. I don't understand how Liverpool can accept a bid from a man who doesn't yet know where the money will come from. From a lottery? Gambling? Is that what Liverpool and [Thai Prime Minister] Thaksin [Shinawatra] stand for and want to represent? What arrogance from Thaksin - expecting poor dreamers to fund his next new toy. Thailand, a large country of nearly 70 million, and one of the most football-crazy nations in the world, has never made it to the World Cup. It seems to me that US$100 million would be better invested at home: one-half for football, the other-half for the poor south.
The Hermit
Thailand (May 24, '04)


Both the article by Laurence Eyton [Taiwan: Trying to please everyone ... ] and the article by Jing-dong Yuan [Seeking stability in the Taiwan Strait, both May 22] appear to miss two important subtleties of [Taiwanese President] Chen Shui-bian's inauguration speech. First, Chen has indicated that his constitutional changes will not address issues of national sovereignty or independence/unification. That is because it is the policy of the Chen administration that Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent nation. So Chen has merely reiterated that he will not change or extinguish Taiwan's status as a sovereign and independent nation. Second, in a backhanded way Chen reaffirmed his pledges of his 2000 inauguration speech. Washington assumes that means he has repeated the "four noes". Washington's error is in thinking that the four noes ever had any substance. One of the noes was that Chen would not declare independence from China. But Chen's position is that Taiwan is not part of China to begin with, so there is no need for a declaration of independence. Also, the four noes were preconditioned on China not attacking Taiwan. Chen can dismiss the four noes at any time by equating China's military buildup and stated intention to attack Taiwan as equivalent to an actual attack. Alternatively, Chen can at any time clarify that his 2004 speech was not a reiteration of the four noes, but a reiteration of his pledges to the Taiwanese people, such as his pledge to abide by the constitution. So in the end, Chen gave Washington some fodder to use against Beijing, but in substance China got nothing out of Chen.
Daniel McCarthy
Salt Lake City, Utah (May 24, '04)


In Chicken hawks do have a plan [May 21], Joe Nichols speaks of "the Judaization of the American elite". Actually, American Jews have been "Protestantized". Like most immigrants' descendants, they have been converted to such old-time American Protestant beliefs as the Divine Election of America (the City on the Hill, the New Israel, the Calvinist elect), Manifest Destiny, and the American Adam (the idea that Americans are without Original Sin, like Adam, and can do no wrong) and (of course), the American Dream, that every American can be rich (wealth = Divine Election; poverty = God's curse). Some "Protestantized" Jews even buy into the Dispensationalist millennialist ideas common among American fundamentalist Christians and believe that the founding of Israel is a sign that the world is on schedule to end soon, the Messiah will return soon, etc, etc. (Curiously, some Islamic fundamentalists borrow Dispensationalist [ideas], too, for their interpretation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Cf The Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University) If you want to know what Bush & Co are up to next, read [the biblical books of] Daniel and Revelation, and then watch your favorite prophecy preacher's TV show. In China, US fundamentalists are easily heard on shortwave radio.
Lester Ness
Putian University
Putian City, China (May 24, '04)


 [Re] the article Dirty laundry at the Times of India [May 18] by Raja M. It is indeed sad to see to what depths The Times of India has descended. I suggest that the Old Lady of Boribunder is dead and needs a decent burial.
Atanu Dey
Mumbai, India (May 24, '04)


The letter by Niran Shah from Akron, Ohio (May 21), raised some very true/relevant points. However, I don't think Shah needs to be as ashamed as he admits to be. Indian immigrants in the US, just like all other immigrants in any region/time of history, are acutely conscious of their safety and security in an alien land. They have their ears to the ground and are well aware of the prevailing currents in American society. US society has been getting increasingly conservative since the '70s, when the re-emergence of Europe and Japan (also China, India, Brazil etc to a lesser extent) placed the US manufacturing industry on the back foot. Since then, the continuous loss of jobs and economic well-being has pushed people increasingly towards the right-leaning Republican party, and also towards the Church. In the past Indians in the US, just like all other minorities, were overwhelmingly Democrat; however, in the current conservative social climate almost everyone is placing their bets/money on the horse that's most likely to win - the Republicans. Indians are hardly alone in this. Gone are the days when the Democrats could take black and Hispanic voters for granted. I don't think US Indians, or any other American minority, should feel guilty about supporting (or pretending to support) the Republicans. Each one of them is just trying to play it safe and end up on the side of the winner. Besides, what people say or do in the open before elections is one thing - what they do in the secrecy of the voting booth is another. Surprises are always possible, as the recent Indian elections have highlighted.
Amit Sharma
Roorkee, India (May 24, '04)


I am a recent reader of the Asia Times Online site, and I would like to express my appreciation to your editor and to the rest of your excellent staff for the outstanding presentation of news and analysis you make available daily. In these difficult times it is so important that we have a complete understanding of the actions of the United States government, and your coverage has been most helpful in closing some of the gaps that exist when relying only on American media for coverage. Finally, on a lighter note, it is also very convenient that your address is quite similar to that of the Los Angeles Times, making my daily web surfing just that much more easy. Again, my best regards, and thank you very much for your excellent work.
Don Davis
North Bend, Washington (May 24, '04)


Re Chicken hawks do have a plan [May 21]. A concise, intelligent and thought-provoking commentary that in time will become one of Asia Times Online's top 10. Still, I could not help thinking about an old classic movie shown as The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The gist of the storyline [was that] what starts out as a group effort ends up as a doggie-doggie brawl. An excellent read that makes one anxious about how [Joe] Nichols foresees it ending and which elite will eventually win out. If I were a betting man I would put my money on oil. ATol deserves kudos for publishing Mr Nichols' perceptive views.
Armand De Laurell (May 21, '04)


I would like to thank you for the article on May 21, Chicken hawks do have a plan by Joe Nichols. It has painted a much clearer picture for me of all the goings-on in the Middle East, and the game plans of the political players engaging in it. It has been most enlightening, this and many other articles on you site. Thank you.
caral4
Perth, Western Australia (May 21, '04)


Just finished reading the article