Please 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.

It seems to me that the Chinese patriots writing to Asia Times Online lately fail to advance the cause of China because they are terrified of the future. Instead, they promote a present and seek to resurrect a past that have never existed outside of polite novels and fairy tales. The future "glory" of China will indeed come to pass; but not because of them, despite them. A case in point is their terror of US racism, capitalism and imperialism and the implication that a Chinese state is, or would be, different. Problems with this point of view include, (a) the overwhelming majority of China's people (like the people of all nations) are and will remain racist; (b) capitalism is the bedrock strength of China's present and future. Rising standards of living and culture and, most importantly, military power, derive from the economic strength and flow of ideas that only capitalism can provide; and (c) with its innate racism, economic and military strength, a "glorious" China will (continue to) engage in imperialism just like every other powerful nation always has and always will. I look forward to a strong, democratic and heaven-kissing China far more than any hectoring armchair patriot, for I am not intimidated by either the future or the past. The future is a powerful democratic China with much the same sort of victories and disasters as the United States presently has. Just as the United States inadvertently copies imperial England; just as imperial England inadvertently copied many aspects of the Roman Empire.
Biff Cappuccino
Taipei (Jun 30, '04)


[Re You have met the enemy, and he is you, June 29] Dear Spengler,
Indeed one should learn more. The Kurds did survive despite the existing pressure to assimilate. The word "Islam" was conceived as an imitation of the sound of an Arabic word that means "submission of all only to the will of his divinity". It does not contradict any true religion and does not confront it. It rather leverages all true religions and makes them one. Success in imposing a nationalist ideology requires submission of the weak to the will of the strong. This contradicts the divinity of God.
Luay (Jun 30, '04)


[Re You have met the enemy, and he is you, June 29] Once again, my friend Spengler has prodded me to write and to [cite] [Abraham] Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which ends: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." We can all learn something from a world view that respects differences in discerning the will of God. Truly, we are made stronger by differences, not weaker. We can choose to love religious and ethnic differences just as we can choose to hate them. In my view, it is God's will for me to love other people regardless their outward manifestation. There is a piece of God in each of us, asking to be recognized and loved. Thanks for reminding me.
Mike
USA (Jun 30, '04)


It is indeed amazing to read [Send in the Gurkhas, Jun 29] that such ferocious soldiers are unable to crush Maoist insurgency in their own country. Either they are not serious, or their hands are tied by the civilian authorities or ambitious-looking king. Someone should come forward and break the conspiracy of silence. How can the killings of innocent women, children and innocent civilians be ignored indefinitely?
Samantha Lewis
Melbourne, Australia (Jun 30, '04)


Recently a couple articles have appeared in Asia Times Online discussing the strategic interests of Israel and her attempts to influence events in Iraq by backing the aspirations of the Iraqi Kurds [A clean break for Israel, Jun 30 and Sovereignty: Now the games really begin, Jun 30]. In both of these articles the contention has been that Israel envisions an independent Kurdistan that would thus put pressure on Iran and Turkey while simultaneously allowing Israel an unfettered oil supply. While this certainly would be a situation advantageous to Israel, it is not a plausible scenario, and thus the authors need to look more closely at Israel's activities to see where her real goals lie. The Israelis know full well that their support alone cannot make an independent Kurdistan out of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. They also know that Turkey and Iran are far from being alone in their opposition to such an independent state. Rather, in one of the rare instances of agreement between Washington and Tehran, the United States joins Iran, Turkey, and for that matter Russia, in opposing an independent Kurdish state. Opposition to Kurdish independence can also be found among the member states of the European Union and in China too. The reasons for opposition now, and in 1923 when the Lausanne Treaty overrode the 1920 Treaty of Sevres that promised Kurdish independence based on the doctrine of self-determination of peoples, are the same. An independent Kurdish state would validate the nationalist claims of Kurds throughout the Middle East - Kurds whose very nature as a distinct cultural and ethnic group has been denied in Turkey, where they are called Mountain Turks, and where until 1991, even privately speaking Kurdish was a crime; in Iran, where they have been called Mountain Iranians "who forgot their language and culture"; and in Syria where the regime has simply ignored ethnic labels and argued that everyone is a Muslim, conveniently ignoring, by the way, the non-Muslim part of the country and the fact that the ruling group belongs to an Islamic sect considered heterodox by the rest of the country's Muslims. None of this even gets into the Kurds in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Lastly, in 1923 while the Turks were very much against Kurdish independence, so were the British who wanted Iraqi Kurdistan in particular to remain part of Iraq because of its valuable oil. The idea was simple, that an independent Kurdistan would be more likely to align itself with the Russians than with the British, as the latter were already seen as in league with the Arab states [and] enemies of the Kurds. Today, an independent Kurdistan would threaten the legitimacy of Arab nationalism in numerous Arab countries that for decades have ignored and even denied not only the existence and distinctness of their Kurdish populations, but in many cases their other minorities as well. An independent Kurdistan would force Arab nations, as well as non-Arab Turkey, to deal with their diverse minority populations, and that would mean disavowing hegemonic ethnic nationalism and facing pressure to extend autonomy. Moreover, were such an independent Kurdistan to be democratic, as autonomous Kurdistan is, it would also pose a severe challenge to the many autocratic regimes in the region, a challenge that Israel cannot, as Israeli democracy can be written off as a sham in the Arab world due to the occupation of the territories, Gaza and the West Bank, and the stigma attached to Zionism in the Arab world as racist, colonialist, and exploitative. Such a Kurdish democracy, in a land with a majority Kurdish population where the Kurds have lived continuously for over 4,000 years, could not be so easily dismissed. So now comes the last part. The Americans and the Europeans claim a sincere interest in democracy coming to and flourishing in the Middle East, yet they are dead seat against an independent Kurdistan, which could very well be a catalyst in such a quest for Middle Eastern democracy. Why are they against it? They are against it for three reasons. First, the destabilization of autocratic regimes in the Middle East means risk, and Americans and Europeans do not want to take that risk. Secondly, there is the matter of oil. While an independent Kurdistan would probably be easier to manipulate in the oil market than say, Iraq, the impact of challenging hegemonic ethnic nationalism and the expansion of Kurdish and other ethnic identities in the Middle East would mean both increased tension in the Middle East and also in the long-term forces for liberalization. Any such liberalization may result in what we are seeing in Venezuela, that is massive pressure on the government to use oil revenues to alleviate poverty and spur wide-scale development, something that terrifies the United States and Europe, and even got the US to back a coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, because it means higher oil prices and reduced capability by the European powers to manipulate the market. Lastly, the Russians and other non-Middle Eastern oil producers are against an independent Kurdistan for fear that it would hurt them economically. Kurdistan would be unlikely to join OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries], an organization dominated by traditional enemies of the Kurds, and would challenge non-OPEC suppliers, especially Russia, not only in the small Israeli market but in much larger markets in India and Africa. Knowing all this, Israeli policymakers are quite well aware that they cannot create an independent Kurdistan, just as surely as Kurds in Iraq know that their neighbors are not going to be able to succeed in their seemingly endless war, since 1984, against Turkey. Not surprisingly, the Israelis are seeking to aid the Iraqi Kurds militarily, politically and economically not to see them secede from Iraq, but to help them gain maximum autonomy in Iraq, especially localized control of oil wells. At the same time, the Iraqi Kurds have distanced themselves greatly from the PKK [Kurdistan Workers Party] and from Kurdish groups in Iran and Syria, not in order to press for independence, but to press for a high level of autonomy. Surely, both Israel and the Kurds would love to see an independent Kurdistan, but it's not practical, and the authors of the articles should know that and assess Israeli aims accordingly.
Andrew W Boss
Washington, DC, USA (Jun 30, '04)


In the article by Ehsan Ahrari, Sovereignty: Now the games really begin , [Jun 30], he makes the statement: "They have recently added a new wrinkle to their long-standing strategy of making Iraq a living hell for the outside forces and 'collaborators' by taking hostages and beheading them. That objective is clearly aimed at creating a stampede of foreign forces and international entrepreneurs from Iraq." Mr Ahrari was speaking of the Iraqi rebels. I think it is possible there is another reason for the beheadings. In the USA there are sites that track the most popular ideas on the Internet. When the Nick Berg "beheading" video was released, the beheading went to No 1 on the popular search list. It is possible that the American government took note of this interest on the part of the American public in the beheading of an American. I think the increase in beheadings is happening because the government now knows that these acts generate sympathy for Americans and the American government. With every beheading I see more and more Internet activity of the "I hate Islam and Muslims" variety. These beheadings seem tailor-made to help the occupation forces garner sympathy and justification for their continued stay in Iraq. The propaganda effect is so powerful that beheading was used in Saudi Arabia. The idea was, if beheading in Iraq generated hatred of Iraqis, then a beheading in Saudi Arabia would be certain to generate hate of Saudi Arabians in the mind of the American public.
David Little (Jun 30, '04)


I suggest those people who support TI (Taiwan Independence) read Taiwanese gold rush to China , [Jun 30] by Sam Ng. When a government fails its people, people will vote by their feet. It happened in East[ern] Europe a few years ago. History is just repeating itself in Taiwan today. TI's Asian supporters should think hard about whom they are supporting. At ATol, the same white people who are promoting "independence" in Taiwan want to use nuclear weapons [to] kill all the Arabs and take their oil. They want to go back to the good old days, so they can play killing-the-Indians-and-taking-their-homes. Certainly, they will find some treaties to allow them to do that. According to those treaties, Indians are hunting targets; blacks are merchandise; and China's Hong Kong and Taiwan do not belong to the Chinese. Do these white TI supporters really care about the lives of Taiwanese? Or are Taiwanese just pawns to be sacrificed in their domination gambit dream? To ATol editors, I still would like to read an article about the faked shooting staged by Taiwan's president. Translate some if you have to.
Frank
Seattle (Jun 30, '04)

Who said it was faked? - ATol


Just want to point out an inaccuracy in Dave Henderson's letter (June 28), where he mentions that the Koran, in Surah al-Nisa, prohibits marrying one's cousin. Mr Henderson is mistaken. No such prohibition exists anywhere in the Koran. In fact, cousin marriage is extremely common in Muslim society.
Ahmed Zaheer (Jun 30, '04)


Raju Bist's A price too high for Indian farmers, [Jun 29] seems to focus mainly on the government policy or lack of subsidies for farmers' problems. For instance, he [writes] "cutbacks in fertilizer and power subsidies have added to the cost". Then he adds [the] issue of imports to it: "liberal import policies are also hurting the farmer." Not that with the highest import duties in the world, one would characterize India's import regime to be "liberal". To me, the problems seem to be rather simple. It seems that most Indian states seem to be suffering from drought, or generally lack irrigation facilities. In that situation, growing a water intensive crop like sugarcane (example of farmers in Karnatak cited by Bist) or rice (especially hybrid varieties) seems rather foolhardy. I am not sure growing any crop that is in surplus like rice, wheat, sugarcane, especially with borrowed money at 30% interests rate, would have a high chance of success. Maybe, too much government subsidy is the problem here. Mr Bist would be correct to blame the government for lack of infrastructure like roads to take produce to market or archaic laws preventing interstate trade or exports. But to blame the government when the farmers make bad business decisions is rather naive. It might be the fashionable or politically correct thing to do in Indian politics and media, but certainly without any logic or merit.
Ashesh Parikh (Jun 29, '04)


Spengler replies
Paul Crowley (letter, Jun 24) asserts, "No wars were started nor were any encouraged to be started by the United States under the leadership of [Ronald] Reagan." It depends what one means by "war". Apart from the minor business of Grenada, the Reagan administration supported subversion against the Russians in a number of theaters, including Afghanistan and Central America. He is quite correct that the Reagan administration did not encourage the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and sought stability rather than change in the Arab world. That detracts not at all from my emphasis on the importance of the 1982 Israeli-Syrian air battle over the Bekaa valley. Certainly Washington knew that its avionics surpassed those of the Russians, but Israel's crushing victory not only provided a measure of their superiority; it ensured that the Russians knew it as well. That incident shook the belief of the Russian military leadership that it could win a war against the United States. The fact that America gave Israel its best avionics was in no way inconsistent with the Reagan administration's occasional pro-Arab tilt. The point, rather, is that all other policy considerations were subordinated to the central goal of undermining Soviet power. Details aside, Mr Crowley's argument is that the [George W] Bush administration's engagement in the Middle East has no precedent in pre-2001 America. One can argue that both ways, but I tend to agree with Mr Crowley. America's contest with radical Islam really is something new and different, and in some respects, less tractable than the confrontation with the Soviets. Neither the supporters nor the critics of Washington's policy can argue credibility that Reagan would have responded one way or the other. That does not, however, prevent analysts from citing precedents of operational success from the Reagan era. David Layman enquires regarding evidence for Jewish influence on Reformation thinkers. That was the position of the Catholic Church from the beginning, ie, that Protestantism was a "Judaizing heresy". On this, see the entry on "Torquemada" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, available online. For some detail on Martin Luther's acquaintance with Rabbinical sources, I recommend Gordon Laird's website (www.glaird.com).
Spengler (Jun 29, '04)


Thank you Mr Kiani for your response to my letter [below]. My world view is based upon my life experiences, as is yours. Obviously our experiences have been quite different. But you and the other readers of my letters deserve to know my background and how it affects my world outlook. First, I am Christian. At the moment I am not a member of any organized church but I grew up in the Presbyterian Church. I believe in the words of the United States Declaration of Independence. I believe that all persons are equal before their god and before the law. I believe in the constitution of the United States of America which I have sworn to support, protect and defend. I believe that experience has proven the principles of personal freedom enshrined in our constitution to be the most beneficial to man. It is also a source of our continual striving to be better. The First Amendment gives us all the right to worship as we choose. It gives us the freedom to speak our minds on any subject without fear of government retribution. I believe in duty, honor and country. I wore the uniform of my country proudly and will do so again if necessary. I believe that all people can find common ground and be friends if given the chance. We are more similar as human beings than we are different. I do not really know how to answer you when you say that there is little hope for peace between Muslims and Americans. We have Muslims here where I live. As far as I know, they are treated with respect and a certain amount of deference. I know of no violence against our local Muslims because of their religion. I will oppose any such violence with force if necessary. Muslim women are free to wear hijab here. But then that is the advantage we have with our history of accepting all who wish to be Americans and do so legally. This is the respect in which America is most different form the rest of the world. Anyone who works hard and uses their god-given talents can succeed. One of the results of this high level of personal freedom is that our society picks and chooses the best parts of the societies that our immigrant citizens bring to this country and adopts them as part of our own culture. American English has become a polyglot of languages from all over the world. Yes, there are excesses. But they are actually relatively small when measured against the mainstream culture. You must always understand that the true culture of America is not the one that is shown on the movie screen and television. But peace requires two partners. I would have been happy had we not gone to war in Iraq either time or in Afghanistan. I have personal friends who were prisoners of war in the first Gulf War. But we did not invade Iraq to colonize it. We entered Iraq the first time to execute a United Nations' resolution requiring the Iraqi military to end its occupation of Kuwait. We entered Iraq the second time because Iraq's government failed to live up to the ceasefire agreements that ended the first Gulf War and subsequent UN resolutions. The members of the Muslim community who are upset by our presence only need to be so if they fear that we might show the people of the area a better way. Individual freedom includes the right to make your own decisions in life without reference to anything else. That much freedom is a scary thing for it involves taking risks and making choices. That is unlike the Muslim experience where everything that you do is predicated upon the Koran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. America is not the great Satan, and we will not destroy Islam. Islam will fall because it cannot successfully compete as a world view and lifestyle with the others that are available. Ask yourself why Islam's best and brightest leave the lands of their fathers and go to places like the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany Italy and other places where freedom reigns, not mullahs and the religious police. I don't have to go far to see this demonstrated. All I have to do is drive down the main street of Apple Valley and look at the names of the doctors and other professionals. Did you or your parents perhaps not do the same? I doubt that I shall get to London again. However, should I do so, I would be honored to meet you and perhaps have a lively, interesting and eminently friendly discussion of the issues and our life experiences. I wish you and yours peace and long life.
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, United States Air Force (Retired)
bigbird@kwamt.com (Jun 29, '04)


I would like to thank ATol for publishing my letters, which for some reason have recently generated more interest than many of the articles written by professional journalists. Perhaps those who find my views intolerable are merely intolerant.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 29, '04)


I was surprised to see that the first paragraph in the article Israel, Iran chart collision course, by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, published [Jun 28] claims that "there is little doubt about the operation of Israeli power well beyond her tiny borders pushing for a 'greater Israel'". I am not a reporter, and I do not claim to know all the facts. Yet, as an Israeli, I can tell that arguing that Israel is pushing for a "greater Israel" in Iraq, Turkey and/or Iran is completely not based on facts and shows a misunderstanding by the writer. More than that, it smells of conspiracy theories.
Gilad Karni (Jun 28, '04)
 

Regarding Alix de la Grange's The liberation of Baghdad is not far away on June 24. A very intriguing, but suspect, contribution to chaos that these alleged generals are proposing. It seems to be the stuff that people dearly love to believe, promoted by a news apostle. These generals pretend to champion Iraq's well being! Generals are normally pragmatic and never lose sight of the goal. But this mythical, neo-Babylonian set are intent on killing anything that moves in the environment of the coalition. Using Americans to obtain security and order is not on their agenda. Who's useful idiots are they really? Who is most interested in reducing Iraq to utter chaos? Who is tending their interests in Palestine with ancient barbarity whilst the world's attention is focused on Iraq? If these generals (and De la Grange) are fronts for Mossad the report makes sense, but it doesn't harmonize with Atimes' pretenses.
Kaj Krinsmoe
Denmark (Jun 28, '04)


Dear Spengler,
In studying the Koran, I've come to an important conclusion. The Koran does not contain the essential internal contradictions and impossible demands which the New Testament threw at the Christian thinker in Medieval Europe. In short, the Koran is canonical law, it is the Catholic Church. There can be no Martin Luther in Islam. Consider what caused Luther to come to his thesis of salvation through faith alone. The gospel of Mathew literally demands perfection, absolutely, without which, it seems salvation from Hell is impossible. Of course, Grace existed in Christianity prior to Luther, but he deemed logically that the smallest sins were as destructive as the largest, and that in the eyes of God, they were all as horrible. Hence his doctrine, hence the destruction of Medieval Europe (I'm being really simplistic here). It was the reformation and its ensuing wars of religion which held the keys for modernity in Europe. The Koran, while still suffering from internal contradictions, does not do so anywhere near the soul-torturing scale found in the Christian New Testament. The whole premise of the Koran is that through Grace and a simple, easy-to-abide-by law, God will grant salvation to the individual believer. The authors or author or Author (whichever you prefer) intended the Koran to be this way. The Koran does not contain within it the possibility to cause the incredible levels of spiritual torture which afflicted Luther (who said he came near to, or may have secretly "hated this just God".) Take for example Surah 4 - Al Nisa. Much of the Surah is dedicated to imparting moral codes of behavior to the community or individual believers. For example, it is prohibited to marry your cousin. Consider the following quote: "O mankind! Verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For we have sent onto you a light (that is) manifest." The very end of the Surah ends with a comforting legalism (dealing with inheritance law), without much doubt placed there to re-enforce the believers' confidence in the above quote. In short, the Koran is sacred like the Bible, but contains, one might say, its own canonical law. My overall point is that Islam will never be shattered as Western Europe's Christian unity was; it can only be corrupted by worldly promises and compromise on the part of believers. Islam does not have the same fudge factor as Christianity, so we will probably never see a Muslim version of the United Church of Canada. Further point, Islam is not the Soviet Union. Traditionalists and even fundamentalists have much more to stand on than reformers. I don't know about you, but the Soviet Union's insane asylums sound much less scary than finding out you missed the bus on the Last Day. Again, thank you for your terrific articles (meaning they actually make me think).
Dave Henderson (Jun 28, '04)


"What new ideas has physical science given us since relativity and quantum mechanics? We have done a dandy job of turning century-old ideas into applications, but have done nothing to address the scandalous state of theoretical physics. Once great physicists were household names; who among living scientists stands comparison to a Schroedinger, DeBroglie, Heisenberg or Bohr, let alone an Einstein? We may be inventive, but we are no longer creative." Spengler, you are such a romantic. So, in this vein, think of a symphony. One cannot expect a crescendo to be sustained indefinitely. Before and during the lifetimes of the scientists you named, there were many fruitful streams of inquiry supported by able people not in the "Great Men" category, and this continues also in the present. The big ideas do not spring from a single brain, but from gradual accretions in the greater community of inquiry; this is not to deny individual accomplishment or the value of special social conditions. That a long time must go by before an important idea is reviewed, challenged and applied is obvious. A contemporary "household name" in physics and mathematics is Stephen W Hawking, but most of the creative work done now in science is too specialized for popular media to turn into easily digested icons. Furthermore, the most interesting scientific work is increasingly interdisciplinary, requiring large efforts in teamwork, management and financial planning: hardly interesting to a romantic steeped in the values and phraseology of pre-20th century Europe. One last item: "invention" versus "creativity". Leonardo da Vinci would probably disagree with your sharp distinction between the two. As a matter of fact, design engineering and theoretical science have always dynamically interacted, and this interaction is very fertile ground for new pathways of thought.
J King


I have just spent almost a whole day reading past articles by Henry C K Liu and Spengler and would like to thank and congratulate you for offering them. It is a rare treat to read such erudite and articulate minds over such a wide range of topics. I especially find Liu's grasp of both oriental and occidental history and culture of special value in today's increasingly inter-related geopolitical complex; his ongoing political analyses from within unusually deep cultural and philosophical contexts are especially valuable.
Ashley Howes
Cape Breton, Canada (Jun 28, '04)


Your website is always very interesting - but very slow on true insight on US culture. A case in point is what has happened here in the USA in the last 48 hours. You do not seem to have a clue! In that case, I will tell you: while President [George W] Bush has been out of the USA, the Michael Moore movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, was released in US theaters. And guess what happened? Theaters are filled to capacity, but not with young radicals, oh no, but rather conservative voters in their 50s, 60s and 70s. They sit through the movie with faces ashen with shock (but little awe) when they see uncensored photographs and newsreels of dismembered Iraqi children, and they (the audience) cry real tears. Pay attention Asia Times Online, something big is happening.
Rick
New Jersey, USA (Jun 28, '04)


Authors Haibin Niu and Shixiong Ni wrote in Perils of a US-dominated world  (June 25) that "The Taiwan separatist force is the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait." Certainly they cannot mean that. Those in Taiwan who are in favor of Taiwan maintaining its status quo as an independent and sovereign country separate from China have not threatened war. No, indeed it is the People's Republic of China (PRC) that threatens war in the name of the fictional "one China" principle. To publish such a factually inaccurate writing, which contains tediously repetitive official PRC propaganda, impeaches PhD candidate Niu's academic abilities and casts doubt on the ability of the PRC's higher education system to produce even one competent social scientist. A competent social scientist may consider the Treaty of Shimoneski ("China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty the following territories: ... The island of Formosa, ... the Pescadores Group"); the San Francisco Peace Treaty ("Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores", [but does not convey them to China, so under international law they fall to the people of Taiwan]); the Six Assurances to Taiwan ("The United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan"); US Congressional Resolution No 166 ("Resolved by the House of Representatives ... the United States should immediately adopt a 'One China, One Taiwan Policy' which reflects the present day reality that Taiwan and China are two separate nations"); and the present facts on the ground rather than resorting to a trite repetition of political propaganda and legal fiction.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 28, '04)

Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jun 25] states that China should have sent 20,000 troops to Iraq in exchange for oil and the opportunity to "show off" their military capability. To the best of my knowledge, the oil in Iraq is owned by the Iraqi people, not the US. And the US is in no position at this time to guarantee any long term supply of oil from Iraq. This is obvious to anybody but a donkey. The only party to benefit from China's "showing off" would be the US, who would love to analyze China's military capabilities. And I sincerely doubt that China's leadership was born yesterday. As for being an enemy for not sharing Bush's folly; it is in China's national interest to keep the US occupied in Iraq as long as possible. Hence, the US cannot interfere in China's national interest in the Far East and Central Asia. A vast majority of the world's oil supply is delivered by sea, Mr McCarthy, and I do not think that Japan and South Korea would be amused by any US Navy interruption of the Far East sea lanes. And what about our dear friends here at Asia Times Online in Hong Kong? You should be more concerned about the position of [President George W] Bush's nose, which may be lodged up his own back passage.
Ernie Lynch
Pittsburgh, USA (Jun 28, '04)


Daniel McCarthy's letter of June 25, 2004, castigates China for not sending troops into Iraq. The current nightmare that nations with troops in Iraq are facing highlights the absurd universe Mr McCarthy and other imperial dreamers have fashioned for themselves. The fact that nations like China, Russia, India, Germany, etc, did not provide a fig leaf for the criminal invasion of Iraq is a tiny speck of hope in an otherwise dismal world political scene. While we hear a constant barrage of criticism for China's alleged "belligerence" towards Taiwan, which, practically speaking, is nothing more than a war of words, China is now being lambasted for not brutally occupying a sovereign nation. The US has no blank check to invade, occupy and bomb with no regard to decency or law, and neither does the US have the power to endorse that check to third parties. I suppose Mr McCarthy's haranguing of China has exhausted him, and has left him no energy to confront the atrocities being perpetrated by his own nation. It seems that imperialists like Mr McCarthy share the goals of their terrorist arch-enemies: to drag the entire world into a nightmarish war of all against all, reminiscent of the worst eras of human history. Perhaps Mr McCarthy should educate himself about the Thirty Years' War, or the Second World War to understand why so many people abhor war, which, even when used as a legitimate means of national defense, is a tragic taint on humanity.
G Travan
California (Jun 28, '04)


Your letter from Daniel McCarthy [Jun 25] is truly hilarious in that it reveals the depth of delusion that most Americans and their apologists live in. McCarthy writes that if China wants to stop being demonized by the American empire as a "threat", it should send some cannon fodder to Iraq to help the beleaguered American war machine continue its colonial war against the Iraqi resistance. Dream on. Contrary to the lies peddled by the corporate "free press", or by American rulers, the USA is losing its war of aggression against Iraq. No one is coming to help you. Behind his lawyerly rhetoric, McCarthy's outrageous proposal shows how desperate the Americans really are. As Ehud Barak has stated, the only issue that America faces is choosing the size of its humiliation. Moreover, McCarthy's threats about how the USA can shut off oil to China is revealing not only for its thinly disguised gangsterism, but also in that it inadvertently exposes the real agenda behind America's invasion of Iraq: geostrategic control of Iraqi oil. Whatever happened to all your lies about WMDs [weapons of mass destruction] or "freedom and democracy"? In general, McCarthy's arrogance exemplifies why America is so rightfully hated and considered the "true threat" by the vast majority of people outside of the USA. What McCarthy doesn't realize is that to be deemed a "threat" by America or the corporate media is a compliment, given the militaristic nature of the global American empire or the rapacious capitalist system which it defends. As the title of the recent article by Alix de la Grange suggests, [The liberation of Baghdad is not far away, Jun 24] the day of liberation from America and its imperialist allies is coming - in Baghdad, in Iraq, and beyond.
DP
USA (Jun 28, '04)


Daniel McCarthy's latest letter [Jun 25] is something I cannot resist responding to. He says that because Washington perceives China as a threat and is in need of oil, China should offer soldiers to help the Americans occupy Iraq. Although there are anti-China elements in all sectors of the US political spectrum, the pragmatic and moderate center sees China as a valuable friend that cannot be ignored. I do not believe hawkish elements represent Washington. Since China's government can never please everyone, it should never try. China should only make policy that is in her own national interests. Do what is good for China; don't do so because you want to be liked by disillusioned, hawkish and unappeasable Americans such as Harry Wortzel [of the Heritage Foundation]. Then there is the oil. I totally agree with US presidential candidate John Kerry that the US should develop alternative energy sources, which will free itself from Middle Eastern oil. This is a lesson China should learn as well. As I have said in my previous letter, hydrogen as energy saved in fuel cells is the way to go. China should diversify her sources of energy, use it efficiently and try to halt the increase of oil usage by extra taxing or by banning inefficient "dirty" cars, and subsidize "clean" transport. So fortunately, no need to send any Chinese soldiers to Iraq in Daniel McCarthy's lifetime.
J Zhang
The Netherlands (Jun 28, '04)


Two things can be learnt from McCarthy's June 25 letter. First, he proved everyone's suspicion that the US invaded Iraq to take control of that country's oil rather than the so-called WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. He ridiculed China for being stupid enough not to join the US invasion and losing the opportunity to share the oil expected to come after the war. But McCarthy, like [George W] Bush's right-wing advisers (Bush himself is not competent to be included in the group), seems to be too hopelessly, morally retarded to appreciate higher standards of international behavior such as tolerance of different cultures/religions, respect for others, peaceful solutions of disputes, etc. Even at the street-smart level, McCarthy could not convince anyone. The US went to war in Iraq without UN support, got bogged down in a nightmarish urban guerrilla war, and has to deliver power to a puppet regime with no guarantee of future loyalty to the US. How can anyone trust his promise there will be Iraqi oil to be shared? Things seem just the opposite: the US may even lose oil from Saudi Arabia. On the other side, China is taking some smart steps to ensure energy supply for its fast-growing economy: develop alternative energy such as nuclear and hydro power, invest in new technologies for efficient use of coal and raise prices on electricity to force energy saving. Chinese leaders and industry experts have long realized that depending on the soon-to-be-depleted oil for economic development can be at best a makeshift policy that must be replaced in the near future. The second McCarthy lesson comes from the Chinese proverb you nai bian shi niang (give me milk and I'll call you mother). Few cultures survive [for] 5,000 years without some time-tested moral standards and values upheld by its people. Chinese as babies are taught it is wrong to you nai bian shi niang. How can you reduce a nation like China to the likes of some oil sheikdoms in the Middle East that sell themselves out to big US oil for a few bucks? Will the US respect any country that gives up its vital national interests just to befriend the US? Did France, Germany and Canada not go to war in Iraq because they did not care about Iraqi oil? McCarthy may need an International Politics 101 class at a third-class community college to be reminded that foreign policies of world-class countries are not BUSAAC (Befriend the US At Any Cost) [...] McCarthy also proved himself totally out of touch with China's Taiwan politics. When a nation is talking about losing 200 million to 300 million of its population and 30 years of economic growth, do you think they would mind losing things like the 2008 Beijing Olympics, US friendship or Mid-East oil supply? A unification war on Taiwan may cause catastrophic consequences to China, but can the rest of the world be exempted? The US policy on Taiwan has been quite successful over the last 25 years but could run into dangerous waters if McCarthy-type "China experts" had their say in Washington. Their collective inadequacy is based on an ignorance of China's desire to solve the Taiwan issue by peaceful means or keep the status quo, and a lack of serious comprehension of China's resolve to solve the issue by force if it deems necessary. Mixing in Washington's dependence on or selection of "expert opinion" and "intelligence" as it did on WMD information from the CIA and "support of Iraqi people" from anti-[Saddam] Hussein Iraqi nationals, and we are likely to have the same Iraq issue all over again.
Raymond Cui
Montreal, Canada (Jun 28, '04)


One cannot help smiling at the wishful list of things, according to Daniel McCarthy [letter, Jun 25], that China could do to curry favor with the US. Few, very few indeed, Westerners understand the enormously vital importance China attaches to the question of Taiwan, which has lingered for more than half a century. Nothing else, not oil or dollars, carries higher priority than sacred sovereignty over a country's own land. The final solution requires extraordinary statesmanship or war.
Ernest Hope
USA (Jun 28, '04)


In The liberation of Baghdad is not far away, [Jun 25] the Iraqi resistance seems to imply that it will soon launch a decisive battle for Iraq. If they want to win, I think that would be a mistake. History suggests they should continue their strategy of using guerrilla warfare to wear down the occupying force. The Gauls made a similar mistake in fighting Caesar. Vercingetorix was spectacularly successful in applying guerrilla tactics, so much so that the was lured into a decisive battle by Caesar near Aliesa (modern Alise-Sainte Reine), enabling Caesar to use Roman organization and discipline to grind up, besiege and destroy his forces. The Incas under Manco Capac II also made this error during the Inca rebellions. After much success using guerrilla war and ambush tactics in the rugged mountains, they chose to attack cities in force, whereupon they were repeatedly decimated, and the rebellion crushed. In guerrilla warfare, patience is the highest virtue.
Armchair Observer
Canada (Jun 25, '04)


Reading the letter by Richard Radcliffe [Jun 23], I am forced to ponder on the different worlds our two cultures are living in. This is an apparently educated and knowledgeable man, and he talks with passion. But his world view is so extremely skewed and muddled that it leaves me very little hope for peace for the average Muslim and American alike (be they in the East or the West). The future looks bleak but inevitable, and I am forced to believe that the Spenglers and [Pepe] Escobars may not be complete lunatics after all. The difference in opinion seems so great that I will not even try to make the opposite case. I'd rather save my breath and energy on something more worthwhile, whatever that may be ... but good luck to us all. T Kiani
London, England (Jun 25, '04)


This week you [Spengler] re-assert that no one remembers the Lusitani, but the Portuguese refer to themselves as the Lusitanians [No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, Jun 21]. There, cultural history begins with Lusitanian resistance to the Romans. Are the Lusitani you refer to some other tribe?
Pete (Jun 25, '04)


Philosophy, big ideas, and history are subjects I enjoy reading about, and Spengler is very amusing. The idea, however, that the "religious" wars of Europe began when the reformation began is not correct [No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, Jun 21]. The wars began because the printing press came into use. Even Spengler notes the real purpose of the Vatican's Inquisition was to burn books, preventing people from reading and making up their own minds. Of course, that is what happens when people become literate, they become logical. Reading negates mysticism, which the Catholic Church could only fight by burning books or their authors. The Inquisition was a war against printing. Wars are determined by media types: World War II was a radio war, Vietnam was a television war, and today's war is an Internet war. Although philosophy is used to rationalize our behavior to ourselves after the fact, it is not used by combatants to justify conflict. People fight for topical and emotional reasons, which are informed by media, not philosophy.
Idi Malik
Phoenix, Arizona (Jun 25, '04)


Dear [Siddharth Srivastava], you should know that the article in your current edition is not accurate [India's top guns head for the US, Jun 23]. I'm surprised that the author appears unaware of the much more significant appearance of Indian Su-30s in Alaska earlier this year. Please see the following Aviation Week article from my website. From Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 23, 2004, by David A Fulghum. F/A - 22 secrets revealed: Raptor unwrapped. "With long-term military budget cuts looming once again, the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin are finally talking about some of the F/A-22 Raptor's closely held secrets that they hope will keep Congress paying for the $132-million stealth aircraft ... The tone of the conversations was sharpened by a still-unreleased report about the series of air combat training engagements earlier this year between Indian air force Su-30MKs and F-15Cs from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; the latter were equipped with the US's newest long-range, high-definition radars." LeRoy Woodson Jr
Editor
Militaryweek.com
editor@militaryweek.com (Jun 25, '04)

In reply:
It would seem that there has been an oversight on the part of Mr LeRoy as the said article in Aviation Week mentions "US F-15s from Alaska", which is quite correct, but the joint exercises between India and Pakistan took place in Gwalior, India, in February this year. The F-15s based in Alaska flew to India to fly with the Indian SU-30s.
Siddharth Srivastava (Jun 25, '04)


Jamie Miyazaki's June 10 article, Beware the petrodragon's roar, points out China's vulnerability to its increasing need for oil. And Ian Williams' June 22 article US feels heat of dragon's breath explain that the US sees China's increasing demand for oil as threatening. Unfortunately, China's leaders squandered a perfect opportunity to secure a substantial portion of Middle Eastern oil for its long-term use while eliminating Washington's perception that China is a threat. China could have offered a modest number of troops (perhaps 20,000) to the US effort in Iraq in exchange for guarantees of the right to purchase some significant portion of Iraq's oil output for the long term. Such an arrangement would have aligned Chinese and US interests and would have moved Washington's perception of Beijing from a foe to a friend. More importantly, it would have provided some short- and medium-term security for China's much needed oil supply. A corollary benefit would be a chance for the Chinese People's Liberation Army to show off its capabilities and modernization. Instead of profiting from this rare opportunity, the communist leaders in Beijing have decided to position themselves as enemies of the US with regard to Middle Eastern oil; Taiwan and North Korea simultaneously. Such a move was not wise when China's oil supplies delivered by sea can be cut off at any moment by the US navy. Perhaps the next generation of leaders in Beijing will be able to see past the ends of their noses, but it is likely we will have to wait another 15 years for any discernible improvement.
Daniel McCarthy (Jun 25, '04)


Stanley Weiss needs a lesson in history 101 [When self-determination equals self-destruction, Aug 12, 03]. Indeed, before writing such drivel, even 15 minutes of reading on the Internet would have served him well. Pakistan is an acronym for the provinces of the country? Wrong. "Stan" means the "land of", and "pak" means "pure". Literally translated, the word means "the land of the pure". The acronym created by Weiss is only a figment of his imagination, and I challenge Weiss to provide any proof of his contention other than his fertile imagination. (If indeed it were an acronym, what happened to Bangladesh, which was Pakistan's largest province at that time?) Weiss lumps Pakistan as a failed state along with Iraq and Afghanistan. What do all these countries have in common? Meddling by the United States. We have short memories, but it was the United States who propped Pakistan's dictator Zia ul-Haq and his twisted idea of religious piety onto Pakistanis. The United States mission? To stop Russians in Afghanistan at any cost. That was two decades ago. In the aftermath, Afghanistan lies in ruins and Pakistan is awash with drugs and Kalashnikovs. As Iraq descends into anarchy at the altar of US greed for oil, the lessons of Afghanistan are a sobering thought. The quagmire in Iraq will only worsen, but the United States will bail itself out (as it did in Afghanistan). The result will be decades of anarchy for poor Iraqis. Consequently, Muslim opinion of the US will reach another nadir but Americans will go on blithely driving their SUVs [sport utility vehicles] till another 9/11 [September 11, 2001] comes knocking.
Kamran Ali (Jun 25, '04)


It seems to me as a layman that the US mainly is driving the growth of ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and China. The US has been providing capital, employment and markets for ASEAN for many years - this is very well known. And now it seems to me they are increasing their capital input to China, mainly to exploit the cheap labor force but also, increasingly, to capture the growing China market. If one were to analyze the exports of manufactured goods from ASEAN to China, one might find that many of them are actually headed to plants of American manufacturers or their sub-contractors in China, and many of the end products end up back in the US or [go] to their marketing agents all over the world for consumption by the global market. When American global companies moved their plants - at first to Taiwan and then Singapore - in the early 1960s and 70s, the jobs did not go back to America, they just keep moving in search of more cheap labor, a stable environment and a growing domestic market. Now the jobs are moving to China and probably later to India, when it finally becomes a full-ranking member in the global manufacturing supply chain. ASEAN cannot compete with China, nor can it compete with future India. It is quite clear to me that growth would be increasingly more difficult. The bright spots are those members with rich natural resources, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Myanmar - if it finally does take its rightful place in the global economic community. As for Singapore, the future would be in wealth management and tourism, and perhaps with a little luck, a service center for Asians. The services can include industrial design, international marketing, supply chain management or even R&D [research and development] coordinators. I have little doubt about the growth potential of the global economy, as too many of them have wasted their resources too unproductively in the past 40 years. I also think there will be a massive transfer of wealth from developed to developing countries in addition to new wealth creation. When the first tentative equilibrium is reached some time in the future, we shall see who the winners are.
Dell
Singapore (Jun 25, '04)


We are indebted to Haibin Niu and to Shixiong Ni for their excellent exposition of the position of the People's Republic of China [PRC] on the current world situation, as regards the actions of the United States as they relate to international Islamic terrorism [Perils of a US-dominated world, Jun 25]. However, to "cut to the chase", as they say in Hollywood, this entire article may be translated as: give us Taiwan. The entire meat of the article is in the last few paragraphs. Let me add some other translations of the fine dialog from these two gentlemen. You want help with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and President Kim [Jong-il]? See the last paragraph. It is somewhat strange, but not unusual, that this particular article should appear in Asia Times Online, as articles along the same line appeared at least four times out of five days last week on the People's Daily English website. Coincidence? I think not. The good news is that India and Pakistan have, so far, come to the rational conclusion that nuclear war is in neither of their interests. Their establishment of a "hot line" between the leaders of the two governments attests to that. As for President Kim and the DPRK, they are still considered to be useful to keep the United States occupied somewhere else if the People's Republic of China decides to attack Taiwan compatriots. As for the relative degree of damage experienced by the United States with the destruction of the World Trade Center, the deaths of around 150 people in the Moscow theater, the bombing of rock concerts and air shows, the bombings of the Moscow subway, and the recent terrorist attacks in Ingushita and Degestan are no less significant to the Russians than the destruction of the World Trade Center was to the United States. Does the People's Republic of China have a similar problem with the Uighers of Xingiang? If the two gentlemen really wish to accelerate the acceptance of the "One China" principle among their Taiwan compatriots, may I humbly suggest that they encourage the members of the PRC legislature to rescind their recent decree that disallowed full democratic election of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [SAR] executive in 2007 and the Hong Kong SAR legislature in 2008. That would be in the spirit of true democracy as opposed to democratic centralism. Like the United States, the People's Republic of China will be judged by its actions, not its words. The current missile count in Fujian province is 500 and increasing. Would the gentlemen care to address that concern of Taiwan compatriots?
Richard Radcliffe
Captain, United States Air Force (Retired)
Apple Valley, California (Jun 25, '04)


To Henry C K Liu: I see that you have put the war in Iraq in terms of moral, military and economic terms. I just want to note that perhaps it is not for the lack of a worthy enemy, but for the lack of worthy gain that the moral law will fail the US. The US is being besieged; its castle, the world. Lacking walls, it cannot fortify. I believe a worthy gain to be the "power of good" that you speak of, a gain for greater humanity, but it is an act of self-sacrifice for the US. Or perhaps it is an act of retirement. To Spengler: In your response to Jeff Imada [letter Jun 21] you speak of the untrue. You speak of the various forms of governance that have proven untrue. We must add on to it the American democracy, and in fact, all forms of governance past, present and future. As Henry said, nothing fails like success. In previous essays, you wrote of creative destruction. The question for America is, "Are you ready for destruction?" America is bottlenecked by creation; it is expensive, it is restrictive. There is profit in restricting innovation rather then fostering it. In these terms, intellectual property has proven untrue. You say that faith is the answer to not having truth. I doubt you. I could conversely say the Tao is the answer, but what is that answer? It is certainly the undeniable. Creative destruction? Yes. It is doubt we wield with absolute confidence. And perhaps that is a faith of its own. As a side note, while others chide you for your contradiction, I applaud you for it. Keep it up. To Jeff Imada: Humanity has ever been fond of a beautiful lie and ever fearful of the undeniable truth. Thus, we constantly replace lies with lies. Only through silence do we approach truth. Just as communism, Protestantism were vehicles for revolution, Islam is a vehicle for revolution. The vehicle for prosperity has always been the same - the acquisition and distribution of resources. That Islam will succeed in revolution, I do not doubt. That Islam will succeed in prosperity, I do doubt. Here's to winning and white men in their graves.
Milton He (Jun 25, '04)


Li YongYan's In Beijing, porn's cool, Hollywood sucks [June 23] holds a few messy truths for the truth-seeking Koran and Bible-thumpers out there. Whether we inhabit Beijing or Riyadh or New Jersey, we attack the media for corrupting our youth while looking over our shoulders hoping that our kids don't get an inkling of our own particular peccadilloes. Are we all hypocrites bound to burn in hell? I don't think so. We just want our children to do a better job of living up to the standards that so often flummox us, and we wish our governments would occasionally cooperate. Since my government is uncooperative on this count, I have to forbid my children from watching most of what's on TV these days. And they most certainly cannot frequent those salacious websites that are near and dear to me, as long as they live under my roof. The Chinese government may be as inconsistent as you and me, but I'm willing to bet that before long they will be trying to protect children from their parents' prurient proclivities. And since we're on the subject of China, let me say that I am delighted to see a writer like Mr Li who brings a nice human touch and tone to ATol. Goodness only knows where China is going, but they're on their way "Anyplace Other Than Here, or Bust", at breakneck speed, and the trajectory will only be described accurately by those who are prone to scratch their heads and say, "Well, will you look at that! How the hell did that happen?", not by the ideologues in my neighborhood and yours who proclaim that it was all foreordained.
Geoffrey Sherwood
New Jersey, USA (Jun 24, '04)


Li YongYan is a hero. Just glad to see someone setting things straight.
Shannon L Frady (Jun 24, '04)


I want to add a few words to David Scofield's Execution stirs up hornets' nest[Jun 24]. I think the move to behead the South Korean worker and the accompanied publicity of the atrocious event were ill-conceived strategy on the part of the Islamic militants. Instead of stirring up further anti-US sentiments among the South Korean populace, as it was certainly part of the objective the militants had in mind, the event will probably spiral into something catastrophic and sound the death knell of the eventual extermination of the Islamic terrorists, a fate shared by their ancestral thugs of assassins at the hands of the Mongols. The Islamic militants and their cohorts seemed to have forgotten that the Koreans were and are notoriously ferocious and vengeful. A fourth century Chinese record depicts them as not only ferociously ruthless but also [that they] had a penchant for human flesh. (The former was evidenced by the fear they instilled in the hearts of the North Vietnamese soldiers during the Vietnam War. The latter was witnessed in the early 1980s when a Saudi policeman was half devoured by several Korean construction workers and a French woman was eaten by her Korean boyfriend, a world-renowned scholar.) No doubt, the piteous cry of the victim on the TV screen pleading for his life will haunt Koreans for a long time to come. However, let's hope their shout for revenge will die down. Otherwise, the tragic drama of human thirst for vengeance will yet have to unfold.
Qideli
Orange County, California (Jun 24, '04)


I am Irish and living in South Korea. I cannot explain my disgust and shock at the recent brutal murder of the Korean civilian Kim Son-il in Iraq. The media have focused on the US prisoner abuse case much too heavily ... the Arab newspapers and TV networks have only too freely and openly criticized the US for these abuses. However, it seems that not one of them have forcefully and resolutely come forward to express their rejection of this sort of "barbaric" behavior directed against innocent civilians like the unfortunate Kim Son-il. Within minutes of the announcement of his death, most international governments had offered notes of sorrow to the poor man's family and noted their disgust at this sort of action. However the Arab world's head officials and delegates representing them have not. Let them denounce this outcry as much as they have denounced the apparent military mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners ... Let them display that the Arab world does not accept this behavior as vehemently as they were apparently shocked by mistreatment of suspected terrorists. Is this not much worse, then let them speak out and denounce those barbarians who have committed this horrible offence against an innocent Korean.
Kevin Cawley
Seoul (Jun 24, '04)


Commenting on US complicit on its own decline [Mar 31]. I believe the article written was totally "idiotic". Why? Because of many factual errors, ( I mean throughout the article) were used to create an unbalanced report. For one, highlighting Russia's military capabilities (like the "supersonic missile") is just idiotic to begin with, and did not even substantiate the author's theory, also, errors in the factual sense are so profound that it kind of harbors an anti-American sentiment, without any regard to the "truth". And although I do understand the growing demand for anything anti-American, it still doesn't make it a good piece of writing, its an abomination to anything truthful.
Michael Baez (Jun 24, '04)


I would wish to respectfully point out to Francis (Quebec) and Caral (Perth) [letters, below] who wrote "algebra" is an Arabic word because algebra was invented by the Arabs, that the Arabs learnt Algebra, and for that matter the decimal system, the concept of zero from the "Hindus", ie their contemporaries living in India. A simple perusal of Arabic writers (or up-to-date information in textbooks, or the Internet) of the time will suffice to prove this, for they had no hesitation in acknowledging the source. People in the West continue to be fed the idea of "Arabic numerals" (Arabs called numbers hindsa ) only because Arabs transmitted these numbers to Europe (the Roman Empire) which then got rid of the mathematically limited and inefficient Roman numeral system. No disrespect to ancient Arabic people, who have several mathematical and scientific advancements to their credit.
RJ (Jun 24, '04)


Nice to hear back from you, Jason [letter below from Jun 18]. Some of my previous letters criticized others for saying that some contributors should keep quiet. Go ahead and air your opinions till your heart's content. I just felt that your reaction was a bit over the top and merely suggested that if you didn't like what you read, you didn't need to continue. In answer to your question, I grew up in the UK, have lived in Canada since last November, having spent the previous four years in Shanghai and Wuxi (Jiangsu province). I think we should all write a brief bio on ourselves, you?
Peter Mitchelmore (Jun 24, '04)


[Re letter below from Jun 23] I wish Richard Radcliffe would stop dragging my uniform, and my flag, through the mud.
J T Sullivan
Princeville, Hawaii (Jun 24, '04)


Once again we find ourselves in the position of seeing the dismantling of what has been held up to the world as its salvation. Every nation which held enough power to dominate the world in the past has, in the end, only failure to show for its ambition to maintain an empire. The United States is proving to be as much a failure; perhaps more so because of the promise of freedom and the democratic way it so loudly proclaims has been hijacked by its thirst for oil and the insatiable appetite for profit by the money mercenaries. This modern version of an Achilles heel - heels may be more appropriate - has led to a predacious need to control the wealth of the world. At present the US finds itself at war with a significant part of the world through its conflict with world terrorists. This war against terrorism should be fought with every means at the disposal of the US. An illegal "preemptive" war against Iraq waged with flimsy excuses which turn out to be outright lies to mislead the public, is the latest, and perhaps ranks up there as one of the five worst decisions made by Washington. The Iraqi war has only made the terrorist threat worse. It takes special types of mental defectives to bring about such an indefensible blunder. Of course, once the initial mistake is made the only course left open is to compound it with more and more mistakes. Beginning with the tragic events of September 11, our heroic leaders found the excuse needed to go after Iraqi oil wealth, which in the leader's mind was being wasted on Iraqis, you see. Blinded by this inestimable wealth, knowing it would satisfy the oil craving for a time, the web of war was deceptively spun. Now there is a great debate why, before beginning the war, no planning was made to assess the negative impacts of the war. Negatives like the destruction of the country's infrastructure - hospitals, museums, educational facilities, water supplies, electrical power, civil order - all thrown into chaos. Is not the answer simple? When one is so blinded by the glutinous need to satisfy an addiction, in that person's mind, anything is justified. Amazing how a small group of misguided people can so quickly bring down a once glorious concept for order and well being for a citizenry. And under the guise of love of country lead the faithful into one disaster after another. And let it be known there will be no questioning of the policies sent forth under penalty of being condemned a traitor. And the faithful go forth to the slaughter unquestioningly. That is until there are no more faithful to be found.
Anno Domini (Jun 24, '04)


Re: Spengler on free will, original sin, and predestination [No one expects the Spanish Inquisition June 22]. You keep saying things like: "Influenced by the Jewish critique of original sin, Luther well knew that it could not be reconciled with free will. Christianity cannot do without original sin, which motivates Christ's sacrifice to begin with. Luther instead excised free will, in favor of the unsatisfactory doctrine of predestination." Being trained in historical theology and Jewish-Christian relations, I wish you would elucidate this claim, specifically the connection between the Jewish critique and the Lutheran (and Calvinist) rejection of free will. What is your evidence that it was specifically Jewish thinkers who convinced the Reformers to move in this direction?
David Layman (Jun 24, '04)


Dear Spengler:
[Re: How America can win the intelligence war June 15] You write: "How good were Russian avionics? Help the Israeli air force engage Syria's MiGs in the Bekaa Valley in 1982, and the destruction with impunity of Russian-built fighters and surface-to-air missile sites would provide a data point." This is nonsense, as is the primary theme of your treatise about the late president Ronald Reagan, God rest his soul [Ronald Reagan's creative destruction June 8 ]. No wars were started nor were any encouraged to be started by the United States under the leadership of Reagan. US intelligence and military capabilities were infinitely superior to those of the state of Israel and contact with Soviet avionics, world-wide, far more substantial. As to this particular claim about the Bakka valley, then it is virtually the same charge calumniously leveled against the United States by the Soviet Union in April 1981 as being responsible for inciting the violence in Lebanon. The Middle East maintained a central focus of American policy and effort throughout the entire Reagan administration. However, in contrast to what you present, the focus was upon the attempt to build coalitions and prevent the conflagration of war through the region. In Lebanon, the United States worked for peace in Lebanon through negotiation from 1981 through 1984. The effort in Lebanon ultimately failed, but that was the effort. In his first 18 months in office, 1981-82, Reagan made a special focus of working to create a strategic coalition among Arab states so to limit further Soviet aggression and made an offer of a "strategic relationship" with Israel as well. A ceasefire in Lebanon was obtained through US negotiation in 1981. Also in 1981, the sale of sophisticated US avionics, including AWACS, to Saudi Arabia was made, in spite of the loud protests of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby to the sale. Reagan publicly reminded [former Israeli] prime minister [Menachem] Begin that "it is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy". In December 1981 in response to Israel's annexation of the Golan heights, Reagan publicly denounced the action and withdrew the "strategic relationship" offer with Israel made by the United States earlier that year. After the June 6, 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, an action formally and publicly protested by both the United States and the United Nations, it was the US which negotiated the ceasefire and facilitated the peaceful withdrawal of Yasser Arafat and his PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organization] forces from Lebanon, again to the howls of protest, quite loud, from pro-Israel sectors, complaining and criticizing Reagan for allowing the PLO under Arafat to peacefully withdraw from Lebanon. From that time forward the public position of the US was for all foreign forces, Israeli and Syrian, to withdraw completely. American negotiators and peacekeeping forces were provided in the effort. Over 241 American sailors and Marines died as peacekeepers. It is nonsense and a slander to imply what is presented here. It is precisely the opposite of the concrete American policies and actions under Reagan. It is the exact opposite of American principles, culture, tradition and pre-2001 policies.
Paul Crowley
Port Arthur, TX (Jun 24, '04)


Re No one expects the Spanish Inquisition [June 22], Salvador de Madariaga pointed out that most of the literature on the Inquisition was of Protestant origin with a corresponding bias. He went on by comparing the number of people executed for religious reasons by the Inquisition and the number of people executed in America, England and Germany for witchcraft. A more recent work is the history of the Spanish Inquisition by Bartolome Benassar . He makes the following points: only about a quarter of cases investigated by the Inquisition were religious in nature. In fact if you consider the Inquisition as an organism for cultural rather than religious conformity, its role becomes much clearer. For instance, an old lady was reported for cooking "alcozcoz"; two or three years for the Inquisition were mandatory for any young man aiming for a career in the state or judiciary administration; most of the personnel were "civilian", out of law university, as opposed to religious, and that the full and accurate story may never be known, not because of the lack of records, but because of their number, miles and miles of shelves, not yet cataloged. (For the same reason, if you want to find the position of wrecks full of gold and silver, you just look through the records of the West Indies Company. They are still there, miles and miles of them. And the University of Arequipa in Peru has kept the files of all its students since 1540); he estimates the number of executions at 20, 000 in three centuries, which is quite low by modern standards.
Michel Bodiansky (Jun 24, '04)


In response to Stanley A Weiss's article When self-determination equals self-destruction [Aug 12, 03] The concept of national identity and nation-states is from the West, especially from Europe. It has no room in Islam. Today there are 57 states which cover most of the Muslim ummah [community]. However, tomorrow there might be double that number. The reason for that is that the ideology that they follow is not from Islam. Their policies are subservient to the West. It is fact that the Islamic state at one point stretched from Spain to Sindh. All people living in the Islamic state had their rights and property secured, whether Muslim, Christian, Jews or polytheists, belonging to any ethnic group or race. There is no nationalism in Islam. The countries that we see today in the Islamic world were carved out by the colonialists. They started popping on the world map only 80-90 years ago. Mr Weiss says that Iraq might have a problem with multi-ethnicity, yes under American or British rule they would. So tomorrow they might divide it into two or three "independent" and "sovereign" states. They'll provide each of these newly created states with agent rulers and even supply them with arms so that they defend these imaginary lines drawn by some kafir, till death. This can happen in every Muslim country today and it has happened before in Pakistan (1971). If we take a look at the Islamic state we can see that even though there were occasional problems, many of them caused by anti-Islamic elements, the ummah was ruled by one law, one amir and one system. For example the people of Syria before Islam used to be mostly Romans or Byzantines and Christian Arabs. The people of central and southern Iraq were Christian Arabs mixed with Persians. The people of Egypt were Copts and further west there were Berbers. All these are now known collectively as the Arab world. Not only that but under the Islamic state being an Arab or non-Arab did not matter. The only two categories were Muslim or non-Muslim. Just as there is no question of nationalism in Islam, there is also no question of giving away Muslim lands for peace deals, be they in Palestine or Kashmir. The rulers who make such deals are clearly not ruling by Islam or else they could not take such steps. Clearly they follow Western interests. Self-determination or not, Muslim land is Muslim land, there are no borders within them and it is one nation no matter how much the West might want to distinguish between them. Also, most of the nationalists and separatists in the Muslim world have America or Britain as their controllers. As for the Kashmir issue, it would have been in American interests for it to have been resolved between Pakistan and India when [the Bharatiya Janata Party] was in government. However it seems that the British and their Congress stalwarts might have other plans. Where there is an issue of integration, it is in the Western countries. Muslims have a distinct identity and culture and their integration into Western societies is now a bigger problem than before. No wonder Islam is equated with other religions in the media and much effort put into it to show that there is no contradiction between Islam and capitalism.
Abdullah Abdullah (Jun 24, '04)


It's articles likes this [The brown vote, Jun 23, by Pepe Escobar] that perpetuate the myth that Latinos (1) Are brown, (2) Share the same values and objectives, and (3) Will somehow determine the next election. The Latinos who will be voting in the next election include people such as my Hispanic niece, who was born in the US, doesn't speak Spanish, is married to a non-Hispanic American businessman and has four kids - none of whom speak Spanish either. She leans Republican. Her brothers are blue-collar workers with high school diplomas who will probably go Democratic. They don't speak Spanish either. In fact, if anything, they compete with illegal aliens for jobs. Then, there's my former college roommate, a little "Latin" girl from Uruguay, with blonde hair and blue eyes, whose parents emigrated from Germany to Uruguay. Nor do wealthy and assimilated Cubans have much in common with Puerto Ricans or Mexicans. In other words, many of those lumped in as "brown" for political purposes are anything but and have very differing expectations from an election. By the way, I'm Arab-American and "brown" as well by your standards. My many Indian and Asian friends are as well. But, and here's the shocker - do you really believe that those of us who have been here legally for decades, are established and prosperous, are going to vote the same way recent Mexican immigrants are? Or that Mexican immigrants will vote? More highly educated people tend to vote, and the poor don't. As for swing states, well, California will most likely go Democratic and Texas Republican, no matter how Hispanics vote. It's not even close. They are also the two states with the highest numbers of Hispanics. Michigan is a swing state, too, because of the loss of manufacturing jobs, but Hispanic votes aren't any more important there than anyone else's. As for [Samuel] Huntington's warning - for that's what it is - well, my grandparents came from Lebanon and Czechoslovakia, two countries which have undergone civil wars because of ethnic and religious diversity. Czechoslovakia is now two nations. Lebanon is in disarray. Illegal aliens from Mexico or any country begin here by showing that they simply do not understand or respect one of our key values: law and order. What is more dangerous is that we are getting from Mexico poorly educated and poorly skilled workers who aren't even literate in their own language. (And contrary to what you think, many "Mexicans" don't speak Spanish as a first language, but an Indian dialect.) Poor illiterate parents harm the prospects for their children for generations. We'll also have the children of such workers competing with our own elderly for resources, and I promise you, the elderly are a voting bloc that looks after its interests very well. That, sir, is a very scary precursor to what America could become in the next century - another petty nation, full of ethnic and religious rivalries, an imported underclass with no way up, and with bribery and corruption as the normal way of living.
Ali Alexander (Jun 23, '04)


Heavenly Father, may I direct your attention to the mighty Spengler? Essayist and intellectual of the first order. His essay on the Spanish Inquisition [No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, Jun 21] is sublime, and his conclusions, orderly in my humble opinion, oh Lord. While I wish to challenge him on Calvin's excuse for murdering Servetus, out of necessity, he says, which reminds me of [Bill] Clinton's excuse for doing the intern [Monica Lewinsky], out of convenience, he says, I tremble before the dripping sword that he wields without mercy. Beware, oh Lord, if you seek to argue with him. He drives me back to my faith. For it is by faith that I am saved, not by intelligent discourse. And when Jesus says that the only hope for mankind is through, faith, love and forgiveness, He means it. Now more than ever. We must believe, love each other and forgive every bad thing that anybody ever did to us. Amen.
Mike
USA (Jun 23, '04)


Dr [Kaveh L] Afrasiabi [UN and Iraq: The Brahimi lesson, Jun 21], and the rest of the world, must understand that since the second, and highly successful attack on the World Trade Center, the United States of America will take all actions necessary to ensure, as far as possible, that an event like this does not occur again. All of our [America's] actions in foreign policy in the Islamic world, principally the Middle East, must be seen in that light. But unlike the former conquerors of the area, we will leave eventually. Eventually is when the nations in the area no longer pose a security threat to the United States. So eventually is at the discretion of the nations of the area. When Syria no longer supports terrorism, when Lebanon is free of Syrian troops, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad, Hamas and who knows what other jihadi groups, the United States will be a step closer to leaving. When the government of the ayatollahs convinces itself that long-range missiles and nuclear weapons are not in its best interests, the United States is one step closer to leaving. When the Iranian forces withdraw from the Iraqi border, the United States is one step closer to leaving. When Islamic fundamentalism - currently appearing as Wahhabism - is thoroughly repudiated, the United States is one step closer to leaving. No matter what kind of war our enemies may choose to fight, hopefully they now understand via Afghanistan and Iraq that we will fight this war on their territory as much as possible, and on our territory as little as possible. If they prefer not to have the United States military as semi-permanent residents, then there is a way to ensure that does not happen: it starts with eradicating the litany of "hate speech" that occurs during Friday prayers. It continues with the disarming and incarceration of jihadis. In other words, if you act like a civilized nation of the 21st Century, you will be left in peace by the United States. As for that almost useless debating society called the United Nations, it continues to prove that it is totally incompetent to change the toilet paper in the bathroom, much less run a country. The history of UN "peacekeeping" missions is a history of incompetence in action. Since the members of the UN could not decide among themselves what to do when Iraq gave the Security Council the permanent "single-finger salute" for 12 years, why do they believe that they have a role to play in Iraq now. It was the United Nations who failed to forcefully call SoDamn Insane [Saddam Hussein] to task because so many key nations, acting in their own national interests, refused to put real force behind Security Council resolutions. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." Or better, "no guts, no glory". No matter what the nattering nabobs of the UN secretariat have to say, this is a project of the Coalition of the Willing. In a few years, when Iraq is peaceful and on the road to economic recovery, all of this will be forgotten. The history of the United States in war is that we defeat our enemies and then we help them get going again. We did it for Germany and Japan and are doing it for Iraq. Better the UN should stand aside and take lessons. But then, such things as entrepreneurship [and the] individual freedom, property rights, all of the rights enshrined in the constitution of the United States of America, are foreign to the vast