Posted April 19, 2002

Declaration of Principles

I'd read the Foer attack before I read Justin's take on the Cockburn contretemps and must admit I couldn't get past Frankie's blithe pronouncement "there are some perspectives that shouldn't be accommodated." I still can't.

Finally! A real-world Declaration of Principles for most of the newspapers and newsweeklies in America. Certainly, most of the neo-con press has been vigorously enforcing this central tenet since 9/11 with a vengeance.

That, and Principle #2 for a last-resort/fallback-position: "When all else fails, equate target with Pat Buchanan."

~ Lou Manzato, New York City

Economic Reasons

It has become clear to me that the real reason we intervene in other countries disputes, is to protect American corporate assets. Our military is the "enforcer" in these regions, only because some huge corporation has a monetary interest in that region.

It's absurd that so many Americans see our military presence in these regions as promoting freedom, justice and the American way. Our military is being used for economic reasons, not patriotic ones.

I completely agree with Representative Paul. We have no business policing the world. We should get out of the UN, the IMF and the rest of the globalist/Marxist/socialist organizations. Lets get back to the basic principals we started with by pulling the rug out from under the Federal Empire.

For the record, I am an unreconstructed southern nationalist, who believes that in 1865, my country, having been invaded by a foreign government, was defeated. We have suffered the invaders oppression ever since.

Fundamentalists and Fanatics

Some others may scoff and laugh at the power of the red heifer, but not me. When I first read the news reports of this quasi-mystical beast a few days before [Justin Raimondo wrote "Beware the Red Heifer"] ... , a cold shiver of apprehension passed through me. You have to remember that these people want, need, and indeed must have Armageddon to make their life complete.

Our own Christian Taliban like Pat Robertson and Cal Thomas, the former vice-president of the Moral Majority are no exceptions to this. I will never forget a newspaper column written by Cal Thomas during Desert Storm. It was an apocalyptic nutcase job of the first magnitude. It was apparent that he was practically salivating over the prospect of nuclear war raining down upon the Mideast. He was throwing in Bible quotations and talking about Armageddon, I mean, he couldn't wait.

These people -- Christian, Muslim, and Jewish fundamentalists and fanatics won't be happy until half the world is dead or dying in radioactive ashes -- because then they'll be right. Their whole life, their whole worldview will be rendered correct. And if they have to genetically engineer a red heifer, bulldoze every home in Palestine, or manufacture pretexts to invade Iraq to do it, by god, they will.

~ Ken E.

Insight

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of April 17, "Smearing Alex Cockburn":]

Appreciate [Justin Raimondo's] ... continued hard work on the "spy" stories.

That said, you made an error in referring to Insight magazine as the supplement to the Washington Times.

As Newsweek is to the Washington Post, Insight is to the Washington Times -- a stand alone national newsweekly magazine.

No need for correction unless so inclined. But would appreciate "correction" in future references to Insight.

~ Paul Rodriguez, Editor, Insight Magazine

1948

Rep. Ron Paul repeats the prevailing misconception that the conflict in the Middle East is such an ancient one that US should stay out of it and not take side. My understanding of history that this conflict is recent one that could be traced to year 1948, when the so called United Nations, under pressure from the US government, decided to give part of Palestine to Jews from all over the world against the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinians who were the majority of the population at the time.

I've been hearing this same inaccurate argument used, however, by people who do not wish the US to change its policy towards Israel.

~ Salem S.

Mutual Interest Policy

It is truly appreciated what you are doing to shift the American policy from war-minded into peace-minded. I am not American, but I lived there during my university study and I know very well how nice and peaceful are the American people, but really astonished by the American Government's barbarism and brutality towards the other nations on this globe; it is so clear that the American administration considers every real patriot in the other countries as an enemy to American policy. It is not Americans alone who want to live in peace; but all humans on this earth are looking for living in peace and harmony along with the rest of the world. The earth people -- not Americans -- are willing to accept you -- America -- as the World Super Power, the sole Empire, or what ever you want to call it -- till the End of History; as your historians like to put it. But that does not mean accepting depriving us of every human right that you -- American
policy makers, or whoever controls your government -- could control. You live and leave others live too, the earth's resources are more than enough for everybody, except for those who are greedy; nothing fills their eyes but dust!

You -- Antiwar people -- are doing a great job, which should be appreciated by any moral human on this globe. But I would like to remind you of the fact that financial and power interests are vital issues controlling this world of today, and as you know there is a mutual interest between policy makers in America and war machines manufacturers whose everlasting aim is to keep up wars around the world 24 hours a day if possible! Therefore you too must use mutual interest policy in order to gain the needed popular and financial support. Why not contact those peacetime products manufacturers and ask them for support in return for their names being publicized as peaceful companies? -- as you know there are many call-outs in the world to boycott American products, so this act might be a step in the right direction. Why not contribute in the local elections and support those peace-minded candidates over the others?

Interesting Times

Thank you, Justin Raimondo, for another compelling essay. As strong as it is, however, 'American Likudniks' has internal contradictions that deserve to be considered.

First, it's an exaggeration to say that the Israelis are "turning against America". Israeli soldiers are mocking Bush. And why not? He is the author of profound inconsistencies in American foreign policy. There is a very obvious analogy between, on the one hand, the suicide hijackers of September 11, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their relationship to America, and, on the other hand, the Palestinian suicide bombers, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and their relationship to Israel, respectively. Why shouldn't the Israelis smash the PA the way America smashed the Taliban? How can America deny them this right? Did not Mr. Bush make it crystal clear to each and every living soul on the planet that we could either be with the forces of civilization or we would be terrorists, numbered amongst America's enemies? Wasn't there some kind of principle involved? Well, apparently not. Pakistani terrorists attacked the Indian parliament and India wanted to do to Pakistan what America did to Afghanistan. America said no, that would not be convenient. Now Israel is doing to the Palestinians what America did to the Afghanis, but this interferes with the American administration's plans for Iraq. And so Mr. Bush, with the same conviction with which he condemned the Al Qaeda terrorists, condemns Israel for fighting terrorism. Except, of course, that Mr. Bush is very limited in what he can do politically and militarily to compel Israel's obedience. It's not flattering, but the yappy little dog analogy is, from Israel's perspective, valid. Israelis should not be criticized for enjoying apt metaphor.

You, as a libertarian, may make a plausible case that imperial conquest is not in the best interests of a nation. However, America is not approaching Israel as a libertarian evangelists. The American administration wants to get a peace process at least initiated between Israel and the Palestinians so that Arab countries will then either tolerate or endorse an American war on Iraq, (and, later, Iran?). The American administration is asking Israel to postpone its conquest of Palestine so America can conquer Iraq in time for elections. When Powell, as a spokesman for the American administration, talks about how Israel should learn that violence begets only violence, the Israelis, quite reasonably, hear a hypocrite. The loss of credibility as a voice of reason is one of the hidden costs of empire. Israelis should not be criticized for ignoring advice from a discredited source.

Second, there is some question about what is in America's best interests, and what is not. Let us, as has Israel, put aside the American administration's statements as being opportunistic and inconsistent, and consider instead the more worthy Antiwar.com site. Is it in America's best interests to attack Iraq? If not, then Israel is doing America a service. By relentlessly attacking the Palestinians they are delaying, perhaps forever, the final American assault on Iraq. A war that will cost only thousands of Palestinian lives and hundreds of Israeli lives, will save hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and dozens of American lives. And, frustrating the imperial ambitions of the current American administration may actually be good for America. This seems to be the very advice you give to Israel when you say "Israeli withdrawal from the West bank towns and cities it has occupied, and a halt to the offensive ... is what would best serve Israel's interests, in the long run."

We are, all of us, doomed to live in interesting times. Thanks, as always, Antiwar.com, for your challenging and enlightening articles. (Each time I write to Backtalk, I have some criticism. Therefore, I shall add that Ran HaCohen's articles: 'Israel -- A Suicide Bomber', 'The Auschwitz Logic', 'Against Negotiations', and 'Terrorism vs Occupation', are all stellar, and should be read by any new readers to Antiwar.com.)

~ Doug Barrett, Edmonton, Canada