|
|||||||||
Posted October 18, 2002
Item #XU-655-0158
Regarding "J.C. Penney Catalog: GI Joe Commandeers Barbie's Dream House," by Eric Garris:
I
have the J.C. Penney Christmas catalog and no such toy is in there. In
fact, I received two catalogs (one by mistake) and it is not in that catalog
either. More research should be done before providing something as fact.
~ Stacia T.
Eric Garris replies:
I have it in front of me. As a matter of fact, I bought one at JC Penney over the weekend. It is on page 486 of their Christmas catalog, item #XU-655-0158. They took it off their online catalog after we ran the story.
China Is No Threat
Regarding "The Future of East-West Rapprochement," by Sascha Matuszak:
I don't dispute the primary gist of your most recent article, that the vast majority of Chinese remain very ignorant of the West and Western perspectives, and that this ignorance will only fade in time through further contact. But I do find it disconcerting that you're very loose with the facts and dismissive of the Chinese perspective.
The Yuan Dynasty is most definitely not the Mongol Empire (as it is perceived in the West). The Yuan Dynasty does not refer to the vast stretches of Asia/Europe conquered by Genghis Khan and his hordes.
The Yuan Dynasty refers instead to the Da Yuan empire established by Kublai Khan, Genghis' grandson who took the throne in Beijing, renounced his claims to the rest of the Mongol Empire for the areas that approximate modern China, and personally named his state the Yuan (proclaimed in Chinese and in the tradition of prior Chinese empires).
There is no conflict of understanding here. Westerners and Chinese should be able to agree on the definition of the Yuan Dynasty if properly informed.
Similarly, you exaggerate tremendously when you imply that Chinese claims extend as far south as "the tip of Indonesia". While this may be true in terms of latitude, it is certainly not true that China claims even an inch of the Indonesian islands -- or indeed, any other inhabited island in the South China Sea.
You've made a logical misstep here, despite your time in China.
Chinese territorial claims are indeed often based on the legacy of Yuan/Qing-empires, but this does not imply that all Yuan/Qing territory (such as Korea, Outer Mongolia, Vietnam, etc.) are similarly claimed.
Territories that have since been ceded, lost, granted freedom (or whichever verb you'd like to use) since that period are not claimed today. Instead, China today simply claims the territory that was historically its own and never consensually given up.
In other words, it's only the hawkish conspiracy theorists who insist China represents a threat to her neighbors because she claims disputed islands in the South China Sea. Based on consistent Chinese foreign policy of the past 200 years, China is no threat to territory she recognizes as being independent of "China".
Not really a challenging concept.
Sascha Matuszak replies:
First, yes I was too loose with the facts. I should have spent a little more time explaining exactly what I meant by "the Yuan dynasty is the Mongol Empire."
I gleaned these "facts" from Chinese school books that show historical and modern day China. The maps I saw showed the largest extent, historically, to be what to my knowledge is known as the Mongol Empire -- from China to Eastern Europe. I have read a little about Kublai Khan's realm in present day China, and I know he and many of his brothers, cousins etc. stopped halfway on their return trip to the Mongol capital to build cities and Empires.
The "tip of Indonesia" remark refers to the present day map which I saw, which shows the political boundaries of the PRC reaching down into the South China Sea, encompassing the disputed Spratly's and coming close to the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia.
I was loose
with the facts (to the detriment of the column) because I wasn't trying
to discuss territorial claims, but differences in viewpoint that may or
may not lead to arguments and misunderstandings in the future. I personally
am optimistic and I believe (as my prior articles show, for the most part)
that China has no intention of being a threat and I agree that it serves
the hawks of the world to foment conflict between the US and PRC. Here's
to their failure.
Easy
Regarding "The Sniper," by Justin Raimondo:
Great article Justin. It says it all. But it's easy to make fun of Goldberg, isn't it?
The Sniper
I'm a daily visitor to Antiwar.com, and a frequent reader of Justin Raimondo, but he may be guilty of a little monomania himself in his article "The Sniper." Just because the speculation that the sniper is Al-Qaeda is coming from The National Review, he dismisses it out of hand.
I live in the DC metro area, and have been following this news very closely. I believe there is an abundance of evidence and plenty of reason to suspect Al-Qaeda's involvement. Prior to Monday night's shooting of the FBI agent, I subscribed to the view that it was a crazy white guy. However, eyewitness accounts of a middle-eastern man in a white van leaving the scene of Monday's shooting instantly changed my mind.
Read John Walker Lindh's statements that Al-Qaeda has been training in assassinations and urban warfare, and tell me that's not exactly what's going on now. The sniper has at least some firearms training, and his ability to evade massive police manhunts (creating traffic jams that last well past midnight) after the last three shootings indicates he is familiar with police procedure and has detailed escape plans, also indicating that he has received some kind of training in evasion and counter-surveillance.
These are the same kind of shooting attacks we've been seeing in Kuwait, and this does come at a time of increased terror attacks and warnings.
Far from the sniper morphing into two, it has always been said that they suspected it's two individuals. The first eyewitness accounts of the white truck in the very first shooting incident stated that there were two individuals, and this assertion has been confirmed several times since then. ...
As far as them not leaving an Al-Qaeda calling card, perhaps they simply don't want to be caught. I don't recall Al-Qaeda ever directly coming out and claiming responsibility for their attacks, they merely allude to certain acts, and warn about future attacks.
Furthermore, I find it somewhat surprising that the DOD is moving so fast to launch a Predator drone over the DC metro area (in effect using military resources to spy on Americans, unless, of course, they're searching for terrorists). These drones are extremely valuable to the war effort, are in short supply, are greatly needed in Afghanistan, and will be of utmost importance in Iraq, where they would need to be pre-positioned for what appears to be an imminent attack. Perhaps this indicates that the DOD may suspect something more than a lone psycho at work here. Read Raimando's article, and you can see why they wouldn't want to publicly voice their suspicions until they have definitive proof.
Where Are the Habsburgs?
...Americans should realize one thing, if Americans say that they used the atomic bomb to shorten the war and save American lives, then don't push Muslims further and further into wars that start to look more and more like a Judeo-Christian Crusade. There may come a point in time when the Muslims will use the same line. We know that some of them are not afraid to die. Of course we would not like that very much. My native land, Switzerland, had a bunch of farmers that had the nerves to take on the mighty Habsburgs. Where are the Habsburgs now? Just a memory! What one may call 'Liberation may be 'Tyranny' or 'Occupation' for others. Both are designed to serve self-interests and seldom designed to free its people.
What Soldiers Do
Regarding "Attack of the Chicken-Hawks," by Justin Raimondo:
I am writing in regards to your comment that, "dying for one's country is what soldiers do..." I do not know if you ever served your country but I can assure you that no soldier now, or ever, felt that it was his or her duty to die for their country. ...
I agree with your points on how leaders that have never served their country have no right to call for war, but your comment is just as irresponsible. I served in the U.S. Marines for five years in a combat unit. My brother and brother-in-law are about to leave for Iraq, both in combat units, and they do not go to die for their country. A soldier's job is defense and insurance of liberty of the United States. Death is a sad fact of war, but the overall objective is not to die for one's country, it is to make others die for theirs. I am not a war hawk but I hope you do a little research into the mind of a soldier before you spout off like the rest of those who never served. Knowledge is important if you are trying to point out the shortcomings of those who cry for war.
Editor's
note:
Backtalk editor Sam Koritz is profiled in the Real World section of October's Smart Money magazine (print version only, not available online).