|
|||||||||
Posted January 4, 2003
Regarding "The View From Over Here: Killing the Chicken to Frighten the Monkey" by Joshua Samuel Brown:
I won't pretend, this article made me weep, because of its content, because it is so hard to be an antiwar American living right across from Ground Zero on Staten Island, seeing with my own eyes, the towers crumble, same eyes weeping at the following funerals, I am caught up in all kinds of conflicting feelings, and yet at the same time my eyes weep with pride, that Joshua Samuel Brown is my son. And that he and his siblings all work for peace in their time. Really work hard.
Headlines
Though a fan of Antiwar.com, I have noticed for some time that that your headlines have a tendency to stretch the truth to make a point. Today's "Pakistan Fury as US Fires on Troops, Bombs School" is particularly misleading. The "troops" that the US fired upon was one man who had fired on US troops first, wounding one.
Why not leave the over-the-top headlines to the pro-war media? Unlike them, you don't need them. You have all too much material to work with.
~ Bruce
Dodds, Newton, Massachusetts
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
Point taken, I changed the headline.
Regarding Heather Wokusch's reply to John Sakelaris's letter of December 31:
I had recently responded in Backtalk to Heather Wokusch's article "Forget Iraq: The Real Battle Is In Turkey" by pointing out many Turkish misdeeds that were completely ignored by her article. One point that I mentioned was that Turkey is making heavy-handed attempts to deny responsibility for earlier genocide. I, of course had in mind especially the horrible actions of genocide and ethnic cleansing that the Turks inflicted upon Armenians and Greeks in the years 1915-1923. She replied politely enough that she did not mean to "diminish responsibility for the past , but rather to focus on current choices which will define the future."
Very well, if she feels that way, but did she bother to read the rest of my letter? It was a recounting of the following: Turkey, having violently seized the northern one-third of Cyprus in 1974, creating 200,000 refugees in the process, continues to occupy that territory in defiance of a UN resolution. Turkey now is maintaining a blockade against the tiny nation of Armenia. Finally, Turkey continues harassment against its few remaining Christians; this is currently exemplified by its continued shutdown of the Orthodox Christian Ecumenical Patriarchate's theological school. Now those are indeed all important current issues and should be mentioned in any responsible article about Turkey's EU admission efforts.
It is to
be hoped that Turkey will move to responsibly address those problems as
it tries to move toward EU membership. Regrettably, those in the English-speaking
world who would seek to learn of EU expansion are not hearing much in
their mainstream media about the points I have mentioned. However, I will
continue to at least hope for more balance in these matters from independent
internet sites.
~ John Sakelaris
Regarding Praful Bidwai's letter of December 30:
I am no more a patriot than you and am certainly less prejudiced. It is interesting that all you can come up with is to quote from a rag like the Washington Times (quoting ultraconservative mouthpieces Timberlake and Triplett – you must be desperate), and The New York Times (interesting again that the two articles you mentioned are both by David E. Sanger, a White House mouthpiece who had earlier reported "China Is Aiding Pakistan on Missile Project." Oh yes – I certainly do trust Colin Powell to speak the truth. You have to do better than that.
About that "sensational" Jiji story as reported by AFP – here are two links: 'Pakistan Helped N. Korea: US' and 'Pakistan informed US of "personal" nuclear technology transfer' Notice both mention "remittances worth tens of thousands of dollars" and not "remittances worth tens of billions of dollars" as you say – so much for your honesty. You certainly have made it a million times more "sensational" than it had to be.
Regarding Chinese and N. Korean missiles you say, "The two have different kinds of missiles and offer different kinds of deals" – a statement that makes no sense for the point you are trying to make. Please do a little more research. According to Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, June 22, 2000, "recent US intelligence reports suggest that China may have begun building a missile plant in Pakistan. If true, it would be the second Chinese-built plant there." Again, in "The China Nonproliferation Act," Thompson states "two unclassified CIA reports to Congress in 2000 confirmed that Chinese businesses provided missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to rogue nations, including Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. It also outlined Chinese support of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs and explained how North Korea obtained materials for its ballistic missile programs from firms in China." And according to 'CIA Chief Cites Russia, China, North Korea As Proliferators' Tenet is to have said "China is a key supplier of missile technology to Pakistan, Iran and several other countries."
Also, "China Sold Missile Technology to Iran" says, "In August 1996 it was also revealed that China was building a missile factory at Fatehgarh, near Rawalpindi in Pakistan, which will produce components for an M-11-type ballistic missile. In the same month, India's Hindi newspaper reported that Chinese technicians were assisting Pakistan in the development of a 600 km-range version of the M-11 at the Fatehgarh facility."
So it hardly seems Pakistan had a need for North Korean missile technology such that it would trade nuclear technology in return. Now if instead it had suggested that Pakistan sold nuclear technology for cash, I certainly would could buy it. Your current response does anything but "strengthens the original hypothesis."
You write "It is especially galling that the three writers seem to write from within the perspective of that very rivalry. It would be enlightening to know where they come from. None of my friends in the Pakistani peace movement can identify them or have even heard of them as peace activists or liberal dissidents" which I found extremely amusing. Just because one isn't a "peace activist" or "liberal dissident" (does one have to make a living at it to be one?) does not mean one is incapable of using common sense.
Regarding "How the War Party Sold the 1991 Bombing of Iraq to US" by Mitchel Cohen:
Saddam Hussein never was "old friends" with America or anyone else. To depict him as having ever been a "friend," "old" or otherwise is just a Big Lie in style of Noam Chomsky.
Saddam was no more a friend than was Joseph Stalin, whose murderous regime received food and weapons from America during the Second World War. The fact that the Butcher of the Ukraine later fought Hitler just as America fought Hitler could not possibly turn Stalin ("Uncle Joe" to the Old Left) into a "friend."
Saddam was truly the Butcher of Baghdad after the massive number of Iranians (many of them teenagers) that he slaughtered in the marshes. Far more Iranians died than have Palestinians but there were no demonstrations against Saddam in any Arab nation in the way that there are demonstrations against Israel.
Saddam is an old friend of the Russians. His tanks are Russian T-72's and his MiGs came from that old friend of the peace movement, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Ask the Manager
I would like to know why I cannot get the article you have in your Viewpoints section, "Standing up to the American Empire." Was it censored or was there pressure to remove it? I am a supporter of Antiwar.com and appreciate very much the array of powerful essays from left, right and other. But I am concerned when possibly very thought-provoking anti-war-party articles are either not appearing when I click onto them, or they are removed too soon after being presented on your site. One example of this was Eric Margolis's article, I believe it was called "US Plans for the Mideast: Conquer and Divide." After being featured for a day or so, it no longer appeared in the "Viewpoints" section, unlike many articles which remain in the past "Viewpoint" listing for many days.
Thank you
for the opportunity to voice a concern.
~ Naomi Jackman, New York
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
"Standing Up to the American Empire" was removed by Al-Ahram magazine. I did find a copy available at: http://no-war.1accesshost.com/al-ahram1.html. I do not know why. Here is the Margolis's piece: http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_dec8.html
We do not remove articles. Sometimes they are removed at the original source. All viewpoints are available by going to the bottom of the Viewpoints page and clicking on "More Viewpoints." Each subsequent page will take you further back.
If you and your associates are so opposed to the way the US government operates, why continue to live here?
Eric
Garris replies:
Some of Antiwar.com's columnists are foreigners and/or live overseas. The rest of us are Americans. This is a republic. A republic survives through criticism of its citizens. Read some Thomas Jefferson.